David A. Smith Author Archives

At the beginning of my talk on leadership to NH&RA’s Next Generation Leadership group in November here in Boston, my glib self-description (“either the room’s youngest old person or its oldest young person”) unwittingly voiced a generational paradox of our industry: what seems to older executives a gray floor seems to their younger colleagues a gray ceiling.

The Schleswig-Holstein question is socomplicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third … and I have forgotten all about it.
– Lord Palmerston (Prime Minister, 1855-65)

To the list of American things that are growing more expensive in real terms, we must add the standard LIHTC apartment, and the principal reason is our capital sourcing model, the funding sieve.

“You will be haunted,” resumed the Ghost,
“by Three Spirits.”
“I – I think I’d rather not,” said Scrooge.

RAD’s birth a little over three years ago could scarcely have been less heralded: tucked obscurely into an appropriations extender, it offered no new money (not a bug, a feature; if RAD had had scoring cost, it could never have emerged from the sausage factory); outside the public housing realm it was greeted with indifference; and within public housing circles it was generally treated with at best hostile vigilance1. How then could this unassuming program blow through its original optimistic cap, tripling in size to over 180,000 apartments (nearly 15% of the entire public housing inventory) with no signs of slowing down?

In thermodynamics, entropy is, among other things, a measure of a system’s granular complexity – and in thermodynamics it is a fundamental law that entropy and complexity always increase.

Acertain $10-billion-a-year industry faces systemic catastrophic risk, for which we are entirely uninsured.
Today’s tax credit properties would not exist without insurance. Today, a LIHTC property without insurance is unfinanceable and un-ownable. It must have title insurance, fire insurance, casualty and personal injury insurance, and flood insurance if relevant. Many properties expect the tenants to buy renter’s insurance, many loans have mortgage insurance.

LIHTC properties need increasing amounts of effective subsidy. Affordable housing always costs money, and the greater the desired affordability, the more money it costs (whether as income subsidy or concessionary financing), and in the main it must come from government. Because most people involved in making these government subsidy decisions are unschooled in development financing, their negotiations tend in the direction of adding policy goals that add cost – and hence increase the effective subsidy (or the net present value cost to government) required.

What then is the business model of 21st century rural America? Though you may not realize it, finding the answer is absolutely critical for the affordable housing industry. It stumped me for years, but now I think I’ve figured it out.

Ask Americans what they envision by green building and the property they describe will likely be a ground-hugging campus, newly built, festooned with cutting-edge technology. Then show them a 12-story central-city high-rise built in the mid-1960s and they may instinctively recoil at its plain exterior, small footprint (often paved), and visible age. Yet, when properly compared, that refurbished 202 is much greener than the new campus, because “green isn’t what you think it is.” Instead it’s three things.

Even as tax reform looms on the horizon, the LIHTC is under a different mortal threat, one from an unlikely source – the Obama Administration and its judicially questionable but so-far politically effective blunderbuss known as disparate impact. If not struck down in a case just argued in the Supreme Court, then we might as well kiss goodbye states’ autonomy to set their own QAPs and to make binding awards, and say sayanora to the LIHTC production pipeline as we know it.

Young singles have plenty of personal, economic, and social mobility; they have minimal cash assets (and possibly maximal student-loan liabilities); they want to live somewhere close to work and pay as little cash for it as they can. Their needs beautifully complement what the elderly homeowners have, and what they have is what the elderly need.