User talk:Mumadhay/Non-Profit Housing Development in the United States

Comments from Kalle
Wkspeer (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your article was very well organized and thorough. Much of the content was fantastic, so my suggestions focus mainly on grammar/readability issues I saw. I divided comments by section. Great work!

Non-Profit Housing Development in the United States
1. Missing "is": "...whose mission [is] to provide for the needy, the elderly,..."

Non-Profit Development vs. For-Profit Development
1. Although it is implicitly implied by their target population, it will be helpful to explicitly state why non-profit developers' business strategy causes them to lack financial and technical resources. 2. Cite source for claim: "Using multiple funding sources is risky because it creates complex financing which can be both timely and expensive."

Issues During Pre-Development
1. Rephrase "The major problem with non-profit developers..." to "A major problem for..." 2. Check awkward phrase: "Pre-development is essential for putting packaging a project proposal"

Ownership
1. Unnecessary colon: "Some considerations that non-profits evaluate before creating an ownership entity include: the ease and speed..." 2. Missing "a": " Also,each member has [a] right to participate in all partnership decisions" 3. Rephrase " Limited partners are treated differently than general partners where they are only liable for the capital invested" to " Limited partners are treated differently than general partners in that they are only liable for the capital invested "

Financing (Multi-Family Housing Programs)
1. Consider providing brief descriptions of each of these programs similar to your treatment of other programs.

Comments from Katie
I like how you've organized this page and I think that you've done a great job of using simple language to explain the complex world of affordable housing development. I did come across some typos (incorrect word use, grammar, etc.) and I'll try to mention them in this review because I didn't feel comfortable changing them on the draft (they are all listed below). My overall impression is that you have a strong outline for the page. You've mentioned a few challenges that NFPs face (i.e. little money for development costs, challenges with HOME funds and not being able to bring down rents) are there any other things you could mention? Maybe with LIHTC the expiring contracts and lack of capital funding? Requirements for services at project-based sites? That might also be TMI but those were things I thought of when reading this through.

Are you going to elaborate on the state and local funds?


 * Non-profit development Vs. For profit development:

You say that funding is not available for acquisition, A&E, etc. How come? Why don't funders provide for these costs especially since it is such a vital part of development? I see you mention this again in Issues during pre-development. Maybe this is TMI, but I am interested in understanding why this is a problem.

"...non-profits lack the financial and technical resources that for-profits have (ULI) and forces...." Is ULI an acronym for financial and tech resources? Or should there be a citation here?


 * Issues During Pre-development

"Predevelopment is essential for putting packaging a project a proposal...." This sentence doesn't make sense... there might be some extra words here that you need to take out.


 * Ownership

"Considerations...the non-profit evaluates before creating and ownership entity includes but is not limited to..." should be AN not AND.... and "include but are not limited to". This sentence isn't structured very well. Maybe use bullet points or some semi-colons to more clearly outline the considerations.

Do partnerships like these generally consist of NFPs and corporations? Or are they NFPs and investors (like in TCs?) Who makes up the partnerships?
 * Federal - Section 8

"PHAs may use up to 20% of their allocated funds towards Project-based vouchers." Should it read "20% of their voucher allocation"?

"...Section 8 generally affects a project's income preform since rental...." Should this be "pro-forma" or "performance"?

"Development projects must aimed towards..." Is it must "be" aimed towards? Kgf3585 (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Federal pass-thru HOME funds

Instructor Comments
I agree with Katie that this is a very strong outline! You've really thought through what a novice reader needs to know. Somethings to keep in mind:

Non-profit organizations in the US are also tax exempt, 501(c)3. So, they do not have to pay tax on goods and services related to their missions. This may matter for their enhancing their long-term ability to support units.

You do a great job of outlining the industry that surrounds these organizations (intermediaries) and the funding sources. I like how you've briefly encapsulated what is important to know about the various funding source and have linked to the longer wikipedia articles on these topics.

Section 8
this is a good discussion of Section 8. One detail to include is that project basing section 8 units is something that local housing authorities do--so a non-profit would likely only get project-based units through a partnership with a PHA.

Operation
We did not get into this much in class, but there are some interesting conflicts in operating non-profit affordable housing that are worth noting here (beyond the costs of operations and the complexity of reporting). Many non-profit affordable housing developers are also grassroots organizations, building housing for their own communities. It is hard to be a grassroots organization while also being a manager of housing. Building housing is one thing--but managers need to enforce rules, screen tenants, and sometimes evict them to maintain a safe living environment or damage-free housing.

