Colonia Housing Conditions in Model Subdivisions: A Déjà Vu for Policy Makers

The informal self-help settlements in Texas known as colonias have received considerable attention as a public policy problem at both the state and federal levels. These settlements proliferated throughout the border region since the late 1970s and research has highlighted the extreme poverty, austere levels of infrastructure, exploitative land sale practices, and poor housing conditions that characterized these settlements. However, both scholars and policymakers have overlooked the continued spread of self-help settlements known as “model subdivisions,” which barring the presence of basic water, wastewater, and electricity services, are nearly identical to colonias. We present the results of household surveys conducted with residents in 24 model subdivisions in Hidalgo County, Texas, in June 2014. The results suggest that, unbeknown to legislators, many of the problems that characterized colonias are now being reproduced in hundreds of model subdivisions that have formed since the 1990s, and which now require concerted attention and intervention by policy makers.     

Expanding housing choices for the sector popular: Strategies for Mexico

Abstract

By the year 2000, some 40 million people in Mexico will live in settlements commonly called the informal sector. Most will live in houses that they have constructed themselves and that have some infrastructure deficit. To meet their needs, the authors propose a set of demand and supply strategies. Emphasis is placed on the increased use of small group savings programs, the provision of progressive infrastructure, and the creation of housing‐related employment. The supply of low‐cost land must be increased, which will necessitate reforms in the ejido land tenure system. Examples of locally derived, non‐government‐supported betterment programs are presented.

The article concludes by calling on the federal government to create stronger links with the informal sector and to reestablish its role as the supporter of social housing in Mexico.     

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.     

Measuring the Effectiveness of New Approaches to Housing Support Policy for Persons with Disabilities

Housing support policy for persons with disabilities who require access to 24‐hour formal or informal support is changing throughout Australia. This is consistent with international trends including: independent living in generic housing; facilitating choices about where and with whom people live; individualised home‐based support; and community integration. Are these trends leading to policies that are effective in the Australian context? This article presents a framework for analysing the effectiveness of new approaches to housing support using a rights perspective. The framework consists of four domains: client outcomes; administrative systems; service viability; and coordination between formal and informal carers. Applying the framework to six case studies found that they all aim to foster independence, while providing effective individualised, holistic housing support.     

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 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.     

The viability of the thrift industry

Abstract

This paper argues that many widely referenced studies on the cost effectiveness of alternative assistance programs were conducted at a time when rental housing markets were depressed. Recent increases in rent appear to have reduced the apparent cost advantage that demand‐side subsidies hold over supply‐side interventions. In addition, the nonsubsidized poor increasingly must compete for a dwindling supply of low‐cost privately owned housing. Housing vouchers or similar demand subsidies may be appropriate in some contexts, but economic theory and recent empirical analysis suggest that such subsidies are “not the best at all times and under all situations.” Rather, the “best policy” depends on program targeting and the nature and extent of program‐induced price increases and externality effects. Since funding limitations currently block the creation of an entitlement housing assistance program, housing policy must balance the often competing goals of expanding the ability of participating low‐income households to pay for decent housing while at the same time working to limit the adverse effects that rent increases and the loss of low‐cost nonsubsidized stock have on households falling outside of the housing assistance safety net.     

Comment on Michael A. Stegman,Walter R. Davis,and Roberto Quercia's “The Earned Income Tax Credit as an instrument of housing policy”

Abstract

The article by Stegman, Davis, and Quercia is a careful, comprehensive analysis of the current impact of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) on the housing cost burdens of working families. Its major proposal, a graduated supplement to the EITC to reflect housing costs, is compared with my broader concept of addressing severe cost burdens through supplements to major income support programs. Criticisms of my concept, chiefly administrative difficulties and incompatibility with the EITC benefit structure, are discussed.

My primary concerns are that Stegman, Davis, and Quercia's proposal does not sufficiently target families with severe housing costs and that the formula for calculating the additional benefit does not reflect diverse housing costs throughout the country and provides the smallest increases to the recipients with the lowest incomes. However, it is more important to generate discussion of the reality that “income policy IS housing policy” than to argue about details.     

Retrenchment of Social Policy by Other Means: A Comparison of Agricultural and Housing Policy in Turkey

Abstract

In many low- and middle-income countries, conventional welfare state institutions provide social protection only for the formally employed. In contrast, the rural and urban poor are often protected by “social policy by other means”. Based on a comparative analysis of two major unconventional welfare programs in Turkey, agricultural state support and access to squatter housing, this article explains retrenchment of social policy by other means. Agricultural retrenchment was the result of coercive policy transfer from international organizations in a post-crisis context, while the retrenchment of squatter housing was driven by domestic political entrepreneurs responding to decreases in the availability of urban land and the number of informal squatters. In both cases, retrenchment became politically sustainable due to functional replacement with more conventional welfare programs. This analysis challenges the narrow focus of mainstream welfare state research, provides an explanation of retrenchment of social policy by other means, and enhances our understanding of Turkey’s uneven welfare state development.     

