<%BANNER%>

Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022147/00001

Material Information

Title: Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation A Case Study of Alachua County, Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (106 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Barriers to the rehabilitation of single family, owner-occupied affordable housing can vary widely between locales and among projects. The literature concerning barriers to rehabilitation is incomplete, not only because there have been few recent studies but also because the literature does not fully address barriers that are significant to particular local contexts. An exploratory case study was conducted in Alachua County, Florida, to determine what differences exist between barriers found in a local context and those discussed in the literature. Analysis of the case study results revealed that certain barriers at the local level are not addressed in the literature; conversely, barriers that receive considerable attention in the literature were found to be relatively minor in Alachua County. The latter barriers include the small number of rehabilitation programs available locally; the large amount of paperwork required for State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program-funded rehabilitation; time consuming, cumbersome program guidelines; and insufficient individual award amounts. The primary implications of the discrepancy between barriers found within the local context and those discussed in the literature are that more study must be completed on the nature and extent of local barriers in order to better understand how to resolve them. Further, local rehabilitation administrators and providers must resolve barriers with little guidance from the widely recognized national studies on the topic. Before these implications can be adequately addressed, however, financial hurdles to affordable housing rehabilitation must be overcome. The case study resulted in one clear pattern. All of the barriers present locally but not discussed in the literature are the result of guidelines and restrictions at the state and local levels. Although the federal Community Development Block Grant program has guidelines that must be met, Florida's SHIP program guidelines and the two local governments? Local Housing Assistance Plans create the local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation. The local affordable housing rehabilitation administrators and providers agreed these barriers can be resolved, to a large extent, by coordinating income verification requirements and by streamlining guidelines and procedures. In all likelihood, affordable housing rehabilitation efforts across the county are impeded to some extent, given the drastic decrease in federal funding over the last two decades. However, local governments in Florida are particularly frustrated by the inaccessibility of funds specifically devoted to affordable housing and affordable housing rehabilitation. A second discovery was that there is no clear division between barriers encountered in the urban and unincorporated areas of Alachua County; local barriers are pervasive in their occurrence across political jurisdictions. Thus, a standardized and centralized application, cost estimation, and bidding process may work well for all affordable housing rehabilitation undertaken in the City and the County; one local office would suffice to process paperwork for rehabilitation projects in both the City and the County. More study must be completed on the nature and extent of local barriers in order to better understand how to resolve them and to discover temporal and spatial patterns.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Larsen, Kristin E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022147:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022147/00001

