infrastructure needs, and government funding. good after noon. it's great to join us about what they are docking to tackle the housing shortage.

this also includes the housing initiative. the event today includes two timely discussions. for the first hour, we are talking too two leading policymakers from two different states with the same problem. a significant shortage of housing. we'll explore what they are learn from one another and how they can be applied for the second part of the conversation. the ceo will interview governor tina kotex from oregon. they are straightening public safety, improve regulations and treat substance usage disorders. it's an important role to solve critical, social, economic, and

environmental challenges. also a terrific partner who works closely with governor and their team to come up with bipartisan solutions. critical importance. housing affordability. it's essential to the health and well-being of so many americans. for too many families it's out of reach. the foremost issue is approximate mal ly 4 million units. they pegged the shortfall. this is a significant challenge we continue to face. half of the renters spend 30% of more of their income on rent. for many of you living in d.c. we feel that everyday.

homelessness where rents are rising including places like montana. there are initial steps states are taking to contain rent, make buying home a reality, and reduce homelessness. in a growing number of states they look to the solutions and pass laws to enable more homes. to kick us off i'll ask the team to lead a discussion with two guests. ruth ann, the commissioner and ceo of new york state homes and christopher, montana's director of environmental quality. please join me in welcoming the commissioner to the director and travis for the next panel. >> thank you and welcome commissioner and director. i'd like to thank both of you

from traveling to washington d.c. to discuss what your states are doing to grapple with the housing crisis that was mentioned. i'd like to welcome the 400 people registered for this event. some here in the offices and d.c. and many are online. the participants are pretty wide ranging. we have state legislature. regulator staff and many housing experts and advocates. the centerpiece of the efforts montana has enacted a set of policies left to locality. counties, cities, unincorporated areas. that's land usage planning and zoning. statewide, zoning efforts have

grown since 2019 when oregon was the first state to put so-called middle housing bill on the books. this deals with smaller more affordable units like accessory dwelling units that might be an apartment standing on the land of a single family home or duplex or basement apartment. six permit duplexes on most residential lots. a dozen consider proposal to sanction similar lower cost form housing that have been stopped by the local panels. so, the focus of this discussion is to dig in with two experts from different states on the problems they are facing, the reasons they are recommending these problems and evidence

based solutions they are proposing. just to make it interesting, it's ward to identify two states that are more dissimilar than montana and new york. there are similarities. when it comes to geography, race and ethnicity. yet, i have been struck by the similarityover the proposals coming out of both states and not the differences, under the leadership of montana's governor and director dorington leads. they recommended proposals enacted tabi the state legislature. it's a sweeping set of proposals and very similar. not identical but similar to the

specifics of proposals that the commissioner, which chief architect for new york governor kathy holkel. i'd like to dig in for 45 minutes director, let's start off with a question i'll ask both of you. kick us off. if you could just set the scene for people. talk about what the problems have been in your state. what the evidence based solutions that you landed on that your task force landed on. what is the underline reason that you decided to go this right. >> thank you for the invite to be here.

the governor drafted an executive order to put together a set of recommendations. not just for the legislature but to consider and implement changes. let's go back a little bit. let's look at the start of the housing problem. it's been a decade in the works however, what we saw through covid-19 is people didn't want to live-in an urban area. they could work remotely. it's been a guessive growth pattern. they need a provision for housing and those forced to live there are forced to pay a higher rate. availability is un3%.

this is history cool trend. also unsustainable those trying to attract in the work force. with the executive order they were at a 27 panel. one was bipartisan. two is multistake and three multigeographic. with the assembly of the group, we set an aggressive three month schedule. we delivered our first report that was recommendations for the legislature to consider we are going into the 23 section. far in advanced to if you meanly die just. the second report was new and

completed i easement the director of the deq. people were upset we were a barrier. this is a significant barrier. alliance for the planning of housing. we got better in that very short period of time. >> all of the regulations maked in a variety of states and fully blocking housing. >> absolutely. we made a sixers of recommendations. the approach we took at the

beginning. i have the solution and almost no one does. they don't listen to the other party and housing i said, this is how we'll do this. we broke into groups. work force and construction, financing and other we'll first fully identify the challenges allow for the defendant among 27 members for a variety of states. there is 100% or so.

