1998 Community Assessment

Housing

A. Issue Summary

B. Background & Influencing Factors

C. Outcomes & Key Indicators

OUTCOME: Decreased number of families paying more than 30% of their income for housing

OUTCOME: Increased number of transitional housing units available for homeless families

OUTCOME: Increase the number of housing vouchers as a method to offset rising housing costs (rental)

OUTCOME: Increased number of housing starts (permits)

OUTCOME: Increased number of safe, decent, standard housing units affordable to families at income levels below 80% of area median income

D. Other Key Outcomes & Status

E. Terms, Concepts & Definitions

A. ISSUE SUMMARY

Vision Statement: "Travis County will be a community where all persons will have the opportunity to live in safe, decent and affordable housing."

Strategies for Building a Stronger Community: A Community Guide

The elements having the most impact on the vision are economics and politics. Recent growth is a boon to many but leaves others behind in terms of housing affordability. Some of the key factors impacting the availability of affordable housing in Austin/Travis County include: rapid population growth; high land costs and building fees; builder focus on more expensive homes in response to customer demand; reduced federal subsidies for affordable housing; and neighborhood opposition to affordable housing. In terms of both home ownership and rental housing, affordability is severely compromised:

• Home Ownership. The ability of younger families and lower income families to purchase a home has not kept pace with home values, and the stock of affordable houses has not kept pace with the demand for them.
• Rental Units. More than 50 percent of Travis County households depend on rental housing. In recent years, rent prices seriously outpaced the income growth of lower income households. The average rental unit value increased 16.5 percent in a single year (1997) from under $33,000 to more than $38,000.

These trends are likely to continue. Market forces, public policies and public resource allocations for reversing these trends involve the following outcomes:

• Affordability. Between 1990 and 1997, average rental costs escalated 55 percent, from $530 per month to $820. During this same time frame the median sales price of homes also increased, by 54 percent. These increases in housing costs far outpaced any wage increases experienced by low and moderate income households. Between 1990 and 1997, median income for a family of four increased by only 23 percent.
• Availability. There are about 2,000 housing units available through Public Housing Authorities, with no plans to build more units in the near future due to budget cuts. Federal funding for affordable housing has declined significantly in the past five years, making it more difficult to add new stock. Overall, construction of new rental housing in Austin has declined for two consecutive years, especially for lower priced units. Given construction lead time, rental unit availability is expected to deteriorate further in the short-run.
• Safety. Inadequate housing negatively impacts the quality of life for residents. Substandard housing provides less protection from extreme weather conditions, thereby placing residents at greater risk of contracting illness. Overcrowded housing is also unsafe, and increases the spread of disease. Both substandard and overcrowded housing also increase the likelihood of accidents, thereby increasing society's costs for health care services.

Two key outcomes cannot be adequately assessed due to lack of data for monitoring them:

• Usable inventories of the stock of buildable lots and infill land that are potentially available for public subsidy
• Evaluation of current substandard housing units in Travis County

Return to Top of Page

B. BACKGROUND AND INFLUENCING FACTORS

Importance to the Community

Housing is a key factor in evaluating the economic health of a community. Residential investment and development tend to precede activity in the overall economy and therefore can be used to predict the future course of the economy. Housing costs are particularly significant because they reflect residents' standards of living and levels of self-sufficiency. As previously mentioned, access to affordable housing is an indicator of the level of economic disparity (poverty and homelessness) and social gaps.

There are three components that contribute to the status of housing in any community: affordability, availability and safety.

Affordability

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development defines "affordable housing" as housing that costs no more than 30 percent of a household's income. In Travis County, a full-time job does not ensure enough income to meet this affordable housing standard. A full-time worker has to earn $13.21 per hour, or almost three times the minimum wage, in order to meet HUD's estimate of a "Fair Market Rate" for a two-bedroom apartment. In Travis County, nearly one-third of all households pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent. Poor people are even more likely to live in housing that is not affordable, with nearly three-fourths paying over 30 percent of their income for housing. Almost half of poor households have a severe housing cost burden, paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing.

