Recommendation To Charlotte Housing Committee

Recommendation To Charlotte Housing Committee

Email sent June 16, 2026

I believe that that you will be reviewing the city policy on use of the Housing Trust Fund.  There are two classes of policy to consider.  One is the 2024 policy of allocation of dollar amounts to aim for categories of housing out of the presumptive bond package of $125M. Presently you have an allocated $35M for new construction of rental housing, which is the only category that provides gap financing for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).

The other policy is the scoring system used to rank the competing proposals seeking awards from the HTF.  That scoring grid tends to favor the proposals that produce the most units per dollars invested by the city, which, necessarily means that the proposals utilizing the least expensive land can generally produce a higher percentage of units.  That has been the historical criterion that has had the largest influence on where LIHTC developments have been placed in Charlotte.

What is the result of this policy of rewarding the most units that city dollars can leverage?  The best picture of the answer appears below.  It is the map generated by Harvard Professor Raj Chetty when he studied the opportunity for upward mobility of children in the 50 largest metropolitan communities in the U.S.  You will recall the media impact on Charlotte when the report showed that Charlotte ranked dead last in the nation.  Chetty also concluded that the most significant factor in the negative mobility in Charlotte was the extreme racial and economic segregation of our community, which also coincided with the extremely segregated school system.

This map is a visual depiction of that pattern of segregation.  Notice that the darker red areas are representing the concentrated poverty areas.  The pink dots show the location of all of the LIHTC developments over the entire history of the program.  It is easy to see how the LIHTC locations have perpetuated the economic and racial segregation in the community.  Since LIHTC proposals are not economically feasible without gap financing form the HTF , this pattern also says that the city has a key role in determining where tax credit units are built by the scoring criteria employed.  If the city continues to favor proposals that will generate the most units—by utilizing the cheapest land—the city will continue to provide incentives for sites in districts 2, 3, and 4 and miss opportunities in high opportunity parts of districts 1, 6, and 7. 

As someone who has advocated for serving the most needy residents for decades, I am acutely aware that it is urgent to provide the most units of affordable housing to folks who are struggling.  I hate that the city must choose between more units in low wealth neighborhoods and fewer units in higher opportunity areas.  But, with an inadequate amount of HTF dollars, choices are required.  I believe that if we had a trust fund with $200M or more the city could leverage more units in high opportunity areas and serve the immediate need for more units and longer term values of diverse neighborhoods and mobility.  If we cannot reach $200M this year, we can still adjust the allocation for rental new construction and the scoring criteria to prefer some higher opportunity areas.

Recommendation for City of Charlotte 2026-2027 Budget

Why We Need To Increase the Housing Trust Fund to $200M

 

  • Charlotte’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF) is essential to the City’s effort to ensure that families have housing they can afford
  • In 2024, the bond referendum increased HTF funding from $50M to $100M
  • This increase brought significantly more funding for affordable housing, and allowed opportunities for new types of investment
  • Instead of a single $50M bucket, the funds were allocated to 8 spending categories such as rental production, homeownership, rehab/anti-displacement, and supportive housing/shelter
  • As a result of this allocation, the amount of funding for new rental housing was actually reduced, from a potential maximum of $50M to just $35M
  • But new rental housing is the most important function of the Housing Trust Fund among the 8 programs
    • City staff has determined that our deficit of affordable housing for folks at 50% of AMI and below is 42,000 units
    • There were over 52,000 eviction cases filed against tenants in Mecklenburg County in 2025
    • Homelessness in Mecklenburg increased by 12% last year despite all of our efforts to improve affordable housing.
  • This inadequate funding for rental production meant that worthy proposals have not been approved
    • As an example, “Grier Reserves”, a $7M proposal for 150 affordable units by DreamKey. The County provided the land for this project, yet the City was not able to provide the HTF gap funding.
  • Since only new rental production can leverage the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, the failure to fund these projects means that Charlotte is missing out on federal funding. Note that in 2025, Charlotte was awarded only about 1/4 as much housing tax credits as Wake County!
  • Additionally, the HTF match for federal tax credits is the only practical means of creating new rental housing that serves residents at 30% of AMI, the families with the greatest need for affordable housing. Missing out on this funding meant a lost opportunity to serve them.
  • And there is a significant new need for funding. With the new sales tax to fund the light-rail expansion, it is essential that the city acquire land for affordable housing along the projected new transit lines.  We must avoid the repeat of the missed opportunities along the Blue Line where only one small affordable development occurred while massive amounts of higher end developments displaced working class folks.
  • We support the use of HTF funding for multiple housing programs such as the creative rehabilitation and operation of NOAH properties, repurposed hotels for supportive housing shelters, and home ownership that will stabilize neighborhoods and families.
  • To accommodate all of these worthwhile methods the HTF bond referendum must be increased to $200M to fund all meritorious proposals and mitigate the increased costs of land and construction.

