Ideas floated included a housing trust fund, below-market mortgage money to developers of affordable housing and tax relief on the sale of multifamily buildings. Meanwhile, advocates still meet Non-In-My-Backyard resistance in the form of exclusionary zoning, as well as outmoded building codes.

Sticking points among affordable housing advocates are who should deliver the much-needed housing units and to whom they should be targeted, concedes National Council of State Housing Agencies executive director John T. McEvoy, who also received the Washington, DC-based Conference's Carl A.S. Coan Sr. public service award Tuesday.

Charles Wehrwein, vice president of acquisitions for Denver-based Mercy Housing, Inc., adds another dimension, suggesting preservation of existing housing is much more cost effective than building new units.

While some suggested those earning between 60% and 80% of the area's median income should be targeted, McEvoy says 91% of those with the greatest housing needs are earning less than 60% of the median housing income, or about $43,000 in Chicago. Extending benefits to those earning more, McEvoy says, would sap money away from those with the greatest need unless resources are increased. "We have to engage in triage with existing resources," says McEvoy, instrumental in securing a 40% increase in Low Income Housing Tax Credit funding. "We have to address the needs of the poorest first."

That's the focus of a proposed National Housing Trust Fund campaign, which aims to produce, rehabilitate and preserve 1.5 million units of affordable housing by 2010 through excess Federal Housing Administration and Ginnie Mae revenue. At least 75% of the trust fund's spending would be aimed at helping those earning 30% of the area median income or less. The idea grew out of a meeting here eight months ago, says Jonathan Harwitz, director of public policy for the Corporation for Supportive Housing. However, Harwitz concedes the opportunity to build housing for those earning 60% of the median income or more may have to be included to entice developers.

Widening the target market to 100% of the median income would appeal to both Democrats and Republicans, suggests Cheryl Patton Malloy, senior staff vice president of the Mortgage Bankers Association of America, although she adds, "Certainly the greatest need is at the lowest income level."

The Mortgage Bankers Association of America proposes a mortgage program with interest rates at 4% or less, which would be subsidized by the Federal Government or tax-exempt financing. Although that may help build affordable housing, exit strategies have to be considered.

That's where legislative proposals on Capitol Hill could come into play to relieve owners of affordable, federally-insured or assisted multifamily housing who are reluctant to sell because it could trigger a "non-cash" gain, mostly the result of depreciation for tax purposes. The alternative often is properties deteriorating or converting to market rents, proponents say.

Under one bill, taxes could be paid over 10 years if the property was transferred to a non-profit developer, five years if it was sold to a for-profit developer. An industry proposal would exempt the "non-cash" gain from taxes if it were donated to a tenant-endorsed non-profit group.

"Tens of thousands of housing units are not being donated or transferred because of the impediment" of capital gains taxes, says National Housing Trust president Michael Bodaken.

Another proposal would allow multifamily investors to sell their buildings in a tax-deferred exchange, receiving REIT shares in the deal, says National Equity Fund vice president Jeffrey Bachman. "We recognize sellers need to be taken care of."