Comment on Kerry D. Vandell's “FHA restructuring proposals: Alternatives and implications”

Abstract

New Orleans, a highly segregated city with low homeownership, experienced a tremendous number of housing foreclosures between 1985 and 1990. This study highlights the process and impact of foreclosure in the urban housing market, which contributes to an understanding of their impact on the spatial structure of the city. Two aspects of foreclosure are examined: the differential impacts of foreclosure on low‐income and African‐American householders and changes in socioeconomic conditions (neighborhood change and the spatial structure of the city) resulting from foreclosure.

Conventional wisdom holds that urban neighborhood transformation is driven largely by white flight. The data presented in this article suggest a counterhypoth‐esis. Middle‐income professional whites employed in businesses impacted by recession who had recently bought housing with high loan‐to‐value ratios were forced to sell or have their houses foreclosed upon. The depressed market, in turn, made such housing affordable to middle‐class blacks interested in homeownership. Thus, black economic opportunity, rather than white flight, dramatically transformed the racial composition of many New Orleans East neighborhoods.     

关于中交一航局职工文化建设情况的调研报告

中交一航局的职工文化建设,多年来已形成诸多行之有效的成功经验,但也存在一些需要改进的问题。今后应通过加强职工文化自信意识引导、探索项目部职工文化阵地标准、打造职工文化建设品牌、实现“两转两延一提升”,来全面提升该项工作的质量。     

Housing Choice Vouchers and Crime in Charlotte,NC

Recent media attention and research have focused on the effect of housing vouchers on crime, with different conclusions. The purpose of this study is to bring further evidence to the voucher–crime debate, using annual data from 2000 to 2009 for Charlotte-Mecklenburg County. We study the relationship between crime counts and housing vouchers with quantile regression models with year and census tract fixed effects. We found that voucher households are associated with increased crime, controlling for past crime levels. Estimates vary, however, with the concentration of vouchers in the neighborhood, with little impact in areas with low concentrations. Estimates also vary with the neighborhood crime level. We extend the literature by examining the effect of different voucher family types, finding no evidence that elderly households or nonelderly households without disabilities and without children are associated with more crime. However, we found a very significant positive association for nonelderly households without disabilities with children. Our results indicate that significant crime reductions could be accomplished by focusing U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, local housing agency, and criminal justice resources on the types of places and voucher families most at risk for crime problems when a family uses a voucher to move into a new neighborhood.     

Why Low-Income Households Become Unstably Housed: Evidence From the Panel Study of Income Dynamics

ABSTRACT

Because of a severe shortage of affordable housing in the United States, an increasing number of low-income households suffer from housing instability. However, little evidence exists as to why they experienced housing instability, although they were stably housed at other times. By applying hybrid models to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics data, this study estimates the effects of potential household-level predictors on the likelihood of experiencing housing instability. The results show that changes in family employment structure, job insecurity, automobile ownership, and the number of adult family members within a household correlate with housing instability after controlling for changes in household income and housing costs. Moreover, I find that households with children are particularly vulnerable to housing instability. These results contribute to identifying valid household-level predictors of housing instability and developing preventive policy interventions that help unsubsidized low-income households achieve housing stability.     

Social housing under the Workers’ Party government: an analysis of the private sector in Brazil

This article examines the patterns of government intervention in social housing in Brazil to analyse the role of the private sector in the elaboration and implementation of social housing policies during the Workers’ Party government. It draws on case study research, and I examine areas which impact on the way social housing has been implemented since 2003 to study the concentration of decision power the private construction sector has on social housing policymaking, which sets the tone of government intervention on social housing. I argue this was part of the Workers’ Party’s approach to neoliberal policies in a more moderated style, a type of intervention repeated on numerous occasions under previous administrations. This article concludes by noting the prominent role of the private sector in social housing developments.     

Mitigating apprehension about section 8 vouchers: The positive role of housing specialists in search and placement

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has found that Section 8 voucher recipients are often unable to secure apartments outside of high‐poverty areas in tight urban rental markets. However, intensive housing placement services greatly improve the success and mobility of voucher holders. Drawing on ethnographic research in the housing placement department of a private, nonprofit community‐based organization, I first describe how fundamental problems in implementing the public subsidy program in a tight private rental market generate apprehension among landlords and voucher recipients that can prevent the successful use of vouchers. Second, I demonstrate how housing placement specialists can dispel and overcome this apprehension through a variety of tactics that require extensive soft skills and a deep commitment to the mission of housing poor families.

These findings provide support for the increased use of housing placement services to improve success and mobility rates for Section 8 vouchers.     

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.     

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 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.     

Do impact fees raise the price of existing housing?

Abstract

This article uses 1991–2000 data on single‐family housing sales from King County, WA, to provide new evidence relating to the effects of impact fees on housing prices. The hedonic regression method is used to examine the effects of these fees on existing housing as well as their differential effects on price as determined by housing quality.

Impact fees raise existing home prices by about 83 percent of the amount of the fee. The increase is 103 percent for high‐quality homes and is not statistically significant for low‐quality homes. The owners of high‐quality homes realize capital gains from impact fees. However, such fees do not raise the price of low‐quality homes. To the extent that low‐quality housing is more likely to be owned by low‐ and moderate‐income households, which are often composed of racial and ethnic minorities, this finding has significant policy implications for the supporters of impact fees.