Pub Date : 2023-07-24DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2234880
Casey J. Dawkins
{"title":"Airspace Rights and Affordable Housing Supply","authors":"Casey J. Dawkins","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2234880","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2234880","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42274338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-04DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2216522
G. Galster, C. Aiken
Since its inception three decades ago, Housing Policy Debate has distinguished itself from other scholarly journals by publishing explicit debates on current topics related to housing, neighborhoods and community development. This month’s issue offers an exemplar of this forum format: “Beyond Opportunity Hoarding.” David Imbroscio engages deeply with one of the core conventional wisdoms of contemporary housing policy in both the U.S. and Western Europe: We can make substantial gains in socioeconomic opportunity by opening up affluent neighborhoods to less-advantaged households and achieving a stable “social mix.” He raises a host of important challenges that advocates for this position (me included) will ignore at their peril. Five members of our Editorial Board—Lisa Bates, Casey Dawkins, Ingrid Ellen, Andrew Greenlee, and Mike Lens—offer a tantalizing variety of responses. On behalf of Housing Policy Debate, I thank all the Forum authors for their thoughtful and thought-provoking comments. From an historical perspective, the arguments and counterarguments raised in this Forum resonate with those first advanced over a half-century ago. In the context of widespread urban civil unrest in the mid-1960s triggered by longstanding race/class injustices, housing and community development scholars, policymakers, and advocates squared off along comparable lines to those drawn here (cf. Downs, 1968). On one side were those who argued for desegregation; this view was sometimes labelled “dispersing the ghetto” or “opening up the suburbs” (Downs, 1973; Grier & Grier, 1966; Kain & Persky, 1969; National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968). On the other side were those who advocated economic development of disadvantaged, disproportionately minority-occupied urban neighborhoods (Edel, 1972; Harrison, 1974; Vietorisz & Harrison, 1970), often called by opponents “gilding the ghetto.” Some explicitly framed their community development proposals within a broader, structural critique of capitalism (Harvey, 1973; Tabb, 1970), as Imbroscio does here. This Forum makes clear that this longstanding debate is far from over, and in doing so offers fresh, fascinating perspectives. Alongside the Forum, this issue gathers together nine articles that deal with themes of racial and spatial integration. Salim Furth and MaryJo Webster’s “Single-Family Zoning and Race: Evidence from the Twin Cities” presents evidence that rezoning single-family neighborhoods to allow for denser housing can promote racial integration. Denser, and especially affordable multifamily, housing faces staunch opposition in many places, however, and a common refrain is that it will depress the values of existing single-family homes. Even those identifying as political liberals feel conflicted about new housing development, finds Michael Manville in “Liberals and Housing: A Study in Ambivalence.” In “Yes or Not in My Backyard (YIMBY vs. NIMBY)?,” Jean Dub e, François des Rosiers, and Nicolas Devaux
自三十年前创办以来，《住房政策辩论》与其他学术期刊的区别在于，它就当前与住房、社区和社区发展相关的主题发表了明确的辩论。本月的一期提供了这种论坛形式的一个例子：“超越机会囤积。“David Imbroscio深入研究了美国和西欧当代住房政策的核心传统智慧之一：我们可以通过向弱势家庭开放富裕社区，并实现稳定的“社会混合”，在社会经济机会方面取得实质性进展。“他提出了一系列重要挑战，而这一职位的倡导者（包括我在内）将忽视这些挑战，这将给他们带来危险。我们编辑委员会的五名成员——丽莎·贝茨、凯西·道金斯、英格丽德·艾伦、安德鲁·格林利和迈克·朗斯——提供了各种各样的诱人回应。我谨代表住房政策辩论会感谢论坛所有作者的深思熟虑和发人深省的评论。从历史的角度来看，本次论坛提出的论点和反驳与半个多世纪前首次提出的论点产生了共鸣。在20世纪60年代中期由长期的种族/阶级不公正引发的广泛城市内乱的背景下，住房和社区发展学者、政策制定者和倡导者按照与这里所画的类似的路线展开了斗争（参见Downs，1968）。一方是主张废除种族隔离的人；这种观点有时被称为“分散贫民区”或“开放郊区”（Downs，1973年；Grier&Grier，1966年；Kain&Persky，1969年；国家内乱咨询委员会，1968年）。另一方面是那些主张弱势、少数族裔占多数的城市社区的经济发展的人（Edel，1972；Harrison，1974；Vietorisz和Harrison，1970），他们经常被反对者称为“为贫民区镀金”。一些人明确地将他们的社区发展建议纳入对资本主义的更广泛的结构性批判中（Harvey，1973；Tabb，1970），就像Imbroscio在这里所做的那样。本论坛清楚地表明，这场旷日持久的辩论远未结束，并在这样做的过程中提供了新的、引人入胜的视角。除了论坛之外，本期还汇集了九篇关于种族和空间一体化主题的文章。Salim Furth和MaryJo Webster的《单户分区和种族：双城的证据》证明，重新分区单户社区以允许更密集的住房可以促进种族融合。然而，密度更大，尤其是负担得起的多户住宅在许多地方都面临着坚决的反对，人们普遍认为这会压低现有独栋住宅的价值。迈克尔·曼维尔（Michael Manville）在《自由主义者与住房：歧义研究》（liberals and housing:A Study in Ambivalence）一书中发现，即使是那些认同政治自由主义者的人，也对新的住房开发感到矛盾，调查这些担忧的依据。他们发现了一种复杂的关系，即与新的社会住房的接近程度通常是积极的，但取决于项目的规模和与市中心的接近程度。Michael Craw在一个非常不同的地方提出了类似的问题（“2000年至2016年，阿肯色州小石城多户住宅对房地产价值的影响”），他发现大多数形式的多户住宅都不会对附近独栋住宅的销售价格产生影响或积极影响。
