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.     

Should the housing voucher program become a state‐administered block grant?

Abstract

The Bush administration has proposed that the current national Housing Choice Voucher Program, which has an essentially uniform program design and is administered largely by local public housing authorities, become a block grant administered by the states. This article examines the potential benefits and hazards of such a change.

While this article does not support or analyze directly the administration's proposal, it concludes that state administration is fundamentally a good idea. However, the choice‐based nature of the voucher program should be preserved, and the early stages of implementation should permit changes to the program's subsidy structure and housing quality inspection only in selected states and with careful evaluation. The law enacting the new program should include clearly articulated goals and mandated reporting requirements. Also, the program should be funded and monitored to maintain the national commitment to meeting the housing needs of low‐income renters.     

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 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 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.     

Comment on Shishir Mathur's “do impact fees raise the price of existing housing?”

Abstract

Impact fees raise the price of new homes, which pay the fee directly, and existing homes, which serve as substitutes for new homes. I argue that such fees are excessive because the net economic benefit of additional homes is not included in the calculation and because more efficient financing tools exist. An impact fee actually pushes prices higher than the fee because it is paid when construction begins but collected at the time of sale. Costs are increased by construction period interest and other costs determined as a percentage of the sale price.

Local governments calculate impact fees incorrectly by not including the indirect and positive impacts from construction and occupancy. If these added net benefits were also considered, the fiscal impact would be less and little or no fee would be required. Moreover, other methods for financing infrastructure are available in most states, so impact fees are unnecessary.     

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.     

Revitalizing the Parramore heritage renovation area: Florida's state housing initiatives partnership program and Orlando's historic African‐American community

Abstract

Housing programs increasingly contribute to broader community revitalization efforts rather than strictly serving production‐oriented goals. As implementation of this strategy moves beyond the traditional housing leaders in cities such as Boston, Cleveland, and Baltimore, an assessment of other areas is instructive. This article examines how the nation's largest housing trust fund, which Florida directs primarily to local governments through the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP), contributed to Orlando's ambitious community revitalization effort in the Parramore neighborhood.

Given the consistency between SHIP goals and those of the Parramore project and Orlando's experience with developing partnerships and affordable housing initiatives, SHIP should have proven an effective tool. The initial findings demonstrate that housing programs need to be sufficiently flexible to permit a comprehensive approach to neighborhood revitalization. Such an approach should seek a balance between product‐based redevelopment and people‐based housing strategies, expand the role of community development corporations, and create housing choice.     

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 Steven C. Bourassa and William G. Grigsby's “income tax concessions for owner‐occupied housing”

Abstract

Federal income tax deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes are defensible on grounds of both economic efficiency and the social benefits of homeownership. Homeowners should be treated as landlords renting to themselves; as such, they benefit because they do not pay a tax on the imputed rental income they receive, while rental property owners do. Both receive deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes, and both should.

The mortgage interest deduction generates symmetry between debt and equity financing of a home; if interest were not deductible, those whose income derives largely from property would have an advantage over those whose income comes from labor. Because workers would be disadvantaged, repeal is unlikely to generate the revenues Bourassa and Grigsby expect or modify the distribution of the tax burden in the way they favor. Finally, the deductions promote homeownership, which is socially desirable.     

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 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.     

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 Chester Hartman's “The case for a right to housing”: The right to “poverty with a roof"—a response to hartman

Abstract

While the goal of establishing a right to decent, affordable housing is noble, a right to housing alone ignores the variety of underlying processes that concentrate certain types of households in conditions of poverty. A right that simply makes surviving poverty marginally more bearable is a troubling notion. That approach to problem solving addresses the symptom and not the cause. Rather, government should focus on enforcing existing individual rights and creating opportunities where possible and feasible so as to aid every American to achieve his or her full productive potential as a human being.     

Comment on Harvey Jacobs' “Social conflict over property rights: the end,a new beginning,or a continuing debate?”

Jacobs draws on history, law, politics, and policy to examine the development and response of the private property movement and the social conflict over property rights and public planning. This comment suggests that the debate be broadened beyond the advocates of property rights and planning to include the interests of other members of the community, including minority and low-income households who are often affected by the outcomes. Otherwise, property will continue to be used to exclude people from democracy, rather than include them.     

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.