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 housing system of the former Soviet Union: Why do the soviets need housing markets?

Abstract

The administrative‐command system that had been in full force in the Soviet Union between 1927 and 1990 had its own logic and internal consistency. It is now common knowledge that this economic system has flaws that led to a deepening secular decline over the past three decades. Because of ideological reasons, and an inadequate economic understanding of the capacity of their system to be liberalized, many reformers sought a third way between central planning and markets. The consensus today is that there is no third way. Among the former Soviet republics, Russia has just embarked on market‐oriented reforms and is facing a difficult and unstable transition because central planning mechanisms have ceased to function, but markets are not yet in place. This transition is particularly problematic for housing, which is a very severely distorted economic sector.

The international evidence on market economies that has accumulated over the past 20 years shows that, when housing sector distortions exist, they are predominantly found on the supply side. In socialist economies, however, housing is part of the compensation provided by enterprises and other employers. As a result housing suffers from demand‐side distortions in addition to the supply‐side problems caused by the absence of land markets, vague property rights, and burdensome urban regulations. The housing sector is already so large and distorted in these highly urban economies that overall economic reforms cannot succeed without housing reforms. In addition to presenting an overview of Soviet housing, this paper provides comparative evidence indicating that, among all the distorted socialist housing systems, Russia's probably is the most impaired. The basic elements of a market‐oriented strategy to improve housing are briefly presented.     

Comment on Jill Khadduri's “should the housing voucher program become a state‐administered block grant?”

Abstract

The stated goal of the Housing Act of 1949 is “a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family.” It is time that we delivered on that commitment. Contrary to popular opinion, this does not require spending more money on housing assistance. It can be achieved without additional funds by shifting all funds from less cost‐effective methods for delivering housing assistance to choice‐based vouchers as soon as current contractual commitments permit and by gradually reducing the large subsidies to current voucher recipients. The proposal to replace the Housing Choice Voucher Program with a block grant to states can contribute to this goal by precluding the use of the block grant funds for project‐based assistance, increasing the targeting of assistance to the poorest families, and including the fraction of recipients with extremely low incomes in the formula for determining the performance rating of state programs.     

Comment on “Does the Likely Demographics of Affordable Housing Justify NIMBYism?”

Abstract

Automated underwriting (AU) systems have become the tool of choice in mortgage lending decisions. While these systems provide significant benefits to mortgage originators and investors, questions have been raised about their impact on underserved populations. The questions focus on the relative accuracy of AU compared with manual underwriting and whether AU has increased the flow of mortgage credit to underserved consumers.

Using information from Freddie Mac's Loan Prospector AU service, we provide statistics useful in examining these issues. The data strongly support our view that AU provides substantial benefits to consumers, particularly those at the margin of the underwriting decision. We find evidence that AU systems more accurately predict default than manual underwriters do. We also find evidence that this increased accuracy results in higher borrower approval rates, especially for underserved applicants.     

Comment on Bruce J. Katz and Margery Austin Turner's “Who should run the housing voucher program? A reform proposal”: Why public housing authorities remain the best solution for running the housing voucher program

Abstract

Katz and Turner propose that the Section 8 program be administered regionally at the metropolitan level by a single organization awarded the contract through a competitive bidding process. We disagree. Local public housing authorities have been successful in providing family housing choice and moving families from the worst neighborhoods through the Section 8 program. The factors that inhibit mixed‐income communities and family mobility, resulting in concentration of poverty, are beyond the control of these authorities and will be affected little by a change in administration. Moreover, the additional cost of these changes would decrease the number of families served and at the same time increase bureaucracy.

We welcome the discussion the proposal has caused. Misperceptions exist about the program, even among those close to it. True, effective program reform can be engendered only by an honest dialogue among housing advocates, administrators, and consumers, both tenants and owners.     

Comment on Jill Khadduri's “should the housing voucher program become a state‐administered block grant?” A housing voucher block grant is a bad idea

Abstract

Khadduri argues for a well‐designed voucher block grant, phased in over several years. But proposals under consideration are more likely to undermine the effectiveness of vouchers than address their limitations. The most important advantage of housing vouchers is that they give recipients the freedom to choose the kind of housing and the location that best meet their needs. Although the current program is not living up to its potential, strategies for making it work better can be implemented without a block grant. Supporters of block grants claim welfare reform as a model, but none of the factors that contributed to declining caseloads under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families apply to housing. The single biggest problem with the housing voucher program is that federal spending for affordable housing is woefully inadequate. Instead of addressing this issue, a block grant would make housing hardship a state rather than a federal problem.     