The cost of buying a home in the Austin metropolitan area is also rising, increasing by more than 50 percent since 1990. High housing prices are the first barrier to home ownership for many residents. The next barrier is saving enough money for downpayment and closing costs. Locally, there are several programs that can assist first-time homebuyers with this by reducing the amount of up-front funds required for purchase. For many low-income residents, however, the final step of qualifying for a mortgage is perhaps the most difficult. Low-income households have difficulty meeting mortgage underwriting standards because they often have no or poor credit history and unstable or limited work history.

Availability

Ten years ago, Austin was in the midst of a severe economic downturn, with many residents declaring bankruptcy and losing their homes to foreclosure. The economic bust of the late 1980s was fueled by a severely depressed housing market in which housing was cheap, but not necessarily affordable, given residents' financial situation. In this setting, there was a virtual glut of homes for sale, and very little new construction.

Today, Austin has one of the most expensive rental housing markets in the country and a thriving market for home sales. This change in housing conditions is largely the result of Austin's expanding high technology industry, and the subsequent influx of new residents to the area. Rapid population growth quickly absorbed any remaining supply of low-cost housing in the area and generated demand for new construction. Because many new residents are highly paid executives, very-high priced housing is especially in demand. As evidence of this fact, Austin MLS data show that housing in the $200,000+ range comprised only 4.9 percent of all sales in 1990, as compared to 16.1 percent in 1997. In addition, while the number of single- family homes sold in all price ranges dropped 26.4 percent during the first six months of 1998; as compared to the same time frame last year, home sales in the price range above $500,000 increased 15.6 percent.

In response to this demand, builders are directing their efforts to luxury homes, serving the higher end of the market. This is also the case in multifamily housing. Austin is recognized for having the highest rental housing costs in Texas, and the 16th most expensive apartment market in the country. This does not appear to be changing in the near future. In response to Austin's strong economy, almost all new apartment development is being targeted to the high end of the market, where developers can make more profit.

Other critical factors limiting the availability of affordable housing are Austin's high land and building costs. With increasing demand for housing among new residents, land prices in Austin have escalated. Further exacerbating this is Austin's relatively expensive development process. Numerous studies have cited city-imposed fees, building codes and local ordinances designed to protect the environment as obstacles to affordable housing. Local planning officials agree that the city's fees are among the highest in the state, but also note that they are not higher than those in surrounding communities experiencing similar rates of growth. Nonetheless, these fees add to the overall cost of building housing, thereby making it less profitable to build lower-cost housing in the area.

In addition to being expensive, Austin's development process further deters new construction by being complicated and time-consuming. Developers note that an approval process that takes two weeks in Houston and one month in Round Rock typically takes six months in Austin. Local regulations and requirements further complicate the process, increasing associated engineering and legal costs. The ultimate effect of these conditions is to drive homebuilders out of the city and into the suburbs.

Perhaps a final blow to efforts to expand affordable housing is the NIMBY, or "Not In My Back Yard" syndrome. In the last two years, Austin neighborhoods have waged vigorous opposition against five major developments that would have brought well over 1,000 new affordable housing units to the area. Three of these housing developments were successfully defeated. Residents cited fear of crime, increased traffic congestion and concern that schools would be overburdened as the reasons for their opposition. Despite the fact that most of the proposed housing developments would have served residents at the same income level as current residents, neighborhoods also argued that the new developments would lower their property values. In the face of such strong, organized opposition, local officials find it difficult to support these new developments, despite the need for affordable housing.

At a time when housing needs for the poorest households have increased, there has also been a decline in the availability of subsidized housing units. Public housing and the Section 8 program are two of the largest federal programs providing affordable housing to low- and very- low-income households. In 1995, Congress cut HUD funding by 25 percent, and cut funding for the construction of new public housing units. For the first time since the 1970s, it did not pay to increase the pool of available Section 8 certificates or vouchers. Congress also cut funding for rehabilitation of buildings, which resulted in more units deteriorating. It also eliminated the one-for-one replacement rule, which required that a new unit be built for every unit demolished.

