Search

Housing has become increasingly unaffordable, especially in cities like Washington, D.C. Wage growth has not kept up, meaning that more households must spend a larger portion of their income to keep a roof over their heads. Government programs addressing affordable housing are innumerous, yet many individuals still face housing costs that are too high. At the same time, cities are plagued by thousands of vacant properties. Moving vacant properties back onto the residential market could help increase the housing stock and alleviate pressure on housing costs. However, to truly address the affordable housing crisis, vacant properties put back to productive use should be affordable in perpetuity. One type of entity, a community land trust (CLT), can facilitate that very thing. This paper explores the housing affordability crisis and the vacant property landscape in D.C. It then describes the CLT model, focusing particularly on a relatively new community land trust in D.C., the Douglass Community Land Trust. Finally, this paper urges the D.C. Council to pass legislation supporting CLTs in D.C. and includes recommended policy provisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It's recognized that people affected by poverty often have numerous overlapping legal needs and despite the proliferation of legal services, they are unable to receive full assistance. When a person is faced with a legal emergency, rarely is there an equivalent to a hospital's emergency room wherein they receive an immediate diagnosis for their needs and subsequent assistance. In this paper, I focus on the process a person goes through to find assistance and argue that it is a burdensome, and demoralizing task of navigating varying protocols, procedures, and individuals. While these systems are well intentioned from the lawyer's perspective, they have unintended consequences for the client. These consequences are especially significant when viewed through our poverty law goal of empowering clients. I argue that the process to find an attorney is unintentionally riddled with invisible barriers that more closely resemble red-tape bureaucracy than the client empowerment that poverty law desires. I highlight four flaws in how legal service intakes are implemented. First, legal services organizations are a complicated web of varying agencies and providers making it challenging for a client to find the right office for their needs. Second, conflict rules, while intended to preserve zealous advocacy, often inhibit a client from finding counsel. Third, in legal services there is little transparency around why or if a case is likely to be accepted, leaving a client confused and frustrated. Fourth, a low-income client has no choice in who actually represents them unlike a client with means who can seek out a specific attorney. I examine the consequences of these flaws in the context of client empowerment. I argue that the combination of these barriers in one process actually disempower clients and prevent them from accessing the services they need. Finally, I highlight one solution: a collaborative intake and triage model that was piloted in Washington, D.C. to service crime victims. I explore how this model addresses some of these barriers and how it may be a blueprint for muchneeded legal services delivery reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Washington, D.C. has experienced major demographic shifts in the past few decades as white, upwardly mobile individuals increasingly moved into the city. These changes have simultaneously resulted in high levels of displacement for older residents in gentrifying neighborhoods. In response to the displacement of lower income, predominantly Black residents, the D.C. government has implemented an inclusionary zoning (IZ) policy. D.C.'s inclusionary zoning policy requires developers to allocate the greater of 8-10% of total square footage or 50-70% of the bonus density for affordable housing. Inclusionary zoning is a step in the right direction but fails to play a more expansive and effective role in affordable housing production. In particular, the policy currently ignores the realities of D.C.'s income, racial, and geographic segregation. This paper argues that inclusionary zoning laws in D.C. should take a graduated, ward-specific approach for delineating median family income qualifications and percentage setaside requirements, with a focus on increasing the affordability of IZ units for the lowest income individuals, the number of affordable housing units created, and the level of integration in these communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]