Gov. Tony Evers signed a pair of bills Thursday that will create a new state grant program to support nonprofits housing and serving homeless veterans. 

AB 596, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 153, and AB 597, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 154, direct $1.9 million to be used to create a new state grant match program for nonprofits serving homeless veterans. Evers did not comment on signing the bills into law in his release.

The bills were introduced by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Rep. Benjamin Franklin (R-De Pere) after the closure of two Wisconsin Veterans Housing and Recovery Program (VHRP) sites, one in Green Bay and the other in Chippewa Falls, and disagreements with Democrats and Evers on who was to blame for the closures. The VHRP serves veterans who are on the verge of or experiencing homelessness, including those who have experienced incarceration, unemployment or underemployment, physical and mental health problems. 

“I’m glad that the funding the Legislature provided to house and support Wisconsin’s military heroes will soon be going to organizations helping veterans across our state,” Wimberger said. “I hope the bills encourage even more groups to answer the call and step up to provide vital services to our veterans in need.”

The new program will provide $25 per day per veteran to eligible nonprofits that house veterans. To be eligible, nonprofit groups need to be participating in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs per diem program, which currently provides about $82 per day per veteran housed to groups that offer wraparound supportive services to homeless veterans. 

There are currently just four eligible nonprofits, and none are in the Green Bay or Chippewa falls areas. Democratic lawmakers expressed these concerns as the bills were debated, though Republican lawmakers have argued other nonprofits could become eligible if the program became law.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Newcap, which served low-income residents in 10 counties for more than 50 years, announced the closure on Tuesday.

The post 134 households ‘at risk of going homeless’ as northeast Wisconsin nonprofit abruptly closes appeared first on WPR.

The city of Milwaukee is suing one of the area’s most delinquent landlords, calling the company's properties “public nuisances.”

The post Milwaukee sues out-of-state landlord for tax delinquency, code violations appeared first on WPR.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

A northeast Wisconsin anti-poverty nonprofit plans to close later this year amid serious financial challenges and the loss of a government contract.

For more than 50 years, Newcap has operated in 10 counties. It serves low-income residents and is funded primarily through state and federal grants.

The agency served more than 25,000 people in 2022. Its programs range from employment and job training to educational support, financial coaching, health and food assistance, housing services, home repair and case management, according to an annual report.

Housing advocates say Newcap’s closure could lead to northeast Wisconsin losing more than $2.7 million in federal funding and leave more than 100 households at risk of losing housing.

In a statement, Newcap interim Executive Director Deb Barlament said the organization has faced “significant financial challenges” in recent months and has implemented staffing reductions and other cost-saving measures in response.

“At this time, the organization anticipates closing its doors sometime this year,” Barlament stated. “A more specific timeline will be determined as we work through existing grant obligations and funder requirements.”

Barlament’s statement says the organization hopes to “responsibly wind down operations” and is “actively collaborating with other organizations and funders to help ensure that services continue to be available to the communities we serve.”

It comes after a 2025 financial audit by accounting firm Baker Tilly found the organization had a more than $2 million deficit in 2024. The audit raised “substantial doubt about the Organization’s ability to continue operating,” citing recurring deficits, negative cash flow and reduced liquidity.

The state is conducting “enhanced financial monitoring” of the nonprofit, which includes comprehensive financial and program reviews, as well as reviews of financial documentation.

In a statement, the Wisconsin Department of Administration said the state has been working with Newcap to address its use and repayment of Weatherization Assistance Program funds for the 2025-26 program year. The program provides home weatherization assistance to low-income individuals.

The audit shows that in 2024 Newcap spent about $5.1 million for weatherization programs.

“Approximately 28% and 26% of the Organization’s grants revenue and grants receivable, respectively, were generated by weatherization and emergency furnace programs funded by the Wisconsin Department of Administration,” the audit states.

On March 13, the DOA informed Newcap that it “could not in good faith” renew the nonprofit’s weatherization contract for the next program year “given the current financial situation at Newcap and outstanding funds the agency must repay,” according to the statement.

The statement does not specify why the agency needs to repay the funds, or the specific dollar amount of that repayment.

“Working with our federal partners to administer grant programs requires DOA to assess potential risks of grantees,” the statement read. “Though Newcap has recently taken steps to address overhead costs and operating cash flow, Newcap’s financial viability remains uncertain.”

The Department of Administration says it is working with Wiscap, a statewide network of anti-poverty nonprofits, and other agencies to ensure services continue to be provided in northeast Wisconsin.

Wiscap did not respond to requests for comment about what happens when a Community Action Program, or CAP, agency — like Newcap — closes.

Millions in funding at risk if federal contracts can’t be transferred

Carrie Poser is executive director of the Wisconsin Balance of State Continuum of Care, a nonprofit that coordinates housing and supportive services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness across 69 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties.

She said Newcap administers four U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development grants, which provide support services to 134 households across its 10-county service area, with 84 of those in Brown County.

Poser said local service groups want to take over those federal housing grants. But she said HUD officials in Milwaukee and Washington, D.C., have told her they are not processing grant transfers.

That puts the 134 households currently using those programs at risk of losing their housing and becoming homeless, she said.

“We have humans that, for no fault of their own, look at returning to homelessness that we can prevent,” she said. “It’s not because we don’t have agencies. It’s not because we don’t have the ability to do the work.”

If those grants aren’t transferred, she said more than $2.7 million — including more than $1.6 million in federal funding to Brown County — could be permanently lost from the 10 counties Newcap serves.

“It will be harder for those communities to ever get new money in this way again,” Poser said. “It’s just harder to get a grant once you’ve lost one by HUD.”

