First, the bad news. In the next decade, upwards of 20 percent of all federally subsidized housing in Philly could easily disappear. That’s according to a report published in November by the Penn Housing Initiative, which also suggested the impact could be dire for an already distressed housing sector.

       Listen to the audio edition here:

Properties don’t suddenly go poof — so how, exactly, would they disappear?

It’s a product of the way most affordable housing gets made these days. In Philly, like in most of the country, there is far more privately-owned affordable housing than government-owned housing. (That ratio is roughly 3:1 in our city.) The former is created through federal tax breaks and subsidies which are awarded to landlords. In exchange, they agree to keep rental prices below the market rate for a set period of time. However, when those restrictions expire, typically after decades, the property owners are free to sell, redevelop, or hike the rent.

“We’re going to need every tool in the toolbox for this case, because the portfolio is so large.” — Angela Brooks, City of Philadelphia

And that is how affordable housing vanishes, more often than not. The scenario takes place all over the city — and while it’s both legal and common for landlords to cash in, some situations end up controversially displacing residents. For example, the years-long saga of the University City Townhomes, which, in 2023, concluded with the eviction of 70 households from their longtime rental units.

Now the good news: Not every landlord seeks to boot low-income tenants immediately after a federal contract expires.

Jim Levin is one of them — for now, anyway. Since 1989, Levin and his business partners have been buying up vacant and abandoned rowhouses before turning them into affordable rentals with the support of federal housing credits. Today, those homes are part of Neighborhood Restorations, a sprawling portfolio of 925 affordable rental units in West and Southwest Philly scattered across multiple neighborhoods. Nearly one-quarter of Levin’s properties (most of them single-family homes) are no longer bound by federal restrictions, but he’s chosen to maintain their affordability in hopes of finding a buyer willing to do the same.

“We would like to keep the properties affordable,” Levin told tenants in a February email, following multiple news reports of his impending retirement and intent to transfer ownership of Neighborhood Restorations. (When reached by The Citizen in September, Levin declined to comment.) He also acknowledged, in that same email, a great deal of uncertainty: “We have no idea how this will resolve.”

However, as more and more restrictions on Levin’s properties expire — another 700-plus units will come out of federal compliance in the next dozen years — the prospect of an even more-costly version of the UC Townhomes saga, a political blunder that could easily have been avoided and resulted in no parties involved feeling satisfied, most of all the evicted residents, grows increasingly likely.

For the roughly 3,000 tenants in Levin’s homes, many of whom have spent decades there, the stakes are deeply personal. In fact, some of those residents and housing advocates held a protest this year at the former site of UC Townhomes, urging City Hall to help find a solution. And for the Parker administration, the evolving situation could be an opportunity to showcase some of the tools to preserve affordable housing that her administration has been developing.

“We are committed to being part of the solution with our partners,” says Angela Brooks, the mayor’s housing czar (the City’s chief housing and urban development officer), who acknowledged the uncertainty facing Neighborhood Restorations tenants, many of whom have built their lives around the stability of an affordable home. But she also underscored that 75 percent of Neighborhood Restorations units are currently protected. “It’s an unfortunate situation for the residents [of Neighborhood Restorations] because I can only imagine how they feel, even if there is no imminent threat of displacement.”

Brooks and other City officials have participated in a steering committee convened by Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), and have recently stated they’re willing to spend more than $30 million on the preservation of Neighborhood Restorations. Of course, it would be contingent on finding a buyer willing to “respect the legacy of [Levin’s] portfolio, which was designed to provide affordable housing at a scale that still gives people dignity,” says Brooks.

As the Penn Housing Initiative report detailed, scenarios like what is facing Neighborhood Restorations are going to be increasingly common in Philadelphia — at a moment when rental prices are already quickly outpacing wage growth. Whether the City succeeds or fails in finding a solution, it will set a precedent for the ability of Mayor Parker’s $2 billion housing plan to enact real change.

Will the mayor’s housing plan come to the rescue?

Scattered site housing

One of the defining features of Neighborhood Restorations is right there in its name: The portfolio isn’t a single development, or even a collection of developments clustered together. It’s what experts call a “scattered site” network of affordable housing. The model distributes affordable homes across multiple blocks and neighborhoods, often in smaller buildings that blend into the surrounding residential landscape.

Scattered sites emerged in the late 20th century, as housing authorities and policymakers sought alternatives to large, concentrated public housing developments — like the former Norman Blumberg high-rises in Strawberry Mansion, which were imploded in 2016. The strategy was used to combat concerns about the isolation, physical conditions, and social stigma associated with large public housing projects.

In fact, a 2016 Reinvestment Fund study examined the impact of Neighborhood Restorations alone. The study found that the scattered site model generated more than $160 million in direct investment in West Philadelphia, while producing affordable housing at a lower cost than comparable single site developments.