Comment on Kirk McClure's “Are low-income housing tax credit developments locating where there is a shortage of affordable units?”

Kirk McClure's article makes important contributions to our understanding of the way in which state allocating agencies are using the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). However, one of the premises of his analysis – that allocating agencies should encourage the location housing developments in census tracts with a “surplus” of low-income renters – is mistaken. Census tracts are too small to be considered closed-system housing markets. Additionally, the LIHTC program does not exist in isolation, but instead as part of a combined national rental housing policy that includes both supply-side programs (LIHTC) and demand-side programs (housing vouchers). A final flaw in the notion that LIHTC units should be built in census tracts with a surplus of renter households in the 30% to 60% of AMI range compared with the units affordable to them is that increasing the amount of affordable housing in those tracts could have the effect of further concentrating households by income and race.     

Comment on Martin D. Abravanel's “Public knowledge of fair housing law: Does it protect against housing discrimination?"—Organize! the limits of public awareness in ensuring fair housing

Abstract

Public awareness may contribute to enforcement of fair housing law. But available resources would be more productively used if they were invested directly in more aggressive and innovative law enforcement activities. Emerging debates over land use practices, particularly those pertaining to sprawl and affordable housing, may create new avenues for fair housing activity. The overriding challenge for the fair housing community, however, is to organize an effective constituency that can demand greater attention to education, enforcement, or other actions to achieve fair housing goals.     

Comment on Bruce J. Katz and Margery Austin Turner's “Who should run the housing voucher program? A reform proposal”

Abstract

There is much evidence that the housing voucher program has successfully met its two main goals: housing low‐income families and expanding housing opportunity. Nonetheless, efforts to address the program's limitations could improve success. We agree with Basgal and Villarreal that, on the subject of housing mobility, the focus of Katz and Turner is misplaced.

In addition to proposing a solution that does not address the problem, Katz and Turner fail to consider three key points: First, there is no consensus or clear definition of what “mobility” means, how it is measured, and what standard we hope to achieve. Second, the role and impact of family choice in the locational outcomes of voucher holders is a major factor. And third, the considerable trade‐offs in outcomes that result from a greater emphasis on mobility should be examined.     

Comment on Chester Hartman and David Robinson's “evictions: The hidden housing problem”

Abstract

Evictions and involuntary moves negatively affecting poor renters present a significant problem. Creating a national database to comprehensively document the magnitude of the problem, however, presents serious difficulties. Most local courts do not publish data on court actions involving evictions. To do this on a national level and to obtain all of the data needed by the authors would require special funding and the cooperation of courts; these are unlikely to materialize. To obtain comprehensive data on involuntary moves beyond the court system would present even greater difficulty.

Improvements can be made in existing protections for tenants vulnerable to displacement without compiling comprehensive national data. Previous examples include the debates over displacement and homelessness. Since legislative and administrative reforms are more likely at the state and local levels, reform efforts, including any data collection, should be primarily focused there.     

Comment on Robert E. Lang,Katrin B. Anacker,and Steven Hornburg's “the new politics of affordable housing”

Abstract

In his thoughtful analysis, Joseph realistically points to what a mixed‐income housing development can and cannot offer its low‐income residents. Observed benefits include greater informal social controls over the development, likely proximal modeling opportunities for youth, and participation in a political‐economic subgroup that can demand more responsive public services. Yet without offering more comprehensive, structured supports to its residents, no form of housing alone can be an antidote to poverty.

However, if we expand Joseph's analysis to include the impact of large‐scale developments on distressed urban neighborhoods, we can see mixed‐income housing catalyzing other benefits for low‐income residents. These benefits include a reduced housing cost burden; more structured supportive services; dramatically improved surroundings; high‐quality housing and community design; faster‐paced complementary investments in public systems and amenities; and strategically restored market functioning that offers more choices, lower prices, new jobs, and additional tax revenues to support service delivery.     

Comment on James R. Cohen's “abandoned housing: Exploring lessons from Baltimore”

Abstract

For most cities, the possibility of transforming unused property into community and city assets is as yet hypothetical. Fiscal constraints limit the amount of land acquisition, relocation, and demolition that cities can undertake. Private investors, unsure of which neighborhoods have a chance of becoming self‐sustaining, are reluctant to take risks in untested markets.

Cities need to create citywide planning strategies for land aggregation and neighborhood stabilization and to develop analyses of the risks and opportunities associated with redevelopment opportunities in specific markets. Research seems sorely needed. Although the policy world cannot and will not stand still waiting for academics to design the perfect study or to collect all the data to model the potential effects of various policy options and investments, analysis that can play a more immediately supportive role can and should be done now.     

