Comment on Dowell Myers and Elizabeth Gearin's “current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments”

Abstract

New construction reflects demand for housing that cannot be met by existing stock. Although a change in the overall preference for denser residential environments could have a disproportionate impact on the characteristics of new homes, it is not clear that changing demographics or changing tastes will call for such a change.     

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.     

Comment on Donald R. Haurin and Hazel A. Morrow‐Jones's “the impact of Real Estate Market knowledge on tenure choice: A comparison of black and white households”

Abstract

Haurin and Morrow‐Jones analyze a sample of survey respondents from Columbus, OH, and find that additional knowledge about real estate markets increases the likelihood of homeownership. They conclude that differences in real estate knowledge contribute importantly to explaining some of the racial gap in homeownership rates; this finding leads to their conclusion that the racial gap can be addressed through public policy interventions, including financial counseling programs.

Their research broadly addresses three questions: Why does the racial gap in homeownership exist? Why does it persist? What can be done to reduce it? We compare their findings with those of other researchers and conclude that improved financial literacy may well be an important tool for reducing the gap, but that the causes for its existence and persistence are complex and that improving financial literacy alone may not be sufficient to have a significant and lasting impact.     

Comment on Donald R. Haurin and Hazel A. Morrow‐Jones's “rhe impact of Real Estate Market knowledge on tenure choice: A comparison of black and white households”

Abstract

Racial differences in tenure have been large and persistent, with white householders much more likely to own their homes than blacks. Haurin and Morrow‐Jones surveyed a sample of 1,002 in metropolitan Columbus, OH, in 2005 to determine the causes of the tenure gap between blacks and whites.

Social and economic differences played a dominant role, but Haurin and Morrow‐Jones also identified a racial difference in real estate and financial knowledge, a difference they suggest could be reduced or eliminated with education. This comment raises questions about national homeownership goals and points out that Haurin and Morrow‐Jones overlook the consequences of pervasive racial residential segregation and the effects of both past and current discrimination.     

Comment on Sandra J. Newman and Ann B. Schnare's “'… And a suitable living environment’: The failure of housing programs to deliver on neighborhood quality”

Abstract

Newman and Schnare provide a useful portrait of where housing assistance ends up geographically. The evidence that certificate and voucher holders are less likely than public housing residents to live in the poorest neighborhoods is encouraging, as well as important for policy decisions. Unresolved in the article, and unresolvable with the data, as the authors themselves note, is the matter of how neighborhood quality is affected by housing assistance. The least popular housing developments have long been relegated to neighborhoods of least political resistance, a fact that constrains most local efforts to deconcentrate poverty. Futhermore, through the tax code, America spends about three times as much on housing assistance for middle‐ and upper‐income households as it does on assistance to low‐ and moderate‐income households. Thus far, we have not applied “fair share” principles either to the location of housing assistance or to its allocation across the income spectrum.     

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”

The article here extended reflects on the excessively narrow debate over the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)' cost-benefit transfer balance which had been raging for a quarter-century before the 2007–2009 financial crisis. That crisis has cast a new light on the actual costs of GSE operations and exposed the unsustainability of some of their benefits for homeownership. After injecting afew new findings into the traditional debate, this comment adds some of what has transpired in recent years and what may be inferred from it so far. Doing so brings additional analysis to bear on the article's conclusion that “the GSEs might not be justified” and “Maybe it is time for them to exit” although most politicians in the past have been disinclined to show them the door.     

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 James H. Carr and Michelle Mulcahy's “Twenty years of housing policy: what's new,what's changed,what's ahead?”

Housing policy in the post Great Recession (GR) era faces tremendous uncertainties, but clearly there will be more sensitivity around risk, quality, and transparency in capital markets. The post-GR domestic policy environment and economy are likely to impose several overarching constraints, including less access to world capital markets for financing housing, more restrictive assessments of risk, and increasing restraints on federal domestic spending particularly for non-entitlement programs. Carr and Mulcahy provide a substantial agenda of liberal-progressive policies that focus on the predatory and risky practices of loan originators and promote expansion of home ownership for low-income households. If we are indeed on the brink of an era of austerity, the housing policy debate will need to focus on priorities for contraction rather than expansion in housing programs, and on tenure-neutral policies rather than promoting home ownership.     

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.