while i agree, housing is not the issue. what we allowed is for people to disagree with a set of recommendations and solution that say, while the report is published we have a housing issue. that's not my favorite. we gained consensus that was just a relief. okay, great, i don't have to agree with everything chris said. it's a requirement. we had communities that had

disaster struck. you couldn't put a multifamily housing unit back in it's place. we allowed for and planned for an investment of 20300 level. to buy down margin that would be spent. buy down using infrastructure and investment the proinvitation of inbe fa structure treatedment lines and extensions. this is making great margins. a provision and mandate for growth policies. they had a basket of options.

they completed growth policy. we allowed for adus and multifamily. reduced the lot size and setback requirements and parking requirements. you reduce the cost. >> this is the state saying we are not placing parking requirements, lot size requirements on you. that's not to say you might not do it any way. >> uh-huh, absolutely. >> okay. >> commissioner, new york state has the legislature talked about your proposal last year. you all are still working it through.

tell us the major factors and problems that need to be addressed. >> sure, thank you for having m. our governor spent years going around the state and hearing so many places about housing affordability. there was a lot of houses but no job becoming governor and what can we do about this. telling me what you need to do. it is a the housing agency in new york. proposal through the session last year. we didn't arrive at the crisis today.

we have really high rent growth and house price appreciate. we are creating jobs and data was baseline. we created 1.2 million jobs and over 100,000 units of housing. we expect them to create dozens of housing and different organizes that looked at what we need for the next decade to accommodate growth. we need to double from the 400 thousands units of housing growth. holy cow, how do we do that. there is a towards of policy elements in it. one of the big ones is how the growth target at the municipal level.

over 1500 units in the state of new york. maybe in long island. they have zoning control. you can legalize accessory unit. by the train station you can do that. you have to grow and have options for young people that want to come back to the town they grew up in. we will recognize quire you to grow and put in a penalty mechanism. we didn't come up with a lot of ideas on our own. we looked at places doing these

things, some for a long time and others more recently. we pulled from those they said don't do an incentive based system. they had consequences for expedited per wanting for localities that didn't grow. that's the other pieces that we are bringing back to legislature this year from around what's in the nationality conversation around they drive production in the market rate. that's what we were talking about last year and portions of it this year too. >> thank you, i'll turn to you to talk now about reaction. locality, as i mentioned traditional zoning within their control. getting reaction from them and

the many stakeholder groups tenant groups and landlords. this will go to the director as well. if you had to look at the three biggest lessons in terms of talking to the public about this set of challenges and building support and dealing with opposition, what would you think? >> no one looks change. if you like it it's somewhere else. they have always and will be. we try to do a few things. one we used a lot of data. yes the government made up what should have happened. i think, nationally, people

would agree on the problem. we are at a point now and crisis level where this nationally people talk about the pressures for low income families and middle income families and being able to stay stably housed. we agree on the problem which is part of step one. getting to agree on the solution is partially rooting the conversation in data. we psyched a lot of data. research about the growth which have more growth around new york city. we get to talk about that and the way it 'reflected. data is great. showing people what we are

talking about. you certainly in towns and villages all over outside new york city people might shutter. you go to great places and the towns out of long island that rezoned they are super lively downtown. hard to get a reservation. this is a cool place to live. this is driven by the fact they have three and 4 story buildings showing people what it is we are talking about. we get wordy in government and have 7,000 acronyms for what we are doing. it's not that. go to this place and see what it looks like and that helps sell the conversation a bit to take some of the fear away of what we are talking about. i was going to give this