Household Energy Consumption and Housing Choice in the U.S. Residential Sector

Energy use in residential buildings accounted for 21% of U.S. CO₂ emissions in 2013. Efforts to reduce energy use in the residential sector have been overly focused on improving energy efficiency of buildings. This article incorporates housing policy debate into energy policy, hoping to provide new opportunities for planners to participate in residential energy policy. Using data from the latest Residential Energy Consumption Survey, structural equation modeling has been applied to isolate the direct and indirect effects of household and housing characteristics on residential energy use. Results show that more than 80% of a household's indirect effect on energy consumption happens through the building characteristics, which is characterized as the housing choice effect on energy consumption. Planners can participate in residential energy management efforts by influencing housing needs and priorities of communities towards more sustainable compact housing units.     

The Evolution of Low‐Income Housing Policy, 1949 to 1999

Abstract

The evolution of low‐income housing policy during the past 50 years can be divided roughly into two segments: the first running from 1949 to the 1973 Nixon moratorium on subsidized production programs and the second from 1973 to the present, marked by a diminished federal leadership role and an increased state and local role. After tracing the rise of the federal leadership role represented in the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1968, this article focuses on the development of three important policy instruments that mark the devolution of housing policy: housing vouchers, housing block grants, and the Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit.

The three‐pronged strategy of vouchers, block grants, and tax credits has achieved reasonably good results and attracted an unusual degree of political consensus. A steady expansion of all three offers the most promising path to the “realization as soon as feasible” of the national housing goal.     

Social rehousing policy in britain: Needs,rights, and choices

Abstract

When selecting among competing applicants for rehousing in social rented property, the perceived wisdom in Britain since the 1940s has been to award priority to households in the greatest housing need. “Need” is often defined in highly complex ways. However, a shift has occurred in local authority and housing association rehousing policies away from allocations made solely on the basis of need. This shift comes in response to the changing context in which social rented housing has operated in the past 15 years and to perceived weaknesses in needs‐based systems. Present policies are designed to address wider objectives, including developing stable communities and minimizing housing management problems.

This article examines these policy changes and the extent to which local housing allocations are used to address not only individual household needs, but also the concerns of local communities and wider housing management issues.     

Struggling to stay out of high-poverty neighborhoods: housing choice and locations in moving to opportunity's first decade

Improving locational outcomes emerged as a major policy hope for the nation's largest low-income housing program over the past two decades, but a host of supply and demand-side barriers confront rental voucher users, leading to heated debate over the importance of choice versus constraint. In this context, we examine the Moving to Opportunity experiment's first decade, using a mixed-method approach.

MTO families faced major barriers in tightening markets, yet diverse housing trajectories emerged, reflecting variation in: (a) willingness to trade location – in particular, safety and avoidance of “ghetto” behavior – to get larger, better housing units after initial relocation; (b) the distribution of neighborhood types in different metro areas; and (c) circumstances that produced many involuntary moves. Access to social networks or services “left behind” in poorer neighborhoods seldom drove moving decisions. Numerous moves were brokered by rental agents who provided shortcuts to willing landlords but thereby steered participants to particular neighborhoods.     

“Ragged urchins play on marquetry floors”: The discourse of filtering is reconstructed, 1920s–1950s

The idea of filtering has played a key role in our understanding of housing markets and in framing federal policy. The origins of the idea, however, and of the term itself, are poorly understood. Drawing loosely on the approach of discourse analysis, this article clarifies both issues, arguing that language shapes how we think about housing policy, and indeed policy itself. The concept of filtering emerged in Great Britain in the late nineteenth century where, by 1900, it informed arguments in favor of municipal (public) housing. It became influential in the United States in the 1920s but in 1938 was still referred to in different ways, notably as “hand-me-down housing.” Here, it was understood more narrowly, as an alternative to public housing. After 1939, the Federal Housing Administration, though not its leading consultant Homer Hoyt, popularized the term “filtering.” The neutral connotations of this metaphorical term suited the agency's goal of developing an apparently objective discourse of housing markets and market analysis. The term was normalized by the early 1960s.     

The Use of Rental Housing Assistance by Immigrants in the United States and New York City

Abstract

The large influx of immigrants to the United States and New York City from poorer countries has sparked considerable debate as to whether immigrants are becoming a “public charge” to American society. Most arguments have centered around immigrants’ use of cash assistance programs. This article compares immigrants’ receipt of rental housing assistance with that of native‐born Americans.