Material Information

Title: Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation A Case Study of Alachua County, Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (106 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Barriers to the rehabilitation of single family, owner-occupied affordable housing can vary widely between locales and among projects. The literature concerning barriers to rehabilitation is incomplete, not only because there have been few recent studies but also because the literature does not fully address barriers that are significant to particular local contexts. An exploratory case study was conducted in Alachua County, Florida, to determine what differences exist between barriers found in a local context and those discussed in the literature. Analysis of the case study results revealed that certain barriers at the local level are not addressed in the literature; conversely, barriers that receive considerable attention in the literature were found to be relatively minor in Alachua County. The latter barriers include the small number of rehabilitation programs available locally; the large amount of paperwork required for State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program-funded rehabilitation; time consuming, cumbersome program guidelines; and insufficient individual award amounts. The primary implications of the discrepancy between barriers found within the local context and those discussed in the literature are that more study must be completed on the nature and extent of local barriers in order to better understand how to resolve them. Further, local rehabilitation administrators and providers must resolve barriers with little guidance from the widely recognized national studies on the topic. Before these implications can be adequately addressed, however, financial hurdles to affordable housing rehabilitation must be overcome. The case study resulted in one clear pattern. All of the barriers present locally but not discussed in the literature are the result of guidelines and restrictions at the state and local levels. Although the federal Community Development Block Grant program has guidelines that must be met, Florida's SHIP program guidelines and the two local governments? Local Housing Assistance Plans create the local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation. The local affordable housing rehabilitation administrators and providers agreed these barriers can be resolved, to a large extent, by coordinating income verification requirements and by streamlining guidelines and procedures. In all likelihood, affordable housing rehabilitation efforts across the county are impeded to some extent, given the drastic decrease in federal funding over the last two decades. However, local governments in Florida are particularly frustrated by the inaccessibility of funds specifically devoted to affordable housing and affordable housing rehabilitation. A second discovery was that there is no clear division between barriers encountered in the urban and unincorporated areas of Alachua County; local barriers are pervasive in their occurrence across political jurisdictions. Thus, a standardized and centralized application, cost estimation, and bidding process may work well for all affordable housing rehabilitation undertaken in the City and the County; one local office would suffice to process paperwork for rehabilitation projects in both the City and the County. More study must be completed on the nature and extent of local barriers in order to better understand how to resolve them and to discover temporal and spatial patterns.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Larsen, Kristin E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022147:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101204_AAAAAV INGEST_TIME 2010-12-04T11:44:12Z PACKAGE UFE0022147_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 35638 DFID F20101204_AAARGC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH ludlow_m_Page_012.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
c5a250e2b381b2b904654ce89447378c
SHA-1
e04feec92d91ab730caf7c7e174e361b365abecc
9528 F20101204_AAASIQ ludlow_m_Page_104thm.jpg
7fd0d67fe2998f8efa0319c2acf8c673
76b8e1221967f9f1931a8c9dc8fc963fa34e3b9c
8985 F20101204_AAARGD ludlow_m_Page_015thm.jpg
89be70576661356c7e315aad1cdf3dc7
c44fb6be5ea19b6278843c42870f9b100efa06f6
28807 F20101204_AAASIR ludlow_m_Page_105.QC.jpg
c18f76f53d509fe46db4a09c220e5c01
ce3dd642d117fe0c63b624082f3d69d92c250fb3
52322 F20101204_AAARGE ludlow_m_Page_058.pro
bea895560a72c7e0f48e941a992153f4
5c1ab911b4a93ca14f3f69c746db0e0450f5e443
6406 F20101204_AAASIS ludlow_m_Page_106thm.jpg
b5837336a3a8a3b8336d747a51798aac
2acea5243f8d6b9708aef7176460542f7e5cff86
8561 F20101204_AAARGF ludlow_m_Page_040thm.jpg
f001da23d254c163633374ae08265509
1f7071905a3ef38fc86425928614d06a5c559b97
398938 F20101204_AAARGG ludlow_m_Page_007.jp2
0170e5b720b431a69325b1001249454e
a6814d04a82c715d1d89442c10acb42ba63edf23
25271604 F20101204_AAARGH ludlow_m_Page_002.tif
2d6f3132f58b01f5a6c820b4d5bec1fe
f122e78b64c7e01c566788f97e83302ebe7f4961
34016 F20101204_AAARGI ludlow_m_Page_074.QC.jpg
6b620db0b17c39d5840086ad09f8fe3b
ebe92e8b749165130e181a4ade9265a3a1260f6f
109593 F20101204_AAARGJ ludlow_m_Page_036.jpg
2e418c1240aa7503eafcd26c15777d83
ba92f980949800ba85061ddb64e5b689e9a066d2
2453 F20101204_AAARGK ludlow_m_Page_022.txt
7ee802a1d41ef64e135067f59439bdfc
4435570bfbf0227de4698a928e145efe53420a55
1051948 F20101204_AAARGL ludlow_m_Page_033.jp2
670964fcdd203e9ff720f2aaf1d39c6a
4f142a755285bd24e918c405c3035fba91d92b8d
2108 F20101204_AAARGM ludlow_m_Page_076.txt
cbd7d2d229923b90b5a728a093e85363
f36012adc3e56292dc6d708a3a6930d24a475af6
8138 F20101204_AAARHA ludlow_m_Page_019thm.jpg
73af6244bb433e621d7ce33a87393ac5
9951a38ff1669f17d49833dce2a4189f9fd3ea79
57242 F20101204_AAARGN ludlow_m_Page_104.pro
81ebd722ce1b97e6660a6ff45e9e5b48
205ffb522c45c056647e3127d9482e64ddc047ef
F20101204_AAARHB ludlow_m_Page_056.tif
d35c3f680a879fc0b76733c6e49e5f60
2c2cbb6fdc44999ebe9b767e4035d2a7d8f8e15e
2066 F20101204_AAARGO ludlow_m_Page_063.txt
bd6fe45e985ef0510304747efbf08269
4d87d013fe9c08ee81972fe6781af935be967f0b
2162 F20101204_AAARHC ludlow_m_Page_073.txt
220f51993df2fdf412a848646a640c3f
e9ba76acc11b638e8d5322cc8ccc45ed7cd19a59
F20101204_AAARGP ludlow_m_Page_036.tif
cca8e34af6634fd53d459e3e2cd78f29
da0f483d2a180657c95dcb4945da311f7e3e58e8
F20101204_AAARHD ludlow_m_Page_090.tif
ccee9e4160310b2311a4c8b1e95e38c1
3429c069c159f02430d9d1bd1830b760da746eb1
116711 F20101204_AAARGQ ludlow_m_Page_031.jpg
8e3fa40521eb3d95e4720eebcda5c2d9
bfe68b4c784e4ffd70915ad9c0cf8b7f2b0d77dc
30405 F20101204_AAARHE ludlow_m_Page_100.QC.jpg
0a36e2ced5e382ec9e6576e7f5d15d32
15001827f62bf3ddfaf51e15af9c6029d01a45e0
106027 F20101204_AAARGR ludlow_m_Page_072.jpg
33c6814aa3f9df2e561e8f0c682fa734
92939996d97e3926057b5b956fba113f430fe11e
8485 F20101204_AAARHF ludlow_m_Page_057thm.jpg
2960d500a60304ca0a5ca1cd78711c9b
6997ea718cee8aaef038d69c2133942a42d6e4aa
50664 F20101204_AAARGS ludlow_m_Page_009.pro
2059c7f55b0860714fdcd1085caab87f
11aa2021b938afc904ff77a773a92f51a48b7c4d
110122 F20101204_AAARHG ludlow_m_Page_032.jpg
80566d22da3347bad845b44a4db72300
0affe7f259d7d6f4ad2cc8126742559faa9f9b0b
100981 F20101204_AAARGT ludlow_m_Page_092.jpg
5e5fbf93c1e0fb96648e752e7a93e750
c1e179a428c236e67394e10c815754ca4d2fd527
42334 F20101204_AAARHH ludlow_m_Page_095.pro
6df3fa0c0fab3d3b9d58250294f8beff
0ad62a47a56be0bc46670e120d657872031d6952
1051875 F20101204_AAARHI ludlow_m_Page_020.jp2
d1f88c18afb23df1727f93a24cbc853f
905b4a5cdbd5f6174acb8030058ba10b6e67f46c
109619 F20101204_AAARGU ludlow_m_Page_028.jpg
6446d964483a9cfa51df011dec264b31
0e5cbceaff3c8c42b7ab1b0069becb8b7d64a815
1417 F20101204_AAARHJ ludlow_m_Page_094.txt
498b2e5097c610092a02b7fb45956d89
b20e7fe51ce3d68dc7cd6c84394979fdbee6ba38
8923 F20101204_AAARGV ludlow_m_Page_064thm.jpg
c441f2d5750330d9e6d3a233a0bb208e
8ef75e05c192eaa5c4e22843d1acad4f7ba6dcea
104579 F20101204_AAARHK ludlow_m_Page_046.jpg
74fd60e9e519c154464817eca4515bf8
add1ec515e9cd83eb153f14d6c51d1a0bf0b1361
50220 F20101204_AAARGW ludlow_m_Page_084.pro
da1834fda1c3cec539ed6e6997f6e67e
b1505230fe96001dabfb6625104e0ff926d8ef17
F20101204_AAARHL ludlow_m_Page_085.tif
435aa773e76b09067ddd3a95f335dd8f
e00e84e6b6fea6935258f9367e8a5d492e0778a3
33611 F20101204_AAARGX ludlow_m_Page_056.QC.jpg
92d7ac8fa76d9b7688d68ed1f96915e2
e4f3e4d5f0da62fb2e21802286326e593fe370dd
2157 F20101204_AAARIA ludlow_m_Page_055.txt
96273a472dc8b7209ef2a8c133e49909
00a99b154d5de1edcebb7495a96b9b6aa2bfebfe
36976 F20101204_AAARHM ludlow_m_Page_022.QC.jpg
3112f68c7598914ee89efd50973343d8
e026a61b2cdec81d17b0b8fa60a3b7d5425864f0
34478 F20101204_AAARGY ludlow_m_Page_020.QC.jpg
f7f82ce318a849794a23f3c463dda7a2
e0fc707b6457d4bcc2a712d5da88bfb1e1574f52
12506 F20101204_AAARIB ludlow_m_Page_101.QC.jpg
1211a334d93e3681cf47aa46f4fde106
f4404850d9a838d90d2b9611ea9e42cd89900c28
812887 F20101204_AAARHN ludlow_m_Page_094.jp2
6862ed5539afa1ecf7c97ff9d0c38c1c
ad8e6fd2c4628341d22ab64dfd3166f34817189d
F20101204_AAARGZ ludlow_m_Page_004.tif
aac5c76597a2ce2b9029fbac43bccac3
ee72546df0f1755841c1bc0ec9550dbc6e5346a1
9008 F20101204_AAARIC ludlow_m_Page_067thm.jpg
6fab4f8c67ddcc0245a213c474ba97f4
aceb1d9056262f9ad8c252a21c339fcf8f60997e
51858 F20101204_AAARHO ludlow_m_Page_033.pro
070d97b033dd4db44e083df42c1dc349
2da86687531c35183a0223929c31f2a97d1eb77a
51761 F20101204_AAARID ludlow_m_Page_027.pro
9dbee2bf33c62fe08907d5b77d8f52b1
81b1ba8d7c5407d4bf08814e9736c4b1cb327255
33653 F20101204_AAARHP ludlow_m_Page_087.QC.jpg
0e6cea64377ff58adac47c10ff6d0c0f
abf82d54c0beb491cc5fb20a01b00bdec3a923a6
137480 F20101204_AAARIE ludlow_m_Page_098.jpg
c6fa633d05ab41f652edcab46699335a
6b2a5c1b7b49fe2899a5c9c21f28899c7bfe04e2
F20101204_AAARHQ ludlow_m_Page_006.tif
40c37ae7ab3d3ae746ff84d0c4056ff1
fb26b01fc226976788f0d0cce2d6effa9fd0e32c
1116 F20101204_AAARIF ludlow_m_Page_004.txt
56a6d7d6fe9cdbed5310c4d2d3356e59
2c88965f056b6a30bb95ab92411561dd8981d782
56821 F20101204_AAARHR ludlow_m_Page_066.pro
71d2634ec1dd025bb28d2698f47e6711
dde36e3095ae3cd8f373fb1848b8ff15bac7b42a
52273 F20101204_AAARIG ludlow_m_Page_016.pro
0b9ba46c46fda480be8500f7c488820d
8b97a9f2f30c3a50a85dcc725866f3577249813a
50247 F20101204_AAARHS ludlow_m_Page_014.pro
7fa90e8b921bc3e5c8727757e9bc178f
77cf007525a6fff34040d2bfffb03889eb6783b4
52492 F20101204_AAARIH ludlow_m_Page_078.pro
49b5e117176969f9a776d19c100d7dc4
4b5d483829334b3d1718895fec7fcf472dd9670e
1051986 F20101204_AAARHT ludlow_m_Page_031.jp2
e7bbaa9423266e957f1f88e788d8c599
dfa39f859b847cdd0e6dbe80b1437033f2fafe1f
60263 F20101204_AAARII ludlow_m_Page_103.pro
ebf7c617b0ffad06f8b21513df9e8048
5b5efc94ca3f214243c44e338a057a9cd1ceebe5
111379 F20101204_AAARHU ludlow_m_Page_075.jpg
c8ea77ba4d03e50d038cc46f2d281d59
55c62911d5d193fd3d19ad9fe85a6104166e42ec
F20101204_AAARIJ ludlow_m_Page_102.tif
86ad9484a5e8ee0b96ccd29daf2879b0
b9a07f2f78c88111e176d7b643f39b6ae3afd6a7
52311 F20101204_AAARHV ludlow_m_Page_085.pro
6273dae8d737dcd8b05dc1dc0b8a9801
2bc5e2aac1045165aff5f0a328798749ed271915
53537 F20101204_AAARIK ludlow_m_Page_076.pro
00dff109d2b6b051411293314dd85bee
9990a2ded62e1b592ba0e8da9a321d4231084072
54267 F20101204_AAARHW ludlow_m_Page_095.jpg
16c8449d6adab8c0608a9fc50affe19d
8c240b5ebec4d338aabbcafbf2c6f181fe6a4dc1
107935 F20101204_AAARIL ludlow_m_Page_048.jpg
ae9f74a6257a6ae3a97882df7086dedb
b236d8bcef10126a822c28cc62d3b75f01645b50
1723 F20101204_AAARHX ludlow_m_Page_095.txt
5de65ebae4423e15985ff3460dbbe03b
51093996441d595b8e4861b40b2ee500f3176cd8
1051923 F20101204_AAARJA ludlow_m_Page_091.jp2
8b91ad36b84acc46e3358060851e82e3
e23c6fc07419d23d045628dc7cf2aaaad81e549a
4918 F20101204_AAARIM ludlow_m_Page_096thm.jpg
1f8a709b8e26a0ccf127aae739c6c506
8595d82878f2f5b6cd95cfe4e575397afb8b03d7
F20101204_AAARHY ludlow_m_Page_016.tif
0bf5e56f0e339b780ff0531defe2fdae
80f75eb2f1798315891d30c6ad71c70ea2c1fefd
406134 F20101204_AAARIN ludlow_m.pdf
238e6dc5d82833f27b08f68c6b76bb5b
6aa18eee06bcda5b74d3b11b8ecc864e213d0410
BROKEN_LINK
www.floridahousing.org/Home/HousingPartners/LocalGovernments/
www.floridahousing.org/Home/AboutUs/default.htm
27013 F20101204_AAARHZ ludlow_m_Page_004.pro
f3bce00fa1a54e1a62797ba1d6d9d6db
901bbd140a371860f7dfb5dac93cce2b417dbd50
51100 F20101204_AAARJB ludlow_m_Page_019.pro
4467d02d96839afe1db3bdd906995281
b6901d310cac63b01537539358747324b162d879
4866 F20101204_AAARIO ludlow_m_Page_079thm.jpg
2dae1d609dd598e00f9bf2e14ae96245
53e03b2a431afab8a920eb42bc0b1718316608e3
F20101204_AAARJC ludlow_m_Page_062.tif
662ecea02bf1e5561867199a76748125
140263d5e56a825e754efdcd5813c321928b050f
F20101204_AAARIP ludlow_m_Page_025.tif
4718a70effcd49c4e5c4b693160c2238
ec5f1ade975bd1ce71f83506a7c34b6badf2a95c
1049533 F20101204_AAARJD ludlow_m_Page_090.jp2
2e4ab23f8c4b88acbad72e1ef86b7cca
f855dcd1d9d5c8b13cbdc95cd10c50d6e88a260e
2133 F20101204_AAARIQ ludlow_m_Page_040.txt
f88f64dda14ffe112d624d45045700ce
9c5254edcd91494ea35d4780f3009ae7fbad5475
1051975 F20101204_AAARJE ludlow_m_Page_069.jp2
1231f9d1f89a06c902b65faea2f613e9
0e39bd2c692e01e7d22d5f73221c6873eda38fa1
F20101204_AAARIR ludlow_m_Page_003.tif
ccbfc82a28e6e8eaca64caa545b6fc91
a65e232f7d56c63182e4ebf31bf3b74710005d4c
54121 F20101204_AAARJF ludlow_m_Page_048.pro
dd342a99547ae98c2b13961f535c04cb
40beed4b19de50ecb449a36f77a4356eba8d8b43
8618 F20101204_AAARIS ludlow_m_Page_062thm.jpg
7e13fd10a0ac8d8144993a636504677f
e6bd8fc5d057c9002175ffd1457b4fd2dd509ad9
103847 F20101204_AAARJG ludlow_m_Page_087.jpg
7eda28da938d9ea46bcb187925fe7e53
f8a81bb1c302b39f26d4962e90d866df9b4dc96a
1051980 F20101204_AAARIT ludlow_m_Page_048.jp2
4d6022be74734ea255254a9a403454aa
e389055236206acf1c58c47b639ebd27ba41d2e0
F20101204_AAARJH ludlow_m_Page_070.tif
59b42e94b37b0b511c8d7e3a16f93631
94a8665c0f4ea6519c3a21e3100fc6e78995a0f2
107010 F20101204_AAARIU ludlow_m_Page_042.jpg
756b972a7e254e536062a1f44b82a91b
4187b795848f55e7a166a7be15170acefcca2662
98118 F20101204_AAARJI ludlow_m_Page_105.jpg
0e6a5457d9f20f301ffc84367d45a3e1
3ccd06c4987f5865130be3299fa2408371530764
F20101204_AAARIV ludlow_m_Page_010.tif
9b2681237fb4640512051b638bf4b942
d00b9803635dbaabc1b0095e06e775e563c66c8b
2226 F20101204_AAARJJ ludlow_m_Page_068.txt
fec030a2a1121327c3f08b2ddb2e82aa
fe9f2419b75497d4422a67c0725bef899a026e83
7130 F20101204_AAARIW ludlow_m_Page_005thm.jpg
3fc8d4e2ffa6086cab36a2698c05f37f
648c5c233afe98bee7ec3b64913774953477f50c
2111 F20101204_AAARJK ludlow_m_Page_032.txt
901c4939889263b36fd32cc3312df213
2ee713df4b816226ebecf0d069865084ad418204
F20101204_AAARIX ludlow_m_Page_018.tif
a9fbbe64d2475f4a6864da31da459541
16bb28cdba37df05008017138a43d796872d831e
1051953 F20101204_AAARKA ludlow_m_Page_103.jp2
50e2a81b81965e41ab7316c48d48e851
5fe61d47b0be7b82b0f290dea4f75617723bf933
1051943 F20101204_AAARJL ludlow_m_Page_093.jp2
2ed10018b8de10983c307ae1fcdde0a7
2c1e0636a9fc222114bb9d778cd8ccf5d0cfc656
33657 F20101204_AAARIY ludlow_m_Page_092.QC.jpg
0466116eeeb2018617c01c470e94ca0e
bee6f612abf794b6df59db08e1e46e94fc5f55a3
2040 F20101204_AAARKB ludlow_m_Page_027.txt
b52590318a5fce9b76a6eccaae71bfbe
cdb8351c6d449adee9d4ef72fa02b846795a00ed
30060 F20101204_AAARJM ludlow_m_Page_089.QC.jpg
cbef5ce2e533ce118f9942f72ef088c8
dea24c7efa792eba51ab43f6a8562dd52393cbd0
2127 F20101204_AAARIZ ludlow_m_Page_035.txt
05748bef16227e0d9cc181a81bdabe33
cc2a8db049269402a36013012059b0d0c45920c0
62408 F20101204_AAARJN ludlow_m_Page_079.jpg
3e2708b755ff6a795677b7ba330830e2
fb04f04eba12e1fd23319392d740c3e01458a4d1
1038095 F20101204_AAARKC ludlow_m_Page_025.jp2
0b7108c969bee9714e961a670e2ac90a
d3865f569157abfafd84a92c0d86819e3c1890cf
2174 F20101204_AAARJO ludlow_m_Page_011.txt
e50404b9c2e18d2b91e35c2f9a0e85d0
b1cacad8116f8af08ff0f2ff47116febd339560d
105795 F20101204_AAARKD ludlow_m_Page_065.jpg
1e86165dd614dfce95d8cb689186c732
fce48c6552eea67216a5073ec4ac2a3c25138a06
55058 F20101204_AAARJP ludlow_m_Page_034.pro
042df58ed9cf553106e7c60338a744cf
1a99115c67f84f6f427c1bebaeee6f5d7ae37a0d
1931 F20101204_AAARKE ludlow_m_Page_099.txt
dcfcbe494591f3ef391d5aa00707b7dc
ae30b2a146023f0b2d0ff2ef1f525d9c64e77220
F20101204_AAARJQ ludlow_m_Page_005.tif
60484786d1d1a8622b6bccb31f4fe796
d6d273ec630773e025433bf3c7e504b26b0ac696
F20101204_AAARKF ludlow_m_Page_100.jp2
bb9270d41d427bef2164ddcf311c766b
1b52b3fd1afa425074e94de2c75bcb347f0839b2
35101 F20101204_AAARJR ludlow_m_Page_088.QC.jpg
bbeb6a87e7c21647b551d90e8f5a687f
2b6f5c90dcb8af5073a5c245dd8e14107b3edcd2
102855 F20101204_AAARKG ludlow_m_Page_063.jpg
4cb2770323052d6d5d0b4d26c7195eb0
9a281215960628666cb2e3c537752856429853c4
8658 F20101204_AAARJS ludlow_m_Page_075thm.jpg
3b15fdba361a73de30fa9ce93ce6b923
899e954f65e6f674eb58b4807ef16fa3f7c499f5
18090 F20101204_AAARKH ludlow_m_Page_050.QC.jpg
e9ab49fa14c4851a31c638351bf457be
139327a2f925d97eb2eb3d2f936edfdaa537679c
1051902 F20101204_AAARJT ludlow_m_Page_070.jp2
47b78c6bd83188305df3a4e6ce493745
149331fbec5a842348f81b09c3f611ffab7d38eb
35955 F20101204_AAARKI ludlow_m_Page_039.QC.jpg
c4323e62563a8a86d9b02d172fc06324
a9b67d6a7ddeb0e5aa70fe26bb0ff5e50c7e037d
58614 F20101204_AAARJU ludlow_m_Page_045.pro
33ce557469da85dc4131fee64b2e10f5
3107778b306ef2ffbe635b7f6a4fc6666fc113d5
97987 F20101204_AAARKJ ludlow_m_Page_038.jpg
2267cb61141a1f668d30a429bbf974ed
71e2f63f3b285116dd95b51606c349b0147afb81
57199 F20101204_AAARJV ludlow_m_Page_102.pro
ba733951e8dcbe4e948731a04c5caaa2
10a6e74aea6d1106cb1d3812d3d55b243b22d7cc
F20101204_AAARKK ludlow_m_Page_044.tif
6c1c9d035163116a1670cd9b549ac187
b1eb97f78b8af7aa5dbf4024c3346873a40d6b1b
9527 F20101204_AAARJW ludlow_m_Page_103thm.jpg
f9844d5b21586eb34778a1d39c0937a1
55910801ee1e1a3cff877ba8d2ab0727565af57a
F20101204_AAARLA ludlow_m_Page_098.tif
83706707d7e31226e4a74706a3217833
3f61a522c41e54e672ececc22baecb4ba333b85b
26415 F20101204_AAARKL ludlow_m_Page_080.QC.jpg
b16f18fb06cd594ad25c08e8481cd049
642e30624e840cb4638de3a5e90d7cccc40c7a07
8816 F20101204_AAARJX ludlow_m_Page_085thm.jpg
37636fa94e0fab294e639166343ebc69
5fdf68bd040dec192a189ebd855b49f74fc59900
8722 F20101204_AAARLB ludlow_m_Page_036thm.jpg
dcf321d9660315e491d17f7ace56e434
b73c8ae6013af71053469801cc742a6730d922ee
34248 F20101204_AAARKM ludlow_m_Page_072.QC.jpg
83568e5fc688e0b4e8cb3a6b60447e1d
c807ba0a33db7ae2e5ddef7c46770f40de173fde
7882 F20101204_AAARJY ludlow_m_Page_038thm.jpg
27f7469d647e7cd0dfe5925837478059
724b0d4c860d4c12a09f284866d4fdac18cb7410
2267 F20101204_AAARLC ludlow_m_Page_031.txt
c05fb46175fbb577d74f5b57319f77ea
ce7c5d6b2fb7954899c4ebcdf2f14f2a699fcd73
1051950 F20101204_AAARKN ludlow_m_Page_065.jp2
412a78d545f27e9db2e6532b638cca47
ca682b036fc7ce1595741cd84af6426e1c898803
45705 F20101204_AAARJZ ludlow_m_Page_089.pro
c96d046ec2e8b5eba85f6968dd6360c0
39f1cd7bd6a4b9a30eee6cff300f22aac051bbfb
57737 F20101204_AAARKO ludlow_m_Page_031.pro
3135bd4e47b27175ed274d1969cc11cb
e1d333e8322503e85b323427015dea209ac888e7
8667 F20101204_AAARLD ludlow_m_Page_086thm.jpg
032f6cd4e848cb119e5c2cdbd3c4a16f
86504bbaf79f28f0575267e855f180e5f28dcdf7
8274 F20101204_AAARKP ludlow_m_Page_037thm.jpg
5908ecfe5dc7ea59a2f921c12e79447a
7fb28671c12d34ceeaad3abc3fda6ceff5c737c1
74805 F20101204_AAARLE ludlow_m_Page_094.jpg
c86157b15318f94353bafb90555c87e9
6d82030e653b7f686634f16f241239a08d0efecd
54518 F20101204_AAARKQ ludlow_m_Page_100.pro
2eecea7e15c3f22191d7b9c9a370ac0b
14328be6caca12f155c327a603b278b28bb8af59
F20101204_AAARLF ludlow_m_Page_047.tif
d65f4767a80942fb4543e86065b520f9
5f61a7dd2e655bc497cb887f677001adfa64e4d0
1051960 F20101204_AAARKR ludlow_m_Page_075.jp2
2659a6866d570695b423647284dd64be
89448b458630c1234d2663b7c625be5ea1f6177e
562 F20101204_AAARLG ludlow_m_Page_007.txt
0992ccf7eedba7d96553bac397bf5a31
7f2e40961b50f36f0935f9fc173d976cb4be3fcd
8261 F20101204_AAARKS ludlow_m_Page_078thm.jpg
5efe7c22ed0fa8cf26e0b595d38dca3a
76c8597659edb994b5a90c32065390c096712214
52002 F20101204_AAARLH ludlow_m_Page_029.pro
5df493e542d9fa1c16d9e93958359803
3ee0124e6b434d56e0d2d0f698b4add6047efa85
51767 F20101204_AAARKT ludlow_m_Page_051.pro
d7027e9407440943cf0a0d7551232881
e939050ae791f2cab9df006b4335b8f9327822cd
51736 F20101204_AAARLI ludlow_m_Page_063.pro
0f8f8be4ba072f8599ad7c144b3917b7
789f18df7ebc422121259447a287edf8320e20bb
53590 F20101204_AAARKU ludlow_m_Page_015.pro
1324f1cb5c986df35cf6c1503501d3ca
945a2f535cab943349a74cad4af3fc7b750287dc
94726 F20101204_AAARLJ ludlow_m_Page_090.jpg
13079372307d3112abab0fdac988af6e
cadb6c0c56bdc6475b58ef93fa251aacf242c592
111996 F20101204_AAARKV ludlow_m_Page_069.jpg
0d4c34b4e7f6d9424e3623a2e8f96e1b
63aa89276f51082cd768d93a85e66d84d52852b3
F20101204_AAARLK ludlow_m_Page_081.tif
29abf8e1cffcd1cafda914ccf77d6d77
c0fb40a30a758c55d559670ca37c49b6b6952365
F20101204_AAARKW ludlow_m_Page_088.tif
067218f8958cdceeb9442968a0c0ac5a
97a22dbe24f069cd86127f858e4bdcaabb6b5369
2230 F20101204_AAARLL ludlow_m_Page_052.txt
e87af088de24f0404881d1d6a73c860d
4b2f001f49afe4852b88fd06516afbf0b3131b9b
1051973 F20101204_AAARKX ludlow_m_Page_077.jp2
990133e1987cb54ceae48ed4e9db1d71
4b6f24ee5e6a5205c32dea48b82a0360a133e639
1051983 F20101204_AAARMA ludlow_m_Page_073.jp2
8981ade76a0f50f6ddaf1d41bfe19d51
d2977d28e3c26c146ebf138fcd86afe0b8db13c2
F20101204_AAARLM ludlow_m_Page_071.tif
465a55f60938a4367eea86440fa531c2
9e94201e4c0d712383cb92d42eba50235a7f2e0d
8644 F20101204_AAARKY ludlow_m_Page_092thm.jpg
b35f3a86851b1bcc5ada32e6aa4571f0
5449498ead3aa18c112b67d71e43484400258d1f
F20101204_AAARMB ludlow_m_Page_061.tif
a7b9fb6eaa7ce819e442c919e60da2dc
f0b2d22f388a0dca37c107e3090d472efca539c8
54822 F20101204_AAARLN ludlow_m_Page_083.pro
d952256c0813d46d67b78264ca12e94e
01a4f50dd706036c4cf6e7543c70b9a67deeb3c3
18641 F20101204_AAARKZ ludlow_m_Page_004.QC.jpg
252cc1b5bb549931b0a9d4f4f84957be
ac6a21f47a27fec03818cf00640f2c7438d3c380
1051971 F20101204_AAARMC ludlow_m_Page_042.jp2
f7593e6105611089d52dc838c4f1a0ad
7d434396acccc142d536071f36a42d463ecd0fd2
F20101204_AAARLO ludlow_m_Page_007.tif
a65cdee3cbd40a4d5c1440759a904692
4736e4c5add7c079173d29eebde14e4eeffd508f
52572 F20101204_AAARMD ludlow_m_Page_049.pro
ee70ab7d688db5683e47c69eb73d8c0c
294ff4750a47faf7f797dc150027912af7ab415c
6025 F20101204_AAARLP ludlow_m_Page_094thm.jpg
ebf8924e456863824140fc0000b644a2
a4266d3c609e828447e10d784083fa2c439cf2d9
52067 F20101204_AAARLQ ludlow_m_Page_037.pro
1b7fba6a11c5cea4ecddbab453081490
e2ace8b4fa409067433df4db179e63f1289493f9
8547 F20101204_AAARME ludlow_m_Page_051thm.jpg
272efe1e9329cdc8e0cd21478cb802fd
ce4f7f759e5c98b03b8b16aef8b75de9cb539c33
35003 F20101204_AAARMF ludlow_m_Page_049.QC.jpg
07cfacadd517104589dff21fa44fb17d
e5007043623773f7e00e3a834fb7418a4d21324f
35811 F20101204_AAARLR ludlow_m_Page_102.QC.jpg
64c7c58f8935eff0ab8a7ba043e3289b
80e7f524f3afc663d7a75a1d4ead5529dd811221
35757 F20101204_AAARMG ludlow_m_Page_036.QC.jpg
e779f02534d7f9abdcebb323847e87c4
8f5230a1361a66f05d19b2934ad8f3d1542747c1
F20101204_AAARLS ludlow_m_Page_022.tif
aac0a5372d4149a78b4945b3769c79a4
f7251b5eeb42dc9a7c29b509ee6445abd0f8c959
F20101204_AAARMH ludlow_m_Page_035.tif
da89a605743c2c0f254c7b94e1f3c155
ba5181ecc16748a66352caf3623b640b2baf5f65
56389 F20101204_AAARLT ludlow_m_Page_036.pro
74107065b4c3a96294a5c2e6d0395bf9
123d46169fb8b524f39a29f195b11c7c18a2a0dd
33944 F20101204_AAARMI ludlow_m_Page_085.QC.jpg
48cd1e61be0d5d07e57a82a41aa6b37e
06329328dd1a2cd8603b18cf04d3bd7084468c2d
F20101204_AAARLU ludlow_m_Page_099.tif
cab22e8e06ad38ef8f74d6ed6d06d7a3
98404acd54648b5dd8fe07d93357267295ae0b68
32220 F20101204_AAARMJ ludlow_m_Page_084.QC.jpg
fc95dc9d20790f8dc8aae45874251ac7
ab812e8edd0652655a5dde630df6a217dccb61c7
35525 F20101204_AAARLV ludlow_m_Page_030.QC.jpg
561e12a60e6f48d95dc7d8767ff22e4a
48a13b85ef5d46c7e1d071c760de2f03ce345e4b
870144 F20101204_AAARMK ludlow_m_Page_106.jp2
b2fbfe9c59134a1e83afc479f32803ab
4eaa0cb6e1ea464ea123e7be49715cd9101d579c
36669 F20101204_AAARLW ludlow_m_Page_052.QC.jpg
586b1d1545eaf6d9546b91ca34ba36f5
4905c8b47fc7d35a2aee83dc5248726e1a0f171f
F20101204_AAARNA ludlow_m_Page_015.tif
14816ddc537c8ce4d7bddab8a198c776
ff3387cf3ac64161ac41a38ef6d48340493153cc
1051972 F20101204_AAARML ludlow_m_Page_038.jp2
0e20faa1f51da4c0976e673de91a34de
a65c8644d00cdf026b8314d71c7a129ddcf3428b
2888 F20101204_AAARLX ludlow_m_Page_098.txt
b2ae6a193ee0650bab6bd014d281c7fe
ee975be9a04ad1f1dca48f22276ce9d4ea573582
55055 F20101204_AAARNB ludlow_m_Page_075.pro
76421a41a80a8296c905c563984859ef
5d2282d21a96413ce69b9f6f4f1e0904a8dfafae
1051921 F20101204_AAARMM ludlow_m_Page_067.jp2
70b85f04dcb311cf4ef56057fb0d61f3
bed85ea3427f55b31f68418c3cdbcb7afbae445e
105780 F20101204_AAARLY ludlow_m_Page_040.jpg
3616d390dd0d1ff59e050df2c8565578
36bb19a8df32d6100205ac7b6aa34d224daa9f3b
92838 F20101204_AAARNC ludlow_m_Page_080.jpg
96c695b5f20501d7bbc88db41695a68f
b6dbc350fe187a1bcda3f5ddc37f7eafd1c20496
111023 F20101204_AAARMN ludlow_m_Page_067.jpg
1e96528f694c048996a473d286ace933
73c5323fa6c80c1d4334f778c914c7acac44d35a
118819 F20101204_AAARLZ ludlow_m_Page_104.jpg
353b3bdc3f116cc842b9b9d238ada130
8f8d26b26469fcb5bc2118952f12f1e448c4400f
2192 F20101204_AAARND ludlow_m_Page_021.txt
3b9544085b881110b6b7550379d4f41f
a54c1a37a0ebcb4ea51596a7ad474bfa265458ea
F20101204_AAARMO ludlow_m_Page_006.jp2
4666117fd95d8498fb5100d80d945cc0
3a99e5830631b9a4bcb1837ba1ecb109032d021b
38149 F20101204_AAARNE ludlow_m_Page_106.pro
d6ace7436f6ea2b46071804275074571
e86ec539f8c434a359f12ebe6151e11c7c97d831
F20101204_AAARMP ludlow_m_Page_073.tif
4c0a3fdb8fe1f1623f2deb5190f143d6
b756f74977a1d900feac0fff455a8573bd37f834
49425 F20101204_AAARMQ ludlow_m_Page_092.pro
9f68ec2686eb7c20d005bbc8ab567b73
b04b33fe3a64111ef2856476eb37f2c6ea61ed3b
27498 F20101204_AAARNF ludlow_m_Page_001.jpg
48ea5bd2bd9d977207a89cd8fffb56d6
c987dc9bffb51dbe9026f7dd91fa3033c78f9476
32158 F20101204_AAARMR ludlow_m_Page_008.QC.jpg
21fc5af243bc507d1bfb3f79f73a3225
889f9f215c780f8863945fa9f09e67b794ffe679
51670 F20101204_AAARNG ludlow_m_Page_081.pro
7b92e21328d0956223b5590c190de966
ce3af5361ad62b062ddb4df974733e414b5a6caf
33391 F20101204_AAARMS ludlow_m_Page_019.QC.jpg
cad59af2afd5e57cd2aa288b14536c03
1bae732892ee581c66cb7becb1af6675f93b3ea8
F20101204_AAARNH ludlow_m_Page_087.tif
2e55a652a0b1aca439a21354b59d0c4d
407f8d4022f35e6cabb0815f20bc6ba12e6ba005
114594 F20101204_AAARMT ludlow_m_Page_077.jpg
9eaa721dc62468e5aedb8dc8f118b920
ec0eb903f21e520ceb318c5044d3548555515610
31458 F20101204_AAARNI ludlow_m_Page_090.QC.jpg
67c0daf30f99c3a5be3a99a6c6becf9e
fb4a04dd63616cd2b38959cded68ee8e5c14d32e
549 F20101204_AAARMU ludlow_m_Page_002thm.jpg
2207744fa0b7143cf56471f84f95b090
d9d50309640c121e9e06bd8e7be277846045aae6
32953 F20101204_AAARNJ ludlow_m_Page_014.QC.jpg
cf6bd35d80d60867c48dae0b91ad9134
1b14650cd7c055fc367a01a3e9b46e73a6267061
1051944 F20101204_AAARMV ludlow_m_Page_066.jp2
d242eab03ba05cc906f9253637010f2a
4c5bbba2653ba9e55f696d06d7e845e7d77b0df9
92275 F20101204_AAARNK ludlow_m_Page_060.jpg
617d6141b6108a2709c13268c575b01e
94a95f19b3313880679e4ef7def236224e32d649
1051915 F20101204_AAARMW ludlow_m_Page_056.jp2
214d061193d20f5b7940853be5195156
9871f273a83182c58174813df13c265d1359d529
55199 F20101204_AAARNL ludlow_m_Page_017.pro
2e1b2999b8e9af33ab5a16629adaea2f
a8b560e9fa7fa034afe1734639e9414fb73ed493
2044 F20101204_AAARMX ludlow_m_Page_033.txt
72d3dbff63722c7a5a85e3f873bd0bc7
3f06eaa30d35bd444a3963166b913361f988d47c
100865 F20101204_AAAROA ludlow_m_Page_008.jpg
1be1b0cf18960004a44e9d390c81ab6f
cd838bd36a62b8bcb083b7658c91a4a16c108a73
54752 F20101204_AAARNM ludlow_m_Page_067.pro
edb0f997acafc57df8956b13c86f2eac
d29c6d156f137c2b1519d7fef6925a64f2006f13
109075 F20101204_AAARMY ludlow_m_Page_011.jpg
f292d5982a0dfcd9b3b52ec2e024708b
3d593e777403d927345d3bcba75fde752031e532
103044 F20101204_AAAROB ludlow_m_Page_009.jpg
53fd004b5b6c606efa054999c8ed5733
f9feba71c2c684704acecdfc1ccda927b0d97663
108552 F20101204_AAARNN ludlow_m_Page_083.jpg
89dac459734311a13d22cd98aca4a234
8a8fb6784b69fd7fba06257f52ffc31e792f6aed
F20101204_AAARMZ ludlow_m_Page_023.tif
e9719af64fe9d9f79bed8af266559b4e
057fed39cb43cce10f3cb34742b29ceb9f21b674
108612 F20101204_AAAROC ludlow_m_Page_010.jpg
3c1a1c50a1d5a7b0485934e663a642a1
f88ac898fa2c725dc486c0cd9135cb276e3fcd35
7828 F20101204_AAARNO ludlow_m_Page_018thm.jpg
35c6f3c3305cf638842cc03c6ae468e0
a334e56eece3f20853bc34a2870a6e2a40d3ea5f
111136 F20101204_AAAROD ludlow_m_Page_012.jpg
b83429a79d2d9031966b87d33980d5af
50043d397a63abc9d78b08a7190618ec21f837f7
F20101204_AAARNP ludlow_m_Page_001.tif
3092f1feea17eae23f8c0f2ee05cb369
552b11c629280ef721e2086c81537d829d23cfa1
78149 F20101204_AAAROE ludlow_m_Page_013.jpg
f514be84e778c2dcbdd3304cf9872830
f669cbc8697d1a2baf25467331ae1d1f512a0bab
8642 F20101204_AAARNQ ludlow_m_Page_035thm.jpg
2ccaf3df4f4521c353e936439804ae69
f9f72dea11cbd198c7387f4a5e7bd9a00e38c20b
101528 F20101204_AAAROF ludlow_m_Page_014.jpg
ede1e2016fe83b60580c2f3c72ecd67b
c99d9fd6117f2ce6bb025472192128f670df5866
123557 F20101204_AAARNR UFE0022147_00001.mets FULL
cbbb698c05d3a084a17d8e94f5135250
d9258b49c215ba2f60723e518cec1db89d8c508d
110225 F20101204_AAAROG ludlow_m_Page_015.jpg
7b60400579afa308eb084df86d02a97a
f67c4c71ba5d681c766639366b7258b027896dbf
106964 F20101204_AAAROH ludlow_m_Page_016.jpg
4a53b3cfc289c20bf547203ffe6edfcf
0bcbd33cc4cb0a9a0fdaa1171c8530a3ed9bebbf
3913 F20101204_AAARNU ludlow_m_Page_002.jpg
460354e64943294138dfd4ffc920c60a
940e5751f3001f2bfed9dfd49825d44b77e6fdff
109636 F20101204_AAAROI ludlow_m_Page_017.jpg
884e54c7b1611fb94ae67797b8ee15d1
3e009a03cc1adff428ff2c38bb16b973ba67094d
4658 F20101204_AAARNV ludlow_m_Page_003.jpg
eb3ffe8255302d22e8b66efa32168d69
7e4ca5c5b0a2b995c2bafdf767ae12032323afa0
99253 F20101204_AAAROJ ludlow_m_Page_018.jpg
1f62066500d7d6339f538714fcf2126e
f4aaa8e04cb5aeead691af98b0c48f587cfd45f8
59004 F20101204_AAARNW ludlow_m_Page_004.jpg
df254a4bf22ae4af2f7eb577a053096a
fad86da48e7e67dbdaf240a2b5f466e842adc6a0
102315 F20101204_AAAROK ludlow_m_Page_019.jpg
694ada0c3ee5dff0c4a2e9528b23ce79
a0d2645d356f14d50b4b87c86d3d7df1dc4898be
129761 F20101204_AAARNX ludlow_m_Page_005.jpg
d007a04f9973b9720f3cf4fd684d8bb5
45e68df7605d00277fb926843d809b41fd35272a
111353 F20101204_AAARPA ludlow_m_Page_043.jpg
343376410918f853d4cb373e918f49cf
8422dfbf5d4861745826ba1b9cc88f24909e389c
105004 F20101204_AAAROL ludlow_m_Page_020.jpg
ea12357afe6c9e8cb233ab4dc119edc2
2ce90d45af63aea0d4df1daf4cf1c5f9bcbb255a
124897 F20101204_AAARNY ludlow_m_Page_006.jpg
6b6b5e7fbdf5295ff71105fb29aba37b
71038e8f16b859874eb1bfc503cf53d624c4a050
107600 F20101204_AAARPB ludlow_m_Page_044.jpg
25a3d3198466d981998d3f2635000f94
586757ceefee7e15e0362835d1250c7f6d544f4b
112841 F20101204_AAAROM ludlow_m_Page_021.jpg
31be2eabe9bc8ed649579b707fb30e5c
6301569c60495d18c7f77a01c5c18f86d50a1dd8
24857 F20101204_AAARNZ ludlow_m_Page_007.jpg
d8004069846c242149de8820170322b3
c74fae5f3b721da1b9dba276add6ad8cb6762ad2
111820 F20101204_AAARPC ludlow_m_Page_045.jpg
75fbb413a78522f2ddf2a11467a29b02
8411116d5ec8bbf40f934e64ab3931fb55ad20d7
119626 F20101204_AAARON ludlow_m_Page_022.jpg
c23f6637dc0591594f2cf477b2415034
f3c84d5d656748d52a64586e231511bae76ede3a
98584 F20101204_AAARPD ludlow_m_Page_047.jpg
dcfa28f402b6012753fb7f1741c9ad56
fd4a4ed9a718c804dbf214e581219b775f6c34bc
108257 F20101204_AAAROO ludlow_m_Page_023.jpg
2adb9c6fa66da14dd392cbb25eaa1c51
3a317f4c73a159e9d8c19794347091aabb692c14
106254 F20101204_AAARPE ludlow_m_Page_049.jpg
cc596cac96ebc1f6fbabff541541b544
fa3a2df904f5c52a9b2c2624d4e33cf790fe7e2d
94990 F20101204_AAAROP ludlow_m_Page_025.jpg
21d3256ec610ab4478dbc83b1323403d
98b7f321f31947f1fd3d4cfb747fdd930ba1b67e
54926 F20101204_AAARPF ludlow_m_Page_050.jpg
4e1373a3186543496ccbd522e594fc38
aa39ca4b04a3b433996547893bee46b8f6ea31a3
110201 F20101204_AAAROQ ludlow_m_Page_026.jpg
7bb34a62170db7f43f5d687f773919a1
bcd23cb468d610a3773de370f868009bf6d92709
106341 F20101204_AAARPG ludlow_m_Page_051.jpg
a787568d961611a699826eaf8a3f9c6e
370c0994342617d376c22e9c4985899228faf815
106818 F20101204_AAAROR ludlow_m_Page_027.jpg
fa3e98c609ada41e9b6174b3192eac41
4fa5f7a549e393baffd0b2873a3ca3876668cedc
107130 F20101204_AAAROS ludlow_m_Page_029.jpg
05e4dea1558542ddd4841d3c12d9275b
fc893bfb22853f6a7c446736ba5e97f4d1aabc75
113398 F20101204_AAARPH ludlow_m_Page_052.jpg
1d693cfc3d8caabb880da6a854e92c92
47a6f066632a693337b9493c31b444e4a3fd7ea9
107878 F20101204_AAAROT ludlow_m_Page_030.jpg
3bd0f76fa7a543ada2828b5a19740c93
2986c5ff22f3686b5e04f3f218e6376229543b0a
119185 F20101204_AAARPI ludlow_m_Page_053.jpg
8356221406230a964baa6edfabdc8893
d4f52a8d09e6315cc431ddb9fd4dab17510f17ce
106169 F20101204_AAAROU ludlow_m_Page_033.jpg
930bea0239abe2d2cf0c294399944625
3e1eaae436e41f904401b048cab24c3a1c7823f1
109628 F20101204_AAARPJ ludlow_m_Page_054.jpg
a5ce5a2f782715c1fea22a21219d90d6
60253d41ac9c7e5fcd29453f53fd8f5af2166b17
111122 F20101204_AAAROV ludlow_m_Page_034.jpg
82e5a474c97dd8314ddcc359d8f87b10
748e9251f868ecb3f80bf058d3b72795a980d5a2
109342 F20101204_AAARPK ludlow_m_Page_055.jpg
a675e9a85ca36b649087336001a77b35
1227717a5f26cd5fc0d2b1cdcaaf2e2091fb73bc
108851 F20101204_AAAROW ludlow_m_Page_035.jpg
329d7f472b19e22778a1ce405b61c7dd
bacd36304a1bcdb208f28e35c5b7ca580d7d266e
106840 F20101204_AAARQA ludlow_m_Page_082.jpg
fc5d6461a4b2dbf8f9760da5a3db5d96
5dd130b03766ee2c1943312b7efd6a4edc3859c5
104558 F20101204_AAARPL ludlow_m_Page_056.jpg
54f8136af6bd0b6cf569c9aaa84eb325
49953d8a9bce5a9c761cdb50a4364653eaa1d155
102112 F20101204_AAAROX ludlow_m_Page_037.jpg
7f9bd3872c6af0cb451ac4c3e9f2cb2a
83859b8b5ff5766c7da8fc5ce3cef572fb04abf2
97766 F20101204_AAARQB ludlow_m_Page_084.jpg
e48be17b234857de5b135137b50a0f09
bbc2c1162ed6e2826c6f15eef6279bbfe7772d48
117981 F20101204_AAARPM ludlow_m_Page_057.jpg
57dc89c5e3ae62adeca234c757ad724d
8d11383fb82c84f59f8350df2bd9c7a3076a9f62
112632 F20101204_AAAROY ludlow_m_Page_039.jpg
370e275b233e4c0208905f299e110506
bdccebbdfbf9105e0f4cab95fb82c27d482e097c
105910 F20101204_AAARQC ludlow_m_Page_085.jpg
1d5807aa6c666a62f9c727e92fc57949
800780375e449cffa61bb5dfe7e2209e11dfcfff
106034 F20101204_AAARPN ludlow_m_Page_058.jpg
51b622ad222db1addca3e3bf04f183f6
6e168265b714e1457f9aec7e46ba0d3e20340de9
114592 F20101204_AAAROZ ludlow_m_Page_041.jpg
a1ddd0084c78e6a9b50c1ac9e250a6d1
4aafa8a06dc21f697778a86f875e2e0c411251b6
102783 F20101204_AAARQD ludlow_m_Page_086.jpg
9e2d2c8c32f1eb9810cbff7c7c7f846f
cb8d5749e422c951702b81dfae5c9e95cbe686a8
100439 F20101204_AAARPO ludlow_m_Page_059.jpg
c14bfde26d955ce4e23ba3a6667a3e3f
4ca8970787819ef990cbb686ed88d9b7c01d16c1
109630 F20101204_AAARQE ludlow_m_Page_088.jpg
3a53fd031a93bb53e92d7251e50863d7
c1f8ef069c643221db747f6442eea1ceb93215ef
110373 F20101204_AAARPP ludlow_m_Page_062.jpg
7a60fd72ab8c5274d1e94cc6e5314959
4734af1be4363ec5931a3056e8b16f011115b4c4
90821 F20101204_AAARQF ludlow_m_Page_089.jpg
bec71b500d79abe9b84598a0b0a4badd
4094dae78fdc7dc8f744966fc9a2dbb61d783de5
108458 F20101204_AAARPQ ludlow_m_Page_064.jpg
fa4a00d08ca1e132010e6a4a474bd1e2
4d0c71d24a2c36037f4d5c130224bded1fcea48c
101630 F20101204_AAARQG ludlow_m_Page_091.jpg
e679ec22fc0d0f4d23e06b3879fdf004
4b045799942439de6e0a87a7b4b824491a7a726c
113832 F20101204_AAARPR ludlow_m_Page_066.jpg
600117e525cc837cadabbea93a9d72ac
a6754babb3888c7b637eb0beee46d23e0ba8cc20
106035 F20101204_AAARQH ludlow_m_Page_093.jpg
bfef1451462b90f7594f3af8df025042
7f4305ef95b2f81da9ecf60f8175016c91034bff
114269 F20101204_AAARPS ludlow_m_Page_068.jpg
622601f35657430b477a8e766128d244
40df03be51e854bef394dda5e3150e7f6c04ae5a
102597 F20101204_AAARPT ludlow_m_Page_070.jpg
8e37cdf2232d083a27e124c6cb0996d5
e7b20aa99cba66e15a12cf602ae4b5ade91dab4a
59615 F20101204_AAARQI ludlow_m_Page_096.jpg
b1dd3a8d36e682a0e2b90b841e2600a6
a88682a032a285f9c079d99846d50aaeccbc1ff4
105612 F20101204_AAARPU ludlow_m_Page_071.jpg
a6f929977621ab54d1de56426e0aae65
1f46a824301f098d9bdb4bc08cfabaf6ecd7b540
52160 F20101204_AAARQJ ludlow_m_Page_097.jpg
a97074fe5678224f3c7b75a0ffda5662
c5bde66a4b1cadd095cc30e4c10dd4dd4d4de563
110541 F20101204_AAARPV ludlow_m_Page_073.jpg
5b121f4799fb99d06cdda363b49e2811
80fdea14cbaa8fda73a73b4fbff6de1995474780
97434 F20101204_AAARQK ludlow_m_Page_099.jpg
bc931a1bca8d7068dc9cdf978fa02afc
8b619db28833263c210d46139284e71e6766f3e5
103496 F20101204_AAARPW ludlow_m_Page_074.jpg
be672fa2111bdb7ed5eb9b062224f813
76fd40bd9971e689bb7560e2edaac858b5917d83
106785 F20101204_AAARQL ludlow_m_Page_100.jpg
677514c5e09bd0721a629e53d75df5e6
edfbc417774d2da66bb582dcceb5c78cadc9472c
107356 F20101204_AAARPX ludlow_m_Page_076.jpg
d3b839fdd38cdfaed4f5d8704fb22b23
04508a6d61393683ebb12b1c6d207dae10a4d7d0
863697 F20101204_AAARRA ludlow_m_Page_013.jp2
496b04545f029101d15f493470a8125c
b2bedc42baac42cf3378742c4982789ddf551c8e
42028 F20101204_AAARQM ludlow_m_Page_101.jpg
9fa7643a9920afdce1c50348ee1641ed
9870109d15f0f69430036deba0f3be677b0ddc26
104277 F20101204_AAARPY ludlow_m_Page_078.jpg
42a440dce5df24b91fd082a2f2b9109f
872c94b0ffc1423e7cd34b9c4e86fbc05102c097
1051967 F20101204_AAARRB ludlow_m_Page_014.jp2
c05b200c5b3a98675b316af3bec57d91
c90e2102d13095e579eb4a0b1d9171df5762810a
123509 F20101204_AAARQN ludlow_m_Page_102.jpg
6bcf57f23a7d7e7721f4c7841b8acdab
f7e36cfac24cd49f7829b88a37cd8a23f96c8524
105321 F20101204_AAARPZ ludlow_m_Page_081.jpg
41aecf6806fdaa6595c37c1d932f8b3d
1281e18b4e81e9a4c78b8f06ccb97507e8b3efbb
1051977 F20101204_AAARRC ludlow_m_Page_015.jp2
54806b4304b2ff236f570d08263725d8
008901872c7f46cd51aaaef667cee051867b6af0
1051956 F20101204_AAARRD ludlow_m_Page_016.jp2
320761baecdfc753c47ab42f47859830
d643bb6e82b3f49d67cadef0399368fe7f60dfd0
127204 F20101204_AAARQO ludlow_m_Page_103.jpg
570701ef0239e62a32689237f4f9d4c8
ef3a1b0a63ad439171d962663a949b0db46164dc
F20101204_AAARRE ludlow_m_Page_017.jp2
50e0d43c3d7bb237a09d33874f12a6b6
1584d0b430fb9ca5439153e177ee6e05a980c9a3
81055 F20101204_AAARQP ludlow_m_Page_106.jpg
eb4057217f564076b0f951db13987f61
279193458d267c5d8f49c1725779ab54bdf76282
1051961 F20101204_AAARRF ludlow_m_Page_018.jp2
5a2ac8b662517e1cdbeb5f2fdc2d21a5
5486904eab97456dec0948e5a1de4653dd4956b7
263442 F20101204_AAARQQ ludlow_m_Page_001.jp2
0369c92cf7843ec5c2d31007798eef6f
9578b97c7f487a166dd25e43267c9f4759e59d98
1051919 F20101204_AAARRG ludlow_m_Page_019.jp2
ca9f7d0b5a1c4ae424edca3563f2db35
ca8bf4389d51788cb3e09307d48eb0ebc6e895d0
24821 F20101204_AAARQR ludlow_m_Page_002.jp2
0e66fc96ddd00b2ae037efc44a5552a9
ff9daf57a682c4896e32e992d8cbaddf532cabf8
F20101204_AAARRH ludlow_m_Page_021.jp2
66f054c5bdfa7335453facd40db523f0
a99b80746aa250c9bf1acc8f962dae66a5733a57
37327 F20101204_AAARQS ludlow_m_Page_003.jp2
7069019fec39059032ae9a9558373154
c956ffce4e55a9547a28b66f24b63e0b714d7629
F20101204_AAARRI ludlow_m_Page_022.jp2
4e110f2e02d6790560eccb1e89f78ad8
41e19d0f39b42efbdfc7e977b3964036f192b1b6
625513 F20101204_AAARQT ludlow_m_Page_004.jp2
cc4e4c4f8b41d5c3d773452654036f87
48dbd2d60a39316fb4875f93f104168433efa8e2
1051898 F20101204_AAARQU ludlow_m_Page_005.jp2
c1371220ba75775c161be341dde25b7c
3e227bb742a1685256faf5923d7c3812826d7ce9
1051981 F20101204_AAARRJ ludlow_m_Page_023.jp2
d326c3460d02a77afbbf03b152f01a7e
60cbf7685cb76e9ee310279ffd0e2ff76bb42800
1051963 F20101204_AAARQV ludlow_m_Page_008.jp2
b667e9df01010a38a4b2d049b0d256ca
abad54e116850d274f8ee1f8b15983d3a39dbaeb
1051978 F20101204_AAARRK ludlow_m_Page_024.jp2
04514498ba763c41b50e16420b8b4b59
874ed0e81e344943be2da80a47d5b9f4323653b3
1051925 F20101204_AAARQW ludlow_m_Page_009.jp2
bffb96bf1f8f8a9fffa14657d6e00e8e
581eaccc67c728aa1e81e26e7dff772818a4213a
F20101204_AAARSA ludlow_m_Page_045.jp2
4e5d8e9ede8061db329053118d7e490a
bb799b7bedc4b132b3096c2c2d35a986f62d8938
1051946 F20101204_AAARRL ludlow_m_Page_026.jp2
dc88fac56bfa24ef4fea792255f7eb73
d6b8146f7d8e1351799ea33cd950cd2b989e09df
1051985 F20101204_AAARQX ludlow_m_Page_010.jp2
cbe8dbfffd026acbc2b7793e59b00a85
36cb27c530cb7a3dd5c1e224e34bd6cdf29f7b52
F20101204_AAARSB ludlow_m_Page_046.jp2
c16abedfbe6fd5a1fa847c67acb925f3
15c09f5de97aff9408bbcf081ad70329139d56c9
F20101204_AAARRM ludlow_m_Page_027.jp2
bc94faefe90bee02acdde8130486e2bb
3461ee4411bac7dd59f3b0162ae735f3094839be
1051947 F20101204_AAARQY ludlow_m_Page_011.jp2
00362d8fc783cadb673c8e74988d9181
cf7c1bea26a3fe6fb5ca10d9cb2ddc8a2c983213
1051966 F20101204_AAARSC ludlow_m_Page_047.jp2
1d425b639d602f6d94470873779540cd
a1f60a3735c71b430b41442e180deb283a5c6b44
1051952 F20101204_AAARRN ludlow_m_Page_028.jp2
cf853a2c9f8f77f9fbf3f64b42fc46b8
913ee2114b6954d8a3e81ac4780bb245705da6fa
1051979 F20101204_AAARQZ ludlow_m_Page_012.jp2
7c26e37ca4461e653af200cf73101fe2
7463751c8cb8e7d8752d776d74853b38c5e0010a
1051965 F20101204_AAARSD ludlow_m_Page_049.jp2
d894a7dcc7339c2f647e7978333aac28
f8cfbd90bbcf57110817ef7c377dcfa908ca0a99
F20101204_AAARRO ludlow_m_Page_029.jp2
b55a55325c3b6f2d088e595a2ec853cf
3a2adc17950243e0902d6ce5e7dcf458120ecd46
583036 F20101204_AAARSE ludlow_m_Page_050.jp2
0209cea6cdbebb09bfd95a24759a8493
44fd85ef3f1b8e818ea2abebf8f87ed02df37094
F20101204_AAARRP ludlow_m_Page_030.jp2
c9f1a86d03f12f4074fb149951ce3d92
2b08b51883e318d1e270efd405ea715d97a5b643
1051976 F20101204_AAARSF ludlow_m_Page_051.jp2
9b191bff68a35dfe0b4b89510d058a4d
085696a540e84414f5955fa369c902bf37534c43
F20101204_AAARRQ ludlow_m_Page_032.jp2
ca64f13f29c17d14a43cafb1597d81b4
ba1e3c2e294200c46990dc9d319e2035a1eaaad9
1051974 F20101204_AAARSG ludlow_m_Page_052.jp2
541b96e177bad6b9e5e69be0aa3c4aea
44cd58a7751a69fc68f40be7a802e43fb6aa905a
1051982 F20101204_AAARRR ludlow_m_Page_034.jp2
6f5b73fb47b92ba6154f170c92fb34f2
4683f4e4620f2c72bc06758d3a3dc82b2841bd81
1051984 F20101204_AAARSH ludlow_m_Page_053.jp2
000f98306d226ea6d977cd27b9bf3560
67211aa4aebeba03226b6f0054297735684ac621
F20101204_AAARRS ludlow_m_Page_035.jp2
99783f7239287be3fc8b9ddfe17bcd9b
af5c45a8e7dbc3525a0d663fecff2bc29967ec11
F20101204_AAARSI ludlow_m_Page_054.jp2
f199f156cc1207b6ea220c5158ec017a
87848770a64713b37d9764af7acf0dfc56056753
F20101204_AAARRT ludlow_m_Page_036.jp2
e27f56ac13b93201e1f3dbe72d55b3be
ffd590ba39e770cc59a144c7d693fad4a95c3537
1051949 F20101204_AAARSJ ludlow_m_Page_055.jp2
4a26461bfcf5b31777b1c082b5870f46
54e682a0e84a40fb0f1b0656061702386f9de5c2
F20101204_AAARRU ludlow_m_Page_037.jp2
79611a618f8939e7fedfa61ae1be4509
6035b269f9e03f4f7f51b643983b8a86c2aa2f0f
1051928 F20101204_AAARRV ludlow_m_Page_039.jp2
2048143f42f65c30660046251fa5cbb5
90f638074c62a4e6ec3bee8cc8c86cd4f3109cec
F20101204_AAARSK ludlow_m_Page_057.jp2
23fcc5b774f4380d07c2c51f39611d53
3a5b065a52271718f0b172c0aedc7ab082fa7b20
1051911 F20101204_AAARRW ludlow_m_Page_040.jp2
a41604f209ea8412c28ccd0b20be4cab
f4fd6d3716b8a6496bdb274c8acb8fb347eb0dd2
1051942 F20101204_AAARSL ludlow_m_Page_058.jp2
271eaa39702c957db92c59d3c480a604
22fcb48c5738a18320d82e0dd45a53db1d347757
F20101204_AAARRX ludlow_m_Page_041.jp2
2537067f7a4b00988289186ae9facabc
50fb29e2044803dd366f80e5935a27eaf01f99ae
1051892 F20101204_AAARTA ludlow_m_Page_081.jp2
20009f5eebf87686014163da2c3bb415
69eb3f59e2b28acc405904686048b3e7fd98ed22
1051936 F20101204_AAARSM ludlow_m_Page_059.jp2
fd90c27bc909b569d084ad30f207ed3f
50d9bf4e7fe3a6b18349643427ee36cdc49e95d8
F20101204_AAARRY ludlow_m_Page_043.jp2
5ce8a9e4c5e905905429018e2bf16b00
9370482c08d232a628dd96adacd1b6c66d4669da
F20101204_AAARTB ludlow_m_Page_082.jp2
b3935bedb72b1027133abf04fc51d324
80641ce6305932b8c0c7d655cb3ac1838041d7b8
1008843 F20101204_AAARSN ludlow_m_Page_060.jp2
fb7bc31cc59de5a39a9bb574406e0433
5b701561e71f15f93fe3520e539c8c01bbd0e580
F20101204_AAARRZ ludlow_m_Page_044.jp2
a372cff863fa298940c246b6142b1500
2eebded9ad9f1ed171ddee0948951c7868e7689d
F20101204_AAARTC ludlow_m_Page_083.jp2
da5c1b7c3afc8699510e718247794ebd
233f219ca18ea7916f5cc5e865936e65e97cb0ea
F20101204_AAARSO ludlow_m_Page_061.jp2
239833c47b584889dd7324df7893d0e6
d3563582c971d4ab16fefae8d24b46a1fe09aeba
F20101204_AAARTD ludlow_m_Page_084.jp2
436a4ef3959ff784db0d81a5c7f9adb1
3fc48d76343255f5b0632eed0a96ecc19fc056f3
1051941 F20101204_AAARSP ludlow_m_Page_062.jp2
c9cd4aecaaffbb6fcfcac7e5b35ff08e
3835ab3adcbc0335c6eb24b0d47e567f202bd745
1051969 F20101204_AAARTE ludlow_m_Page_085.jp2
b0ca8238698802d363d86e2c417af851
132d85e269b8ccc572247dd5641cbeb812463826
F20101204_AAARSQ ludlow_m_Page_063.jp2
36a6f9b0b60da08de1685699ec98481f
051853abb39fa332997d25a7a2e35f3782c78504
1051954 F20101204_AAARTF ludlow_m_Page_086.jp2
d47b2baf20913c7c230242503056e080
c94d6d441682ebdfcc028952f36fb96072317ded
F20101204_AAARSR ludlow_m_Page_064.jp2
c36cdabafee7e5a697ba76b590b1e5d9
4b55fc12cdb32563e67038aa6b8efb6f48eec8a6
F20101204_AAARTG ludlow_m_Page_087.jp2
c17d33e569a3e362bbd83e7dc6d93e1f
3753c905628e7e4b28859c240c3d758e86f47395
F20101204_AAARSS ludlow_m_Page_068.jp2
f0d0e5df4c31a32b06070c56cbbd621a
2569cafce10a00862b21e8431fa74c466e295755
F20101204_AAARTH ludlow_m_Page_088.jp2
e9aa804063ca9418be20c685fd91c4a2
3bbace4e03a8e2042873e0dcca3a8397849b1a86
F20101204_AAARST ludlow_m_Page_071.jp2
abd397ac7d1fdf2b49ef12185e6a000d
1f27cab74f5478b4d2bbbe42469db96b3c3434c0
997386 F20101204_AAARTI ludlow_m_Page_089.jp2
a431392acde1f164d2f3492229c4d977
a666587f572661cedbd099f525dcd8a924a9c425
F20101204_AAARSU ludlow_m_Page_072.jp2
3bf03f627a44f4dd35f5943c08979ae8
3efc4230844b778698f93176f1261edcbf955e07
F20101204_AAARTJ ludlow_m_Page_092.jp2
78d6c54fad24b6ba1f52b2e9f557a10b
6c0095368d371cbcd0c29a32a5b65a4f7aca9925
F20101204_AAARSV ludlow_m_Page_074.jp2
6b192bd581d46b95c5ec09f7d5eb66f1
f477813cbf9c05d51f3cac8dfafd880a6a4a468e
936242 F20101204_AAARTK ludlow_m_Page_095.jp2
0cb69d55fe1fe7f548a73df097e0544e
1ca9efbcb422290c36c3a86697aaebf307c3916b
1051970 F20101204_AAARSW ludlow_m_Page_076.jp2
a3272ba9251f2a338df1790a400ecc22
cb15546dd9ad37307b8622825f07aed6f6f2f23d
F20101204_AAARSX ludlow_m_Page_078.jp2
c39e3bff07110ff86ae939e3410ee5b4
04ba6ef0054f755092feaeed7e9e32beb6371d4f
F20101204_AAARUA ludlow_m_Page_019.tif
339ceb1e48ec08df175dce7410b65088
6da9e5230d2ec3b45f9bd8662f15ba5b200eeb51
1032596 F20101204_AAARTL ludlow_m_Page_096.jp2
89da78dc3c5c3bc97456494b0f85bf93
f7eb0198d04ccb9389bf8ca11a71436405a05883
672648 F20101204_AAARSY ludlow_m_Page_079.jp2
44c4250da6ea79d83a3191175f4f2564
98a3834eb51e57f2eeb9b4fa723f1382859cfddd
F20101204_AAARUB ludlow_m_Page_020.tif
c1ba8cb542c7181bde083b2f9e36f572
cbd08d7d9e19b3bbcfd43a1296fdfa780b2d4f9b
574160 F20101204_AAARTM ludlow_m_Page_097.jp2
e26452cd73f38e97f3bbd23b2e34eeb3
725ca99dae9b3f1d0142fafb3fe1a402867fb566
1002290 F20101204_AAARSZ ludlow_m_Page_080.jp2
6e4d8fad158af54ea49df63aeb36a361
65dd00966768a8ff7d8adf5b6720b7070cdb29d0
F20101204_AAARUC ludlow_m_Page_021.tif
4ae3a32f84de2c8d162bffe36c3fff2d
b3dbccb8709f9cff3b4c2e7d2be4d4f44a8470d9
F20101204_AAARTN ludlow_m_Page_098.jp2
99b7e0e121bf32d5d0ac8fc73e1fa516
40542f4f8ae17e883891b48a4a911e5307898813
F20101204_AAARUD ludlow_m_Page_024.tif
aa0dcce6f7c03596ac1f1b605dd0a94c
5636d15ac8a0742f46de6f072a4426fcffd3df0d
1041641 F20101204_AAARTO ludlow_m_Page_099.jp2
22ee3b8478b961c82a570e2c969fd176
db7c7b4ef05b6752943df77afead926f1104a7a8
F20101204_AAARUE ludlow_m_Page_026.tif
c917774c3683f10dfab483412c2c9a72
f9791740bd99409f8193ef93420208fcd593c6aa
434512 F20101204_AAARTP ludlow_m_Page_101.jp2
17f148d5355c5cd5c0cf2d9f6122c6ea
cd35c5766e4b6a065105d9c34a8b36bcc80a5cef
F20101204_AAARUF ludlow_m_Page_027.tif
77d4fb8d7c82a3a5138ec1e0eccd822c
0b98e9dfe2caa5fad27935d110f00f2624d6306e
F20101204_AAARTQ ludlow_m_Page_102.jp2
ab298297975455bff8f05bf164b69060
4d009cb124099fb0e45316c33902901cbfb00691
F20101204_AAARUG ludlow_m_Page_028.tif
55803e3a2356f7c1add0c551098ea0e4
dde12300ad136caba754935bff8da02506e36844
F20101204_AAARTR ludlow_m_Page_104.jp2
acb8b01c85a64cab93f90f8e4ca1fa6b
ea48e28b515180a196abf59791c090d6cf2c432f
2091 F20101204_AAASAA ludlow_m_Page_026.txt
beb430fcf65f04ccb1b9fa8c02defe6a
88ee32294e023e5731f0648cc6231258758ff273
F20101204_AAARUH ludlow_m_Page_029.tif
121ef9f5f468f7ac4366fa6c405d69eb
9840237705d0e801147334098b2b2094d75939f1
F20101204_AAARTS ludlow_m_Page_105.jp2
ecd5ff9b6f6da711f4b64b9a1ad6d4ac
e52089dee70d8cbd1321f613d5132ff53c87b6f2
2103 F20101204_AAASAB ludlow_m_Page_028.txt
0e73fb6694ae46f34ec1c2178d02035a
af0996ba0398e6b98a0e9144c872f73048498372
F20101204_AAARUI ludlow_m_Page_030.tif
40fe9fd5da4e2ff2e8c0517cb7f5ed8a
5753838ca28921984372748aa3a4b5f8583f5ba7
F20101204_AAARTT ludlow_m_Page_008.tif
30a4da1410a3b99695db36f7b27292a6
f7478faf61f34fada0f0e01d4de636f8e701a7a3
2047 F20101204_AAASAC ludlow_m_Page_029.txt
0d7cd3f3130d4b094736430128d179de
34c2a27ae65a133584f0b18751be105c8c4e864c
F20101204_AAARUJ ludlow_m_Page_031.tif
0eb20e626212d2d8d3c4df38013a2be6
2f5a00f5c54e90bdaffb792dffdd01a4b59a8bb1
F20101204_AAARTU ludlow_m_Page_009.tif
8161b9182e969584ef6192effb4bd00b
b9cc899ea44fcdb630c293b16e1d5b109e33a784
2109 F20101204_AAASAD ludlow_m_Page_030.txt
71ef703cd2da5e6fefc8c9b2d8b05d66
c2f4d502386bd631ee1668fcc70d123dfd8f6268
F20101204_AAARUK ludlow_m_Page_032.tif
05e75008e63316b319f27e01e7c0ab15
351bbea50cec06bafb77c643f05835960a404056
F20101204_AAARTV ludlow_m_Page_011.tif
0b8dc08ea553355ce128f94e199d1499
ae80034f792aad10bfe51e68beb5e10f9fca0395
2163 F20101204_AAASAE ludlow_m_Page_034.txt
9e880363ce05596adf7aa7c598688544
5fa2f86f219e81a5435a1a85ac7cfcd29c1e27d1
F20101204_AAARUL ludlow_m_Page_033.tif
5b76f2bc2b2e8db95fc4332362e8540d
18a8726f7739193fd755e15baf596d420734a996
F20101204_AAARTW ludlow_m_Page_012.tif
0685820fe696dbbce2c9c8582d562a02
a1c64dccc86107e7c134a963bf3f94fc781c383d
2245 F20101204_AAASAF ludlow_m_Page_036.txt
34cf1b349e3635b9865e93a07630cc24
b1ab1f01eff446e875b8803db1a5c2c8c46e203d
F20101204_AAARVA ludlow_m_Page_052.tif
6e2bd427237200dcef0847ad25356457
a5264525c900017111a6344d756091eb97f79d0a
F20101204_AAARTX ludlow_m_Page_013.tif
60ef829d9143a319f74fd5c12536525e
ea88bec469d65e14b27d4c060a0229bc5ba7d28c
F20101204_AAASAG ludlow_m_Page_037.txt
d6f888354d6b2731e362cd667e3d0c30
69cc8ced8a765022ffa2d55929f2965caaa29100
F20101204_AAARVB ludlow_m_Page_053.tif
8aa3f05040de9f31709ffdf0045eae04
0dfcd4383e3bc641a105ba5116015cd2eccfb3a5
F20101204_AAARUM ludlow_m_Page_034.tif
c1b923d69122d734d5789678f0455fce
e08fc98f98cb27ea1c89df2dd28779cfb84ef0e4
F20101204_AAARTY ludlow_m_Page_014.tif
df05444d0353bb6c5224af19f556bf35
7c921edbfd145c39e8bf689eb53f0a3978b02099
1932 F20101204_AAASAH ludlow_m_Page_038.txt
b949e585e99ea196f7bd8d20983b0b1a
04ed803dbba4d84cc7ef64e7da60f4d7ccf598b4
F20101204_AAARVC ludlow_m_Page_054.tif
37be1423658202986906a4dd6f72bf98
893f544dca22c5d5d9a15da185ff97e353bf0881
F20101204_AAARUN ludlow_m_Page_037.tif
62d697f18577e04cf6240a94807428ca
f6a111f63cd96946244fc3abcc8db47fcb2de4c7
F20101204_AAARTZ ludlow_m_Page_017.tif
e8ee4c9ec08ca45021a53b8e2e3e60e5
b3c40629e834c641180559f5e3fabe789e6cdd2a
2283 F20101204_AAASAI ludlow_m_Page_039.txt
f230b7c049c693145f08cfff65cd669e
9ae0651c98888679f20a7d9c573de561aaa379d7
F20101204_AAARVD ludlow_m_Page_055.tif
eac3f9b58a0199b4f057c44597bb5338
b7088153c38407e6e8b348de6676fc70aad65fca
F20101204_AAARUO ludlow_m_Page_038.tif
08472b9defb4278f94f5db8640c3838d
2e534c39b4078165c24f48817ca2f5ce6327a09a
2274 F20101204_AAASAJ ludlow_m_Page_041.txt
9b78c215d3f19a4fb6dc9c5d5bd6f4af
0978a53ed85e868a55fc08a61f05d7a2ede26c71
F20101204_AAARVE ludlow_m_Page_057.tif
ced98f53b0c165ccb1fdb50dac28af09
9a2b7bee56624fe57746f87e3963be898b192889
F20101204_AAARUP ludlow_m_Page_039.tif
2a11f800c0cd66144c957acab1986ad0
882be54def8755c0b8314f4e4b1c7d193a0f3741
F20101204_AAASAK ludlow_m_Page_042.txt
7a24c0052c081fb17f718a6679107d7a
cfdb5db6eec1ef9378a62e464d8d3c084fcf46b7
F20101204_AAARVF ludlow_m_Page_058.tif
d7c71d8239110977f0c90465af61338d
b21e19d7521cd274558b770a1c70b4e92b044d96
F20101204_AAARUQ ludlow_m_Page_040.tif
0a802aad1b513580df572655ac99e01c
ec44f3be9526103dde4f884377af7d9837c3fcb1
2142 F20101204_AAASAL ludlow_m_Page_043.txt
5010970d57afd32086a70744da54d411
5b14a37b5e6487258b00219ca353d953764a239b
F20101204_AAARVG ludlow_m_Page_059.tif
2c92160db7918c7ce9de8a599c2c5b7d
5226ab475946c44ab942f529b630e29f79c2f019
F20101204_AAARUR ludlow_m_Page_041.tif
5a9a141c8316b9cec38fa6e4d63b9fb2
a02e580b142c1d3a3eadec94edb914818ad35bde
1813 F20101204_AAASBA ludlow_m_Page_060.txt
9f0e8eb46ced06872171bad1118a8e5a
a2ee5e7014f65a9bf981d7e61cb77c6547ea1dc5
2129 F20101204_AAASAM ludlow_m_Page_044.txt
ae8881536d788331964ccb3d56f45919
29a1f6a39410a09283bac91e57336b84b5af5f60
F20101204_AAARVH ludlow_m_Page_060.tif
a7ec3faf4bc56898a108d645399fffbe
9a15de0364f62589359ffecb870d7d5a7d0e23c7
F20101204_AAARUS ludlow_m_Page_042.tif
8775e69e9482d0790c6cfc99ed2e4dc9
c9914603c32a4137d9e1cf62c945dbdf583201d4
2117 F20101204_AAASBB ludlow_m_Page_061.txt
ffe7d3aaa12722202d183c33623cfdd3
bc3ccaef7fbc14e9567e90cc230266b0a4409b82
2290 F20101204_AAASAN ludlow_m_Page_045.txt
f41e653774247c07b32934c4b01a6865
02c5564bcde6819206ea310e2d206248f2c4a809
F20101204_AAARVI ludlow_m_Page_063.tif
05d4524f5f520e5ad6f146a9fd6cd4d4
79f634e910e59c82d107b376f4e98057f83286ce
F20101204_AAARUT ludlow_m_Page_043.tif
a58cc3268a8a925251ec14463990256c
27bbe4ca82d1d3480cbb106613357f18e6f54f5b
2219 F20101204_AAASBC ludlow_m_Page_062.txt
886fe75d25ffbb6853f16d91778ddc5e
5b873896fd2d8c069c9c7017092e18ab57dd46ba
2051 F20101204_AAASAO ludlow_m_Page_046.txt
fc3ac7314a1c2ef31c7873a6e50382de
2fae4d60154082dbe88200ae620b9a4e33701a6b
F20101204_AAARVJ ludlow_m_Page_064.tif
fe3a9995f51a1404f9fb2826fd032a3d
af7f1f5ff5b4007e439d204588302d800cc69a62
F20101204_AAARUU ludlow_m_Page_045.tif
eef7c014282b9a98f076d41eb1684035
0b7bf69de585f56b2520ad25afad9fb321c638b8
2119 F20101204_AAASBD ludlow_m_Page_064.txt
5fa6a82adddcb2a0404a14301cc8cc53
87b81c2fea61b3effa44c0ad1595c670c2d83d0b
1956 F20101204_AAASAP ludlow_m_Page_047.txt
b3275b667cd390d1a03b57d94a5d8138
64300af39777395877c99468c8373b9128f5e940
F20101204_AAARVK ludlow_m_Page_065.tif
679ab9ca9da4d83fb28d787ae0909e3d
c0f78361fe85d57099c4bad87cf4945f5e190c9e
F20101204_AAARUV ludlow_m_Page_046.tif
bd4675d18baf141508f92896af1930d2
a114040c81d9c4023264b1878c01abe16a38aece
2130 F20101204_AAASBE ludlow_m_Page_065.txt
06c340572df074b249cdf2e5989bafb3
822354737fbea19ecf483a5b71ccf8e5e0d56eae
2132 F20101204_AAASAQ ludlow_m_Page_048.txt
0c7de36a3d8a447686c658ebdb621c65
454652fbd345f5f4fd0e126cd31efc444cd8f321
F20101204_AAARVL ludlow_m_Page_066.tif
97ad29c18be693ab0c25ad760ee2992c
5b98c15bf9454b721fe36cf34488dfc66212a82e
F20101204_AAARUW ludlow_m_Page_048.tif
d58ca9f994321c91ce0168495bf33aa9
940ddd1ea17399f76f4b72c8d6c3824cc2869f74
2234 F20101204_AAASBF ludlow_m_Page_066.txt
7a088b0e2e51fdb6ffb4f617c679d21d
0d39489e7d4ef0a0095c03da5bd7f2309239f5f8
2071 F20101204_AAASAR ludlow_m_Page_049.txt
8e73135d0af386dbe2a50edc5a09f9b8
692cd9c4ad5ca26eec93332f66f3cf1dca86c70e
F20101204_AAARUX ludlow_m_Page_049.tif
049001c79ad1d4cd66bd58a7d6a79baa
4b74a3e6b8c3a7f2bda4c0053200166c17b50de8
2158 F20101204_AAASBG ludlow_m_Page_067.txt
081abfd3b50233ec4dfdab09019523f7
7c24af7c8e451a6911e924c5595fda0ef39458fd
F20101204_AAARWA ludlow_m_Page_086.tif
ab19739db3bb0a3837b22732359da9b9
d6d0cdb58bd29328fcc7959745401b6fc8458c5f
1046 F20101204_AAASAS ludlow_m_Page_050.txt
8a778eeaabbd69545bb8ded220d43fdc
0006e6d439477ee98fb3bf592d5acd8a42995879
F20101204_AAARVM ludlow_m_Page_067.tif
8dcadbb7cdbdaaa576e88087dc8ffe4a
e0ba6fd7bceef0aa08d4053cec6e8aaf8d3c24e6
F20101204_AAARUY ludlow_m_Page_050.tif
c668882ae315e8b8e9f22275408e98c8
13b50f12197bbe1f8dee81a83a59ef7e2772c2fc
2186 F20101204_AAASBH ludlow_m_Page_069.txt
9d89d9f0c2c486191ed6c9e02cd8d891
3837cfda3151f54ec9d06a12c1c75813505d2b4b
F20101204_AAARWB ludlow_m_Page_089.tif
1c01417c9848a808793972d5b8c78f89
a36366a9e90f0bd98c675c703034d13285eb1950
2149 F20101204_AAASAT ludlow_m_Page_051.txt
f06c0b475d1001cbdde254af2e2e47ea
536956444218970a5d290439d692336bb493634e
F20101204_AAARUZ ludlow_m_Page_051.tif
32a6f25e46820bb89f53c0dd493c938c
390f4ec4824aa0fc793fba96e3df0110d902e55c
2030 F20101204_AAASBI ludlow_m_Page_070.txt
5061239ed7ec46f6c1f2a59efee59573
f2d496e830bc7e920e72c4e3545bdc1a13f4ebcc
F20101204_AAARWC ludlow_m_Page_091.tif
9e107052cfcbedba13eb39df16ef4b3b
00e5983fdba8531bc87d67ad6896de6418ac6e87
2498 F20101204_AAASAU ludlow_m_Page_053.txt
7a9019f13d2e5047afddc6411cbdd646
86571b3540787c5e2a49e9244373f7f974e2804b
F20101204_AAARVN ludlow_m_Page_068.tif
23cf311651ed14f8e1bae3d988b79523
6f4458b1e5ae0b8a566c90e25263843e987717ff
F20101204_AAASBJ ludlow_m_Page_071.txt
f719f3d9f35f0da191d8dfd26a64a1ff
b9d02663ac7c5e5eee44067bae4e33a5ac2a4d4e
F20101204_AAARWD ludlow_m_Page_092.tif
1eb27172b7ad7347561cb01fdc68317c
21efcf33176227419c39dc1b319a218bcae3802f
F20101204_AAASAV ludlow_m_Page_054.txt
7d4eec65858efecb37919221062aced4
5cde6079021081a5dbba5eaf66bead087b063328
F20101204_AAARVO ludlow_m_Page_069.tif
944d27fc0bb469a176617af344f963ce
cd87ebb98aeddeb1027a10bfbf652fe6c439b050
2113 F20101204_AAASBK ludlow_m_Page_072.txt
f4d16f7310a939e07e38ef8afe4d2680
d2196e24ae0303b526819fd88a916caf10f3e2bd
F20101204_AAARWE ludlow_m_Page_093.tif
ae0e8602f82ca91c7b1ffb462f49b10b
0c31a6e3ef93bcd07827bd279b6ef0bf35787a14
2153 F20101204_AAASAW ludlow_m_Page_056.txt
28cecc5abcc6fc6a1ede9a02aba3b898
906a22c1d629b695fbb12d62167f7c97c658fd90
F20101204_AAARVP ludlow_m_Page_072.tif
0923cbead537caca532a774d61d4f7ba
df06febaf4aaa6c12250e26bec73b48f745be178
2056 F20101204_AAASBL ludlow_m_Page_074.txt
a8f77bf4ee14b445266de5a35add798a
9f69cbe9d77657469e01b8bfbfec4839c4c49ac2
F20101204_AAARWF ludlow_m_Page_094.tif
464576c30db171877dde76780f122acd
5c4a6d826df1b02e9710f4f1bbfd33b041c5281e
F20101204_AAARVQ ludlow_m_Page_074.tif
a75ecee371ab8a46c867f9f9993df8d1
f5f8f757abd24d7d1cd7371729e13076082af5de
1883 F20101204_AAASCA ludlow_m_Page_090.txt
10a9f4da913dde28571224c2e8a1b429
a03f74757356857b7e1c3beb499a1019b904c1bc
2170 F20101204_AAASBM ludlow_m_Page_075.txt
a9d997704475b4bff9118d46ea1c7100
041b235a6b1cae681b02ac796e491fe8f9a18b95
25265604 F20101204_AAARWG ludlow_m_Page_095.tif
2e0cfc143023b6ac3c94e2a6cbd75e05
651bc38a390b197c9a0db432281d680743f6f326
2392 F20101204_AAASAX ludlow_m_Page_057.txt
5d133beddf223623eeb0b6bbd3aaea5d
b9f5a933fb54eb2029473152a5c3116bf9f75fc6
F20101204_AAARVR ludlow_m_Page_075.tif
a276f9497d84191fc8bcc16b9b1bff0b
ebb2c503a7b17b4cc6e7ef64b0740a2fc8706aa0
2003 F20101204_AAASCB ludlow_m_Page_091.txt
6e8a2a3b8a9b4c6455f44ef2a3fb0f66
efb9c34373e6890273949dff7721915354bd5d9b
2255 F20101204_AAASBN ludlow_m_Page_077.txt
53a7baca812f960fdabfc2bbf0b92901
869dc45641866a5ad9fab2337af193812573cb39
F20101204_AAARWH ludlow_m_Page_096.tif
451962f1638ad9e55d4b623cfa0de474
76280ea741ab34c5ff837589e6f3481adb6b95fc
2092 F20101204_AAASAY ludlow_m_Page_058.txt
a3ae398534adf8d71d2e85f9dcb8d91d
f4c5ee1715d9e2facc72c21b333468bd872f7c19
F20101204_AAARVS ludlow_m_Page_076.tif
efc4c729fcd288a48824c7cd41eda5ed
d3560609d89428912309fa0647146b824c5d8d7c
1955 F20101204_AAASCC ludlow_m_Page_092.txt
8f3bc56644fe0a7008201924b7901961
ade2bfe68c7c7beaa327e5e8fac7dae4a49ae483
2107 F20101204_AAASBO ludlow_m_Page_078.txt
97eaaf5888f4c8e1aefc1bf744c864c3
46878843c3073a94a6ab2427a2d9768e4ac507bc
F20101204_AAARWI ludlow_m_Page_097.tif
e8bc161031afed3e0548dae218021018
8ad9289a52a30fbb9b3df642fda4cd98e3a9439d
2073 F20101204_AAASAZ ludlow_m_Page_059.txt
6140a27e0dfed7e515321cc76f17eb0e
821cf4692e914f15463cf69725811f60f7309336
F20101204_AAARVT ludlow_m_Page_077.tif
7fca32e0794276d69a123fa6b85b5e98
edbb4f5a707f730f55df1b23793bc0e8246e0637
2072 F20101204_AAASCD ludlow_m_Page_093.txt
d9439786325a94fe904247eb78ca90b0
9802b72b5c0555883b16f8843e57f321e117e6df
1189 F20101204_AAASBP ludlow_m_Page_079.txt
273c3595e9205871bcc55863131091b8
609b9ae0fe8d1aaa4e516e6994bc21a350abf917
F20101204_AAARWJ ludlow_m_Page_100.tif
41200523f8ab8533a2e5b1f3eaee8afe
17262dd6ca7d4d83ab54477204ae4432b2b94378
F20101204_AAARVU ludlow_m_Page_078.tif
0f57de8fb579ee064890c57a8e78309f
4c7d078ac44450531126ca245059f56087d71deb
2445 F20101204_AAASCE ludlow_m_Page_096.txt
9a60e431aafd8479ea36673d8b45db5f
7739e18a84ea2d5552b25896ffc18ff053fc01e7
2864 F20101204_AAASBQ ludlow_m_Page_080.txt
5f710501a54b8e07e1398d3501788094
723a709e091a0d42c94a790a19e577c98422c07f
F20101204_AAARWK ludlow_m_Page_101.tif
bc553cc79bdeb4294f2bd26ec3dd9422
0b7751d7d44a9aa3b339b19aed6b94837eb76e60
F20101204_AAARVV ludlow_m_Page_079.tif
29664be24ad2b85bef33b5d97f8dce56
2eb9c72171308b9fb3f9b63f40facfc2f0c84b7f
1129 F20101204_AAASCF ludlow_m_Page_097.txt
aedb6483d502bc4c66f6545eed9ecfeb
57859c67a53067f65b0b7006eb051dd0435b2960
2124 F20101204_AAASBR ludlow_m_Page_081.txt
fc8316159e47b47e407427f42f5ee6af
b4509e95fa3ea1f504440ea94108380f27d5a045
F20101204_AAARWL ludlow_m_Page_103.tif
281b7416798117a59eb7bf9ce7a50386
dd1e560a395457a25dd23a1cabca9a16203c9743
F20101204_AAARVW ludlow_m_Page_080.tif
c055c254063d66e4f4cf4c76d59257b7
249d5d0d55207a4cf3269f8eaa0d05587b526118
2297 F20101204_AAASCG ludlow_m_Page_100.txt
306bb34bc90c059280ae08dbdb9dbff1
af03539afd4f4ddfe4bd2a3e80593d0cb17cfd62
48650 F20101204_AAARXA ludlow_m_Page_018.pro
520fbb10b229247f2a6fd294001f504c
b94e8885f2e595f824575e766210f8479c6df1c8
2128 F20101204_AAASBS ludlow_m_Page_082.txt
3f3ec983681167c09e757772b0644b9a
410fc6deca408d2a4d87acf6cece12b322a2e9d3
F20101204_AAARWM ludlow_m_Page_104.tif
0163bcf82994d2536436f0dd0f46a121
4ad0a86852976f3b1304de21aeac962930aba505
F20101204_AAARVX ludlow_m_Page_082.tif
351454ed3118ec067c44af98bfabd4b4
50e0bbd6cd9c1a13e7f32536f80d294731fad823
807 F20101204_AAASCH ludlow_m_Page_101.txt
4d8795b0e18e34971b7664310abcc29d
df6190da425fe4cfb1c5586ec6b0d0a940f741c4
51540 F20101204_AAARXB ludlow_m_Page_020.pro
83f09faed201c91d0b6cefb824016fe1
92ae63f67dc45feb3cc0ff50e40bb89d56f5b024
2155 F20101204_AAASBT ludlow_m_Page_083.txt
2f923ee8b7c61f59437f9b033fa61ba8
6747f4b515498a5f5e7655987748a91ef6ac3886
F20101204_AAARWN ludlow_m_Page_105.tif
304012e33d3448869e6b5024c9ea6d4e
18f6fd1fc5dbebe865602bbebc6b9f0519c3cb0f
F20101204_AAARVY ludlow_m_Page_083.tif
9e3734010d50e71a0954da9c5e2aadbf
d110e2717af49118936a35c97a6e84a66fafdc20
2349 F20101204_AAASCI ludlow_m_Page_102.txt
115b723ee7583bf39241dfa9cd7f17f2
b2486f00e332d16a21863241f86f5e4d668d6db1
55599 F20101204_AAARXC ludlow_m_Page_021.pro
dad2479bafc002caf4eda772e44f2b59
7ab4ea361dd49c9a1f3631c9fbf022127ca53e72
2004 F20101204_AAASBU ludlow_m_Page_084.txt
1a47fb426aa16fae85e171551c5648a0
0c504c2b6977eb1237ab6a2ca2b629b3c28bf2c8
F20101204_AAARVZ ludlow_m_Page_084.tif
e75ac7dbafe7fd8c812fd25019d171fc
015424d11d6bd63c094d3987ab79f9431bb4019d
62128 F20101204_AAARXD ludlow_m_Page_022.pro
1e9281e1f1e9b9c71e4ba2fba974271a
06026bcdd5d854369f8a154fbd985a972008a750
2058 F20101204_AAASBV ludlow_m_Page_085.txt
dc786f8722e4b4f6b62e0b0ffa72953d
0c0c0197f6d6c329f3fe33e416ccc1e3c4b15731
F20101204_AAARWO ludlow_m_Page_106.tif
92680af8cf40f53ecc528584042d4632
0c264a54f8086accb403b2dea821145088717232
2461 F20101204_AAASCJ ludlow_m_Page_103.txt
dafc8af38700dcf292146a9f11cfce60
f61afa731d51dd9c952d4fcfc7226bdcebc24558
53064 F20101204_AAARXE ludlow_m_Page_023.pro
324c10d4a961b772a272de7cc761ba74
503b03be6e9e624d03014efb6598eb79e99e2ce1
2154 F20101204_AAASBW ludlow_m_Page_086.txt
c8ba514e3eda8c2030b79a1fea15dfd2
13ff94427c515d48a86920207216136c49850e83
8888 F20101204_AAARWP ludlow_m_Page_001.pro
f3369faea0927390bad35741cc9dd4ca
d225a337869f5a03268671892ac52fe8e94a40f8
2358 F20101204_AAASCK ludlow_m_Page_104.txt
ba57b5fb578c6402a2e42fdbf9fcb7f7
10589f9967bc5a53cac74d38863a1ebde0396736
56086 F20101204_AAARXF ludlow_m_Page_024.pro
c0ee26e0d5736f02e3a68d8394f4a920
9c3908ca469fbd7460fc9213bcbbb387e8cf59a2
2025 F20101204_AAASBX ludlow_m_Page_087.txt
2c213f3e49843e031f9d48446944d942
a797ce553fcc3aeeb0ab81470a02c408759183bf
834 F20101204_AAARWQ ludlow_m_Page_002.pro
d6e3c94e774284984f29feb378e85e32
0863232a8850df7d5b9d9b46b7db73b2ce0e7fbe
1865 F20101204_AAASCL ludlow_m_Page_105.txt
f46080e21f17753dceb9c21477add285
cd8e5ef08da02b2fa0a36d4d54c37ac670b3a278
45728 F20101204_AAARXG ludlow_m_Page_025.pro
d65c3928d616696122e436f5fcb52175
4290c1b052f680c43b62ae2ba8ec447c9ed45730
1456 F20101204_AAARWR ludlow_m_Page_003.pro
f1e90f516b982525ca56301acda9b4f0
77de3deef40b579bcd796fe8453113ea4583c521
8870 F20101204_AAASDA ludlow_m_Page_077thm.jpg
20d43419b12fe43bd93ab717627fc72a
3b1b6d9ce7539512263994fc3efeaf3ce7ed199a
1562 F20101204_AAASCM ludlow_m_Page_106.txt
5ea3230d92bee79a6744028ad6e1bfc4
562a29277db5ec3372b65a35687954e66bc4c5a5
53275 F20101204_AAARXH ludlow_m_Page_026.pro
85439d58054c1215505bc14a4a8c5a25
d82f707a07674fc8c81888b934a835945a5e057e
F20101204_AAASBY ludlow_m_Page_088.txt
eb2e3c0a55b762020de2bde37c701a9d
fca602fa4996ae7bc861425e80f7495e2c67fc89
102041 F20101204_AAARWS ludlow_m_Page_005.pro
478608a5381c98a0bdd96a660e1435d0
5f0a8a3cc1187a4bb8d897fca60c27ded4a7dceb
8608 F20101204_AAASDB ludlow_m_Page_073thm.jpg
b1669184ad443eaa2423ba67b50832cf
4bfdc3c60d0ac377f309fa01d6b8ec47689cabac
F20101204_AAASCN ludlow_m_Page_001thm.jpg
046c348b46c36fdccb5d8ee830701362
4a96a69d982716f7bd07355c367fb90f6a247840
53467 F20101204_AAARXI ludlow_m_Page_028.pro
2696be06848db50b5d372309099d8fa6
b6caacd7446f615f9daf9f9f09d96261a8fb272c
1864 F20101204_AAASBZ ludlow_m_Page_089.txt
5b7329f49f1e94aa9668fc4fefb8ef0c
1c060c0782c49deb752eb051100d5a27a385616e
83166 F20101204_AAARWT ludlow_m_Page_006.pro
ba15e6c31c96fe9e45f58e3460c28f23
556145dabd2321398c06443a31c37c6aef31ef66
35080 F20101204_AAASDC ludlow_m_Page_082.QC.jpg
1cd0192bc7bb9123e4cf93d13ccf4b1e
0de4048aa58df4dd8757933f409176b50b95ef32
8966 F20101204_AAASCO ludlow_m_Page_039thm.jpg
fcfb151016c014787aa5a657f1206659
c75ee3e76d78c65ffc97a20104823b38251bc0ee
53339 F20101204_AAARXJ ludlow_m_Page_030.pro
256a7cccce92dd8e590391dbeb20bb63
576e090339985d9cca256d2dfd099d0b4dbda7f7
13160 F20101204_AAARWU ludlow_m_Page_007.pro
882573c81954ab84a596c65c4bb247f4
f635e3cfda5bd505476a14aed1b62506ffb58c9c
33299 F20101204_AAASDD ludlow_m_Page_063.QC.jpg
236a0162445debccc506e3a327a7d870
568e878ba59763a4d2a885ad8347ce0d2a0dda1e
33817 F20101204_AAASCP ludlow_m_Page_065.QC.jpg
e67a2b3c2e978618a391d4fc23273a6d
9a97eeb701a1aa69c984c065c6102fa4d480c1b5
53401 F20101204_AAARXK ludlow_m_Page_032.pro
03f0f7f8e4f4d3e7b2cffa6e03bed051
49476b1a26ec32ccf275553d222fd891d8787a34
49234 F20101204_AAARWV ludlow_m_Page_008.pro
49285a8284264e60d4d88213296c07b7
ae384360bd90c134482ff9b26240191706beeec6
26364 F20101204_AAASDE ludlow_m_Page_013.QC.jpg
31ba38cf4ea947d5b735198a31c9a5f4
19b3ba9914ab816e54d1d138afe0f4cfd2dba37f
34220 F20101204_AAASCQ ludlow_m_Page_076.QC.jpg
4290eba767d3a0771b3c8e9d3547dd61
63b16edb9140b98661aaaddbb21990f26ecad908
53995 F20101204_AAARXL ludlow_m_Page_035.pro
434e75bcedb049633b734c94ad198ba8
3530c9aa7e35ce87146a2df9bfbe90e08e897ab4
57927 F20101204_AAARWW ludlow_m_Page_010.pro
ebeb7e56c987957e9133882fda1daf51
ffdeaf8a7cf76c44e27620b295c69a2ed30c65c8
30396 F20101204_AAASDF ludlow_m_Page_060.QC.jpg
e90cb89f8508b16111220ecded14b12f
76b221a341b21269c28e2a6b3956459e1b581ba6
8638 F20101204_AAASCR ludlow_m_Page_020thm.jpg
f99209086d614420cf413e99e18bd727
a433db6e029cdf02abb806820abd8192f43484cb
47987 F20101204_AAARXM ludlow_m_Page_038.pro
e6d0b5d2d5b2c32b61021b16e4d53626
3d00ade7f65ef727f00c3012bc9806b95240f37e
55222 F20101204_AAARWX ludlow_m_Page_011.pro
77e5e7c99b0d4d4c1d7b6e6c7a6bc375
a51f87765e146264e8c9fd914bb9b23f06c6764b
33390 F20101204_AAASDG ludlow_m_Page_032.QC.jpg
3b8863a67793b235e61d4ccc01bdfcb7
253ae4de40a8d7d9a16fcfcd5e8e816fc46236b7
53878 F20101204_AAARYA ludlow_m_Page_056.pro
3de55ef05dff066e67a6767b91d743e6
cb460e776ca6f919791247ab07d952c3d40d3d59
35136 F20101204_AAASCS ludlow_m_Page_064.QC.jpg
0834874bb6d31700d6535c6ec47d7850
989c94c61ba88ba95218a86fa4407d0ac78d780e
58548 F20101204_AAARXN ludlow_m_Page_039.pro
d01811f1400dbc1a59ee12cdee229616
319ecfe332fb54517f9e9a5eb10bb232b38ded4e
55060 F20101204_AAARWY ludlow_m_Page_012.pro
7227ab60b4773963750125ea6e8dc1fa
478e207f21a757e3981713c8ad5f60b421a476b2
8663 F20101204_AAASDH ludlow_m_Page_083thm.jpg
25471a3b4189d6906e017e83d9b53bf9
8d4546463f17d7ab958c93355808f639c48971b7
58986 F20101204_AAARYB ludlow_m_Page_057.pro
5870ba3b9e0006dab50c05ab8274d72a
7e97cbd0fd74d08c002b0fe5f91c68c0b04c1a18
7585 F20101204_AAASCT ludlow_m_Page_060thm.jpg
5be241747a81ae48d4296ebaa110d11e
8a9fc472313516f4eb3b57623e5ce374d0d0e7ee
53232 F20101204_AAARXO ludlow_m_Page_040.pro
48692cbbc31d55424bc9c87247bc6e9a
a03c96e6ea51a300b362ce62e5b18087cbe8045e
39241 F20101204_AAARWZ ludlow_m_Page_013.pro
8b7ad520f4b8580237a7e3de1cb88b4a
2c5174daeee5336447a8b015b4567e9ac91ace1f
8442 F20101204_AAASDI ludlow_m_Page_063thm.jpg
28489d640d4e596afc79a0dbadb30065
66efdff9a39449b8565dd9a703b79b0d136baa82
51273 F20101204_AAARYC ludlow_m_Page_059.pro
a77d34f5c4a6e601b4f0f9bee97e2086
b595cc8c71d3b1ca709a9fd4cec598c2366998c5
8715 F20101204_AAASCU ludlow_m_Page_022thm.jpg
6f6e42b75179d1ee55487681cbc80da4
98d039e7d258071ad5e02b45652d643eefe9a036
32538 F20101204_AAASDJ ludlow_m_Page_059.QC.jpg
b507eac7e2d18486b7bb62cc848a8900
99ec808f59134b60c71ee1760787b5b5b09bea77
44967 F20101204_AAARYD ludlow_m_Page_060.pro
5c83addae08abbc44a1be8f08a6a8d51
0c9f5ef4603f156b03087ae3587decd7e70380a9
35549 F20101204_AAASCV ludlow_m_Page_083.QC.jpg
fa938829402e3368d44655581a7e36c8
0b1d988a3c0b0c9d9e3dbf4ee2ecb2ec25d1e5f3
57657 F20101204_AAARXP ludlow_m_Page_041.pro
b7c09a09205795656220df0fff4bcefa
fe492c5640b5d72205479df47edf6587239c7e2f
32418 F20101204_AAASDK ludlow_m_Page_070.QC.jpg
cc75f60f5833646f208c591877ca24eb
a751c084b28f868bec372ef7e66aab1bebd6262d
50121 F20101204_AAARYE ludlow_m_Page_061.pro
7de0727d50d078ecd097e7c80c472b74
86d4f40d8635d824ed79aac3b500d3dab47552f2
7437 F20101204_AAASCW ludlow_m_Page_105thm.jpg
4ba6d7ef18ecdb0b6aa749eeecd54458
5cefdf5ce310bb8f7249be4381e4d65781d0f250
53432 F20101204_AAARXQ ludlow_m_Page_042.pro
4d5c200801107898ecc05b0cdc656cad
eb637f60a5509e341d6a2c4b23b92dc0b79a61a2
8685 F20101204_AAASDL ludlow_m_Page_055thm.jpg
158ba59e24f66a25ebc210a93bb0a271
94ca92dea79261bab55e98af112ec24a18095eec
56171 F20101204_AAARYF ludlow_m_Page_062.pro
2f9ae54324256a8dda674c9d792a3566
432ac4eda6e5c7fd4fce4ce32eb1e83b151c80b8
8020 F20101204_AAASCX ludlow_m_Page_091thm.jpg
beb2691a13032c81ae533914fac27ed0
e878920123311ed3656682f056a819ec35aad3fc
54322 F20101204_AAARXR ludlow_m_Page_043.pro
430f4ed292a1290ef0269883726f1cdf
6e828a933dc923c5a390f5d26a5bd882f7f990db
35997 F20101204_AAASEA ludlow_m_Page_043.QC.jpg
fef6c5fafb5a024ab7cfa92ad8764759
7354d628a0569cf9783d1a59ec5e6850c8395a59
7873 F20101204_AAASDM ludlow_m_Page_090thm.jpg
51517df3fdc952809a8f4345098a3c1a
1d3588c1efb6e6603d3db85bea235c068fc6cf6d
53895 F20101204_AAARYG ludlow_m_Page_064.pro
525d86d4f4372fe7ca778a2ddf4f1868
d2f467ef303f6faea20b5a78555fae19d522c34f
36568 F20101204_AAASCY ludlow_m_Page_075.QC.jpg
f40e206486db13d67f8c05f0dee9ddf3
32ed4325968e3ca1ecfb6e919bc780b36e2dc153
53960 F20101204_AAARXS ludlow_m_Page_044.pro
6ca40d64c01ad2393b5b8f61eb3628e7
2a78e4eef93e7ff347c8bc77fadfc16c0a72628c
8198 F20101204_AAASEB ludlow_m_Page_032thm.jpg
950801d086ce767b5ac89077ecec0a0c
d6ce5ccb83bb338cd9712a6bf761c30a1ea228a6
7517 F20101204_AAASDN ludlow_m_Page_080thm.jpg
5e26cede5c821480b4e5b8c86502a823
ac99d51ffdd75ab7a555b3ba120f3824dff52127
54279 F20101204_AAARYH ludlow_m_Page_065.pro
7ce4fbb76411cf747373187e80181f71
c6d3cfa4c12de0a0ca776ee40b95f4c10e7a9b10
52107 F20101204_AAARXT ludlow_m_Page_046.pro
332add6d10b247f960f7283973ed6849
ff173a53735e39e5b9e6287fc5cfde9c3ed53a02
4724 F20101204_AAASEC ludlow_m_Page_097thm.jpg
d2f12b62dc547434e7d35bdf341051e5
d6c750e680caf0ce550c6be5982ecb8d3f1bcdee
34926 F20101204_AAASDO ludlow_m_Page_093.QC.jpg
c6e5af293020bb86377b9458b692874b
8541693ce3c3aad1ee54432eaff421b1bd6416fb
56828 F20101204_AAARYI ludlow_m_Page_068.pro
de78912bb8154680a60110e404522c27
747f1753e70dc6f3478f5053a05bf51a90b47ca4
8711 F20101204_AAASCZ ludlow_m_Page_076thm.jpg
64abf209d21b27cd5f266eed0fa0a820
008e21166c028db9c0e25e128b6ae9ac031364dc
47824 F20101204_AAARXU ludlow_m_Page_047.pro
5041b0db09e2b7235b7b20b390e6266c
43d7ac7ec92102bfc4470e2f03a2eb13285b9bad
26716 F20101204_AAASED ludlow_m_Page_099.QC.jpg
ba26d596789696959b9716c5c3cfdca9
0237ad2e82f7c7e0348f59d700492a56e5cdef29
36027 F20101204_AAASDP ludlow_m_Page_067.QC.jpg
a9b4a447fbde96014cd5fc81d06988be
d7b6a63558c9e3f0e0a71b5973eced86654e5e2b
55643 F20101204_AAARYJ ludlow_m_Page_069.pro
4bd66b0ed71014e76ea07df405c5476e
cf8730cb4473785d62b8925967d11babd1b72831
26229 F20101204_AAARXV ludlow_m_Page_050.pro
839a58dd8e4424bed28e708a425d9cca
707951a8e37ea50dd65eb9a3cec9d3c8be8d3e69
7727 F20101204_AAASEE ludlow_m_Page_100thm.jpg
371ba8315b0c51959be3bdf0307c7b9f
635f909835b98d9cef9b943326af7f2bf97a586f
35490 F20101204_AAASDQ ludlow_m_Page_015.QC.jpg
43b6b5627a7dbdf78edeeef08a4371f2
8d709a9e6aa3417ba1cb444304679d3b9c34ebd1
51337 F20101204_AAARYK ludlow_m_Page_070.pro
272eab6de58fc97f7103c6a3a7d88b6d
ea4364c52476abd12f12062d73227ca95caa4159
56903 F20101204_AAARXW ludlow_m_Page_052.pro
531baccd952fa72f2ed0aaed0abb1d5e
83e5c75adcf7ef0af27cba99b68dce097ab1491e
2199 F20101204_AAASEF ludlow_m_Page_007thm.jpg
3b7f947a6e9e238fdcd656c670cf8954
4bbd700239ed4e2062164a41996d9bf8505be35d
33661 F20101204_AAASDR ludlow_m_Page_010.QC.jpg
36fa0c3295d2a6e8ff8ed5c4cb577e77
4ed5efad5711847f9cb2bc0d784af1fb951116de
52378 F20101204_AAARYL ludlow_m_Page_071.pro
c994caf04035df8dc5a8adfd30ddec26
e2dbae8727f9f8e0ebf6d8b7639f56b9c989016d
61450 F20101204_AAARXX ludlow_m_Page_053.pro
4310b75b34bcffca7cec3f2a3aed275a
749c4d78c9aed90c5d4ff64d31edba1d1291e68b
17170 F20101204_AAASEG ludlow_m_Page_097.QC.jpg
1172187d6700b9a48b810ad820f95f07
ab759e42ac812b198f7720981b0e2c77c21de7bc
50574 F20101204_AAARZA ludlow_m_Page_096.pro
488ce03b78aa7c71a176955ad9fc1b46
9de40ce7a9881ffdcfb54ed62ccb43dfba3ddf2d
8374 F20101204_AAASDS ludlow_m_Page_001.QC.jpg
ed7f9669419ccbd516f3df9caa585240
ea80db1bbc100d50c400d6b6caaa3cc3382300f9
53016 F20101204_AAARYM ludlow_m_Page_072.pro
82c34866f9f038a67ed699d341a46417
e9151bb834e4f9fa70bfad203175f87f175a15fc
55143 F20101204_AAARXY ludlow_m_Page_054.pro
acf0ece9c4b06ce7cd6df5c55f9736c2
25e323cad415ba45a2923e299acfc6819b6b8b5b
1776 F20101204_AAASEH ludlow_m_Page_003.QC.jpg
d4a4acbfb109440a83db6539a5eaff61
ed031ad17aba4f94b74d86c17ed59721783671c1
25311 F20101204_AAARZB ludlow_m_Page_097.pro
89c8ff66a814221b3f64907e323fe9e5
affffd3bcfc5b519a9e2336f931b0284df43ce49
38603 F20101204_AAASDT ludlow_m_Page_031.QC.jpg
50a2925d375d44eaa3723ad6ec906fb6
a1cec1929a39135b2c7eb32878097eb22b728b0c
55015 F20101204_AAARYN ludlow_m_Page_073.pro
271483326cebc39cda5854f110efa798
f059745342880ad67c2cd148c12e60d9b460ac4d
54780 F20101204_AAARXZ ludlow_m_Page_055.pro
7419e30fe2297cb0ad9ee386cb1266c3
f677420c0e75a9697c2c47107ba9a1cfa3a8f9f1
33927 F20101204_AAASEI ludlow_m_Page_046.QC.jpg
b45e18c4e4d6c1e0471cf4223928a5e3
8c48df2bed1b9884315194a124342021e33fb34a
70057 F20101204_AAARZC ludlow_m_Page_098.pro
5dc4a96344fd8549db23f6872dcec9d5
1bd4d2e531cad5d2f0d27809903d0b1acd85af05
9056 F20101204_AAASDU ludlow_m_Page_045thm.jpg
a33c4eb396f6b0c05e81be6e17aa756a
5f6b4841768193aa0e299ccc3ef1519479c50606
52165 F20101204_AAARYO ludlow_m_Page_074.pro
5849a9ec506506c26ee8525d70c27d94
9066f33e910e2b17eeb3d8e5ef563b546a16b695
36919 F20101204_AAASEJ ludlow_m_Page_068.QC.jpg
6d98b7b7d7ad05640654a6e26ed73a40
e67acabde9a15f94995b746b1121c5ecb4bb91f4
45125 F20101204_AAARZD ludlow_m_Page_099.pro
1eba06086e08c0541d8bf591c5936fba
11042b4ec58586fd7e938d09220ebcac5110840c
35922 F20101204_AAASDV ludlow_m_Page_054.QC.jpg
2db3ce1714aa4a6f469b17bce3a73dde
003de85c5d2651dd1bcfd4dded5f6a5152849beb
57391 F20101204_AAARYP ludlow_m_Page_077.pro
13288b7b834d2053df11ef45ad09f1b8
537bda271790e2cc551cab9297ac99aee16053c1
31956 F20101204_AAASEK ludlow_m_Page_018.QC.jpg
0499d757e98e40e7e2c0f08b3d65923a
618cff8e70c6e0ec05d94f5d854a4e257322f530
19354 F20101204_AAARZE ludlow_m_Page_101.pro
6bbf3c949de5012a47b9a531df7643ef
ece694ec1681b471db8b69a178f56ea334163be5
35037 F20101204_AAASDW ludlow_m_Page_042.QC.jpg
ab5bdf7bb085121504c561d017a58fa3
0c1de83f44f157508260af9699893a5945cba62d
6414 F20101204_AAASEL ludlow_m_Page_013thm.jpg
24eec060b261cd797232848dbac310bf
10bf684a9072e416d78594d533266ec60f2a7bb2
44730 F20101204_AAARZF ludlow_m_Page_105.pro
753266456fb523e0b56638f32088e25b
1edcf7c9691406dd9893a39b3ceb3d6ef3d30c55
8488 F20101204_AAASDX ludlow_m_Page_044thm.jpg
4f291e452e90d58b2ebc7c3755e1f5b7
1abff1862822a7d45752eac3615dc145c8fc3e3a
29847 F20101204_AAARYQ ludlow_m_Page_079.pro
e4219eb48f8e7f9664a94502cfedc26f
fe5fa06639f85a99c0fb0db724d8801d8a4a43aa
34611 F20101204_AAASEM ludlow_m_Page_051.QC.jpg
ac1a0f3f7c0ffac15140b2a2298391a5
d8a791d1207369adc780ac8a4efc0cc7c4d3f9fa
460 F20101204_AAARZG ludlow_m_Page_001.txt
cb693a5f25469890885d8ea4902a39cf
af1147e37c9d92a634f95c0d08a70901a6c765ce
6476 F20101204_AAASDY ludlow_m_Page_099thm.jpg
28a9dc07fce98d7b894d2b9018ed418d
5ba16469376c7dd09305ee080e903327a0197405
55786 F20101204_AAARYR ludlow_m_Page_080.pro
1dd1b3971f40ab25f5bd9c8b656a216b
8d134fbe8671a964ca6f0547abb65fb3eb452182
8342 F20101204_AAASFA ludlow_m_Page_049thm.jpg
be304566d297a9af7efaddd9ccd236bb
fb1d44cb6ccc1195b3b4d4db037710c38309e54a
7805 F20101204_AAASEN ludlow_m_Page_059thm.jpg
de2e7c8a95490cc41b4d54cd02e524e1
4b9f70cbe87e5250458bcc5d9f4ead30804818de
90 F20101204_AAARZH ludlow_m_Page_002.txt
4714ea71e1523a14ac44db5277355668
0a10713b040481a8305618dd579df89831626aad
33947 F20101204_AAASDZ ludlow_m_Page_071.QC.jpg
cc42bb6f55727efde454d3ac6bd769b0
cce2338486162455e424270b469b4727a408a245
54162 F20101204_AAARYS ludlow_m_Page_082.pro
65cba0cf0fa12de4cae39b4acaf4da25
356c5bbd41b56510dc5e5c8e95aeda99f4c2196f
3300 F20101204_AAASFB ludlow_m_Page_101thm.jpg
f4648e672b735c6a3caf5876f4bf52f2
1a823b4b8bef8de40a690a9423d48fe311ea33e3
35813 F20101204_AAASEO ludlow_m_Page_034.QC.jpg
ee59a8c556fcbc04df45a77123288d82
a824fcc8fc59712dcb5231c7fa335005c9e84dd6
98 F20101204_AAARZI ludlow_m_Page_003.txt
9f0fab7134e9ce321e08f758ca5305a3
f626fb63b9a03f0eb346997fda78b46e7d5283f3
52737 F20101204_AAARYT ludlow_m_Page_086.pro
02a3db7355673cea31c14bc991c36938
528f210e69eeffa2ce9ce4e46c31f607b5c1da12
37500 F20101204_AAASFC ludlow_m_Page_066.QC.jpg
7f4a8af21c061291042027364ba8203f
4c6bcfcbab6748c718f64d8721731d509fb56fd8
8702 F20101204_AAASEP ludlow_m_Page_066thm.jpg
4a01642d71f391c32e02d3b7a2ec03bc
ab86eec1c652158f20a2c790c2022e47a6b6ae94
4216 F20101204_AAARZJ ludlow_m_Page_005.txt
501b4bdb87299d8e89f7e92cddea5a0d
b3b851b8488559091ade48541eb6c653606ffb35
51306 F20101204_AAARYU ludlow_m_Page_087.pro
445ae252ae61ae227a3ac993b3a4726e
25a3b9c0c6e59a6634d6f575cd8e6bcb76dfa357
34814 F20101204_AAASFD ludlow_m_Page_057.QC.jpg
ebbd5c148da1b2183677bbf4ce891ebe
d847218fc1024b2ebc1479503642c3c47df45372
8664 F20101204_AAASEQ ludlow_m_Page_029thm.jpg
cc62c98d17c618216730296575a52373
625b276d2eaf12a9a5bf409a3eabf543a271b7df
3345 F20101204_AAARZK ludlow_m_Page_006.txt
6df35521a9fcfed4baad2d741e9904ca
534d8b65b88f6023ceeadd3d9f35bde4e72b648d
54285 F20101204_AAARYV ludlow_m_Page_088.pro
af481a5db66faba70f2a7eb90b02537c
e8f463f8094672698d7578726c9cbdd41e4880fa
25656 F20101204_AAASFE ludlow_m_Page_106.QC.jpg
d08baa94993b825bb613adefa8b948fe
ee16efb0f45e39a053abe7264800b8458d53679f
34269 F20101204_AAASER ludlow_m_Page_033.QC.jpg
890bc88a8438d4ca3cc6a420bca05d9a
3048b73f522324b7bf6907a3f61fe2437234d15a
F20101204_AAARZL ludlow_m_Page_008.txt
abb51143fca7901598f8b71168ac1399
afad389f13799d8ba37c599d8415b7f09c82939e
47349 F20101204_AAARYW ludlow_m_Page_090.pro
118c41f974dcd18185a5043ac6e2cba7
99f0b9996ce2d420fd28cd197bd585ab28e834f7
29730 F20101204_AAASFF ludlow_m_Page_006.QC.jpg
6ae98f9f1b905cb8cc8c74f865960fab
3f4da003ff3b57b778fd1fe9238cc1e52a958cc0
37655 F20101204_AAASES ludlow_m_Page_077.QC.jpg
7b874236a8048ddb506fd5a96ce2dead
24404c100607e1c8a454d41c97fa4a775460daab
F20101204_AAARZM ludlow_m_Page_009.txt
341dfa1a767c7d373d5d2d966da09a01
dcf72d5e51d44c530fefaea7bff9deef72663a31
50741 F20101204_AAARYX ludlow_m_Page_091.pro
971fd17ae2fbf2b581b2c9e5a4467324
e77576053a9d22adf5b89907708b904089a1b04a
34165 F20101204_AAASFG ludlow_m_Page_027.QC.jpg
2720086f0a1e933c9fea7076cb819caa
9886fcf9c7f217d57a84b74f11ef34c609851ef2
8958 F20101204_AAASET ludlow_m_Page_012thm.jpg
e74fece2d06f8a20105adf5d417fb5b5
4dbe6e0c230b2db3345774c643352254fe1c1195
2381 F20101204_AAARZN ludlow_m_Page_010.txt
f0e30b326b2b15312ec21a47d2c1394e
805f5e093af2b4aca66b66b59f795eee90294b63
52537 F20101204_AAARYY ludlow_m_Page_093.pro
2f7c3544b083b790042123f6b8673da8
c4e703b10ede9ddc6267b904df6eaefe58c0d9e2
8148 F20101204_AAASFH ludlow_m_Page_047thm.jpg
6bb625990831aa6b6e225729711f0e40
fa4c85ea9679f8ff38c807355df1f6920bbd3cd1
8339 F20101204_AAASEU ludlow_m_Page_014thm.jpg
abc35bcc1a3386c46db9524ea45336a0
91117c54329aff99fcef727c327c03c250d52065
2161 F20101204_AAARZO ludlow_m_Page_012.txt
4f346aebd3338ef013e12fe3218bcaa8
14df88698601eb6d83154f422c3ffb49539dfe8f
35560 F20101204_AAARYZ ludlow_m_Page_094.pro
f849491b1e29323bc79d5003ba16ccb4
9ac3ff42f1402f0c81e8c650fe846bdb2e55cc64
35878 F20101204_AAASFI ludlow_m_Page_055.QC.jpg
9463180d22c0d04be94368218bf6b793
09b1b8e06f87215ee7436c475ec99f9730a2342d
8665 F20101204_AAASEV ludlow_m_Page_054thm.jpg
d31156b512adaffb039e9683aeba1f8d
4cda2a1d63da1f180c74aed6ee89df7b90a23b63
1566 F20101204_AAARZP ludlow_m_Page_013.txt
13702d0f280e1438b621c33db109e96d
6bf9c17ce9b4c2c27ef539eddec0982f0a3e1b42
36611 F20101204_AAASFJ ludlow_m_Page_069.QC.jpg
d150409e39f7270e31889fd70d358105
6ae49f3e380c00945f569b7d0d47a924aeafe3c9
31651 F20101204_AAASEW ludlow_m_Page_038.QC.jpg
c6c72599556dd3f2aef524d752f7f12c
1181bdbe0a97eeea52236b3aca1030fc3bd88762
2077 F20101204_AAARZQ ludlow_m_Page_014.txt
043dd6c50151387ba552946d8f4273d5
7d9f0bd549a87f8599ea7884a3f4bef193ff5826
7771 F20101204_AAASFK ludlow_m_Page_025thm.jpg
7921a9efdcd1b267a9199d6bec64f38d
1e66059731c14543c45a8a9a02f9de52a3aa1f6e
8846 F20101204_AAASEX ludlow_m_Page_043thm.jpg
0630a758cdd946ceb92afd8ae3f853f0
a1da4ca821594482f83b141ca6b864cc289493be
8760 F20101204_AAASFL ludlow_m_Page_082thm.jpg
3f4ccacaff346ac4e54329ca5ae32635
d58985b5a61daefc6017016df7b61971f940b3c8
9047 F20101204_AAASEY ludlow_m_Page_026thm.jpg
d0763dae1780357410a14022b419aeff
b1c30d400d63c8273292829b51eb661f476a3c26
2114 F20101204_AAARZR ludlow_m_Page_015.txt
6441a3d6379707178be8494087442b66
45305095a09949f19e1a3a70aeb781a5418b9615
30417 F20101204_AAASGA ludlow_m_Page_025.QC.jpg
4880557bfd9008ad099d1cf5bb6567bd
d0e5b22c1ba49bfa86c7667ed121b250d2ea2c76
8963 F20101204_AAASFM ludlow_m_Page_052thm.jpg
ea2fba77b869747bfd31536c93d485cd
11517e5e260cb93a630bdc20fa973d873e66d3c0
33267 F20101204_AAASEZ ludlow_m_Page_078.QC.jpg
bfdee5ac9777a69c7de99130730c3e9d
6747254232f1f7f734518dd062edd433366cf093
2060 F20101204_AAARZS ludlow_m_Page_016.txt
6e6e6e9aac3d524e1ad505718bc4f784
f4d7ee40701c07f51fe11520204545eeedd74807
8843 F20101204_AAASGB ludlow_m_Page_030thm.jpg
96db0dd85fad15cc9d08c6253a2f2876
3eccc8557bf819de641df73be5b8bdc40e8e3055
15132 F20101204_AAASFN ludlow_m_Page_095.QC.jpg
4e0abcdc5bcfcb02566e2a98ded056a1
ee0eb4b191c98221c47562ae33680f4eac82ca97
2210 F20101204_AAARZT ludlow_m_Page_017.txt
f4d44f5771ee3dcd57c0b93a74847a00
cbabb642353e800b247fe778be739e74b52d9654
8533 F20101204_AAASGC ludlow_m_Page_081thm.jpg
34cf9f76232edcaee32bdee016f74db4
a3209d8d99e063acd502dcc6926934d6ec7cb188
8465 F20101204_AAASFO ludlow_m_Page_056thm.jpg
cee0b8e2250c7e636b0e956380244a18
87847c69ff934159d50268a02369b6dedc639b95
1934 F20101204_AAARZU ludlow_m_Page_018.txt
69467e3ea05e5f8e9a772098f6d9ee76
31077779245c75ae253f4685d3509ba1f5dd2777
8577 F20101204_AAASGD ludlow_m_Page_088thm.jpg
46f4a9ef7f6a762ee75c0d09e77ead62
db50d0730c1cca94998d33c68849adfb2e8e1d69
9053 F20101204_AAASFP ludlow_m_Page_031thm.jpg
404d9a161ddd922dc2aaf1715493405e
6da25c67e8ff774a7eebdce34cb91746d38d164d
2017 F20101204_AAARZV ludlow_m_Page_019.txt
2adf92f165bc86c4a46b6b73c048c04d
4cae6235d8d6dc3ea2c6cbd019418485d105828b
8255 F20101204_AAASGE ludlow_m_Page_053thm.jpg
c3091e8bc3cc89423968b2c95e55847b
c64b95588b4976ab2accc83b81c7bef286df4001
8459 F20101204_AAASFQ ludlow_m_Page_023thm.jpg
828e4eac75d8596616807321128557e9
3cf734580258a9d7fe4c7647892a771cfafdcd41
2035 F20101204_AAARZW ludlow_m_Page_020.txt
7f152e1465a8be7b58392a514a9b58e1
7be9e87f7b79eb07dfceb0277618d148ddb0719e
159806 F20101204_AAASGF UFE0022147_00001.xml
1ffdd94171130b3a976b23686fc94635
7e4513556aaaf1de4347b523afc4b56194b60d87
31842 F20101204_AAASFR ludlow_m_Page_061.QC.jpg
0a247ed68a936908cedfafa36bbbbfb6
966486d6e7a75568d222e4d68b6461fd1b37898e
2100 F20101204_AAARZX ludlow_m_Page_023.txt
5c3372a7979f2d422d52e44262b705bd
89b32f6d58a04b8f74da71e1b5be6d30f7c3c314
1170 F20101204_AAASGG ludlow_m_Page_002.QC.jpg
1af9b512321effeeef7f5cde75eb1250
ee7d580605c4a1cb55d36ac8f3329242a63ed765
9062 F20101204_AAASFS ludlow_m_Page_024thm.jpg
501fbc059cc0fb8705236d738a2ebc96
d3211011c4bb9bf444942b2c747ca7f6945a9c83
2206 F20101204_AAARZY ludlow_m_Page_024.txt
3c925a51343db64797d8c056da6bdf07
a5c30079b5aceeb05cf1a0542c7692a32df2faf9
614 F20101204_AAASGH ludlow_m_Page_003thm.jpg
d8baa0346e291e2481a9554268ea6875
cb5ac92e183508745f69fedbd27cc1bbaf5cb04f
35110 F20101204_AAASFT ludlow_m_Page_023.QC.jpg
be809aa07081bf8cf6124351ccbd1c78
8f209c516a20872d922fec964cc4b7c01e967ca3
1847 F20101204_AAARZZ ludlow_m_Page_025.txt
41a417874a27d5a7d5dfc48ce6de6a2d
0d334cdeb5aae5394ffaed4bcf65afc185f44e8a
4981 F20101204_AAASGI ludlow_m_Page_004thm.jpg
65ba9ed24f5504655509ad03bddbcc51
34e08d73757b17eec3ee7e4001d89a293fa72942
9048 F20101204_AAASFU ludlow_m_Page_021thm.jpg
63422b18aab613991e65fbef92b777e3
a8d5b17f24476e560e3d089b832a594e08aff219
29529 F20101204_AAASGJ ludlow_m_Page_005.QC.jpg
a98cb9dd1793084a19710f4f4290a3e0
8b3ebe4c51ecaf8ac0f3f04a9836a329cf4b3017
8540 F20101204_AAASFV ludlow_m_Page_087thm.jpg
92788ba661c5f361f8e5b07e3a69c613
41521f11c985a57449bb9ac529f1b2931baad5a8
7245 F20101204_AAASGK ludlow_m_Page_006thm.jpg
9762af371f0036ca308b6f7ee7f4b9b0
3dba2c5b2929a4e45430edb8d7bd5a1bdc203ba7
4471 F20101204_AAASFW ludlow_m_Page_050thm.jpg
17e9cc1fa00b740498136c43eb7d2697
d5ea9e147be6c4f90778a78a6cd26fd4e1338ac0
7641 F20101204_AAASGL ludlow_m_Page_007.QC.jpg
c7c6c0a3965d97c5a31691a3cd7e68fc
39bee77bc71d22bb19f9c57b8f05996030f9d71a
33733 F20101204_AAASFX ludlow_m_Page_086.QC.jpg
4a382f00a6bbf68bd7bf7a8fad5bbe6d
7cd6d89c5fe9dcd7fde538921e4b3d0707ce7e7e
36024 F20101204_AAASHA ludlow_m_Page_028.QC.jpg
264a3f62c5ce713ba08059b387c20075
57e145efdca1ba26f93435bccf1bf68e322446a8
7867 F20101204_AAASGM ludlow_m_Page_008thm.jpg
f48eed50e311b6d8232ca997fc7c4a10
d6ff68a2fd3c8592e2e00e3a97e2bdda131a826a
8751 F20101204_AAASFY ludlow_m_Page_093thm.jpg
6dbe77dd502748e14ee09433d53d0400
9c8d6b0d4ba79a137f14f365bbf70b236f61a158
8937 F20101204_AAASHB ludlow_m_Page_028thm.jpg
9ed3a2cd9f83e5c09ec4d2d6163d1164
3d44ffef733996a1fb824f9284160cef547b55b3
33158 F20101204_AAASGN ludlow_m_Page_009.QC.jpg
1f67367f3e647b40acbbfed0349238cb
a970332f04c8342efd9fa36f269b39642fb551bf
34208 F20101204_AAASFZ ludlow_m_Page_044.QC.jpg
d6486b00e18d9e14bdcd49760350e0c1
9b58e060c08ff3ce2b12521c68f803b1b130f482
35070 F20101204_AAASHC ludlow_m_Page_029.QC.jpg
db54b748f4e53858716217d978912cfd
e418dc65dc4478aceff6d8b006e3d917da74640c
8050 F20101204_AAASGO ludlow_m_Page_009thm.jpg
b13a9a4ba1bb83b808680d374c8927a6
911c7b1343122e5b80c8b0c4b48caed633e76178
8436 F20101204_AAASHD ludlow_m_Page_033thm.jpg
ea6e6b48ec95777ca836a077f2481941
ed76eae7f3c16c81c8db3e2b5341777e2ee1b9d5
8432 F20101204_AAASGP ludlow_m_Page_010thm.jpg
8bc75af3b477e4424864b0fbb48d9238
f6894508461c1beff80f9b1767fa69d97de5eb1c
8691 F20101204_AAASHE ludlow_m_Page_034thm.jpg
f5215a883b9bb24781ae7e09060be3a6
1237d0e00951618553aab95204611c15606a6373
35199 F20101204_AAASGQ ludlow_m_Page_011.QC.jpg
49d67dc1fcee552afe4cd0b6fdd8cbd5
e9693a4f7f680d01c0b2d749b3b2b7fa97ffa44d
35968 F20101204_AAASHF ludlow_m_Page_035.QC.jpg
9f39d9bcdb9d52511ee191f04c43ca83
a004db9026e8a35b8dc8e2e1fdcaed574c0fe9b2
F20101204_AAASGR ludlow_m_Page_011thm.jpg
5d3eb01aaf7e6a53a06efa79051faa1e
a188a7481b5a62fdea6e45e7e499f37e19c59202
34028 F20101204_AAASGS ludlow_m_Page_016.QC.jpg
754e9f2c564f40773d079c7d7352121b
15fd05af0bd94d4097e5972aafba63c792c7567c
33177 F20101204_AAASHG ludlow_m_Page_037.QC.jpg
5d5976e3e985d7a8f1ed2449969edd4d
d780c87b8a08620da952fe2663a90b413fc237c4
8631 F20101204_AAASGT ludlow_m_Page_016thm.jpg
bc1a9b5d46436fbfabf7731bae1499e0
6e16144b48ff3f1a34e3a4a9587bd3e948856e8c
34510 F20101204_AAASHH ludlow_m_Page_040.QC.jpg
62cb89bc92bfa55d0042186ae16afdd6
7a4403c51d70458370779c83a455b47c9732a606
34694 F20101204_AAASGU ludlow_m_Page_017.QC.jpg
8087258f5b8d0a2e077d7d5211109998
866359257334b84c3f36abe5a86572394a202254
37546 F20101204_AAASHI ludlow_m_Page_041.QC.jpg
2813d612a90a7ffec81410814bc13d60
bfe1ca51bd11709e45cc1a873405b3766273208c
8589 F20101204_AAASGV ludlow_m_Page_017thm.jpg
5a22e1de2f2ba6f5683653099a302dd6
b3789c8644e3bdca58effe4f20fc390fcce64645
8783 F20101204_AAASHJ ludlow_m_Page_041thm.jpg
80f98c21637f5add1582b662297f4768
3ec613f1c5f803234adc34ee7c52e91dc61cfeba
36721 F20101204_AAASGW ludlow_m_Page_021.QC.jpg
df45ecd03831b181573ccfff79baa09b
2954117ad2334a2827b3b98aad01903ac9dddfc7
8773 F20101204_AAASHK ludlow_m_Page_042thm.jpg
bc6d0f6091c27052e4d2356d20618e6a
d0b8e6c736c85ddb44a2b65dc28b47b1cb956ba1
36863 F20101204_AAASGX ludlow_m_Page_024.QC.jpg
9482f53130cf7f0323bb6d2bcbc9d9c3
2c398316255ba5a6802999043193b83dde7a9b7b
35774 F20101204_AAASHL ludlow_m_Page_045.QC.jpg
2e842a09f06ac4a02bf78b62967d5cee
6da47ef58d4b28edb29b5de66839d9af4e46a729
35579 F20101204_AAASGY ludlow_m_Page_026.QC.jpg
867e4f5187e4053cb4896602bd1f5739
b39fe26c84e4cd2236da4b861c7e16043ccfd774
8509 F20101204_AAASIA ludlow_m_Page_072thm.jpg
4601c3588c0f7008c7ffa44b4ecfdb6b
340c30aaed857cfa517abe98d9b629622b92cc2f
8629 F20101204_AAASHM ludlow_m_Page_046thm.jpg
71eeb45550767497cace90ba23ff557c
67ef151c999ea776231764c87c59808158ae0ea4
8639 F20101204_AAASGZ ludlow_m_Page_027thm.jpg
558a222f53dc7596a4520e6c295a8414
cecc5b98c92be3f461bb97608659d6945e0e67f5
35327 F20101204_AAASIB ludlow_m_Page_073.QC.jpg
2420efbdb9102f62366d1a0b260270f1
c3b039ce660580484dd92b8c02939182635f2e64
32079 F20101204_AAASHN ludlow_m_Page_047.QC.jpg
9af7dbdd2ebd5ed59f7b863c54f57a68
c54dad8303a374d712c09cedecadfc9092259eb9
8486 F20101204_AAASIC ludlow_m_Page_074thm.jpg
c2a410941b44095205591872a91554ef
0751ef3574927cab2880cf88078841487e9ec672
35608 F20101204_AAASHO ludlow_m_Page_048.QC.jpg
9602549fcbbfd29c28e7c9884c18c0ec
8433822bdc37bcd311bb283953b704f20c43296a
20426 F20101204_AAASID ludlow_m_Page_079.QC.jpg
3e29259e85fce4e8d56130d18d9aa357
79de305efca6210fa61ddeec3532e0a03771cd9f
8700 F20101204_AAASHP ludlow_m_Page_048thm.jpg
6a2c89d4c4556761b84027c19caf4a02
d8eb12c8469cff21978c120864ec7773cebd8c4a
32884 F20101204_AAASIE ludlow_m_Page_081.QC.jpg
a17c7246afb54aefd834a6f89343aa86
8fe189d4ee78d02367ba33eec0ab13f36cdb302d
35523 F20101204_AAASHQ ludlow_m_Page_053.QC.jpg
011aecf36456433c3fb93af4902ccaa8
e27292b167a9673de2bbd0dc3beccb70262fc429
8256 F20101204_AAASIF ludlow_m_Page_084thm.jpg
5fe4014a8eb5110c352fb1ab636f505a
be416796a9fb5b75058b0cb2e8efc7e2e23229bf
34621 F20101204_AAASHR ludlow_m_Page_058.QC.jpg
5a779920faab39784c5e3d249a768f6f
8a566f2244843ac0e6736246f46688a56c01a1fa
7503 F20101204_AAASIG ludlow_m_Page_089thm.jpg
99bd87d16f49402cd408f472d621db17
1f279cc780399d658f21db380c1bf38d6ffb871e
8579 F20101204_AAASHS ludlow_m_Page_058thm.jpg
cad642041a21c39e8ecc55e0c06309fe
2ca5280f0c73caad665c28be11b3ef2c10ccf78f
31993 F20101204_AAASIH ludlow_m_Page_091.QC.jpg
51086ce6ec73b9ac6afa383301f20220
a4ee567d5aac3cbdbecde5d2b78048ce577b11da
8405 F20101204_AAASHT ludlow_m_Page_061thm.jpg
1b42e1eebf3be853fe1f8ed17d69c733
3f0785955733eb7cbbda5d96aa0733006764b86c
24437 F20101204_AAASII ludlow_m_Page_094.QC.jpg
0d7781a30e02599e04c195d81d8eaeb3
082dcae3d1813c78906c2e4188330c5041ac1c3e
34986 F20101204_AAASHU ludlow_m_Page_062.QC.jpg
06f63d66c926c6aed5201c78e05c831b
ce9f9a411b2132965d4a7dbc2b0adf0fba5d3c50
4107 F20101204_AAASIJ ludlow_m_Page_095thm.jpg
a480a125c81a7d47d6e37fbdab6a337f
0bf14342d0d85c55d11935f707a5b9c98fa5d1a9
8140 F20101204_AAASHV ludlow_m_Page_065thm.jpg
b9db5b72a353871464f0594e9cc3ad86
74930478dbb83a610a6b60f6306ac8d109ec40e9
16908 F20101204_AAASIK ludlow_m_Page_096.QC.jpg
8d0d21629d75ff395fbbfb1c65ec8c20
9dc6b5e2b297ea5387786e7361e27576938337b8
8799 F20101204_AAASHW ludlow_m_Page_068thm.jpg
a782fcaa4831ba52dcb6a03722ca89ef
7062de99c032710bbb4c126c7c8d0d7370b692f3
39741 F20101204_AAASIL ludlow_m_Page_098.QC.jpg
908de5bef2df39aac21897d33d7a56bf
b5230b4519df9fdade6d0bb7075874d48b4edfee
F20101204_AAASHX ludlow_m_Page_069thm.jpg
d2171da55fd99a076d6987781d81bcfb
033c8131be1910007ef27d1624cefeca421a21d8
9136 F20101204_AAASIM ludlow_m_Page_098thm.jpg
d13f57f28ca53a682d0b173e961e127d
94f3577010206278710fb2264a558dfab39b426d
8452 F20101204_AAASHY ludlow_m_Page_070thm.jpg
f1d0042edb301b55fff3ba8a6722fb02
38d9eaa9525c9d784d62a4fdb13da36131cda131
9268 F20101204_AAASIN ludlow_m_Page_102thm.jpg
4b63b2bc0794d302679cebfb900ceb40
201bd018a2dc1f5412137c02da88605aca1f1286
8657 F20101204_AAASHZ ludlow_m_Page_071thm.jpg
0d3a87fb56d7e0566c84782e6b5c5681
2201daf71c114bc1d39883109c79bc22383aa92c
100134 F20101204_AAARGA ludlow_m_Page_061.jpg
b1dc9799205019515d690138757f9df6
65f655650f6e8e01f9ef34580f94cb09b8921db9
36386 F20101204_AAASIO ludlow_m_Page_103.QC.jpg
775433a508fd6bddfa3f523ce8a7e179
167453e4914171e0c1f2fd0f60c288fda1d11af5
113688 F20101204_AAARGB ludlow_m_Page_024.jpg
4d09aec9cab1ea638a929779f25700d2
f643cca8bc1520e3ac048277858633ece9f35f81
35302 F20101204_AAASIP ludlow_m_Page_104.QC.jpg
33695ce1534a490f0ab39fc9c2a4dc0a
012991ae138f69e9d1a1dd1b19f3fa01b31d9104







BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION:
A CASE STUDY OF ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
















By

MARK E. LUDLOW


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008


































2008 Mark E. Ludlow



























To Tracy, whose smile makes it all worthwhile









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Academic undertakings, as are any endeavors in life worth completing, are rarely

individual efforts. Kristin Larsen and Joseli Macedo have provided guidance and instruction and

have, through their supervision of the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Community Development Work Study Program, financially enabled my graduate education.

Gail Monahan was the first affordable housing rehabilitation provider I interned for under the

Work Study Program; her experience and insightfulness are valuable resources. I thank all three

of them for agreeing to sit on my thesis committee; Dr. Larsen has been an exceptional

committee chair.

My wife and two daughters have sacrificed more than just time for the sake of my graduate

education and have never complained. Without their support, I would have been completely

incapable of finishing this thesis. I look forward to making it up to them, although they are too

gracious to ask for or to expect that from me. Somehow, that makes it all seem worth it.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

L IST O F T A B L E S ......................................... .............................. 7

ABSTRAC T ...........................................................................................

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .......................................................... 10

2 L ITE R A TU R E R E V IE W ........................................................................ .. ....................... 14

History of Affordable Housing Policy and Programs..........................................................14
1930s through the 1970s ........................................................... .... ... ............14
1980s to the Present ....................................................... ...................... 20
Social and Affordable Housing Policy ............................................................................22
Current Affordable Housing Context .............................................................................. 25
F e d e ra l ...............................................................................................2 5
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) .................................. ...............27
F u n din g G ap ................................................................2 8
H housing Finance A agencies ..........................................................................29
H housing T rust Funds ........................................ .............. ............... .. ............. 30
State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program ............... ...............31
Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation..................... .... ......................... 35
R rehabilitation D efined.............................................. .......... ........... .......... .. ..35
Historical Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation................... ..............36
Current B barriers to R rehabilitation ................................................ .............................. 38
F financing B barriers ...................................... .. ... .................. ...............38
Barriers Encountered when Preparing Property for Rehabilitation..............................40
Barriers Encountered during the Rehabilitation Process........................................41
M iscellaneou s B barriers .......................................................................... ....................46
C current C context ........................................................................................... ........ 47
Primary Funding Sources for Rehabilitation ............... ......................................47
Local H housing A assistance Plans........................................................... ............... 48
A ge of the H ou sing Stock ........................................................................ ..................48

3 METHODOLOGY .................. ............................................... ..........51

A lachua County: The Local Context .................................................... ..... ....................... 51
The Case Study as the Appropriate Data Collection Tool for Alachua County ...................54
Selection of Interview ees ............. ........ .. ............................. ............ .. ...... 57
Interview Questions and Questionnaire..................................................... .. ....................58
Interview P protocol .......................................................... ....................... 59
Criteria for Determining Validity of Data ................ .............................. ....60









4 A N A L Y S IS ............................................................................................................................. 6 1

Alachua County Rehabilitation Programs and Processes.............. ...... ...............61
Interview Process and Interviewee Credentials................................................62
Rehabilitation Barriers in Alachua County.... ................................ .....................63
Financing .............. ....... ........... ......... ............. ........ ............. 63
Barriers Encountered when Preparing Property for Rehabilitation..............................66
Barriers Encountered during the Rehabilitation Process........................................68
M miscellaneous B barriers .......................... .............. ................. .... ....... 70
C om prison w ith the L literature .............................................................................. ............72
F in an cin g ............... ........ ............ .................. ......... ................ ............ 7 3
Barriers Encountered when Preparing Property for Rehabilitation..............................74
Barriers Encountered during the Rehabilitation Process.....................................75
M iscellaneou s B barriers .............. .............................................. ...... ..... ......... ....... .... 76
Discrepancies between Local Barriers and Barriers Discussed in the Literature .................77
W hat the D iscrepancies Suggest.................................................. ............................... 78

5 IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION............................... 81

Implications of Discrepancies and Recommendations for Resolution...............................81
Prim ary Im plications .................................. .. ........... .......... ....... 81
Secondary Im plications .............................. .... ....................... ... ...... .... ..... ...... 84
Im plications of the C ase Study ............................ ............................................ .................86
C o n c lu sio n ............. ..... ............ ................. .........................................8 9

APPENDIX

A CURRENT BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION
DISCUSSED IN THE LITERATRUE ............ ..... ........ ................... 97

B AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAMS IN ALACHUA
C O U N T Y ................... ........................................................... ................ 9 8

C AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION AGENCIES AND
ORGANIZATIONS IN ALACHUA COUNTY ....................................... ............... 99

D INTERVIEW QUESTION S ........................................................... .. ............... 100

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ..................................................................................... ..................102

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ......................................................................... ... ..................... 106









LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

4-1 Current Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation................... .................80

5-1 Suggested Focus of Future Published Material ...........................................................95

5-2 Solutions to Addressing Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation in Alachua
C o u n ty ................... ........................................................... ................ 9 6









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning

BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION: A CASE STUDY OF
ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA

By

Mark E. Ludlow

May 2008

Chair: Kristin Larsen
Major: Urban and Regional Planning

Barriers to the rehabilitation of single family, owner-occupied affordable housing can

vary widely between locales and among projects. The literature concerning barriers to

rehabilitation is incomplete, not only because there have been few recent studies but also because

the literature does not fully address barriers that are significant to particular local contexts. An

exploratory case study was conducted in Alachua County, Florida, to determine what differences

exist between barriers found in a local context and those discussed in the literature.

Analysis of the case study results revealed that certain barriers at the local level are not

addressed in the literature; conversely, barriers that receive considerable attention in the

literature were found to be relatively minor in Alachua County. The latter barriers include the

small number of rehabilitation programs available locally; the large amount of paperwork

required for State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program-funded rehabilitation; time

consuming, cumbersome program guidelines; and insufficient individual award amounts.

The primary implications of the discrepancy between barriers found within the local

context and those discussed in the literature are that more study must be completed on the nature

and extent of local barriers in order to better understand how to resolve them. Further, local

rehabilitation administrators and providers must resolve barriers with little guidance from the









widely recognized national studies on the topic. Before these implications can be adequately

addressed, however, financial hurdles to affordable housing rehabilitation must be overcome.

The case study resulted in one clear pattern. All of the barriers present locally but not

discussed in the literature are the result of guidelines and restrictions at the state and local levels.

Although the federal Community Development Block Grant program has guidelines that must be

met, Florida's SHIP program guidelines and the two local governments' Local Housing

Assistance Plans create the local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation. The local

affordable housing rehabilitation administrators and providers agreed these barriers can be

resolved, to a large extent, by coordinating income verification requirements and by streamlining

guidelines and procedures. In all likelihood, affordable housing rehabilitation efforts across the

county are impeded to some extent, given the drastic decrease in federal funding over the last

two decades. However, local governments in Florida are particularly frustrated by the

inaccessibility of funds specifically devoted to affordable housing and affordable housing

rehabilitation.

A second discovery was that there is no clear division between barriers encountered in

the urban and unincorporated areas of Alachua County; local barriers are pervasive in their

occurrence across political jurisdictions. Thus, a standardized and centralized application, cost

estimation, and bidding process may work well for all affordable housing rehabilitation

undertaken in the City and the County; one local office would suffice to process paperwork for

rehabilitation projects in both the City and the County. More study must be completed on the

nature and extent of local barriers in order to better understand how to resolve them and to

discover temporal and spatial patterns.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Barriers to the rehabilitation of single family, owner-occupied affordable housing are

extensive. The literature that addresses barriers to rehabilitation is fragmented, incomplete, and

general. Few recent, comprehensive studies have been undertaken to document barriers to

affordable housing rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is a relatively large component of affordable

housing programs; however, the impact of barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation is not

well understood, especially within local contexts. This thesis claims that significant

discrepancies exist in the nature and incidence of barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation

discussed in the literature and those barriers found in a local context.

This thesis focuses on a case study of Alachua County, Florida; specifically differences

between barriers encountered by local rehabilitation administrators and providers and barriers

discussed in the literature are explored. There are several reasons why a study of local barriers to

affordable housing rehabilitation is relevant:

* The impacts of actions at the federal, state, and local government levels on affordable
housing rehabilitation in a local context are not well understood.

* The effectiveness and efficiency of responses to local barriers to affordable housing
rehabilitation has not been investigated.

* An exploration of local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation is the first step in
documenting the need for further study.

* The results of the local case study are particularly relevant to planning. Planning offers the
long-term, broad framework to develop guiding principles for affordable housing
rehabilitation.

Affordable housing is part of the necessary physical fabric of a community, just as roads,

utilities, schools and businesses are vital to the functioning of neighborhoods. Affordable

1 The commonly-accepted definition of affordable housing as housing that requires no more than 30% of a
household's income is used here; the focus is on income groups that benefit from government-sponsored
rehabilitation programs, namely very-low, low, and moderate income households.









housing must be maintained; often the only option for lower-income owner-occupied households

is rehabilitation assistance provided through federal, state, and local governments. This thesis

explores the need for more study of local barriers to rehabilitation so that planning for affordable

housing rehabilitation may ultimately be more effective and efficient.

Qualitative methodologies, which are often used in the social sciences, are utilized to

explore the claim that significant discrepancies exist in the nature and incidence of barriers to

affordable housing rehabilitation discussed in the literature and those barriers found in a local

context. Instead of attempting to quantify some aspect of barriers to rehabilitation, such as how

often a particular barrier is encountered or how many barriers are present, the objective is to

explore the nature of rehabilitation barriers at the national and local levels. The relevant and

most recent literature has been sponsored, produced or distributed by federal agencies and

national foundations; the focus of this literature is on extensive barriers to rehabilitation. With

few exceptions (Listokin, 2005; Listokin & Crossney, 2005; Listokin & Listokin, 2001a, 2001b),

the literature does not address the differences in rehabilitation barriers that exist among local

jurisdictions. Such differences would not necessarily be the focus of literature by federal

agencies and large organizations. However, after the retrenchment in federal housing policy

during the 1980s and the welfare reform of the 1990s, the efforts of local governments to

overcome rehabilitation barriers may be instructive. These local barriers to rehabilitation, if

different from those discussed in the literature, must be explored and documented before any real

lessons can be learned.

The literature review provides the background and context for barriers to rehabilitation.

It examines historical and contemporary affordable housing policy contexts, significant

affordable housing policies and programs, and policies and programs with rehabilitation









components. Barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation are then discussed, with an emphasis

on current barriers. Because they represent significant funding sources for owner-occupied

affordable housing rehabilitation at the local level, the federal Community Development Block

Grant (CDBG) and Florida's State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) programs garner

special attention.

The recent literature (Listokin, 2005; Listokin & Crossney, 2005; Listokin & Listokin,

2001a, 200 b) does not always make clear distinctions between types of housing discussed;

barriers applicable to owner-occupied single family housing, multifamily rental units, and

historic preservation are generally addressed together. Authors of recent studies expect readers

to utilize information applicable to specific contexts. However, the discussion of barriers in the

literature review is directly applicable to the local barriers to owner-occupied single family

affordable housing rehabilitation that were the subject of the case study. The literature review is

not exhaustive; for example, it does not include discussion of affordable housing rehabilitation

funded through the Farmer's Home Administration, undertaken on Native American tribal lands,

or performed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.

The methodology for data collection follows the literature review. Reasons for choosing

Alachua County to be the local context and for utilizing a single-case study design are presented.

Individuals were interviewed to gather information for the case study; the selection of

interviewees and the development of questions for interviewees are then discussed. Interview

protocol and criteria for determining information to be valid, specifically consensus among

interviewees' responses, are presented at the end of the methodology chapter. Barriers discussed

in the literature and those found in a local context may vary in both character and occurrence.

Establishing that significant differences exist in the nature and incidence of barriers to affordable









housing rehabilitation requires an exploration of the type of barriers discussed in the literature

and their presence and prevalence locally.

Using this methodology, an analysis and comparison of case study results with those

barriers identified in the literature is conducted. This evaluation includes a discussion of local

barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation as well as scrutiny of any discrepancies between

barriers at the local level and those discussed in the literature. Implications of any discrepancies

between local barriers and those presented in the literature are discussed in the final chapter.

The discussion of barriers in this thesis is particularly timely. The national economy and

the housing market in particular, are in turmoil. Real wages have fallen over the last several

years as housing prices have risen dramatically. Recently, housing prices began to fall;

currently, the housing market in many areas of the county is in a slump. Given the federal

government's historic philosophy of encouraging homeownership and the affordable housing

rehabilitation barriers that are specific to lower income groups, certain segments of the

population may be induced to buy a home they cannot afford to maintain. When rehabilitation is

necessary, rehabilitation assistance may be unavailable. The nature of rehabilitation barriers in

the local context presented here is a necessary first step for practical resolution of barriers to

affordable housing rehabilitation.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review presents barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation within both

historical and contemporary affordable housing policy contexts. The current federal and state

rehabilitation programs cannot be appreciated outside of their historical context, which has

changed dramatically since the first major affordable housing policies were enacted during the

Great Depression. While many texts review the entire history of federal affordable housing

policy, the recent literature concerning barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation is fragmented

and inconclusive. With the exception of several studies and recent compilations, few works are

both comprehensive and relatively complete (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a).

The review begins with the major affordable housing policies and associated programs,

with a focus on the ways in which rehabilitation initiatives evolved. Because the local case study

focuses on single family owner-occupied rehabilitation, affordable housing policy and

rehabilitation programs that are intended solely for multifamily rental units are not reviewed.

Historical and current barriers to rehabilitation and the current funding context are discussed,

after which current affordable housing policies and programs that are applicable to Florida and

the case study area are reviewed.

History of Affordable Housing Policy and Programs

1930s through the 1970s

The history of affordable housing policy reflects the struggle between social welfare

advocates who saw the need for decent shelter, policymakers who understood the need for

compromise, and businessmen who viewed housing policy as an economic tool. Most who have

written about the history of housing policy trace the beginnings of relatively continuous, national

efforts to the early 1930s (Duda, 2001; Heinberg, 1983; Wright, 2007). Two efforts at the









national level that occurred prior to the Great Depression were brief and confined to specific

aspects of housing. Concerns over public health and safety in crowded inner cities prompted

early housing advocates to work for change in building codes. As a result, the first federal

government involvement in housing came in 1892 in the form of a task force commissioned by

Congress to investigate substandard housing conditions in America's largest cities (Ford

Foundation, 1989). However, no policies or programs were enacted to correct the problems

discovered during the task force investigation. A second federal intervention came during World

War I when the government constructed housing for factory workers producing war supplies

(Wright, 2007). With the exception of these two efforts, the federal government was content to

leave housing reforms, intervention, and policies to the states until the 1930s.

The country's drastic economic downturn in the 1930s prompted the federal government to

intervene in many sectors of the economy, including housing. Government assistance during the

Great Depression and following World War II was designed both to provide some level of

housing and to create jobs for unemployed laborers and construction workers. Significant

housing legislation and any rehabilitation components of policy are discussed below with a focus

on the emerging theme of rehabilitation.

The Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932 and the Home Owner's Loan Act of 1933 were

both created to shore up the crumbling housing construction industry. Historically, the two acts

began to establish the federal government in the arena of housing policy and intervention, an area

in which federal policy would play a dominant role until the 1980s.

The primary function of the National Housing Act of 1934 was the creation of the Federal

Housing Administration. This agency, which exists today as a division of the federal

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), was "authorized to insure short-term









installment loans made by private lending institutions to finance alterations, repairs and

improvements" (Heinberg, 1983, p. 63).

The United States Housing Act of 1937, also known as the Wagner-Steagall Bill, set the

stage both in tone and program delivery for later affordable housing policy. The Act authorized

the creation of the United States Housing Authority (USHA) to administer the program. In

addition to setting standards for design and construction, the USHA lent money to local housing

authorities for the development of public housing projects.

The Housing Act of 1949, called the Taft-Ellender-Wagner Bill, authorized 135,000 units

annually of public housing, but only 84,000 units were under construction by 1951 when the

United States became heavily involved in the Korean War. The Act is notable because of the

call in its preamble to provide decent housing for every American family (Schwartz, 2006, p. 1)

and for the fact that the goal was not achieved. Both the 1937 and the 1949 Acts relied on

demolition of substandard housing and the planned subsequent construction of new housing units

to further their goals of stabilizing the housing industry with federal funds; neither had a strong

rehabilitation component.

The Housing Act of 1954 was the first post WWII legislation to significantly incorporate

housing rehabilitation. The Act "included rehab[ilitation] and conservation as allowable

components of federal intervention in the housing market to prevent neighborhood decline"

(Listokin & Listokin, 2001a, p. 26). So that rehabilitation and conservation would be

considered, the Act required local governments to submit a plan for improving slum areas; the

plan had to be comprehensive and accommodate citizen participation. Policymakers anticipated

that a comprehensive approach that included citizen input would reduce the amount of slum

clearance occurring and encourage local governments to rehabilitate dilapidated housing. Two









mortgage insurance programs, Sections 220 and 221, were created by the Act, as was the Special

Assistance Function of the Federal National Mortgage Association. Section 220 was utilized for

rehabilitated housing within targeted areas; Section 221 assisted households displaced by federal

urban renewal efforts (Heinberg, 1983). The Special Assistance Function established Fannie

Mae as a purchaser of secondary mortgages, which allowed the organization to significantly

affect housing policy.

The 1960s witnessed a shift in housing policy as policymakers and local housing officials

realized the potential for rehabilitation as a tool within housing policy. Dommel et al. (1983) list

three reasons for the change in attitude concerning rehabilitation:

* Older central cities experienced population decline as households moved to the suburbs;
the decreased need for new construction allowed for a focus on rehabilitation of the
existing housing stock.

* Rehabilitation can enable neighborhood revitalization without the localized social upheaval
resulting from urban renewal neighborhood demolition practices.

* Relatively sharp increases in new construction costs coupled with evolving and then-
stringent new environmental regulations allowed rehabilitation to be cost-effective
(pp. 68-69).

The publication of two significant books can be added to the above list of reasons for a

change in federal housing policy direction. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities,

Jane Jacobs (1961) severely criticized the policy framework that used neighborhood demolition

as a tool for community revitalization. Martin Anderson's (1964) The Federal Bulldozer: A

Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal made widely known the fact that urban renewal programs

had probably destroyed more low income housing than they had created. Both books were

fundamental in effecting affordable housing policy changes.