A program that has not been affected by federal spending cuts is the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). This program provides tax credits to investors who provide funds for affordable housing. It is a critical source of equity capital for 60 percent of the multi-family housing produced in the U.S. and almost 90 percent of the rental housing affordable to families earning under $24,000 per year. In the ten-year history of the program, however, only four percent of the funds available in Texas have been allocated to Austin.15

Safety

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development calls households with the "worst case housing needs" those that are overcrowded, lack kitchen or plumbing facilities in their home and pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent. These physical and economic housing conditions have a direct relationship with health (e.g., communicable diseases, nutrition levels, mental health problems, etc.), self-sufficiency (e.g., danger of becoming homeless) and community violence (e.g., aggressive behavior).

Lack of affordable housing affects both working and non-working households, and all racial and ethnic groups. As wages and government assistance continue to decline and housing costs rise, it is harder for people living in poverty to find affordable housing. The affordable housing stock has fallen due to decreasing government housing assistance, rising rents, and new construction targeted to high-income homeowners and renters. Due to reductions in federal subsidies for affordable housing and high land and building costs, many developers, including non-profit, must pursue higher-income residents to stay in business. This further impacts the available stock of housing for low-income households.

Another factor that influences access to affordable housing for low-income households is welfare reform. In Travis County, 5,826 individuals have already lost or will lose public assistance benefits under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program due to time limits under welfare reform.16 In order to continue receiving public assistance, families are required to find a job or enter educational or job training programs. The high cost of housing makes this a difficult task. The maximum TANF benefit in Texas is $186 per month for a family of three.17 The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment, however, is $820 per month.

Return to Top of Page

C. OUTCOMES AND KEY INDICATORS

The five outcomes that will be analyzed in the next section describe the state of housing in Travis County. It is important to mention that, at the time of the production of this report, a Housing Planning Body had just been appointed to identify and tackle the factors that affect our community. Unlike the outcomes presented in the analysis of other issue areas, the five outcomes discussed in this chapter were not extracted from the 1997 Community Guide because it did not include a section on housing. Instead, the outcomes are a compilation of issues developed by a number of CAN partner members.

OUTCOME: Decreased number of families paying more than 30% of their income for housing

Figure 4.6.1 shows that, on average, Travis County renters spend proportionally more of their income on housing than do homeowners.

Figure 4.6.1

Percent of Income Spent on Housing, Travis County

Source: 1990 U.S. Census Data, reported in Austin/Travis County Health and Human Services Department Community Overview.

Figure 4.6.2

Percent of Income Spent on Housing

N/A = data not available.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census Data, reported in Austin/Travis County Health and Human Services Department Community Overview.

In 1990, 40 percent of renters spent more than 30 percent of their income on housing, whereas fewer than 23 percent of homeowners allocated this much of their income toward housing. Nearly 20 percent of all renters have a severe housing cost burden, paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing. Large families are also more likely to have housing that is not affordable. Nearly 40 percent of large families who rent pay over 30 percent of their income for housing, while 16 percent pay over half of their income for housing.18

Figure 4.6.3

Rental Housing Costs for Selected MSAs in Texas

Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition and Texas Low Income Housing Information Service. Out of Reach: Rental Housing at What Cost? (Washington, D.C. National Low Income Housing Coalition, 1998).

Methodology: Metropolitan Area Fair Market Rents from Notice of Final Fair Market Rents, Federal Register.

Median gross rent from 1990 Census, Summary Social Economic and Housing Characteristics, U.S., 1990, Renter household income from 1995 American Housing Survey.

Figure 4.6.3 indicates that the Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom unit in the Austin-San Marcos MSA area is unaffordable to 41 percent of all rental households in 1998. This percentage is higher than those in Dallas, Houston and all MSAs combined. Moreover, the percentage of annual income spent on rent in Austin is also higher than those in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and all Texas MSAs combined. The Austin-San Marcos average rents are also higher than in all other major metropolitan areas in Texas, except Dallas.

