State and local governments: New initiatives in low‐income housing preservation

Abstract

Preservation of the federally assisted low‐income housing stock is a critical issue in housing policy for the 1990s. Most of the low‐income housing initiatives that emerged over the last decade at the local and state levels were in response to changing economies and housing markets, to shifts in composition of the low‐income population, and to cutbacks in federal housing assistance as well as potential losses in the federally assisted housing inventory. The expansion of housing initiatives at state and local levels has critical ramifications for federal housing policy. It is a challenge to the federal government, which has not undergone a similar dramatic change in housing assistance policies. A number of areas of a new “federal partnership” need to be explored.     

Social capital and crime in New York City's low‐income housing

Abstract

This article presents evidence that components of social capital can play a prospective role in preventing crime in low‐income housing. It develops a conceptual approach to crime prevention involving social capital, alternative forms of ownership, and environmental design considerations. The study compares five programs that house New York City's poorest, mostly minority residents. The effectiveness of social capital in preventing crime is assessed using data from surveys of 487 buildings in Brooklyn, NY, and crime data from the New York City Police Department.

Results of the analysis indicate that three components of social capital—basic participation in tenant associations, tenant prosocial norms, and a building's formal organization—were all related to reducing various types of crime in the buildings under study 6 to 12 months after social capital was measured. The effectiveness of social capital was related to alternative ownership structures, building characteristics, and housing policy.     

State policies and programs to preserve federally assisted low‐income housing

Abstract

Preservation of the existing assisted housing stock is likely to be a major housing issue throughout the 1990s and into the twenty‐first century. Federal legislation—the Emergency Low‐Income Housing Preservation Act and the Low‐Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act—addresses the first wave of preservation needs and provides critically needed programs to maintain eligible units as assisted housing for the next 50 years.

This paper presents a brief review of federal preservation requirements and argues for state participation in the implementation of preservation programs. Seven areas are identified for state action, and leading state preservation programs are reviewed. Each state needs to ensure that a foundation is established to preserve these units over their useful life as decent, affordable housing. What the states learn from participating in the implementation of the federal preservation program will help them address future preservation needs and develop the capacity to manage the interdependent provision of assisted housing by the public, for‐profit, and nonprofit sectors.     

The excessive costs of creative finance: Growing inefficiencies in the production of low‐income housing

Abstract

The paper examines creative finance as a means of low‐income housing production and preservation. The low‐income tax credit has evolved as the main federal housing production program in recent years. But this evolution can only be understood as a last resort. The inefficiencies of this approach outweigh any advantages. High transaction costs, inappropriate targeting of benefits, and insufficient monitoring are among the problems. Recent changes in the tax credit may actually cost the government more. Furthermore, current policy in fact creates the same time bombs now exploding in the prepayment projects. Current proposals for housing reform and revitalization have positive features, but are either underfunded or still rely on creative finance. What is needed is a direct one‐ or two‐step low‐income production program.     

Preserving the low‐income housing stock: What nonprofit organizations can do today and tomorrow

Abstract

In recent years, nonprofit organizations involved in housing have multiplied in number and expanded the size and scope of their activities in low‐income housing preservation. Newly available data show that nonprofits now constitute a significant sector in the upgrading, maintenance, and management of affordable housing and continue to focus their efforts on serving those most in need. Analysis also indicates that the potential exists for significant further expansion of their activities in the short and medium term. While nonprofits cannot by themselves meet the enormous needs for preserving low‐income housing, they can be major contributors, particularly if carefully designed expansion of federal support for projects and operations comes to complement their current resources.     

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.     

The cost‐effectiveness of the low‐income housing tax credit relative to vouchers: Evidence from six metropolitan areas

Abstract

How expensive is the Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program relative to vouchers? Are there any market conditions under which the supply‐based LIHTC could be more cost‐effective than demand‐based vouchers? This article examines these questions in six metropolitan areas—Boston, New York, San Jose (CA), Atlanta, Cleveland, and Miami. Controlling for family income and unit size, I compare the development subsidies of new‐construction LIHTC projects with the alternative 20‐year voucher cost in each area.

In general, the LIHTC is found to be more expensive than vouchers. The premium, however, varies significantly by voucher payment standard and local housing market. Assuming a payment standard of 100 percent of fair market rent, the LIHTC is only 2 percent more expensive than vouchers in San Jose, but more than twice as expensive as vouchers in Atlanta. Many factors account for these regional variations. This study emphasizes two: local market conditions and program administration.     

The low‐income housing tax credit as an aid to housing finance: How well has it worked?

Abstract

The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit program has been operating for over 10 years and has helped finance thousands of developments with units set aside for low‐ or moderate‐income households. However, the program has been criticized for requiring additional layers of subsidy to leverage investment and for providing benefits to developers in excess of the amount necessary to induce them to invest.

An analysis of a sample of developments from Missouri finds that the tax credits are syndicated, with virtually all of the syndication proceeds (about 33 percent of the financing) used to pay for development costs. Conventional lending provides another 44 percent of the financing. Unfortunately, because these sources do not cover all of the costs, developers enter into a complex, costly process of layering additional subsidies, one on top of another, to fully finance the development.     

