The case for a right to housing

Abstract

America has the resources to guarantee everyone a right to decent, affordable housing, making real the now 50‐year‐old congressionally promulgated National Housing Goal. The issue is one of values—constantly expanding notions of social, civil, and economic rights—and can only be won through political struggle, as has been true historically of all rights expansions.

The costs of not attaining this right, to those suffering from substandard housing conditions and unaffordable costs as well as to society as a whole, should be acknowledged and offset against the increased government outlays required to attain this goal. Ways in which some housing rights now exist are identified as a basis for wider expansion to a true right to decent, affordable housing.     

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.     

Current practices for procuring affordable housing: The Canadian context

Abstract

This article describes the current housing system in Canada, focusing particularly on the various mechanisms still available for providing affordable housing. Beginning with an overview of the Canadian housing system, it provides a brief history of Canadian housing policy and program initiatives instrumental in developing the inventory of affordable housing available today.

Current practices and procedures in private lending for affordable housing are highlighted. A discussion of current initiatives available to provide affordable housing follows, with a focus on the role of government, the third sector, and new partnership arrangements implemented to encourage more affordable housing. The conclusion highlights recent changes, the current state of the affordable housing sector, and the impact these changes may have on low‐ and moderate‐income households in Canada.     

Whose shortage of affordable housing?

Abstract

Shortfalls of low‐rent units are repeatedly cited as the rationale for programs to expand the supply of affordable housing. But the poverty‐level rents studied fall well below those of major supply programs. To reassess whether HOME and the low‐income housing tax credit (LIHTC) address actual shortfalls, this article compares numbers of units with renters by measuring both affordability and incomes with the median‐income‐based metric used for all federal rental programs.

During the 1980s, there were growing surpluses of units affordable to renters with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of their area's median income, a “low‐income” range that includes most HOME and LIHTC rents. By contrast, shortages were severe and growing only at rents affordable to households with incomes below 30 percent of area median. Examination of these shortfalls and the problems they create implies that programs to expand supply are not widely needed.     

Preservation of existing housing: A key element in a revitalized national housing policy

Abstract

A key aspect of the continuing housing policy debate is how best to spend limited resources to aid the poor. Recently, the policy has focused on whether it is more effective to intervene on the supply side via provision of a voucher or rental certificate that enables a low‐income household to secure decent housing in the private market.

This paper argues that preserving and maintaining the affordability of the remaining stock of unsubsidized low‐cost housing will require a skillful balancing of supply‐and demand‐side interventions. Exclusive reliance on vouchers will not do the job, especially since large segments of the poor do not receive any form of housing assistance. Flexible programs to expand the purchasing power of poverty‐level households must be developed.     

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.     

Transit-Induced Gentrification: Who Will Stay,and Who Will Go?

Abstract

Transit-oriented development (TOD) has been promoted by planners and policy advocates as a solution to a variety of urban problems, including automobile traffic congestion, air pollution, and urban poverty. Since the enhanced accessibility offered by transit proximity is often capitalized into land and housing prices, many express concern that new transit investments will result in the displacement of the low-income populations likely to benefit most from transit access, a phenomenon which we term transit-induced gentrification. Whereas policy advocates have proposed a variety of interventions designed to ensure that affordable housing for low-income households is produced and preserved in areas proximate to transit stations, little is known about the effectiveness of these policy proposals. This article relies on an integrated land use/transportation model to analyze how TOD-based affordable housing policies influence the intraurban location of low-income households. We find that affordability restrictions targeted to new dwellings constructed in TODs are effective tools for promoting housing affordability and improving low-income households’ access to transit while simultaneously reducing the extent of transit-induced gentrification.     

A practical analysis of shared‐appreciation mortgages

Abstract

When the development of large‐scale public housing projects was discontinued in the 1970s in both Canada and the United States, the policy response was very different. This article reviews the nature of the dissimilar low‐income housing policy paths, documenting the role of federal housing policy in the evolution of a significant nonprofit “third sector” in Canada's housing system; the decision of the U.S. federal government to rely on the private sector for subsidized rental supply; and, with very little help from the federal government, the ‘bottom‐up” attempt to develop a nonprofit housing sector in communities throughout the United States. In Canada, a permanent stock of good‐quality, nonprofit social housing was created along with a growing and increasingly competent community‐based housing development sector.

The Canadian experience demonstrates that it takes time to build the capacity of the nonprofit sector. The U.S. experience demonstrates that there is a great deal of community‐based talent ready and willing to provide nonprofit housing if reliable and adequate funding is available. Canada has made outstanding progress relative to the United States in the area of affordable housing supply, creating yet another small but significant difference in the quality of life for lower income households. The general Canadian approach to consistent national support of nonprofit and cooperative housing can be applied in the United States. Canada's relative success is not based on unique structural or systemic differences—that is, it is a matter of political choice and political will. The United States should look to Canada's 20‐year experience to determine whether some of the mechanisms used to support Canada's nonprofit sector might be transferable to the United States.     

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.     

Building consensus for affordable housing

Abstract

At one time the national goal of affordable housing was a widely held consensus that led to decent housing for millions of Americans. Today, proponents of affordable housing must negotiate with diverse and sometimes hostile parties to secure project approvals. Discussions are frequently adversarial, and stalemate is too often the result. The consensus has collapsed.

If progress toward affordable housing is to be made, proponents will have to recast the way they operate within this new environment. More than new financing plans or recommendations for regulatory relief are needed. Attention must also focus on the processes by which groups address divergent interests and come to agreement. “Principled negotiation,” a form of joint problem solving, when coupled with third‐party intervention, offers a promising and effective means of dealing with this hostile environment.     