She said Wisconsin Balance of State Continuum of Care plans to move forward with filing paperwork with the federal government necessary to transfer the grants, but she isn’t sure if the effort will be successful.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development did not respond to questions about the potential loss of federal funding to northeast Wisconsin.

Laurie Styron is executive director of CharityWatch, a Chicago-based independent charity watchdog. She said Newcap serves a large geographic area, so its closure is likely to put more strain on other area nonprofits and agencies that provide similar services.

“Help that someone in need may have received from Newcap could become fragmented and require people who are already struggling to seek out services from different agencies, rather than just one,” she said. “The remaining providers in the area could see longer wait lists and reduced quality of care.”

Newcap is also closing three year-round homeless shelters, two in Green Bay and one in Shawano, by March 31, Barlament said via email.

Tara Prahl is chair of the Brown County Homeless and Housing Coalition and director of social services for the nonprofit Ecumenical Partnership for Housing. She said Newcap’s closure, including the loss of two homeless shelters in Green Bay, could have “a significant impact to our community,” especially if the government funding Newcap was receiving doesn’t remain in the area.

“All of our homeless service providers are at capacity,” she said. “This is only going to hit a little bit harder for those that are already feeling this.”

Prahl also said Newcap’s closure makes it more important for the Brown County community to take steps to address homelessness and its housing shortage.

In Shawano, Newcap provided one of only two homeless shelters in the community. Shawano Area Matthew 25, or Sam25, provided the other.

Kendra Brusewitz, executive director of Sam25, said her shelter is only open from mid-October to mid-May as an overnight emergency shelter. She also said Sam25 has often partnered with Newcap.

“They help service the homeless families in our community year-round, so if we were full we could connect with them and get (people) services over there, or vice versa,” Brusewitz said. “Not having that partnership is a concern.”

CEO placed on leave no longer employed by Newcap

Newcap’s announced closure also comes after the organization placed its former CEO Cheryl Detrick on administrative leave in February. 

A Newcap official confirmed via email that Detrick is no longer employed by the organization. Of the 15 CAP agencies in Wisconsin with executive salaries listed in tax filings, Detrick had the highest compensation at $239,641 in 2024.

Detrick was placed on leave amid reports from WLUK-TV alleging the organization misused taxpayer dollars.

Two Democratic Green Bay-area state lawmakers issued statements last month calling for an investigation into the organization’s use of taxpayer funds.

In Barlament’s statement, she said Newcap is aware of “questions regarding accountability for what has occurred” at the nonprofit. She said the organization is “committed to doing everything we can to address the situation and move forward responsibly.”

U.S. Reps. Tony Wied, R-De Pere, and Bryan Steil, R-Janesville, sent a letter on March 12 to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development calling for a federal investigation into Newcap.

“Money that should have gone towards helping Wisconsinites find safe and stable housing may have instead padded executive salaries and funded staff outings,” the federal lawmakers wrote. 

Poser said she’s contacted Wied and Steil’s offices for help getting HUD funding transferred from Newcap to different nonprofits but has not received a response. 

She said she’s reached out to the rest of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation for assistance in persuading HUD to allow for the transfers.

“We absolutely need a nonpartisan show of support around this issue,” she said. “Folks in need are in need regardless of what political party they belong to.”

This story was originally published by WPR.

Nonprofit closure could cost northeast Wisconsin $2.7M, put 134 households at risk is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Although such restrictions are no longer enforceable, racist language remains on the books in housing deeds throughout Wisconsin. A Dane County project is helping residents to formally repudiate those racial restrictions.

The post ‘You can’t erase history’: Dane County is mapping racist language in housing deeds appeared first on WPR.

Small counties in the coastal Southeast had some of the largest population gains between mid-2024 and mid-2025 in estimates being released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau, mostly because of people moving from larger areas.

Jasper County, South Carolina, where there’s a building boom taking advantage of the popularity of nearby Hilton Head, was the fastest-growing county in the nation percentagewise, growing 6% in the year to 38,533 people. It grew even faster the previous year, 6.9%, but another county elsewhere grew slightly faster that year — Mellette County in South Dakota. 

Jasper County has seen movers from New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states, with some new building aimed at retirees and some for workers at expanding factories like TICO, which makes trucks designed for nearby ports, said Eric Larson, the county’s director of development services. One new housing development, Latitude Margaritaville in Hardeeville, is for people 55 and older.

“It’s a real magnet. They’re coming from all over the place and I think they come for the recreation, the low cost of living,” said Larson. “We’re excited to be that hot spot, but it has its challenges. 

“We’re rising to the occasion,” he added, noting that the growth requires more transportation, water and sewer capacity.  

All the 12 counties that grew 4% or more between 2024 and 2025 benefited predominantly from people moving in from other counties. Brunswick County, North Carolina, at the state’s southeastern tip below Wilmington, would have lost population instead of gaining almost 5% if it weren’t for new residents moving in. The influx erased the effects of more deaths than births during the year. 

Most of those fastest-growing counties are at the outer edges of popular metro areas in the Southeast, including Kaufman County, Texas, near Dallas; Jackson County, Georgia, near Athens; and Elbert County, Colorado, near Denver and Colorado Springs. 

However, four of the seven counties with the largest numeric increases had population growth that was largely driven by immigration — including Harris County, Texas, with the highest numeric growth in the nation at 48,695 in one year. Harris County includes Houston.

The other counties with the largest increases driven primarily by immigration include Maricopa County, Arizona (which includes Phoenix, up 35,411); King County, Washington (including Seattle, up 26,980); and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Charlotte, up 26,554).