There is actually quite a lot written about the challenges non-profit developers face:

CHALLENGES FOR NONPROFIT HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS CREATED BY THE PRIVATE HOUSING MARKET, Bratt, RG (Bratt, Rachel G.) Source: JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS Volume: 31   Issue: 1   Pages: 67-96   Published: 2009

Nonprofit and for-profit developers of subsidized rental housing: Comparative attributes and collaborative opportunities Author(s): Bratt, RG (Bratt, Rachel G.) Source: HOUSING POLICY DEBATE Volume: 19   Issue: 2   Pages: 323-365   Published: 2008

this one is about CDCs who fail: Organizational changes among CDCs: Assessing the impacts and navigating the challenges Author(s): Bratt, RG (Bratt, RG); Rohe, WM (Rohe, WM), Source: JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS Volume: 26   Issue: 2   Pages: 197-220   DOI: 10.1111/j.0735-2166.2004.00197.x   Published: 2004

Perhaps you should have a section on challenges? Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Allison
So on top of everything that has already been said, way to take on a broad subject! This is a difficult topic to explain in such brevity. I was only able to find a few more areas where you may be able to improve your article. I noticed in the second sentence the word "is" is missing, it should say, "mission is to" or the end of the sentence needs to be restructured. Also I'm wondering if you might be able to reorganize some of your information to provide a history section to sum up changes that have occured due to policy, funding, etc. Otherwise the only thing you might want to consider looking at is the external link that you have listed on the page. It doesn't seem to lead to anything related. Great job! Allisonhamburg (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Kelly
This is great guys. I hope you'll be able to link to my Housing Trust Fund section sooner or later. I like how you're trying to make a thorough list of financial resources. You may want to include a discussion about loans and private fundraising to show that not all funding comes from government, even though a lot usually does.

I also wonder if it might be worth saying a bit more about special needs programs and how funding sources help shape what programs are provided: homeless, developmental disabilities, seniors, AIDS, veterans, farmworker, rural, among others. And you could discuss a few different models of nonprofit housing: Habitat, Community Land Trust, supportive services. These models may not fit into the way you're thinking about non-profit development, but the current definition you're using seems pretty open. The opposite direction would be to say that you're really defining non-profit development as only multi-family rental units.

The other issue I didn't see that you might want to address is one the Housing Development Consortium's members struggle with a lot: the challenging of balancing operating budgets long-term given that most funding is for capital construction and not for operating and maintenance. This would probably tie into the "challenges" issues that Rachel addressed. Essentially, because these developments are operating with minimal operating funds, they don't have a lot of ongoing funding for maintenance, so non-profit developers will sometimes use higher quality/higher cost construction materials given the long time horizon their funding streams require them to maintain the housing.

That said, it seems like you've focused on the main points, and these ideas are just extras. Good luck! Krider07 (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can this go live?
Hello - my name is Lane and I am a Wikipedia campus ambassador in Seattle. Are you ready for this page to go live? I certainly think that the Wikipedia community would appreciate it, but it should be you who decides when you would like to publish it. I got the link to this article from Julie Tanaka, your class's regular ambassador. I am in the process of arranging community review for students who want it for their live pages. If you want to go live and need help doing so, let me know.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   16:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lane. I think going live with this page will be a good way to get some more feedback from the Wikipedia community to imrpove this page further. As is, there is a lot of good, useful information in it. Jktanaka (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you need help with anything, Mumadhay.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm the instructor for PBAF 564. The class's work on these articles is officially done.  I suspect it would be fine to make this go live.Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lane & Julie - Just to let you know, I have gone live with this article and it is currently up for review. Thanks for the offer to help. M. Umadhay (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture of New Holly Shows HOPE VI and Public Private Partnership, not Non-Profit Housing
I am so glad you were able to pictures into your piece. The thing is, you need to make sure they really represent NON-PROFIT housing. NewHolly was developed by the Seattle Housing Authority. While it does develop housing like a non-profit developer, NewHolly was leveraged with federal HOPE VI funds, and includes subsidies from the federal public housing program. As I mentioned in class, most of my photos are of such housing, not non-profit housing.Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bellingham picture also depicts housing that is owned by a public housing authority. So, this is not technically non-profit housing either. Unless, of course, if you are change the definition to include quasi-public entities like these public housing authorities, then the pix are fine!