A mobility strategy for improving opportunity

Abstract

Postwar changes in the metropolitan settlement structure have profoundly altered the geography of opportunity in the older cities of the Northeast and Midwest. Poverty is concentrated in once‐central cities, while employment continues to deconcentrate to the suburbs. In the face of these changes, antipoverty policy has become a geographic exercise of moving people and resources from certain places to other places.

The three main strategies for confronting inner‐city poverty are dispersal, development, and mobility. These strategies are discussed and compared, with particular emphasis on the mobility approach. The article argues that the mobility approach—which connects poor inner‐city residents to suburban employment opportunities without changing the location of households or firms—is the most promising near‐term strategy for combating urban poverty.     

Reinventing the central city as a place to live and work

Abstract

Public policies for urban development have traditionally emphasized investment in physical infrastructure, the development of large‐scale commercial facilities, the construction of new housing, and the renewal of existing neighborhoods. Most efforts to revitalize central cities by building new facilities for visitors have focused on suburban commuters and tourists. At the same time, many housing initiatives in central cities have concentrated on low‐income communities because outlying suburban areas have attracted traditional middle‐income households.

This article argues that emerging demographic and cultural trends—combined with changes in the structure of business organizations and technological advances—provide new opportunities for cities to retain and attract middle‐class households. Using gay and lesbian populations as an example, it focuses on the role that nontraditional households can play in urban redevelopment. In light of the rise of nontraditional households and the growth of self‐employment and small businesses, cities should adopt policies that make them attractive places in which to live and work.     

Do impact fees raise the price of existing housing?

Abstract

This article uses 1991–2000 data on single‐family housing sales from King County, WA, to provide new evidence relating to the effects of impact fees on housing prices. The hedonic regression method is used to examine the effects of these fees on existing housing as well as their differential effects on price as determined by housing quality.

Impact fees raise existing home prices by about 83 percent of the amount of the fee. The increase is 103 percent for high‐quality homes and is not statistically significant for low‐quality homes. The owners of high‐quality homes realize capital gains from impact fees. However, such fees do not raise the price of low‐quality homes. To the extent that low‐quality housing is more likely to be owned by low‐ and moderate‐income households, which are often composed of racial and ethnic minorities, this finding has significant policy implications for the supporters of impact fees.     

The challenge of our declining big cities

Abstract

This article describes the population forces that caused U.S. metropolitan areas to grow rapidly after 1940 but caused falling population in many large older cities. It shows why the basic processes that generated the spatial growth and development of American metropolitan areas have also undermined the fiscal strength of many older central cities and inner‐ring suburbs. By concentrating low‐income households in inner‐core neighborhoods, these processes create undesirable conditions that motivate economically viable households and firms to move to surrounding suburbs and not move back.

Three strategies have been suggested for improving these conditions: major structural reform of metropolitan institutions, limited reform of big‐city governments, and community development of inner‐core areas. The first is the most capable of changing the dynamics causing decline, but it lacks political support because it would require the majority of metropolitan residents to sacrifice some benefits they gain from existing arrangements.     

Comment on Donald A. Krueckeberg's “The Lessons of John Locke or Hernando de Soto: What if Your Dreams Come True?”

Abstract

Krueckeberg's critique of de Soto's paean to homeownership in Third World countries is well taken; his use of John Locke's rationale for private ownership provides support for the critique. But then Krueckeberg puts forward a proposal to extend homeowner‐ship benefits through a National Homestead Trust, with Individual Development Accounts or a tax like Social Security, to help renters accumulate a down payment. Abandoning a broader approach, Krueckeberg reverts to supporting homeownership as a central tenet of U.S. housing policy and wants to extend its real and perceived benefits to low‐income households. He recognizes the shortcomings of U.S. property law and tax policy that may leave low‐income owners with threats to shelter security.

To provide security for low‐income residents, fundamental changes are required. Attention should be paid to protection from evictions and from foreclosure; income/employment support; guarantee of services from utilities to schools; and, as needed, direct subsidies for housing.     

Emerging cohort trends in housing debt and home equity

Abstract

Financial and market conditions in the 1990s caused a sharp increase in the housing debt (in constant dollars) of households now approaching or just past normal retirement age. Households now in middle age have also set new records for housing debt and will likely continue to carry high housing debt when they reach old age in 10 or 20 years.

In the future, this housing debt burden is likely to lead to financial and housing adjustments that suggest a qualitative change in behavior when these households reach the later stages of their working life. Many will need to work longer to service housing debt. When facing a life‐cycle downturn in annual income, households will be increasingly motivated to tap into their home equity, both by borrowing, for those who stay in their homes, or by downsizing and liquidating some equity, for those who choose to move.     

Comment on Elvin K. Wyly and Daniel J. Hammel's “Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing Policy and the Resurgence of Gentrification"—Gentrification resurgent?

Abstract

Gentrification is a procyclical process by which certain inner‐city neighborhoods are revitalized to meet the demands of professional households. It is confined to cities with substantial central business district office growth and with housing markets characterized by substantial suburb‐to‐inner city filtering. The process remains limited in scale, and available data do not permit a judgment as to whether changes in mortgage lending have changed the nature of the process.     

