Revitalizing inner‐city neighborhoods: New York city's Ten‐Year Plan

Abstract

This article examines the impact of New York City's Ten‐Year Plan on the sale prices of homes in surrounding neighborhoods. Beginning in the mid‐1980s, New York City invested $5.1 billion in constructing or rehabilitating over 180,000 units of housing in many of the city's most distressed neighborhoods. One of the main purposes was to spur neighborhood revitalization.

In this article, we describe the origins of the Ten‐Year Plan, as well as the various programs the city used to implement it, and estimate whether housing built or rehabilitated under the Ten‐Year Plan affected the prices of nearby homes. The prices of homes within 500 feet of Ten‐Year Plan units rose relative to those located beyond 500 feet, but still within the same census tract. These findings are consistent with the proposition that well‐planned project‐based housing programs can generate positive spillover effects and contribute to efforts to revitalize inner‐city neighborhoods.     

Why voucher and certificate users live in distressed neighborhoods

Abstract

The Section 8 voucher and certificate program potentially allows recipients to choose better neighborhoods than they might otherwise be able to afford. This article compares the location of households using Section 8 vouchers and certificates with the location of other renter households, both low‐income renters and all renters.

In 1998, Section 8 users were 75 percent as likely as other poor tenants to live in distressed neighborhoods but 150 percent more likely than all renters to live in such tracts. These national averages obscure substantial variation among metropolitan areas. Section 8 users concentrate in distressed neighborhoods when rental housing concentrates there, but they avoid distressed neighborhoods with very low rents. Concentration also hinges on race; when assisted households are mostly black and other residents are mostly white, assisted households are much more likely to live in distressed neighborhoods.     

Preserving Neighborhood Opportunity: Where Federal Housing Subsidies Expire

Abstract

Rent burdens are increasing in U.S. metropolitan areas while subsidies on privately owned, publicly subsidized rental units are expiring. As a result, some of the few remaining affordable units in opportunity neighborhoods are at risk of being converted to market rate. Policy makers face a decision about whether to devote their efforts and scarce resources toward developing new affordable housing, recapitalizing existing subsidized housing, and/or preserving properties with expiring subsidies. There are several reasons to preserve these subsidies, one being that properties may be located in neighborhoods with greater opportunity. In this article, we use several sources of data at the census tract level to learn how subsidy expirations affect neighborhood opportunity for low-income households. Our analysis presents several key findings. First, we find that units that left the project-based Section 8 program were – on average – in lower opportunity neighborhoods, but these neighborhoods were improving. In addition, properties due to expiry from the Section 8 program between 2011 and 2020 are in higher opportunity neighborhoods than any other subsidy program. On the contrary, new Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units were developed in tracts similar to those where LIHTC units are currently active, which tend to be lower opportunity neighborhoods.     

“… And a suitable living environment”: The failure of housing programs to deliver on neighborhood quality

Abstract

This article evaluates the relative performance of housing programs in terms of neighborhood quality. We profile neighborhood characteristics surrounding assisted housing units and assess the direction of assisted housing policy in light of this information. The analysis relies on a housing census database we developed that identifies the type and census tract location of assisted housing units—that is, public housing, developments assisted under the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Direct Loan Program, the low‐income housing tax credit, certificates and vouchers, and state rental assistance programs.

We conclude that project‐based assistance programs do little to improve the quality of recipients’ neighborhoods relative to those of welfare households and, in the case of public housing, appear to make things significantly worse. The certificate and voucher programs, however, appear to reduce the probability that families will live in the most economically and socially distressed areas.     

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.     

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.     

Preservation policies in perspective

Abstract

This paper looks at the housing stock serving low‐income households and provides recommendations for future analysis and action. It concludes that too little attention is being paid to preserving the stock of unassisted units affordable by very low‐income families. This stock has shrunk in recent years, while the number of poverty‐level families has increased. Several recommendations for action by local governments are enumerated. Moreover, while much attention is focused on preserving projects developed under early federal assistance programs, policies for preserving units developed under the Section 8 program are needed to preserve owners’ incentives for maintaining these projects. Additionally, preservation issues must be considered in designing any new production programs. The paper outlines one option for a new program with a radically simplified financing structure.     