example. in talking about the units, we had people say, oh, how many cars will there be if you put the dwelling unit in your yard. how many are there now. people can have one or four cars. why we have to go immediately from, you know, an attic apartment or apartment over a garage. traffic over cars. >> not to mention public transit. in new york state it's pretty decent. >> they go to a town that allow the units. it doesn't look that different from the town that doesn't allow them. so, i think our key lessons are showing people what it means and rooting our conversation and data. understanding people are afraid of change and don't give up. >> you mentioned the s-word. i'll have to ask you about it

since you are well-positioned to talk about it. suburb. growth has been limited in new york suburbs and this is a pattern we see around the country. there is generated support and opposition. bipartisan in a lot of the country. what's the unique concerns and solutions are in terms of i'd say a couple of things, one for some places it's a bit of grow for your oar own success. so many young people would not to live there and work in the health field or tech field. they don't want to commute and can't afford anything through the market.

i think the suburbs are slowly starting to absorb if they want to grow the next generation they need to provide some of that. the other way to talk about this topic is infrastructure, we have invested a lot of infrastructure, water and suer, roads, schools whatever the issue might be. we'll continue to do that. we don't want infrastructure to be a barrier. we also know there needs to be more infrastructure to make sure they can handle growth and can't always pay for it themselves. with this we are more successful. thank you. i was struck by the fact that in montana, you were able to get your city mayors, for the most part, environmental groups, your conservative think tanks on the same page when it came to the approaches that have been e.

what would you say in terms of how you accomplished that. what would they be? >> one of the key wins at the beginning was to identify what we weren't going to do. through definitions, housing can take on so many different terms or groups or solution sets. we chose the work force housing because it started the economic dialog. those are challenging. we know this will trickle through and filter and ultimately, the market will respond and provide a better price point. so, i illustrated this through another example we had a natural disaster and snow event washed

out and multiple communities were impacted. housing was seriously harmed. >> uh-huh. >> during the event, they said you are a housing guy. why not help with this emergency housing provision. thanks but no because it's a different issue. saying no helped us focus on adding supply where we need it and not within every definition of every solution that's a problem. >> be aggressive with the timeline. there is no way we'll solve this problem. in four months we will have no solutions. respectfully, i disagreed. we set an aggressive pace to provide solutions and we haven't solved our housing problems. you provide incremental housing

units. gathering bipartisan support. they remain aggressive. i'm saying also to those folks. spread the message and ask and solicit. you aren't the soul voice. go with the community and association. talk to other builders. you are not the sole voice to provide input. >> excellent. let's follow up for both of you. new voices, have you seen in this current wave of discussion about statewide zoning reform. have you seen stakeholders come to the tablet or identified communities and voices that should be heard more than they are being now?

so, we'll go backwards if you could, answer that. i'll get to the commissioner. >> i'd say, within the high growth communities the voices are loud. there are stories. it's that simple. within the community you have a housing need. it might be of lower scale. scale doesn't matter. >> three families it can be a major deal. >> it can alter the community. we are seeing double the approach in the county you can see high single digit loss in rural community. if you don't address some of that, especially as they are distant from existence and labor

source. the focus i believe. the rural communities. >> yeah, i'd say for us, the kind of yimby community has grown a lot. when they are shot down they are turned down by people who have access to the community. those who would move into that. not exclusively. they are priced out. >> i'd like that opportunity. planning board and have a vote. i'd certainly be supportive. we see that across. it happened in new york city becauseover the land usage process. throughout the state there are. there is a lot of environmental

stuff that prevent housing from getting built and taking years to get there. for us, certainly, i think sort of extension of the yimby community topic by topic helped bring more people into the conversation to talk about access to housing. i think there has been sort of the systemic racism that exists in the new york city and new york statehousing ecosystem. also has gotten a much bigger voice and people talking about access to well resource areas and not allowing the suburbs to continue what effect tiffly impacting the redlining. if you have a voucher. it's still brokers that are ramp

peed they had not the been in the pro housing pro development conversation. that's helping us and giving us wind and broadening the conversation. we have a great new bill called yes in god's backyard. coming up in many states. . . . bringing -- >> it is coming up many states. we have long had church

redevelopment and the rest of the state. powerful engines for development this will give them more tools. >> a lot of religious institutions tend to be house rich, if you will. they have facilities, the cash poor. this helps them sustain themselves as well.