Three other counties in the top seven had increases mostly based on people moving in from elsewhere in the United States: Collin County, Texas (north of Dallas, up 42,966); Montgomery County, Texas (north of Houston, up 30,011); and Wake County, North Carolina (including Raleigh, up 27,760).

Even in counties where immigration was the key driver of population growth, immigration was down from previous years, when immigration streams were swelled by millions of asylum-seekers paroled from the border with Mexico. That flow has largely stopped as the Trump administration stopped accepting asylum-seekers into the country starting last year.

Despite overall population growth, several counties saw a net immigration drop from the previous year. Net immigration dropped 41% in Harris County, Texas, and it was down 48% in  Maricopa County, Arizona. It was down 29% in King County, Washington, and down 41% In Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. No counties of any size saw increased immigration compared with the previous year.

Most counties that grew between 2023 and 2024 saw growth diminish or even turn to a loss between 2024 and 2025, the Census Bureau said in a statement, especially large counties that would normally receive lots of new immigrants.

The largest numeric declines were in Los Angeles County, California, which dropped by 53,934 after gaining 16,300 the previous year; Pinellas County, Florida, which dropped by 11,834, accelerating a smaller decline of 5,346 the previous year and gains earlier in the decade; and Florida’s Miami-Dade County, which lost 10,115 residents after gaining 18,633 the previous year. 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

As federal immigration officers made more “at-large” arrests in communities across the country in the first year of the current Trump administration — including at homes, places of worship and workplaces — more than 1,100 Nebraska families developed family safety plans in the event a parent or breadwinner faced detention or deportation.

These plans help families decide who will take care of the children, handle school and medical decisions, and manage finances if a parent suddenly cannot be there.

Families are encouraged to choose a trusted adult — such as a relative or family friend — who could temporarily care for the children. They’re making sure children have passports, updating school emergency contacts, and letting family members know how to locate a parent if they are detained.

“This is not unique to immigrant families, but it’s of course more nuanced for immigrant families in the sense that their family can be separated at any time,” said Lina Traslaviña Stover, a sociologist who also is executive director of the Heartland Workers Center, a Nebraska nonprofit that advocates on behalf of workers in the meatpacking, restaurant, construction and cleaning industries.

“There are a lot of ripple effects when families prepare for the possibility of separation. In some cases, older siblings are being asked to step into the role of head of household if a parent is detained or deported. Imagine a high school senior suddenly carrying the responsibility for the family’s finances and stability. Even if it’s just a ‘what if’ scenario, that kind of pressure can change a young person’s plans for the future.”

The effort in Nebraska, and similar ones around the country, points to the social and economic fallout from the immigration crackdown. The deportation of a breadwinner, the potential exposure of tenants’ personal data and stricter federal housing policies can all stress families, advocates say, even as some policymakers are trying to help.

Demand for rental housing is driven primarily by U.S. citizens, but immigrants have long been a key subset of renters: They headed 9.6 million renter households (21%) in 2024, according to the recently published America’s Rental Housing report by the Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies. Researchers also note that immigrants contribute to the economy and pay taxes, supporting the communities they live and work in.

“For households living paycheck to paycheck, losing just a few days of wages can mean losing housing,” said Meesha Moulton, a Las Vegas-based immigration attorney. “Housing insecurity in these communities doesn’t start with an eviction notice, it starts with the empty chair at a job site.”

Fear can also affect how or whether immigrant families — with or without legal status — apply for food, housing or health programs they qualify for because they worry it could put them on the government’s radar. Both Americans and immigrants with legal status have been arrested during the past year’s enforcement crackdown. And nearly three-fourths of the people in immigration detention in late January had no criminal record.

Jacob Rugh, a sociologist and associate professor at Brigham Young University who studies immigration enforcement and housing, said high-profile incidents of aggressive and fatal encounters between federal agents and U.S. citizens and noncitizens have shifted public opinion in ways that could help affected immigrants.

In a Quinnipiac University poll conducted shortly after a federal immigration officer fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Good, roughly 80% of respondents said they had seen video of the shooting.

“People are seeing videos everywhere and there’s more visibility in the non-immigrant community,” Rugh said. “It makes the issue much more salient in ways that didn’t exist before. People donate, help on the ground and become part of the solution.”

‘We cannot GoFundMe our way out of a crisis’

Policymakers in many affected places are looking for ways to help.

In Los Angeles County, officials declared a state of emergency in 2025 after federal immigration raids, allowing the county to provide rent relief, legal aid and other services to residents affected by immigration enforcement in Southern California last year.

In Clark County, Washington, a $50,000 rental assistance program was launched to help families who have a family or household member — and are missing a primary wage-earner — detained or deported by immigration officers. Officials say the demand for assistance is already exceeding available funds.

In Santa Ana, California, a $100,000 emergency assistance program is aimed at helping renters affected by federal immigration raids. It offers up to one month of rent or utility assistance for a household that lost income as a result of a member’s detention or deportation.

Few places better illustrate the direct relationship between immigration enforcement and housing insecurity than Minnesota, where the Trump administration in December sent thousands of federal agents. Operation Metro Surge closed streets and businesses amid protests and shelter-in-place orders, and agents detained more than 4,000 people, according to the White House.

The Minneapolis City Council approved extending the time frame for eviction notices, but Mayor Jacob Frey vetoed the measure and instead proposed $1 million in city funding in rental assistance.

Landlords across Minneapolis and St. Paul have filed 2,585 eviction notices so far this year, 25% above the same time period in 2023 and 2024, according to the Eviction Lab at Princeton University.