Understanding the changing fortunes of metropolitan neighborhoods, 1980 to 1990

Abstract

This article develops a model that relates decadal changes in neighborhood poverty rates to metropolitan‐wide economic changes and the neighborhood's demographic profile, predetermined poverty rate, and locational characteristics. The model is estimated for the 1980–1990 period using metropolitan census tracts as proxies for neighborhoods. This national sample of tracts is stratified into predominantly white, African‐American, Hispanic, and mixed subsamples.

Results indicate that only a few variables consistently predict growth in neighborhood poverty: overall job availability; the age composition of neighborhood residents; the proportion of nonmarried households; and the neighborhood's 1979 poverty rate. Other variables have distinctly different coefficients depending on the racial‐ethnic subsample. These coefficients include segregation, welfare benefits, the location of manufacturing employment, and availability of automobiles. We conclude that studies that focus solely on African‐American poverty neighborhoods fail to recognize common patterns across all neighborhoods and to discern unique features of neighborhoods inhabited predominantly by non‐African Americans.     

Race and residential accessibility to shopping and services

Abstract

Predominantly black, upper‐income census tracts in the 10‐county Atlanta region have lower accessibility to certain personal consumption opportunities than comparable white tracts do; black residents are more likely to have to leave their neighborhoods to eat out (other than at fast food restaurants), grocery shop, or see movies. Accessibility is calculated as a function of travel time to providers of local goods and services. Such accessibility is a desirable attribute and contributes to neighborhood quality and housing value.

We find that differences in residential accessibility to shopping and services by race are not explained by income differences, but could result from real differences in consumption patterns, though these are more likely due to demographic differences between black and white populations of comparable incomes; inaccurate information on neighborhood attributes and personal consumption preferences; or racially biased business decisions. We conclude by summarizing the policy implications of our findings.     

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.     

Comment on Dennis P. Culhane et al.’s “Public shelter admission rates in Philadelphia and New York City: The implications of turnover for sheltered population counts”

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developments serve renter households with incomes between 30% and 60% of Area Median Family Income. Ideally, the program places units into neighborhoods where there is a shortage of units serving this cohort. LIHTC units are allocated to developers by state agencies through their Qualified Allocation Plans which should direct units to areas of need. Using a national database, this research examines where LIHTC developments were placed in service to determine whether these developments enter tracts experiencing shortages.

The LIHTC program is not directing units to those census tracts where there is a latent demand for units in this rent range. Rather, it is placing units into tracts that have surpluses. Equally, the program is not placing units in tracts with little or no affordable housing. This suggests that the program is not breaking down the income separation that exists in the nation's housing markets.     

Housing vouchers versus housing production: Assessing long‐term costs

Abstract

Possibly the single largest debate in the field of affordable rental housing concerns the use of tenant‐based assistance versus project‐based assistance. The accepted wisdom is that project‐based assistance costs anywhere from 50 to 100 percent more than tenant‐based assistance. This premium for project‐based housing is based on a comparison of subsidy costs at the start of a project's life rather than on a comparison of the discounted present value of the costs over the long term.

The subsidy costs of samples of Section 8 new construction projects have been compared to those of Section 8 certificates over a long period of time. The results indicate that the cost premium associated with project‐based assistance may be lower than conventionally believed, around 40 percent, and may get even lower if the cost comparison could extend to longer time periods and could control for the quality of the housing units.     

Racial/ethnic differences in utilization of section 8 existing rental vouchers and certificates

Abstract

This study examines racial and ethnic differences in the success of Section 8 Existing Housing Program enrollees in using rental vouchers and certificates. The study uses data from a sample of large urban public housing authorities (PHAs) collected by Abt Associates for the Housing Voucher Demonstration.

The study finds that, excluding one site, average success rates for whites, blacks, and Hispanics are quite similar. However, minority success rates are significantly higher than nonminority success rates in some sites, and significantly lower in others. The racial and ethnic differences in success rates appear to be related to the proportion of enrollees in each program that were nonminority. Nonminority whites tend to be less successful than blacks or Hispanics in sites where most enrollees are minority, and more successful in sites where most enrollees are white. We believe this may reflect low enrollee success rates in searching for units outside the Section 8 submarket, as defined by existing recipients.     

Introduction to session 3: Estimating the costs: Perspectives on preservation of the nation's lower‐income housing stock

Abstract

This article uses survey data from the Moving to Opportunity demonstration program in Chicago to explore changes for households moving from public housing. The focus is on two key areas: housing and neighborhood conditions, and labor force participation and employment of householders. The experimental design of the program allows the differences between comparison households, which moved with a regular Section 8 voucher, and experimental households, which moved to low‐poverty neighborhoods with housing counseling assistance, to be examined.

