Committee on Technology in Government

Bruce Lai, Policy

Donna DeCostanzo, Legal

Steve Hamill, Press

Carl Thelemaque, Finance

 

Committee on Housing and Buildings

Sara Marks, Policy

Terzah Nasser, Legal

Sarah Mikutel, Press

David Pechefsky, Finance

 

 

 

    

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

 

BRIEFING PAPER OF

THE INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION

Marcel Van Ooyen, Deputy Chief of Staff

 

Committee on Technology in Government

Hon. Gale A. Brewer, Chair

 

Committee on Housing and Buildings

Hon. Madeline Provenzano, Chair

 

January 28, 2004

Oversight: The Feasibility of Wiring New Affordable Housing Development For Broadband

 

Res. No. 669

By Council Members Brewer, Boyland, Comrie, Gennaro, James, Liu, Martinez, Nelson, Palma, Rivera, Sanders, Serrano, Vann, Weprin and Jackson

 

Title

 

Resolution calling upon all relevant City agencies to use their funding and regulatory power to support and encourage the provision of affordable high-speed Internet service and computer purchases for the benefit of residents of affordable housing.

 

Introduction

On Monday, November 22, 2004 at 1:00 PM in the 14th Floor Hearing Room at 250 Broadway, the Committee on Technology in Government, chaired by Council Member Gale A. Brewer, jointly with the Committee on Housing and Buildings, chaired by Council Member Madeline Provenzano, will hold an oversight hearing on the topic of the feasibility of wiring new affordable housing developments for broadband.  Res. No. 669 will also be discussed at this hearing.  Res. No. 669 calls “upon all relevant City agencies to use their funding and regulatory power to support and encourage the provision of affordable high-speed Internet service and computer purchases for the benefit of residents of affordable housing.”  Those expected to testify include:

·        Harold Shultz, Special Counsel, New York City Department of Housing, Preservation and Development;

·        Mark Levine, Vice President, Program Services, One Economy Corporation;

·        Shaun Belle, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mount Hope Housing Company;

·        Kevin Donovan, Vice President, Barnes Wentworth;

·        Andrew Reicher, Executive Director, Urban Homesteading Assistance Board;

·        Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, HDFC Council;

·        Jennifer Sly, Community Technology Center (CTC) Coordinator, Jacob Riis Settlement House; and,

·        Dustin Goodwin, Director of Community Programs, NYCwireless.

Background

The Importance of Information Technology and the Internet

Being knowledgeable in the use of the Internet and other information technologies is important for anyone seeking economic opportunity.  Secretary of State Colin Powell writes:

 

“We hear much today about the ‘digital divide’ -- the gap between those who have access to the wonders of digital technology and the Internet and those who do not. When I address this issue I use an even stronger term: digital apartheid. What is at stake is today's technology ‘have-nots’ – especially the young – and whether they may find themselves marginalized for life because they lack the skills and tools to participate in our globalized, knowledge-based economy. This is true in America and in the rest of the world. If digital apartheid persists, we all lose. The digital have-nots will be poorer, more resentful of progress than ever and will not be able to become the skilled workers or potential customers that are needed to sustain the growth of the Internet economy.”[1]

 

Because “the Internet is becoming a primary source for everything from finding a local health clinic, to applying for student loans, to finding a job or registering to vote,”[2] those who do not have access to the Internet, particularly high-speed access to the Internet (i.e., broadband[3]) will potentially live less productive lives.  With broadband access, low-income families can access resources such as government services, online banking, and educational and job opportunities on-line “instead of standing in line for services.”[4]  Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America writes:

 

“The ability of a household to participate and prosper in the new economy will be severely restricted if a household is cut off from technology. The convergence of commerce and communications gives this technology a special transformative power.  The Internet is not just a communications tool, a means of commerce, or an entertainment medium. It is also a technological revolution that promises to enhance productivity in many aspects of life and increase the standard-of-living for all those who use it.”[5]

 

Internet access is particularly important in the education of children:

 

“Several studies have found that students with access both at home and at school do better academically than their counterparts with only school access.  For example, a Michigan State University study found that after low-income children were given home Internet access, their overall grade point averages and, in many cases, reading test scores, improved.  Those who spent more time online saw greater improvements, which researchers attribute to the increased reading that Web use entails.”[6]

 

The Digital Divide Still Exists

The following are some statistics that illustrate the “digital divide” still exists.  Specifically, poor households have less access to the Internet and other information technologies than households with average and above-average incomes.