Some realities about sprawl and urban decline

Abstract

Many urban analysts believe suburban sprawl has become an important issue because it helps generate two types of problems: growth‐related difficulties like rising traffic congestion, and high concentrations of poor minority households in core‐area neighborhoods. However, a careful regression analysis of measures of both sprawl and urban decline shows no statistically significant relation between these two conditions.

The basic nature of the American urban development process would cause core‐area poverty concentrations even if sprawl were replaced by more compact growth forms. But sprawl does aggravate growth‐related problems. Those problems could be attacked through either alternative overall growth strategies—such as high‐density, tightly bounded growth—or specific anti‐sprawl tactics, such as regional tax‐base sharing and regional coordination of land uses. But no feasible policies are likely either to alleviate traffic congestion much or cause most American regions to abandon sprawl.     

The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit An Analysis of the First Ten Years

Abstract

The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) has been the de facto federal rental housing production program since its creation in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. In this article, using a detailed database on 2,554 LIHTC projects, we analyze the costs of building these projects, where they are built, their financial viability, whom they serve, who finances them, and the size of the subsidies provided to them.

The LIHTC is a flexible program that has built different types of housing in various markets. While LIHTC projects serve low‐ and moderate‐income households, their rents are beyond the reach of many poor households without additional subsidy. Revenues just cover costs for many LIHTC projects. Over time, considerably more of each tax‐credit dollar has ended up in the projects, and returns to equity investors have dropped significantly, perhaps reflecting an increased understanding of project risks. We estimate that LIHTC projects developed by nonprofits are 20.3 percent more expensive than those developed by for‐profits.     

Where Does Location Affordability Drive Residential Mobility? An Analysis of Origin and Destination Communities

Abstract

Despite an overall decrease in residential mobility after the 2007 housing crisis, many households, particularly those that are low income, continue to move in pursuit of a better life. Traditional theories of residential mobility suggest that mobility will occur when housing and transportation costs are cumulatively greater than the cost of moving to a new location. At the same time, the influence of these factors is not likely to be uniform across geographic contexts or for moves up or down the metropolitan hierarchy. Our analysis examines how well affordability measures explain patterns of county-level residential mobility. Specifically, we contrast conventional measures of affordability focused on the ratio of income to housing expense with measures of location affordability that factor in both housing and transportation costs. We find that whereas households tend to move from lower to higher cost locations, transit affordability at the destination plays an important role in mobility decisions.     

The low‐income housing tax credit program goes mainstream and moves to the suburbs

Abstract

The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is now 20 years old. With the maturing of the program, the use of tax credits has become commonplace in the development of rental housing across the nation. This article examines how the program has changed both financially and spatially. Specifically, the article asks whether it provides a mechanism that can help deconcentrate impoverished renters by providing access to low‐poverty neighborhoods.

This research finds that as the price for tax credits rises, the program becomes increasingly popular with developers who are helping it make inroads in low‐poverty suburbs. By entering the suburbs, the LIHTC program is meeting and even exceeding the performance of the Housing Choice Voucher Program in terms of offering opportunities to live in low‐poverty settings.     

Market factors affecting spatial heterogeneity among urban neighborhoods

Abstract

Institutional factors perpetuating segregation in urban neighborhoods— redlining by lenders and insurers, steering by brokers, and discrimination by owners—have attracted much attention recently. But natural market forces (demand, supply, and equilibrium price adjustment) can also create neighborhood heterogeneity in income, race, and housing characteristics.

This article establishes a framework to examine the market forces that create spatial clustering of households. On the demand side, differences in resident preferences and incomes lead to clustering; on the supply side, differences in cost functions, created by market specialization or location‐specific features, are important. Equilibrium price adjustment reinforces tendencies toward heterogeneity and leads to differential affordability patterns. Bid‐rent and other models of residential location, discrimination in urban housing markets, and the Tiebout model are discussed. A research agenda is proposed to measure neighborhood heterogeneity, isolate its influence on educational and employment opportunities, and evaluate policies for ameliorating its adverse effects.     

Income tax concessions for owner‐occupied housing

Abstract

This article considers arguments for and against the major tax concessions for owner‐occupied housing in the Internal Revenue Code—concessions that have a significant effect on the federal budget. It recommends retaining two of the concessions— nontaxation of net imputed income and exemption of capital gains—and abolishing two others—the mortgage interest and real estate tax deductions.

After a review of the market impact of removing each deduction, the article concludes that an appropriate phase‐out period of 15 to 20 years would virtually eliminate adverse effects on house prices and homeowners.     

Discrimination in urban credit markets: What we don't know and why we don't know it

Abstract

Research on discrimination in housing credit has focused primarily on the outcomes of a complex process in which many parties play a role. The lender— or prospective lender—is only one party in the process that results in decisions by individuals and households to buy homes and finance their purchases. To focus solely on lenders would make it difficult to measure the nature and extent of discrimination and its effects on housing outcomes.