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"G. Galster, C. Aiken","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2216522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2216522","url":null,"abstract":"Since its inception three decades ago, Housing Policy Debate has distinguished itself from other scholarly journals by publishing explicit debates on current topics related to housing, neighborhoods and community development. This month’s issue offers an exemplar of this forum format: “Beyond Opportunity Hoarding.” David Imbroscio engages deeply with one of the core conventional wisdoms of contemporary housing policy in both the U.S. and Western Europe: We can make substantial gains in socioeconomic opportunity by opening up affluent neighborhoods to less-advantaged households and achieving a stable “social mix.” He raises a host of important challenges that advocates for this position (me included) will ignore at their peril. Five members of our Editorial Board—Lisa Bates, Casey Dawkins, Ingrid Ellen, Andrew Greenlee, and Mike Lens—offer a tantalizing variety of responses. On behalf of Housing Policy Debate, I thank all the Forum authors for their thoughtful and thought-provoking comments. From an historical perspective, the arguments and counterarguments raised in this Forum resonate with those first advanced over a half-century ago. In the context of widespread urban civil unrest in the mid-1960s triggered by longstanding race/class injustices, housing and community development scholars, policymakers, and advocates squared off along comparable lines to those drawn here (cf. Downs, 1968). On one side were those who argued for desegregation; this view was sometimes labelled “dispersing the ghetto” or “opening up the suburbs” (Downs, 1973; Grier & Grier, 1966; Kain & Persky, 1969; National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968). On the other side were those who advocated economic development of disadvantaged, disproportionately minority-occupied urban neighborhoods (Edel, 1972; Harrison, 1974; Vietorisz & Harrison, 1970), often called by opponents “gilding the ghetto.” Some explicitly framed their community development proposals within a broader, structural critique of capitalism (Harvey, 1973; Tabb, 1970), as Imbroscio does here. This Forum makes clear that this longstanding debate is far from over, and in doing so offers fresh, fascinating perspectives. Alongside the Forum, this issue gathers together nine articles that deal with themes of racial and spatial integration. Salim Furth and MaryJo Webster’s “Single-Family Zoning and Race: Evidence from the Twin Cities” presents evidence that rezoning single-family neighborhoods to allow for denser housing can promote racial integration. Denser, and especially affordable multifamily, housing faces staunch opposition in many places, however, and a common refrain is that it will depress the values of existing single-family homes. Even those identifying as political liberals feel conflicted about new housing development, finds Michael Manville in “Liberals and Housing: A Study in Ambivalence.” In “Yes or Not in My Backyard (YIMBY vs. NIMBY)?,” Jean Dub e, François des Rosiers, and Nicolas Devaux","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48286211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-15DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2218840
Vincent Fusaro, R. Coley, Naoka Carey
Abstract Forty-four state governments enacted eviction moratoria freezing or tempering the eviction process during the COVID-19 pandemic in an effort to forestall evictions. Combining data on state and federal eviction policies with data on eviction filings at the census tract level in 27 municipal areas from very late December 2019 through March 2022, we estimated correlated random effects Poisson models to examine effects of the moratoria. We found that state eviction moratoria were associated with a 32% lower rate of filings for a given tract, with moratoria targeting earlier stages of the eviction process having a particularly pronounced effect. We further found that state and federal moratoria were synergistic: eviction filings were lowest when both a strong state moratorium and a federal moratorium were in effect. Finally, state moratoria tempered the relationships between risk factors such as community poverty or racial and ethnic demographic composition and eviction filings. Results suggest that state eviction moratoria, particularly those targeting earlier stages of the eviction process, were successful in meeting their primary goal of decreasing eviction risks during the pandemic.
