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.     

Comment on Dennis P. Culhane et al.’s “Testing a typology of family homelessness based on patterns of public shelter utilization in four U.S. jurisdictions: Implications for policy and program planning”

Abstract

A comprehensive typology of homeless families would help us understand how to provide services and supports appropriate to particular subgroups. In their attempt to establish such a typology, Culhane and his colleagues employ administrative data sets to correlate shelter use with behavioral indicators. These data sets are limited in that they fail to incorporate the complex, intense, and sometimes traumatic experiences that characterize the lives of homeless families, causing this study to fall short of what is required to create an accurate typology.

Among the areas overlooked by this approach are the high levels of traumatic stress and violence in the lives of homeless families, children's needs, and the interactions between parents and children. When only limited research is available, there is a danger that even modest findings will be used to support broad policy directions. Further research is needed to arrive at a defensible typology.     

Comment on Michael A. Stegman et al.’s “Preventive servicing is good for business and affordable homeownership policy”: What prevents loan modifications?

Abstract

After discussing the article by Stegman et al., this comment describes the barriers to preventive servicing for securitized residential loans and assesses the importance of loan modifications, given the recent increases in default and foreclosure rates for subprime loans. Several hurdles slow or reduce such modifications, even those that help borrowers and investors alike. For example, self‐interest may reduce servicers’ willingness to modify loans rapidly. In addition, underlying securitization agreements may impede servicers’ ability and discretion in this area. Further, tax laws that govern a common securitization entity may limit modifications, as may accounting standards. Finally, “tranche warfare,” the sometimes contradictory fiduciary duties servicers have toward investors holding different tranches of securitized pools, may decrease their ability or their willingness to modify loans.

This comment concludes that barriers to effective loan modifications should be reduced or eliminated where feasible, but that the securitization of subprime loans creates risks for borrowers.     

Comment on Langley C. Keyes et al.’s “Networks and nonprofits: Opportunities and challenges in an era of federal devolution”

Abstract

Housing markets are determined by a complex interplay of consumers and suppliers. The Keyes et al. article discusses the changing landscape for nonprofit housing providers and what recent developments in federal housing assistance policy will mean to them. But this perspective is too narrow to predict the effects of changes in federal housing policy because all housing providers are somewhat interrelated. All housing providers need to be considered, and using the terms “for‐profit” and “nonprofit” to distinguish between the two types of providers is unfortunate and misleading.

For‐profits and nonprofits are fundamentally different: They place a different emphasis on community, and nonprofits can often deliver subsidies that for‐profits cannot. In addition, the strengths and the skills needed to produce housing under somewhat different objectives have led to some specialization. Ultimately, however, determining the optimal provider or mix of providers is best left to local and state governments as federal housing assistance devolves.     

Comment on Charles C. Bohl's “New urbanism and the city: potential applications and implications for distressed inner‐city neighborhoods"—the politics of design: The new urbanists vs. the grass roots

Abstract

This article briefly reviews the origins of New Urbanism and its manifesto as emerging from the social change movements of the 1960s, which evolved out of ideas of a previous generation of American and European designers living through the rise of modern industrialization. Arising from the same turmoil of the 1960s, and parallel to the New Urbanists, evolved a more loosely affiliated network of progressive academic and practicing planners and architects who have aligned themselves with disenfranchised underclasses not benefiting from the wealth of the postwar era and who take direction not from a manifesto but from a body of thinking linked to a broader intellectual and political agenda. This group works primarily with grassroots organizations in lower‐income communities and intentionally stays out of the limelight to better serve its constituents. The article concludes with ideas for possible collaboration between these professional groups serving different ends of the socioeconomic spectrum.