Return to Top of Page

OUTCOME: Increased number of transitional housing units available for homeless families

Transitional housing is part of a continuum of care designed to help homeless persons rebuild their lives and become self-sufficient. The continuum begins with direct outreach to homeless persons, to encourage them to engage in services, then moves to emergency short-term shelter, transitional housing and ends with permanent housing. Services such as mental health counseling, job training, family support, and substance abuse treatment are provided throughout the continuum to help homeless persons develop the skills and resources they need to return to society. These services are critical elements in helping individuals to make the transition out of homelessness. Within this continuum, transitional housing provides an opportunity for homeless families to stabilize their lives as they exit emergency shelter and move toward self-sufficiency. Transitional housing is usually provided for a period of six to 24 months and is always provided with case management and supportive services.

Figure 4.6.4

Number and Sources of Transitional Housing Units in Travis County, March 1998

Source: Austin Area Homeless Coalition and Community Action Network Homeless Task Force. Characteristics of Homeless Persons & Services in Austin/Travis County (Austin, TX: Austin/Travis County Health and Human Services Department, August 1998).

Figure 4.6.4 shows that the total capacity of transitional housing in Travis County is 209 units. In addition to this housing, there are 103 units of supportive housing for homeless persons in the community. ("Supportive housing" is permanent housing provided in conjunction with services for persons with disabilities.) The majority of supportive housing in Austin/Travis County is for individuals with HIV/AIDS or mental illness.

The Community Action Network's Homeless Task Force estimates that 1,000 applicants for transitional housing are denied services annually due to a shortage in supply. Efforts have been made since 1995 to increase the stock of transitional housing: Caritas, Community Partnership for the Homeless, LifeWorks and Push Up Foundations have added a total of 44 units with funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The American Institute for Learning has used federal funds to purchase existing transitional housing and thus secure it for future use. HUD funding has also been used locally to provide rental housing subsidies for homeless families under the Tenant Based Rental Assistance program. However, even this increase in stock is not adequate to meet demand.

Several subpopulations of homeless persons have been identified by housing experts as most needing transitional housing. These include families with children, individuals with substance abuse problems or a dual diagnosis of both mental illness and substance abuse, and victims of domestic violence.

Return to Top of Page

OUTCOME: Increase the number of housing vouchers as a method to offset rising housing costs (rental)

Public housing units are developed, owned and administered by local authorities that operate within a county or several counties as a group. Unlike other affordable housing programs that are subsidized under contracts or time-limited restrictions, public housing was built to remain permanently affordable. This is made possible through operating subsidies provided annually by the Congress. Residents of public housing pay rents that are no more than 30 percent of their annual income. The annual median income of public housing tenants is $6,000.

Section 8 is another a federal housing program administered by local housing authorities. This program was created to allow federal housing assistance to be used for the construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing, or to subsidize existing market housing. Under the Section 8 certificate and voucher programs, eligible households search on the private market for housing. If the dwelling meets certain quality standards and Fair Market Rent levels established by HUD, the government subsidizes the rent by paying the landlord directly. The tenant's rent payment is a fixed percentage of income, currently 30 percent. The program is not aimed at increasing the stock of housing, but to make existing stock more affordable.

Figure 4.6.5

Low-Income Public Housing Units Owned and Managed by Housing Authorities

Figure 4.6.5 shows that the available public housing stock is virtually fixed. There are 2,033 permanent public housing units in Travis County and no plans to expand this housing stock in the near future. The Austin Housing Authority has over 1,100 families on its waiting list, and receives 10 to 20 requests for assistance per day. Nearly 80 percent of these requests are from families needing immediate assistance because they are homeless or being evicted.19

Figure 4.6.6

Section 8 Housing Assistance Program

Source: Texas Housing Association, Travis Co. Housing Authority, City of Austin Housing Authority.

Figure 4.6.6 shows that the number of vouchers and certificates has remained constant in the past year due to the failure of Congress to authorize additional ones. As with transitional housing, the supply of public housing assistance is not meeting its demand. All Austin Housing Authority funds are being utilized to assist approximately 2,200 families. Currently, there are approximately 600 applicants on the City of Austin Section 8 waiting list. The waiting list was last opened in June 1996.20

While the Travis County Housing Authority has a smaller number of people on its waiting list, it has also closed its list to new applicants. It is estimated that 500 Travis County residents have applied for rental assistance, and that it takes at least two years for an applicant to receive a certificate or voucher.21

Recipients who move out of subsidized private rental units are required to return vouchers and certificates to the issuing Authority. Starting in 1996, Housing Authorities are required to hold certificates for three months before distributing them back to the public. This process was implemented to reduce spending, but also results in delays in providing public assistance to low-income families.