what has been the broad discussion about tennis needs on zona jim land-use planning. >> we have a very strong campaign in new york city. by extension i think a little bit of new york state. kind of hand in hand with the supply conversation. we have a little bit of context in new york city. we have 3 million housing units about a million of them are home ownership about 1 million are unregulated rental units in 1 million are regulated rental units. we have very heavy regulated and protects a lot of low income people. there is still a large amount that is unregulated. people are not generally looking at market rate luxury towers,

they are looking at smaller three-10 related units or even basement apartments are owner occupied three unit buildings. there is a real desire as we talk about supply from the tenant advocacy side to increase the protections in new york city and in new york state. i think for us that is part of the conversation. trying to make very clear that supply is our number one path to success and we need people to stay focused on that. not tenant protections and no supply or we will just continue to be a crisis level in new york city. >> now we are getting to the lightning round of questions. audience questions are coming soon. get ready, folks. i will throw two items on the table and you can respond to both. i mentioned environmental

regulations. commissioner, this is something for this session. i am interested in how, in your views on whether and how regulations are being used in the housing context to block housing or whether they are being used for legitimate environmental purposes for the most part or if it is a mix. the director mentioned rural needs in montana. manufactured housing is now being considered and has been for many years. an important source of low-cost housing. at first in rural areas and increasingly now in suburbs and urban areas. maybe you could talk on main —-dash touch on manufacturing and how it could help in rural areas as well.

>> it is amazing what a definition will create. within statute, manufacturing homes receive both a social stigma, but also a provision for being on a concrete foundation in the financing that comes from that. a simple fix allowing for manufactured homes on a permanent foundation, that being considered a home for both financing and permitting is a big deal. i think we will see that for our session. on the environmental front -- >> i think he might have something to say. >> it goes back to what i said earlier. what we are trying to limit is creating long-term problems that have not been maintained well which historically they are not.

the emphasis on density providing us in improved environmental footprint as well. communities that are well-versed and well staffed in order to provide water treatment and provision for the community that they served whereas if you are incentivizing sprawl and that donate area, this fringe area is such a complex area where you have city governments that don't get along and suddenly the state is saying you should really consider. that is a tough policy position to be in. we believe density is a good solution and a good step forward >> i would say, you know, similarly, environmental regulations are good. we want to protect our watershed they have been used increasingly in recent years two by nature.

i think we have seen over and over again. we sort of wonder why we are a couple hundred thousand units short of housing if it is taking them three-five years. we will be coming back again and looking at ways, i think the state will follow right behind it. still protecting the things we want to protect. i think that we will get there. definitely a place right now that we see. weaponization of the process to stop development. i think i manufactured houses.

we have about 1800 of them. really they are all over the state and we have about 80,000 or 100,000 units across all those parks. we invest a lot to make sure they are getting septic systems and getting off lesser systems, roads and making sure the infrastructure is there. we have grant programs for people, as many people have seen , very old stock in those locations. but also in conjunction with that, as many people know, if you are on this land you are getting a loan, not a mortgage. >> shorter-term for personal property, higher rates specifically. >> like putting your house on your credit card.

we have made some changes in new york state where we will now through our mortgage agency provide loans on leased lands at a more favorable rate to try to get some capital flowing so people can have access to credit as a go to replace their homes. we've also worked with nonprofits to buy manufactured home parks. there has been a lot of long-term family ownership. there have been corporate owners and some of that has gone not so great in many places across the country. working with our table of for-profits. we want you to buy a mobile home park. you want us to do what? we are trying to shift some of the landscape to make sure that rent stays stable. as those parts do come for sale residents could potentially buy it or work with the nonprofit to buy it. we have a lot of strategies to keep it the lowest cost of home