Many residents have reported losing jobs, said Tara Raghuveer, director of the Tenant Union Federation, a national union of tenant unions involved in a new tenant campaign in the Twin Cities. Some fell behind on rent, and with income-earners detained, some families have attempted to fill the void by raising money on GoFundMe.

“We cannot GoFundMe our way out of a crisis of this scale,” Raghuveer said in an interview. “Many people have not been able to work, and as a result many people have not been able to pay rent, and the economic pain created by this invasion will still be with everyday people long after ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents are gone.”

Minneapolis and St. Paul have each allocated about $1 million in emergency rental assistance.

Last week, Minnesota’s Democratic-led Senate approved $40 million in rental assistance, but the legislation isn’t expected to pass the evenly split House. Republicans argued that residents living in the country illegally shouldn’t receive aid, the Minnesota Reformer reported.

Trust between landlords and immigrant tenants

Immigration enforcement has also caused a ripple in the relationship between landlords and their tenants who lack legal status. In Tennessee, a law enacted in 2025 criminalizes harboring such immigrants for financial gain, which some critics argue could pressure landlords to evict tenants or refuse rentals out of fear of legal consequences.

In Oregon, lawmakers passed legislation that would restrict landlords from disclosing a tenant’s immigration status and sensitive personal information without clear legal requirements. The measure would protect information such as immigration status, Social Security numbers and financial records. It’s awaiting action by the governor.

A New Jersey bill that would bar landlords from using a tenant’s immigration status is advancing in the legislature.

California, Colorado and Illinois have enacted so-called immigrant tenant protection acts, with provisions to prevent landlords from harassing, intimidating or evicting tenants based on their citizenship or immigration status.

Democratic Oregon state Rep. Pam Marsh, who sponsored the Oregon legislation, told Stateline that the idea emerged after reviewing tenant records from her own experience as a small landlord.

“I realized I had file drawers full of very sensitive data,” she said. “It made me start asking what the law actually requires about confidentiality.”

The measure ultimately passed with bipartisan support after negotiations with landlord groups.

Immigration authorities have taken a new legal position that civil administrative warrants may allow agents to enter residences without a judge-signed warrant, according to guidance compiled by the National Apartment Association’s legal team. Many legal experts dispute the directive, and at least one court has found it unconstitutional.

A proposed U.S. Housing and Urban Development rule would prohibit “mixed-status” families — households with both U.S. citizens and people without legal immigration status — from living in public or other subsidized housing.

HUD estimates that about 25,000 mixed-status households currently receive agency-assisted housing, less than 1% of all federally aided renters. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates about 80,000 people could lose housing assistance, including roughly 37,000 children, nearly all U.S. citizens.

Some landlords are concerned their tenants may end a lease early or not renew based on rumors or threats of immigration agent sightings, according to Alexandra Alvarado, director of marketing and education for the trade group American Apartment Owners Association.

María Monclova, a Mexican-born immigration lawyer, says that landlord compliance with requests from federal agents is in part due to ignorance of obligations to cooperate with federal matters.

“There have been credible reports of immigration authorities requesting leases, rental applications and identification documents from landlords or property managers,” she said.

“Many landlords don’t fully understand the difference between an administrative request and a court-issued subpoena or warrant,” she said. “When that distinction isn’t clear, some property owners may overcomply out of fear of liability.”

Given the current administration’s attempt to determine immigration status through public housing data, Moulton, the immigration attorney, thinks some immigrant and mixed-status families may be avoiding formal leases altogether.

“They’d rather live in a crowded basement with no paperwork than sign a legal contract that has their name on it. This is all bad for everyone,” Moulton said. “It leads to ‘shadow housing’ where buildings aren’t inspected, safety rules are ignored and slumlords can take advantage of people. When we push people into the shadows, we lose the data we need to keep our neighborhoods safe.”

Some neighborhoods — and the groups of people who live and call them home — have been reshaped by immigration preceding the current Trump administration and dating through the George W. Bush, Obama, first Trump and Biden administrations.

A 2025 study from Rugh and other researchers in the journal Demography found that when local police helped enforce immigration laws, Latino and white residents were less likely to live in the same neighborhoods over time. Researchers say tougher enforcement can make immigrant families feel less secure financially and more likely to move.

“When large numbers of men are detained or deported — and most deportees are men — they’re suddenly no longer contributing to household income,” Rugh said in an interview.

“When you detain and deport large numbers of people, it affects entire communities,” he said. “Landlords lose renters, property values can fall, local businesses suffer, and people who aren’t immigrants feel the economic effects.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia are challenging guidance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that plaintiffs allege imposes new rules and funding conditions they say could weaken state protections against housing discrimination — and their ability to investigate them. 

The lawsuit focuses on two HUD memos in September detailing how it will prioritize resources for cases with clear evidence of intentional discrimination.

HUD withdrew several fair housing documents including guidance policies on disparate impact — a theory of discrimination where neutral-seeming policies disproportionately exclude or harm certain groups — along with procedures for referring discrimination cases to the Department of Justice, and credit programs aimed at expanding access to housing. 

On April 11, it will be 58 years since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act into law in an effort to combat housing discrimination and partner HUD with state and local agencies to enforce those laws. Through the Fair Housing Assistance Program, HUD refers complaints to state agencies, which use HUD funding to investigate cases, train staff and conduct outreach.

The September memos stipulated that state agencies receiving HUD dollars to enforce fair housing laws won’t be reimbursed for cases regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, criminal record, source of income or English-language proficiency.

Attorneys general filing the lawsuit say HUD has significantly reduced staffing and the number of discrimination cases it pursues, while dismissing whistleblowers who raised concerns about the agency’s ability to enforce fair housing laws or look into acts of housing discrimination.