During the 1960s, federal policy supported various programs for homeowners to

rehabilitate individual properties. In 1961, Sections 203(k)-220(h) insured rehabilitation loans









from private lenders to homeowners. In 1965, Section 115 rehabilitation grants authorized low

income households to obtain grants to rehabilitate their homes. The Housing Act of 1968

established Section 235, which subsidized below market interest rate loans for lower-income

households to purchase new or rehabilitated homes.1 Most of the lower-income households that

purchased homes under Section 235 bought new housing; some, however, did purchase homes

that had been rehabilitated (Dommel et al., 1983). These supply-side programs functioned to

enable homeowners to rehabilitate their property and spur neighborhood revitalization. By the

early 1970s, more than 40,000 housing units a year were being rehabilitated with federal

subsidies available through these owner rehabilitation programs (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a).

Similar to the Sections 203(k)-220(h), 115 and 235 programs, Section 312 provided low-

interest rehabilitation loans and was also a precursor to current rehabilitation policy and

programs. Authorized in 1964 and phased out in 1981, Section 312 required that local

government agencies, primarily housing authorities, could be the only eligible sponsors of

rehabilitation loans; sponsors inspected potential properties to determine the level of

rehabilitation needed; sponsors selected contractors, processed client applications and disbursed

funds (Housing Assistance Council, 1991). Although Section 312 is no longer active, the

functions practiced under this program endure in other rehabilitation programs. Local

government agencies continue to be the primary administrators of affordable housing

rehabilitation assistance; sponsors are often responsible for inspecting potential property,








1 Below market interest rate loans are subsidized by federal, state, or local government to assist lower-income
households.









selecting contractors, processing client applications, and paying for rehabilitation of individual

properties.2

Created in 1965, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) develops

policies and designs programs for housing and urban areas (Wright, 2007). The Department's

responsibilities have shifted over the years as policy emphasis has shifted from primarily funding

public housing construction to subsidizing existing housing. This transition from supply-side to

demand-side programs has not been reversed; HUD's programs continue to emphasize demand

side subsidies.

The Housing Act of 1974 established Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) in

response to program oversight problems that drove the Nixon administration to end the supply-

side programs begun in the 1960s (Dommel et al., 1983; Listokin & Listokin, 2001a). The

CDBG program consolidated many earlier programs, including those that targeted rehabilitation

through specific grant programs. Although CDBG funding for rehabilitation was relatively

restricted during its first three years, rehabilitation became an acceptable eligible activity in 1977

(Dommel et al., 1983). The 1974 Act also created the Section 8 multifamily rental program,

which included a Substantial Rehabilitation element. On a smaller scale, the Home Mortgage

Disclosure Act of 1975 and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 were policies that

included rehabilitation as a distinctive housing strategy. The Housing Act of 1977 created Urban

Development Action Grants to encourage redevelopment in aging neighborhoods through both

new construction and rehabilitation of owner-occupied and multifamily rental housing.





2 Sponsors, also known as subrecipients, are the local government agencies, for-profit, and nonprofit organizations
that receive a majority of their rehabilitation funding from some level of government and directly manage
rehabilitation projects.









The CDBG program evolved into a primary funding source for rehabilitation. Compared

with most previous federal programs that had essentially dictated how funding was to be spent,

local governments had wide latitude in spending decisions, including the use of CDBG funds to

leverage private investment in housing rehabilitation. Local governments could achieve several

objectives, such as neighborhood revitalization, housing rehabilitation, and infrastructure

improvements from one funding source. The CDBG program is still used for these purposes, as

well as for other community development activities, and is discussed further in the current

affordable housing context section.

1980s to the Present

As the 1970s came to an end, fundamental changes in federal housing policy and programs

had occurred. "Production subsidies were largely replaced by family subsidies and new

construction supplanted by rehabilitation. The appetite for expensive ventures had passed. The

first eight years of the 1980s were to pass before another housing authorization law was enacted"

(Ford Foundation, 1989, p. 5).

The level of federal spending, not just on housing assistance but on social issues as a

whole, began to decrease dramatically when President Reagan took office in 1981. "Although

the 1970s represented a decade of expansion in federal housing assistance, the 1980s mark a

period of severe contraction of the federal role" (Stegman & Holden, 1987, p. 9). For the first

time since the mid-1950s, a drastic decrease in the amount of federal grants to state and local

governments occurred, the result of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981. The Act did not

simply cut federal spending for affordable housing. In fact, "the entire thrust of federal housing

policy in the 1980s was toward the reduction of the federal government's role in the

production, management, and ownership of affordable housing. .. ." (Goetz, 1993, p. 34).









The Housing Act of 1983 continued the fundamental changes in federal housing policy by

sharply reducing the amount of funding provided for new construction and rehabilitation. In

1981, $30 billion was spent on subsidized housing; by 1989, the amount had decreased to less

than $8 billion (Ford Foundation, 1989). The decrease in funding was the result of a repeal of

Section 8 funds for new construction and substantial rehabilitation and a new provision for

vouchers. These vouchers, introduced in the Housing Act of 1974, included new construction,

substantial rehabilitation, and existing housing. The Housing Act of 1983 eliminated the new

construction and substantial rehabilitation allowable uses, so that Section 8 vouchers subsidized

only existing housing. With a voucher, an eligible lower-income household obtains rental

housing; the rent is paid by the federal government. The repeal of the new construction and

substantial rehabilitation components of Section 8 reflected a significant shift from supply-side

to demand side funding in federal housing policy, which is a policy framework still in place

today. Although the Section 8 program primarily applied to multifamily rental housing, it aptly

illustrates the decrease in funding that furthered the "devolution" of housing policy from the

federal government to the states, a shift reinforced by continuing funding shortfalls.

By the late 1980s, the federal government had made a substantial departure from the

housing policies of the 1950s and 1960s. Policy during the first several decades after

World War II primarily focused on demolition and/or new construction of housing units;

rehabilitation represented only 5% of federal housing subsidies (Listokin & Listokin,

2001a, p. 29). By the end of the Reagan Administration in 1989, 81% of HUD housing subsidies

were being expended on existing housing or rehabilitation (Listokin, 1991, p. 172).

Federal housing policies enacted during the 1990s continued the trend of increased

funding for programs that included rehabilitation components. The National Affordable Housing









Act of 1990 created the HOME program, which includes rehabilitation as one of the activities

eligible to receive federal matching funds. The HOPE III and HOPE VI programs fund housing

rehabilitation, although the two programs are different in intent. HOPE III is limited to existing

subsidized housing; HOPE VI has been used primarily for the demolition and new construction

of housing units on public housing sites. The 1990 Act was, in part, a response to the shifting

philosophies of welfare reform. The Act was designed to coordinate affordable housing and

social services programs, with the goal of enabling households to become self-sufficient. In

support of this goal, public housing authorities were encouraged to develop programs that

enabled economic self-sufficiency such as job training, education, and child care. Such concerns

had not been widely considered as related to affordable housing policy; however, policymakers

began to consider social policy holistically during the 1980s. The partial convergence of

affordable housing and social welfare policies requires a brief review of the developing overlap

of the two policy arenas.

Social and Affordable Housing Policy

Few connections and minimal coordination between housing and other social policy

occurred until the late 1980s and early 1990s. What connections had existed were scattered and

not well integrated through effective programs.3 The failure to firmly establish a link between

the two policy areas was primarily due to policymakers' firm belief that housing and social

welfare were two different issues and therefore best dealt with independently:

Housing has always had an uneasy relationship with the rest of the social welfare safety
net. Part of the explanation is that housing has never been strictly a poverty issue, with the
largest government housing subsidies flowing not to the poor but to the middle class and
affluent through the mortgage interest deduction (Newman, 1999, p. ix).

3 HUD has had several programs, some ongoing, that utilized a coordinated approach to encourage and enable
lower-income households to become economically self-sufficient; these programs include: Project Self-Sufficiency;
Operation Bootstrap; and the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, which is still in operation (Bogdon, 1999,
pp. 149-158).









Advocates in both policy arenas saw the need for a coordinated approach. In the 1920s,

welfare advocates understood that substandard housing was detrimental to mothers and their

children and that housing was a basic human need. Development of the legislation that became

the Housing Act of 1937 was guided by a belief that "subsidized housing should be a vehicle for

human development" (Newman & Schnare, 1992, p. 8).

The continued separation of housing and social welfare policy between the 1930s and the

1980s was a reflection of the fact that programs began by serving two distinctly different groups.

During the decades after the Depression, at most only 25% of the households receiving housing

assistance also received income assistance (Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Social

Security Income, and/or General Assistance).4 After World War II the situation began to

change, so that by the early 1990s approximately half of households receiving housing assistance

were also receiving income assistance (Newman, 1999). However, the agencies that

administered housing and social programs maintained different objectives and eligibility criteria.

The difference between program objectives of housing and social welfare policy can be

illustrated with an example of housing assistance funding in 1987. The Department of Health

and Human Services, which oversees welfare shelter grants, administered approximately $10

billion in assistance to five million households in 1987. That same year, HUD administered

roughly the same amount but to only half as many households (Newman & Schnare, 1992).

While one-third of welfare recipients lived in substandard conditions because no requirement

existed that housing meet minimum conditions, recipients of HUD housing assistance resided in

housing that met minimum standards.




4 Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Social Security Income, and General Assistance were the three main
types of income, or welfare, assistance after the Depression.









As the populations served by housing and social welfare programs gradually became less

distinct, one particular reason for keeping housing as an essentially stand-alone policy instrument

became increasingly important to policymakers: the use of certain housing policy components as

economic tools with measurable results. As noted previously, almost from the beginning of the

federal government's involvement in housing during the Depression, housing policy in general

has been a tool to assist not just the poor but also the middle class. The mortgage interest

deduction, which provides tax savings to homeowners, is an example of a policy decision that

allows most owner-occupied households to reap a government benefit.

A policy shift in the 1990s was the result of a change in congressional leadership and a

backlash against the stereotypical welfare recipient. The view of social policy as a means to

reduce poverty was replaced by a belief that welfare was a means for achieving economic self-

sufficiency, not a permanent entitlement. The same attitude affected affordable housing policy

as well. Affordable housing programs were recast as temporary tools to help households reach

financial independence. The unmet needs for essentials such as housing, health care, and food,

were seen as symptoms of economic dependence; that dependence could be overcome with

programs providing assistance such as job training, child care, and life-skills preparation.

Previously, housing programs were meant to provide housing as an end in itself. This

mindset, which Newman and Schnare (1992) termed the "housing as housing" approach, did not

encourage or enable housing providers to deal with the economic reasons for poverty. The

majority of direct federal housing assistance flows to lower income households, yet the amount

of assistance is much less than the tax policies that encourage homeownership. Few efforts are

made to establish a link between housing assistance and economic dependence and to allocate

the funding necessary to effectively resolve the underlying causes of poverty. These tax policies









that encourage homeownership and the direct subsidies that fund affordable housing are

discussed below.

Current Affordable Housing Context

Federal

Due to the federal government's policy decision to provide affordable housing assistance

to state and local governments in the form of block grants, funding for affordable housing

rehabilitation is often one of a variety of eligible strategies in a given program. The dramatic

changes in affordable housing policies and programs have similarly affected funding for

rehabilitation. A review of the federal government's role in promoting homeownership is

followed by a description of the funding vehicle that most states use to partially fill the

affordable housing gap that developed as federal dollars began to diminish in the 1980s.

The federal government plays a large role in general housing policy and encourages

homeownership through the tax code, mortgage insurance, and federal agencies such as the

Veteran's Administration and HUD. The Treasury Department, through the Internal Revenue

Service, has responsibility for tax expenditures. The Veteran's Administration guarantees a

portion of private loans taken out by veterans so that little or no down payment is required by a

lender. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, however, is responsible for the

majority of affordable housing and general housing policy programs. The Department

administers the following affordable housing programs:

* project-based subsidy programs, including those for remaining public housing units
* the Section 8 voucher program
* FHA insurance programs
* Community Development Block Grants
* programs for special-needs populations such as the elderly and homeless









The Department of Housing and Urban Development has oversight responsibility for the

three largest providers of mortgage loans and insurance. The Federal National Mortgage

Association (FNMA), known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

(FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac, make loans and provide loan guarantees. Through its Office

of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, HUD has oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), known as Ginnie Mae, is a

corporation within HUD and provides guarantees on mortgages provided through other HUD

offices or federal government agencies. These government-sponsored providers of home loans

and mortgage insurance have enabled the high homeownership rates the nation has seen since

World War II.

Tax policy and direct subsidies are the two general vehicles the federal government utilizes

to effectively subsidize housing. Tax policy as used here includes the cost to the federal

government, in the form of foregone tax collections, due to mortgage interest deductions, local

property tax exemptions and tax credits associated with housing. Tax policy promotes

homeownership; direct subsidies primarily enable lower-income households to live in housing

they do not own. Direct subsidies target low income and special-needs populations through

programs administered primarily through HUD. Of the two housing policy vehicles, foregone

tax collections are far more costly than direct subsidies. "In 2004, the federal government spent

$30 billion on public housing, rental vouchers, and other direct housing subsidies. However, it

provided about four times more money, nearly $120 billion, in tax breaks to homeowners and

investors. .. ." (Schwartz, 2006, p. 69). For lower income home owners, who do not benefit

much from these tax policies, federal programs, especially rehabilitation programs, are

particularly significant. Because they cannot afford to move into a new home, maintaining their









existing home is critical. Without sufficient funding to do so, rehabilitation programs become

essential.

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)

Community Development Block Grants have become the primary source of funding for

single family owner-occupied affordable housing rehabilitation. In fiscal year 2007, $582

million in CDBG funding was devoted solely to single family owner-occupied rehabilitation

(United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2007). Funding is provided to

municipalities and counties and, as mentioned above, may be utilized for a variety of community

development activities. Such activities include property purchases, residential and nonresidential

property rehabilitation, homeownership assistance, public facilities construction, and economic

development (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006).

Funding is provided in two forms: entitlement and non-entitlement grants. Entitlement

grants, which represent approximately 70% of CDBG allocations, are provided to cities and

urban counties with populations over 50,000 and 200,000, respectively.5 Cities and urban

counties do not have to apply each year for entitlement grants. In order to automatically receive

yearly CDBG funding, entitlement cities and counties must create and regularly revise a

Consolidated Plan. This plan details how CDBG funding will be utilized by specifying an

entitlement city's or county's affordable housing goals, strategies, and evaluations of past

performance (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2007). Non-

entitlement grants, which represent about 30% of CDBG allocations, are competitively

administered by the states and often are distributed by the states to those local governments that

do not meet entitlement criteria. At least 70% of both entitlement and non-entitlement CDBG


5 The urban county population must exclude cities with a population over 50,000.









funding must be utilized for "activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons" (United

States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006, p. 6).

Households in single family owner-occupied housing may apply for CDBG affordable

housing rehabilitation funding through a local government housing agency or nonprofit

organization. Entitlement and non-entitlement cities and counties have some discretion in their

allocation of CDBG funding. Most often, CDBG funding is divided among local housing

agencies and organizations, which then provide funding assistance in the form of rehabilitation

loans or grants to lower-income households.

Funding Gap

The dramatic decline in federal spending for affordable housing that occurred during the

1980s was most severe for HUD. The Department's share of budget authority fell from 7% in

1978 to less than 1% in 1988, a total decrease in housing assistance of $24 billion dollars (Goetz,

1993, p. 34). Although the federal government continued to fund affordable housing through

vehicles such as the Section 8 Voucher program, the amount of affordable housing subsidy has

stagnated or, at times, declined.

As subsidies and incentives decreased, state and local governments found themselves

without adequate funding for affordable housing. They also realized that the federal government

was not going to channel funds to them at anywhere near the affordable housing subsidy levels

of the 1960s and early 1970s. The provision of low income housing and the development of

funding vehicles for affordable housing rehabilitation that states and local governments became

responsible for in the 1980s were relatively unfamiliar responsibilities. As Stegman and Holden

(1987) note, neither the provision of nor the funding for low income housing or rehabilitation

were problems for state governments when the "federal government paid the bills and dictated

program structures and regulations" (p. 27). As local governments struggled to fill the void left









by the federal government's essential withdrawal from funding affordable housing policy, state

and local governments created new funding mechanisms.

Housing Finance Agencies

As the federal government decreased subsidies for affordable housing in the 1980s, state

and local governments increasingly established housing finance agencies to fund affordable

housing. Schwartz (2006) notes that "before 1980, only 44 state-funded housing programs were

in existence. From 1980 through the early 1990s, state governments established 177

additional programs" (p. 178). These agencies develop and administer a wide variety of

financing including: tax-exempt revenue bonds, interest-free or below-market interest loans,

direct single family loans, loans to lenders, housing trust funds, and grants to nonprofit

organizations and homeowners (Housing Assistance Council, 1991). Local governments may

also have finance agencies which, although operating on a smaller scale than do state finance

agencies, still function to develop financing for affordable housing.

The Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) is Florida's state housing finance

agency. The FHFC acts in a capacity similar to most other state housing finance agencies; it

exists to "increase affordable housing opportunities for Floridians, ensure that Florida Housing's

programs are well matched to the housing needs of Floridians, and communicate the importance

of affordable housing to Florida's communities" (Florida Housing Finance Corporation, 2007).

The FHFC has a variety of programs, ranging from homeownership and multifamily

development to catalyst, hurricane recovery, and workforce housing programs (Florida Housing

Finance Corporation, n.d.). The FHFC also administers the SHIP program, funded through

Florida's Local Government Housing Trust Fund; the SHIP program is described later in the

literature review. Because they are a primary funding source for affordable housing









rehabilitation throughout Florida, a discussion of housing trust funds' general characteristics

follows.

Housing Trust Funds

Housing trust funds have become widely used as a means for state and local governments

and nonprofit agencies to begin to fill the gap in funding for affordable housing created by the

federal devolution in housing policy, programs, and funding. They typically provide the

financing for the purchase of property, construction of new housing, and/or the renovation of

existing housing. The part of a particular project typically assisted with housing trust funds

varies; a trust fund may completely finance a project or may only pay for a small share.

The evolution of housing trust funds roughly parallels the devolution of the federal

government's role in affordable housing. Until the federal government reduced its role in

affordable housing policy, there was no widely perceived need for housing trust funds. Before

the 1980s, there were only a few in existence; during the early 1980s only a handful were created

(Brooks, 1997). However, as state and local governments began to realize that the federal

government was not going to reverse the cuts in affordable housing programs, they began to

implement housing trust funds at an increasing rate. In 1995 there were approximately 200

housing trust funds; in 2006, there were almost 600 (Brooks, 2007, p. 2).

Housing trust funds receive and distribute financial support for housing in accordance

with set criterion. They are established to be financial vehicles for supporting affordable housing

and are usually restricted, by law, to funding only affordable housing. Because they are

dedicated to housing and cannot be used for other purposes, they are usually protected from the

budget demands of state and local governments (Goetz, 1993).

A state or local government agency will most often manage the daily activities of a

housing trust fund. Existing agencies, such as housing and community development departments









that have administered other housing programs, are often chosen to oversee the housing trust

fund (Stegman, 1999). A few housing trust funds were created and are managed by nonprofit

organizations with no ties to any governmental body. However, the administration of the

majority of housing trust funds "is tied to local government either through the staff administering

the fund, the board that oversees the operation of the fund, or both" (Brooks, 1997, p. 234).

Housing trust funds benefit from the characteristics of flexibility, locality, and secure

funding. Flexibility in the design of housing trust fund guidelines allows administrators to tailor

strategies to particular state and local affordable housing needs (Brooks, 1997). They may utilize

federal programs such as CDBG as a funding source or may be used in addition to other funding

sources to fulfill the financial requirements for a particular project. In addition to funds from

federal programs, funding sources for housing trust funds include revenue from real estate

transactions such as document stamp taxes, the sale of abandoned government property, sales tax

increases, and bond allocations. The intent is that the dedicated funding sources that support

housing trust funds will enable state and local government affordable housing agencies to be

relatively protected from local and national economic and political cycles. Goetz (1993) notes

that housing trust funds "insulate housing resources from the vagaries and periodic crises of local

and state budgets" (p. 102). However well intended, housing trust funds are still subject to

changes in political leadership. Distributions from Florida's housing trust fund have been

capped, which severely reduces the amount of SHIP funding that local governments receive and

allocate for affordable housing rehabilitation.

State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program

Local governments in Florida supplement their federal funding for affordable housing and

affordable housing rehabilitation with allotments from the state's housing trust fund through the

SHIP program. The Florida Legislature passed the William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing









Act in 1992, creating a dedicated source of revenue for the state's housing trust fund. As the

name implies, the program was designed to encourage public-private partnerships to "produce

and preserve affordable homeownership and multifamily housing" (Florida Housing Finance

Corporation [FHFC], 2006, n.p.). The SHIP program serves very low (up to 50% of median

family income), low (up to 80% of median), and moderate (up to 120% of median) income

households.

Funds from the state housing trust fund are distributed, via the SHIP program, to all 67

counties and to 51 CDBG entitlement cities to assist local governments in furthering the Housing

Element of local governments' Comprehensive Plans. Each county gets a minimum of $350,000

per year; $9 million is the maximum that a particular county may receive (FHFC, 2006). The

amount that each county or eligible municipality can receive is decided primarily on the basis of

population.

Local governments must allocate their SHIP funding based on the following requirements

(FHFC, 2006):

* At least 65% of funds must be spent on eligible homeownership activities.6
* At least 75% of funds must be spent on eligible construction activities.
* At least 30% of the funds must be allotted for very-low income households.
* Another 30% of funds may be allotted for low income households.
* Remaining funds may be allotted for moderate income households.

Several aspects of the SHIP program are particularly relevant to this thesis. The program

requires local government jurisdictions to establish a maximum amount of funding per housing

unit assisted. This maximum amount may prevent full rehabilitation from being completed on

homes that need it the most. There is also a new requirement that recently reestablished local

Affordable Housing Advisory Committees address regulatory barriers to affordable housing and

6 Eligible homeownership and eligible construction activities provide housing for very-low, low, and moderate
income households.









can address other related issues such as affordable housing rehabilitation. Specifically, the

Committees "shall evaluate established policies, procedures, ordinances, land development

regulations, and the local government comprehensive plan. .. ." (State of Florida, 2008). The

Committees were originally established to develop local jurisdictions' affordable housing

incentive plans but were allowed to disband once that task was completed; now, however, they

will be permanent (Rusciolelli, 2008).

One particular aspect of the SHIP program has become especially troublesome. The

program has strict and lengthy income verification requirements. According to the SHIP

Program Manual, "the three acceptable methods of verifying income are: (1) written third-party

verification; (2) oral third-party verification; and (3) documentation for self-employed

applicants" (Florida Housing Coalition [FHC], 2005, p. 31). Of these methods, the first one is

preferred and is considered the most reliable. Written third-party verification includes a request

from an applicant's employer for estimated earnings for the next 12 months (FHC, 2005). Many

employers, however, are not willing to put an employee's estimated earnings into writing.

Income verification is also problematic in that local government agencies and private

lenders utilize different income verification methods. Local government agencies still generally

rely on paper forms for verifying income, whereas private lenders rely almost exclusively on

electronic means for verifying income. Applicants for certain programs that utilize SHIP

funding, such as Alachua County's Down Payment with Construction/Rehabilitation Assistance

(Appendix B), often find themselves waiting for SHIP funding approval long after their private

mortgage loans have been approved. The Affordable Housing Study Commission (2007) has

attempted to remedy the problem by recommending, in their 2007 examination of the SHIP









program, that the "Florida Housing Finance Corporation should amend the SHIP Compliance

Rule ... to clarify the acceptable methods of income verification" (p. 25).

Even given the problems just presented, SHIP funding is a vital component of local

jurisdiction affordable housing assistance. Funds from the SHIP program may be used for a

variety of purposes, all of which promote housing affordability. Emergency repairs, new

construction, rehabilitation, down payment assistance, gap financing, acquisition of property, and

leveraging other forms of housing assistance are the primary uses for the funds. Of these uses,

affordable housing rehabilitation is one of the least researched and documented.

The current environment for federal and state affordable housing rehabilitation policies and

programs cannot be appreciated or understood outside of its historical context. Local

rehabilitation efforts over the last decade or two are largely a result of the drastic changes in

federal affordable housing policy during the 1980s, changes that were themselves a result of

federal policies and programs from earlier decades. The development of federal affordable

housing policy has been a political process; support for programs has been unreliable, and the

federal government has largely removed itself from the provision of affordable housing. The

remainder of the literature review is concerned with affordable housing rehabilitation and

barriers to rehabilitation. Historical barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation are only briefly

discussed; most of the earlier literature was researched and written when the context for

affordable housing rehabilitation was determined almost exclusively by federal affordable

housing policy. However, there are barriers to rehabilitation found in the earlier literature that

more current literature has determined to be significant. Current barriers to rehabilitation are

discussed, as are the primary funding sources for affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua

County. First, the concept of rehabilitation is defined.









Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation


Rehabilitation Defined

The terms rehabilitation, renovation, revitalization, redevelopment, repair, replacement,

restoration and alteration are often used interchangeably when discussing improvements made to

an existing building. For purposes of this thesis, only the term rehabilitation will be used, unless

noted otherwise or the context requires a different term. For example, the term "repair" is a

more exact word for discussing the restoration of a building's dilapidated structural components

in order to meet minimum building codes.

The definition of rehabilitation varies somewhat, depending on the context in which it is

used. Moskowitz and Lindbloom (1993) defined rehabilitation as "the upgrading of a building

previously in a dilapidated or substandard condition for human habitation or use" (p. 222). For

application to historic structures, Weeks and Grimmer (1995) define rehabilitation as "the act or

process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and

additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or

architectural values" (p. 61). The Nationally Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation

Provisions (NARRP), written by Hattis, Koffel, and Green (1997) in association with the

National Association of Home Builders, define rehabilitation as "any work, described by the

categories of work defined herein, undertaken in an existing building" (Section 202.0). The

NARRP categories of work are repair, renovation, alteration, reconstruction, change of

occupancy, and addition (Hattis, Koffel, & Green, 1997).

A brief review of the three general levels of rehabilitation is necessary before deciding on

a working definition of rehabilitation for this thesis. The three levels are categorized by HUD;

since HUD is the largest single government source for rehabilitation funding, the levels are

widely accepted. Further, since this study examines the use of HUD programs and other









government programs designed to work with HUD, these definitions are particularly relevant.

They are minor, moderate, and substantial:

* Minor rehabilitation involves repairs and improvements of a minor nature that are
undertaken to maintain a building, improve the appearance, and that do not alter structural
components.

* Moderate rehabilitation is more extensive and often includes electrical, HVAC, and/or
roofing repair or upgrades.

* Substantial rehabilitation involves the removal of interior walls and structural components
in order to accommodate a different floor plan (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a).

For this study, rehabilitation is broadly defined as any minor, moderate or substantial

rehabilitation activity undertaken to improve housing or the components of housing. The bulk of

the literature discussed herein covers moderate or substantial rehabilitation, although minor

rehabilitation is referred to when appropriate.

Historical Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation

The literature on government subsidized rehabilitation was fairly extensive before the early

1990s. The earliest information on rehabilitation consisted of studies done in the 1930s and

1940s that explored the financial return from money invested in rehabilitation of dilapidated

inner-city housing units. Studies and analyses of barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation

focused on particular issues and were responses to then-current barriers. Historically, these

barriers have included the problems encountered in securing financing for rehabilitation (Nash,

1959), difficulties of acquiring property (Sternlieb & Burchell, 1972), and restrictive building

codes (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1991). These three types

of barriers are recurring in the literature and are also implicitly identified as the three most

common types of barriers currently occurring (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a, 200 Ib).

Inner-city decay prompted William Nash (1959) to explore options other than the complete

demolition of entire neighborhoods espoused by many policy makers. He was certain that "the









first insurance against blight is good municipal housekeeping" (p. xxiii), meaning that without

rehabilitation of older structures, neighborhood decay would take its toll. Nash understood the

intricacies of financing and the impact of uncontrollable variables such as location and condition

of properties and funding capacity of the rehabilitation organization. His book was one of the

first to investigate many of the issues related to rehabilitation.

The number and scope of studies increased through the next several decades as federal

outlays for affordable housing policy increased. As noted in Listokin and Listokin (2001a), by

the late 1960s the rehabilitation literature was concerned with matters such as

* the need for and costs associated with federally-subsidized rehabilitation;
* the effects of both federal and local tax policies;
* cost-benefit analysis of rehabilitation v. new construction;
* economic and fiscal impacts of federally-subsidized rehabilitation on local jurisdictions;
* social impacts of demolition and displacement.

The blight that prompted Nash to write his book was examined closely by two later

writers. Sternlieb and Burchell's (1973) treatment of inner-city building abandonment in

Newark, New Jersey, revealed problems with reversing the decline in older areas. They isolated

property tax delinquency as a reliable indicator of owners' abandonment of multifamily

dwellings. Although not the primary aim of their research, they discovered that lack of clear title

due to foreclosure on properties can significantly hinder repurchase and subsequent

rehabilitation.

Within two decades of the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,

published reports detailing the difficulties of accomplishing rehabilitation on historic properties

began to appear. However, barriers to rehabilitation of historic properties are worthy of separate

treatment and will not be reviewed or examined in this thesis.









The effect of regulatory barriers on affordable housing was the focus of HUD's 1991

report, Not in My Backyard: Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing. The Advisory

Commission included rehabilitation in their study and found that "chief among the urban

regulatory barriers are building codes geared to new construction rather than to the rehabilitation

of existing buildings" (p. 6). The Commission also discovered that federal, state, and local

building codes often increase costs for both new construction and rehabilitation. Although the

Commission did not focus on rehabilitation, many of the recommendations addressed it as a

secondary component.

Current Barriers to Rehabilitation

Compared to the extensiveness of the material published before the mid-1990s, there have

been few recent comprehensive examinations of rehabilitation as it applies to affordable housing.

With the exception of several HUD publications and material compiled by Listokin and Listokin

(2001a, 2001b) and Duda (2001), there have been no extensive analyses of rehabilitation issues

since the late 1990s. As noted in Listokin and Listokin (2001a), "the existing body of work ...

has not comprehensively examined, organized, and detailed barriers to rehab[ilitation]" (p. 36).

Listokin and Listokin's (2001a) organization of rehabilitation barriers will be loosely followed

here; their barriers are outlined in Appendix A. Their recent and relatively extensive catalogue

of rehabilitation barriers will be examined below.

Financing Barriers

Economic factors are the single biggest barrier to affordable housing rehabilitation. They

may be encountered at any point in the rehabilitation process and often prevent rehabilitation

from occurring at all. Issues such as land use restrictions and property taxes or insurance often









increase the costs associated with improving particular properties.7 The extent of rehabilitation

needed for a specific property may make rehabilitation unaffordable; if an owner is already

housing cost-burdened, moderate or substantial rehabilitation of the property may be

economically unfeasible.8

The problems inherent in developing and securing financing are at the heart of barriers to

rehabilitation. These problems include complexity, scarcity, and uncertainty (Listokin &

Listokin, 2001 a). Local government agencies and nonprofit organizations alike must usually

layer financing to accommodate large-scale rehabilitation. The complexity of layering public

and private subsidies, grants and loans requires administrative capacity and expertise not

normally found within smaller local governments and nonprofits. Listokin and Listokin (2001a)

found that securing financing with private sector lenders has become easier over the last several

decades primarily because of the Community Reinvestment Act and an increasing institutional

acceptance of rehabilitation as a legitimate lending activity (p. 65). However, the number of

lenders participating in rehabilitation financing still lags that of new construction financing since

such financing is still widely seen as risky. These risks are reflected in higher fees and interest

rates for rehabilitation loans.

Public sector subsidies are used in many rehabilitation projects, but strong competition

for subsidies and the long time periods required for approval may hamper efforts to secure public

sector financing. Nonprofit organizations that wish to rehabilitate housing must submit

applications up to a year before local government housing offices allocate federal block grant

funding. During the waiting period, there is little or no indication of the funding level an

7 Land use restrictions such as zoning and local government ordinances primarily impact multifamily rental housing
rehabilitation; because they may occasionally apply to single family owner-occupied affordable housing
rehabilitation, they are included here.
8 Households are housing cost-burdened if more than 30% of household income is spent on housing.









organization may receive. Many nonprofits rely on previous years' funding to estimate an

allocation for an upcoming fiscal year; however, the organizations must remain financially

flexible, which can limit contracts for property and labor acquisition.

Barriers Encountered when Preparing Property for Rehabilitation

Once financing has been obtained, several aspects of preparing property for rehabilitation

may present hurdles. Acquiring and insuring property, land use restrictions, and estimating the

costs of rehabilitation are each potential barriers to rehabilitation. Of these, acquiring property

has been the most problematic. Property may be acquired from various sources; potential

problems include:

* Property owners may demand high prices, especially in a seller's market; liens, lack of
clear title, deed restrictions, and small parcel sizes can complicate property assemblage.

* Banks may only be willing to sell foreclosed properties in bulk or may prefer to sell to
investors or speculators.

* Donated property may have an environmental liability such as hazardous material residue.

* Owners often unload parcels with unpaid property taxes or overdue utility bills onto
nonprofit organizations.

* Foreclosed properties may carry a hefty property tax bill.

* Foreclosure is often a lengthy process during which buildings further deteriorate.

* Condemned property is acquired at market value, making it economically infeasible.

* Local governments are hesitant to condemn and seize private property (Listokin &
Listokin, 2001a).

Ideally, property needing rehabilitation can be acquired inexpensively and with no

environmental or legal liabilities. However, location is an important factor when considering the

acquisition of property. Parcels that are too scattered for efficient rehabilitation management, are

located too far from essential services and infrastructure, or would be inappropriate for certain

demographic groups may not be practical for rehabilitation.









For contractors who rehabilitate properties, obtaining insurance is typically less of a barrier

to rehabilitation than financing or property acquisition issues. Although insurance coverage,

such as general liability and workers' compensation, can cost up to twice as much for

rehabilitation as it does for new construction, the expense does not, in itself, appear to prevent

many rehabilitation projects from proceeding (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a). Insurance costs can

be a factor when small organizations or subcontractors attempt larger jobs and do not have the

capital to purchase additional insurance.

Land use restrictions, like insurance, are a relatively minor hurdle to affordable housing

rehabilitation. As long as the rehabilitation will continue an allowable use of a property, zoning

restrictions will not be a barrier to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation can be a challenge when

variations in intensity or a change of use is desired; in these instances, land use restrictions can

become a hurdle if the zoning board is not willing to be flexible (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a).

Due to the uncertainty of each project, estimating costs can be a barrier to rehabilitation.

Every project is different, and the extent of rehabilitation necessary for individual projects is

usually not realized until work is underway. Unanticipated labor and material expenses are part

of most rehabilitation projects. Also, work estimates are often given early in the process of

preparing property for acquisition and/or rehabilitation. If a lengthy amount of time passes while

an organization waits on funding, permitting, title, or insurance, the cost of rehabilitation goes

up. Listokin and Listokin (2001a) found that because of these issues, budgets for rehabilitation

projects are almost always marked up by 10% to 15% over cost estimates.

Barriers Encountered during the Rehabilitation Process

Once a property is prepared for rehabilitation, the rehabilitation process itself can begin.

Barriers that may be encountered during the rehabilitation process consist of: building codes,

minimum housing standards (MHS), lead and asbestos regulations, radon testing, energy









conservation requirements, access for disabled persons, and federal and union wage

requirements. These barriers are discussed below, starting with building codes.

Of the rehabilitation process barriers, building codes have been significant and complex

hurdles. These codes are detailed standards mandating the structural, heating and air

conditioning, plumbing, and safety performance of a building. Building codes vary somewhat

among cities and regions across the nation, but with few exceptions and until recently have been

oriented to new construction (Hattis, Koffel, & Green, 1997). Two aspects of most local

building codes that are barriers to rehabilitation are the "25-50%" or 25/50 rule and the Change-

of-Occupancy rule.

The 25/50 rule requires the entirety of a building undergoing rehabilitation to meet

current building codes if the dollar value of the rehabilitation exceeds 50% of the building's

replacement cost. In other words, if it costs $100,000 to demolish and rebuild a structure and the

value of the rehabilitation is more than $50,000, the entire structure has to be brought to code.

Under this scenario, if only a portion of a building is undergoing relatively expensive

rehabilitation, a retrofit of components in the rest of the building must occur if they do not meet

code requirements. Some building code requirements are waived if the estimated rehabilitation

cost is between 25% and 50% of a building's replacement cost; the requirements are further

diminished if the rehabilitation cost is less than 25% of replacement cost.

The Change-of-Occupancy rule requires that buildings undergoing rehabilitation that

changes use categories be brought to applicable codes governing the new use. An old office

building or a warehouse may be relatively inexpensive to acquire but may be costly to convert

into housing units that have stricter building codes. The 25/50 and Change-of-Occupancy rules

add cost and complexity to the rehabilitation process and are considerable barriers.









Within the last several decades, however, three key changes have occurred in building

codes as they relate to rehabilitation. In 1980, HUD published a compilation of revised building

codes oriented to rehabilitation, called Rehabilitation Guidelines, which recommended changing

or eliminating the 25/50 and certain Change-of-Occupancy rules if they hinder rehabilitation

efforts. Soon thereafter, applicable sections of the three national building codes9 were modified

to include changes recommended in Rehabilitation Guidelines. In 1997, HUD published the

Nationally Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions (NARRP) which were produced

in collaboration with the National Association of Home Builders.

The NARRP, which was the update to Rehabilitation Guidelines, was purposefully crafted

to reduce the costs associated with complying with rehabilitation barriers such as the 25/50 rule

and thereby encourage affordable housing rehabilitation. The NARRP had as a primary purpose

to "clarify, for the first time, the extent to which existing conditions that fall short of current code

requirements for new construction must be addressed in connection with other building

improvements" (Hattis, Koffel, & Green, 1997, n.p.). The document was not intended to

supersede other building codes in addressing safety matters; it was designed to educate and guide

building officials in code interpretation and enforcement in matters relating to rehabilitation. As

such, it has become an accepted standard not just for building officials but for all parties

involved in the rehabilitation process.

Minimum housing standards are performance benchmarks for particular building

components. These components include heating and air conditioning equipment, roofing, and

electrical systems. As with building codes, MHS vary somewhat among local government

jurisdictions; it is the interpretation of MHS that presents a barrier to rehabilitation. Listokin and


9 The National Building Code, the Standard Building Code, and the Uniform Building Code.









Listokin (2001 a) note that this occurs often when federal subsidies assist rehabilitation efforts,

because "there is a belief that if government is involved, there is a practical and moral imperative

to satisfy the MHS" (p. 93). Thus, a greater chance exists that building officials, government

agencies, and organizations regulating and carrying out rehabilitation will require the most

stringent interpretation of MHS. For example, even if an older electrical system is inspected by a

licensed electrical contractor and found to be safe, those involved in administration or

enforcement of MHS will deem that new wiring and electrical panels are necessary. As with

several other rehabilitation barriers, MHS can add to the cost of rehabilitation.

Lead and asbestos regulations are necessarily stringent and cannot be waived or modified.

Most homes built before 1978 must automatically undergo a lead paint inspection.10 This

inspection costs a minimum of $300; much higher costs are incurred if lead paint must be

stabilized or removed. These costs can be determined and built into the estimate for

rehabilitation of a particular structure. However, the presence of lead paint can make it difficult

to obtain property insurance, thus preventing or postponing rehabilitation. As with lead paint,

the presence of asbestos in a building requires assessment and possibly removal. Buildings

containing less than certain threshold amounts of asbestos are not required to undergo asbestos

removal; the material may instead be adequately contained. The presence of asbestos becomes a

rehabilitation barrier because it requires another level of regulation: appropriate state and local

environmental protection agencies must be notified in accordance with their specific notification

guidelines.

Radon testing is not required but is recommended by the federal Environmental Protection

Agency. Listokin and Listokin (2001a) make note of the estimation that approximately one in


10 Lead-based paint was prohibited for residential use in 1978.









fifteen homes have above average radon levels. Radon may be tested for and moderated

relatively easily. The presence of radon becomes a rehabilitation barrier due to the cost of

testing and moderating when excessive radon levels are found; this cost can exceed several

thousand dollars.

Energy conservation measures are not especially complex but do vary according to the

climate zone a building is in. Many state and local guidelines, as well as HUD standards, require

buildings undergoing rehabilitation to be brought up to new construction standards for energy

efficiency (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a). Besides the added cost for energy-conserving materials

and building systems, there is the difficulty of working in older buildings. For buildings in

colder climates, energy conservation costs can be substantial; this cost cannot be passed on to

clients because of income constraints.

Access for disabled persons is mandated for both new construction and building

rehabilitation. The nature and extent of individual rehabilitation projects determines the cost and

level of difficulty in making a building accessible. The expense of accessibility can significantly

increase the cost of a particular rehabilitation project, occasionally by as much as 50% (Listokin

& Listokin, 2001a).11 However, even given the probability of increased costs, access for

disabled persons becomes a barrier primarily because it involves another level of regulation.

The final barriers that may develop during the rehabilitation process are federal and union

wage requirements. These requirements stipulate that prevailing local wages must be paid for

most jobs involving federal subsidies.12 The prevailing wage requirement, which becomes a

factor on larger rehabilitation projects, increases labor costs by as much as 50%. Although the

1 The requirement to provide access for disabled persons most often affects multifamily rental unit rehabilitation,
and this percentage is more reflective of multifamily than single family detached rehabilitation costs.
12 The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on most projects utilizing federal funding be paid the prevailing wage
for specific trades in an area.









prevailing wage requirement applies to new construction also, rehabilitation projects are more

labor intensive and therefore more expensive. Contractors with the experience and

administrative and labor capacity to finish large rehabilitation projects often hire union workers,

who are paid a premium wage. Wage requirements are a rehabilitation barrier because they

directly add to the cost of rehabilitating particular projects.

Miscellaneous Barriers

There are two remaining barriers that cannot be conveniently categorized as financing,

property preparation, or rehabilitation process barriers. Property tax increases and skilled labor

shortages can be hurdles to undertaking rehabilitation (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a).

Rehabilitation increases the value of property; the increase in value can lead to higher property

taxes. A shortage of skilled labor can slow or postpone a difficult rehabilitation project.

However, neither of these barriers is described as a major hurdle. Increases in property values

are frequently offset by tax incentives as officials have realized the value of rehabilitation as a

tool for neighborhood revitalization; and, skilled labor is in short supply relatively infrequently,

as rehabilitation has become more specialized and has developed a labor pool distinct from new

construction.

All of the above barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation may vary greatly among

projects and locales. Listokin and Listokin (2001a, 2001b) identify financing, property

acquisition, and building codes as the most extensive and significant barriers to rehabilitation.

The two primary sources of financing for affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua County,

CDBG, and SHIP, are discussed below; the local government policy document guiding SHIP

funding, the Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP), is introduced. The age of the housing

stock is presented as a general indicator of the need for affordable housing rehabilitation.









Current Context

Primary Funding Sources for Rehabilitation

The CDBG and HOME programs are the two largest single sources of federal government

rehabilitation funding. These federal block grants, along with the SHIP program, provide a

majority of funding for affordable housing rehabilitation projects in Alachua County and in local

government jurisdictions across Florida. Since the mid-1990s, total funding for the CDBG

program has been approximately $4.5 billion per year; since the late 1990s, total funding for the

HOME program has been close to $1.5 billion per year (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a, p. 30).

Approximately one-fourth of CDBG funding and one-half of HOME funding have been devoted

to affordable housing rehabilitation, an amount of about $1.85 billion per year (Listokin &

Listokin, 2001a, p. 30). Annually, CDBG and HOME combined fund the rehabilitation of

between 200,000 to 230,000 affordable housing units (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a, p. 30).

Since 2007, distributions to local governments from the SHIP program have been capped

at $243 million, which is the same as the 2003 distribution level. Before local government

jurisdictions are eligible to receive SHIP funding, they must meet certain criteria. To initially

qualify for funding, local government entities must

* establish a local housing assistance program, by ordinance;

* develop an LHAP and housing incentive strategy, which outlines strategies to remove
regulatory barriers;

* amend land development regulations or establish local policies to implement the incentive
strategies;

* form partnerships and combine resources in order to reduce housing costs;

* ensure that rent or mortgage payments for applicants do not exceed 30% of the area
median income limits (Florida Housing Finance Corporation, 2006).









Tracking SHIP funding spent on rehabilitation is difficult because of the types of eligible

activities that the program funds; often, rehabilitation activities are combined with other

strategies such as down payment assistance for new homeowners. When combined with other

public funding sources and with private assistance, the amount spent on housing rehabilitation

per approved projects in Alachua County can grow quite large, occasionally exceeding $50,000.

Local Housing Assistance Plans

The Local Housing Assistance Plan, as noted above, is a required document for local

governments utilizing SHIP funding. By state statute, counties and municipalities using the

SHIP program to subsidize affordable housing programs must "develop and implement a local

housing assistance plan created to make affordable residential units available to persons of very-

low income, low income, or moderate income. .. ." (State of Florida, 2007: 420.9075, (1)(a)).

Local Housing Assistance Plans are intended to guide the integration of the public and private

resources available and to outline strategies for achieving local governments' housing goals, as

outlined in their Comprehensive Plans. Through the Housing Delivery Goals contained in their

LHAPs, local governments assign relatively specific numbers for the housing units to be served

by each strategy and for the maximum amount that may be spent per housing unit for each

particular strategy.

Age of the Housing Stock

The age of the housing stock is a reliable indicator of the significant need for rehabilitation

in the coming years. In 2005, the number of occupied housing units nationwide was estimated to

be 108,871,000; 1973 was the median year built for these units (United States Census Bureau,

2007). A large number of housing units are 32 years old or older, a point at which moderate

rehabilitation becomes necessary to maintain the livability of the unit and substantial

rehabilitation becomes a distinct possibility as units are converted to accommodate changes in









household needs. The number of substandard units in 2005 was approximately 2,992,000

(United States Census Bureau, 2007). 13 Estimates of the age at which housing components, such

as heating and air conditioning equipment and asphalt roofing shingles, need to be replaced vary,

but it is generally accepted that enough activity to constitute minor rehabilitation must be

undertaken by the time the structure is two to three decades old. Moderate rehabilitation will

need to be accomplished around the third decade. By the time a house is five decades old, a

level of replacement that approaches substantial rehabilitation must be undertaken to adapt

structures to contemporary building materials and systems.

Federal government policy since World War II has been to promote homeownership.

Reviewing the history of, and current environment for, affordable housing policy and

rehabilitation barriers reveals that apparently no overarching or long-term philosophy guides

affordable housing and rehabilitation efforts. Though affordable housing programs have been

implemented to address both economic and social concerns, program goals have varied

dramatically over the years. In recent decades, state and local governments have established

financing agencies and funding streams to support affordable housing and rehabilitation in the

face of federal devolution. Still, the primary source of federal funding for local governments'

affordable housing and rehabilitation programs continues to be the CDBG program. At the

federal level, affordable housing and rehabilitation policies and programs are unorganized and

often unreliable. Mary Nenno (1997) writes that "affordable housing and urban development

assistance by the federal government is currently diffused and unfocused" (p. 2). Although

written a decade ago, her remark is equally valid today.




13 This is a conservative estimate based on a loose definition of substandard as lacking complete kitchen or
plumbing facilities.









Barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation vary across time, among locales, and from

project to project. Rehabilitation barriers are a function of the political, economic, and

regulatory climate existing at the federal, state, and local levels. The literature concerning

barriers to rehabilitation was relatively extensive through the early 1990s. Since then, with few

exceptions, barriers to rehabilitation have not been comprehensively or extensively examined.

The barriers to rehabilitation revealed in the few studies that have been completed may or may

not exist in Alachua County; conversely, there may be barriers to rehabilitation existing in

Alachua County that are not discussed in the literature. A methodology for exploring the barriers

to affordable housing rehabilitation in the local context is discussed next; findings and analysis

of rehabilitation barriers in Alachua County and a comparison of those barriers with barriers

discussed in the literature are then presented.









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

To compare local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation with those discussed in the

literature, a suitable local context must first be chosen. Alachua County, Florida, is typical of

locales across Florida and has local government strategies in place to provide affordable housing

rehabilitation. Rehabilitation administrators and providers in the County are experienced and are

willing to discuss barriers to rehabilitation. Alachua County also has a documented need for

affordable housing rehabilitation. For these reasons and because no case study exploring local

barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation has been undertaken in the area, Alachua County,

Florida, was chosen to be the local study area. After describing the local context, the case study

methodology used here to gather data is discussed. Selection of individuals to interview,

development of questions and the questionnaire, and interview protocol are outlined. Criteria for

judging responses to be valid are addressed in the conclusion to this chapter.

Alachua County: The Local Context

Alachua County has both urban and rural areas, relatively little industry, and a lower

median income than Florida as a whole. Alachua County has nine municipalities, the largest of

which is Gainesville. The 2006 estimated population for Alachua County was 227,120;

Gainesville's 2003 estimated population was 109,146 (United States Census Bureau, 2008). The

majority of jobs are in the government, services, or trade sectors; only 7% of the workforce is

employed in manufacturing and construction (Alachua County, 2003, p. 18). The County's 2004

median household income was $34,696; statewide, the 2004 median household income was

$40,900 (United States Census Bureau, 2008).

The age of the housing stock in Alachua County resembles the general age of the housing

stock across the United States (Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, n.d.). There were









94,208 Alachua County households in 2005; single family homes in Alachua County had an

average age of 26 years in 2005. Alachua County had approximately 1,173 substandard housing

units in 2000, the most recent year for complete local data (Alachua County, 2003, p. 22).

Alachua County is a local government jurisdiction and is the recipient of most of the types

of aid received by affordable housing rehabilitation providers profiled in Listokin and Listokin

(2001b). Alachua County administers and delivers affordable housing rehabilitation through its

Housing Programs office; the County also funds local agencies and organizations that

rehabilitate affordable housing. The City of Gainesville, the largest municipality in Alachua

County, has a relatively parallel administrative structure for the delivery of affordable housing

rehabilitation and also funds organizations that rehabilitate affordable housing. In order to

identify these barriers using the insight of those who administer and implement these programs,

the group of individuals who are employed by the County or City, or whose employers receive

funding through the County or City, are the unit of analysis. For brevity, the case study and the

local context are referred to as Alachua County; however, both Alachua County and the City of

Gainesville are included.

The Alachua County Affordable Housing Study (Study) implicitly indicated a need for

affordable housing rehabilitation (Alachua County, 2003).1 Among other reasons, the Study was

undertaken to explore "the demand for and supply of housing, including its condition" (Alachua

County, 2003, p. 4). As it relates to the need for rehabilitation, the Study documented that the

age of the housing stock is approaching the point at which rehabilitation is necessary; the Study

also established that affordable housing that is for sale may be unfit to live in, therefore requiring

rehabilitation (Alachua County, 2003).


1 The word "implicitly" is used here because the Study, while it addresses rehabilitation throughout its narrative,
does not explicitly address rehabilitation anywhere in the recommendations.









The following key factors led to the choice of Alachua County as the case study

community:

* Alachua County is relatively typical of locales across the state, in that it has an urbanized
population center, rural and undeveloped areas, pockets of poverty and substandard
housing, and policies and programs in place to provide affordable housing rehabilitation.

* The agencies and organizations in place to administer and provide rehabilitation have been
in place for some time and are experienced in addressing barriers to rehabilitation, as
indicated by reviews of housing elements of the comprehensive plans, LHAPs, and
conversations with local affordable housing providers in the two jurisdictions.

* Information, obtained from personnel directly involved with rehabilitation and
knowledgeable of barriers to rehabilitation, was readily available.

* A thorough affordable housing study by the County was recently completed that explicitly
establishes a need for more affordable housing in the area while implicitly indicating an
ongoing need for affordable housing rehabilitation (Alachua County, 2003).

* A poverty level of 14.5% and the existence of substandard housing indicates that barriers
to rehabilitation are likely present for a particularly vulnerable group (Alachua County,
2003; United States Census Bureau, 2008).

* A case study of barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation has not been undertaken in
Alachua County.

* The locale is home to a large state land-grant university with an urban and regional
planning department, enabling future studies of barriers to affordable housing
rehabilitation in Alachua County to be completed efficiently.

The case study is limited to the exploration of barriers to rehabilitation of single family,

owner-occupied affordable housing. Local rehabilitation administrators and providers have

experience with this type of housing. Participation in an internship with several local affordable

housing rehabilitation agencies and organizations through HUD's Community Development

Work Study Program exposed the author to the range of barriers to rehabilitation. Research

began with an informed assumption that a study of barriers to affordable single family, owner-

occupied housing would be relevant, given the federal government's emphasis on owner-









occupancy, the number of lower-income households that cannot afford to purchase a new home,

and the SHIP program's focus on very-low and low income households and owner-occupancy.

The Case Study as the Appropriate Data Collection Tool for Alachua County

The methodology governing data collection in the Alachua County context is similar to

the methodology followed by Listokin and Listokin (2001a, 2001b) in their survey of

rehabilitation initiatives across the United States. The authors utilized eleven case studies to

develop a list of barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation; they selected the case study method

"to add qualitatively to our understanding of the barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation"

(Listokin & Listokin, 2001b, p. 1). Information for their study was gathered through in-person

and telephone interviews. The information was then discussed with a large group of individuals

familiar with affordable housing rehabilitation so that barriers encountered in practice could be

determined.2

Following Listokin and Listokin (2001a, 2001b), a case study was conducted to gather

information for this thesis. The case study method of data collection is widely used for

qualitative research. It has been utilized by the social sciences and has been adapted for use by

"practice-oriented fields such as urban planning. ." (Yin, 2003, p. xiii). Case studies are

utilized when the how or why of an event is occurring; they are especially useful when variables

cannot realistically be controlled or manipulated (Yin, 2003). Therefore, they are ideal for

current, real-world conditions. Case studies can be structured to be fairly comprehensive but are

not useful for determining causal relationships. This thesis does not attempt to infer any causal

associations or correlations. Within particular methodological constraints, however, case studies

are valid methods for gathering data.

2 The group included government officials, for-profit and nonprofit developers, realtors, and professionals associated
with affordable housing rehabilitation.









The validity of data gathered through case studies is increased by establishing a trail of

evidence. This practice, which Yin (2003) calls a "chain of evidence," allows for case studies to

be replicated and conclusions to be tested. The chain of evidence allows "an external

observer ... to follow the derivation of any evidence, ranging from initial research questions to

ultimate case study conclusions" (Yin, 2003, p. 105). For example, following a specific protocol

for information gathering is one step in building a chain of evidence.