ownership and housing in new york state. keep it there, keep it habitable make it more accessible we will continue to do that. >> okay. i will now see gabe with our team could tell us what kind of questions we are getting virtually. >> this is a question for the director. any early signs of the policy changes are having an impact in the market? >> great question. good results so far. our two most urban communities, we have seen rental rates dropped by 20%. we have seen rental availabilities a palpable feeling within those urban areas where there is housing where there is a cycle and trickle. >> for those of you who do not live and breathe vacancy rates, it may seemed like a small

difference. >> it is incredible. >> other questions, gabe. cannot hear you. >> regional efforts are multistate state efforts to advance consistency around state regulations. to more readily enable prefabricated supply of housing. >> anybody want to jump in on that? >> serving at the state level adding regulations on manufactured home parks. we have many of the manufacturers in the home state that would not be able to be rebuilt under current zoning in those towns. we spent a lot of time

preserving what we have to make sure it is affordable. i don't know if we sort of looked at these regulations. >> i don't know either. the lease provision and the provision for financing, that is the same challenge we are facing as well. >> the premise of the question, more uniformity. citing prefab or manufactured housing or encouraging its production. >> yes. the challenge is when you say no to some things that you are not good at. i would say, the promise, and i believe, i read an article in the last month where there are large manufacturing facilities where we can develop housing, you have not figured this out. two of those big companies have

gone under so i think it is more challenging than people give credit. >> i have to say in fact the joint senior for housing has published, is publishing several papers on manufactured housing. manufacturing component if you are truly going to increase housing, a viable source of affordable housing. that will have to be figured out >> i cannot speak to this well, but i know we are affected by the building codes. manufactured homes and building codes even production of homes within a factory type home is a widget type thing. they will be a challenge. >> okay. any in-person questions?

anybody want to stand up old school or take the hand delivered mike? >> yes. hello. you had mentioned earlier —-dash >> would you mind introducing yourself? >> cofounder of northern virginia just across the river. much appreciated. you had mentioned this earlier. i like answers from both of you about consensus. also how environmental concerns are often weapon eyes against good process. how have you cap the desire for a consensus from being weapon iced against good outcomes? arlington county, for example, really big on consensus. that is kept us in the past from accomplishing a lot more than we could have geared how have you addressed that in your states or efforts? >> predominantly, to ask is the

state being heavy-handed? telling local governments to have a growth policy. >> i would say we are. heavy-handed, probably not. you come together in the housing task force. you are gathering input. i would say to anyone saying are you being heavy headed what or how to do something. tell me you don't have a housing problem. this is an increment and how to gather input and provide solutions and increase supply. i think it will play out well. a public engagement process within the growth planning policy within the growth policy area as a precursor then disallowing individual requiring individual elements to go

through a public engagement process. everyone come to the table and agree in this area we have housing. it is what our infrastructure will look like. that some of input, the active engagement, the true listening will result in improved efficiency with a housing project that fits the policy comes through and does not have to go to a commission. >> the housing compact in the early part of it we came into the governor's office with 20 different things and thought we would come out with a subset of those. we were like this is like a menu , not like a buffet. the benefit of doubt was we went out and we end up with a really comprehensive package. the benefit of that is we put on the table the framework and here

is 15 different tools we need to know one single thing that will get us what we need in terms of housing. i think it has allowed us to come back and say more consensus on some of these things. let's move forward with those. not everyone loves them, but i think we have agreed that there are some that are more obvious and more must deal. if we continue to do nothing it really reflects back on the legislative body that represents the people so i think that it has helped us get some more consensus by having a range of tools and being okay with incremental change. getting a subset of those tools and go back the year after the year after and adding more things. >> it is as we are observing how states are moving. you are kind of exceptional and that. one fell through.