If the HUD changes go through, many state laws could be in conflict with this guidance. 

Several states, including some represented in the lawsuit, have fair housing laws that extend protections beyond those covered by federal law and could be impacted by HUD’s guidance.

Included in the lawsuit alongside are attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Among state laws that offer protections cited in the HUD memos, California state law protects tenants based on sexual orientation, gender identity and lawful source of income, including housing vouchers. 

Other states such as Illinois and Washington extend protections based on immigration status. Colorado, Massachusetts and Rhode Island also provide protection against discrimination on the basis of identities such as gender identity, sexual orientation and source of income.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

An October report recommended the city strengthen its short-term rental ordinance to mitigate nuisances and protect housing for residents.

The post Green Bay approves new regulations for short-term rentals, Airbnbs appeared first on WPR.

Amid a slew of proposed changes scaling the federal government’s role in broadening assistance in federal rental programs, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to rescind a 2024 regulation requiring public housing agencies and certain federally subsidized landlords to give 30 days’ notice before filing for eviction based on unpaid rent. 

Under the proposed HUD changes, those 30 days would give way to older standards, which vary by housing program and state law, and which can be as little as a few days’ notice. 

The proposed HUD rule also would eliminate requirements that landlords include detailed information about rent charges or available assistance in eviction notices.

Many states and localities already require 30-day or longer notices before a landlord can proceed with an eviction for nonpayment of rent, though some are far shorter. California, for example, generally requires at least three–day “pay or quit” notices for nonpayment of rent, meaning tenants have three days to pay the rent or move out. 

The current HUD rule also requires that landlords provide tenants with a ledger showing how their balance was calculated and information about how to obtain a rent decrease if they have lost income. Tenants’ advocates argue the detail allows transparency over how much is owed and when. Without the rule’s protection, advocates say, HUD tenants in some parts of the country could be evicted for being as little as one dollar short or one day late on rent. 

Several tenants’ rights groups have already filed legal challenges, arguing that the rollback was issued without proper public notice and comment. If the rule remains in effect, housing providers and tenant advocates say its impact will depend largely on states’ eviction laws. 

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

As the Trump administration continues to focus on the legal immigration statuses of many across the country, a revived proposal by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development could impact many families’ ability to receive rental assistance.

The proposed rule would prohibit “mixed-status” families  —  those including U.S. citizens and people without legal immigration status — from living in public and other subsidized housing. It would apply to HUD public housing, Section 8 rental assistance, and some housing development grants. 

Current regulations allow mixed-status families to receive decreased assistance based on the number of household members with legal status. The proposed rule would limit that assistance to 30 days as HUD verifies family members’ legal status. 

HUD Secretary Scott Turner has said the change could redirect $218 million to other qualifying families. 

“The law is clear: Housing assistance must only go to eligible individuals. This requirement exists to protect the families and taxpayers who fund the nation’s welfare system. It draws a hard line,” Turner wrote last week in an opinion piece in the Washington Post. He wrote that some 24,000 people living in HUD-assisted housing are likely ineligible. 

HUD’s own analyses from previous mixed-status rule discussions estimated there are about 25,000 mixed-status households living in HUD-assisted housing, fewer than 1% of all households receiving federal rental aid.

The proposed rule would update regulations barring HUD from providing assistance to individuals who are not U.S. citizens or do not have legal or eligible immigration status. Under this proposal, all assistance-eligible tenants and applicants under housing programs — regardless of age  — would need to verify their citizenship or status.

This proposal was initiated in 2019 under the first Trump administration, but was blocked. The rule would remove the existing “do not contend” option, end certain exemptions for older participants and expand the use of Social Security numbers and the federal SAVE system for status verification. The SAVE system (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) is run under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and also is being used to help verify voter citizenship status and public benefits eligibility. 

Nearly three-quarters of potentially affected households live in California, Texas and New York, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ analysis of HUD administrative data. California accounts for the largest share of affected families, followed by Texas and New York. In these states, thousands of households that currently receive prorated rental assistance could lose eligibility entirely if the rule is finalized, rental housing advocates warn.

These states also have high housing costs in concert with long waiting lists for assistance. The policy would primarily affect families with children, many of whom are U.S. citizens, and could increase demand for emergency housing and other local safety-net services, advocates say.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates 80,000 people could lose housing assistance, including an estimated 37,000 children, nearly all of whom are U.S. citizens.

The proposal is open for public comment through April 21.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• A pair of Democrats are proposing legislation to limit rent increases in Wisconsin’s manufactured home communities, require inspections and make it easier for residents to purchase communities through cooperatives. 

• It’s a response to gaps in state oversight that leave residents vulnerable to deteriorating conditions and dramatic rent hikes.

• Private equity companies are increasingly purchasing manufactured housing communities, spurring concerns.

Democratic lawmakers are proposing to limit rent increases in Wisconsin’s manufactured home communities as residents voice concerns over steep rent hikes and the growing influence of large, out-of-state owners.

The proposal is part of broader legislation to protect residents of communities often called mobile home parks. Proposed by Sen. Jeff Smith, D-Brunswick, and Rep. Jodi Emerson, D-Eau Claire, the bill would also require annual state inspections and make it easier for residents to purchase communities through cooperatives.

The lawmakers say they aim “to preserve one of Wisconsin’s last remaining sources of truly affordable housing.”

Without Republican support, the bill is unlikely to advance during the current legislative session. The Legislature will wrap up most action by the end of March. The sponsors hope the proposal will build momentum for future action. 

“We got to start somewhere,” Smith said. “We got to protect people.”