The case study approach, out of the alternatives available, held the greatest potential to

yield meaningful insights from an exploration into affordable housing rehabilitation barriers in

Alachua County. The nature of the thesis would not lend itself to an experimental method of

inquiry. The critical feedback given and the efficiency of face-to-face interviews would be lost

were a survey to be conducted. Historical analysis would be possible but would not necessarily

be current. For these reasons and for the precedent set by Listokin and Listokin (2001b), a case

study approach was chosen.

The data collection method here is straightforward: a single-case study of local affordable

housing rehabilitation administrators and providers was conducted using semi-structured

interviews. Administrators and providers were both chosen not only because Listokin and

Listokin included them but also because their inclusion would present a more complete case

study in the local context. Listokin and Listokin (2001b) note a limitation of their data collection

in that telephone interviews, although sometimes necessary, do not enable the higher quality of

information that is exchanged during face-to-face interviews (p. 1). For that reason and to the

extent possible, face-to-face interviews are conducted for this thesis. Although the information

obtained from these interviews was not reviewed by a large group of housing industry

professionals, the structure of interviews allowed for considerable feedback from the









interviewees, who were local administrators, providers, and individuals intimately familiar with

affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua County.

A single-case study design, as opposed to a multiple-case design, was selected. The

decision was based on the following factors:

* This single case can test the proposition that there are discrepancies in rehabilitation
barriers discussed in the literature and found at a local level.

* This single case is representative of similar local government jurisdictions across Florida if
not the entire country.

* This case is revelatory in that it is the first of its kind in this locale.

* This single case has the potential to establish a longitudinal study by initiating explorations
of rehabilitation barriers at this time (Yin, 2003).

The single-case study design was selected also because of the nature of the thesis. Were

this thesis to compare, say, barriers encountered during rehabilitation of local historic properties

as opposed to local non-historic properties and then compare those barriers to the published

material, a multiple-case design would be appropriate. The simplicity of the single-case design

also lends itself to initial, generalized explorations of a subject.

The assumptions implicit in Listokin and Listokin's (2001a, 2001b) methodology are also

applied for the data collection process here. Although not stated, it can be inferred from Listokin

and Listokin's (2001a, 2001b) case study that they: considered information given to be both

voluntary and valid; realized that there were certain biases, such as interviewees' beliefs that

affordable housing rehabilitation is a worthwhile activity; and that complete objectivity was not

possible or perhaps even desirable. This last assumption is a hazard of conducting research in

the "real world." Barriers to rehabilitation are encountered in an imperfect but real world, not in

a perfected and detached laboratory setting, and real world conditions are necessary to

understand these barriers.









Selection of Interviewees

The unit of analysis for the case study is the group of individuals who, through their

agencies and organizations, have encountered barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation in

Alachua County. Individuals were chosen based on the following:

* an examination of published material and websites that outlined the organizational
structure of those local agencies and organizations administering and providing
rehabilitation assistance and that identified personnel with potential knowledge of barriers
to rehabilitation3

* employment with agencies or organizations that administer or provide affordable housing
rehabilitation and that finance that rehabilitation primarily with federal block grants, SHIP
funds, or some combination of both

* discussions, throughout the course of a HUD Community Development Work Study
Program, with personnel involved in providing affordable housing rehabilitation

* conversations and recommendations from individuals knowledgeable of and experienced
with barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation

As noted above, only those individuals employed by agencies or organizations that utilize

federal block grants or SHIP funding were asked to provide interviews. Volunteer organizations,

such as Rebuild Gainesville, also provide affordable housing rehabilitation and would be

knowledgeable of barriers to rehabilitation. Private organizations, such as local churches, also

participate in affordable housing rehabilitation. Support for rehabilitation is competitive but is

available from nonprofit charitable organizations such as the Ford Foundation and the Woods

Charitable Fund; quasi-governmental agencies like the Alachua County Housing Authority

(ACHA) may potentially apply for this support (Foundation Center, 2008). Rehabilitation

provided through volunteer or private organizations, or funded with private support, is worthy of

study but is beyond the scope of this thesis. The agencies and organizations contacted are listed



3 Searches of local newspaper articles and reviews of applicable Local Housing Assistance Plans, agency
organizational charts, and individual agency and organization websites provided preliminary information.









in Appendix C; only the positions of individuals within their agencies or organizations are

mentioned.

Unfortunately, interviews were not held with the City of Gainesville's Housing Division,

which oversees the City's SHIP program. Although the agency was contacted via e-mail and

telephone, they did not respond to requests for an interview. To obtain information about

affordable housing rehabilitation within the City, interviews were held with the City's Block

Grant Division Manager, who administers the federal block grant funding for the City's

rehabilitation programs. The City's Block Grant Division Manager is an experienced

rehabilitation administrator; his comments are valuable.

Interview Questions and Questionnaire

Questions for the interviews were developed after reviewing the literature concerning

barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation. The interview questions are designed to determine

specific information about the rehabilitation process, including challenges associated with

implementing programs without leading the interviewees; to spark discussion on related issues;

and to allow them to freely introduce barriers not discussed in the literature. These goals are

accomplished by wording the questions in such a way that key concepts are introduced without

alluding to the barriers discussed in the literature. The exceptions are three questions (9, 11 and

15) that directly mention the literature; the purpose is to make direct comparisons with the

barriers highlighted in the literature for later analysis. However, the three questions are neither

asked together nor given emphasis during the interview. Several of the questions are redundant

but worded differently to spark interviewees' thoughts. Interview questions are listed in

Appendix D.

The questions are arranged thematically, to provide order without making interviews

tedious or too scripted, and are organized to allow answers to be compared as closely as possible









with Listokin and Listokin's (2001a) findings. Questions that introduce the idea of categorizing

barriers based on type are asked to determine if local rehabilitation administrators and providers

distinguish barriers similar to Listokin and Listokin's (2001a) categories.4 In anticipation that

financing might be a significant barrier, two questions explore the possibility and extent of

financing as a distinct barrier. Three questions concerning solutions to barriers are asked in

order to prod interviewees into thinking about barriers from a different perspective and in so

doing uncover barriers not yet discussed. Thus, the questions are grouped into the following

categories:

* interviewee's credentials and agency or organization funding (questions 1-3)

* barriers and differentiation of barriers (4-6)

* financing as a distinct barrier (6, 7)

* regulatory barriers and building codes (8-10)

* relevancy of the barriers identified in the literature to interviewees experience in
administering rehabilitation programs (11)

* questions to indirectly explore barriers presented by the interviewee (12-14)

* a chance for the interviewee to suggest areas not addressed in the literature (15)

* conclusion with questions that allow the interviewees to include any additional material
they have not already addressed (16-17)

Interview Protocol

Before beginning an interview, the title and subject matter of the thesis were briefly

discussed. Although this information was introduced in the Informed Consent, most of the

interviewees read and signed the Consent several days before being interviewed; reviewing the

thesis topic provided context for the interview questions. Questions were asked in order,

although not every question was answered by each interviewee. When a question was not

4 Listokin and Listokin (2001a) differentiate between development, construction, and occupancy stage barriers.









answered directly, the interviewee was not pressed for an explicit answer. Instead, time was

allotted at the end of each interview to clear up any vague answers. Analysis of the questions

and answers reveals that interviewees were qualified to discuss barriers and knowledgeable

concerning barriers in Alachua County.

The procedure for conducting case study interviews was the same for each interviewee.

After voluntary consent was obtained, interviews were conducted at the agreed-upon time and

place. Comments and feedback were recorded in writing; follow-up interviews remained an

option for individuals to clarify comments or obtain more feedback. No information from

individuals concerning barriers to rehabilitation in Alachua County was solicited outside the

interview process.

Criteria for Determining Validity of Data

The criteria for judging data to be valid at the local level was the consensus on information

provided during the interview process. There was no prodding of interviewees to produce

certain responses; instead, interviewees were encouraged to discuss their own experiences and

the nature of rehabilitation barriers they had encountered. To the extent possible, the responses

were categorized and assessed for continuity. These responses were then compared to the

barriers discussed in Listokin and Listokin (2001a, 2001b). Although they did not rank any of

their findings, Listokin and Listokin (2001a, 2001b) did discover that three particular types of

barriers were encountered the most often. Discussion of the case study interview results, as well

as a comparison of the results with rehabilitation barriers detailed in the literature, is presented in

the next chapter.









CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS

The case study reveals commonly recognized barriers in the literature are, for the most

part, present in Alachua County. The nature and incidence of the barriers discussed in the

literature and those found locally are similar. However, the case study also identifies barriers in

Alachua County that are not identified and explored in the literature. The analysis includes

* a discussion of Alachua County's rehabilitation programs and processes as outlined in the
Housing Elements, LHAPs, and the City's Consolidated Plan;

* a brief description of the interview process and interviewees' credentials;

* a discussion of rehabilitation barriers in Alachua County, based on analysis of the
interviews;

* a comparison of local rehabilitation barriers with those presented in the literature;

* an examination of the discrepancy between commonly recognized barriers in the literature
and those identified in Alachua County;

* an assessment of what this discrepancy suggests regarding government supported
rehabilitation initiatives.

Alachua County Rehabilitation Programs and Processes

Strategies for the delivery of affordable housing rehabilitation are outlined in both

jurisdictions' Housing Elements, LHAPs, and in the City's Consolidated Plan. Strategies that

either include or are specific to affordable housing rehabilitation within the City of Gainesville

are the Emergency Roof Repair Program, the Minor Rehabilitation Program, and the Major

Rehabilitation Program. Strategies that either include or are specific to rehabilitation in Alachua

County are the Down Payment with Construction/Rehabilitation Assistance Program and the

Single Family Housing Development Program.

The maximum amounts that may be spent per housing unit for rehabilitation vary

somewhat between the City of Gainesville and Alachua County. For instance, for the 2007 fiscal









year, the City received approximately $875,000 in SHIP funding; of that amount, slightly over

$624,000 (71%) was designated for rehabilitation. The City's most generous maximum

individual award amount of $50,000 may be received through the Major Rehabilitation Program.

For the 2007 fiscal year, Alachua County was the recipient of approximately $1,158,060 in SHIP

funding; of that amount, just over $625,000 (54%) was designated for rehabilitation. The

County's maximum individual award amount was $40,000, allotted through the Single Family

Housing Development Program. Affordable housing rehabilitation programs in Alachua County

that are applicable to this thesis are listed in Appendix B.

Interview Process and Interviewee Credentials

The information gathering process took place over a two-week period in January 2008.

This time period accommodated the schedules of interviewees. Eight interviews were held; three

of these ran over the hour time limit allotted but were finished during one session. Six

interviews were conducted in person at the interviewee's office, and two phone interviews were

held.

The first three questions established the credentials of the interviewee and the agency or

organization they represented. The range of experience with affordable housing rehabilitation

varied widely. One individual had three months of employment with an affordable housing

rehabilitation administrative agency; the most experienced interviewee had worked 35 years in

the profession. The average amount of time interviewees have been involved with the provision

of affordable housing rehabilitation is 18 years; 16 years is the average amount of that time spent

in Florida, and 14 years is the average amount of that time spent in Alachua County. The various



1 The least experienced interviewee was familiar with affordable housing rehabilitation through her four years
working in Alachua County for a private lender, during which time she wrote loans that included SHIP Down
Payment Assistance for rehabilitation. Based on her cumulative experience, her comments were deemed to be valid.









capacities in which interviewees have administered or enabled the provision of affordable

housing rehabilitation varied also; this variation resulted in a more comprehensive case study.

Federal block grants and SHIP are the primary funding sources for the agencies and/or

organizations for which the interviewees worked; six of the interviewees finance rehabilitation

almost exclusively with block grants and SHIP funding.2

Rehabilitation Barriers in Alachua County

Barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation explored in Alachua County are presented

according to the categories utilized in Chapter 2. These four categories-financing, barriers

encountered when preparing property for rehabilitation, barriers encountered during the

rehabilitation process, and miscellaneous-are general and do not reflect strict boundaries among

the barriers.

Financing

As interviewees discussed funding as a barrier, it became apparent that there are several

aspects to the issue. These aspects can be generally categorized as overall funding available, low

individual award amounts, and applicant qualification for funding. All of the interviewees

considered at least one of these aspects a barrier to affordable housing rehabilitation.

First, there simply is not enough money available to undertake the rehabilitation that

needs to be done. The Director of Development for ACHA stated the problem succinctly when

she remarked that she "had applicants but not enough funding." The Senior Technical Advisor

for the Florida Housing Coalition (FHC), although appreciative of Florida's housing trust fund,

noted that there is more need than there is funding available. The Alachua County Housing

Programs Manager surmised, based on informal feedback from local contractors doing


2 Funding sources utilized by the other two interviewees are: Low Income Housing Tax Credits; Neighborworks
funding; and grants from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation.









rehabilitation work, that most of the basic rehabilitation projects that can be completed given

current funding available are in fact completed. Further rehabilitation, particularly for those

structures requiring more than minimum repairs, will require an increase both in overall funding

amounts and in individual awards.

Second, individual awards, which are the maximum amount of funding allowed for

particular rehabilitations, were considered by seven interviewees to be too low. Currently, two

separate documents governing rehabilitation within the local context determine the maximum

amount that may be spent on a particular project: the 25/50 rule and the applicable jurisdiction's

LHAP. In accordance with the 2004 Florida Building Code, the 25/50 rule requires the entirety

of a structure undergoing rehabilitation to meet current building codes if the dollar value of the

rehabilitation exceeds 50% of the structure's replacement cost.3 The 25/50 rule is, as are

building codes in general, meant to protect health and safety. An LHAP "details the program

activities and management plan ." for the use of SHIP funds; LHAPs detail strategies to

accomplish local jurisdictions' housing goals (Alachua County, 2005, p. 3). So that more

applicants may be assisted, LHAPs typically restrict the amount of SHIP funding for

rehabilitation provided to individual households.

Although distinct and guided by different philosophies, both the 25/50 rule and LHAP

restrictions are barriers to rehabilitation in that they limit the amount of work that can be done.

The Neighborhood Housing and Development Corporation's (NHDC) Director of Housing

Development noted that the 25/50 rule does not have the same impact on the rehabilitation of

affordable housing as it does on the rehabilitation of higher-priced housing. As she notes, in

general, "it will cost $50,000 to $60,000 to replace all the systems in a home." She gave an


3 All Florida counties and municipalities are required to follow the 2004 Florida Building Code.









example of a home appraised at $80,000, which would be limited to $40,000 in rehabilitation

before the entire structure would have to be brought up to code. All the systems could be

replaced in a $200,000 home, however, without having to bring the entire structure up to code.

The LHAP, through restrictions on the maximum amount of funding per rehabilitation project,

limits the amount of rehabilitation that may be completed. Though different from the 25/50 rule,

the effect is often still the same: not enough funding can be spent to completely rehabilitate

affordable housing.

Interviewees expressed discouragement with the fact that individual award amounts have

not kept up with rising material and labor costs; four of them noted that as repair costs increase,

the amount of rehabilitation that can be completed per home decreases. The ongoing downturn

in the housing market has offset some of the steep rise in construction costs that Florida

experienced after the devastating 2004 hurricane season, but interviewees remarked that it

remains to be seen how much the decrease in construction costs will positively impact the costs

of rehabilitation.

Third, funding may be denied altogether for households applying for rehabilitation

assistance through the Down Payment Assistance program. The program packages a private

lender's mortgage with SHIP funding for rehabilitation of a property for sale. If a household

does not have a high enough income or credit rating, it will not be able to qualify for private

funding. Further, in order to qualify for a private loan, a low income household must be able to

afford an expensive-enough house and that house must need no more than $25,000 in

rehabilitation.4



4 This is the maximum that may be spent on rehabilitation in Alachua County when the SHIP Down Payment
Assistance program is utilized; amounts of $25,000, $20,000, or $5,000 may be allotted for existing homes needing
rehabilitation, depending on whether a household's income is very-low, low, or moderate, respectively.









Two questions explored whether or not interviewees thought of financing as a barrier

separate from other barriers mentioned during the interviews; the object of the two questions was

to further establish whether financing is a significant barrier to rehabilitation. The questions

generated mixed results. On the subject of a distinction between financing and other barriers,

four interviewees did not directly address the question, two stated they did not think the barriers

could be differentiated that way, and two thought a distinction could be made but did not

elaborate. However, when asked about the extent of financing as a barrier, six interviewees

clearly indicated that financing was a significant barrier. The City's Block Grant Division

Manager noted that financing limits the amount of work and types of improvements; this

practical limit forces rehabilitation efforts to focus on health and safety issues. The ACHA's

Director of Development succinctly remarked that "financing is the key barrier."

Barriers Encountered when Preparing Property for Rehabilitation

As discussed in the literature, property acquisition and insurance, land use restrictions,

and cost estimation are barriers encountered when preparing property for rehabilitation.

Interviewees gave a wide range of responses to questions concerning such barriers in Alachua

County. Lack of clear title, location, and non-permitted uses of a home, homes in advanced

stages of deterioration, and uncertainties concerning the extent and nature of individual

rehabilitation projects were all presented as barriers.

The lack of clear title presents a barrier locally because of program requirements.

Applicants for assistance must produce clear title for the home needing rehabilitation. Two

interviewees noted that title problems occur regularly; the Alachua County Housing Programs

Manager remarked that title issues were a big problem because while these are being resolved

the property deteriorates further. The lack of clear title has occasionally prevented rehabilitation

altogether, as some applicants are unable or unwilling to solve title problems.









Location and non-permitted uses of a home can be a barrier. The NHDC's Director of

Housing Development remarked that even if her organization can find an affordable home to

purchase and rehabilitate, the character of the surrounding neighborhood may delay the home's

sale. She wondered how worthwhile it is to try to rehabilitate homes in less-desirable

neighborhoods; a home's location can prevent its being rehabilitated. Non-permitted uses can

delay or prevent rehabilitation; the agency or organization performing rehabilitation must get a

special exception, which complicates the rehabilitation process.

Advanced stages of deterioration present both financial and physical barriers to

affordable housing rehabilitation because structures are usually deemed to be beyond

rehabilitation. Two interviewees indicated that this problem primarily occurs in rural areas but is

not uncommon in urban areas. One of the two interviewees that mentioned this barrier said that

although the home may qualify for assistance, it was neither financially feasible nor an efficient

use of labor and materials to rehabilitate homes in advanced stages of deterioration. Alachua

County's SHIP Coordinator saw the barrier from a different perspective, noting that once a

structure is in great disrepair, it is no longer eligible for the private loans with which SHIP Down

Payment Assistance is often packaged.

The uncertain nature of rehabilitation is a general barrier that varies greatly from project

to project and can increase the difficulty of estimating rehabilitation expenses for individual

projects. The Alachua County Housing Programs Manager, who is an experienced rehabilitation

provider and has supervised rehabilitation in the field, told of a home that required new roofing

shingles and plywood; once the shingles and rotted plywood were removed, the rehabilitation

team discovered that the roofing trusses were not constructed out of 2 X 4 lumber, but were built

with 2 X 2 lumber. The ACHA's Executive Director told of an older home she was inspecting to









determine the scope of rehabilitation work; the home had only seven-foot ceilings. Both of these

situations introduced uncertainties into the rehabilitation process and increased the complexity of

those particular projects. Interviewees attributed uncertainties encountered in the physical

structures to the lack of building codes; many counties in Florida either did not have or did not

uniformly enforce building codes until the mid-1970s. Related to the barrier presented by

uncertainties that are encountered during rehabilitation work is the problem of estimating costs.

Uncertainties like those mentioned above are barriers that can prevent rehabilitation work from

proceeding; such uncertainties add to the difficulty of estimating individual rehabilitation project

costs. Experienced rehabilitation specialists have trouble estimating costs; inexperienced

rehabilitation inspectors find cost estimation even more challenging.

Barriers Encountered during the Rehabilitation Process

Building codes, MHS, lead and asbestos regulations, radon testing, energy conservation

requirements, access for disabled persons, and wage requirements are discussed in the literature

as hurdles that may arise when a structure is being rehabilitated. Of these, building codes are

presented in the literature as the most significant barrier. A consensus of interviewees'

comments indicates that building codes are not a primary barrier in Alachua County. One

interviewee, however, mentioned that building codes are indeed a significant barrier; her

discussion of building codes is given attention because of the large amount of time devoted to it

during her interview.

Responses to the two questions concerning building codes were particularly revealing.

Six interviewees indicated that building codes were not a recurring problem; ACHA's Director

of Development commented that "building codes are the least of my worries." Two of the six

noted that building codes are intended to protect health and safety and that rehabilitation is meant

to bring structures to a safe condition. Answers to the second question related to building codes,









in which interviewees were asked to compare regulatory barriers to other barriers, mirrored the

answers given to the previous question. Interviewees either did not directly answer the question,

which indicates they may give little weight to building codes as a barrier, or they remarked that

building codes or other regulatory issues were not much of a barrier compared with funding.

Alachua County's SHIP Coordinator said that "financing is the biggest issue." However, the

Alachua County Housing Programs Manager noted that regulatory issues other than building

codes can be a barrier, pointing out excessive program restrictions. He remarked that these

restrictions, often required by pilot programs, demand "much staff time for compliance but

provide relatively little actual funding for rehabilitation."

One interviewee's discussion of building codes deviates from the above comments

regarding building codes as a barrier to rehabilitation in Alachua County. The NHDC's Director

of Housing Development regards building codes, and the 25/50 rule in particular, as a major

barrier to rehabilitation, remarking that "building codes don't encourage rehabilitation; they

encourage demolitionn]" She noted that adapting building codes, primarily to allow less strict

application of the 25/50 rule, would enable more rehabilitation work to be done.

Shoddy construction and inferior building materials, which are barriers experienced

during the rehabilitation process, are present locally but are not discussed in the literature.

Shoddy construction becomes a barrier not only because the extent of rehabilitation necessary is

more difficult to determine but also because of the complexity of coping with poorly-done work.

Inferior building materials that were previously installed make a rehabilitation project both more

difficult and more expensive. The Alachua County Housing Programs Manager gave an

example of a type of plumbing that was introduced in the late 1970s; the material is prone to

leaks and separation at connections, requiring not only rehabilitation due to water damage but









also necessitating replacement of the plumbing system, which adds unanticipated material and

labor costs to particular rehabilitation projects.5

Miscellaneous Barriers

Property tax increases and skilled labor shortages are hurdles discussed in the literature

that cannot be easily classified as financing, property preparation, or rehabilitation process

barriers. Property tax increases were not discussed as barriers to rehabilitation in Alachua

County; however, the unavailability of capable contractors was addressed. One interviewee

commented that the cyclical nature of new housing construction largely determines how many

skilled, reliable contractors will bid on local rehabilitation projects. The large number of homes

that needed repair after the 2004 hurricane season also affected the number of contractors

available to bid on local rehabilitation jobs.

Interviewees discussed barriers present locally that are not present in the literature;

several of the barriers are interrelated. Although these barriers were mentioned at various points

during the interviews, they were generally discussed at the end when interviewees were asked

about issues not already raised. The barriers mentioned at the end of interviews were not

considered to be minor compared to barriers discussed earlier in the interviews. Miscellaneous

barriers present locally that are not discussed in the literature are the small number of

rehabilitation programs available locally, the amount of paperwork necessary for SHIP-funded

rehabilitation, and cumbersome program guidelines.

The small number of rehabilitation programs available locally presents a barrier by

limiting funding available and allowable strategies for rehabilitation. The City of Gainesville's

Block Grant Division Manager and ACHA's Director of Development both noted that the


5 Polybutylene pipe and connections are still allowed by many local building codes nationwide.









limited number and lack of variety of programs hindered rehabilitation. Although they are

targeted to lower-income households, different rehabilitation programs have similar strict

guidelines. Households that earn too little or too much income may be excluded from receiving

rehabilitation assistance; if denied assistance, these households have few other options for help

with rehabilitating their home.

The amount of paperwork necessary for SHIP-funded rehabilitation is a barrier primarily

because of the extensive documentation required by the state to compute, verify, and certify a

household's annual income. Alachua County's SHIP Coordinator stated that it was not

uncommon for realtors and lenders to steer buyers away from the Down Payment Assistance

Program if SHIP-funded rehabilitation was involved because of the excessive paperwork

required and the additional time necessary to obtain approval.

Until very recently, the repayment terms of SHIP rehabilitation loans were barriers for

some households seeking rehabilitation assistance. The SHIP rehabilitation loans were deferred,

zero interest loans that had to be paid back when the applicants moved or passed away. In

January, the loans were changed to be 10-year, prorated, forgivable loans. Previously, elderly

applicants often opted not to have rehabilitation done, simply because they did not want to

burden their children with the loan repayment. As ACHA's Director of Development stated,

"the 30-year deferred mortgage scares people away." It remains to be seen if the new loan terms

will encourage more rehabilitation.

The lack of standardized procedures, cumbersome program guidelines, and the need for

more organizational capacity were presented as interrelated barriers. The ACHA's Executive

Director noted that the absence of standardized local rehabilitation guidelines, in particular, is a

barrier to efficient and effective rehabilitation. Program guidelines themselves are a barrier;









ACHA's Director of Development remarked that "just the income verification process prevents

some people from going further with the application process." Program guidelines require

detailed and documented information concerning household income, assets, and property

ownership; this information must be acted on within a specified timeframe, or else the

information must be re-verified. The need for more organization capacity and training was

mentioned by four interviewees; FHC's Senior Technical Advisor noted that local agencies and

organizations needed talented and experienced staff that could tell, for example, when a change

order is legitimate.6 For the sake of simplicity, further mention of cumbersome program

guidelines includes an agency's or organization's lack of standardized procedures or

organizational capacity, since these two problems are related to and compound the effects of

awkward program guidelines.

Comparison with the Literature

Several of the barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation found in Alachua County and

analyzed above, such as financing, cost estimation, and skilled labor shortages, are similar in

incidence and nature as reported in the broader literature. Other barriers present locally, such as

the small number of rehabilitation programs present, are not found in the literature; conversely,

barriers deemed significant in the literature, such as property acquisition, have not been major

hurdles to rehabilitation in Alachua County. Local barriers are compared below with barriers

discussed in Listokin and Listokin (2001a, 2001b). Local barriers not found in the literature are

then highlighted. The comparison, outlined in Table 4-1, is organized by the subheadings used

in discussion of barriers in the literature review and previously in this analysis section.




6 Change orders are requests by contractors performing the rehabilitation work for alterations in the contract; most
often, the requested change involves a project's funding.









Financing

As with Listokin and Listokin's (2001a) findings, financing barriers are the single largest

barrier to affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua County. As ACHA's Director of

Development remarked, "the real barriers are the [lack of] money and how it's divided up." The

literature indicates that financing barriers may be encountered at any point in the rehabilitation

process and often prevent rehabilitation from occurring at all; the same conditions exist in

Alachua County. Analysis of the local case study results indicates that financing barriers can be

generally categorized into overall funding available, individual award amounts, and applicant

qualification for funding.

Overall funding amounts prevent rehabilitation from occurring at all. It is not unusual to

have three or four times as many applicants as there is funding to assist. Maximum individual

award amounts limit how much rehabilitation may be done; this barrier may be encountered at

any point in the rehabilitation process. Cost constraints due to individual award amounts can

prevent a particular home from being completely rehabilitated when unanticipated but required

repairs must be made to major systems; funding must first be spent on achieving MHS and

meeting building codes. The inability of applicants to qualify for funding presents a barrier

before rehabilitation even begins. The inability to qualify for rehabilitation assistance often

prevents rehabilitation from occurring at all.

Financing barriers discovered at the local level, with one exception, generally reflect the

nature of financing barriers identified in the literature. Analysis of the local case study

determined that there are difficulties embodied in the income verification process, that not

enough funding is available and that rehabilitation providers face uncertain housing conditions in

many rehabilitation projects. The barriers presented by complexity, scarcity, and uncertainty are

inherent in developing and securing financing. These barriers are identified in the literature and









are also present locally. The exception is limitations on individual award amounts, which were

singled out by seven out of the eight interviewees as a significant local barrier; this aspect of

financing is not represented in the literature as having the extensive impact that it has in Alachua

County.

Barriers Encountered when Preparing Property for Rehabilitation

Acquiring and insuring property, land use restrictions, and cost estimations are potential

barriers to rehabilitation discussed in Listokin and Listokin (2001a, 200 b). Property acquisition

in Alachua County is a barrier because of the condition and value of much of the existing

housing stock. The NHDC's Director of Housing Development commented that every house she

works on requires extensive rehabilitation. This housing is affordable, but often not enough

money can be invested into rehabilitation to bring homes up to appraisal value. Securing

property insurance was not presented as a barrier by any interviewee.

Rehabilitation cost estimation as a barrier in Alachua County is consistent with the

findings in the literature, which presents two aspects of cost estimation: uncertainties

encountered during the rehabilitation process and the length of time that elapses between cost

estimates and the commencement of rehabilitation. Of these, difficult cost estimates due to

uncertainties regarding the extent of rehabilitation needed is the barrier present locally. Such

uncertainties are typically manifested in unanticipated repairs required to ensure a home meets

code requirements. It is challenging to accurately determine the costs of unsound conditions

necessitating repairs. Land use restrictions, parking requirements in particular, are problematic

but are considered minor barriers in the literature. Land use restrictions and permitting hurdles

were discussed only once during the course of the interviews, and are therefore considered only

minor barriers in Alachua County.









Barriers Encountered during the Rehabilitation Process

Building codes, MHS, lead and asbestos regulations, radon testing, energy conservation

requirements, access for disabled persons, and wage requirements are detailed in Listokin and

Listokin (2001a) as barriers to rehabilitation. Building codes, MHS, and lead and asbestos

regulations were discussed in interviews; of these, only the subject of building codes was

specifically introduced in the questions. Radon testing, access for disabled persons, and wage

requirements were not included in the questions, nor were the barriers brought up during the

interview process. Energy conservation requirements were discussed in one interview but not

noted as being a significant barrier.

The 25/50 and Change of Occupancy rules are aspects of building codes presented in

Listokin and Listokin (2001a) as significant barriers. In Alachua County, one interviewee

described building codes as a significant barrier; the 25/50 rule was discussed thoroughly during

her interview and understood to be a significant impediment to rehabilitation. As the NHDC's

Director of Housing Development, the interviewee has potentially encountered the restrictions

forced on rehabilitation by the 25/50 rule much more than other interviewees. Change of

Occupancy rules were not discussed by any interviewees. Minimum housing standards are

viewed by interviewees as acceptable standards, not as barriers. Lead and asbestos regulations

were discussed in one interview and were considered to be procedural issues and somewhat of a

problem for, but not a barrier to, rehabilitation. The guidelines for dealing with lead paint and

asbestos are relatively straightforward; interviewees did not indicate that they encountered any

hurdles with lead paint or asbestos.

Skilled labor shortages are presented in the literature as being a minor, intermittent

barrier. Four interviewees discussed the issue of finding capable contractors as a barrier; the

FHC's Senior Technical Advisor remarked that it is "hard to find skilled contractors." On a









related note, skilled labor may be available but not reputable. The ACHA's Executive Director

noted that contractors will cut costs by nickel-and-diming affordable housing rehabilitation

projects. Based on these findings, the lack of qualified, ethical contractors appears to also be a

barrier in Alachua County.

Miscellaneous Barriers

There are four barriers present in Alachua County that either are absent from the

literature or are different in incidence and nature from barriers discussed in the literature: the

small number of rehabilitation programs available; the amount of paperwork required for SHIP-

funded rehabilitation; cumbersome program guidelines; and the maximum amount allowable for

individual awards. The analysis revealed that the limited number and lack of variety of programs

hindered rehabilitation. The large amount of paperwork required for SHIP-funded rehabilitation

was also determined to be a local barrier; in particular, interviewees remarked that household

income qualification, certification, and verification required relatively extensive documentation.

Time consuming and cumbersome program guidelines, such as the requirement to determine an

applicant's income and then process the application for rehabilitation by a given deadline, also

prevent rehabilitation from occurring.7 These guidelines, as noted by ACHA's Director of

Development, do not seemingly take into account the capacities of the clientele they are meant to

serve; the information and documentation required of applicants is a stumbling block to many of

them. These barriers are regulatory and procedural and have the potential to be resolved through

revisions to SHIP program guidelines and local government LHAPs.

The maximum amount of individual awards, however, is the most significant local barrier

that receives no mention in the literature. As noted previously, the analysis revealed that a


7 The SHIP stipulation of a 120-day window within which income verifications are valid originated with HUD.









majority of interviewees thought the amount of individual awards was too low and was a

significant barrier to rehabilitation. Given that the individual awards are a function of state and

local program guidelines and are relatively specific to Florida and Alachua County, it is

understandable that award amounts are not widely discussed in the literature. However, the

amount of individual awards is limiting the rehabilitation activity in Alachua County.

Discrepancies between Local Barriers and Barriers Discussed in the Literature

The three major barriers presented in the literature are financing, property acquisition,

and building codes. Of these three, financing is considered the most extensive and pervasive;

Listokin and Listokin (2001a) declare that "economic constraints are key barriers affecting all

stages of the rehabilitation process" (p. 9). Property acquisition is discussed as being the most

troublesome. Building codes, by far, receive the most attention; the relatively lengthy Nationally

Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions (NARRP) deals exclusively with

rehabilitation building codes. Financing, property acquisition, and building codes are hurdles

present in Alachua County. Financing is by far the major local barrier. Other barriers mentioned

in the published material, such as estimating costs and finding capable contractors, are also found

locally. The barriers that receive little discussion, such as lead and asbestos regulations, are not

necessarily minor; however, interviewees gave no indication that such issues were significant

barriers. Many of the barriers discussed in the literature are found in Alachua County and are

similar in both incidence and nature.

There are barriers present locally that vary in incidence and nature from common barriers

identified at the national level as discussed in the broader literature. As discussed above, the

small number of rehabilitation programs available locally, the large amount of paperwork

required for SHIP-funded rehabilitation, cumbersome program guidelines, and the insufficient

amount of individual awards are barriers encountered in Alachua County.









What the Discrepancies Suggest

Taken together, the barriers to government-sponsored rehabilitation in Alachua County

are obstacles to assisting lower-income households with their rehabilitation needs.

Rehabilitation administrators, providers, and applicants may become frustrated in their efforts to

dispense or receive assistance. A separate problem is the fact that rehabilitation administrators

and providers in Alachua County are largely unaware of barriers discussed and solutions

presented in the literature; interviewees indicated that the literature is relatively irrelevant to their

daily activities.

The major barriers discussed in Listokin and Listokin (2001 a) were first mentioned

midway through each interview. Each interviewee was told that financing, property acquisition,

and building codes are the most significant barriers discussed in the literature; as noted

previously, building codes were included as an item for discussion. Most of the interviewees, six

of the eight, were not aware of any literature that addressed barriers to affordable housing

rehabilitation. To assist interviewees in better understanding questions 9, 11 and 15, they were

each told that published literature addressing barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation is

available. Specifically, they were each told that although the literature concerning barriers to

affordable housing rehabilitation is limited, a recent, national study to categorize and assess

barriers to rehabilitation and subsequent studies have been conducted (Listokin, 2005; Listokin

& Crossney, 2005; Listokin & Listokin, 2001a, 2001b). Each interviewee was also told that case

studies, analysis, and best practices were available from HUD.

When asked how relevant such literature was or might be in their daily activities, six

interviewees replied "not at all;" two interviewees replied "somewhat."8 The "not at all"


8 Interviewees were asked to choose between very, somewhat, or not at all relevant.









response was not confined to those six interviewees that were not aware of the literature. Those

interviewees who replied "not at all" did not hesitate over or elaborate on their response,

indicating they had no indecision about the lack of importance of the published material in their

daily jobs. One of the two interviewees who responded "somewhat" did not elaborate on the

answer; the other interviewee restricted the relevance of the published material by saying he

reviewed it when it dealt with model programs and/or best practices.

Barriers present in Alachua County that are not discussed in the literature-the small

number of rehabilitation programs available locally, the large amount of paperwork required for

SHIP-funded rehabilitation, cumbersome program guidelines, and the insufficient amount of

individual awards-are significant local barriers. Implications of the discrepancies between

commonly recognized barriers in the literature and those identified in Alachua County are

presented next, as are general implications of the case study and recommendations for resolving

issues that arise from the implications.









Table 4-1. Current Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation
Barriers Discussed in Present in Discrepancies*
Literature Alachua County
Financing
Overall funding available / / None
Low individual award amounts / Significant
Applicant qualification for funding / / None

When Preparing Property for Rehabilitation
Acquiring property / / None
Insuring property / Minor
Land use restrictions / / None
Estimating costs / / None

During the Rehabilitation Process
Building codes / / None
Minimum Housing Standards / / None
Lead and asbestos regulations / / None
Radon testing / Minor
Energy conservation requirements / Minor
Disabled access / Minor
Wage requirements / Moderate

Miscellaneous
Property tax increases / Minor
Skilled labor shortages / / None
Few programs available locally / Significant
Amount of paperwork necessary / Significant
Cumbersome program guidelines / Significant

Discrepancies are defined as follows:

Minor discrepancies are minor issues identified as such in the broader literature and are not
indicated to be a barrier in Alachua County.

Moderate discrepancies are moderate issues identified as such in the broader literature and
are not indicated to be a barrier in Alachua County.

Significant discrepancies are absent or are not widely discussed in the broader literature
and are significant in Alachua County; these discrepancies form the basis of the analysis
and recommendations that follow.


Listokin, D., & Listokin, B. (2001a). Barriers to the rehabilitation of affordable housing,
Volume I: Findings and analysis. Washington, D.C.: Department of Housing and Urban
Development; and author.









CHAPTER 5
IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION

Most of the barriers outlined in the literature are found in Alachua County and are similar

in both incidence and nature; still, a number of the local barriers identified in this case study are

not explicitly identified in the literature. The implications of these discrepancies are detailed

below; recommendations for resolution of each issue are presented. General implications of the

case study are then discussed. A brief review of general themes found in the literature will

provide context for implications of the discrepancies that exist. Barriers to affordable housing

rehabilitation can, in part, be attributed to the following historic trends:

* Affordable housing policy is political.

* Support for affordable housing policy is cyclical.

* The devolution of affordable housing policy that occurred in the 1980s continues.

* Financing, the most pervasive barrier to affordable housing rehabilitation, is complex,
scarce and uncertain.

Implications of Discrepancies and Recommendations for Resolution

There are two primary implications of the discrepancies between barriers at the local

level and those discussed in the literature. One primary implication is that further study must be

completed on the nature and extent of local barriers in order to better understand how to resolve

them. Barriers at the local level, which are not reflected in the literature, are significant hurdles

to affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua County. The other primary implication is that

local rehabilitation administrators and providers are largely on their own in overcoming barriers.

Secondary implications, derived from the primary implications, are also discussed.

Primary Implications

Issue: Barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua County-the small number

of rehabilitation programs available locally, the large amount of paperwork required for SHIP-









funded rehabilitation, cumbersome program guidelines, and limited individual award amounts-

are different in scope and impact from those presented in the literature. Listokin and Listokin

(2001 a) acknowledge the variation in barriers among rehabilitation projects and note that, "their

specific incidence and degree of difficulty vary by jurisdiction. ." (p. 6). Although the causes

of barriers specific to Alachua County are known, the extent to which the barriers impede

rehabilitation are not fully understood. The extent of local barriers needs to be examined so that

effective solutions may be devised. The need to undertake further study is easier said than done,

especially given the difficulty of determining how much is spent on rehabilitation within a

particular locale.

Recommendation: In order to enhance the existing material on barriers to rehabilitation,

particularly barriers that may be specific to certain locales or regions, state universities could

compile and update studies within their respective regions. Before these studies can begin, a

methodology for identifying, evaluating, and categorizing local affordable housing rehabilitation

activity must be developed. To identify local affordable housing rehabilitation activity, a case

study similar to the one completed for this thesis but expanded to include homeowners should be

completed. To evaluate rehabilitation activity, it is necessary to establish how much of the

rehabilitation need is being met. To categorize what type of rehabilitation activity is underway,

it is necessary to determine where rehabilitation activity is occurring and which income groups

are being served.

Once a standardized methodology for the study of local barriers to affordable housing

rehabilitation is in use, results from studies may be compared so that patterns and trends may be

recognized. A longitudinal study can explore if the same barriers are present over time in

Alachua County; cross-sectional studies can determine the local contexts within which similar









barriers emerge. From such comparisons, patterns across space and time can be discerned and

practical and widely-applicable solutions might be proposed and tested.

Issue: Local administrators and providers are largely on their own when it comes to

figuring out how to overcome local barriers to rehabilitation. It is probable, though not explicitly

addressed through the case study, that given the devolution of federal housing programs, among

them those focused on rehabilitation, and the significant number of new programs developed at

the state and local levels, that barriers specific to these new state and local programs now exist.

Information concerning barriers specific to new programs, especially within local contexts, is not

widely published. Interviewees verified this in their comments by stating that the literature is

largely irrelevant to their day-to-day activities. One interviewee remarked that his organization

has developed procedures over the years to deal with the barriers that have emerged. None of the

interviewees indicated that they looked to the literature for help in overcoming hurdles to

rehabilitation.

Recommendation: Incorporate topics relevant to local contexts into publications that

local rehabilitation administrators and providers are likely to read, and make this material readily

available. Interviewees suggested: education on local barriers to affordable housing

rehabilitation; training in areas such as rehabilitation inspections and cost estimating; and best

practices and models for successfully overcoming rehabilitation hurdles. With the exception of

Listokin and Crossney (2005) and Listokin (2005), there are no such resources. There is a need

for easily-accessible forums solely devoted to barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation; these

forums could take the form of newsletters, internet blogs, or specific websites that alternately

highlight various local areas and issues. Interviewee suggestions for the focus of future topics in

the literature, which are summarized in Table 5-1, also include:









* relevant information and resources for rehabilitation administrators and providers

* ongoing training in the basics of program guidelines

* training for homeowners, so that they know what to expect and do not confuse
rehabilitation with refurbishment

* case studies that go into more depth on rehabilitation issues

* a review of rehabilitation standards

* a study of households that come back for assistance because the rehabilitation was an
incomplete fix

Secondary Implications

Two secondary issues arise, given the implications that more study needs to be

accomplished and that local affordable housing rehabilitation administrators and providers have

few resources to turn to for assistance in overcoming hurdles to rehabilitation. With relatively

little known regarding barriers in local contexts, only a modest amount of information is

available to guide local and state policy makers in their efforts to develop sound strategies for

affordable housing rehabilitation. A related issue concerns the grasp that researchers have on

rehabilitation barriers within local contexts. These two issues are discussed individually below.

Issue: The persons familiar with barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua

County are local rehabilitation administrators and providers; those not involved with

rehabilitation have little understanding of how the process is guided or works. As Alachua

County's Housing Programs Manager stated, "it's a niche field." Florida legislators may access

the expertise of the Affordable Housing Study Commission; local commissioners may rely on

their housing division staff to give them reliable information and direction. However, that such

consultations occur regularly is doubtful. Local and state policy makers, as well as future

rehabilitation administrators and providers, would be well served by further study that reliably









documents local barriers to rehabilitation and the solutions developed by experienced

administrators and providers.

Recommendation: Include rehabilitation administrators and providers on the recently

reestablished local Affordable Housing Advisory Committees. A separate state-level committee,

with representatives from various Florida counties and municipalities, should be formed solely to

provide information for future studies and provide input to legislative subcommittees on

rehabilitation barriers and related issues. A separate state-level advisory committee could fulfill

a need suggested by the NHDC's Director of Housing Development, who remarked that future

material "should be directed to the policymakers so that they don't have a limited view of

rehabilitation."

Issue: Planning for affordable housing and growth management efforts within the

Alachua County context in particular, could be made more effective with data produced from

reliable studies. Planning decisions need not be made with a minimum amount of information

regarding those barriers, including their effects and the associated solutions. If community

development, redevelopment, and revitalization are to be successful efforts, local barriers to

affordable housing rehabilitation and appropriate solutions must both be documented. The

Housing and Future Land Use Elements of local jurisdictions' Comprehensive Plans, as well as

their LHAP, provide a general framework for locating affordable housing. However, the

location of affordable housing has long-term impacts for rehabilitation. If the character and then

the property values of a neighborhood with affordable housing decline over time, homes needing

rehabilitation may not be able to receive assistance. As noted previously, the NHDC's Director

of Housing Development questioned how worthwhile it is to try to rehabilitate homes in less-

desirable neighborhoods; a home's location can prevent it from being rehabilitated.









A better understanding of the effects of barriers and their proposed solutions could enable

the rehabilitation efforts of local government planning and housing agencies, local nonprofit

organizations, and for-profit businesses to be more focused and directed. Alachua County's

SHIP Coordinator commented that "a strategy for rehabilitating entire neighborhoods .. ."

should be developed. Although such a tactic is occasionally utilized, further research may

establish the validity of more frequent and directed efforts on a neighborhood scale.

Recommendation: Future research should focus on the following questions:

* What is the effect on neighborhoods of those households that need but do not receive
rehabilitation assistance?

* How much rehabilitation will need to be provided in the future for single family, owner-
occupied housing?

* How much rehabilitation will need to be provided in the future for multifamily rental
units?

* What is the extent of barriers to rehabilitation locally?

* What is the economic impact, if any, of rehabilitation activity within a certain locale?

* What regulatory hurdles, such as the 25/50 rule, may be mitigated with coordination and
cooperation among policymakers, administrators, and providers?

* What are the indicators that could assist in identifying areas where focused affordable
housing rehabilitation is needed?

Implications of the Case Study

All of the barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation that are present in Alachua County

are interrelated to a certain extent. For example, compliance with program guidelines may be

frustrating, but with a lack of organizational capacity, program guidelines become a barrier to

rehabilitation. The difficulty of accurately determining the scope of a rehabilitation project may

dramatically increase the cost of that project and therefore limit the amount of rehabilitation

completed. All of the barriers are related to financing. With unlimited funding, each of the









barriers could be resolved. Given the limited funding available, further study can assist

affordable housing rehabilitation administrators and providers in determining the most efficient

use of their funding.

Issue: The case study resulted in one clear pattern concerning the barriers present locally

but not discussed in the literature. These barriers-the small number of rehabilitation programs

available locally, the large amount of paperwork required for SHIP-funded rehabilitation,

cumbersome program guidelines, and maximum individual award amounts-are the result of

guidelines and restrictions at the state and local levels. Although the federal CDBG program has

guidelines that must be met, Florida's SHIP program guidelines and the two local governments'

LHAPs are a primary cause of these local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation. Efforts to

resolve the local barriers would be most effective if they were undertaken at the state and local

levels.

Recommendation: These barriers can be resolved, to a large extent, by repealing the cap

on Florida's Housing Trust Fund, by revising the two local jurisdictions' LHAPs, and by

increasing individual award amounts. In all likelihood, affordable housing rehabilitation efforts

across the county are impeded to some extent, given the drastic decrease in federal funding over

the last two decades. However, local governments in Florida are particularly frustrated by the

inaccessibility of funds specifically devoted to affordable housing and affordable housing

rehabilitation.

Issue: The case study also revealed two interesting trends, one across job roles and the

other across political boundaries. Although interviewees had different perspectives on barriers to

rehabilitation because they are employed in the administration or the provision of affordable

housing rehabilitation, there was no apparent, overarching difference in their answers. The local









affordable housing rehabilitation administrators and providers gave remarkably similar answers,

especially regarding financing issues and the four local barriers not represented in the literature.

A second trend concerned the lack of distinction between barriers in the City of Gainesville and

Alachua County. No clear division exists between barriers encountered in the City, which is

primarily urban, and the County, which has both urban and large rural areas. Local barriers are

pervasive in their occurrence across political jurisdictions.

Recommendation: In addition to streamlining guidelines and procedures at the state and

local government levels recommended above, a standardized and centralized application, cost

estimation, and bidding process may work well for all affordable housing rehabilitation

undertaken in the City and the County. The interviewees appear to be of a similar mindset

regarding rehabilitation barriers; several of them recommended a standardized and centralized

process. There is redundancy among local agencies and organizations that administer and

provide rehabilitation, particularly among those that utilize SHIP funding. The Alachua County

Housing Programs Manager remarked "I don't know that we need seven or eight mini-SHIP

programs out there." Currently, each agency or organization accepts and process applications for

assistance, determines the scope of work, advertises for and accepts bids for rehabilitation work,

and monitors the progress of the project. Except for monitoring a project's progress, one local

office could efficiently accomplish some of the redundant tasks. Centralizing and standardizing

processes would, in all likelihood, not result in an overall reduction of staff but would enable

staff to focus on resolving barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation. The fact that no clear

distinctions in barriers exist across local political jurisdictions is encouraging; one local office

would suffice to process paperwork for rehabilitation projects in both the City and the County.









Interviewees' suggestions for addressing barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua

County, summarized in Table 5-2, include:

* explore lender loan pools and other funding options

* repeal the cap on Florida's Housing Trust Fund

* better coordinate project management

* reuse building components and materials in good condition

* enforce compliance with building codes

* explore the Rebuild Gainesville model1

* establish a certification program for rehabilitation inspectors

* have rehabilitation providers team with codes inspectors to identify properties in need of
rehabilitation

Conclusion

Responsibility for affordable housing policy, and any associated rehabilitation efforts,

began with the states and has largely returned to them. The task of devising affordable housing

policy and promoting rehabilitation efforts rested primarily with the states until the 1930s. The

federal government largely assumed direct provision for and supervision of affordable housing

and rehabilitation efforts from the 1930s through the mid-1980s. The retrenchment of federal

housing policy in the 1980s placed responsibility for affordable housing and rehabilitation policy

with state and local governments, which struggled with developing funding to fill the gap left by

the federal devolution of affordable housing and rehabilitation policies and programs. In the

near future, the federal government is unlikely to provide the policy direction and the programs

that guided and funded rehabilitation during the 1960s and early 1970s. The responsibility for



1 Rebuild Gainesville is a non-profit organization that relies on volunteers to rehabilitate the homes of lower-income
households.









affordable housing policy and associated rehabilitation components primarily lies with the state

and local governments.

The recent literature concerning barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation has been

fragmented and incomplete, a result, perhaps, of the political and cyclical nature of affordable

housing and rehabilitation policy. This thesis establishes that discrepancies exist between what

is known concerning barriers in a specific local context and what is discussed in the literature.

The existence and nature of these discrepancies imply that further study of local barriers to

rehabilitation is justified and that Alachua County rehabilitation administrators and providers

need more resources for overcoming barriers.

Four barriers found in the local context-the small number of rehabilitation programs

available locally, the large amount of paperwork required for SHIP-funded rehabilitation,

cumbersome program guidelines, and limited individual award amounts-are primary indicators

of the discrepancies that exist between the barriers discussed in the literature and those found in

Alachua County. The following recommendations are provided to add to the current literature

that addresses barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation, direct further study, and provide

rehabilitation administrators and providers with more resources to resolve barriers. Each of the

four local barriers is discussed.

Barrier: The small number of rehabilitation programs available locally is a barrier

because of the limited number of programs contained in the two local jurisdictions' LHAPs. As

noted in Chapter 4, rehabilitation programs, although targeted to lower-income households, have

similar strict guidelines. Households that have too little or too much income may be denied









rehabilitation assistance; if denied assistance, households have few other options for

rehabilitation.2

Recommendation: The recently reestablished local Affordable Housing Advisory

Committees should evaluate the rehabilitation strategies available and either expand existing

programs or develop new ones so that there are more options available for lower-income

households. Tracking the extent to which each program is utilized can indicate which programs

may need to be expanded.

Barrier: The large amount of paperwork required for SHIP-funded rehabilitation is a

barrier primarily because potential applicants may be unable or unwilling to complete the income

verification process or may be dissuaded from utilizing County programs. Alachua County's

SHIP Coordinator remarked that it was not uncommon for realtors and private lenders to steer

potential applicants for rehabilitation assistance away from the SHIP Down Payment Assistance

Program because of the excessive paperwork required and the additional time necessary to obtain

approval.

Recommendation: The Affordable Housing Study Commission has recommended

clarification of acceptable methods of income verification. The two local jurisdictions' SHIP

Coordinators should hold workshops with realtors and private lenders to educate them on

program requirements and to develop a better working relationship with those individuals that

are steering people away from specific programs. Local Affordable Housing Advisory

Committees should lobby the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, which has authority in the

matter, to amend the SHIP Compliance Rule to revise income verification methods so that they



2 It is unlikely that smaller households in the very-low income group will be able to afford a principle mortgage
payment for a SHIP-eligible unit under Alachua County's SHIP Down Payment Construction/Rehabilitation
Assistance program.









are consistent with standard lending practices and federal program guidelines that might be

layered with SHIP.

Barrier: Cumbersome program guidelines are a barrier because they prevent some

lower-income households from completing the application process. The Alachua County

Housing Authority's Director of Development remarked that the income verification process

alone has prevented some people from completing the application process. As noted in Chapter

4, program guidelines require detailed information on household income, assets, and property

ownership; this information must be acted upon within 120 days, or the information must be

reverified.

Recommendation: The clarification of and amendment to the SHIP Compliance Rule

recommended above will resolve most of the issues surrounding income verification. In addition

to enabling the income verification process to be quicker and more efficient, the process should

be easier for applicants to complete. A standardized and centralized application, cost estimation,

and bidding process would allow lower-income households to complete the process by enabling

them to interact with staffers that specialize in applicant intake and processing. A centralized

application process would reduce the burden on applicants, would expose them to the full range

of rehabilitation programs available, and would allow income information to be utilized within

120 days.

Barrier: Limited individual award amounts present a barrier to rehabilitation because not

enough funding can be spent on properties that need more rehabilitation than the maximum

award amount will allow. Currently, the maximum award amount for homes within the City of

Gainesville is $50,000; the maximum award amount for homes in Alachua County, outside the

City, is $40,000. Both the City of Gainesville and Alachua County are soliciting









recommendations on revisions to their LHAPs. As part of the LHAP revision process, the

County is seeking, and will likely receive, approval to raise the individual award amount to

$50,000. It is unknown if the City will seek an increase in individual award amounts any time in

the near future.

Recommendation: A case study, similar to the one completed for this thesis, should be

undertaken within the next several years to determine if limited individual award amounts are

still a barrier to rehabilitation. Specifically, the next case study should focus on standard

rehabilitation costs for lower-income households in Alachua County. In the meantime, if the

City does not raise its maximum award amount, the City's Affordable Housing Advisory

Committee should lobby the City Commission to raise the amount. The Affordable Housing

Advisory Committee should solicit input from rehabilitation administrators and providers within

the City to support their position.