·        According to recent data (2004) from Nielsen/Netratings[7] and the Pew Internet and American Life Project[8]:

o       “Over four-fifths of all households that lack Internet access at home have incomes below $50,000.”[9]

o       “Half of all households with incomes above $75,000 have high speed Internet at home.  About half of all households with incomes below $30,000 do not have any Internet at home.  The penetration of high-speed Internet in this group [those with incomes below $30,000] is around 10 percent.”[10]

·        According to data collected by United States Department of Education in 2001:

o       “While 75% of children from families earning over $75,000 a year have gone online, less than half (49%) of those from families earning $20-$35,000 and only 7% of those earning under $20,000 a year have gone online.”[11]

o       “While half (51.7%) of all children with family incomes of $75,000 or above have Internet access at home, just 15% of those with incomes between $20-25,000 do.”[12]

 

Expanding Digital Opportunity: What Is Needed

In order for low-income families to fully take advantage of the Internet and other information technologies, the following things are necessary: 

·        High-speed access to the Internet (i.e., broadband) and a computer in the home.  The reason why broadband is so crucial is because “as broadband rolls out and becomes the focal point of commercial activity, the design of services and applications changes to capture the characteristics of broadband.”[13]  “Offerings that are explicitly tailored for broadband may not work or certainly do not work very well over narrowband connections [i.e., a dialup connection].  Being locked into the narrowband Internet means falling farther behind.”[14]  Internet access at home is key because:

o       “Most personal business is conducted from the home.  Searching for information, looking for a job, and learning about local events – all frequent uses of the Internet – typically take place in the privacy of the residence.”[15]

·        Computer literacy training.  Beyond the fact that computer literacy training is necessary to fully take advantage of the Internet and other information technologies, computer literacy also expands economic opportunity, particularly for young people.  “According to the Children’s Partnership[16], 8 out of 10 of the fastest-growing occupations are computer-related, and workers who use computers earn roughly 20% more than those who don’t.”[17]

·        Affordable costs.  An inexpensive computer and a cheap broadband connection are the biggest obstacles to low-income households from being connected.

o       “Costs play a tremendous part in Internet access patterns,” said Kenneth Cassar, director of strategic analysis, Nielsen ratings.  “While broadband has become much less expensive over the past few years, it’s still a significant cost compared to narrowband.  Couple high-speed access with other utility expenses, and households with tighter budgets simple would not be able to afford the luxury of having broadband.”[18]

·        Good content.  Finally, “to realize the social and economic benefits of technology, [people] need the skills, content and applications that can help them learn and succeed.”[19]  The Children’s Partnership studied the information needs of low-income, low-literacy and other disadvantaged users and found that “the greatest needs are for local job listings, housing information, and health and education services, at accessible literacy levels and in languages other than English.”  One example of a service that attempts to meet these needs is the Beehive.

 

Expanding Digital Equity by Wiring Affordable Housing

Currently, a significant proportion of the low-income people in the United States live in housing that is regulated or subsidized by government in order to be affordable.  “About 12 million people live in 5.5 million units of government-supported affordable housing across the US, and about 15 million people live in non-government supported affordable housing.”[20]  In New York City, 455,000 (22.5% of all renters) households had incomes below the poverty level.[21]  It is likely that a significant proportion of these renter households live in either subsidized affordable housing or public housing.