Priced out of traditional homes during an affordability crisis, thousands in Wisconsin have turned to manufactured housing as a more achievable path to ownership. Most own their home but pay a monthly fee for the land it sits on, and they are responsible for maintenance of their homes. While that model brings promise, gaps in state oversight leave residents vulnerable to deteriorating conditions and dramatic rent hikes, a previous WPR and Wisconsin Watch investigation found.  

In announcing the bill, Smith’s office highlighted how private equity firms are increasingly purchasing manufactured home communities — often leading to higher rent and less responsive park management. 

The bill would cap rent increases at 2% or 4% annually, depending on federal Consumer Price Index data.

Such a change would benefit people like Troy Wadina, who lives in Harbor Heights, a Racine County manufactured home community. His rent increased by roughly 18% this year alone.

“I had planned on staying here forever, and now I’m completely out of luck,” Wadina said. “I don’t want to leave.”

He bought his manufactured home in 2020. His parents lived across the street.

“We love being in this community. I know all my neighbors by name. Where do you get that?” Wadina asked.

But in 2024 the community sold to Illinois-based Ravinia Communities, which owns manufactured home communities across 10 states. It increased Wadina’s monthly rent by $95 last year and will add another $95 beginning in March.

Wadina didn’t learn of the sale until it was finalized.

Under the proposed legislation, he and his neighbors would have received a notice of a potential sale and 60 days to submit their own offer to buy the community. The bill would also offer a tax incentive to owners who sell to a resident-owned cooperative or nonprofit approved by the majority of residents.

Wadina isn’t sure he can handle any further increases. On top of his day job as a sales representative, he’s now selling items online to keep up. 

Ravinia defended its rent increases in an email to Wisconsin Watch. Rents under the previous owner failed to keep pace with the market, the company wrote, adding that rents at Harbor Heights remain lower than comparable communities. 

Ravinia said it encouraged residents to contact management for information about potential hardship assistance but no one has done so. 

The legislation would have limited Wadina’s monthly increase to around $20 unless Ravinia detailed to residents why growing operating expenses necessitated a greater increase.

Amy Bliss, executive director of the Wisconsin Housing Alliance, a manufactured housing trade association, opposes the bill as written. 

Capping rent would hurt owners’ ability to maintain their properties and cause investors and developers to put their money elsewhere, she wrote in a statement to Wisconsin Watch.

“Wisconsin Housing Alliance is happy to work with legislators to make meaningful reforms to keep rents in Wisconsin lower,” the statement said. “We do not agree that this bill will accomplish any of that.” 

Additionally, Bliss added, residents can already offer to purchase their communities through cooperatives, an ownership model that doesn’t always keep costs down or succeed in the long term. Requiring owners to notify residents during a potential sale could be a “restraint of free trade,” she said.

Limiting property tax increases and loosening municipal restrictions on manufactured housing development would more effectively bring down prices, Bliss added.

Smith and Emerson said they are open to feedback and potential changes to their legislation, particularly if it brings bipartisan support.

“Some affordability and some safety is better than having no guardrails on it at all,” Emerson said. 

The bill will need Republican support to draw a public hearing. Smith doubts that will happen during his competitive reelection campaign. 

A similar bill has received bipartisan support in Pennsylvania, said Steve Carlson, co-founder and board president of the Wisconsin Manufactured Home Owners Alliance, a nonprofit organization pushing for stronger resident protections that helped draft the legislation.

“Affordable housing is not a partisan issue,” Carlson said.

Wadina and his neighbors formed a resident association last year. But with no other mechanism to prevent further rent increases, association members are urging their elected representatives to support the legislation. 

The campaign has already yielded some intangible benefits. 

“We’re a lot closer now as a community than we were before,” Wadina said. “We’re doing the best we can to support each other.”

Bill would limit rent hikes in Wisconsin mobile home parks is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

In the national war for affordable housing, a familiar battle is raging in Richland Center, a little city in the Driftless Area that’s surrounded by wilderness and farm fields.

A move to put duplexes on a six-acre village green has pitted some residents against their city government.

“It’s the soccer field, it’s the picnic field, it’s the place where everybody goes,” said Jeri Rust, who grew up in town and now splits time between Richland Center and Arizona.

But “the city needs housing, and we have before us a proposal that would be the envy of any other community,” Richland County Board Chair David Turk said at a September city council meeting. 

Since 2017, the average home price in Richland Center has increased from about $102,000 to $180,000, a 76% change, according to Zillow, the real estate marketplace. 

Stori Field is the “crown jewel” of the neighborhood, said Greg Dettmann, a resident who grew up in the city and lives across the street. 

The field is named for teacher and coach Dave Stori, who revived the high school’s track team in the 1940s. For decades, Stori Field hosted athletic practices and P.E. classes.

“I threw up more than once on that field,” Dettmann, 74, joked about his own time exercising on the field as a kid. “You can’t get green spaces back once they’re gone.”

But Richland Center has between three and six times more parkland than what the National Recreation and Park Association recommends for the city’s population, city attorney Michael Windle estimated. And there are other venues for recreation around the city, he said.

It’s a common fight across the country as residents resist new housing to keep their neighborhoods from changing.

“When you say it’s easy to find places to build, no, it isn’t,” Mayor Todd Coppernoll said at a September city council meeting. “We don’t have adequate housing stock at any income level, in my opinion.” 

Richland Center, like many communities, is struggling to provide affordable housing, especially for older people, as its population ages and the number of small home builders declines, according to a Richland County analysis.

The community’s median income is lagging behind its median home value, and “there is not enough affordable housing,” according to a Richland Center study from 2024. 