Administrators and providers of affordable housing rehabilitation have not only an

obligation, but a desire, to provide rehabilitation efficiently and effectively. Given the country's

high homeownership rate, a long-term need for rehabilitation exists. The policies and programs

guiding and delivering rehabilitation must be based on reliable information. Policy makers have

a responsibility to enable rehabilitation administrators and providers to overcome barriers and

also to remove barriers-especially financial ones-of their own making.

Financials barriers, as noted in the literature review, are the most significant and are

intertwined with most other barriers to rehabilitation. Financial barriers often prevent

rehabilitation from occurring at all. Listokin and Listokin (2001a) note that financial hurdles

exacerbate other barriers encountered during the rehabilitation process (p. 46). Coupled with the

funding gap that developed when the federal government began to withdraw from the provision









of affordable housing in the 1980s, financial barriers become the key barrier. In Alachua

County, six out of eight interviewees indicated that increased financing was a primary solution to

local rehabilitation barriers. One of the FHC's Senior Technical Advisors suggested plainly to

"repeal the cap." Florida's Affordable Housing Study Commission (Affordable Housing Study

Commission, 2007), as the first recommendation in their 2007 study of the SHIP program,

advised that "in 2008, the Florida Legislature should reauthorize the State and Local Government

Housing Trust Funds without the cap" (p. 20).

Perhaps the most effective solution for financial barriers is to insulate, as much as is

possible, affordable housing rehabilitation financing from political influences. The federal

government, through its housing policies and programs, has historically encouraged

homeownership; although program support that enables lower-income groups to afford housing

and to rehabilitate their homes is inconsistent. So that funding levels remain consistent and are

provided in sufficient amounts to undertake needed rehabilitation, subsidies for affordable

housing rehabilitation may need to be entitlements. Before that argument can be made, however,

further research must be undertaken to understand local barriers to affordable housing

rehabilitation.









Table 5-1. Suggested Focus of Future Published Material
Case Study Participant Education/Training


Alachua County
SHIP Coordinator
Alachua County Housing
Authority Executive
Director

For-Profit Affordable
Housing Developer and
Rehabilitation Provider
City of Gainesville Block
Grant Division Manager

Florida Housing
Coalition Senior
Technical Advisor

Alachua County Housing
Programs Manager


Distribution of available information and resources to
rehabilitation administrators and providers
Education and training for the next generation of rehabilitation
providers, inspectors, specialists, and staff; need continuous
training in the basics: what forms to use and how to fill them out
correctly
Training for homeowners, so that they know what to expect and
do not confuse rehabilitation with refurbishment


Innovative programs and best
practices

Review of rehabilitation standards;
study of households that are coming
back for assistance because the
rehabilitation was an incomplete fix


Rehabilitation Specialist Certification training; education and
training for the next generation of administrators and providers


Neighborhood Housing
& Development Corp.'s
Director of Housing
Development
Alachua County Housing Case studies that go into more depth on rehabilitation issues, that
Authority Director of get into the nitty-gritty of rehabilitation
Development
Comments provided by interviewees and, although edited for brevity, are in their own words.


Direct material to the policymakers,
so that they don't have a limited view
of rehabilitation


Other









Table 5-2. Solutions to Addressing Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation in Alachua County
Case Study Participant Financing Standardization Efficiency/Organizational Other
Capacity


Alachua County
SHIP Coordinator


Increase SHIP award
amount


Alachua County Standardized
Housing Authority rehabilitation guidelines
Executive Director
For-Profit Affordable More funding Standardize the
Housing Developer and rehabilitation inspection
Rehabilitation Provider process
City of Gainesville Explore lender loan
Block Grant Division pools and other funding
Manager options
Florida Housing Repeal the cap; Standardized
o Coalition Senior Homestead portability rehabilitation guidelines
Technical Advisor
Alachua County Centralized application
Housing Programs and bidding processes
Manager among providers
Neighborhood Housing Raise the award limits
& Development Corp.'s
Director of Housing
Development
Alachua County More financing Central agency for
Housing Authority rehabilitation-too much
Director of redundancy
Development
Comments provided by interviewees and, although edited for brevity, are in their own words.


Develop a strategy for
entire neighborhoods
Building inspectors
should make contractors
do the job correctly


County should adopt a
streamlined permitting
process


Explore Rebuild
Gainesville model


Trained staff that can tell
when a change order is
legitimate
Case management


Re-use building
components and materials
in good condition


Perhaps a certification
program for
rehabilitation inspectors




Adapt the building
codes to allow more
rehabilitation to be done

Rehabilitation needs to
be a priority; team with
codes inspectors to
identify properties









APPENDIX A
CURRENT BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION
DISCUSSED IN THE LITERATRUE


Financing is pervasive and inter-related with other barriers; economic factors are the

single biggest barrier to affordable housing rehabilitation. The problems inherent in developing

and securing financing are at the heart of barriers to rehabilitation. Once financing has been

obtained, the following barriers may arise.


Barriers encountered when preparing property for rehabilitation:

* acquiring property
* insuring property
* land use restrictions
* estimating costs


Barriers encountered during the rehabilitation process:

* building codes
* Minimum Housing Standards
* lead and asbestos regulations
* radon testing
* energy conservation requirements
* disabled access
* federal and union wage requirements


Miscellaneous:

* property tax increases
* skilled labor shortages


Compiled from Listokin and Listokin (200 la, 200 lb).









APPENDIX B
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAMS IN ALACHUA COUNTY

The programs that fund single family owner-occupied affordable housing rehabilitation in

Alachua County are briefly described below. The following list is a compilation of applicable

programs from Alachua County Housing Programs Division, the City of Gainesville Housing

Division, the Neighborhood Housing Development Corporation (NHDC), the Alachua County

Housing Authority, and a for-profit affordable housing developer and rehabilitation provider:

* The Down Payment with Construction/Rehabilitation Assistance program provides
$25,000, $20,000 or $5,000 in assistance for very-low, low or moderate income
households, respectively, that have been approved for a mortgage through a private lender.
The assistance amount includes down payment assistance and cost of rehabilitation for
existing homes and is available to residents outside the City of Gainesville.

* The Single Family Housing Development program provides a maximum of $40,000 in
assistance for rehabilitation and for affordable housing strategies such as new construction
and acquisition of land for construction. Eligible households apply for and receive funding
through local agencies, such as the Alachua County Housing Authority, or through local
nonprofit organizations, such as the Neighborhood Housing Development Corporation.
This program is available to residents outside the City.

* The Emergency Roof Repair program provides $15,000 in rehabilitation assistance for
repair of leaking roofs for eligible homes in the City; this program is strictly limited to roof
repair and is available to residents of the City.

* The Minor Rehabilitation program, with a maximum of $30,000 in assistance, addresses
health and safety concerns within a home and is not intended for substantial rehabilitation.
This program is available to residents of the City.

* The Major Rehabilitation program, with a maximum of $50,000 in assistance, provides
funding for serious health and safety issues within a home and is intended for substantial
rehabilitation. This program is available to residents of the City.

* The Home Improvement Loan is an NHDC program that provides up to $15,000 in
funding for essential rehabilitation and is available to residents of both the City and the
County; a local for-profit affordable housing developer and rehabilitation provider also
processes these loans.

* The Alachua County Home Repair program is an NHDC program that provides up to
$25,000 in assistance targeted to households with disabled family members and is
available to residents of the County.











APPENDIX C
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS IN
ALACHUA COUNTY

The following local government agencies and non- and for-profit organizations employ

the individuals interviewed for the local case study:

* The Alachua County Housing Authority is a quasi-governmental housing agency that
administers and provides a variety of programs in the County, including public housing
and affordable housing rehabilitation; the Executive Director and the Director of
Development were interviewed.

* The Alachua County Housing Programs Division administers the housing programs for the
County and selects other agencies and organizations to receive SHIP and CDBG funding
for programs such as Single Family Housing Development; the Housing Programs
Manager and SHIP Coordinator were interviewed.

* The City of Gainesville Block Grant Division administers the City's federal block grants
and selects other agencies and organizations to receive block grant funding for
rehabilitation projects; the Block Grant Manager was interviewed.

* The Florida Housing Coalition provides technical support and training on affordable
housing and rehabilitation to local governments and organizations through Florida; one of
the Coalition's Senior Technical Advisors was interviewed.

* The for-profit affordable housing developer and rehabilitation provider utilizes CDBG and
SHIP funding to rehabilitate homes in localities across Florida; the Vice President of the
organization was interviewed.

* The Neighborhood Housing Development Corporation is a nonprofit organization that
utilizes CDBG funding to provide affordable housing and rehabilitation; the Director of
Housing Development was interviewed.









APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Subject: Barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation that exist at the national and local levels.

Name of Participant:
Agency or Organization:

1. How long have you been involved with the provision of affordable housing or affordable
housing rehabilitation? How long in Florida? In Alachua County?

2. What are the various capacities in which you've enabled the provision of affordable housing?

3. What funding sources does your agency or organization rely on (federal block grants,
Florida's State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program, other)?

4. What are the problems you have encountered, or your agency or organization has
encountered, in the provision of affordable housing rehabilitation?

5. Do you think these problems can be differentiated based on whether they recur regularly or
just intermittently? In other words, are problems embedded in the processes for
delivering affordable housing rehabilitation, or do most projects encounter different
barriers?

6. Of the problems that occur regularly, if any, can a distinction be made between financing
problems and other problems?

7. To what extent is financing a barrier?

8. Do barriers to the provision of affordable housing exist primarily in the administrative,
oversight, or delivery processes? For example, can it be said that barriers are
encountered mainly in administration, or are most of the barriers encountered when
actually at a site receiving affordable housing rehabilitation?

9. Much of the published material concerning barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation
discusses regulatory barriers, particularly building codes. Have building codes, or any
other regulatory barrier, been a recurring problem for the provision of affordable housing
rehabilitation?

10. Compared with regulatory barriers, how much of a barrier are other problems associated
with the provision of affordable housing rehabilitation?

11. How relevant is the published material concerning barriers to affordable housing
rehabilitation in your day-to-day activities?









12. How have you or how has your agency or organization overcome barriers to affordable
housing rehabilitation? Are these local efforts different from what has been tried in other
areas?

13. What would be the most effective and realistic solutions to the provision of affordable
housing rehabilitation here in Alachua County?

14. Why do you think these solutions have not been put into place?

15. What should be the focus of material published in the future, as it concerns barriers to
affordable housing rehabilitation?

16. What are the barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation that have not been covered in this
interview?

17. Do you have any additional thoughts concerning barriers to affordable housing
rehabilitation?









LIST OF REFERENCES


Affordable Housing Study Commission. (2007). Final report 2007. Tallahassee, FL:
Affordable Housing Study Commission.

Alachua County. (2003). Alachua County affordable housing study. Gainesville, FL: Alachua
County.

Anderson, M. (1964). The federal bulldozer: A critical analysis of urban renewal. Cambridge,
MA: Joint Center for Urban Studies.

Bogdon, A.S. (1999). What can we learn from previous housing-based self-sufficiency
programs? In S. Newman (Ed.), The home front: Implications of welfare reform for
housingpolicy (pp. 149-174). Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.

Brooks, M.E. (1997). Housing trust funds: A new approach to funding affordable housing. In
W. Van Vliet (Ed.), Affordable housing and urban redevelopment in the United States
(pp. 229-245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Brooks, M.E. (2007). Housing trust fundprogress report 2007. Frazier Park, CA: Center for
Community Change.

Crete, R. (1977). Housing, politics and the Housing Act of 1949. Unpublished master's thesis,
University of Florida.

Dommel, P.R., Bach, V.E., Liebschutz, S.F., & Rubinowitz, L.S. (1983). Housing
rehabilitation. In D. Listokin (Ed.), Housing rehabilitation: Economic, social and policy
perspectives (pp. 68-72). Rutgers, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.

Duda, M. (2001). Federally sponsored rehabilitation activity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University, Joint Center for Housing Studies.

Florida Housing Coalition. (2005). State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program: SHIP
program manual. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Housing Coalition.

Florida Housing Finance Corporation. (n.d.). Florida housing's affordable housing programs.
Retrieved October 15, 2007, from
http://www.floridahousing.org/NR/rdonlyres/419C3DE6-2F66-4A20-A1B9-
DD7969034D03/0/FHFCHousingPrograms.pdf

Florida Housing Finance Corporation. (n.d.). William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act.
Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.floridahousing.org

Florida Housing Finance Corporation. (2006). State Housing initiatives Partnership (SHIP).
Retrieved August 25, 2007, from
www.floridahousing.org/Home/HousingPartners/LocalGovernments/









Florida Housing Finance Corporation. (2007). About us. Retrieved February 16, 2008, from
www.floridahousing.org/Home/AboutUs/default.htm

Ford Foundation. (1989). Affordable housing: The years ahead. New York: Ford Foundation.

Foundation Center. (2008). Grantmaker stats table index. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from
http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/listing01.html

Goetz, E.G. (1993). .*/herl burden: Local politics and progressive housing policy.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Hattis, D.B., Koffel, W.E., & Green, M. (1997). Nationally Applicable Recommended
Rehabilitation Provisions (NARRP). Retrieved November 2, 2007, from
http://www.huduser.org/publications/destech/narrp/ch2_narrp.html

Heinberg, J.D. (1983). The evolution of rehabilitation as public policy. In D. Listokin (Ed.),
Housing rehabilitation: Economic, social andpolicy perspectives (pp. 63-67). Rutgers,
NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.

Housing Assistance Council. (1991). A guide to housing and community development programs
for small towns and rural areas. Washington, D.C.: Housing Assistance Council.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.

Listokin, D. (1991). Federal housing policy and preservation: Historical evolution, patterns, and
implications. Housing Policy Debate, 2(2), 157-185.

Listokin, D. (2005). Best practices for effecting the rehabilitation of affordable housing,
Volume II: Technical analyses and case studies. Washington, D.C.: Department of
Housing and Urban Development.

Listokin, D., & Crossney, K. (2005). Best practices for effecting the rehabilitation of affordable
housing, Volume I: Framework and findings. Washington, D.C.: Department of Housing
and Urban Development.

Listokin, D., & Listokin, B. (2001a). Barriers to the rehabilitation of affordable housing,
Volume I: Findings and analysis. Washington, D.C.: Department of Housing and Urban
Development.

Listokin, D., & Listokin, B. (2001b). Barriers to the rehabilitation of affordable housing,
Volume II: Case studies. Washington, D.C.: Department of Housing and Urban
Development.

Moskowitz, H.S., & Lindbloom, C.G. (1993). The new illustrated book of development
definitions. Rutgers, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.









Nash, W. (1959). Residential rehabilitation: Private profits andpublic purposes. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Nenno, M.K. (1997). Changes and challenges in affordable housing and urban development. In
W. Van Vliet (Ed.), Affordable housing and urban redevelopment in the United States
(pp. 1-21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Newman, S.J. (1999). Introduction and overview. In S. Newman (Ed.), The Home Front:
Implications of Welfare Reform for Housing Policy (pp. 1-28). Washington, D.C.: Urban
Institute Press.

Newman, S.J. (1999). Preface and acknowledgements. In S. Newman (Ed.), The Home Front:
Implications of Welfare Reform for Housing Policy (pp. ix-x). Washington, D.C.: Urban
Institute Press.

Newman, S.J., & Schnare, A.B. (1992). Beyond bricks andmortar: Reexamining thepurpose
and effects of housing assistance. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.

Rusciolelli, E. (2008). The affordable housing advisory committees make a comeback: SHIP
administrators, are you ready? Housing News Network, 24(2), 24-27.

Schwartz, A.F. (2006). Housing policy in the United States: An introduction. New York:
Routledge.

Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing. (n.d.). Alachua County, Florida. Retrieved
December 1, 2007, from
http://flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu/a/profiles?action=results&nid=100#afford_housing
need

State of Florida. (2007). The 2007Florida Statutes: Chapter 420. Retrieved February 14, 2008,
from http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?

State of Florida. (2008). Florida Administrative Code: Rule 67-37, State Housing Initiatives
Partnership Program. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/chapterhome.asp?chapter=67-37

Stegman, M.A. (1999). State and local affordable housing programs: A rich tapestry.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.

Stegman, M.A., & Holden, J.D. (1987). Nonfederal housing programs: How states and
localities are responding to federal cutbacks in low-income housing. (Rev. ed.).
Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.

Sternlieb, G., & Burchell, R. (1973). Residential abandonment: The tenement landlord
revisited. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.









United States Census Bureau. (2007). American housing survey 2005 (Table 2-4). Retrieved
November 21, 2007, from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs05/tab lal.html

United States Census Bureau. (2008). State & county quickfacts: Alachua County, Florida.
Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12001.html

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1991). Not in my backyard:
Removing barriers to affordable housing. Washington, D.C.: Department of Housing
and Urban Development.

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2006). Programs ofHUD:
Major grant, assistance, and regulatory programs. Washington, D.C.: United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development.

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2007). Guidelinesfor
preparing consolidatedplan. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/conplan/toolsandguidance/guidance/

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2007). Use of CDBGfunds by
allgrantees. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/budget/disbursementreports/pro
files/NationalExpenditureFY07.xls

Weeks, K.D., & Grimmer, A.E. (1995). The Secretary of the Interior's standards for the
treatment of historic properties i ih/ guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring &
reconstructing historic buildings. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the
Interior.

Wright, R.O. (2007). Chronology of housing in the United States. Jefferson, NC: McFarland &
Company.

Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research. Design andmethods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Mark Ludlow resides in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida-the study area for this

thesis. He spent his early years in Mississippi and enjoyed vacations in Gainesville and Miami,

Florida, visiting family. After working in the construction and utility industries, Mark returned

to college and earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in anthropology. He continued his education

and in May 2008 graduated with his Master of Arts degree in urban and regional planning.

Mark is concentrating on housing and community development. His background in

anthropology brings a necessary perspective to planning and its impact on people by providing a

people- and a culture-oriented framework for viewing problems. He is interested in the

intersection of anthropology and urban planning and what it has to offer in the areas of policy

and policy implementation. Ultimately, Mark would like to focus on liveable communities and

how they can be built in different regions of Florida and the nation, with their varying cultures

that see community in different ways. He anticipates that his professional experiences will

enable him to contribute to the practice of urban and regional planning.

In addition to his academic pursuits, Mark enjoys spending time with his wife, two

daughters, and son-in-law. His interests include baseball, World War II airplanes, fishing, and

traveling. He also looks forward to participating in local archeology digs.





PAGE 1

BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION: A CASE STUDY OF ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA By MARK E. LUDLOW A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Mark E. Ludlow 2

PAGE 3

To Tracy, whose smile makes it all worthwhile 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Academic undertakings, as are any endea vors in life worth completing, are rarely individual efforts. Kristin Larsen and Joseli Macedo have provided guidance and instruction and have, through their supervision of the Depa rtment of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Work Study Program, fi nancially enabled my graduate education. Gail Monahan was the first affordable housing re habilitation provider I in terned for under the Work Study Program; her experience and insightful ness are valuable resources. I thank all three of them for agreeing to sit on my thesis co mmittee; Dr. Larsen has been an exceptional committee chair. My wife and two daughters have sacrificed more than just time for the sake of my graduate education and have never complained. Without their support, I would ha ve been completely incapable of finishing this thesis. I look forw ard to making it up to them, although they are too gracious to ask for or to exp ect that from me. So mehow, that makes it all seem worth it. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .102 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................14History of Affordable Housing Policy and Programs.............................................................141930s through the 1970s..................................................................................................141980s to the Present.........................................................................................................20Social and Affordable Housing Policy...................................................................................22Current Affordable Housing Context.....................................................................................25Federal.............................................................................................................................25Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)..........................................................27Funding Gap....................................................................................................................28Housing Finance Agencies..............................................................................................29Housing Trust Funds.......................................................................................................30State Housing Initiatives Pa rtnership (SHIP) Program...................................................31Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation.......................................................................35Rehabilitation Defined.....................................................................................................35Historical Barriers to Afford able Housing Rehabilitation...............................................36Current Barriers to Rehabilitation..........................................................................................38Financing Barriers...........................................................................................................38Barriers Encountered when Prepar ing Property for Rehabilitation.................................40Barriers Encountered during the Rehabilitation Process.................................................41Miscellaneous Barriers....................................................................................................46Current Context......................................................................................................................47Primary Funding Sources for Rehabilitation...................................................................47Local Housing Assistance Plans......................................................................................48Age of the Housing Stock................................................................................................483 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................5 1Alachua County: The Local Context......................................................................................51The Case Study as the Appropriate Data Collection Tool for Alachua County.....................54Selection of Interviewees...................................................................................................... ..57Interview Questions and Questionnaire..................................................................................58Interview Protocol..................................................................................................................59Criteria for Determining Validity of Data..............................................................................60 5

PAGE 6

4 ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................... ........61Alachua County Rehabilitation Programs and Processes.......................................................61Interview Process and In terviewee Credentials......................................................................62Rehabilitation Barriers in Alachua County.............................................................................63Financing.........................................................................................................................63Barriers Encountered when Prepar ing Property for Rehabilitation.................................66Barriers Encountered during the Rehabilitation Process.................................................68Miscellaneous Barriers....................................................................................................70Comparison with the Literature..............................................................................................72Financing.........................................................................................................................73Barriers Encountered when Prepar ing Property for Rehabilitation.................................74Barriers Encountered during the Rehabilitation Process.................................................75Miscellaneous Barriers....................................................................................................76Discrepancies between Local Barriers and Barriers Discussed in the Literature...................77What the Discrepancies Suggest.............................................................................................785 IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMEND ATIONS, AND CONCLUSION....................................81Implications of Discrepancies and Recommendations for Resolution...................................81Primary Implications.......................................................................................................81Secondary Implications...................................................................................................84Implications of the Case Study...............................................................................................86Conclusion..............................................................................................................................89APPENDIX A CURRENT BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION DISCUSSED IN THE LITERATRUE...................................................................................97B AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAMS IN ALACHUA COUNTY................................................................................................................................98C AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS IN ALACHUA COUNTY....................................................................99D INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.................................................................................................100LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................102BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................106 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4-1 Current Barriers to Afford able Housing Rehabilitation.....................................................805-1 Suggested Focus of Future Published Material.................................................................955-2 Solutions to Addressing Ba rriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation in Alachua County................................................................................................................................96 7

PAGE 8

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION: A CASE STUDY OF ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA By Mark E. Ludlow May 2008 Chair: Kristin Larsen Major: Urban and Regional Planning Barriers to the rehabilitati on of single family, owner-occupied affordable housing can vary widely between locales and among projec ts. The literature c oncerning barriers to rehabilitation is incomplete, not only because th ere have been few recent studies but also because the literature does not fully addres s barriers that are significant to particular local contexts. An exploratory case study was conducted in Alachua County, Florida, to determine what differences exist between barriers found in a local context and those discussed in the literature. Analysis of the case study results revealed th at certain barriers at the local level are not addressed in the litera ture; conversely, barriers that receive considerab le attention in the literature were found to be relatively minor in Alachua County. The latt er barriers include the small number of rehabilitation programs ava ilable locally; the large amount of paperwork required for State Housing Initia tives Partnership (SHIP) program-funded rehabilitation; time consuming, cumbersome program guidelines; and insufficient indivi dual award amounts. The primary implications of the discrepa ncy between barriers found within the local context and those discussed in the literature are that more study mu st be completed on the nature and extent of local barriers in order to better understand how to resolve them. Further, local rehabilitation administrators and providers must resolve barriers with little guidance from the 8

PAGE 9

9 widely recognized national studies on the topic. Before these implications can be adequately addressed, however, financial hurdles to afford able housing rehabilitation must be overcome. The case study resulted in one clear pattern. All of the barriers present locally but not discussed in the literature are the result of guidelines and restrictions at the state and local levels. Although the federal Community Development Block Grant program has guidelines that must be met, Floridas SHIP program guidelines and the two local governments Local Housing Assistance Plans create the local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation. The local affordable housing rehabilitation administrators and providers agreed these barriers can be resolved, to a large extent, by coordinating income verification requirements and by streamlining guidelines and procedures. In all likelihood, affo rdable housing rehabilita tion efforts across the county are impeded to some extent, given the dr astic decrease in federa l funding over the last two decades. However, local governments in Florida are particularly frustrated by the inaccessibility of funds specifically devoted to affordable housing and affordable housing rehabilitation. A second discovery was that there is no cl ear division between ba rriers encountered in the urban and unincorporated area s of Alachua County; local ba rriers are pervasive in their occurrence across political jurisdictions. Thus, a standardized and centralized application, cost estimation, and bidding process may work well for all affordable housing rehabilitation undertaken in the City and the County; one local office would suffice to process paperwork for rehabilitation projects in both the City and the County. More study must be completed on the nature and extent of local barr iers in order to better understand how to resolve them and to discover temporal a nd spatial patterns.

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Barriers to the rehabilitati on of single family, owner-occupied affordable housing are extensive. The literature that a ddresses barriers to rehabilitati on is fragmented, incomplete, and general. Few recent, comprehensive studies ha ve been undertaken to document barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation.1 Rehabilitation is a relatively large component of affordable housing programs; however, the impact of barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation is not well understood, especially within local contexts. This thesis claims that significant discrepancies exist in the nature and incidence of barriers to affordab le housing rehabilitation discussed in the literatu re and those barriers foun d in a local context. This thesis focuses on a case study of Alachua County, Florida; specifically differences between barriers encountered by local rehabilita tion administrators and providers and barriers discussed in the literatu re are explored. There are several re asons why a study of local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation is relevant: The impacts of actions at the federal, state, and local government levels on affordable housing rehabilitation in a loca l context are not well understood. The effectiveness and efficiency of respons es to local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation has not been investigated. An exploration of local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation is the first step in documenting the need for further study. The results of the local case study are particular ly relevant to planni ng. Planning offers the long-term, broad framework to develop gui ding principles for affordable housing rehabilitation. Affordable housing is part of the necessary phy sical fabric of a community, just as roads, utilities, schools and businesse s are vital to the functioning of neighborhoods. Affordable 1 The commonly-accepted definition of a ffordable housing as ho using that requires no more than 30% of a households income is used here; the focus is on income groups that benefit from government-sponsored rehabilitation programs, namely very-low, low, and moderate income households. 10

PAGE 11

housing must be maintained; often the only option for lower-income owner-occupied households is rehabilitation assistance provided through federal, state, and lo cal governments. This thesis explores the need for more study of local barriers to rehabilitation so that planning for affordable housing rehabilitation may ultimately be more effective and efficient. Qualitative methodologies, which are often used in the social sciences, are utilized to explore the claim that significant discrepancies ex ist in the nature and incidence of barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation discussed in the literature and those ba rriers found in a local context. Instead of attempting to quantify some aspect of barriers to rehabilitation, such as how often a particular barrier is encountered or how many barriers are present, the objective is to explore the nature of rehabilita tion barriers at the na tional and local levels. The relevant and most recent literature has been sponsored, produc ed or distributed by federal agencies and national foundations; the focu s of this literature is on extensiv e barriers to rehabilitation. With few exceptions (Listokin, 2005; Listokin & Cr ossney, 2005; Listokin & Listokin, 2001a, 2001b), the literature does not ad dress the differences in rehabilita tion barriers that exist among local jurisdictions. Such differences would not necessarily be the focus of literature by federal agencies and large organizations. However, af ter the retrenchment in federal housing policy during the 1980s and the welfar e reform of the 1990s, the effo rts of local governments to overcome rehabilitation barriers may be instructiv e. These local barrier s to rehabilitation, if different from those discussed in the literature, must be explored and documented before any real lessons can be learned. The literature review provides the background and context for barriers to rehabilitation. It examines historical and contemporary a ffordable housing policy contexts, significant affordable housing policies and programs, a nd policies and programs with rehabilitation 11

PAGE 12

components. Barriers to affordable housing reha bilitation are then discussed, with an emphasis on current barriers. Because they represent significant funding sources for owner-occupied affordable housing rehabilitation at the local le vel, the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Floridas State Housing Init iatives Partnership (SHIP) programs garner special attention. The recent literature (List okin, 2005; Listokin & Crossney, 2005; Listokin & Listokin, 2001a, 2001b) does not always make clear distinc tions between types of housing discussed; barriers applicable to owner-occupied single family housing, multifamily rental units, and historic preservation are generally addressed toge ther. Authors of recent studies expect readers to utilize information applicable to specific cont exts. However, the discussion of barriers in the literature review is directly applicable to the local barriers to owner-occupied single family affordable housing rehabilitation that were the su bject of the case study. Th e literature review is not exhaustive; for example, it does not include discussion of affordable housing rehabilitation funded through the Farmers Home Administration, undertaken on Native American tribal lands, or performed in accordance with the Secret ary of the Interiors Standards. The methodology for data collection follows th e literature review. Reasons for choosing Alachua County to be the local context and for ut ilizing a single-case stu dy design are presented. Individuals were interviewed to gather information for the case study; the selection of interviewees and the development of questions fo r interviewees are then discussed. Interview protocol and criteria for dete rmining information to be valid, specifically consensus among interviewees responses, ar e presented at the end of the methodology chapter. Barriers discussed in the literature and those found in a local context may vary in both character and occurrence. Establishing that significant differences exist in the nature and incidence of barriers to affordable 12

PAGE 13

13 housing rehabilitation requires an ex ploration of the type of barri ers discussed in the literature and their presence and prevalence locally. Using this methodology, an analysis and co mparison of case study results with those barriers identified in the literat ure is conducted. This evaluati on includes a discussion of local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation as well as scrutiny of any discrepancies between barriers at the local level and those discussed in th e literature. Implicati ons of any discrepancies between local barriers and those presented in th e literature are discussed in the final chapter. The discussion of barriers in this thesis is particularly timely. The national economy and the housing market in particular, are in turmoil. Real wages have falle n over the last several years as housing prices have risen dramatica lly. Recently, housing prices began to fall; currently, the housing market in many areas of the county is in a slump. Given the federal governments historic philosophy of encouraging homeownership and the affordable housing rehabilitation barriers that are specific to lower income groups, cer tain segments of the population may be induced to buy a ho me they cannot afford to maintain. When rehabilitation is necessary, rehabilitation assistance may be unavailabl e. The nature of re habilitation barriers in the local context presented here is a necessary first step for practical resolution of barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation.

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This literature review presen ts barriers to affordable hous ing rehabilitation within both historical and contemporary affordable housing policy contexts. The current federal and state rehabilitation programs cannot be appreciated ou tside of their historical context, which has changed dramatically since the first major affo rdable housing policies were enacted during the Great Depression. While many texts review the entire history of federal affordable housing policy, the recent literature concer ning barriers to affordable housi ng rehabilitation is fragmented and inconclusive. With the exception of severa l studies and recent compilations, few works are both comprehensive and relatively comp lete (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a). The review begins with the major affordab le housing policies and associated programs, with a focus on the ways in which rehabilitation initiatives evolved. Beca use the local case study focuses on single family owner-occupied re habilitation, affordable housing policy and rehabilitation programs that are intended solely for multifamily rental units are not reviewed. Historical and current barriers to rehabilitation and the curren t funding context are discussed, after which current affordable housing policies and programs that are applicable to Florida and the case study area are reviewed. History of Affordable Ho using Policy and Programs 1930s through the 1970s The history of affordable housing policy re flects the struggle betw een social welfare advocates who saw the need for decent shelter, policymakers who understood the need for compromise, and businessmen who viewed housing policy as an economic tool. Most who have written about the history of housi ng policy trace the beginnings of relatively continuous, national efforts to the early 1930s (Duda, 2001; Heinbe rg, 1983; Wright, 2007). Two efforts at the 14

PAGE 15

national level that occurred prior to the Great Depression were brief and confined to specific aspects of housing. Concerns ove r public health and safety in crowded inner cities prompted early housing advocates to work for change in bu ilding codes. As a result, the first federal government involvement in housing came in 1892 in the form of a task force commissioned by Congress to investigate substandard housing co nditions in Americas largest cities (Ford Foundation, 1989). However, no policies or progr ams were enacted to correct the problems discovered during the task force investigation. A second federal intervention came during World War I when the government constructed housing for factory workers producing war supplies (Wright, 2007). With the exception of these two e fforts, the federal government was content to leave housing reforms, intervention, and policies to the states until the 1930s. The countrys drastic economic downturn in the 1930s prompted the federal government to intervene in many sectors of the economy, incl uding housing. Government assistance during the Great Depression and following World War II was designed both to provide some level of housing and to create jobs for unemployed laborers and construction workers. Significant housing legislation and any rehabilitation components of policy are discussed below with a focus on the emerging theme of rehabilitation. The Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932 and the Home Owners Loan Act of 1933 were both created to shore up the crumbling housing cons truction industry. Histor ically, the two acts began to establish the federal government in th e arena of housing policy and intervention, an area in which federal policy would play a dominant role until the 1980s. The primary function of the National Housing Act of 1934 was the creation of the Federal Housing Administration. This agency, which exists today as a division of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), was authorized to insure short-term 15

PAGE 16

installment loans made by private lending institutions to finance alterations, repairs and improvements (Heinberg, 1983, p. 63). The United States Housing Act of 1937, also known as the Wagner-Steagall Bill, set the stage both in tone and program delivery for late r affordable housing policy. The Act authorized the creation of the United States Housing Author ity (USHA) to administer the program. In addition to setting standards for design and c onstruction, the USHA lent money to local housing authorities for the developmen t of public housing projects. The Housing Act of 1949, called the Taft-E llender-Wagner Bill, authorized 135,000 units annually of public housing, but only 84,000 units were under construction by 1951 when the United States became heavily involved in the Kor ean War. The Act is notable because of the call in its preamble to provide decent housing for every American family (Schwartz, 2006, p. 1) and for the fact that the goal was not achieved. Both the 1937 and the 1949 Acts relied on demolition of substandard housing and the planned subsequent construction of new housing units to further their goals of stabi lizing the housing industry with federal funds; neither had a strong rehabilitation component. The Housing Act of 1954 was the first post WWII legislation to signi ficantly incorporate housing rehabilitation. The Act included rehab[ilitation] and conser vation as allowable components of federal interven tion in the housing market to prevent neighborhood decline (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a, p. 26). So that rehabilitation and conservation would be considered, the Act required local governments to submit a plan for improving slum areas; the plan had to be comprehensive and accommodate citizen participation. Policymakers anticipated that a comprehensive approach that included citizen input would reduc e the amount of slum clearance occurring and encourag e local governments to rehabil itate dilapidated housing. Two 16

PAGE 17

mortgage insurance programs, Sections 220 and 221, were created by the Act, as was the Special Assistance Function of the Federal National Mort gage Association. Section 220 was utilized for rehabilitated housing within targeted areas; Sect ion 221 assisted households displaced by federal urban renewal efforts (Heinberg, 1983). The Special Assistance Func tion established Fannie Mae as a purchaser of secondary mortgages, wh ich allowed the organiza tion to significantly affect housing policy. The 1960s witnessed a shift in housing policy as policymakers and local housing officials realized the potential for rehabili tation as a tool within housing po licy. Dommel et al. (1983) list three reasons for the change in at titude concerning rehabilitation: Older central cities experienced population d ecline as households moved to the suburbs; the decreased need for new construction allowed for a focus on rehabilitation of the existing housing stock. Rehabilitation can enable neighborhood revitali zation without the local ized social upheaval resulting from urban renewal neighborhood demolition practices. Relatively sharp increases in new construction costs coupled with evolving and thenstringent new environmental re gulations allowed rehabilitation to be cost-effective (pp. 68-69). The publication of two significant books can be added to the above list of reasons for a change in federal housin g policy direction. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities Jane Jacobs (1961) severely criticized the policy framework that used neighborhood demolition as a tool for community revitali zation. Martin Andersons (1964) The Federal Bulldozer: A Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal made widely known the fact that urban renewal programs had probably destroyed more low income housi ng than they had created. Both books were fundamental in effecting affordable housing policy changes. During the 1960s, federal policy supporte d various programs for homeowners to rehabilitate individual propertie s. In 1961, Sections 203(k)-220(h) insured rehabilitation loans 17

PAGE 18

from private lenders to homeowners. In 1965, S ection 115 rehabilitation grants authorized low income households to obtain grants to reha bilitate their homes. The Housing Act of 1968 established Section 235, which subsidized below market interest rate loans for lower-income households to purchase new or rehabilitated homes.1 Most of the lower-income households that purchased homes under Section 235 bought new hous ing; some, however, did purchase homes that had been rehabilitated (Dommel et al., 1983). These supply-side programs functioned to enable homeowners to rehabilita te their property and spur ne ighborhood revitalization. By the early 1970s, more than 40,000 housing units a year were being rehabili tated with federal subsidies available through these owner rehabilitation program s (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a). Similar to the Sections 203( k)-220(h), 115 and 235 program s, Section 312 provided lowinterest rehabilitation loans a nd was also a precursor to current rehabilitation policy and programs. Authorized in 1964 and phased out in 1981, Section 312 required that local government agencies, primarily housing authoriti es, could be the only eligible sponsors of rehabilitation loans; sponsors inspected pot ential properties to determine the level of rehabilitation needed; sponsors selected contractor s, processed client app lications and disbursed funds (Housing Assistance Council, 1991). Although Section 312 is no longer active, the functions practiced under this program endure in other rehabilitation programs. Local government agencies continue to be the pr imary administrators of affordable housing rehabilitation assistance; sponsors are often responsible for inspect ing potential property, 1 Below market interest rate loans are subsidized by fede ral, state, or local government to assist lower-income households. 18

PAGE 19

selecting contractors, processing client applications, and paying for rehabilitation of individual properties.2 Created in 1965, the Department of Housi ng and Urban Development (HUD) develops policies and designs programs for housing and urban areas (Wright, 2007). The Departments responsibilities have shif ted over the years as policy emphasi s has shifted from primarily funding public housing construction to subs idizing existing housing. This tr ansition from supply-side to demand-side programs has not been reversed; HUDs programs continue to emphasize demand side subsidies. The Housing Act of 1974 established Commun ity Development Block Grants (CDBG) in response to program oversight problems that drove the Nixon administration to end the supplyside programs begun in the 1960s (Dommel et al., 1983; Listokin & Listokin, 2001a). The CDBG program consolidated many earlier programs, including those that targeted rehabilitation through specific grant programs. Although CDBG funding for rehabilitation was relatively restricted during its first three years, rehabilitation became an acceptable eligible activity in 1977 (Dommel et al., 1983). The 1974 Act also create d the Section 8 multifamily rental program, which included a Substantial Rehabilitation elemen t. On a smaller scale, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 and the Community Re investment Act of 1977 were policies that included rehabilitation as a dist inctive housing strategy. The H ousing Act of 1977 created Urban Development Action Grants to encourage redevelopment in aging neighborhoods through both new construction and rehabil itation of owner-occupied and multifamily rental housing. 2 Sponsors, also known as subrecipients are the local government agencies, fo r-profit, and nonprofit organizations that receive a majority of their rehabilitation funding from some level of government and directly manage rehabilitation projects. 19

PAGE 20

The CDBG program evolved into a primary funding source for rehabilitation. Compared with most previous federal programs that had esse ntially dictated how funding was to be spent, local governments had wide latitude in spendi ng decisions, including the use of CDBG funds to leverage private investment in housing rehabili tation. Local governments could achieve several objectives, such as neighborhood revitalization, housing rehabilitation, and infrastructure improvements from one funding source. The CDBG program is still used for these purposes, as well as for other community development activities, and is discussed further in the current affordable housing context section. 1980s to the Present As the 1970s came to an end, fundamental changes in federal housing policy and programs had occurred. Production subsidies were larg ely replaced by family subsidies and new construction supplanted by rehabili tation. The appetite for expensive ventures had passed. The first eight years of the 1980s were to pass before another housing authori zation law was enacted (Ford Foundation, 1989, p. 5). The level of federal spending, not just on housing assistance but on social issues as a whole, began to decrease dramatically when President Reagan took office in 1981. Although the 1970s represented a decade of expansion in federal housing assistance, the 1980s mark a period of severe contraction of the federal ro le (Stegman & Holden, 1987, p. 9). For the first time since the mid-1950s, a drastic decrease in the amount of federal grants to state and local governments occurred, the result of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981. The Act did not simply cut federal spending for affordable housing. In fact, the entire th rust of federal housing policy in the 1980s was toward the reducti on of the federal govern ments role in the production, management, and ownership of affordable housing. . (Goetz, 1993, p. 34). 20

PAGE 21

The Housing Act of 1983 continued the fundamental changes in federal housing policy by sharply reducing the amount of funding provided for new constr uction and rehabilitation. In 1981, $30 billion was spent on subsidized housing; by 1989, the amount had decreased to less than $8 billion (Ford Foundation, 1989). The decreas e in funding was the result of a repeal of Section 8 funds for new construction and subs tantial rehabilitation and a new provision for vouchers. These vouchers, introduced in the Housing Act of 1974, included new construction, substantial rehabilitation, a nd existing housing. The Housing Act of 1983 eliminated the new construction and substantial rehabi litation allowable uses, so that Section 8 vouchers subsidized only existing housing. With a voucher, an elig ible lower-income household obtains rental housing; the rent is paid by th e federal government. The repeal of the new construction and substantial rehabilitation components of Section 8 reflected a significant shift from supply-side to demand side funding in federal housing policy, which is a policy framework still in place today. Although the Section 8 program primarily applied to multifamily rental housing, it aptly illustrates the decrease in funding that furthered the devolution of housing policy from the federal government to the states, a shift reinforced by continuing funding shortfalls. By the late 1980s, the federal government had made a substantial departure from the housing policies of the 1950s and 1960s. Polic y during the first several decades after World War II primarily focused on demolition and/or new construction of housing units; rehabilitation represented only 5% of fede ral housing subsidies (L istokin & Listokin, 2001a, p. 29). By the end of the Reagan Admi nistration in 1989, 81% of HUD housing subsidies were being expended on existing housing or rehabilitation (Listokin, 1991, p. 172). Federal housing policies enacted during the 1990s continued the trend of increased funding for programs that included rehabilitation components. The National Affordable Housing 21

PAGE 22

Act of 1990 created the HOME program, which incl udes rehabilitation as one of the activities eligible to receive federal matching funds. The HOPE III and HOPE VI programs fund housing rehabilitation, although the two programs are differ ent in intent. HOPE III is limited to existing subsidized housing; HOPE VI has been used primarily for the demolition and new construction of housing units on public housing sites. The 1990 Act was, in part, a re sponse to the shifting philosophies of welfare reform. The Act was designed to coordinate affordable housing and social services programs, with the goal of enabling households to become self-sufficient. In support of this goal, public hous ing authorities were encouraged to develop programs that enabled economic self-sufficiency such as job tr aining, education, and child care. Such concerns had not been widely considered as related to affordable housing policy; however, policymakers began to consider social po licy holistically during the 1980s. The partial convergence of affordable housing and social welfare policies re quires a brief review of the developing overlap of the two policy arenas. Social and Affordable Housing Policy Few connections and minimal coordination between housing and ot her social policy occurred until the late 1980s and early 1990s. What connecti ons had existed were scattered and not well integrated thro ugh effective programs.3 The failure to firmly establish a link between the two policy areas was primarily due to polic ymakers firm belief that housing and social welfare were two different issues and therefore best dealt with independently: Housing has always had an uneas y relationship with the rest of the social welfare safety net. Part of the explanation is that housing has never been strictly a poverty issue, with the largest government housing subsid ies flowing not to the poor but to the middle class and affluent through the mortgage inte rest deduction (Newman, 1999, p. ix). 3 HUD has had several programs, some ongoing, that utilized a coordinated approach to encourage and enable lower-income households to become economically self-suffi cient; these programs include: Project Self-Sufficiency; Operation Bootstrap; and the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, which is still in operation (Bogdon, 1999, pp. 149-158). 22

PAGE 23

Advocates in both policy arenas saw the need for a coordinated approach. In the 1920s, welfare advocates understood that substandard h ousing was detrimental to mothers and their children and that housing was a basic human need. Development of the legislation that became the Housing Act of 1937 was guided by a belief that subsidized housing should be a vehicle for human development (Newman & Schnare, 1992, p. 8). The continued separation of housing and soci al welfare policy between the 1930s and the 1980s was a reflection of the fact that programs be gan by serving two distinctly different groups. During the decades after the Depression, at most only 25% of the households receiving housing assistance also received income assistance (Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Social Security Income, and/or General Assistance).4 After World War II th e situation began to change, so that by the early 1990s approximately half of households re ceiving housing assistanc were also receiving income assistance (N ewman, 1999). However, the agencies that administered housing and social programs maintain ed different objectives a nd eligib e ility criteria. The difference between program objectives of housing and social welfare policy can be illustrated with an example of housing assistan ce funding in 1987. The Department of Health and Human Services, which overs ees welfare shelter grants, ad ministered approximately $10 billion in assistance to five million households in 1987. That same year, HUD administered roughly the same amount but to only half as many households (Newman & Schnare, 1992). While one-third of welfare recipients lived in substandard conditions because no requirement existed that housing meet minimum conditions, re cipients of HUD housing assistance resided in housing that met minimum standards. 4 Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Social Secur ity Income, and General Assistance were the three main types of income, or welfare, assistance after the Depression. 23

PAGE 24

As the populations served by housing and social welfare programs gradually became less distinct, one particular reason fo r keeping housing as an essentially stand-alone policy instrument became increasingly important to policymakers: the use of certain housing policy components as economic tools with measurable results. As noted previously, almost from the beginning of the federal governments involvement in housing dur ing the Depression, housing policy in general has been a tool to assist not just the poor but also the middle class. The mortgage interest deduction, which provides tax savings to homeowners, is an example of a policy decision that allows most owner-occupied households to reap a government benefit. A policy shift in the 1990s was the result of a change in congression al leadership and a backlash against the stereotypical welfare recipient. The view of social policy as a means to reduce poverty was replaced by a belief that welfare was a means for achieving economic selfsufficiency, not a permanent entitlement. The same attitude affected affordable housing policy as well. Affordable housing programs were recast as temporary tools to help households reach financial independence. The unmet needs for e ssentials such as housi ng, health care, and food, were seen as symptoms of economic dependenc e; that dependence could be overcome with programs providing assistance such as job trai ning, child care, and life-skills preparation. Previously, housing programs were meant to pr ovide housing as an end in itself. This mindset, which Newman and Schnare (1992) termed the housing as housing approach, did not encourage or enable housing providers to deal with the economic reasons for poverty. The majority of direct federal housing assistance fl ows to lower income households, yet the amount of assistance is much less than the tax policies that encourage homeownership. Few efforts are made to establish a link between housing assist ance and economic dependence and to allocate the funding necessary to effectiv ely resolve the underlying causes of poverty. These tax policies 24

PAGE 25

that encourage homeownership and the direct subsidies that fund affordable housing are discussed below. Current Affordable Housing Context Federal Due to the federal governments policy decision to provide affordable housing assistance to state and local governments in the form of block grants, funding for affordable housing rehabilitation is often one of a variety of eligible strategies in a given program. The dramatic changes in affordable housing policies and pr ograms have similarly affected funding for rehabilitation. A review of the federal govern ments role in promoting homeownership is followed by a description of the funding vehicle that most states use to partially fill the affordable housing gap that developed as fede ral dollars began to di minish in the 1980s. The federal government plays a large role in general housing policy and encourages homeownership through the tax code mortgage insurance, and fe deral agencies such as the Veterans Administration and HUD. The Treasur y Department, through the Internal Revenue Service, has responsibility for tax expenditures. The Vetera ns Administrati on guarantees a portion of private loans taken out by veterans so that little or no down payment is required by a lender. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, however, is responsible for the majority of affordable housing and genera l housing policy programs. The Department administers the following affordable housing programs: project-based subsidy programs, including those for remaining public housing units the Section 8 voucher program FHA insurance programs Community Development Block Grants programs for special-needs populations such as the elderly and homeless 25

PAGE 26

The Department of Housing and Urban Develo pment has oversight responsibility for the three largest providers of mortgage loans a nd insurance. The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), known as Fannie Mae, and th e Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac, make loans an d provide loan guarantee s. Through its Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, HUD ha s oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Government National Mortgage Associ ation (GNMA), known as Ginnie Mae, is a corporation within HUD and provides guarant ees on mortgages provided through other HUD offices or federal government agencies. These government-sponsored providers of home loans and mortgage insurance have enabled the high homeownership rates the nation has seen since World War II. Tax policy and direct subsidies are the two general vehicles th e federal government utilizes to effectively subsidize housing. Tax policy as used here includes the cost to the federal government, in the form of foregone tax collectio ns, due to mortgage in terest deductions, local property tax exemptions and tax credits asso ciated with housing. Tax policy promotes homeownership; direct subsidies primarily enab le lower-income households to live in housing they do not own. Direct subs idies target low income and special-needs populations through programs administered primarily through HUD. Of the two housing policy vehicles, foregone tax collections are far more cost ly than direct subsidies. I n 2004, the federal government spent $30 billion on public housing, rental vouchers, and other direct housing subsidies. However, it provided about four times more money, nearly $120 billion, in tax breaks to homeowners and investors. . (Schwartz, 2006, p. 69). For lower income home owners, who do not benefit much from these tax policies, federal program s, especially rehabilitation programs, are particularly significant. Because they cannot afford to move into a new home, maintaining their 26

PAGE 27

existing home is critical. Without sufficient funding to do so, rehabilitation programs become essential. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Community Development Block Grants have become the primary source of funding for single family owner-occupied affordable housin g rehabilitation. In fiscal year 2007, $582 million in CDBG funding was devot ed solely to single family owner-occupied rehabilitation (United States Department of Housing and Ur ban Development, 2007). Funding is provided to municipalities and counties and, as mentioned above, may be utilized for a variety of community development activities. Such activities include property purchases, residential and nonresidential property rehabilitation, homeowne rship assistance, public facil ities construction, and economic development (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006). Funding is provided in two forms: entitleme nt and non-entitlement grants. Entitlement grants, which represent approximately 70% of CDBG allocations, are provided to cities and urban counties with populations over 50,000 and 200,000, respectively.5 Cities and urban counties do not have to apply each year for entitleme nt grants. In order to automatically receive yearly CDBG funding, entitlement cities and counties must create and regularly revise a Consolidated Plan. This plan details how CD BG funding will be uti lized by specifying an entitlement citys or countys affordable hous ing goals, strategies, and evaluations of past performance (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2007). Nonentitlement grants, which represent about 30% of CDBG allocations, are competitively administered by the states and often are distribut ed by the states to thos e local governments that do not meet entitlement criteria. At least 70% of both entitlement a nd non-entitlement CDBG 5 The urban county population must exclude cities with a population over 50,000. 27

PAGE 28

funding must be utilized for activ ities that benefit lowand moderate-income persons (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006, p. 6). Households in single family owner-occupied housing may apply for CDBG affordable housing rehabilitation funding through a loca l government housing agency or nonprofit organization. Entitlement and non-entitlement ci ties and counties have some discretion in their allocation of CDBG funding. Most often, CDBG funding is divide d among local housing agencies and organizations, which then provide funding assistance in the form of rehabilitation loans or grants to lower-income households. Funding Gap The dramatic decline in federal spending fo r affordable housing that occurred during the 1980s was most severe for HUD. The Department s share of budget authority fell from 7% in 1978 to less than 1% in 1988, a tota l decrease in housing assistance of $24 billion dollars (Goetz, 1993, p. 34). Although the federal government c ontinued to fund affordable housing through vehicles such as the Section 8 Voucher program the amount of affordable housing subsidy has stagnated or, at times, declined. As subsidies and incentives decreased, stat e and local governments found themselves without adequate funding for affordable housing. They also realized that the federal government was not going to channel funds to them at anyw here near the affordable housing subsidy levels of the 1960s and early 1970s. The provision of low income housing and the development of funding vehicles for affordable housing rehabilita tion that states and local governments became responsible for in the 1980s were relatively unfam iliar responsibilities. As Stegman and Holden (1987) note, neither the provisi on of nor the funding for low income housing or rehabilitation were problems for state governments when the fed eral government paid the bills and dictated program structures and regulations (p. 27). As local governments struggled to fill the void left 28

PAGE 29

by the federal governments essential withdrawal from funding affordable housing policy, state and local governments created new funding mechanisms. Housing Finance Agencies As the federal government decreased subsid ies for affordable housing in the 1980s, state and local governments increasi ngly established housing finance agencies to fund affordable housing. Schwartz (2006) notes that before 1980, only 44 stat e-funded housing programs were in existence. From 1980 through the ea rly 1990s, state govern ments established 177 additional programs (p. 178). These agencies develop and administer a wide variety of financing including: tax-exempt revenue bonds, inte rest-free or below-market interest loans, direct single family loans, loans to lenders, housing trust f unds, and grants to nonprofit organizations and homeowners (Housing Assi stance Council, 1991). Local governments may also have finance agencies which, although opera ting on a smaller scale than do state finance agencies, still function to devel op financing for affordable housing. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) is Floridas state housing finance agency. The FHFC acts in a capacity similar to most other state housing finance agencies; it exists to increase affordable housing opportunities for Floridians, ensure that Florida Housings programs are well matched to the housing needs of Floridians, and communicate the importance of affordable housing to Floridas communities (Florida Housing Finance Corporation, 2007). The FHFC has a variety of programs, ra nging from homeownership and multifamily development to catalyst, hurricane recovery, and workforce housing programs (Florida Housing Finance Corporation, n.d.). The FHFC also administers the SHIP program, funded through Floridas Local Government Housing Trust Fund; the SHIP program is described later in the literature review. Because they are a primary funding source for affordable housing 29

PAGE 30

rehabilitation throughout Florida, a discussion of housing trust funds ge neral characteristics follows. Housing Trust Funds Housing trust funds have become widely used as a means for state and local governments and nonprofit agencies to begin to fill the gap in funding for affordable housing created by the federal devolution in housing policy, programs, and funding. They typically provide the financing for the purchase of property, construc tion of new housing, and/or the renovation of existing housing. The part of a pa rticular project typically assi sted with housing trust funds varies; a trust fund may complete ly finance a project or may only pay for a small share. The evolution of housing trust funds roughly parallels the devolution of the federal governments role in affordable housing. Until the federal government reduced its role in affordable housing policy, there was no widely pe rceived need for housing trust funds. Before the 1980s, there were only a few in existence; during the early 1980s only a handful were created (Brooks, 1997). However, as state and local gov ernments began to realize that the federal government was not going to reverse the cuts in affordable housing programs, they began to implement housing trust funds at an increasi ng rate. In 1995 there were approximately 200 housing trust funds; in 2006, there we re almost 600 (Brooks, 2007, p. 2). Housing trust funds receive and distribute financial support for housing in accordance with set criterion. They are established to be financial vehicles for supporting affordable housing and are usually restricted, by law, to fundi ng only affordable housing. Because they are dedicated to housing and cannot be used for other purposes, they are usually protected from the budget demands of state and loca l governments (Goetz, 1993). A state or local government agency will mo st often manage the daily activities of a housing trust fund. Existing agencies, such as housing and community development departments 30