Mark‐to‐market: A fundamental shift in affordable housing policy

Abstract

Residential mortgage underwriting practice has serious shortcomings, including fixation on the present rather than the future. Accept‐reject decisions reflect some unknown interaction among implicit macro projections, implicit micro projections, and implicit policy toward assuming risk, and there is no way to relate the decision process to its components. As a result, there is no satisfactory way for a lender to incorporate a particular macro‐economic outlook into its underwriting standards. Further, different mortgage designs often carry markedly different degrees of risk. Most critically, accountability for underwriting decisions is obscured.

This paper proposes a fundamentally new approach to underwriting that makes full use of new technology. Under this approach, macro and micro projections of the future and the lender's policy toward risk are explicitly specified. The accept‐reject decision is automatic and transparent. Each of the parties responsible for the components of underwriting decisions can be held accountable, with the underwriter responsible only for micro projections.     

Foreclosure filings and sheriff's sales experienced by low‐income first‐time home buyers

Abstract

This paper examines the recent history of supply‐side subsidies. The first section describes the programs that have had a major impact on the supply of low‐income housing over the last 20 years. The second section looks in some detail at the recent history of tax subsidies to low‐income housing and attempts to quantify their magnitudes. The third section presents some data on recent syndication deals to shed light on the return rate that seems to have been required in recent years to attract private investors into low‐income housing. The final section turns to the literature on rent‐seeking behavior and proposes a more efficient way to subsidize low‐income housing production.     

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.     

Racial/ethnic differences in housing outcomes for first‐time,low‐income home buyers: Findings from a National homeownership education program

Abstract

Federal housing policies aimed at making homeownership more accessible through education and affordable lending have been successful in raising the homeownership rate among minorities. By marketing homeownership to underserved populations and helping them overcome financial and informational obstacles, such programs might be expected to promote equality in housing outcomes, including housing quality, neighborhood composition, and neighborhood conditions, for minority homeowners.

This article examines the experience of participants in a national home‐ownership education program. While the transition to homeownership has been associated with modest progress, it does not overcome persistent disparities in housing quality. Homeownership appears to lead to poorer neighborhood conditions for all lower‐income buyers—not just minorities—and may be exacerbating social and spatial isolation rather than helping to overcome it. Differences in neighborhood outcomes, however, may be due to locational preference rather than discrimination in housing and mortgage markets.     

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.     

Labor market institutions and income inequality: an empirical exploration

This paper presents evidence on the impact of labor regulations on income inequality using a recently published database on labor institutions and outcomes as well as different panel data analysis techniques for a large sample of countries for 1970–2000. When applying our preferred technique we find that both de jure and de facto regulations improve the distribution of income although the former appear to be non-robustly associated with improving income inequality. This result partly reflects the fact that regulations are endogenous and, more interestingly, that different regulation yield distinct effects.     

Long‐term care reform and the role of housing finance

Abstract

The Clinton administration's recently announced home and community‐based care proposals have potentially important implications not only for long‐term care policy, but also for housing policy in the United States. This article attempts to draw out some of those implications. The first section examines problems inherent in the current “medical/welfare” system of financing long‐term care, which constrains consumer choice by limiting the supply of providers to control costs and by increasing medical professionals’ control over the types of services provided in the name of quality control. The medical/welfare dominance of long‐term care policy has resulted in an overreliance on nursing homes as providers, resulting in both escalating costs and continued consumer dissatisfaction.

The second half of the article looks at recent market and policy developments in response to consumer demand for lower cost alternatives to nursing homes. These alternatives promote more consumer autonomy and control in supportive housing arrangements. A more comprehensive services and housing policy could promote these developments in an approach that combines the security of public financing of supportive services with the benefits of consumer choice, market competition, and legal protections that characterize housing markets. In such a scenario, housing finance institutions—including government agencies, lenders, developers, and investors—could play a pivotal role in the long‐term care debate not only by unlocking substantial financial resources but, equally important, by transforming the provision of long‐term care services to promote consumer choice and autonomy.     

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.     

Neighborhood change and the city of New York's ten‐year housing plan

Abstract

This article examines neighborhood changes associated with New York City's Ten‐Year Plan—the largest municipal housing program in the United States. We examine indicators of change, in the context of two possible hypotheses about the program's impact: (1) neighborhood revitalization, including improved physical and housing market conditions, as well as gentrification, and (2) the concentration of poor and welfare‐dependent households, as well as the possibility of residential segregation by race or ethnicity.

Our results present a mixed picture, with some evidence favoring both hypotheses, especially when parts of the city, particularly the South Bronx, are examined separately. Specifically, the program is associated with steep declines in the rate of boarded‐up buildings and some indications of increased home values, as well as rent burdens. However, it is also correlated with increases in maintenance deficiencies and a greater proportion of poor, single‐parent, and welfare‐dependent households, but there is little evidence of accentuated residential segregation.     

Social capital and the revitalization of New York City's distressed inner‐city housing

Abstract

This article presents evidence that social capital can be an effective component of locally sponsored low‐income housing programs. It provides a model for measuring social capital at the building level, where it may be most effective in improving housing quality and security. The study compares five programs in New York City that house the city's poorest, mostly minority residents. The surveys from 487 buildings in Brooklyn, NY, were analyzed to compare the success of programs in maintaining and revitalizing landlord‐abandoned buildings taken by the city in lieu of taxes.

Results of the analysis demonstrate that the positive effects of tenant ownership were largely mediated by the higher levels of social capital found in these buildings. These levels have implications for the survival and economic advancement of poor households and civic participation in poor communities. The study suggests the value of alternative homeownership programs.