This article is part of the Under the Lens series
Fit to Live In: Fixing Our Housing Stock
Back in 2006, Cambridge, Massachusetts’s aging public housing stock needed serious work. Some of the housing authority’s nearly 2,500 apartments were in 70-year-old buildings with deteriorating and outdated infrastructure, Cambridge Housing Authority officials say, and a few properties built in the 1970s had leaked for decades. Many needed upgrades to heating, ventilation, and plumbing systems.
A five-year capital assessment required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revealed capital needs of at least $228 million. CHA officials estimated it would take 32 years to make the needed improvements based on its annual HUD funding at the time.
“Our backs were against the wall. We were going to start losing units,” says Margaret Moran, CHA’s deputy executive director for development. “Out of desperation, we began a process, both internally and with our residents, of exploring alternate ways to tackle the capital need.”
That exploration helped launch a series of improvement projects starting in 2010. Today, CHA is about 75 percent done with a portfolio-wide redevelopment, Moran says, with extensive work completed on 17 properties encompassing more than 2,345 units. Moreover, they’ve exceeded original plans, including addressing more resident comfort issues, achieving energy efficiency improvements, and adding 200 new deeply affordable housing units, with further expansion in the works.
It’s not news that federal support and funding for public housing has declined sharply since the early 1970s. Housing authorities across the U.S. have struggled to afford maintenance, repairs, and upgrades to their properties, and the number of available units is steadily declining. Against that grim backdrop, Cambridge stands out as a positive exception.
CHA’s redevelopment has been cited as an innovative model for its layering of strategies and funding sources to pay for the renovations, as well as for minimizing disruption for residents and retaining ownership or control of the properties rather than ceding them to private interests.
“It’s a great example of what can be possible,” says Susan Popkin, a fellow at the Urban Institute who co-authored a 2024 research report that profiles CHA as one of a few public housing authorities that have financed redevelopment in innovative ways.
Lack of Federal Support Has Imperiled Public Housing Stock
In the 1970s, the Nixon administration shifted public housing funding to new Section 8 voucher programs and instated a moratorium on new funding for public housing construction. The loss of support and funding continued under subsequent administrations.
In 1998, the Faircloth Amendment to the 1937 Housing Act further forbade any construction project that would yield a “net increase” in the number of public housing units, effectively capping supply at 1999 levels.
The funding loss and construction freeze have meant that over the past 20 years, 300,000 public housing units—more than 20 percent of the national total—have been lost due to uninhabitability, according to UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation, a nonpartisan research center.
Because of that loss, many cities now have a hole in their public housing supply that they could fill with new construction without going over their Faircloth Amendment limit—if they had sufficient funding.
Over the past 15 years, some federal programs have emerged to help public housing agencies gather government and investor dollars for repairs and construction.
One of the most significant of those is the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD), launched by HUD in 2012. Through RAD, housing authorities convert public housing units to project-based Section 8 voucher units. The idea behind RAD is that transitioning to Section 8 subsidies brings more stable revenue, which in turn helps housing authorities tap loans, low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC), and other financing mechanisms to pay for repairs and renovations.
How Does RAD Affect Tenants?
From the tenants’ point of view, RAD conversion typically involves little noticeable change. They continue to pay no more than 30 percent of their income on rent, and they retain important rights and protections they had in public housing, although there has been criticism over instances where enforcement of those rights was inadequate.
As of 2024, 1,700 projects covering more than 230,000 public housing units have undergone RAD conversion nationally, according to a report from HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research. HUD’s research found that RAD improves both physical housing conditions and resident satisfaction.
In Cambridge, residents Shelterforce spoke with generally described CHA’s redevelopment outcomes and process favorably, even while noting some complaints. About the RAD conversion process itself, the main change tenants mentioned was additional and more painstaking income-certification paperwork required by the IRS when affordable housing is financed by tax credits.
Ethel Delgado lives in Frank J. Manning Apartments, a 19-story, 199-unit building for elderly and disabled residents. Manning Apartments was among the first CHA properties to be converted to Section 8 and redeveloped under RAD.
“When people first hear about RAD conversion, they get nervous,” says Delgado. “People were really scared, thinking they would have to leave and wondering ‘Where am I going to go?’ In the meantime, rents were going up in Cambridge.”
When CHA introduced its RAD plans in 2012, local media reported that tenants had concerns. But, Delgado says, CHA officials made a good effort to keep residents engaged, from the initial RAD conversion through construction planning and temporary resident relocation, and allayed most fears.
“Before Phase 1 started, everyone had heard of the RAD conversion and understood this was how the renovations were going to get done,” she says.
A CHA project summary sheet describes the Manning redevelopment, spanning 2015 to 2018, as including gut renovation of all apartments; a new building facade; improved plumbing, heating, electrical, and ventilation systems; addition of six new units; and creation of several new laundry rooms and resident lounge and activity areas.