Bivariate analyses reveal that immigrants, as a group, are no more likely than native‐born households to use any form of rental housing assistance. Indeed, in most instances immigrants are less likely than native‐born households to receive assistance, with two exceptions: immigrants who have been in the United States since 1970 and immigrants from the former Soviet Union in New York City. Multivariate analyses reveal similar results, except that immigrants who have been in the United States since 1970 are no more likely than other immigrants to receive housing assistance when we control for other factors.     

Statutory Protection for Renters: Classification of State Landlord–Tenant Policy Approaches

There are many federal, state, and local laws governing the landlord–tenant relationship. Yet scholars know little about their variety and what impact differences among jurisdictions have on renters and rental housing markets. This article examines state-level landlord–tenant policy approaches to determine whether there is significant policy variation and whether states illustrate identifiable policy types. Using cluster and discriminant analysis, this research creates a typology of landlord–tenant policy approaches, finding three distinctive approaches: protectionist, probusiness, and contradictory. This research indicates there is significant variation among state landlord–tenant statutory policies, although states’ laws generally reflect one of three philosophies. These results are important for future studies on rental housing because treating all state rental environments the same masks important differences in rental experiences across states. As an illustration, this article finds that renters in protectionist and contradictory states move significantly more than renters in probusiness states do. Furthermore, understanding where renters have more or less legal protection allows policymakers and advocates to focus their efforts on areas where assistance is most needed.     

Comment on Roberto G. Quercia and George C. Galster's “The challenges facing public housing authorities in a brave new world”

Abstract

We find Quercia and Galster's article on reforming public housing an intriguing academic exercise that contains some key insights useful to practitioners. However, the article fails to consider several key elements in the provision of assisted housing that make their “constrained quadrilemma” much less problematic than they assume.

The article ignores the tenant‐based certificate/voucher approach to meeting the housing needs of low‐income and very low income persons and households. This is a significant oversight, in that many public housing authorities (PHAs) manage a larger portfolio of certificates than of PHA‐owned housing. If the litmus test of the success of public housing's “reinvention” is the extent to which it is able to maximize both the number of low‐income households served and their social and geographic integration, then public housing's extensive use of certificate/voucher programs demonstrates a road out of the quadrilemma.     

The Gautreaux Legacy: What Might Mixed‐Income and Dispersal Strategies Mean for the Poorest Public Housing Tenants?

Abstract

The current transformation of public and assisted housing reflects the legacy of the Gautreaux case, which created the first mobility and scattered‐site programs. Mixed‐income and dispersal strategies now dominate federal housing policy, although their focus has shifted. Drawing on evidence from two preliminary studies of public housing transformation in Chicago, we argue that these new strategies seem to offer benefits for distressed public housing communities but also involve risks for the most vulnerable current tenants. Increased screening and/or the need to compete with private market tenants may force these families out of the assisted housing market.

Addressing the complex needs of the most troubled public housing tenants will call for a more comprehensive solution. The intent of the Gautreaux case was to increase opportunity and enhance quality of life for public housing tenants; policy makers should take steps to ensure that current programs reflect these fundamental goals.     

The convergence of nonequity housing models in Canada: Changes to housing policy since 1990

Abstract

This study examines the impact of housing policy convergence on the nonequity housing system in Ontario, Canada. Ontario has four distinct nonequity housing models— public, nonprofit cooperative, municipal nonprofit, and private nonprofit. This article argues that since 1990, housing policy in Canada, and particularly in Ontario, has become increasingly influenced by the neoconservative agenda of downsizing and decentralization of government functions found in the United States.

The findings reveal that changes to housing policy have caused the convergence of nonequity housing models in the areas of management and administration. Drawing on the present findings and on an experimental project in tenant management, this article argues that the trend toward convergence will continue and will likely result in one nonequity housing model in Canada. This pattern is interpreted in light of the neoconservative agenda of both countries that emphasizes private sector solutions to housing low‐income families.     

The Importance of Design in Affordable Housing: Lessons From Mutual Self-Help Housing in California

We focus on three nonprofit organizations developing mutual self-help housing and analyze their projects to examine how they are addressing cost increases. We find that instead of using simpler designs, they are developing more elaborate homes through intricate financing. We are critical of this evolution. First, we suggest that the original modest house design of mutual self-help housing allowed for more affordable housing through post-occupancy improvements and de facto incremental development. Second, after the modest design was replaced with a larger model, development costs increased. Despite financial innovations, including longer loan terms and secondary financing, participation by poor households dropped. Third, we urge a return to the modest housing idea. Fourth, we call for policymakers to better integrate design-based thinking in housing policy.