OneMECK Position Paper – Charlotte Needs Stronger Housing Code Enforcement

 Distributed to City Council and Media on 12/5/2024

Summary – the Moral Imperative

OneMECK and ActionNC, two long-standing advocacy teams in Charlotte, ask that the City implement stronger housing code enforcement to help families living in deteriorated housing.  Too many families live in rental units with serious code violations affecting both their quality of life as well as their health. Complaints can give rise to landlord retaliation and potential displacement.  In some instances, owners allow buildings to deteriorate but continue to collect rent, then a new owner comes in and displaces all residents. 

Background

An analysis of housing code violations that were opened within the last 2 years shows that, as of 11/18/2024, there were 916 open housing code violation inspection reports:

  • 360 of these violations have remained open for more than 6 months. Owners are not being sufficiently responsive and residents are being forced to live in deteriorating dwellings.
  • Each housing code violation is associated with a parcel of land, and 12 parcels have 11 or more open housing code violation reports. Buildings that have multiple violations are often deteriorated, with residents living in substandard conditions and owners abusing the system.

Charlotte should adopt a strong housing code enforcement policy to empower the Code Enforcement Division to step in when landlords fail to obey city repair orders.  The lack of enforcement at Lamplighter Inn, Tanglewood, Lake Arbor, and other residences has left many families living in unsafe and unhealthy conditions for years, with residents ultimately displaced.  This could have been prevented.  The housing code ALREADY allows the city to enforce its repair orders with two stronger remedies that are not being utilized.

The code authorizes the city council to direct the city attorney to sue the owner for an injunction to compel the landlord to make urgent repairs. 

  • Code inspectors often give owners 48-hour deadlines to repair imminently dangerous conditions such as inoperable heat in the winter, inoperable toilets or bathing facilities, and dangerous wiring.
  • If landlords fail to obey such orders, the staff should then ask the city council to direct the city attorney to seek immediate injunctive relief to compel the owner to remedy the problem.

The code also authorizes the city council to use its in rem repair remedy to accomplish other important repairs that may not be imminently dangerous, such as roof leaks or plumbing leaks that may cause toxic mold and structural damage, inoperable locks, holes in flooring and walls, broken windows, and other serious code violations:

  • City council should require the staff to report cases where final repair orders have gone more than 30 days past the date when repairs were required to be finished.
  • The council should select appropriate cases for adoption of an ordinance directing the chief code officer to seek bids from construction contractors to repair the violations. This work can be done without displacing the tenants, for example, through temporary relocation when extensive work is required
  • Once the work is completed, the city can present the bill to the owner for payment.
  • If the owner fails to pay, the city can place a lien on the property to enforce collection, and ultimately take possession through foreclosure if the owner fails to reimburse. Once the city has title to the property it can sell it to a responsible housing provider who can maintain it as part of the community’s affordable housing inventory.

Call To Action

We implore City Council to take action to help families living in deteriorated housing.  As a first step, City Council should direct the Code Enforcement Division to develop a strong enforcement policy as outlined above and identify funding and resources needed to put this policy into effect.

 

 

 

OneMECK Supports “A Home For All” – addressing homelessness in our community

To Mayor Lyles and Charlotte City Council Members:

I am writing on behalf of OneMECK (an affordable housing advocacy team*) in support of A Home For All, a critical community-wide initiative.  At the April 22 City Council meeting, A Home For All presented a list of substantial funding needs to continue progress toward alleviating the burden of homelessness in our City.  While there are questions to be addressed, it is imperative that funding for this initiative be incorporated into the 2025 budget.

A Home For All is the implementation phase of an effort started years ago to address homelessness in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. With the involvement of over 250 organizations and stakeholders, including city leaders, the initiative has been carefully planned to leverage the strengths of public and private sectors in pursuit of effective solutions.  Led by United Way, these organizations collaborated to develop a high-impact funding request for the next fiscal year.

The problems we need to address are substantial. Over 3,000 individuals in the Charlotte region currently find themselves without a home and our community requires an additional 45,000 housing units to accommodate those earning 30% or less of the area median income. These statistics demonstrate the urgent need for action.

The level of community involvement in the recently passed “re-criminalization” ordinance changes shows that there is a strong interest in addressing homelessness.  OneMECK believes that the criminal penalties will be ineffective without addressing the underlying problems of the homeless, and that real progress will require a greater commitment.  Funding A Home For All is a chance to have a significant impact.

We urge City Council to offer strong support for A Home For All, and to approve full funding in the coming year. Mike O’Sullivan, Chair, OneMECK Affordable Housing Committee

1 2 3 4›»

Archives