The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit An Analysis of the First Ten Years

Abstract

The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) has been the de facto federal rental housing production program since its creation in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. In this article, using a detailed database on 2,554 LIHTC projects, we analyze the costs of building these projects, where they are built, their financial viability, whom they serve, who finances them, and the size of the subsidies provided to them.

The LIHTC is a flexible program that has built different types of housing in various markets. While LIHTC projects serve low‐ and moderate‐income households, their rents are beyond the reach of many poor households without additional subsidy. Revenues just cover costs for many LIHTC projects. Over time, considerably more of each tax‐credit dollar has ended up in the projects, and returns to equity investors have dropped significantly, perhaps reflecting an increased understanding of project risks. We estimate that LIHTC projects developed by nonprofits are 20.3 percent more expensive than those developed by for‐profits.     

Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments

Abstract

This article assesses the future demand for denser, more walkable residential environments in the United States as a whole. A review of survey evidence on preferences is coupled with demographic projections and other trends to construct a demand projection for the period 2000 to 2010 and compare it with 1990 to 2000.

It is possible to foresee a turnabout already under way. Households older than 45 show particular interest in more densely configured homes in more central locations. Passage of the massive baby boom generation into this age range focuses the growth of housing demand in sharp contrast to stagnant numbers at younger ages. Home buyers aged 45 and older who prefer denser, more compact housing alternatives will account for 31 percent of total homeowner growth during the 2000—10 period, double the same segment's market share in the 1990s.     

Comment on Jean L. Cummings and Denise DiPasquale's “The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit: An Analysis of the First Ten Years”

Abstract

The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (housing credit) that Cummings and Di‐Pasquale portray is effective, efficient, and healthy. However, rapid changes in the industry have turned some of their data stale, and the absence of suitable context and information invalidate some key analyses and findings. Moreover, the researchers sometimes seem to see the glass as 10 percent empty instead of 90 percent full. A practitioners’ perspective is more positive.

The housing credit generates an array of public benefits while harnessing private investors’ business discipline. Genuinely low‐income tenants occupy the housing. The housing revitalizes low‐income communities. Properties are in good financial and physical condition. The housing credit is also cost effective. The economic fundamentals of producing low‐income rental housing, not the housing credit, necessitate substantial subsidies. A remarkably high proportion of the federal tax‐credit subsidy goes into the housing, and investor returns are modest. Nonprofit‐sponsored production appears to cost more because nonprofits are prominent in high‐cost locations and for other similar reasons, not because nonprofit developers are inefficient.     

Comment on Dowell Myers and Elizabeth Gearin's “current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments”: In praise…or at least acceptance…of ambiguity

Abstract

It is clear that attempts to discern consumer attitudes toward neighborhood form yield only ambiguity. Denser, more walkable residential environments are impossible to define in a universally applicable manner because of the unique characteristics of an individual neighborhood and its relationship to a region's climate, tradition, and heritage. Consumer preferences are likewise ambiguous and contradictory; this is simply due to many Americans’ lack of personal familiarity with compact, walkable neighborhoods.     

Introduction to session 3: Estimating the costs: Perspectives on preservation of the nation's lower‐income housing stock

Abstract

This article uses survey data from the Moving to Opportunity demonstration program in Chicago to explore changes for households moving from public housing. The focus is on two key areas: housing and neighborhood conditions, and labor force participation and employment of householders. The experimental design of the program allows the differences between comparison households, which moved with a regular Section 8 voucher, and experimental households, which moved to low‐poverty neighborhoods with housing counseling assistance, to be examined.

The findings, based on interviews an average of 18 months after families moved, reveal dramatic improvements in neighborhood and housing conditions for all participating families; experimental families experienced even greater gains in terms of housing and especially neighborhood conditions. Labor force participation and employment increased for householders in both groups, likely fueled by the robust economy throughout much of the country and supporting similar findings for program participants in New York and Boston.     

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.     

Alternative measures for the financial condition of the multifamily housing stock

Abstract

Indicators of the financial condition of the multifamily housing stock can potentially inform several policy issues, such as the loss of affordable rental units, multifamily developers’ access to capital, and the emerging secondary mortgage market for multifamily properties. Several rules of thumb exist for assessing financial condition. This article uses the Residential Finance Survey to investigate whether it matters, from a practical standpoint, which one is employed. Specifically, we ascertain how five measures—loan‐to‐value, debt coverage, rent‐to‐value, net operating income—to‐value, and vacancy loss ratios—relate to each other and rank properties.

We found that Pearsonian correlations among the measures varied dramatically. Factor analysis produced two factors, one corresponding to a rent‐flow measure and the other to a debt‐burden measure. Spearman rank‐order correlations revealed that with one exception, measures yielded noticeably dissimilar financial condition rankings. We conclude that single‐dimensional measures of financial condition should not be used in isolation.     

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.