pulled this task force together and boom. what seems to be happening in most states that are confronting these issues, it is more step-by-step. true in california and many other states. other questions from the audience. >> how are your states tackling homelessness? policy challenges. our sros part of the mix with the solution? it shows something these two will not be surprised about. there is connection between prices and homelessness. rents in particular. >> so, what are the obvious problems and very visible problems. as you need to develop and build

homes we are importing a workforce that needs a home. what we have seen a montana is living on the street right next to their product. it adds challenges. just the homelessness challenges that the socioeconomic condition has. we have asked for communities to take it on a community basis. here is our policy. there is a move requirement within weeks and days. they patrolled out lightly. they allow a lot of officer by officer discretion so those who understand the bigger issue.

with that as well, there is a concerted effort to provide for the services that they need. food and short-term shelter and that transition. what we would like to do is increase supply so entry-level homes can enter and we can triple out. >> thank you. >> we have a right to shelter in new york city. occupying the city has two flex throughout the year. as you all have written about our costs, our house prices and homelessness, we are feeding you data for your research.

but, for sure, you know, homelessness is complex. there are a lot of folks that are completely priced out and in the system because of that. i've seen a lot of people in the homeless system that have mental health needs. huge investments in both of those to make sure we are getting housing between new york city and new york state probably almost a billion dollars of capital a year going into the creation of affordable housing and a huge emphasis for sort of the whole spectrum of different people that need it. the mental health system, they are not together today as they were a decade ago. it is all very much linked together. we definitely will not get out

of our homeless crisis really statewide. >> i cannot say that over and over enough. >> supply. >> yes. >> caitlin harris walker, this is for the commissioner. the white house put out there blueprint for tenant protections earlier you mentioned tenant protections, rent control is the other flipside of that new york city kind of being a poster child for that. curious how you are looking at the two of those, what is working, what is not especially on the protection sides when there is a disconnect from the lenders to the property owners and tenants. >> a million parts covered by rent debilitation.

the localities can now opt into rent stabilization if they have a 5% or less vacancy rate in their locality. we just had a vacancy study done in new york city that came out last week. 1.4 vacancy rate which is shocking and stressful. over 50 years. >> let me just repeat. you said the state. >> the vacancy rate in new york city. >> i was about to have a heart attack. >> it is 5% to 8%. we have been sub five forever. the last time they did the study was a little around four. now with 1.4. if you break it down even further, the vacancy rate is less than $2500 a month. $2500 is a voucher payment in the city of new york. it is about functional zero. we have people with vouchers on the street that cannot find

vouchers to rent because there aren't any vacant ones. on the rent stabilization side we have a robust rent stabilization system. we make this twice a year. we make it in the budget. that is where consensus comes together in one big budget which is a policy statement for the governor and the legislature. our session in june. the two times of year we get earth quaking change. i think that we will be working through the tenant production side as we go through both of those processes. >> hi. first it may have been a manufactured housing conversation. in the very near future it is

around manufacturing housing finance both on the individual level for our title i channel or personal property finance program as well as the community level with new resources to help preserve existing communities. they would welcome any feedback for folks in the room. if you look at what is happened in california at the state level where they have tried some approaches under sb nine and playing workable with the way the communities have with those provisions, you know, how do you all think that you would look back at the recent changes that you made and measure the success and your cases you embark hopefully on a new set of changes what do you think success looks like. >> great question. >> i would say looking back at success the success measure will be twofold. the increase of supply and the

availability and pricing changes and two will be a reduction in complete spirit i mean that. in all sincerity. people that need homes tend to be become vocal and rightfully so. i think as we provide for their basic need, i think that that will be a palpable change and one in which we take really seriously. >> i would say we want to be your study. with the big increase in permits over the next three-five years, we see a reduction in the increase in rent in the increase in home prices that are born out of other places that i've done. we've done it very much in new york city and really sort of statewide. it's not just a new york issue. we want to do your case study for success. >> we would like to do it. >> absolutely. >> join me in thanking our wonderful panelist.

[applause] our next guest will be state.

he also talks about education funding, homelessness, tax reform and infrastructure investment. >> welcome to the 2024-2025 budget presentation. very familiar for all of you that have beener