Because the building is so large, construction could be done in stages, one vertical section at a time, Delgado says. She and her husband had to relocate to another unit within the building for several months while their apartment was being worked on. The housing authority provided packing materials and storage units, along with a moving coordinator and people to help pack, move, and unpack if needed.
“Personally, our experience through the RAD conversion was pretty easy. Just a few bumps. Some things came back from storage damaged, and they replaced them,” she says.
Delgado is president of the Manning Tenant Council and also is active in the Alliance of Cambridge Tenants, which represents all public housing and Section 8 tenants citywide, so she had a broad view of how the process worked for other residents, too. Some complained of dust or disruption, she says, but CHA helped people find other accommodations, even in the private market, if needed. Everyone was allowed to return to their building, nearly always to the same unit.
Overall, the major redevelopment was worth it, she says. She appreciates the new heat, plumbing, and air conditioning systems, and she’s happy to give visitors a tour of the more visible improvements, such as the new laundry and activity rooms and a revamped first-floor community room. The community room functions as a hub of social activity with a piano, plenty of space for the many resident musicians to gather and play, and a new kitchen area.
On the other hand, she and others have been frustrated by the new entry doors that were installed as part of the redevelopment. The doors remain open too long, Delgado says, and make it too easy for nonresidents to come in uninvited—a perceived safety hazard in a neighborhood struggling with rising street robberies and drug-related crimes. But their concerns have been heard. The doors are set to be replaced soon with a new configuration that residents assessed and approved, Delgado says.
Another of CHA’s early RAD projects was Newtowne Court, a multi-building family housing development built in the 1930s. The property and its 268 units underwent substantial rehabilitation from 2015-2018, including new kitchens, bathrooms, flooring, and heating in the units, along with system improvements affecting roofing, masonry, fire alarm and sprinkler systems, and energy efficiency.
Longtime Newtowne tenant Bill Cunningham has some quibbles about the quality of the work. At his renovated apartment in October, he pointed out his chronically dripping kitchen faucet; some cabinet doors that were not installed well initially; and an in-unit washing machine that became damaged immediately because of improper installation and had to be replaced. In addition, when he had to relocate for 14 weeks to another building in the development, he felt the process wasn’t as coordinated as it could have been, despite a detailed policies and procedures agreement, with his moves on both ends happening weeks later than promised.
Jean Hannon is a longtime Alliance for Cambridge Tenants (ACT) member and a resident of CHA’s Woodrow Wilson Court. That property was lightly renovated in 2016 as part of a RAD conversion. She recalls that for each redevelopment CHA did, officials engaged residents in multiple discussions about relocation plans.
“In my experience, both where I live and in other properties I was involved with [through ACT], they listened to pushback, particularly on relocation agreements and what services people needed, which varied whether they were in family or elderly sites,” Hannon says. “They did take some comments under consideration and incorporated them. Others, they said they couldn’t. I found it to be actually pretty accommodating, considering they didn’t really have to do this to the extent they did.”
She, too, mentions a quality issue: poorly designed new trash chutes that became easily clogged. Both Hannon and Cunningham lament that even minor flaws, if they require repairs and replacement, mean money spent unnecessarily. But in the grand scheme of things, they acknowledge the redevelopment was necessary and valuable.
“Not everything CHA does is right,” Hannon says, ‘but in terms of their hitting percentage, it’s pretty good. And sometimes they knock it out of the park.”
Does RAD Conversion Mean Privatization?
From its inception, the RAD program has generated concerns about potential privatization.
Susanne Schindler and Chris Moyer, in a 2022 article in Places Journal, state that RAD “encouraged the trends of privatization and deregulation by facilitating the conversion of public housing to either nonprofit or for-profit private ownership.”
The authors profile Cambridge’s efforts favorably, though. Even though CHA has partnered with major banks as investors, they note that “the agency has taken great care to structure its complex RAD contracts so that it continues to manage its buildings (rather than ceding this role to a third-party management company, which is typical in RAD deals). Even more crucially, the CHA has structured contracts so that at the conclusion of the partnership, it resumes (through its subsidiaries) ownership of properties.”
[RELATED ARTICLE: RAD Plan in Chelsea Will Build in Mixed-Income Housing—But Disrupt Low-Income Seniors]
CHA did transfer its converted properties to its nonprofit affiliates, a step that was necessary to use tax credit financing, Moran says, but retained ownership of the land and provided ground leases to LIHTC investors. The external investors are silent partners, she says, and CHA continues to handle day-to-day management. Not all housing authorities choose that route, she says: Others, for example, Baltimore and San Francisco, have sold buildings to nonprofit or private developers. Nonprofit ownership, as explained by Schindler and Moyer in a footnote, opens up greater opportunities for borrowing money and allows accumulation of larger capital fund reserves.