The city has struggled to find companies to build. When one developer, Enke Properties, zeroed in on Stori Field and agreed to cover the costs for major expenses like utilities, sidewalks and street lights, the city jumped at the offer. On top of the additional housing, the 16-unit development would also generate about $100,000 in annual tax revenue to be split among the city, county and school district, Richland Center city officials estimate. 

The city greenlit the sale of Stori Field on Oct. 7. In response, but before the transfer officially went through, residents submitted a petition with nearly 700 resident signatures asking the city to prohibit any sale without the voters’ consent. Richland Center has a population of about 5,000 people.

On Nov. 13, the same day the clerk certified most of the signatures, the city rejected the petition, saying it omitted necessary language. The city officially sold the land for $1 to the developer the same day. 

“PR-wise, I think they fell on their face,” Mary Collins, a resident of Richland Center and the chair of the Richland County Democratic Party, said of city officials.

But “from a legal perspective, I’m not sure that there’s anything stopping the city in this instance,” said Derek Clinger, a senior staff attorney for the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

On Nov. 21 residents submitted a second petition, which the city acknowledged but says conflicts with the Oct. 7 ordinance it passed authorizing the sale.

In Wisconsin, Clinger said, a direct legislation attempt, in this case the residents’ petition, can’t be used to pass a city ordinance that clearly conflicts with an existing city ordinance. But the city’s actions could certainly have political consequences in future local elections, he noted.

Shelly Dobbs, another leader in the push to protect Stori Field who has also taken the issue to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, said her citizen group is considering legal action. 

But the city’s focus on Stori Field has angered some who feel there are opportunities for development elsewhere. The city says it is considering more options in addition to Stori Field.

Ellen Kellar Evans owns two rental properties near Stori Field with her husband and had been working to build 19 single-family homes in the city. She said Richland Center even offered them a $1.5 million federal grant for the project. But she said the city’s unrealistic deadlines and the ire she feels about the Stori Field project have changed things.

“We don’t think we can trust them anymore to make good decisions,” she said.

The city has since pulled the grant.

Residents have repeatedly pointed to the decommissioned University of Wisconsin campus owned by the county as an alternative to Stori Field. In response, the mayor asked Turk, the county board chair, to give an update on the campus at a special meeting Sept. 24.

“The campus is a big chunk of land,” Turk said. “Is it ready to be developed? No.”

But in his emails to The Badger Project, Windle referenced a Nov. 19 presentation the city gave at a county meeting about a proposed subdivision on the campus.

“We feel like we were fooled by thinking that couldn’t be available for years,” Kellar Evans said. “I’m very confused, myself, and I think everyone else is. We just don’t understand.” 

The campus project, Windle said, would be in addition to Stori Field. 

“At this time,” Windle said, “Stori Field is the sole and exclusive property of Enke Properties, LLC.”

The Badger Project is a nonpartisan, citizen-supported journalism nonprofit in Wisconsin.

This article first appeared on The Badger Project and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Richland Center residents fight to spare park from city’s affordable housing plans is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Edith Butler is dealing with a real-world math problem: Her housing costs keep rising while a tax credit intended to help keeps shrinking. 

The widow and retired nurse, 68, lives by herself in a two-bedroom Eau Claire home. She paid $9,000 in rent over the course of last year, eating up more than 60% of her Social Security paycheck — her primary source of income. Her utility costs are also expected to hike next year.

She received $708 last year from claiming a homestead tax credit, which is meant to help lower-income homeowners and renters recoup some property tax costs. That was down from the $900 credit she received five years ago after paying just $6,600 in rent. 

In the past, the homestead credit has paid to fill her propane tank for about three months during winter and offset some other costs. But it’s dwindling each year because the state rarely updates eligibility guidelines and credit calculations for inflation. Butler’s credit shrinks whenever the federal government increases her Social Security payment to account for the rising costs of living. 

She’s not alone. Statewide homestead credit claims dropped from an average of $523 per recipient in 2013 to $486 in 2025, with thousands fewer claimants as fewer people remained eligible.

“These things have never adjusted. But we’ve paid into these programs all our lives. I paid taxes for 50 years, (and) my Social Security is my benefit that I paid in,” Butler said. “You work hard and you pay into programs, and then when you need them in your older years like this, they’re not there for you.”

The Legislature has not substantially updated the homestead credit for 25 years, causing its value to erode. Recent Democratic proposals to update program guidelines have failed to gain Republican support.  

A tax credit’s history

By the 1960s, many in Wisconsin acknowledged the regressive nature of property taxes — that lower-income residents pay higher shares of their income than richer households do,  John Stark, then-Assistant Chief Counsel in the Legislative Reference Bureau, wrote in a 1991 history of property tax relief in Wisconsin. But the state Constitution’s “uniformity clause” restricted what type of tax relief lawmakers can enact. 

Against that backdrop, a State Commission on Aging in 1962 held hearings around the state in which older adults expressed concerns about health care and property taxes. The Legislature responded in 1963 with the homestead credit. Residents 65 and older could claim up to $225 (the equivalent of $2,380 today), with the precise calculation based on income, property taxes paid through ownership or rent.

The Legislature expanded eligibility over the years, notably in 1973, when it lowered the age minimum to 18. That dramatically boosted total claimants and payouts. By 1988, more than 250,000 people received a collective $100 million (roughly $270 million today) in credits.

The trend has since reversed. 

Fewer than 67,000 residents claimed a collective $32.6 million in credits last year — a precipitous plunge, Department of Revenue data show.

The program’s income cap today — $24,680 — has barely budged since 2000. The nearly identical cap of $24,500 in 2000 is the equivalent of $45,812 today when adjusted for inflation.