PAGE 31

that have administered other housing programs, are often chosen to oversee the housing trust fund (Stegman, 1999). A few housing trust fund s were created and are managed by nonprofit organizations with no ties to any governmen tal body. However, the administration of the majority of housing trust funds is tied to local g overnment either through the staff administering the fund, the board that oversees the operation of the fund, or both (Brooks, 1997, p. 234). Housing trust funds benefit from the characte ristics of flexibility, locality, and secure funding. Flexibility in the design of housing trust fund guidelines allows administrators to tailor strategies to particular state and local affordable housing needs (Brooks, 1997). They may utilize federal programs such as CDBG as a funding sour ce or may be used in addition to other funding sources to fulfill the financial re quirements for a particular project In addition to funds from federal programs, funding sources for housing tr ust funds include revenue from real estate transactions such as document stamp taxes, the sale of abandoned government property, sales tax increases, and bond allocations. The intent is that the dedicated fundi ng sources that support housing trust funds will enable state and local government affordable housing agencies to be relatively protected from local and national econo mic and political cycles. Goetz (1993) notes that housing trust funds insulate ho using resources from the vagaries and periodic cr ises of local and state budgets (p. 102). However well inte nded, housing trust funds are still subject to changes in political leadership. Distributions from Floridas housing trust fund have been capped, which severely reduces the amount of SH IP funding that local g overnments receive and allocate for affordable housing rehabilitation. State Housing Initiatives Pa rtnership (SHIP) Program Local governments in Florida supplement thei r federal funding for affordable housing and affordable housing rehabilitation with allotments from the states housi ng trust fund through the SHIP program. The Florida Legislature passe d the William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing 31

PAGE 32

Act in 1992, creating a dedicated source of revenu e for the states housing trust fund. As the name implies, the program was designed to enco urage public-private part nerships to produce and preserve affordable homeownership and multifamily housing (Florida Housing Finance Corporation [FHFC], 2006, n.p.). The SHIP program serves very low (up to 50% of median family income), low (up to 80% of median), and moderate (up to 120% of median) income households. Funds from the state housing trust fund are di stributed, via the SHIP program, to all 67 counties and to 51 CDBG entitlement cities to assist local governments in furthering the Housing Element of local governments Comprehensive Plans. Each county gets a minimum of $350,000 per year; $9 million is the maximum that a partic ular county may receive (FHFC, 2006). The amount that each county or eligible municipality can receive is decided primarily on the basis of population. Local governments must allocate their SHIP funding based on the following requirements (FHFC, 2006): At least 65% of funds must be spen t on eligible homeownership activities.6 At least 75% of funds must be spen t on eligible construction activities. At least 30% of the funds must be a llotted for very-low income households. Another 30% of funds may be a llotted for low income households. Remaining funds may be allotted for moderate income households. Several aspects of the SHIP program are particularly relevant to this thesis. The program requires local government jurisdictions to es tablish a maximum amount of funding per housing unit assisted. This maximum amount may prevent full rehabilitation from being completed on homes that need it the most. There is also a new requirement that recently reestablished local Affordable Housing Advisory Committees address regulatory barriers to affordable housing and 6 Eligible homeownership and eligible construction activ ities provide housing for very-low, low, and moderate income households. 32

PAGE 33

can address other related issues such as affordable housing re habilitation. Specifically, the Committees shall evaluate established policie s, procedures, ordinances, land development regulations, and the local government comprehensive plan. . (State of Florida, 2008). The Committees were originally established to develop local jurisdictions affordable housing incentive plans but were allowed to disband once that task was completed; now, however, they will be permanent (Rusciolelli, 2008). One particular aspect of the SHIP program has become especially troublesome. The program has strict and lengthy income verifica tion requirements. A ccording to the SHIP Program Manual, the three acceptable methods of verifying income are: (1) written third-party verification; (2) oral third-party verificat ion; and (3) documentation for self-employed applicants (Florida Housing Coalition [FHC], 2005, p. 31). Of these methods, the first one is preferred and is considered the most reliable. Written third-pa rty verification includes a request from an applicants employer for estimated earnings for the next 12 months (FHC, 2005). Many employers, however, are not willing to put an employees estimated earnings into writing. Income verification is also problematic in that local government agencies and private lenders utilize different income verification met hods. Local government agencies still generally rely on paper forms for verifying income, whereas private lenders rely almost exclusively on electronic means for verifying income. Appli cants for certain programs that utilize SHIP funding, such as Alachua Countys Down Payment with Construction/Rehabilitation Assistance (Appendix B), often find themselves waiting for SHIP funding approval l ong after their private mortgage loans have been approved. The Affordable Housing Study Commission (2007) has attempted to remedy the problem by recommendi ng, in their 2007 examination of the SHIP 33

PAGE 34

program, that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation should ame nd the SHIP Compliance Rule to clarify the acceptable met hods of income verification (p. 25). Even given the problems just presented, SH IP funding is a vital component of local jurisdiction affordable housing assistance. Funds from the SHIP program may be used for a variety of purposes, all of which promote hous ing affordability. Emergency repairs, new construction, rehabilitation, down payment assist ance, gap financing, acqui sition of property, and leveraging other forms of housing assistance are th e primary uses for the funds. Of these uses, affordable housing rehabilitation is one of the least researched and documented. The current environment for federal and state affordable housing rehabilitation policies and programs cannot be appreciated or understood ou tside of its historical context. Local rehabilitation efforts over the last decade or tw o are largely a result of the drastic changes in federal affordable housing polic y during the 1980s, changes that were themselves a result of federal policies and programs from earlier decades. The development of federal affordable housing policy has been a political process; suppo rt for programs has been unreliable, and the federal government has largely removed itself from the provision of affordable housing. The remainder of the literature review is concerned with affordable housing rehabilitation and barriers to rehabilitation. Historical barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation are only briefly discussed; most of the earlier literature wa s researched and written when the context for affordable housing rehabilitation was determined almost exclusively by federal affordable housing policy. However, there are barriers to rehabilitation found in the ea rlier literature that more current literature has determined to be sign ificant. Current barriers to rehabilitation are discussed, as are the primary funding sources fo r affordable housing reha bilitation in Alachua County. First, the concept of rehabilitation is defined. 34

PAGE 35

Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Defined The terms rehabilitation, renovation, revitalization, redevelopment, repair, replacement, restoration and alteration are of ten used interchangeably when discussing improvements made to an existing building. For purposes of this thesis only the term rehabilita tion will be used, unless noted otherwise or the context re quires a different term. For example, the term repair is a more exact word for discussing the restoration of a buildings dilapidated structural components in order to meet minimum building codes. The definition of rehabilitation varies some what, depending on the context in which it is used. Moskowitz and Lindbloom (1993) defined reha bilitation as the upgrading of a building previously in a dilapidated or substandard cond ition for human habitation or use (p. 222). For application to historic structures, Weeks and Gr immer (1995) define rehabili tation as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values (p. 61). The Nationally Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions (NARRP), written by Hattis, Koffel, a nd Green (1997) in a ssociation with the National Association of Home Builders, define rehabilitation as any work, described by the categories of work defined herein, undertaken in an existing building (Section 202.0). The NARRP categories of work are repair, renovatio n, alteration, reconstruction, change of occupancy, and addition (Hatti s, Koffel, & Green, 1997). A brief review of the three general levels of rehabilitation is nece ssary before deciding on a working definition of rehabilitation for this th esis. The three levels are categorized by HUD; since HUD is the largest single government sour ce for rehabilitation funding, the levels are widely accepted. Further, since this study examines the use of HUD programs and other 35

PAGE 36

government programs designed to work with HUD, th ese definitions are part icularly relevant. They are minor, moderate, and substantial: Minor rehabilitation involves repairs and improvements of a minor nature that are undertaken to maintain a building, improve the appearance, and that do not alter structural components. Moderate rehabilitation is more extensive and often includes electrical, HVAC, and/or roofing repair or upgrades. Substantial rehabilitation involves the removal of interior walls and structural components in order to accommodate a different floor plan (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a). For this study, rehabilitation is broadly defi ned as any minor, moderate or substantial rehabilitation activity undertaken to improve housing or the components of housing. The bulk of the literature discussed herein covers moderate or substant ial rehabilitation, although minor rehabilitation is referred to when appropriate. Historical Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation The literature on government subsidized rehabili tation was fairly extensive before the early 1990s. The earliest information on rehabilitati on consisted of studies done in the 1930s and 1940s that explored the financial return from money invested in rehabilitation of dilapidated inner-city housing units. Studies and analyses of barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation focused on particular issues and were responses to then-current barriers Historically, these barriers have included the problems encountered in securing financing for rehabilitation (Nash, 1959), difficulties of acquiring pr operty (Sternlieb & Burchell, 1972), and restrictive building codes (United States Department of Housing a nd Urban Development, 1991). These three types of barriers are recurring in the literature and are also implicitl y identified as the three most common types of barriers currently o ccurring (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a, 2001b). Inner-city decay prompted William Nash (1959) to explore options other than the complete demolition of entire neighborhoods espoused by many po licy makers. He was certain that the 36

PAGE 37

first insurance against blight is good municipal housekeeping (p. xxiii), meaning that without rehabilitation of older struct ures, neighborhood decay would take its toll. Nash understood the intricacies of financing and the impact of uncont rollable variables such as location and condition of properties and funding capacity of the rehabi litation organization. His book was one of the first to investigate many of the issues related to rehabilitation. The number and scope of studies increased th rough the next severa l decades as federal outlays for affordable housing policy increased. As noted in Listokin and Listokin (2001a), by the late 1960s the rehabilitation literatu re was concerned with matters such as the need for and costs associated with federally-subsidized rehabilitation; the effects of both federal and local tax policies; cost-benefit analysis of rehabilitation v. new construction; economic and fiscal impacts of federally-subs idized rehabili tation on local jurisdictions; social impacts of demolition and displacement. The blight that prompted Nash to write his book was examined closely by two later writers. Sternlieb and Burchell s (1973) treatment of inne r-city building abandonment in Newark, New Jersey, revealed problems with reversi ng the decline in older ar eas. They isolated property tax delinquency as a reliable indica tor of owners abandon ment of multifamily dwellings. Although not the primary aim of their rese arch, they discovered that lack of clear title due to foreclosure on properties can signi ficantly hinder repurchase and subsequent rehabilitation. Within two decades of the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, published reports detailing the difficulties of accomplishing rehabi litation on historic properties began to appear. However, barriers to rehabilita tion of historic propertie s are worthy of separate treatment and will not be reviewed or examined in this thesis. 37

PAGE 38

The effect of regulatory ba rriers on affordable housing was the focus of HUDs 1991 report, Not in My Backyard: Removing Barrier s to Affordable Housing. The Advisory Commission included rehabilita tion in their study and found that chief among the urban regulatory barriers are building code s geared to new construction rather than to the rehabilitation of existing buildings (p. 6). The Commission also discovered that federal, state, and local building codes often increase costs for both new construction and rehab ilitation. Although the Commission did not focus on rehabilitation, many of the recommendations addressed it as a secondary component. Current Barriers to Rehabilitation Compared to the extensiveness of the materi al published before the mid-1990s, there have been few recent comprehensive examinations of re habilitation as it applies to affordable housing. With the exception of several HUD publications and material compiled by Listokin and Listokin (2001a, 2001b) and Duda (2001), ther e have been no extensive analyses of rehabilitation issues since the late 1990s. As noted in Listokin and Listokin (2001a), the existing body of work has not comprehensively examined, organized, and detailed barriers to rehab[ilitation] (p. 36). Listokin and Listokins ( 2001a) organization of rehabilitation barriers will be loosely followed here; their barriers are outlined in Appendix A. Their recent and relatively extensive catalogue of rehabilitation barriers will be examined below. Financing Barriers Economic factors are the single biggest barrier to affordable housing rehabilitation. They may be encountered at any point in the rehabilitation process and often prevent rehabilitation from occurring at all. Issues such as land use restrictions and property taxes or insurance often 38

PAGE 39

increase the costs associated w ith improving particular properties.7 The extent of rehabilitation needed for a specific property may make rehabilitation unaffordable; if an owner is already housing cost-burdened, moderate or substantial rehabilitation of the property may be economically unfeasible.8 The problems inherent in developing and securi ng financing are at the heart of barriers to rehabilitation. These problems include comple xity, scarcity, and un certainty (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a). Local government agencies and nonprofit organizations alike must usually layer financing to accommodate large-scale rehabilitation. The complexity of layering public and private subsidies, grants and loans requi res administrative capacity and expertise not normally found within smaller local governments and nonprofits. Listokin and Listokin (2001a) found that securing financing with private sector lenders has become easier over the last several decades primarily because of the Community Reinvestment Act and an increasing institutional acceptance of rehabilitation as a legitimate lending activity (p. 65). However, the number of lenders participating in rehabilitation financing st ill lags that of new construction financing since such financing is still widely seen as risky. Th ese risks are reflected in higher fees and interest rates for rehabilitation loans. Public sector subsidies are used in many rehabilitation projects, but strong competition for subsidies and the long time periods required for approval may hamper efforts to secure public sector financing. Nonprofit organizations that wish to rehabilita te housing must submit applications up to a year before local governme nt housing offices allocate federal block grant funding. During the waiting peri od, there is little or no indi cation of the funding level an 7 Land use restrictions such as zoning and local government ordinances primarily impact multifamily rental housing rehabilitation; because they may occasionally apply to single family owner-occu pied affordable housing rehabilitation, they are included here. 8 Households are housing cost-burdened if more than 30% of household income is spent on housing. 39

PAGE 40

organization may receive. Many nonprofits rely on previous years funding to estimate an allocation for an upcoming fiscal year; however the organizations must remain financially flexible, which can limit contracts fo r property and labor acquisition. Barriers Encountered when Preparing Property for Rehabilitation Once financing has been obtained, several aspe cts of preparing property for rehabilitation may present hurdles. Acquiring and insuring prop erty, land use restrictions, and estimating the costs of rehabilitation are each pot ential barriers to rehabilitation. Of these, acquiring property has been the most problematic. Property may be acquired from various sources; potential problems include: Property owners may demand high prices, especially in a sellers market; liens, lack of clear title, deed restrictions and small parcel sizes can complicate property assemblage. Banks may only be willing to sell foreclosed properties in bulk or may prefer to sell to investors or speculators. Donated property may have an environmental liability such as hazardous material residue. Owners often unload parcels with unpaid property taxes or overdue utility bills onto nonprofit organizations. Foreclosed properties may carry a hefty property tax bill. Foreclosure is often a lengthy process duri ng which buildings further deteriorate. Condemned property is acquired at market value, making it economically infeasible. Local governments are hesitant to condemn and seize pr ivate property (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a). Ideally, property needing rehabilitation can be acquired inexpe nsively and with no environmental or legal liabilities. However, location is an importa nt factor when considering the acquisition of property. Parcels th at are too scattered for efficien t rehabilitation management, are located too far from essential services and infras tructure, or would be in appropriate for certain demographic groups may not be practical for rehabilitation. 40

PAGE 41

For contractors who rehabilitate properties, obt aining insurance is typi cally less of a barrier to rehabilitation than financing or property acquisition issues. Although insurance coverage, such as general liabili ty and workers compensation, can cost up to twice as much for rehabilitation as it does for new construction, th e expense does not, in itse lf, appear to prevent many rehabilitation projects from proceeding (Lis tokin & Listokin, 2001a). Insurance costs can be a factor when small organiza tions or subcontractors attempt larger jobs and do not have the capital to purchase additional insurance. Land use restrictions, like insurance, are a relatively minor hurdle to affordable housing rehabilitation. As long as the rehabilitation will continue an allowable use of a property, zoning restrictions will not be a barri er to rehabilitation. Rehabili tation can be a challenge when variations in intensity or a change of use is desired; in these instances, land use restrictions can become a hurdle if the zoning boa rd is not willing to be flexible (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a). Due to the uncertainty of each project, estimati ng costs can be a barrie r to rehabilitation. Every project is different, and the extent of re habilitation necessary fo r individual projects is usually not realized until work is underway. Unanticipated labor and material expenses are part of most rehabilitation projects. Also, work estimates are often given early in the process of preparing property for acquisition and/or rehabili tation. If a lengthy amount of time passes while an organization waits on funding, permitting, title, or insurance, the cost of rehabilitation goes up. Listokin and Listokin (2001a) found that becaus e of these issues, budgets for rehabilitation projects are almost always marked up by 10% to 15% over cost estimates. Barriers Encountered during the Rehabilitation Process Once a property is prepared for rehabilitation, the rehabilitation process itself can begin. Barriers that may be encountered during the rehabilitation proce ss consist of: bu ilding codes, minimum housing standards (MHS), lead and asbestos regulations, radon testing, energy 41

PAGE 42

conservation requirements, access for disabl ed persons, and federal and union wage requirements. These barriers are discu ssed below, starting with building codes. Of the rehabilitation proce ss barriers, building codes have been significant and complex hurdles. These codes are detailed standard s mandating the structural, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, and safety performance of a building. Building codes vary somewhat among cities and regions across the nation, but with few exceptions and until recently have been oriented to new construction (Hattis, Koffel & Green, 1997). Two aspects of most local building codes that are barriers to rehabilitation are the -50% or 25/50 rule and the Changeof-Occupancy rule. The 25/50 rule requires the entirety of a building undergoing rehabilitation to meet current building codes if the do llar value of the reha bilitation exceeds 50% of the buildings replacement cost. In other words, if it cost s $100,000 to demolish and rebuild a structure and the value of the rehabilitation is more than $50,000, th e entire structure has to be brought to code. Under this scenario, if only a portion of a building is undergoing relatively expensive rehabilitation, a retrofit of components in the rest of the build ing must occur if they do not meet code requirements. Some buildi ng code requirements are waived if the estimated rehabilitation cost is between 25% and 50% of a buildings replacement cost; the requirements are further diminished if the rehabilitation cost is less than 25% of replacement cost. The Change-of-Occupancy rule requires th at buildings undergoing rehabilitation that changes use categories be brought to applicable codes governing the new use. An old office building or a warehouse may be rela tively inexpensive to acquire but may be costly to convert into housing units that have st ricter building codes. The 25/ 50 and Change-of-Occupancy rules add cost and complexity to the rehabilita tion process and are c onsiderable barriers. 42

PAGE 43

Within the last several decades, however, three key changes have occurred in building codes as they relate to reha bilitation. In 1980, HUD published a compilation of revised building codes oriented to rehabilitation, called Rehabilitation Guidelines which recommended changing or eliminating the 25/50 and certain Change-ofOccupancy rules if they hinder rehabilitation efforts. Soon thereafter, applicable sec tions of the three national building codes9 were modified to include changes recommended in Rehabilitation Guidelines In 1997, HUD published the Nationally Applicable Recommend ed Rehabilitation Provisions (NARRP) which were produced in collaboration with the National Association of Home Builders. The NARRP, which was the update to Rehabilitation Guidelines was purposefully crafted to reduce the costs associated with complying with rehabilitation barriers such as the 25/50 rule and thereby encourage affordable housing rehabi litation. The NARRP had as a primary purpose to clarify, for the first time, the extent to which existing conditions that fall short of current code requirements for new construction must be a ddressed in connection with other building improvements (Hattis, Koffel, & Green, 1997, n.p.). The document was not intended to supersede other building codes in addressing safety matters; it wa s designed to educate and guide building officials in code interpretation and enfor cement in matters relating to rehabilitation. As such, it has become an accepted standard not ju st for building officials but for all parties involved in the rehabilitation process. Minimum housing standards are performan ce benchmarks for particular building components. These components include heati ng and air conditioning equipment, roofing, and electrical systems. As with building codes, MHS vary somewhat among local government jurisdictions; it is th e interpretation of MHS that presents a barrier to rehabil itation. Listokin and 9 The National Building Code, the Standard Building Code, and the Uniform Building Code. 43

PAGE 44

Listokin (2001a) note that this occurs often when federal subs idies assist rehabilitation efforts, because there is a belief that if government is involved, there is a practical and moral imperative to satisfy the MHS (p. 93). Thus, a greater chance exists that buildi ng officials, government agencies, and organizations regulating and carry ing out rehabilitation will require the most stringent interpretation of MHS. For example, even if an older electrical system is inspected by a licensed electrical contractor and found to be safe, those involved in administration or enforcement of MHS will deem that new wiring and electrical panels ar e necessary. As with several other rehabilitation barriers, MHS can add to th e cost of rehabilitation. Lead and asbestos regulations are necessarily stringent and cannot be waived or modified. Most homes built before 1978 must automa tically undergo a lead paint inspection.10 This inspection costs a minimum of $300; much higher costs are incurred if lead paint must be stabilized or removed. These costs can be determined and built into the estimate for rehabilitation of a particular structure. However, the presence of lead paint can make it difficult to obtain property insurance, thus preventing or postponing rehabilitation. As with lead paint, the presence of asbestos in a building require s assessment and possibly removal. Buildings containing less than certain threshold amounts of asbestos are not required to undergo asbestos removal; the material may instead be adequately contained. The presence of asbestos becomes a rehabilitation barrier because it requires another level of regula tion: appropriate state and local environmental protection agencies must be notifie d in accordance with thei r specific notification guidelines. Radon testing is not required but is recommended by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Listokin and Listokin (2001a) make note of the estimation that approximately one in 10 Lead-based paint was prohibited for residential use in 1978. 44

PAGE 45

fifteen homes have above average radon levels. Radon may be tested for and moderated relatively easily. The presence of radon becomes a rehabilitation barrier due to the cost of testing and moderating when excessive radon levels are found; this co st can exceed several thousand dollars. Energy conservation measures are not especi ally complex but do vary according to the climate zone a building is in. Many state and lo cal guidelines, as well as HUD standards, require buildings undergoing rehabilita tion to be brought up to new c onstruction standards for energy efficiency (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a). Besides the added cost for energy-conserving materials and building systems, there is the difficulty of working in older buildings. For buildings in colder climates, energy conservation costs can be substantial; this cost cannot be passed on to clients because of income constraints. Access for disabled persons is mandated for both new construction and building rehabilitation. The nature and ex tent of individual rehabilitation projects determines the cost and level of difficulty in making a building accessible. The expense of accessibility can significantly increase the cost of a particular rehabilitation project, occasionally by as much as 50% (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a).11 However, even given the probabil ity of increased costs, access for disabled persons becomes a barrier primarily be cause it involves another level of regulation. The final barriers that may develop during the rehabilitation process are federal and union wage requirements. These requirements stipulat e that prevailing local wa ges must be paid for most jobs involving federal subsidies.12 The prevailing wage requirement, which becomes a factor on larger rehabilitation pr ojects, increases labor costs by as much as 50%. Although the 11 The requirement to provide access for disabled persons most often affects multifamily rental unit rehabilitation, and this percentage is more reflective of multifamily than single family detached rehabilitation costs. 12 The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on most projects utilizing federal funding be paid the prevailing wage for specific trades in an area. 45

PAGE 46

prevailing wage requirement applies to new cons truction also, rehabilita tion projects are more labor intensive and therefore more expensiv e. Contractors with the experience and administrative and labor capacity to finish large re habilitation projects ofte n hire union workers, who are paid a premium wage. Wage requireme nts are a rehabilitation barrier because they directly add to the cost of re habilitating particular projects. Miscellaneous Barriers There are two remaining barriers that cannot be conveniently categorized as financing, property preparation, or rehabilita tion process barriers. Property tax increases and skilled labor shortages can be hurdles to undertaking re habilitation (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a). Rehabilitation increases the value of property; th e increase in value can lead to higher property taxes. A shortage of skilled labor can slow or postpone a difficult re habilitation project. However, neither of these barriers is described as a major hurdle. Increases in property values are frequently offset by tax incentives as official s have realized the valu e of rehabilitation as a tool for neighborhood revitalization; and, skilled labor is in short supply relatively infrequently, as rehabilitation has become more specialized and has developed a labor pool distinct from new construction. All of the above barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation may vary greatly among projects and locales. Listokin and Listoki n (2001a, 2001b) identify financing, property acquisition, and building codes as the most extens ive and significant barriers to rehabilitation. The two primary sources of financing for afford able housing rehabilitation in Alachua County, CDBG, and SHIP, are discussed below; the local government policy document guiding SHIP funding, the Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP ), is introduced. The age of the housing stock is presented as a general indicator of the need for affordable housing rehabilitation. 46

PAGE 47

Current Context Primary Funding Sources for Rehabilitation The CDBG and HOME programs are the two larg est single sources of federal government rehabilitation funding. These federal block gr ants, along with the SHIP program, provide a majority of funding for affordable housing rehabi litation projects in Alachua County and in local government jurisdictions across Florida. Since the mid-1990s, total funding for the CDBG program has been approximately $4.5 billion per year; since the late 1990s, total funding for the HOME program has been close to $1.5 billion pe r year (Listokin & Li stokin, 2001a, p. 30). Approximately one-fourth of CDBG funding and one-half of HOME funding have been devoted to affordable housing rehabilitation, an amount of about $1.85 billion per year (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a, p. 30). Annually, CDBG and HO ME combined fund the rehabilitation of between 200,000 to 230,000 affordable housing units (Listokin & Listokin, 2001a, p. 30). Since 2007, distributions to loca l governments from the SHIP program have been capped at $243 million, which is the same as the 2003 di stribution level. Before local government jurisdictions are elig ible to receive SHIP funding, they must meet certain criteria. To initially qualify for funding, local government entities must establish a local housing assi stance program, by ordinance; develop an LHAP and housing incentive stra tegy, which outlines strategies to remove regulatory barriers; amend land development regulations or establish local policies to implement the incentive strategies; form partnerships and combine resources in order to reduce housing costs; ensure that rent or mortgage payments fo r applicants do not exceed 30% of the area median income limits (Florida Housing Finance Corporation, 2006). 47

PAGE 48

Tracking SHIP funding spent on re habilitation is difficult because of the types of eligible activities that the program f unds; often, rehabilitation activi ties are combined with other strategies such as down paymen t assistance for new homeowners. When combined with other public funding sources and with private assist ance, the amount spent on housing rehabilitation per approved projects in Alachua County can grow quite large, occasionally exceeding $50,000. Local Housing Assistance Plans The Local Housing Assistance Plan, as noted above, is a required document for local governments utilizing SHIP funding. By state st atute, counties and muni cipalities using the SHIP program to subsidize affordable housing programs must develop and implement a local housing assistance plan created to make affordable residential units availabl e to persons of verylow income, low income, or moderate income. . (State of Florida, 2007: 420.9075, (1)(a)). Local Housing Assistance Plans are intended to guide the integration of the public and private resources available and to outline strategies fo r achieving local governments housing goals, as outlined in their Comprehensive Plans. Through the Housing Delivery Goals contained in their LHAPs, local governments assign relatively specif ic numbers for the housing units to be served by each strategy and for the maximum amount that may be spent per housing unit for each particular strategy. Age of the Housing Stock The age of the housing stock is a reliable indica tor of the significant need for rehabilitation in the coming years. In 2005, the number of o ccupied housing units nationwide was estimated to be 108,871,000; 1973 was the median year built for th ese units (United States Census Bureau, 2007). A large number of housing units are 32 years old or older, a point at which moderate rehabilitation becomes necessary to maintain the livability of the unit and substantial rehabilitation becomes a distinct possibility as units are conve rted to accommodate changes in 48

PAGE 49

household needs. The number of substa ndard units in 2005 was approximately 2,992,000 (United States Census Bureau, 2007).13 Estimates of the age at which housing components, such as heating and air conditioning equipment and aspha lt roofing shingles, need to be replaced vary, but it is generally accepted that enough activity to constitute minor rehabilitation must be undertaken by the time the structure is two to three decades old. Mode rate rehabilitation will need to be accomplished around the third decade By the time a house is five decades old, a level of replacement that approaches substantia l rehabilitation must be undertaken to adapt structures to contemporary bu ilding materials and systems. Federal government policy since World War II has been to promote homeownership. Reviewing the history of, and current envi ronment for, affordable housing policy and rehabilitation barriers reveals that apparently no overarchi ng or long-term philosophy guides affordable housing and rehabilitation efforts. Though affordable housing programs have been implemented to address both economic and soci al concerns, program goals have varied dramatically over the years. In recent decad es, state and local governments have established financing agencies and funding st reams to support affordable housing and rehabilitation in the face of federal devolution. Still, the primary source of federal funding for local governments affordable housing and rehabilitation programs continues to be the CDBG program. At the federal level, affordable housing and rehabili tation policies and programs are unorganized and often unreliable. Mary Nenno (1997) writes th at affordable housing and urban development assistance by the federal government is curr ently diffused and unfocused (p. 2). Although written a decade ago, her rema rk is equally valid today. 13 This is a conservative estimate based on a loose defi nition of substandard as lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. 49

PAGE 50

50 Barriers to affordable housing rehabilitati on vary across time, among locales, and from project to project. Rehabilitation barriers are a function of the political, economic, and regulatory climate existing at the federal, state, and local levels. Th e literature concerning barriers to rehabilitati on was relatively extensive through the early 1990s. Since then, with few exceptions, barriers to rehabilita tion have not been comprehensiv ely or extensively examined. The barriers to rehabilitation re vealed in the few studies that have been completed may or may not exist in Alachua County; c onversely, there may be barriers to rehabilitation existing in Alachua County that are not discussed in the liter ature. A methodology for exploring the barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation in the local context is discussed next; findings and analysis of rehabilitation barrier s in Alachua County and a comparis on of those barriers with barriers discussed in the literature are then presented.

PAGE 51

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY To compare local barriers to affordable hous ing rehabilitation with those discussed in the literature, a suitable local contex t must first be chosen. Alachua County, Florida, is typical of locales across Florida and has local government strategies in place to provide affordable housing rehabilitation. Rehabilitation administrators a nd providers in the County are experienced and are willing to discuss barriers to rehabilitation. Alachua County also has a documented need for affordable housing rehabilitation. For these re asons and because no case study exploring local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation ha s been undertaken in th e area, Alachua County, Florida, was chosen to be the local study area. After describing the local context, the case study methodology used here to gather data is discussed. Selection of individuals to interview, development of questions and the questionnaire, a nd interview protocol ar e outlined. Criteria for judging responses to be valid are addressed in the conclusion to this chapter. Alachua County: The Local Context Alachua County has both urban and rural area s, relatively little industry, and a lower median income than Florida as a whole. Alachua County has nine municipa lities, the largest of which is Gainesville. The 2006 estima ted population for Alachua County was 227,120; Gainesvilles 2003 estimated population was 109,146 (U nited States Census Bureau, 2008). The majority of jobs are in the gove rnment, services, or trade sector s; only 7% of the workforce is employed in manufacturing and construction (A lachua County, 2003, p. 18). The Countys 2004 median household income was $34,696; statewid e, the 2004 median household income was $40,900 (United States Census Bureau, 2008). The age of the housing stock in Alachua Count y resembles the general age of the housing stock across the United States (Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, n.d.). There were 51

PAGE 52

94,208 Alachua County households in 2005; single family homes in Alachua County had an average age of 26 years in 2005. Alachua C ounty had approximately 1,173 substandard housing units in 2000, the most recent year for complete local data (Alachua County, 2003, p. 22). Alachua County is a local government jurisdiction and is the recipient of most of the types of aid received by affordable housing rehabilitation providers profiled in Listokin and Listokin (2001b). Alachua County administers and delivers affordable housing rehabilitation through its Housing Programs office; the County also funds local agencies and organizations that rehabilitate affordable housing. The City of Ga inesville, the largest m unicipality in Alachua County, has a relatively parallel administrative structure for the delivery of affordable housing rehabilitation and also funds organizations that rehabilitate affordable housing. In order to identify these barriers using the insight of those who administer and implement these programs, the group of individuals who are employed by the County or Cit y, or whose employers receive funding through the County or City, are the unit of analysis. For brevity, the case study and the local context are referred to as Alachua County; however, both Alachua County and the City of Gainesville are included. The Alachua County Affordable Housing Study (Study) implicitly indicated a need for affordable housing rehabilitation (Alachua County, 2003).1 Among other reasons, the Study was undertaken to explore the demand for and suppl y of housing, including it s condition (Alachua County, 2003, p. 4). As it relates to the need for rehabilitation, the Study documented that the age of the housing stock is approaching the point at which rehabilitati on is necessary; the Study also established that affordable housing that is for sale may be unf it to live in, therefore requiring rehabilitation (Alachua County, 2003). 1 The word implicitly is used here because the Study, while it addresses rehabilitation throughout its narrative, does not explicitly address rehabilitation anywhere in the recommendations. 52

PAGE 53

The following key factors led to the c hoice of Alachua County as the case study community: Alachua County is relatively typical of locales across the state, in that it has an urbanized population center, rural and undeveloped areas, pockets of poverty and substandard housing, and policies and programs in place to provide affordable housing rehabilitation. The agencies and organizations in place to admi nister and provide rehabilitation have been in place for some time and are experienced in addressing barriers to rehabilitation, as indicated by reviews of housing elements of the comprehensive plans, LHAPs, and conversations with local affordable hous ing providers in the two jurisdictions. Information, obtained from personnel direc tly involved with rehabilitation and knowledgeable of barriers to rehabilitation, was readily available. A thorough affordable housing study by the Count y was recently completed that explicitly establishes a need for more affordable housi ng in the area while im plicitly indicating an ongoing need for affordable housing re habilitation (Alachua County, 2003). A poverty level of 14.5% and the existence of substandard hous ing indicates that barriers to rehabilitation are likely present for a pa rticularly vulnerable group (Alachua County, 2003; United States Census Bureau, 2008). A case study of barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation has not been undertaken in Alachua County. The locale is home to a large state land-gr ant university with an urban and regional planning department, enabling future studi es of barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua County to be completed efficiently. The case study is limited to the exploration of barriers to rehabilitation of single family, owner-occupied affordable housing. Local reha bilitation administrators and providers have experience with this type of housi ng. Participation in an internship with several local affordable housing rehabilitation agencies and organizations through H UDs Community Development Work Study Program exposed the author to the ra nge of barriers to reha bilitation. Research began with an informed assumption that a study of barriers to affordable single family, owneroccupied housing would be re levant, given the federal governments emphasis on owner53

PAGE 54

occupancy, the number of lower-income households that cannot afford to purchase a new home, and the SHIP programs focus on very-low a nd low income households and owner-occupancy. The Case Study as the Appropriate Data Collection Tool for Alachua County The methodology governing data collection in the Alachua C ounty context is similar to the methodology followed by Listokin and Listok in (2001a, 2001b) in their survey of rehabilitation initiatives across the United States. The authors u tilized eleven case studies to develop a list of barriers to affo rdable housing rehabilitation; th ey selected the case study method to add qualitatively to our understanding of the barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation (Listokin & Listokin, 2001b, p. 1). Information fo r their study was gathered through in-person and telephone interviews. The information was then discussed with a la rge group of individuals familiar with affordable housing rehabilitation so th at barriers encountered in practice could be determined.2 Following Listokin and Listokin (2001a, 2001b) a case study was conducted to gather information for this thesis. The case study me thod of data collection is widely used for qualitative research. It has been utilized by th e social sciences and has been adapted for use by practice-oriented fields such as urban planning. . (Yin, 20 03, p. xiii). Case studies are utilized when the how or why of an event is occu rring; they are especially useful when variables cannot realistically be controlled or manipulated (Yin, 2003) Therefore, they are ideal for current, real-world conditions. Case studies can be structured to be fairly comprehensive but are not useful for determining causal relationships. Th is thesis does not attempt to infer any causal associations or correlations. Within particular methodological constraints, however, case studies are valid methods for gathering data. 2 The group included government officials, for-profit and nonprofit developers, realtors, and professionals associated with affordable housing rehabilitation. 54

PAGE 55

The validity of data gathered through case studies is increased by establishing a trail of evidence. This practice, which Yin (2003) calls a chain of evidence, allows for case studies to be replicated and conclusions to be tested. The chain of evidence allows an external observer to follow the derivation of any evidence, ranging from initial research questions to ultimate case study conclusions (Yin, 2003, p. 105). For example, following a specific protocol for information gathering is one step in building a chain of evidence. The case study approach, out of the alternatives available, held the greatest potential to yield meaningful insights from an exploration in to affordable housing rehabilitation barriers in Alachua County. The nature of the thesis woul d not lend itself to an experimental method of inquiry. The critical feedback given and the effi ciency of face-to-face interviews would be lost were a survey to be conducted. Historical analysis would be possible bu t would not necessarily be current. For these reasons and for the pr ecedent set by Listokin and Listokin (2001b), a case study approach was chosen. The data collection method here is straightforw ard: a single-case study of local affordable housing rehabilitation administra tors and providers was conducted using semi-structured interviews. Administrators a nd providers were both chosen not only because Listokin and Listokin included them but also because their inclusion would pr esent a more complete case study in the local context. List okin and Listokin (2001b) note a limita tion of their data collection in that telephone interviews, although sometimes necessary, do not enable the higher quality of information that is exchanged dur ing face-to-face intervie ws (p. 1). For that reason and to the extent possible, face-to-face interviews are conducted for this thesis. Although the information obtained from these interviews was not re viewed by a large group of housing industry professionals, the structure of interviews a llowed for considerable feedback from the 55

PAGE 56

interviewees, who were local administrators, prov iders, and individuals intimately familiar with affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua County. A single-case study design, as opposed to a multiple-case design, was selected. The decision was based on the following factors: This single case can test the proposition that there are discrepanc ies in rehabilitation barriers discussed in the literat ure and found at a local level. This single case is representative of similar local government jurisdic tions across Florida if not the entire country. This case is revelatory in that it is the first of its kind in this locale. This single case has the potential to establis h a longitudinal study by initiating explorations of rehabilitation barriers at this time (Yin, 2003). The single-case study design was selected also b ecause of the nature of the thesis. Were this thesis to compare, say, ba rriers encountered during rehabilita tion of local historic properties as opposed to local non-historic properties and then compare those barriers to the published material, a multiple-case design would be appropri ate. The simplicity of the single-case design also lends itself to initial, genera lized explorations of a subject. The assumptions implicit in Listokin and Listokins (2001a, 2001b) methodology are also applied for the data collection process here. A lthough not stated, it can be inferred from Listokin and Listokins (2001a, 2001b) case study that they: considered information given to be both voluntary and valid; realized that there were certain biases, such as interviewees beliefs that affordable housing rehabilitation is a worthwhile activity; and that comple te objectivity was not possible or perhaps even desirable. This last assumption is a hazard of conducting research in the real world. Barriers to re habilitation are encounter ed in an imperfect but real world, not in a perfected and detached laboratory setting, and real world conditions are necessary to understand these barriers. 56

PAGE 57

Selection of Interviewees The unit of analysis for the case study is the group of individuals who, through their agencies and organizations, have encountered barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua County. Individuals were chosen based on the following: an examination of published material and websites that outlined the organizational structure of those local agencies and or ganizations administering and providing rehabilitation assistance and that identified pe rsonnel with potential knowledge of barriers to rehabilitation3 employment with agencies or organizations th at administer or provi de affordable housing rehabilitation and that finance that rehabilita tion primarily with federal block grants, SHIP funds, or some combination of both discussions, throughout the course of a HUD Community Development Work Study Program, with personnel involved in provi ding affordable housing rehabilitation conversations and recommendations from indi viduals knowledgeable of and experienced with barriers to afford able housing rehabilitation As noted above, only those individuals employe d by agencies or organi zations that utilize federal block grants or SHIP funding were asked to provide interviews. Volunteer organizations, such as Rebuild Gainesville, also provide a ffordable housing rehabilitation and would be knowledgeable of barriers to rehabilitation. Priv ate organizations, such as local churches, also participate in affordable housing rehabilitation. Support for rehabilitation is competitive but is available from nonprofit charitable organizations such as the Ford Foundation and the Woods Charitable Fund; quasi-governmental agencies like the Alachua County Housing Authority (ACHA) may potentially appl y for this support (Foundation Ce nter, 2008). Rehabilitation provided through volunteer or privat e organizations, or funded with private support, is worthy of study but is beyond the scope of this thesis. The agencies and orga nizations contacted are listed 3 Searches of local newspaper articles and reviews of applicable Local Housing Assistance Plans, agency organizational charts, and individual agency and organization websites provided preliminary information. 57

PAGE 58

in Appendix C; only the positions of individuals within their agencies or organizations are mentioned. Unfortunately, interviews were not held with the City of Gainesvi lles Housing Division, which oversees the Citys SHIP program. Although the agency was contacted via e-mail and telephone, they did not respond to requests for an interview. To obt ain information about affordable housing rehabilitation wi thin the City, interv iews were held with the Citys Block Grant Division Manager, who administers the federal block grant funding for the Citys rehabilitation programs. The Citys Bloc k Grant Division Manage r is an experienced rehabilitation administrator; his comments are valuable. Interview Questions and Questionnaire Questions for the interviews were develope d after reviewing the literature concerning barriers to affordable housing re habilitation. The interview ques tions are designed to determine specific information about the rehabilitation process, including challe nges associated with implementing programs without lead ing the interviewees; to spar k discussion on related issues; and to allow them to freely introduce barriers not discussed in the litera ture. These goals are accomplished by wording the questions in such a way that key concepts are introduced without alluding to the barriers discussed in the literatu re. The exceptions are three questions (9, 11 and 15) that directly mention the literature; the purpose is to make direct comparisons with the barriers highlighted in the literature for later an alysis. However, the th ree questions are neither asked together nor given emphasis during the interview. Severa l of the questions are redundant but worded differently to spark interviewees thoughts. Interview questions are listed in Appendix D. The questions are arranged thematically, to provide order without making interviews tedious or too scripted, and are organized to allow answers to be compared as closely as possible 58

PAGE 59

with Listokin and Listokins (2001a) findings. Questions that introduce the idea of categorizing barriers based on type are asked to determine if local rehabilitation admini strators and providers distinguish barriers similar to Listok in and Listokins (2001a) categories.4 In anticipation that financing might be a significant barrier, two questions explore the possibility and extent of financing as a distinct barrier. Three questions concerning soluti ons to barriers are asked in order to prod interviewees into thinking about barriers from a different perspective and in so doing uncover barriers not yet discussed. Thus, the questions are grouped into the following categories: interviewees credentials and agency or organizati on funding (questions 1-3) barriers and differentia tion of barriers (4-6) financing as a distin ct barrier (6, 7) regulatory barriers and building codes (8-10) relevancy of the barriers identified in th e literature to interviewees experience in administering rehabilitation programs (11) questions to indirectly ex plore barriers presented by the interviewee (12-14) a chance for the interviewee to suggest areas not addressed in th e literature (15) conclusion with questions that allow the inte rviewees to include a ny additional material they have not alrea dy addressed (16-17) Interview Protocol Before beginning an interview, the title and subject matter of the thesis were briefly discussed. Although this information was introdu ced in the Informed Consent, most of the interviewees read and signed the Consent severa l days before being inte rviewed; reviewing the thesis topic provided context for the interview questions. Questions were asked in order, although not every question was answered by each interviewee. When a question was not 4 Listokin and Listokin (2001a) differentiate between development, construction, and occupancy stage barriers. 59

PAGE 60

60 answered directly, the interviewee was not pre ssed for an explicit answer. Instead, time was allotted at the end of each interv iew to clear up any vague answers. Analysis of the questions and answers reveals that interviewees were qualified to discuss ba rriers and knowledgeable concerning barriers in Alachua County. The procedure for conducting case study interv iews was the same for each interviewee. After voluntary consent was obtai ned, interviews were conducte d at the agreed-upon time and place. Comments and feedback were recorded in writing; follow-up interviews remained an option for individuals to clarify comments or obtain more feedback. No information from individuals concerning barriers to rehabilitation in Alachua County was solicited outside the interview process. Criteria for Determining Validity of Data The criteria for judging data to be valid at the local level was the consensus on information provided during the interview process. Ther e was no prodding of interviewees to produce certain responses; instead, interviewees were en couraged to discuss their own experiences and the nature of rehabilitation barri ers they had encountered. To th e extent possible, the responses were categorized and assessed for continuity. These responses were then compared to the barriers discussed in Listokin and Listokin ( 2001a, 2001b). Although they did not rank any of their findings, Listokin and List okin (2001a, 2001b) did discover that three particular types of barriers were encountered the most often. Discussi on of the case study interview results, as well as a comparison of the results with rehabilitation barriers detailed in the literature, is presented in the next chapter.

PAGE 61

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS The case study reveals commonly recognized ba rriers in the literature are, for the most part, present in Alachua County. The nature an d incidence of the barr iers discussed in the literature and those found locally are similar. Howe ver, the case study also identifies barriers in Alachua County that are not identified and explor ed in the literature. The analysis includes a discussion of Alachua Countys rehabilitation programs and pr ocesses as outlined in the Housing Elements, LHAPs, and the Citys Consolidated Plan; a brief description of the interview process and interviewees credentials; a discussion of rehabilita tion barriers in Alachua Count y, based on analysis of the interviews; a comparison of local rehabi litation barriers with those presented in the literature; an examination of the discrepancy between co mmonly recognized barriers in the literature and those identified in Alachua County; an assessment of what this discrepanc y suggests regarding government supported rehabilitation initiatives. Alachua County Rehabilitati on Programs and Processes Strategies for the delivery of affordable housing rehabilitation are outlined in both jurisdictions Housing Elements, LHAPs, and in the Citys Consolid ated Plan. Strategies that either include or are specific to affordable housing rehabilitation within the City of Gainesville are the Emergency Roof Repair Program, the Minor Rehabilitation Program, and the Major Rehabilitation Program. Strategies that either include or are speci fic to rehabilitation in Alachua County are the Down Payment with Constructi on/Rehabilitation Assistance Program and the Single Family Housing Development Program. The maximum amounts that may be spent per housing unit for rehabilitation vary somewhat between the City of Gainesville and Alachua County. For instance, for the 2007 fiscal 61

PAGE 62

year, the City received approximately $875,000 in SHIP funding; of that amount, slightly over $624,000 (71%) was designated for rehabilitation. The Citys most generous maximum individual award amount of $50,000 may be received through the Major Rehabilitation Program. For the 2007 fiscal year, Alachua County was the recipient of approximately $1,158,060 in SHIP funding; of that amount, just over $625,000 (54 %) was designated for rehabilitation. The Countys maximum individual award amount wa s $40,000, allotted through th e Single Family Housing Development Program. Affordable hou sing rehabilitation programs in Alachua County that are applicable to this th esis are listed in Appendix B. Interview Process and Interviewee Credentials The information gathering process took pl ace over a two-week period in January 2008. This time period accommodated the schedules of inte rviewees. Eight interv iews were held; three of these ran over the hour tim e limit allotted but were fini shed during one session. Six interviews were conducted in person at the interviewees office, and two phone interviews were held. The first three questions established the creden tials of the interviewee and the agency or organization they represented. The range of e xperience with affordable housing rehabilitation varied widely. One individual had three months of employment with an affordable housing rehabilitation administrative agency; the most experienced interviewee had worked 35 years in the profession.1 The average amount of time interviewees have been involved with the provision of affordable housing rehabilitati on is 18 years; 16 years is the average amount of that time spent in Florida, and 14 years is the average amount of that time spent in Alachua County. The various 1 The least experienced interviewee was familiar with af fordable housing rehabilitation through her four years working in Alachua County for a private lender, during which time she wrote loans that included SHIP Down Payment Assistance for rehabilitation. Based on her cumulative experience, her comments were deemed to be valid. 62

PAGE 63

capacities in which interviewees have administer ed or enabled the prov ision of affordable housing rehabilitation varied also; this variation resulted in a more comprehensive case study. Federal block grants and SHIP are the prim ary funding sources for the agencies and/or organizations for which the interviewees worked; six of the interviewees finance rehabilitation almost exclusively with bl ock grants and SHIP funding.2 Rehabilitation Barriers in Alachua County Barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation explored in Alachua County are presented according to the categories utilized in Chapter 2. These four categoriesfinancing, barriers encountered when preparing property for re habilitation, barriers en countered during the rehabilitation process, and miscellaneousare general and do not refl ect strict boundaries among the barriers. Financing As interviewees discussed funding as a barrie r, it became apparent that there are several aspects to the issue. These aspects can be gene rally categorized as overall funding available, low individual award amounts, and applicant qualification for funding. All of the interviewees considered at least one of these aspects a barrier to affordable housing rehabilitation. First, there simply is not enough money av ailable to undertake th e rehabilitation that needs to be done. The Director of Development for ACHA stated the problem succinctly when she remarked that she had applicants but not enough funding. The Senior Technical Advisor for the Florida Housing Coalition (FHC), althou gh appreciative of Flor idas housing trust fund, noted that there is more need than there is funding available. Th e Alachua County Housing Programs Manager surmised, based on informal feedback from local contractors doing 2 Funding sources utilized by the other two interviewees are: Low Income Housing Tax Credits; Neighborworks funding; and grants from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. 63

PAGE 64

rehabilitation work, that most of the basic reha bilitation projects that can be completed given current funding available are in fact completed. Further rehab ilitation, particularly for those structures requiring more than minimum repairs, will require an increase both in overall funding amounts and in individual awards. Second, individual awards, which are the maximum amount of funding allowed for particular rehabilitations, were considered by seve n interviewees to be too low. Currently, two separate documents governing re habilitation within the local context determine the maximum amount that may be spent on a particular project: the 25/50 rule and the ap plicable jurisdictions LHAP. In accordance with the 2004 Florida Building Code, the 25/50 rule requires the entirety of a structure undergoing rehabilitation to meet current building codes if the dollar value of the rehabilitation exceeds 50% of th e structures replacement cost.3 The 25/50 rule is, as are building codes in general, meant to protect health and safety. An LHAP details the program activities and management plan . for the us e of SHIP funds; LHAPs detail strategies to accomplish local jurisdictions housing goals (A lachua County, 2005, p. 3). So that more applicants may be assisted, LHAPs typically restrict the amount of SHIP funding for rehabilitation provided to individual households. Although distinct and guided by different philosophies, both the 25/50 rule and LHAP restrictions are barriers to rehabi litation in that they limit the am ount of work that can be done. The Neighborhood Housing and Development Cor porations (NHDC) Director of Housing Development noted that the 25/50 rule does not have the same impact on the rehabilitation of affordable housing as it does on the rehabilitati on of higher-priced housing. As she notes, in general, it will cost $50,000 to $60,000 to replace all the systems in a home. She gave an 3 All Florida counties and municipalities are required to follow the 2004 Florida Building Code. 64

PAGE 65

example of a home appraised at $80,000, which would be limited to $40,000 in rehabilitation before the entire structure would have to be brought up to code. All the systems could be replaced in a $200,000 home, however, without having to bring the entire structure up to code. The LHAP, through restrictions on the maximum am ount of funding per rehabilitation project, limits the amount of rehabilitation that may be completed. Though different from the 25/50 rule, the effect is often still the same: not enough f unding can be spent to completely rehabilitate affordable housing. Interviewees expressed discouragement with the f act that individual award amounts have not kept up with rising material and labor costs; four of them noted that as repair costs increase, the amount of rehabilitation that can be completed per home d ecreases. The ongoing downturn in the housing market has offset some of the steep rise in construc tion costs that Florida experienced after the devastating 2004 hurricane season, but interviewees remarked that it remains to be seen how much the decrease in construction costs will positively impact the costs of rehabilitation. Third, funding may be denied altogether for households applying for rehabilitation assistance through the Down Payment Assistance program. The program packages a private lenders mortgage with SHIP funding for rehabilit ation of a property for sale. If a household does not have a high enough income or credit rati ng, it will not be able to qualify for private funding. Further, in order to qualify for a privat e loan, a low income household must be able to afford an expensive-enough house and that house must need no more than $25,000 in rehabilitation.4 4 This is the maximum that may be spent on rehabilitation in Alachua County when the SHIP Down Payment Assistance program is utilized; amounts of $25,000, $20,000, or $5,000 may be allotted for existing homes needing rehabilitation, depending on whether a households income is very-low, low, or moderate, respectively. 65

PAGE 66

Two questions explored whether or not inte rviewees thought of financing as a barrier separate from other barriers men tioned during the interviews; the object of the two questions was to further establish whether fina ncing is a significant barrier to rehabilitation. The questions generated mixed results. On th e subject of a distinction between financing and other barriers, four interviewees did not direc tly address the question, two stated they did not think the barriers could be differentiated that way, and two thought a distinction could be made but did not elaborate. However, when asked about the extent of financing as a barrier, six interviewees clearly indicated that financi ng was a significant barrier. Th e Citys Block Grant Division Manager noted that financing limits the amount of work and types of improvements; this practical limit forces rehabilitation efforts to focus on health and safety issues. The ACHAs Director of Development succinctly remarked that financing is the key barrier. Barriers Encountered when Preparing Property for Rehabilitation As discussed in the literature, property acqui sition and insurance, land use restrictions, and cost estimation are barriers encountered wh en preparing property for rehabilitation. Interviewees gave a wide range of responses to questions concerning such barriers in Alachua County. Lack of clear title, lo cation, and non-permitted uses of a home, homes in advanced stages of deterioration, and uncertainties concerning the exte nt and nature of individual rehabilitation projects were all presented as barriers. The lack of clear title presents a barrier locally because of program requirements. Applicants for assistance must produce clear ti tle for the home needi ng rehabilitation. Two interviewees noted that title problems occur regularly; the Alachua County Housing Programs Manager remarked that title issu es were a big problem because while these are being resolved the property deteriorates further. The lack of clear title has oc casionally prevented rehabilitation altogether, as some applicants are unab le or unwilling to solve title problems. 66

PAGE 67

Location and non-permitted uses of a home can be a barrier. The NHDCs Director of Housing Development remarked that even if he r organization can find an affordable home to purchase and rehabilitate, th e character of the surrounding neighborhood may delay the homes sale. She wondered how worthwhile it is to try to rehabilitate homes in less-desirable neighborhoods; a homes location can prevent its being rehabilitated. Non-permitted uses can delay or prevent rehabilitation; the agency or organization performing re habilitation must get a special exception, which complicat es the rehabilitation process. Advanced stages of deterioration presen t both financial and physical barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation because stru ctures are usually deemed to be beyond rehabilitation. Two interviewees indicated that th is problem primarily occurs in rural areas but is not uncommon in urban areas. One of the two interviewees that mentioned this barrier said that although the home may qualify for a ssistance, it was neither financia lly feasible nor an efficient use of labor and materials to rehabilitate homes in advanced stages of deterioration. Alachua Countys SHIP Coordinator saw the barrier from a different perspective, noting that once a structure is in great disrepair, it is no longer eligible for the priv ate loans with which SHIP Down Payment Assistance is often packaged. The uncertain nature of rehabilitation is a general barrier that varies greatly from project to project and can increase the difficulty of estimating rehabilitation expenses for individual projects. The Alachua County Housing Programs Ma nager, who is an experienced rehabilitation provider and has supervised rehabi litation in the field, told of a home that required new roofing shingles and plywood; once the shingles and ro tted plywood were removed, the rehabilitation team discovered that the roofing trusses were not constructed out of 2 X 4 lumber, but were built with 2 X 2 lumber. The ACHAs Executive Director told of an older home she was inspecting to 67