Moran cites three examples of projects so far in which CHA relied on for-profit outside investors but has successfully brought ownership back to its affiliates after the 15-year mark, the typical end to the LIHTC compliance period.
“We approach each of these transactions with the clear understanding that it’s our intent, our desire, and our structure to get these properties back in housing authority control after the investor takes the economic advantage,” she says.
Part of her agency’s strength in this process, Moran says, is that it’s one of the few public housing authorities capable of doing all its development and property management in-house. Its own staff of planners, architects, project managers and others helps CHA retain control and avoid having to bring in a developer partner.
Still, CHA’s housing portfolio after RAD conversion includes only 52 units of true public housing, while the rest are now technically “formerly public project-based-voucher-assisted housing,” Moran says. All of it is designated affordable, though—none of CHA’s projects has involved creating mixed-income developments.
Cambridge’s Path: Implementing RAD Along with Other Strategies
Having already worked to assess property needs, calculate costs, and start mulling solutions, CHA was poised to jump quickly when funding opportunities appeared.
For its first redevelopment phase in 2010-2013, the agency tapped nearly $29 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus dollars. Those funds, combined with tax credits, enabled CHA to renovate four properties encompassing 318 elderly/disabled and family housing units.
CHA was an early RAD adopter in 2012, and went “all-in,” converting nearly its entire portfolio to voucher-based housing. But it quickly became clear that RAD alone would not increase revenue enough for the work CHA had to do.
Under RAD, residents continue to pay 30 percent of their income on rent. RAD adds “a little capital expense money” on top of the existing public housing subsidy, Moran explains, but it adds up to barely a break-even amount in an expensive city like Cambridge. In contrast, reimbursements for tenant-based Section 8 vouchers accepted by private landlords take into account the local fair market rent.
The way forward was to combine RAD with other programs.
CHA’s participation in HUD’s Moving to Work (MTW) program was a big help, Moran says. Launched in 1996 as a means of streamlining some public housing operations and rewarding cost efficiency, MTW allowed a handful of housing authorities, including Cambridge, greater freedom in how they could allot spending. The Terner Center has documented how housing authorities have used MTW flexibility to boost rents in properties that have undergone RAD conversions.
CHA had already been using MTW flexibility to allot an extra $3 million to fill gaps in its capital funding, Moran explains. Under the RAD process, they could shift that money to supplement rent revenue, bringing it more in line with the HUD-defined fair market rent for the area. The higher rent revenue enabled CHA to borrow more money, which, combined with tax credit equity, funded Phase 2 of renovations, covering nearly 900 apartments across five properties, Moran says. In addition, MTW flexibility allows CHA to keep and redirect dollars saved through energy efficiency improvements, according to Moran and the Urban Institute report.
Another key strategy was to tap Section 18, HUD’s “demolition/disposition” program to help rehabilitate or replace properties deemed obsolete, along with RAD. Properties under Section 18 become eligible for higher subsidies that are pegged to fair market rents. CHA waded through a complex rules and application process. Ultimately, Moran estimates Section 18 more than doubled the rent subsidy—“and that’s a game-changer,” she says.
CHA was a pioneer in combining Section 18 with RAD. Since 2018, HUD has offered this blend as a formalized strategy, and Moran notes that HUD has made the process much easier for housing authorities.
While it was an important part of CHA’s successful redevelopment strategy, some advocates have decried the way Section 18’s “disposition” aspect has played out in other cities as transfer of ownership to private developers.
Looking Ahead
Hannon says she understands that if the Cambridge Housing Authority had not tapped RAD and other programs to enable redevelopment, safety issues in the deteriorating buildings would have worsened and apartments would have been lost. Now, she’s excited that new affordable units are being added. But she doesn’t see a return to true public housing, nor much benefit in fighting against new methods of preserving affordable housing.
“I don’t see traditional public housing as a way to continue in the U.S.,” she says. “Do I want to count on 300 or 400 members of Congress to fund it, or do I want to bet on the self-interest of a corporation that wants to buy the tax credits? I think they’re both troublesome. I don’t have a lot of hope for public housing. I really think it’s going to go toward a mixed-income model.”
Meanwhile, Phase 4 of CHA’s portfolio-wide redevelopment is set to construct or renovate 12 properties and create more than 500 new units. The new construction is possible through HUD’s “Faircloth-to-RAD” program launched in 2021 to help housing authorities add units up to their Faircloth limit. But under the program, recently renamed Restore-Rebuild, the new units don’t remain traditional public housing; they are preapproved for immediate RAD conversion and Section 8 subsidies, which aids the housing authority in gathering outside construction financing.
CHA has also begun consulting with other housing authorities on how to blend RAD and Section 18, and has even functioned as a co-developer for housing authorities in nearby towns.
“What I say to other housing authorities and to industry groups is that we’ve used every tool in the toolbox,” Moran says. “Every time we hit a roadblock, we could pivot to another strategy.”
About the Author
Comments