The findings, based on interviews an average of 18 months after families moved, reveal dramatic improvements in neighborhood and housing conditions for all participating families; experimental families experienced even greater gains in terms of housing and especially neighborhood conditions. Labor force participation and employment increased for householders in both groups, likely fueled by the robust economy throughout much of the country and supporting similar findings for program participants in New York and Boston.     

Can we explain the Santa Clara county housing market?

Abstract

Santa Clara County has recently had the highest house prices of any large housing market in the nation. Part of the explanation lies in the extraordinarily low user cost of housing caused by the interaction of high incomes and the tax deductions available to homeowners. But this article also evaluates whether changes in stock wealth have been responsible for the recent increase in housing prices in Santa Clara County.

Although three different stock market measures add explanatory power to a model of housing prices in the region, none of these indexes predicts the housing price increases seen in 1999 and 2000. In fact, the within‐sample models have .R‐squares of only 0.22, and even the best model (based on the Standard & Poor's 500) does not forecast well out of sample. Still, the market is unusual in that stock prices seem to have some impact on house prices.     

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.     

Moving out of poverty: Expanding mobility and choice through tenant‐based housing assistance

Abstract

Historically, federal housing policy has contributed to the concentration of poverty in urban America. Moving out of poverty is not the right answer for every low‐income family, but tenant‐based housing assistance (Section 8 certificates and vouchers) has tremendous potential to help families move to healthier neighborhoods. This article explores the role of tenant‐based housing assistance in addressing the problem of concentrated inner‐city poverty.

The Section 8 program by itself does not ensure access to low‐poverty neighborhoods, particularly for minority families. Supplementing certificates and vouchers with housing counseling and search assistance can improve their performance; a growing number of assisted housing mobility initiatives are now in place across the country. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) should continue to fund these initiatives and increase their number over time. HUD should also strengthen incentives for all housing authorities to improve locational outcomes in their Section 8 programs.     

Comment on John T. Metzger's “planned abandonment: The neighborhood life‐cycle theory and national urban policy”

Abstract

I take strong exception to the idea that theories of neighborhood change, in and of themselves, caused the decline of inner cities. Rather, the demographic, social, and economic forces that existed in the postwar years caused some inner‐city neighborhoods to decline. The replacement of working‐class and middle‐income households by households with much lower incomes, on average, was the single biggest cause of neighborhood decline. Metzger ignores this fact as an alternative explanation for why some neighborhoods declined. It is highly implausible that my theories and those of other urban experts had such a strong impact on the public policy, building, and finance communities. Because people were responding to real conditions, it is likely that the same events would have occurred even if my model of neighborhood change had never been developed.     

Market segmentation and lender specialization in the primary and secondary mortgage markets

Abstract

This paper provides a comprehensive evaluation of market segmentation and lender/purchaser specialization in the primary and secondary mortgage markets. It describes and assesses the 1990 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, which for the first time provide detailed information on the borrower and neighborhood racial and income characteristics of mortgage loan originations and securitizations in the primary and secondary mortgage markets. Evidence presented in the paper indicates that home purchase loan origination rates for black applicants—and, to a lesser degree, Hispanic applicants—appear to be significantly lower than those of other racial or ethnic groups. Similarly, the HMDA data reveal that home purchase mortgage origination rates in predominantly minority census tracts are significantly lower than those in predominantly white neighborhoods. The HMDA data also indicate a striking reliance of black borrowers on government‐backed forms of mortgage credit.

The paper further reveals that secondary market loan purchase distributions arrayed by borrower and neighborhood characteristics generally reflect those of home mortgage originations. The borrower and locational characteristics of home purchase loans acquired by the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) directly reflect that agency's legislated specialization in government‐backed loans, whereas the characteristics of loans acquired by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the most part derive from the borrower and geographic composition of conventional home purchase loan originations. Findings of analyses of HMDA data raise concern regarding the access of minority and low‐income households and neighborhoods to mortgage finance. Those results also raise some question as to whether the federally chartered agencies in the secondary market are adequately promoting the availability of mortgage credit to low‐ and moderate‐income and minority households.     

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.