PAGE 68

determine the scope of rehabilita tion work; the home had only sevenfoot ceilings. Both of these situations introduced uncertainties into the rehab ilitation process and increa sed the complexity of those particular projects. Inte rviewees attributed uncertainti es encountered in the physical structures to the lack of building codes; many counties in Florida either did not have or did not uniformly enforce building codes until the mid-1970s. Related to the barrier presented by uncertainties that are encountered during rehabilitation work is th e problem of estimating costs. Uncertainties like those mentioned above are barriers that can pr event rehabilitation work from proceeding; such uncertainties add to the difficult y of estimating individual rehabilitation project costs. Experienced rehabilita tion specialists have trouble estimating costs; inexperienced rehabilitation inspectors find cost estimation even more challenging. Barriers Encountered during the Rehabilitation Process Building codes, MHS, lead and asbestos regulations, radon testi ng, energy conservation requirements, access for disabled persons, and wage requirements are discussed in the literature as hurdles that may arise when a structure is being rehabilitate d. Of these, building codes are presented in the literature as the most signi ficant barrier. A consensus of interviewees comments indicates that building codes are no t a primary barrier in Alachua County. One interviewee, however, mentioned that building codes are indeed a significant barrier; her discussion of building codes is gi ven attention because of the la rge amount of time devoted to it during her interview. Responses to the two questions concerning bu ilding codes were particularly revealing. Six interviewees indicated that building codes were not a recu rring problem; ACHAs Director of Development commented that b uilding codes are the least of my worries. Two of the six noted that building codes are intende d to protect health and safety and that rehabilitation is meant to bring structures to a safe condition. Answers to the second question related to building codes, 68

PAGE 69

in which interviewees were asked to compare regul atory barriers to other barriers, mirrored the answers given to the previous question. Interview ees either did not direc tly answer the question, which indicates they may give litt le weight to building codes as a barrier, or they remarked that building codes or other regulator y issues were not much of a barrier compared with funding. Alachua Countys SHIP Coordinator said that financing is the biggest issue. However, the Alachua County Housing Programs Manager noted that regulatory issues other than building codes can be a barrier, pointing out excessive program restricti ons. He remarked that these restrictions, often required by pilot programs, demand much staff time for compliance but provide relatively little actual funding for rehabilitation. One interviewees discussi on of building codes deviates from the above comments regarding building codes as a barrier to rehabilitation in Alach ua County. The NHDCs Director of Housing Development regards building codes, and the 25/50 rule in particular, as a major barrier to rehabilitation, remark ing that building codes dont en courage rehabilitation; they encourage demo[lition]. She noted that adapting building codes, primarily to allow less strict application of the 25/50 rule would enable more rehabilitation work to be done. Shoddy construction and inferior building ma terials, which are barriers experienced during the rehabilitation pr ocess, are present locally but are not discussed in the literature. Shoddy construction becomes a barrier not only because the extent of rehabi litation necessary is more difficult to determine but also because of the complexity of coping with poorly-done work. Inferior building materials that were previously installed make a rehabilitation project both more difficult and more expensive. The Alachua County Housing Programs Manager gave an example of a type of plumbing th at was introduced in the late 1970s; the material is prone to leaks and separation at connections, requiring not only rehabilita tion due to water damage but 69

PAGE 70

also necessitating replacement of the plumbing system, which adds unanticipated material and labor costs to particular rehabilitation projects.5 Miscellaneous Barriers Property tax increases and skilled labor shorta ges are hurdles discusse d in the literature that cannot be easily classified as financing, property preparation, or rehabilitation process barriers. Property tax in creases were not discussed as barr iers to rehabil itation in Alachua County; however, the unavailability of capable contractors was addressed. One interviewee commented that the cyclical na ture of new housing constructi on largely determines how many skilled, reliable contractors will bid on local reha bilitation projects. The large number of homes that needed repair after the 2004 hurricane season also affected the number of contractors available to bid on loca l rehabilitation jobs. Interviewees discussed barriers present loca lly that are not present in the literature; several of the barriers are inte rrelated. Although these barriers we re mentioned at various points during the interviews, they were generally discussed at the end when interviewees were asked about issues not already raised. The barriers mentioned at the end of interviews were not considered to be minor compared to barriers discussed earlier in the interviews. Miscellaneous barriers present locally that are not discussed in the literature are the small number of rehabilitation programs available locally, the amount of paperwork necessary for SHIP-funded rehabilitation, and cumbersome program guidelines. The small number of rehabilitation program s available locally presents a barrier by limiting funding available and allowable strategies for rehabilitation. The City of Gainesvilles Block Grant Division Manager a nd ACHAs Director of Development both noted that the 5 Polybutylene pipe and connections are still allowed by many local building codes nationwide. 70

PAGE 71

limited number and lack of variety of program s hindered rehabilitati on. Although they are targeted to lower-income house holds, different rehabilitation programs have similar strict guidelines. Households that earn too little or too much in come may be excluded from receiving rehabilitation assistance; if de nied assistance, these households have few other options for help with rehabilitating their home. The amount of paperwork necessa ry for SHIP-funded rehabilita tion is a barrier primarily because of the extensive documentation required by the state to compute, verify, and certify a households annual income. Alachua Countys SHIP Coordinator stat ed that it was not uncommon for realtors and lenders to steer buyers away from the Down Payment Assistance Program if SHIP-funded rehabilitation was involved because of the excessive paperwork required and the additional time n ecessary to obtain approval. Until very recently, the repayment terms of SH IP rehabilitation loans were barriers for some households seeking rehabilitation assistance. The SHIP rehabilitation loans were deferred, zero interest loans that had to be paid back when the applicants moved or passed away. In January, the loans were changed to be 10-year, prorated, forgivable loans. Previously, elderly applicants often opted not to have rehabilita tion done, simply because they did not want to burden their children with the loan repayment. As ACHAs Director of Development stated, the 30-year deferred mortgage scares people away. It remains to be seen if the new loan terms will encourage more rehabilitation. The lack of standardized procedures, cumbersome program guidelines, and the need for more organizational capacity were presented as interrelated barriers. The ACHAs Executive Director noted that the absence of standardized lo cal rehabilitation guideline s, in particular, is a barrier to efficient and effec tive rehabilitation. Program guidelines themselves are a barrier; 71

PAGE 72

ACHAs Director of Development remarked that just the income verifi cation process prevents some people from going further with the applic ation process. Program guidelines require detailed and documented information concer ning household income, assets, and property ownership; this information must be acted on within a specified timeframe, or else the information must be re-verified. The need fo r more organization cap acity and training was mentioned by four interviewees; FHCs Senior Technical Advisor noted that local agencies and organizations needed talented and experienced sta ff that could tell, for example, when a change order is legitimate.6 For the sake of simplicity, furt her mention of cumbersome program guidelines includes an agencys or organizatio ns lack of standardized procedures or organizational capacity, since these two problem s are related to and compound the effects of awkward program guidelines. Comparison with the Literature Several of the barriers to affordable hous ing rehabilitation found in Alachua County and analyzed above, such as financi ng, cost estimation, and skilled labor shortages, are similar in incidence and nature as reported in the broader literature. Other ba rriers present locally, such as the small number of rehabilitation programs presen t, are not found in the literature; conversely, barriers deemed significant in the literature, su ch as property acquisiti on, have not been major hurdles to rehabilitation in Al achua County. Local barriers ar e compared below with barriers discussed in Listokin and Listoki n (2001a, 2001b). Local barriers not found in the literature are then highlighted. The comparison, outlined in Ta ble 4-1, is organized by the subheadings used in discussion of barriers in th e literature review and previously in this analysis section. 6 Change orders are requests by contractors performing the rehabilitation work for alterations in the contract; most often, the requested change involves a projects funding. 72

PAGE 73

Financing As with Listokin and Listoki ns (2001a) findings, financing barriers are the single largest barrier to affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua County. As ACHAs Director of Development remarked, the real barriers are th e [lack of] money and how its divided up. The literature indicates that financi ng barriers may be encountered at any point in the rehabilitation process and often prevent rehabi litation from occurring at all; the same conditions exist in Alachua County. Analysis of the local case study re sults indicates that fina ncing barriers can be generally categorized into overa ll funding available, individua l award amounts, and applicant qualification for funding. Overall funding amounts prevent re habilitation from occurring at all. It is not unusual to have three or four times as many applicants as there is funding to assi st. Maximum individual award amounts limit how much reha bilitation may be done; this ba rrier may be encountered at any point in the rehabili tation process. Cost constraints due to individual award amounts can prevent a particular home from being completely rehabilitated when una nticipated but required repairs must be made to major systems; f unding must first be spent on achieving MHS and meeting building codes. The inability of app licants to qualify for funding presents a barrier before rehabilitation even begins. The inabilit y to qualify for rehabilitation assistance often prevents rehabilitation fro m occurring at all. Financing barriers discovered at the local level, with one exception, generally reflect the nature of financing barriers identified in the lit erature. Analysis of the local case study determined that there are difficulties embodied in the income verification process, that not enough funding is available and that rehabilitation providers face uncertain housing conditions in many rehabilitation projects. The barriers presented by complexity, scarcity, and uncertainty are inherent in developing and securing financing. These barriers are identified in the literature and 73

PAGE 74

are also present locally. The exception is lim itations on individual awar d amounts, which were singled out by seven out of the eight interviewees as a significant local barrier; this aspect of financing is not represented in th e literature as having the extensiv e impact that it has in Alachua County. Barriers Encountered when Preparing Property for Rehabilitation Acquiring and insuring property, land use rest rictions, and cost estimations are potential barriers to rehabilitation discussed in Listokin and Listokin (2001a, 2001b). Property acquisition in Alachua County is a barrier because of the condition and va lue of much of the existing housing stock. The NHDCs Director of Housi ng Development commented that every house she works on requires extensive rehabilitation. Th is housing is affordable, but often not enough money can be invested into rehabilitation to bring homes up to appraisal value. Securing property insurance was not presented as a barrier by any interviewee. Rehabilitation cost estimation as a barrier in Alachua County is consistent with the findings in the literature, which presents tw o aspects of cost estimation: uncertainties encountered during the rehabilitation process and the length of time that elapses between cost estimates and the commencement of rehabilitation. Of these, difficult cost estimates due to uncertainties regarding the extent of rehabilitation needed is th e barrier present locally. Such uncertainties are typically manifested in unantic ipated repairs required to ensure a home meets code requirements. It is challenging to accu rately determine the costs of unsound conditions necessitating repairs. Land use restrictions, park ing requirements in particular, are problematic but are considered minor barriers in the literature. Land use restrictions and permitting hurdles were discussed only once during the course of th e interviews, and are therefore considered only minor barriers in Alachua County. 74

PAGE 75

Barriers Encountered during the Rehabilitation Process Building codes, MHS, lead and asbestos regulations, radon testi ng, energy conservation requirements, access for disabled persons, and wage requirements are detailed in Listokin and Listokin (2001a) as barriers to rehabilitation. Building codes, MHS, and lead and asbestos regulations were discussed in interviews; of these, only the subject of building codes was specifically introduced in the questions. Radon testing, access for disabled persons, and wage requirements were not included in the questions nor were the barriers brought up during the interview process. Energy conservation requirem ents were discussed in one interview but not noted as being a significant barrier. The 25/50 and Change of Occupancy rules ar e aspects of building codes presented in Listokin and Listokin (2001a) as significant barriers. In Al achua County, one interviewee described building codes as a si gnificant barrier; th e 25/50 rule was discussed thoroughly during her interview and understood to be a significant impediment to rehabilitation. As the NHDCs Director of Housing Development, the intervie wee has potentially encoun tered the restrictions forced on rehabilitation by the 25/ 50 rule much more than other interviewees. Change of Occupancy rules were not discussed by any interviewees. Minimum housing standards are viewed by interviewees as acceptabl e standards, not as barriers. Lead and asbestos regulations were discussed in one interview and were considered to be procedural issues and somewhat of a problem for, but not a barrier t o, rehabilitation. The guidelines for dealing with lead paint and asbestos are relatively straightfo rward; interviewees did not indi cate that they encountered any hurdles with lead paint or asbestos. Skilled labor shortages are presented in th e literature as being a minor, intermittent barrier. Four interviewees discussed the issue of finding capable contractors as a barrier; the FHCs Senior Technical Advisor remarked that it is hard to find skilled contractors. On a 75

PAGE 76

related note, skilled labo r may be available but not reputable. The ACHAs Executive Director noted that contractors will cut costs by nickel -and-diming affordable housing rehabilitation projects. Based on these findings, the lack of qualified, ethical c ontractors appears to also be a barrier in Alachua County. Miscellaneous Barriers There are four barriers present in Alachua County that either are absent from the literature or are different in in cidence and nature from barriers discussed in the literature: the small number of rehabilitation programs availabl e; the amount of paperwork required for SHIPfunded rehabilitation; cumbersome program gui delines; and the maximum amount allowable for individual awards. The analysis revealed that the limited number and lack of variety of programs hindered rehabilitation. The larg e amount of paperwork required for SHIP-funded rehabilitation was also determined to be a local barrier; in particular, interviewees remarked that household income qualification, certification, and verification required relati vely extensive documentation. Time consuming and cumbersome program guidelines such as the requirement to determine an applicants income and then process the applicat ion for rehabilitation by a given deadline, also prevent rehabilitation from occurring.7 These guidelines, as no ted by ACHAs Director of Development, do not seemingly take into account th e capacities of the clientele they are meant to serve; the information and documen tation required of applicants is a stumbling block to many of them. These barriers are regulatory and procedur al and have the potential to be resolved through revisions to SHIP program guidelines and local government LHAPs. The maximum amount of individual awards, how ever, is the most significant local barrier that receives no mention in the literature. As noted previously the analysis revealed that a 7 The SHIP stipulation of a 120-day wi ndow within which income verificati ons are valid originated with HUD. 76

PAGE 77

majority of interviewees t hought the amount of individual aw ards was too low and was a significant barrier to rehabilitation. Given that the individual awar ds are a function of state and local program guidelines and are relatively spec ific to Florida and Alachua County, it is understandable that award amounts are not widely discussed in the literature. However, the amount of individual awards is limiting the rehabilitation activity in Alachua County. Discrepancies between Local Barriers and Barriers Discussed in the Literature The three major barriers presented in the literature are financ ing, property acquisition, and building codes. Of these three, financing is considered the most extensive and pervasive; Listokin and Listokin (2001a) declare that economi c constraints are key barriers affecting all stages of the rehabilitation process (p. 9). Property acquisition is disc ussed as being the most troublesome. Building codes, by far, receive the most attention; th e relatively lengthy Nationally Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions (NARRP) deals exclusively with rehabilitation building codes. Financing, pr operty acquisition, and building codes are hurdles present in Alachua County. Financ ing is by far the major local barr ier. Other barriers mentioned in the published material, such as estimating costs and finding capab le contractors, are also found locally. The barriers that receive little discussion, such as lead and asbestos regulations, are not necessarily minor; however, intervie wees gave no indication that such issues were significant barriers. Many of the barriers discussed in th e literature are found in Alachua County and are similar in both incidence and nature. There are barriers present loca lly that vary in incidence and nature from common barriers identified at the national level as discussed in the broader literature. As discussed above, the small number of rehabilitation programs available locally, the large amount of paperwork required for SHIP-funded rehabilitation, cumberso me program guidelines, and the insufficient amount of individual awards are barrier s encountered in Alachua County. 77

PAGE 78

What the Discrepancies Suggest Taken together, the barriers to government -sponsored rehabilitati on in Alachua County are obstacles to assisting lower-income house holds with their rehabilitation needs. Rehabilitation administrators, providers, and applican ts may become frustrated in their efforts to dispense or receive assistance. A separate problem is the fact that rehabilitation administrators and providers in Alachua County are largely una ware of barriers discussed and solutions presented in the literature; intervie wees indicated that the literature is relatively irrelevant to their daily activities. The major barriers discussed in Listokin and Listokin (2001a) were first mentioned midway through each interview. Each interviewe e was told that financ ing, property acquisition, and building codes are the most significant barr iers discussed in the literature; as noted previously, building codes were in cluded as an item for discussion. Most of the interviewees, six of the eight, were not aware of any literature that addressed barrier s to affordable housing rehabilitation. To assist inte rviewees in better understanding questions 9, 11 and 15, they were each told that published literature addressing barr iers to affordable housing rehabilitation is available. Specifically, they were each told that although the literature concerning barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation is limited, a recent, national study to categorize and assess barriers to rehabilitati on and subsequent studies have b een conducted (Listokin, 2005; Listokin & Crossney, 2005; Listokin & Listokin, 2001a, 2001b). Each interviewee was also told that case studies, analysis, and best practic es were available from HUD. When asked how relevant such literature wa s or might be in their daily activities, six interviewees replied not at all; two interviewees replied somewhat.8 The not at all 8 Interviewees were asked to choose between very, somewhat, or not at all relevant. 78

PAGE 79

response was not confined to those six interviewees that were not aware of the literature. Those interviewees who replied not at all did not hesi tate over or elaborate on their response, indicating they had no indecision ab out the lack of importance of the published material in their daily jobs. One of the two in terviewees who responded somew hat did not elaborate on the answer; the other interviewee re stricted the relevance of the published material by saying he reviewed it when it dealt with mode l programs and/or best practices. Barriers present in Alachua County that are not discussed in the literaturethe small number of rehabilitation programs available locally, the large amount of paperwork required for SHIP-funded rehabilitation, cumbersome program guidelines, and the insufficient amount of individual awardsare significan t local barriers. Implications of the discrepancies between commonly recognized barriers in the literature and those identified in Alachua County are presented next, as are general implications of the case study and recommendations for resolving issues that arise from the implications. 79

PAGE 80

80 Table 4-1. Current Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation Barriers Discussed in Literature Present in Alachua County Discrepancies* Financing Overall funding available None Low individual award amounts Significant Applicant qualification for funding None When Preparing Property for Rehabilitation Acquiring property None Insuring property Minor Land use restrictions None Estimating costs None During the Rehabilitation Process Building codes None Minimum Housing Standards None Lead and asbestos regulations None Radon testing Minor Energy conservation requirements Minor Disabled access Minor Wage requirements Moderate Miscellaneous Property tax increases Minor Skilled labor shortages None Few programs available locally Significant Amount of paperwork necessary Significant Cumbersome program guidelines Significant Discrepancies are defined as follows: Minor discrepancies are minor issu es identified as such in the broader literature and are not indicated to be a barrier in Alachua County. Moderate discrepancies are moderate issues iden tified as such in the broader literature and are not indicated to be a barrier in Alachua County. Significant discrepancies are abse nt or are not widely discusse d in the broader literature and are significant in Alachua County; these di screpancies form the ba sis of the analysis and recommendations that follow. Listokin, D., & Listok in, B. (2001a). Barriers to the rehabilita tion of affordable housing, Volume I: Findings and analysis Washington, D.C.: Department of Housing and Urban Development; and author.

PAGE 81

CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDAT IONS, AND CONCLUSION Most of the barriers outlined in the literature are found in Alachua County and are similar in both incidence and nature; still, a number of th e local barriers identified in this case study are not explicitly identified in the literature. The implications of these discrepancies are detailed below; recommendations for resolution of each issu e are presented. General implications of the case study are then discussed. A brief review of general themes found in the literature will provide context for implications of the discrepanc ies that exist. Barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation can, in part, be attri buted to the following historic trends: Affordable housing policy is political. Support for affordable housing policy is cyclical. The devolution of affordable housing policy that occurred in the 1980s continues. Financing, the most pervasive barrier to a ffordable housing rehabilitation, is complex, scarce and uncertain. Implications of Discrepancies and Recommendations for Resolution There are two primary implicat ions of the discrepancies be tween barriers at the local level and those discussed in the literature. One primary implica tion is that furthe r study must be completed on the nature and extent of local barrie rs in order to better und erstand how to resolve them. Barriers at the local level, which are not re flected in the literature, are significant hurdles to affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua County. The other primary implication is that local rehabilitation administrators and providers are largely on th eir own in overcoming barriers. Secondary implications, derived from the pr imary implications, are also discussed. Primary Implications Issue: Barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua Countythe small number of rehabilitation programs ava ilable locally, the large amount of paperwork required for SHIP81

PAGE 82

funded rehabilitation, cumbersome program gui delines, and limited individual award amounts are different in scope and impact from those pr esented in the literature. Listokin and Listokin (2001a) acknowledge the variation in barriers among rehabilitation pr ojects and note that, their specific incidence and degree of di fficulty vary by jurisdiction. . (p. 6). Although the causes of barriers specific to Alachua County are know n, the extent to which the barriers impede rehabilitation are not fully understood. The extent of local barriers needs to be examined so that effective solutions may be devised. The need to undertake further study is easier said than done, especially given the difficulty of determining how much is spent on rehabilitation within a particular locale. Recommendation: In order to enhance the existing ma terial on barriers to rehabilitation, particularly barriers that may be specific to certain locales or regions, state universities could compile and update studies within their respective regions. Befo re these studies can begin, a methodology for identifying, evaluating, and categoriz ing local affordable housing rehabilitation activity must be developed. To identify local affordable housing rehabilitation activity, a case study similar to the one completed for this thesis but expanded to include homeowners should be completed. To evaluate rehabilitation activity, it is necessary to esta blish how much of the rehabilitation need is being met. To categorize what type of rehabilita tion activity is underway, it is necessary to determine wh ere rehabilitation activity is oc curring and which income groups are being served. Once a standardized methodology for the study of local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation is in use, results from studies may be compared so that patterns and trends may be recognized. A longitudinal study can explore if the same barri ers are present over time in Alachua County; cross-sectional studies can dete rmine the local contexts within which similar 82

PAGE 83

barriers emerge. From such comparisons, patter ns across space and time can be discerned and practical and widely-applicable solu tions might be proposed and tested. Issue: Local administrators and providers ar e largely on their own when it comes to figuring out how to overcome local barriers to rehabilitation. It is probable, though not explicitly addressed through the case study, th at given the devolution of federal housing programs, among them those focused on rehabilitation, and the si gnificant number of new programs developed at the state and local levels, that ba rriers specific to these new state and local programs now exist. Information concerning barriers spec ific to new programs, especially within local contexts, is not widely published. Interviewees verified this in their comments by stating that the literature is largely irrelevant to their day-to-day activities. One interviewee remarked that his organization has developed procedures over the y ears to deal with the barriers th at have emerged. None of the interviewees indicated that they looked to th e literature for help in overcoming hurdles to rehabilitation. Recommendation: Incorporate topics relevant to local contexts into publications that local rehabilitation administrators and providers are likely to read, and make this material readily available. Interviewees s uggested: education on local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation; training in areas such as rehabilitation inspections and cost estimating; and best practices and models for successfully overcoming rehabilitation hurdles. With the exception of Listokin and Crossney (2005) and Li stokin (2005), there are no such resources. There is a need for easily-accessible forums solely devoted to barriers to afford able housing rehabilitation; these forums could take the form of newsletters, inte rnet blogs, or specific we bsites that alternately highlight various local areas and i ssues. Interviewee suggestions for the focus of future topics in the literature, which are summari zed in Table 5-1, also include: 83

PAGE 84

relevant information and resources for re habilitation administrators and providers ongoing training in the basics of program guidelines training for homeowners, so that they know what to expect and do not confuse rehabilitation with refurbishment case studies that go into more depth on rehabilitation issues a review of rehabilitation standards a study of households that come back for a ssistance because the rehabilitation was an incomplete fix Secondary Implications Two secondary issues arise, given the im plications that more study needs to be accomplished and that local affordable housing reha bilitation administrators and providers have few resources to turn to for assistance in overc oming hurdles to rehabilitation. With relatively little known regarding barriers in local contexts, only a modest amount of information is available to guide local and stat e policy makers in their efforts to develop sound strategies for affordable housing rehabilitation. A related issu e concerns the grasp that researchers have on rehabilitation barriers within local contexts. These two issues ar e discussed individually below. Issue: The persons familiar with barriers to a ffordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua County are local rehabilitation administrators and providers; those not involved with rehabilitation have little unders tanding of how the process is guided or works. As Alachua Countys Housing Programs Manager stated, its a niche field. Florida legislators may access the expertise of the Affordable Housing St udy Commission; local commissioners may rely on their housing division staff to give them reliable information and direction. However, that such consultations occur regularly is doubtful. Local and state policy makers, as well as future rehabilitation administrators and providers, w ould be well served by further study that reliably 84

PAGE 85

documents local barriers to rehabilitation and the solutions developed by experienced administrators and providers. Recommendation: Include rehabilitation administrato rs and providers on the recently reestablished local Affordable Housing Advisory Committees. A separate state-level committee, with representatives from various Florida counties and municipalities, should be formed solely to provide information for future studies and pr ovide input to legislat ive subcommittees on rehabilitation barriers and related issues. A separate state-level advisory committee could fulfill a need suggested by the NHDCs Di rector of Housing Development, who remarked that future material should be directed to the policymakers so that they dont have a limited view of rehabilitation. Issue: Planning for affordable housing and grow th management efforts within the Alachua County context in particular, could be made more effective w ith data produced from reliable studies. Planning d ecisions need not be made with a minimum amount of information regarding those barriers, including their effects and the asso ciated solutions. If community development, redevelopment, and revitalization are to be successful efforts, local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation and appropriate solutions must both be documented. The Housing and Future Land Use Elements of local jurisdictions Comprehens ive Plans, as well as their LHAP, provide a general framework for locating affordable housing. However, the location of affordable housing has long-term impact s for rehabilitation. If the character and then the property values of a neighborhood with affordable housing decline over time, homes needing rehabilitation may not be able to receive assistance. As noted previously, the NHDCs Director of Housing Development questioned how worthwhile it is to try to rehabilitate homes in lessdesirable neighborhoods; a homes location can prevent it from being rehabilitated. 85

PAGE 86

A better understanding of the effects of barrier s and their proposed solutions could enable the rehabilitation efforts of local government planning and housing ag encies, local nonprofit organizations, and for-profit businesses to be more focused and directed. Alachua Countys SHIP Coordinator commented that a strategy for rehabilitati ng entire neighborhoods . should be developed. Although such a tactic is occasionally utilized, further research may establish the validity of more frequent a nd directed efforts on a neighborhood scale. Recommendation: Future research should fo cus on the following questions: What is the effect on neighborhoods of thos e households that need but do not receive rehabilitation assistance? How much rehabilitation will need to be provi ded in the future for single family, owneroccupied housing? How much rehabilitation will need to be provided in the future for multifamily rental units? What is the extent of barriers to rehabilitation locally? What is the economic impact, if any, of rehabilitation activity with in a certain locale? What regulatory hurdles, such as the 25/50 rule, may be mitigated with coordination and cooperation among policymakers, ad ministrators, and providers? What are the indicators that could assist in identifying ar eas where focused affordable housing rehabilitation is needed? Implications of the Case Study All of the barriers to afford able housing rehabilita tion that are present in Alachua County are interrelated to a certain extent. For exam ple, compliance with program guidelines may be frustrating, but with a lack of organizational capacity, program guidelines become a barrier to rehabilitation. The difficulty of accurately dete rmining the scope of a re habilitation project may dramatically increase the cost of that projec t and therefore limit the amount of rehabilitation completed. All of the barriers are related to financing. With unlimited funding, each of the 86

PAGE 87

barriers could be resolved. Given the limited funding available, further study can assist affordable housing rehabilitation administrators a nd providers in determining the most efficient use of their funding. Issue: The case study resulted in one clear patter n concerning the barriers present locally but not discussed in the literatur e. These barriersthe small nu mber of rehabilitation programs available locally, the large amount of paperwork required for SHIP-funded rehabilitation, cumbersome program guidelines, and maximum individual award amounts are the result of guidelines and restrictions at th e state and local levels. Altho ugh the federal CDBG program has guidelines that must be met, Floridas SHIP pr ogram guidelines and the two local governments LHAPs are a primary cause of these local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation. Efforts to resolve the local barriers would be most effective if they were undertaken at the state and local levels. Recommendation: These barriers can be resolved, to a large extent, by repealing the cap on Floridas Housing Trust F und, by revising the two local jurisdictions LHAPs, and by increasing individual award amounts In all likelihood, affordable housing rehabilitation efforts across the county are impeded to some extent, given the drastic decrease in federal funding over the last two decades. However, local governments in Florida are particularly frustrated by the inaccessibility of funds specifically devoted to affordable housing and affordable housing rehabilitation. Issue: The case study also revealed two interest ing trends, one across job roles and the other across political boundaries. Although interviewees had different perspectives on barriers to rehabilitation because they are employed in th e administration or the provision of affordable housing rehabilitation, there was no apparent, overarching difference in their answers. The local 87

PAGE 88

affordable housing rehabilitation administrators a nd providers gave remarkably similar answers, especially regarding financing issu es and the four local barriers not represented in the literature. A second trend concerned the lack of distinction between barriers in the City of Gainesville and Alachua County. No clear division exists between barriers encountered in the City, which is primarily urban, and the County, which has both urba n and large rural areas. Local barriers are pervasive in their occurrence across political jurisdictions. Recommendation: In addition to streamlining guideline s and procedures at the state and local government levels recommended above, a st andardized and centralized application, cost estimation, and bidding process may work well for all affordable housing rehabilitation undertaken in the City and the County. The inte rviewees appear to be of a similar mindset regarding rehabilitation barriers; several of them recommended a standardized and centralized process. There is redundancy among local agencies and organi zations that administer and provide rehabilitation, particularly among those that utilize SHIP funding. The Alachua County Housing Programs Manager remarked I dont know that we need seven or eight mini-SHIP programs out there. Currently, each agency or organization accepts and pr ocess applications for assistance, determines the scope of work, advertis es for and accepts bids for rehabilitation work, and monitors the progress of the project. Except for monitoring a projec ts progress, one local office could efficiently accomplish some of the redundant tasks. Centralizing and standardizing processes would, in all likelihood, not result in an overall reduction of staff but would enable staff to focus on resolving barrier s to affordable housing rehabili tation. The fact that no clear distinctions in barriers exist ac ross local political jurisdictions is encouraging; one local office would suffice to process paperwork for rehabilita tion projects in both th e City and the County. 88

PAGE 89

Interviewees suggestions for addr essing barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua County, summarized in Table 5-2, include: explore lender loan pools and other funding options repeal the cap on Floridas Housing Trust Fund better coordinate project management reuse building components and materials in good condition enforce compliance with building codes explore the Rebuild Gainesville model1 establish a certification program for rehabilitation inspectors have rehabilitation providers team with codes inspectors to identify properties in need of rehabilitation Conclusion Responsibility for affordable housing policy, and any associated re habilitation efforts, began with the states and has largely returned to them. The task of devising affordable housing policy and promoting rehabilitation efforts rested primarily with the states until the 1930s. The federal government largely assumed direct provis ion for and supervision of affordable housing and rehabilitation efforts from the 1930s through the mid-1980s. The retrenchment of federal housing policy in the 1980s placed responsibility for affordable housing a nd rehabilitation policy with state and local governments, which struggled with developing funding to fill the gap left by the federal devolution of affordable housing and rehabilitation policies and programs. In the near future, the federal government is unlikely to provide the policy di rection and the programs that guided and funded rehabilitation during the 1960s and early 1970s. The responsibility for 1 Rebuild Gainesville is a non-profit organization that relies on volunteers to rehabilitate the homes of lower-income households. 89

PAGE 90

affordable housing policy and associated rehabili tation components primarily lies with the state and local governments. The recent literature concer ning barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation has been fragmented and incomplete, a result, perhaps, of the political and cyclical nature of affordable housing and rehabilitation policy. This thesis establis hes that discrepancies exist between what is known concerning barriers in a specific local c ontext and what is discu ssed in the literature. The existence and nature of thes e discrepancies imply that furt her study of local barriers to rehabilitation is justified and that Alachua C ounty rehabilitation administrators and providers need more resources for overcoming barriers. Four barriers found in the local contextthe small number of rehabilitation programs available locally, the large amount of paperwork required for SHIP-funded rehabilitation, cumbersome program guidelines, and limited i ndividual award amountsare primary indicators of the discrepancies that exist be tween the barriers discussed in the literature a nd those found in Alachua County. The following recommendations ar e provided to add to the current literature that addresses barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation, direct fu rther study, and provide rehabilitation administrators and providers with more resources to resolve barriers. Each of the four local barriers is discussed. Barrier: The small number of rehabilitation programs available locally is a barrier because of the limited number of programs containe d in the two local juri sdictions LHAPs. As noted in Chapter 4, rehabilitation programs, although targeted to lower-income households, have similar strict guidelines. Hous eholds that have too little or too much income may be denied 90

PAGE 91

rehabilitation assistance; if denied assist ance, households have few other options for rehabilitation.2 Recommendation: The recently reestablished local Affordable Housing Advisory Committees should evaluate the rehabilitation st rategies available and either expand existing programs or develop new ones so that there are more options available for lower-income households. Tracking the extent to which each pr ogram is utilized can indicate which programs may need to be expanded. Barrier: The large amount of paperwork require d for SHIP-funded rehabilitation is a barrier primarily because potential applicants ma y be unable or unwilling to complete the income verification process or may be dissuaded from utilizing County programs. Alachua Countys SHIP Coordinator remarked that it was not uncommon for realtors and pr ivate lenders to steer potential applicants for rehabilitation assistance away from the SHIP Down Payment Assistance Program because of the excessive paperwork requir ed and the additional time necessary to obtain approval. Recommendation: The Affordable Housing St udy Commission has recommended clarification of acceptabl e methods of income verification. The two local jurisdictions SHIP Coordinators should hold workshops with realto rs and private lenders to educate them on program requirements and to develop a better wo rking relationship with those individuals that are steering people away from specific program s. Local Affordable Housing Advisory Committees should lobby the Florida Housing Fina nce Corporation, which has authority in the matter, to amend the SHIP Compliance Rule to re vise income verification methods so that they 2 It is unlikely that smaller households in the very-low income group will be able to afford a principle mortgage payment for a SHIP-eligible unit under Alachua Countys SHIP Down Payment Construction/Rehabilitation Assistance program. 91

PAGE 92

are consistent with standard lending practices and federal pr ogram guidelines that might be layered with SHIP. Barrier: Cumbersome program guidelines are a barrier because they prevent some lower-income households from completing the ap plication process. The Alachua County Housing Authoritys Director of Development re marked that the income verification process alone has prevented some people from completing th e application process. As noted in Chapter 4, program guidelines require detailed inform ation on household income, assets, and property ownership; this information must be acted upon within 120 days, or the information must be reverified. Recommendation: The clarification of and amendment to the SHIP Compliance Rule recommended above will resolve most of the issu es surrounding income ve rification. In addition to enabling the income verification process to be quicker and more effici ent, the process should be easier for applicants to complete. A standard ized and centralized appl ication, cost estimation, and bidding process would allow lower-income households to complete the process by enabling them to interact with staffers that specialize in applicant intake and processing. A centralized application process would reduce the burden on applicants, would expose them to the full range of rehabilitation programs available, and would allow income information to be utilized within 120 days. Barrier: Limited individual award amounts present a barrier to rehabil itation because not enough funding can be spent on properties that need more rehabilita tion than the maximum award amount will allow. Currently, the maximu m award amount for homes within the City of Gainesville is $50,000; the maximum award amount for homes in Alachua County, outside the City, is $40,000. Both the City of Gainesville and Alachua County are soliciting 92

PAGE 93

recommendations on revisions to their LHAPs. As part of the LHAP revision process, the County is seeking, and will likely receive, approval to raise the individual award amount to $50,000. It is unknown if the City will seek an in crease in individual award amounts any time in the near future. Recommendation: A case study, similar to the one comp leted for this thesis, should be undertaken within the next seve ral years to determine if lim ited individual award amounts are still a barrier to rehabilitati on. Specifically, the next case study should focus on standard rehabilitation costs for lower-income households in Alachua County. In the meantime, if the City does not raise its maximum award amount, the Citys Affordable Housing Advisory Committee should lobby the City Commission to ra ise the amount. The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee should solicit input from reha bilitation administrators and providers within the City to support their position. Administrators and providers of affordab le housing rehabilitati on have not only an obligation, but a desire, to provide rehabilitation efficiently and effectivel y. Given the countrys high homeownership rate, a long-term need for re habilitation exists. Th e policies and programs guiding and delivering rehabilitati on must be based on reliable in formation. Policy makers have a responsibility to enable rehabi litation administrators and prov iders to overcome barriers and also to remove barriersespecially financial onesof their own making. Financials barriers, as noted in the liter ature review, are the mo st significant and are intertwined with most other barriers to reha bilitation. Financial ba rriers often prevent rehabilitation from occurring at all. Listoki n and Listokin (2001a) note that financial hurdles exacerbate other barriers encountered during the re habilitation process (p. 46). Coupled with the funding gap that developed when the federal gove rnment began to withdraw from the provision 93

PAGE 94

94 of affordable housing in the 1980s, financial ba rriers become the key barrier. In Alachua County, six out of eight interview ees indicated that in creased financing was a primary solution to local rehabilitation barriers. On e of the FHCs Senior Technical Advisors suggested plainly to repeal the cap. Floridas Affordable H ousing Study Commission (Affordable Housing Study Commission, 2007), as the first recommendation in their 2007 study of the SHIP program, advised that in 2008, the Florida Legislature should reauthorize the State and Local Government Housing Trust Funds without the cap (p. 20). Perhaps the most effective solution for financ ial barriers is to insulate, as much as is possible, affordable housing reha bilitation financing from politi cal influences. The federal government, through its housing policies and pr ograms, has historically encouraged homeownership; although program support that en ables lower-income groups to afford housing and to rehabilitate their homes is inconsistent. So that funding levels re main consistent and are provided in sufficient amounts to undertake needed rehabilita tion, subsidies for affordable housing rehabilitation may need to be entitlements. Before that argument can be made, however, further research must be undertaken to unders tand local barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation.

PAGE 95

Table 5-1. Suggested Focus of Future Published Material Case Study Participant Education/Training Other Alachua County SHIP Coordinator Distribution of available in formation and resources to rehabilitation administrators and providers Alachua County Housing Authority Executive Director Education and training for the next generation of rehabilitation providers, inspectors, specialist s, and staff; need continuous training in the basics: what forms to use and how to fill them out correctly For-Profit Affordable Housing Developer and Rehabilitation Provider Training for homeowners, so that they know what to expect and do not confuse rehabilitation with refurbishment City of Gainesville Block Grant Division Manager Innovative programs and best practices Florida Housing Coalition Senior Technical Advisor Review of rehabilitation standards; study of households that are coming back for assistance because the rehabilitation was an incomplete fix Alachua County Housing Programs Manager Rehabilitation Specialist Certifi cation training; education and training for the next generation of administrators and providers Neighborhood Housing & Development Corp.s Director of Housing Development Direct material to the policymakers, so that they dont have a limited view of rehabilitation Alachua County Housing Authority Director of Development Case studies that go into more de pth on rehabilitation issues, that get into the nitty-gritty of rehabilitation 95 Comments provided by interviewees and, althoug h edited for brevity, are in their own words.

PAGE 96

Table 5-2. Solutions to Addressing Barriers to Affordable Housing Rehabilitation in Alachua County Case Study Participant Financing Standa rdization Efficien cy/Organizational Capacity Other Alachua County SHIP Coordinator Increase SHIP award amount Develop a strategy for entire neighborhoods Alachua County Housing Authority Executive Director Standardized rehabilitation guidelines Building inspectors should make contractors do the job correctly For-Profit Affordable Housing Developer and Rehabilitation Provider More funding Standardize the rehabilitation inspection process County should adopt a streamlined permitting process City of Gainesville Block Grant Division Manager Explore lender loan pools and other funding options Explore Rebuild Gainesville model Florida Housing Coalition Senior Technical Advisor Repeal the cap; Homestead portability Standardized rehabilitation guidelines Trained staff that can tell when a change order is legitimate Perhaps a certification program for rehabilitation inspectors Alachua County Housing Programs Manager Centralized application and bidding processes among providers Case management Neighborhood Housing & Development Corp.s Director of Housing Development Raise the award limits Re-use building components and materials in good condition Adapt the building codes to allow more rehabilitation to be done Alachua County Housing Authority Director of Development More financing Central agency for rehabilitation-too much redundancy Rehabilitation needs to be a priority; team with codes inspectors to identify properties 96 Comments provided by interviewees and, althoug h edited for brevity, are in their own words.

PAGE 97

APPENDIX A CURRENT BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION DISCUSSED IN THE LITERATRUE Financing is pervasive and inter-related with other barriers; economic factors are the single biggest barrier to afford able housing rehabilitation. The problems inherent in developing and securing financing are at th e heart of barriers to rehabilitation. Once financing has been obtained, the following barriers may arise. Barriers encountered when prepar ing property for rehabilitation: acquiring property insuring property land use restrictions estimating costs Barriers encountered during th e rehabilitation process: building codes Minimum Housing Standards lead and asbestos regulations radon testing energy conservation requirements disabled access federal and union wage requirements Miscellaneous: property tax increases skilled labor shortages Compiled from Listokin and Listokin (2001a, 2001b). 97

PAGE 98

APPENDIX B AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAMS IN ALACHUA COUNTY The programs that fund single family owner-occ upied affordable housing rehabilitation in Alachua County are briefly described below. Th e following list is a compilation of applicable programs from Alachua County Housing Programs Division, the City of Gainesville Housing Division, the Neighborhood Housi ng Development Corporation (NHDC), the Alachua County Housing Authority, and a for-profit affordable housing developer and rehabilitation provider: The Down Payment with Construction/Reh abilitation Assistance program provides $25,000, $20,000 or $5,000 in assistance for very-low, low or moderate income households, respectively, that have been appr oved for a mortgage through a private lender. The assistance amount includes down payment a ssistance and cost of rehabilitation for existing homes and is available to residents outside the City of Gainesville. The Single Family Housing Development program provides a maximum of $40,000 in assistance for rehabilitation and for affordable housing strategies such as new construction and acquisition of land for construction. Elig ible households apply for and receive funding through local agencies, such as the Alachua County Housing Author ity, or through local nonprofit organizations, such as the Neighbor hood Housing Development Corporation. This program is available to residents outside the City. The Emergency Roof Repair program provi des $15,000 in rehabilitation assistance for repair of leaking roofs for eligible homes in th e City; this program is strictly limited to roof repair and is available to residents of the City. The Minor Rehabilitation program, with a ma ximum of $30,000 in assistance, addresses health and safety concerns within a home and is not intended for substantial rehabilitation. This program is available to residents of the City. The Major Rehabilitation program, with a maximum of $50,000 in assistance, provides funding for serious health and safety issues within a home and is intended for substantial rehabilitation. This program is av ailable to residents of the City. The Home Improvement Loan is an NHD C program that provides up to $15,000 in funding for essential rehabilitati on and is available to reside nts of both the City and the County; a local for-profit affo rdable housing developer and rehabilitation provider also processes these loans. The Alachua County Home Repair program is an NHDC program that provides up to $25,000 in assistance targeted to households with disabled family members and is available to residents of the County. 98

PAGE 99

APPENDIX C AFFORDABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS IN ALACHUA COUNTY The following local government agencies and nonand for-profit organizations employ the individuals interviewed for the local case study: The Alachua County Housing Authority is a quasi-governmental housing agency that administers and provides a variety of progr ams in the County, in cluding public housing and affordable housing rehabilitation; the Executive Director a nd the Director of Development were interviewed. The Alachua County Housing Programs Division administers the housing programs for the County and selects other agencies and organizations to receive SHIP and CDBG funding for programs such as Single Family Housing Development; the Housing Programs Manager and SHIP Coordi nator were interviewed. The City of Gainesville Block Grant Division administers the Citys federal block grants and selects other agencies and organizatio ns to receive block grant funding for rehabilitation projects; the Bloc k Grant Manager was interviewed. The Florida Housing Coalition provides t echnical support and training on affordable housing and rehabilitation to local government s and organizations through Florida; one of the Coalitions Senior Technica l Advisors was interviewed. The for-profit affordable housing developer a nd rehabilitation provider utilizes CDBG and SHIP funding to rehabilitate homes in localit ies across Florida; the Vice President of the organization was interviewed. The Neighborhood Housing Development Corpor ation is a nonprofit organization that utilizes CDBG funding to provide affordable housing and rehabilitatio n; the Director of Housing Development was interviewed. 99

PAGE 100

APPENDIX D INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Subject: Barriers to affordable housing rehabilita tion that exist at the na tional and local levels. Name of Participant: Agency or Organization: 1. How long have you been involved with the pr ovision of affordable housing or affordable housing rehabilitation? How long in Florida? In Alachua County? 2. What are the various capacitie s in which youve enabled the pr ovision of affordable housing? 3. What funding sources does your agency or organization rely on (federal block grants, Floridas State Housing Initiati ves Partnership Program, other)? 4. What are the problems you have encount ered, or your agency or organization has encountered, in the provision of a ffordable housing rehabilitation? 5. Do you think these problems can be differentiated based on whether they recur regularly or just intermittently? In other words, are problems embedded in the processes for delivering affordable housing rehabilitation, or do most projects encounter different barriers? 6. Of the problems that occur regularly, if a ny, can a distinction be made between financing problems and other problems? 7. To what extent is financing a barrier? 8. Do barriers to the provision of affordable housing exist primarily in the administrative, oversight, or delivery processes? For exam ple, can it be said that barriers are encountered mainly in administration, or ar e most of the barriers encountered when actually at a site r eceiving affordable housing rehabilitation? 9. Much of the published material concerning barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation discusses regulatory barriers, particularly bu ilding codes. Have bu ilding codes, or any other regulatory barrier, been a recurring pr oblem for the provision of affordable housing rehabilitation? 10. Compared with regulatory barriers, how much of a barrier are other problems associated with the provision of affordable housing rehabilitation? 11. How relevant is the published material concerning barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation in your day-to-day activities? 100

PAGE 101

12. How have you or how has your agency or or ganization overcome barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation? Are thes e local efforts different from what has been tried in other areas? 13. What would be the most effective and rea listic solutions to the provision of affordable housing rehabilitation here in Alachua County? 14. Why do you think these solutions have not been put into place? 15. What should be the focus of material publishe d in the future, as it concerns barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation? 16. What are the barriers to affo rdable housing rehabilitation that have not been covered in this interview? 17. Do you have any additional thoughts concerning barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation? 101

PAGE 102

LIST OF REFERENCES Affordable Housing St udy Commission. (2007). Final report 2007. Tallahassee, FL: Affordable Housing Study Commission. Alachua County. (2003). Alachua County affordable housing study Gainesville, FL: Alachua County. Anderson, M. (1964). The federal bulldozer: A critic al analysis of urban renewal. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Urban Studies. Bogdon, A.S. (1999). What can we learn from previous housing-based self-sufficiency programs? In S. Newman (Ed.), The home front: Implications of welfare reform for housing policy (pp. 149-174). Washington, D.C. : Urban Institute Press. Brooks, M.E. (1997). Housing trust funds: A ne w approach to funding affordable housing. In W. Van Vliet (Ed.), Affordable housing and urban redeve lopment in the United States (pp. 229-245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Brooks, M.E. (2007). Housing trust fund progress report 2007 Frazier Park, CA: Center for Community Change. Crete, R. (1977). Housing, politics and the Housing Act of 1949 Unpublished masters thesis, University of Florida. Dommel, P.R., Bach, V.E., Li ebschutz, S.F., & Rubinowitz, L.S. (1983). Housing rehabilitation. In D. Listokin (Ed.), Housing rehabilitation: Economic, social and policy perspectives (pp. 68-72). Rutgers, NJ: Cent er for Urban Policy Research. Duda, M. (2001). Federally sponsored rehabilitation activity Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Joint Center for Housing Studies. Florida Housing Coalition. (2005). State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program: SHIP program manual Tallahassee, FL: Florida Housing Coalition. Florida Housing Finance Corporation. (n.d.). Florida housings affordable housing programs Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.floridahousing.org/NR/r donlyres/419C3DE6-2F66-4A20-A1B9DD7969034D03/0/FHFCHousingPrograms.pdf Florida Housing Finance Corporation. (n.d.). William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.floridahousing.org Florida Housing Finance Corporation. (2006). State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Retrieved August 25, 2007, from www.floridahousing.org/Home/Housi ngPartners/LocalGovernments/ 102

PAGE 103

Florida Housing Finance Corporation. (2007). About us Retrieved February 16, 2008, from www.floridahousing.org/Home/AboutUs/default.htm Ford Foundation. (1989). Affordable housing: The years ahead New York: Ford Foundation. Foundation Center. (2008). Grantmaker stats table index Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://foundationcenter.org/fi ndfunders/statistics/listing01.html Goetz, E.G. (1993). Shelter burden: Local politic s and progressive housing policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Hattis, D.B., Koffel, W.E., & Green, M. (1997). Nationally Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions (NARRP). Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://www.huduser.org/publicati ons/destech/narrp/ch2_narrp.html Heinberg, J.D. (1983). The evolution of rehabi litation as public policy. In D. Listokin (Ed.), Housing rehabilitation: Economic social and policy perspectives (pp. 63-67). Rutgers, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. Housing Assistance Council. (1991). A guide to housing and community development programs for small towns and rural areas Washington, D.C.: Housing Assistance Council. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities New York: Random House. Listokin, D. (1991). Federal housing policy and pr eservation: Historical evolution, patterns, and implications. Housing Policy Debate 2(2), 157-185. Listokin, D. (2005). Best practices for effecting the rehabilitation of affordable housing, Volume II: Technical analyses and case studies Washington, D.C.: Department of Housing and Urban Development. Listokin, D., & Crossney, K. (2005). Best practices for effecting th e rehabilitation of affordable housing, Volume I: Framework and findings Washington, D.C.: Department of Housing and Urban Development. Listokin, D., & Listok in, B. (2001a). Barriers to the rehabilita tion of affordable housing, Volume I: Findings and analysis Washington, D.C.: Department of Housing and Urban Development. Listokin, D., & Listok in, B. (2001b). Barriers to the rehabilita tion of affordable housing, Volume II: Case studies Washington, D.C.: Depart ment of Housing and Urban Development. Moskowitz, H.S., & Lindbloom, C.G. (1993). The new illustrated book of development definitions Rutgers, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. 103

PAGE 104

Nash, W. (1959). Residential rehabilitation: Priv ate profits and public purposes New York: McGraw-Hill. Nenno, M.K. (1997). Changes and challenges in a ffordable housing and urban development. In W. Van Vliet (Ed.), Affordable housing and urban redeve lopment in the United States (pp. 1-21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Newman, S.J. (1999). Introduction a nd overview. In S. Newman (Ed.), The Home Front: Implications of Welfare Reform for Housing Policy (pp. 1-28). Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. Newman, S.J. (1999). Preface and acknow ledgements. In S. Newman (Ed.), The Home Front: Implications of Welfare Reform for Housing Policy (pp. ix-x). Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. Newman, S.J., & Schnare, A.B. (1992). Beyond bricks and mortar: Reexamining the purpose and effects of housing assistance Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. Rusciolelli, E. (2008). The affordable housi ng advisory committees make a comeback: SHIP administrators, are you ready? Housing News Network 24(2), 24-27. Schwartz, A.F. (2006). Housing policy in the United States: An introduction New York: Routledge. Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing. (n.d.). Alachua County, Florida Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu/a/pr ofiles?action=results&nid=100#afford_housing _need State of Florida. (2007). The 2007 Florida Statutes: Chapter 420 Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm? State of Florida. (2008). Florida Administrative Code: Rule 67-37, State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program Retrieved March 22, 2008, from https://www.flrules.org/gateway/chapterhome.asp?chapter=67-37 Stegman, M.A. (1999). State and local affordable housi ng programs: A rich tapestry Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute. Stegman, M.A., & Holden, J.D. (1987). Nonfederal housing progr ams: How states and localities are responding to federa l cutbacks in low-income housing (Rev. ed.). Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute. Sternlieb, G., & Burchell, R. (1973). Residential abandonment: The tenement landlord revisited New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. 104

PAGE 105

105 United States Census Bureau. (2007). American housing survey 2005 (Table 2-4) Retrieved November 21, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs05/tab1a1.html United States Census Bureau. (2008). State & county quickfacts: Alachua County, Florida Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://quickfacts.census .gov/qfd/states/12/12001.html United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1991). Not in my back yard: Removing barriers to affordable housing Washington, D.C.: Department of Housing and Urban Development. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2006). Programs of HUD: Major grant, assistance, and regulatory programs Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2007). Guidelines for preparing consolidated plan Retrieved March 22, 2008, from http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/c onplan/toolsandguidance/guidance/ United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2007). Use of CDBG funds by all grantees Retrieved March 22, 2008, from http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydeve lopment/budget/disbursementreports/pro files/National_Expenditure_FY07.xls Weeks, K.D., & Grimmer, A.E. (1995). The Secretary of the Interiors standards for the treatment of historic properti es with guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring & reconstructing historic buildings. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior. Wright, R.O. (2007). Chronology of housing in the United States Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

PAGE 106

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mark Ludlow resides in Gainesville, Alac hua County, Floridath e study area for this thesis. He spent his early years in Mississippi and enjoyed vaca tions in Gainesville and Miami, Florida, visiting family. After working in the co nstruction and utility indus tries, Mark returned to college and earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in anthropol ogy. He continued his education and in May 2008 graduated with his Master of Arts degree in urban and regional planning. Mark is concentrating on housing and community development. His background in anthropology brings a necessary perspective to planning and its impact on people by providing a peopleand a culture-oriented fr amework for viewing problems. He is interested in the intersection of anthropology and urban planning and what it has to offer in the areas of policy and policy implementation. Ultimately, Mark w ould like to focus on liveable communities and how they can be built in differe nt regions of Florida and the na tion, with their varying cultures that see community in different ways. He an ticipates that his professional experiences will enable him to contribute to the prac tice of urban and regional planning. In addition to his academic pursuits, Mark enjoys spending time with his wife, two daughters, and son-in-law. His interests include baseball, Worl d War II airplanes, fishing, and traveling. He also looks forward to participating in local archeology digs. 106