 

Wiring New Affordable Housing to Expand Digital Equity

One way to expand digital equity is to wire all new affordable housing for broadband.  At the time of development, wiring new housing for broadband is relatively inexpensive, about $300 per unit.[22]  Since the cost to build one unit of government-subsidized affordable housing in New York City can be anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000, the cost per unit to install the capacity for high-speed Internet access is only 0.1% to 0.2% of the cost to build one unit of affordable housing.[23]  To promote the building of data networks into all new affordable housing, many states[24] are encouraging or requiring developers to build broadband connectivity into developments that take advantage of low-income housing tax credits[25] (LIHTC).   So far, 17 states have changed their LIHTC rules to encourage broadband connectivity.[26]  Most of these states, including California, encourage developers by awarding them extra points in their application to develop new affordable housing using LIHTC.  Other states, most notably Kentucky, have made broadband connectivity a requirement for all new affordable housing.  Specifically, the state of Kentucky requires “high-speed Internet access in the living areas of every single-family or multifamily unit is [and is] now a Universal Design Standard for bond-financed and tax-credit-financed housing developed in the state.”[27]  One possible way for the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development to promote the building of high-speed Internet access into new affordable housing developing is by awarding developers points, as laid out in their Qualified Allocation Plan[28], for making high-speed Internet access and/or computers available in every unit.

Example: Mount Hope Housing Company, Bronx, NY

“Residents of Mount Hope Housing Company, Inc.’s 1,250 low-income units will be beneficiaries of a soup-to-nuts technology initiative that will wire all Mount Hope Housing units for high speed Internet access – and ultimately, digital cable and phone services – for a modest fee considerably below market price. A second goal [of this project] is to provide residents with the opportunity to buy vastly discounted new computers. Free training programs will teach residents how to use their new computers and to navigate the Internet. Extended software and hardware training will be offered to residents who would, in turn, use their skills to help Mount Hope residents with technical problems as on-site technicians.”[29]  To learn more, go to: http://www.mounthopehousing.org/.

 

Argument Against Wiring New Affordable Housing for Broadband

The main argument against requiring or encouraging affordable housing developers to wire their new developments with high-speed Internet access is that the money used to build the technical infrastructure for broadband may be better spent to provide more units of affordable housing.  The need for more affordable housing is particularly pressing now with 11,458 households in New York City living in buildings that are considered dilapidated, 225,062 households (11.1% of all renters) being overcrowded, and 854,000 households (46% of all renters) paying more than 30% of gross income in rent.[30]

 

Analysis of Res. No. 669

The first part of Res. No. 669 explains the importance of information technology, states that affordable housing is home to a significant proportion of the low-income population of New York City, and that access to the Internet requires a high-speed connection, a computer, training, technical support and affordable costs.

Thus, Res. No. 669 resolves:

·        That all future publicly financed or subsidized housing properties for residents earning less than 80% of the median area income should provide a high-speed Internet connection in the living area of every unit to residents for free or at a cost of less than $10 per month;

·        That the development of programs that benefit of low income residents’ utilization of technology, such as the affordable purchase of computers, should be encouraged; and,

·        That all relevant City agencies to use their funding and regulatory power to support and encourage the provision of affordable high-speed Internet service and computer purchases for the benefit of residents of affordable housing.

Update

On Friday, January 28, 2005, the Committee adopted this legislation by a vote of four in the affirmative, zero in the negative and no abstentions.

Accordingly, the Committee recommends its adoption.

 

 

 


Res. No. 669

 

Resolution calling upon all relevant City agencies to use their funding and regulatory power to support and encourage the provision of affordable high-speed Internet service and computer purchases for the benefit of residents of affordable housing.

 

By Council Members Brewer, Boyland, Comrie, Gennaro, James, Liu, Martinez, Nelson, Palma, Rivera, Sanders, Serrano, Vann, Weprin and Jackson

 

Whereas, We now live in a digital age, a time when information technology is pervasive in most of our lives; and

Whereas, Those who lack meaningful access to technology experience a new form of poverty and new barriers to success; and

Whereas, A healthy economy and community maximizes the potential of technology to deliver information, products, and services to accelerate the entry of low income people into the economic mainstream; and

Whereas, In today’s society, a computer and Internet access in the home is the key to connecting all residents to opportunity in the most efficient manner; and

Whereas, Publicly funded affordable housing is home to a significant portion of New York’s low-income population; and