After discussing limitations of housing credit discrimination research, the author suggests two relatively underexplored areas: studying housing search behavior and auditing lenders to assess their treatment of prospective borrowers before the stage at which written loan applications are submitted. Both suggested avenues of research might better address three public policy questions for which our knowledge is incomplete: Is there discrimination? Where does it occur in the home‐buying process? What are the effects of discrimination on household behavior?     

Nativity differences in neighborhood quality among New York city households

Abstract

This article adds to the literature on locational attainment of immigrants by evaluating how immigrant households in New York City compare with native‐born households with respect to neighborhood characteristics. It also examines whether the relationship between immigrant status and neighborhood quality varies by race/ethnicity and place of birth.

Overall, foreign‐born households are more likely than native‐born households to live in neighborhoods with less access to medical care, higher rates of tuberculosis, and higher concentrations of poverty. Multivariate analyses reveal that all but one of these disadvantages disappear for foreign‐born households as a group. However, island‐born Puerto Ricans and immigrants—especially Dominicans, Caribbeans and Africans, and Latin Americans—are more likely to reside in lower‐quality neighborhoods than native‐born white households. Equally important, native‐born blacks and Hispanics are also disproportionately disadvantaged relative to native‐born whites, suggesting that a racial hierarchy exists in the locational attainment of households in New York City.     

Section 8 and Movement to Job Opportunity: Experience after Welfare Reform in Kansas City

Abstract

This research addresses the extent to which tenant‐based rental assistance, before and after welfare reform, helps households move to areas with greater opportunities for employment. It was thought that the threat of losing their welfare benefits would encourage participants in the Section 8 program to use the mobility it offers to move to neighborhoods with greater opportunities for employment.

Two samples of Section 8 program participants, one taken before welfare reform and the other taken after it was enacted, have been examined. With the strong economy after welfare reform, more Section 8 households are employed and fewer are on welfare. However, the analysis finds that, independent of welfare reform, households did not use their housing subsidy to move to areas with greater opportunities for employment. Program participants typically remained in racially concentrated areas of the central city, away from those neighborhoods with job growth or large numbers of jobs.     

On the equity effects of taxing imputed rent: Evidence from Australia

Abstract

Taxation of net imputed rent from owner‐occupied housing (and mortgage interest deductibility) has been advocated in Australia on grounds of both efficiency and equity. The current tax system (no taxation or deductibility) favors owner‐occupied housing over business investments, and in the owner‐occupied sector it favors high‐income, low‐debt households over others. Nevertheless, imputed rent taxation has been criticized on the empirical grounds that its direct burden would fall more heavily on low‐income households than high‐income households.

Using micro‐level data from the 1986 Income Distribution Survey, we show that the burden does not fall more heavily on low‐income households when net imputed rent is included in owners’ incomes and when life cycle effects are controlled for. Moreover, for married couples aged 25 to 54, the taxation of imputed rental income would be not only progressive, but more progressive than the taxation of other household income.     

Brownfield redevelopment and affordable housing: A case study of New Jersey

Abstract

A total of 779 New Jersey residents were surveyed to determine the number of people who during the next five years would be willing to move to housing built on brownfield sites that have been remediated to the extent that they pose no plausible brownfield‐related health risk to residents.

Fourteen percent of the respondents said they would be willing to move to and live in housing built on cleaned‐up brownfields. These respondents were disproportionately relatively poor and young and resided in apartments and cities, especially cities where the city government was actively promoting brownfields. These respondents also did not like their current neighborhoods, did not feel threatened by the idea of living on a cleaned‐up brownfield site, and trusted experts to advise them on the health risks involved.     

Child characteristics and successful use of housing vouchers: Estimates from the moving to opportunity demonstration

Abstract

Voucher‐based programs have become the most common form of housing assistance for low‐income families in the United States, yet only a slim majority of households that are offered vouchers actually move with them. This article uses data from 2,938 households in the Moving to Opportunity demonstration program to examine whether child characteristics influence the probability that a household will successfully use a housing voucher to lease‐up.

Our results suggest that while many child characteristics have little bearing on the use of housing vouchers, child health, behavioral, and educational problems, particularly the presence of multiple problems in a household, do have an influence. Households with two or more child problems are 7 percentage points less likely to move than those who have none of these problems or only one. Results suggest that such families may need additional support to benefit from housing vouchers or alternative types of affordable housing units.     

Section 8: The time for fundamental program change?

Abstract

We argue that Section 8 low‐income rental assistance—now called the Housing Choice Voucher Program—needs to be restructured and integrated with the other elements of the federal safety net for low‐income households. Since the program was introduced in 1974, the quality of the nation's housing stock has continued to improve, to the point that only a very small percentage of it is severely inadequate. Yet low‐income households continue to face problems such as affordability, neighborhood decline, limited access to economic opportunity, and involuntary mobility.

While the Section 8 program has partially addressed some of these problems, it has a number of shortcomings, primarily the fact that it does not materially improve housing conditions for most recipients. Instead, it is little more than a poorly disguised income supplement. Housing vouchers should be directly integrated into the federal safety net as an entitlement to households that qualify for assistance.