Meanwhile, the program’s “phaseout income” of $8,060, under which homeowners or renters can recoup the maximum 80% of property taxes paid, has increased by only $60 since the 1989 tax year.

Today’s maximum credit a household can claim ($1,168) is just $8 higher than the 1990 level.

Diane Hanson, Butler’s tax agent, said her clients are receiving smaller credits each year or becoming ineligible as inflation pushes wages or Social Security payments above the static income limit. 

Still, Hanson suspects many who remain eligible don’t realize it.

The homestead credit helped Hanson through her most challenging times. After learning about it at her local library, she claimed the credit for several years while raising her two children during a divorce, one of them with disabilities. 

After becoming a tax agent in 2019, she began to educate clients facing similar circumstances. They include Renata Braatz, who raises her 12-year-old son and spends about 30% of her monthly income on rent through the Section 8 voucher program. She claimed about $600 through the homestead program last year. She spent it on groceries and other expenses for her son.

“I never knew about it. I lived here for six years, and I just started doing it two years ago,” Braatz said. 

But asking questions paid off. 

“Renata was proactive, reaching out, phoning us, and asking if there could be any credits for her. I think that is more than some folks know to do,” Hanson said. “Before I was a tax professional, I myself didn’t know how much the federal earned income credit can help out parents.”

Democrats call for credit’s expansion 

Senate and Assembly Democrats earlier this year introduced identical bills to expand the homestead credit — allowing households earning up to $35,000 to claim it and indexing the maximum annual income, phaseout income and maximum credit to inflation. The proposal would have reduced state revenue by an estimated $36.7 million, $43 million and $48.8 million over the next three fiscal years.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers also proposed a homestead credit expansion in his last two-year budget. 

Neither  proposal advanced in the Republican-controlled Legislature. 

Sen. Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit, authored the Senate version of the bill with colleagues. His district borders Illinois, which offers a range of more generous homestead tax incentives. Several constituents who previously lived in Illinois asked him why Wisconsin doesn’t offer what Illinois does, inspiring the legislation.

The Wisconsin Constitution’s uniformity clause prohibits lawmakers from enacting Illinois-like tax exemptions for older adults or other low-income residents, Spreitzer said, but the credit offers a legal work-around.

“There’s not really another credit that takes the place of this,” he said. “That’s why the homestead credit is so important.”

Spreitzer said he plans to reintroduce an expansion bill, and he encourages residents to share their perspectives with their representatives.

“If we want to do something about affordability, this is a very direct thing we can do,” Spreitzer said. “We’re not creating a new credit here. This already exists. We’re just talking about increasing who qualifies and how much money they would get back, and that’s money that they would directly be able to get back on their taxes and then spend to put food on the plate for their families.”

Hanson sees a path for bipartisan support for an update. 

“The alternative is to see it dwindle,” Hanson said. “It hurts the segment of people that actually need it, the people who just don’t get much help anywhere. They’re still working hard to be independent.”

As living costs soar, tax relief shrinks for low-income Wisconsin residents is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Last winter, I got an intriguing story tip: Many Wisconsin manufactured home communities were operating with expired licenses. 

I didn’t initially know much about these communities, often called mobile home parks, where residents own their homes but rent the land they sit on. I quickly learned they provide a critical source of affordable housing in Wisconsin and beyond — the country’s largest portion of unsubsidized low-income housing. 

Housing experts and advocates told me private equity’s growing interest in the model threatens to change that. My reporting found that Wisconsin’s government is failing to enforce basic protections for owners. Still, some residents and groups see pathways for safe, affordable manufactured home ownership as a solution during an affordability crisis. 

That required talking to owners of manufactured homes across the state, starting with a February drive from Wisconsin Watch’s Madison newsroom to snowy La Crosse. There I met with a couple who moved into their manufactured home more than a decade ago. That meeting led to a months-long tour of similar communities. 

A Cumberland couple showed me their favorite part of their manufactured home, the fireplace. I passed out flyers in Richland Center and Spring Green, chatting with a surprising number of people who answered their doors.

As the weather warmed, I walked up to chatty neighbors sitting on porches in Wisconsin Dells. Menomonie residents stopped their yard work to talk. I left a set of Fond du Lac park interviews sunburned after standing on a porch for too long as residents lent me their time and perspectives. 

Not every homeowner’s experience made it into our “Forgotten homes” series, named after a lawmaker’s reference to the homes as “a forgotten segment of real estate.” But they often shared a lot of similarities. Here are some of my takeaways:

1. Park ownership is changing. While some residents said they know the person who owns their park, others were paying rent to out-of-state companies. Some mentioned concerns about what would happen to their homes once their local owner decides to sell. 

2. Residents don’t always know where to turn when conditions deteriorate. Wisconsin uses a patchwork of state and local agencies to monitor different aspects of manufactured home communities. That leaves residents unsure of where to complain about issues or unaware they have that option. 

3. People want to stay in their homes. Even as some residents face surging monthly payments, they struggle with the idea of giving up the space, independence and yards.

4. Owning a manufactured home outside of a park can be complicated. Wisconsin Habitat for Humanity affiliates are developing factory-built housing in residential neighborhoods. But local zoning can block certain homes from residential neighborhoods. And other park residents mentioned needing more money to purchase land themselves.

5. Manufactured homeowners often face stigma but are proud of their homes. Residents showed me carefully decorated lawns, peaceful walking routes through parks, kitchens with custom cabinets and the homes of their longtime neighbors and friends. 

Wisconsin’s forgotten homes: Takeaways from investigating manufactured housing is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.