The appeal of scattered site housing is not only economic. By placing subsidized homes alongside market-rate housing, the model can make affordable housing less conspicuous and give residents access to neighborhoods they might otherwise be priced out of. A 2024 study looking at examples from around the world found that those living in scattered site housing reported statistically lower levels of stigma than residents of other public housing arrangements. Also, low-income residents in mixed-income neighborhoods have been shown through research to have greater economic mobility.

The scattered site model generated more than $160 million in direct investment in West Philadelphia, while producing affordable housing at a lower cost than comparable single-site developments.

But dispersing housing also complicates the work of maintaining it. Unlike a single development, where repairs, staffing and building systems can be managed in one place, scattered site portfolios require owners to coordinate upkeep across numerous properties — sometimes with only a handful of units at any one location. The Boston Housing Authority, for example, says its scattered site properties — which are publicly owned — cost 50 percent more to operate than its typical public housing. And while Philadelphia’s model has demonstrated the potential to produce affordable homes at lower development costs, that doesn’t eliminate the long-term challenges of managing and preserving them.

The preservation effort has now entered a new phase. Last summer, tenants and housing advocates began urging Parker to act before the loss of affordability could displace thousands of residents. Now that City Council has approved Mayor Parker’s Home Opportunities Made Easy initiative (H.O.M.E.), the administration has stepped up.

For the past several months, Brooks and other city housing officials have been meeting with Levin, potential buyers, and community organizations like LISC, which has convened a steering committee to find a solution.

“In Jim Levin’s words, not mine, as long as he doesn’t feel like he’s dancing by himself, he’s in no rush to sell,” says Brooks. “If I was a resident, I would understand the urgency — but it’s not like the units are all being lost today.”

H.O.M.E. Plan to the rescue?

Just a month before polls closed in Philadelphia’s 2023 Democratic mayoral primary, Cherelle Parker used an ace up her sleeve. At a televised debate with the other candidates, she delivered a simple-yet-ardent pledge: If elected, she’d oversee an ambitious housing agenda, including “the building of 30,000 units of affordable housing.”

Rising rents and declining homeownership in Philadelphia were prominent issues on the minds of voters. Parker was the one contender pitching a straightforward solution.

And then, once in office, Parker pivoted. Today, H.O.M.E. is equally focused on preserving affordable homes as it is building them. The program anticipates building 13,500 brand new units while assisting another 16,500 existing properties across Philly will also get support.

At a press conference on September 23, Mayor Parker and housing officials stressed that H.O.M.E. was designed to offer a deep toolbox for addressing a wide variety of housing needs — including the preservation of units in danger of losing affordability restrictions. With the $800 million that the City will raise for H.O.M.E. through bond issuances (half of which is already in hand), Parker will fund more than 50 different programs.

Some of those programs could be used to help lower the costs of acquiring and rehabbing the Neighborhood Restorations portfolio — especially if it ultimately involves multiple buyers. For example, H.O.M.E. already infused more than $16 million into the Basic Systems Home Repair Program, a popular City service that provides plumbing, heating and electrical upgrades at no cost to qualifying property owners. It’s just one of dozens of programs that might defray some of the costs for new owners, says Brooks.

“It’s highly unlikely that there is going to be a single buyer, even though that’s what Mr. Levin wants,” she says. Although Levin declined to provide a ballpark figure, Brooks put the total cost of a deal in the neighborhood of $250 million. “It’s going to require a capital stack that is significantly complicated.”

There might be other creative uses for City resources. Should Levin be open to carving up the 900-plus properties, Brooks wonders if some of them could be made available for purchase to existing tenants — with assistance from H.O.M.E. “Some of them are probably ready to buy homes,” says Brooks, “and we’re launching One Philly Mortgage in the fall” — a program designed for first-time homebuyers, which will offer 30-year fixed-rate loans.

“In some ways, the timing [of a potential sale of Neighborhood Restorations] syncs up perfectly with H.O.M.E. programs. Scattered sites are not the easiest thing to manage and it’s going to be a lift, but we’re trying to be thoughtful about working with residents and using H.O.M.E. funds in a supportive way,” says Brooks.

In that sense, Neighborhood Restorations could become a test case for the part of H.O.M.E. that didn’t exist in Parker’s original campaign pitch: not how many affordable homes the city can build, but how many it can prevent from disappearing. “We know what’s coming. We know this is just the first one out the gate in front of us. But we can rinse and repeat whatever solution we do here across the city,” says Brooks.

Still, the challenge is massive. “We’re going to need every tool in the toolbox for this case, because the portfolio is so large.”

Every Voice, Every Vote funds Philadelphia media and community organizations to expand access to civic news and information. The coalition is led by The Lenfest Institute for Journalism. Lead support for Every Voice, Every Vote in 2024, 2025 and 2026 is provided by the William Penn Foundation with additional funding from The Lenfest Institute for Journalism, Comcast NBC Universal, The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Henry L. Kimelman Family Foundation, Judy and Peter Leone, Arctos Foundation, Wyncote Foundation, 25th Century Foundation, and Dolfinger-McMahon Foundation.

MORE ON HOUSING