Whereas, Effective use of Internet access in affordable housing units requires high-speed Internet access, a computer, available training and technical support, and affordable costs; and

            Whereas, That the Council of the City of New York deems it as essential that assistance to residents goes beyond access to the Internet but also includes education about online resources that help residents join the economic mainstream, access City services, complete on-line financial transactions, and participate in democratic processes; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That all future publicly financed or subsidized housing properties for residents earning less than 80% of the median area income should provide a high-speed Internet connection in the living area of every unit to residents for free or at a cost of less than $10 per month; and be it further

Resolved, That the development of programs that benefit of low income residents’ utilization of technology, such as the affordable purchase of computers, should be encouraged; and be it further

Resolved, That all relevant City agencies to use their funding and regulatory power to support and encourage the provision of affordable high-speed Internet service and computer purchases for the benefit of residents of affordable housing.



[1] http://www.businessweek.com/adsections/digital/powell.htm.

[2] “Children, The Digital Divide, And Federal Policy,” September 2004, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (http://www.kff.org/), page 6.

[3] “Broadband [emphasis added] can be thought of as the communications infrastructure that supports data transfers at significantly higher speeds than can be achieved using a dial-up modem.  The Federal Communications Commission defines broadband as any services supporting speeds of at least 200 kilobits per second (Kbps) from both the provider to the customer and the customer to the provider.  This speed is at least 5–10 times faster than the dial-up connections commonly available today.” (America’s Inner Cities Wired to Compete: A Report on Inner City Broadband Readiness and E-Business Technology Adoption, page 14, The Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (http://www.icic.org/) & The Boston Consulting Group (http://www.bcg.com/home.jsp), November 2002.)

[4] http://yahoo.pcworld.com/yahoo/article/0,aid,114602,00.asp.

[5] Expanding the Digital Divide & Falling Behind on Broadband, October 2004, by Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation of America (http://www.consumerfed.org/), page 3.

[6] “Children, The Digital Divide, And Federal Policy,” September 2004, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (http://www.kff.org/), page 4.

[7] http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/.

[8] http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/.

[9] Expanding the Digital Divide & Falling Behind on Broadband, October 2004, by Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation of America (http://www.consumerfed.org/), page 2.

[10] Ibid, page 15.

[11] “Children, The Digital Divide, And Federal Policy,” September 2004, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (http://www.kff.org/), page 2.

[12] Ibid, page 2.

[13] Expanding the Digital Divide & Falling Behind on Broadband, October 2004, by Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation of America (http://www.consumerfed.org/), page 13.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] http://www.childrenspartnership.org/.

[17] “Children, The Digital Divide, And Federal Policy,” September 2004, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (http://www.kff.org/), page 6.

[18] http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_040419.pdf.

[19] Ibid, page 11.

[20] http://www.one-economy.org/about/default.asp.

[21] New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey 2002.

[22] Conversation with Mark Levine, Vice President, Program Services, One Economy Corporation, October 29, 2004.

[23] Ibid.

[24] http://www.one-economy.org/products-services/bringithome-map.asp.

[25] “The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC or Tax Credit) program was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 as an alternate method of funding housing for low- and moderate-income households, and has been in operation since 1987. Until 2000, each state received a tax credit of $1.25 per person that it can allocate towards funding housing that meets program guidelines (currently, legislation is pending to increase this per capita allocation).   This per capital allocation was raised to $1.50 in 2001, and will be raised to $1.75 in 2002, and adjusted for inflation beginning in 2003. These tax credits are then used to leverage private capital into new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing.  (http://www.danter.com/taxcredit/about.htm)

[26] http://www.one-economy.org/products-services/bringithome-map.asp.

[27] Ibid.

[28] New York City’s Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP): http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/pdf/qap2004.pdf.  The QAP is the “federally mandated planning requirement that states annually use to explain the basis upon which they distribute their LIHTC allocations.”[28] (http://www.huduser.org/publications/hsgfin/analysis_of_sqa_plans.html)

[29] http://www.mounthopehousing.org/press_6.htm.

[30] New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey 2002.