Comment on David Listokin,Barbara Listokin,and Michael Lahr's “The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development”: Historic preservation in a neoliberal age

Abstract

Listokin, Listokin, and Lahr argue that historic preservation can function as a community development tool, but there are numerous deficiencies inherent in this method that make it a less‐than‐desirable way to revitalize. Historic preservation generally leads to gentrification that in turn displaces many low‐income households. The historic rehabilitation tax credit also represents a circuitous means of providing affordable housing that would be more effectively delivered through direct subsidy.     

The role of limited‐equity cooperatives in providing affordable housing

Abstract

This article develops an economic analysis of the role of limited‐equity cooperatives (LECs) in providing affordable housing. Using a model of the user costs of housing that focuses on housing externalities, it examines methods for overcoming externalities in multiunit rental dwellings.

Investment in management can reduce these externalities and thereby improve the quality of the housing environment, but the added cost excludes low‐income households from housing with a high level of management. LECs can reduce housing externalities without imposing the dollar costs of management on residents. They do this principally by attempting to attract a favorable resident population and by substituting self‐management for traditional hierarchical management. Given these findings, the article makes recommendations regarding the structure of a federally sponsored LEC program and draws implications for affordable housing policies in general. Finally, it calls for further empirical research into the desirable (and undesirable) features of self‐managed affordable housing.     

Market Rental Housing Affordability and Rapid Transit Catchments: Application of a New Measure in Canada

Abstract

In high-income cities, the availability of affordable rental housing in locations served by fast and frequent public transportation enables low-income households access to more opportunities, including jobs, without the costs of owning and operating automobiles. This study operationalizes a residual income approach to identify market rental housing that is affordable to two household configurations (couples with children and couples without children) in two categories below the median income. The study is carried out on Canada’s least and most expensive major metropolitan housing markets, Montreal and Vancouver. In addition to spatially disaggregating the results into inside and outside rapid transit walking catchments, the results are spatially disaggregated into four zones (Urban Core, Inner City, Inner Suburbs, and Outer Suburbs). Implications of the uneven distribution of affordable rentals with respect to transit access are discussed.     

The changing demography of multifamily rental housing

Abstract

The residents of multifamily rental housing are different from both homeowners and single‐family home renters, and these differences have implications for the housing market and for public policy. This article describes apartment residents today, discusses recent changes in their number and characteristics, projects their future growth and composition, and highlights business and policy implications of future changes.

For purposes of business and public policy, a segmentation of apartment residents into three submarkets is useful: the “affordable” market serving low‐ and moderate‐income households, some of which receive government housing assistance; the “lifestyle apartment market” serving higher‐income adult households; and the substantial “middle market.” The number of apartment renters is likely to grow moderately over time. The combination of multifamily structure type and rental tenure form offers unique opportunities not only for provision of affordable housing but also for revitalization of downtown areas and balanced “smart” growth in suburban areas.     

RTC's affordable housing program: Reconciling competing goals

Abstract

Congress gave the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) authority to sell modestly valued housing at below‐market prices and with concessionary financing to enable lower income families to become homeowners and to expedite sales. Nonprofits and public agencies seeking to buy properties for occupancy by lower income people also qualified for these favorable terms. Setting a precedent for future housing policy initiatives, Congress conditioned access to this special program on the imposition of permanent low‐income use and affordability restrictions.

This paper considers whether the RTC can reconcile its mandate to maximize preservation of affordable housing with its duty to maximize return on assets and minimize negative impacts on local markets. This issue is addressed through a comparative review of property disposition programs administered by three other federal agencies. The author concludes that the RTC's three goals can be harmonized and suggests criteria for evaluating the RTC's performance in meeting its affordable housing mandate.     

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.     

Affordable Rental Housing Development in the U.S. For-Profit Sector: Implications of a Case Study of McCormack Baron Salazar

The question of how to build decent housing that is affordable to lower income households has challenged policymakers in the United States for decades. In response, the federal government has developed a variety of partnership approaches that involve private for-profit developers. Although these entities are currently the major producers of affordable housing in the United States, they have received relatively little attention from the academic and policy communities. This inquiry is aimed at filing a small portion of this gap by presenting a qualitative case study of one of the country’s leading for-profit developers that has a longstanding commitment to affordable housing, McCormack Baron Salazar. Using a modified version of the quadruple bottom line framework as the starting point, this exploration discusses the complexity and challenges facing the affordable housing sector and offers programmatic and policy recommendations that are applicable to both for-profit and nonprofit developers. In view of the results of the 2016 presidential election, and the likely continued retreat by the federal government from supporting affordable housing, the need to better understand, and form productive working alliances and collaborations with, private for-profit affordable housing developers is more compelling than ever.     

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 Donald A. Krueckeberg's “The Lessons of John Locke or Hernando de Soto: What if Your Dreams Come True?”

Abstract

Krueckeberg's critique of de Soto's paean to homeownership in Third World countries is well taken; his use of John Locke's rationale for private ownership provides support for the critique. But then Krueckeberg puts forward a proposal to extend homeowner‐ship benefits through a National Homestead Trust, with Individual Development Accounts or a tax like Social Security, to help renters accumulate a down payment. Abandoning a broader approach, Krueckeberg reverts to supporting homeownership as a central tenet of U.S. housing policy and wants to extend its real and perceived benefits to low‐income households. He recognizes the shortcomings of U.S. property law and tax policy that may leave low‐income owners with threats to shelter security.

To provide security for low‐income residents, fundamental changes are required. Attention should be paid to protection from evictions and from foreclosure; income/employment support; guarantee of services from utilities to schools; and, as needed, direct subsidies for housing.     

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.