What do judges say on the protection of intelligence secrets?

This article discusses the role of the discourse of law in legitimizing the protection of intelligence secrets. It draws on examples from the United Kingdom and the United States to illustrate rhetorical regularities with respect to the need to protect intelligence officers, agents, sources and methods, the effectiveness of intelligence agencies, international intelligence relationships and the effects of a mosaic of disclosed information. It concludes that judges produce specialized knowledge on state secrecy that plays a part in shaping the understanding of state secrecy in society.     

What price the court of St. James? Political influences on ambassadorial postings of the United States of America

This paper explores the appointment of career diplomats and political appointees to ambassadorial positions. We present models of the strategic interaction of political donors and presidential candidates, which predicts that donations will match the quality of diplomatic posting granted by the candidate. We test this prediction and confirm it for four presidential terms representing two presidents and 764 diplomatic postings over the 2000 to 2013 period. This allows for the generation of a price list associated with a range of desirable diplomatic posts. This paper provides evidence in support of the proposition that ambassadorships, in locations that are deemed desirable such as Western Europe, are awarded as a form of patronage in return for campaign contributions.     

Comment on Kirk Mcclure's “The low‐income housing tax credit program goes mainstream and moves to the suburbs”

Abstract

As McClure's article notes, the Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program has indeed gone mainstream. Given the tarnished reputation of many other federal low‐income housing programs, this is good news. It is also surprising in some ways considering the many programmatic flaws inherent in the LIHTC program.

As a point of departure, I look at why McClure and others are able to describe the program in a positive light despite its many flaws. I attribute this to the unique political culture of the United States, for which the LIHTC program is well suited. In addition, it sidesteps one of the thorniest problems that have bedeviled low‐income housing programs—the spatial isolation of poor minorities. Until the LIHTC program explicitly addresses this issue, however, any praise must be tempered by a great deal of caution.     

Greasing the wheels? The impact of regulations and corruption on firm entry

This paper investigates the question of whether corruption might ‘grease the wheels’ of an economy. We investigate whether and to what extent the impact of regulations on entrepreneurship is dependent on corruption. We first test whether regulations robustly deter firm entry into markets. Our results show that the existence of a larger number of procedures required to start a business, as well as larger minimum capital requirements are detrimental to entrepreneurship. Second, we test whether corruption reduces the negative impact of regulations on entrepreneurship in highly regulated economies. Our empirical analysis, covering a maximum of 43 countries over the 2003–2005 period, shows that corruption facilitates firm entry in highly regulated economies. For example, the ‘greasing’ effect of corruption kicks in at around 50 days required to start a new business. Our results thus provide support for the ‘grease the wheels’ hypothesis.     

Comment on Victoria Basolo and Mai Thi Nguyen's “Does mobility matter? The neighborhood conditions of housing voucher holders by race and ethnicity”

Abstract

Creating the opportunity for minorities to move away from poor, racially concentrated neighborhoods to better ones is an important goal of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. However, mobility is not its only—or even its primary—objective. Rather, it aims to reduce severe rent burdens for very low income families and individuals.

Basolo and Nguyen imply that the voucher program by itself can overcome entrenched patterns of racial discrimination. This is unrealistic, even when families receive search assistance. Instead, the test is whether a minority family with a voucher is more likely to live in a low‐poverty, low‐minority neighborhood than the same family without a voucher. The program passes that test. However, Basolo and Nguyen's analysis points to the need for more research on voucher use in localities like Santa Ana where overcrowded housing is an issue, in neighborhoods with a mixed minority population, and in specific metropolitan areas.     

Comment on Jennifer Steffel Johnson and Emily Talen's “affordable housing in New Urbanist Communities: A survey of developers”

Abstract

A long‐time criticism of New Urbanism has been that the housing it provides is affordable only to middle‐ and upper‐income families. Johnson and Talen's survey of New Urbanist developers and developments is intended to see whether this criticism is justified. Although the methodology is limited, the results of this survey would seem to indicate that it is.

Because Johnson and Talen's survey is restricted to New Urbanist developments, it is not possible to compare the results with those for other, more conventional developments to see whether New Urbanist developments may actually contain more affordable units than comparable conventional projects. Also, limiting the definition of affordability to the cost of housing alone prevents the authors from seeing whether the housing New Urbanist communities provide would be considered less expensive if housing and transportation costs were combined.