Return to Top of Page

OUTCOME: Increased number of housing starts (permits)

Figure 4.6.7

Number of Housing Starts (permits) Residential Development Activity

Housing starts are considered a leading indicator in an economy. This indicator tends to move concurrently with a business cycle. Figure 4.6.7 shows that Austin enjoyed a prosperous economic level through 1996, but residential development dropped slightly in 1997 while the total population grew by 3.5 percent.

Return to Top of Page

OUTCOME: Increased number of safe, decent, standard housing units affordable to families at income levels below 80% of area median income

The most recent data available for this indicator are statistics from the 1990 U.S. Census Data. The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs assumes that these percentages apply to current conditions in Travis County.

Figure 4.6.8

Overcrowded Households (more than 1.01 persons per room), 1990 Travis County

Source: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. 1990 Census Data Report for Travis County. (Austin, TX: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, n.d.).

Travis County had 124,586 renter households in 1990 and 108,327 homeowners. Figure 4.6.8 suggests that eight percent of renter households and three percent of households that own their own home live in overcrowded housing. Overcrowding is most common among low-income renter households. More than 50% of overcrowded households that rent are households that earn less than 50% of median income. In comparison, renter households earning more than 80% of median income comprise only 24% of overcrowded renter households.

Figure 4.6.9

Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing/Kitchen by Affordability Category, 1990 Travis County

Source: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. 1990 Census Data Report for Travis County. (Austin, TX: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, n.d.).

As Figure 4.6.9 indicates, almost 2,000 housing units in Travis County lack complete kitchen and plumbing. Low-income homeowners are as likely to reside in such conditions as low-income renters. Current physical housing conditions in Austin are not as precarious as they are in San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth-Arlington and Houston. Of the 44 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., these four are among those with the highest incidence of substandard and/or overcrowded housing.22

Figure 4.6.10

Households with an Excess Housing Cost Burden (greater than 30% of income), 1990 Travis County

Source: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. 1990 Census Data Report for Travis County. (Austin, TX: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, n.d.).

Figure 4.6.10 reveals that low-income renter households are more likely to pay more than 30% of their income toward housing than low-income homeowners (75.8% versus 29.4%). This proportion of households is larger than the nation's percentage. It is estimated that in the United States three-fifths (60 percent) of low-income households currently spend at least 50 percent of their income on housing. Figure 4.6.10 confirms the affordable housing crisis that low-income households face in Travis County.

Return to Top of Page

D. OTHER KEY OUTCOMES AND STATUS

The Community Guide identified other outcomes. Subsequent consultations with key groups added several more important outcomes. These are listed below with annotations that include clarification, availability of data, and recommendations for further treatment.

The following outcomes are overly complex or vague and require more consideration in future activities of the CAN:

• Decrease the number of families living in housing with one or more major defects (could apply measure from indicator on the number of safe, decent, standard housing units affordable to families at all income levels)
• Decrease the density of low-income housing in identified neighborhoods (could be measured by keeping track of residential units built in certain census tracts)
• Increase home ownership opportunities as a method to stabilize neighborhoods (surveying entities that promote home ownership by providing loans, credit, etc.)
• Increase the number of affordable housing units outside of areas of concentration of lower income and minority persons (surveying census tracts where new residential building development takes place and measuring change for at least two points in time)
• Increase the amount of city's financial commitment (general fund) in the development of affordable housing (a good measure could be the percent of general funding money to affordable housing)
• Increase the number of families moving out of subsidized housing as a result of education, job training and job placement (identify providers of subsidized housing and collect data to determine major factor involved in leaving subsidized housing unit)

The following outcomes are measureable but do not have adequate data available:

• Decrease segregation of housing by income groups by creating mixed-income housing opportunities
• Increase housing options that would allow persons to choose the type and location of their housing preference
• Encourage continued maintenance of existing housing
• Develop and adopt an affordable housing policy for the City of Austin
• Vigorously enforce fair housing laws through testing of practices in rental, lending and home purchase markets
• Increase initiatives for private sector development of new housing
• Coordinate available, but limited, housing resources into a centralized effort
• Modify the land use codes, building codes, zoning ordinances to stimulate the development of new housing
• Increase the availability of affordable housing in areas where opportunities for employment exist
• Increase the number of persons educated on the rights and responsibilities of home ownership
• Use the same approval standards for proposed housing for lower-income persons as are applied to housing for higher-income persons
• Encourage builders to include affordable housing in every housing development
• Encourage and stimulate inner city housing development and neighborhood revitalization
• Encourage the transition of renters into home ownership
• Encourage and increase competition among resource providers in order to stimulate reduction of housing-related costs
• Develop a rehabilitation building code
• Encourage mixed-income neighborhoods
• Educate neighborhoods on their need, effect and development of affordable housing within the neighborhoods
• Prioritize housing needs to available resources

Return to Top of Page

E. TERMS, CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

Affordable housing Spending no more than 30 percent of income on housing costs

Fair Market Rent Gross rent estimates, including shelter rent and the cost of utilities (except telephone.) HUD sets FMRs for localities to use under the Section 8 rental assistance program. FMRs are calculated from actual rents being charged for apartments of moderate quality and cost in each community

Overcrowding Sharing a housing space with more people than the square footage was designed for

END NOTES

1. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. 1990 Census Data Report for Travis County. (Austin, TX: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, n.d.).

2. City of Austin, Department of Planning. Annual Residential Development Activity (Austin, TX: City of Austin, n.d.).
3. Greenberger, Scott S. Housing squeeze: Prices rising faster than wages (Austin American Statesman: August 14, 1998).
4. City of Austin, Department of Planning. Annual Residential Development Activity.
5. National Low Income Housing Coalition and Texas Low Income Housing Information Service. Out of Reach: Rental Housing at What Cost? (Washington, D.C. National Low Income Housing Coalition, 1998).
6. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. 1990 Census Data Report for Travis County. (Austin, TX: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, n.d.).
7. Breyer, R. Michelle Expensive houses sell like hot cakes: Cash follows high-tech to high-end housing as cheaper market suffers (Austin American Statesman, August 24, 1997).
8. Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University. Price Distribution of MLS Homes Sold in Austin. Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University web page.
9. Breyer, R. Michelle Expensive houses sell like hot cakes.
10. Data from M/PF Research, Inc. cited in Breyer, R. Michelle. Austin's rental market squeeze: Apartment rates show no signs of falling (Austin American Statesman: July 3, 1998).
11. Breyer, R. Michelle. Austin's rental market squeeze.
12. Briseño, Veronica. Development Fee Comparison (unpublished research report conducted for the City of Austin, August 1998).
13. Greenberger, Scott S. City fees, approvals add to cost (Austin American Statesman: August 14, 1998).
14. Greenberger, Scott S. Neighbors object to apartment plan: Residents fear impact of affordable housing (Austin American Statesman, December 4, 1997). Greenberger, Scott S. Housing proposal met with protest (Austin American Statesman: June 11, 1998). Moscoso, Eunice. Housing plan gets suburbs back up (Austin American Statesman: September 9, 1998).
15. Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce. Report of the Affordable Housing Task Force (Austin: Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, n.d.).
16. The Impact of Federal Welfare Law on Texas and Local Government. City of Austin Council Work Session, March 26, 1997.
17. Texas Low Income Housing Information Service. Out of Reach: Rents in Texas Cities (Austin, TX: Texas Low Income Housing Information Service web page).
18. Community Action Network. A Snapshot of Our Community. (Austin, TX: Community Action Network, 1995).
19. Austin Housing Authority, 1998.
20 . Austin Housing Authority, 1998.
21. Travis County Housing Authority, 1998.
22. Texas Low Income Housing Information Service. Testimony of John Henneberger, co-director, Texas Low Income Housing Information Service, before the Senate Interim Committee on Housing. (Austin, TX: Texas Low Income Housing Information Service, January 12, 1998).

Return to Top of Page

Assessment Home