{"title":"Shelter From the Storm: State Eviction Moratoria, Implementation Context, and Eviction Filings During the First Two Years of the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"Vincent Fusaro, R. Coley, Naoka Carey","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2218840","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2218840","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Forty-four state governments enacted eviction moratoria freezing or tempering the eviction process during the COVID-19 pandemic in an effort to forestall evictions. Combining data on state and federal eviction policies with data on eviction filings at the census tract level in 27 municipal areas from very late December 2019 through March 2022, we estimated correlated random effects Poisson models to examine effects of the moratoria. We found that state eviction moratoria were associated with a 32% lower rate of filings for a given tract, with moratoria targeting earlier stages of the eviction process having a particularly pronounced effect. We further found that state and federal moratoria were synergistic: eviction filings were lowest when both a strong state moratorium and a federal moratorium were in effect. Finally, state moratoria tempered the relationships between risk factors such as community poverty or racial and ethnic demographic composition and eviction filings. Results suggest that state eviction moratoria, particularly those targeting earlier stages of the eviction process, were successful in meeting their primary goal of decreasing eviction risks during the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47240526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-26DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2212662
Henry Gomory, D. Massey, James R. Hendrickson, Matthew Desmond
Abstract Eviction is a common and consequential event in the lives of tenants and is shaped by the legal environments in which it takes place. In this study, we show that eviction filing fees, or the amounts of money it costs landlords to begin formal evictions, have a large effect on eviction practices. Specifically, fees that are higher by $76 (one standard deviation) lead to lower eviction filing rates by 1.71 percentage points (0.26 standard deviations) and lower eviction judgment rates by 0.49 percentage points (0.19 standard deviation). Filing fees affect not only the rate but also the purpose of filing, as lower fees make landlords more likely to file serially against the same tenants as a form of rent collection. Each of these effects appears to be disproportionately large in majority-Black tracts, suggesting that low filing fees have disparate impacts on Black renters. These findings contribute to our understanding of the legal basis of housing insecurity and the racialization of eviction practices in the United States.
{"title":"The Racially Disparate Influence of Filing Fees on Eviction Rates","authors":"Henry Gomory, D. Massey, James R. Hendrickson, Matthew Desmond","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2212662","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2212662","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Eviction is a common and consequential event in the lives of tenants and is shaped by the legal environments in which it takes place. In this study, we show that eviction filing fees, or the amounts of money it costs landlords to begin formal evictions, have a large effect on eviction practices. Specifically, fees that are higher by $76 (one standard deviation) lead to lower eviction filing rates by 1.71 percentage points (0.26 standard deviations) and lower eviction judgment rates by 0.49 percentage points (0.19 standard deviation). Filing fees affect not only the rate but also the purpose of filing, as lower fees make landlords more likely to file serially against the same tenants as a form of rent collection. Each of these effects appears to be disproportionately large in majority-Black tracts, suggesting that low filing fees have disparate impacts on Black renters. These findings contribute to our understanding of the legal basis of housing insecurity and the racialization of eviction practices in the United States.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42734721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-24DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2210560
Nathaniel Decker
Abstract Low-cost but unsubsidized one- to four-unit rental properties provide a critical source of housing for millions of low- and moderate-income renters. These properties are disproportionately in high-poverty neighborhoods and, until recently, studies of these low-end small rental properties (SRPs) primarily focused on their financial viability. Scholars found that, in general, these properties were marginally profitable at best and carried serious financial risks. Recently, however, studies have found that low-end SRPs may be as profitable as or even more profitable than properties in lower-poverty neighborhoods, and have suggested that these profits are driven by exploitative management. I surveyed the owners and managers of SRPs to understand whether low-end properties were more likely to be profitable and whether the owners who did achieve profits at the low end used “milking” strategies. I found that SRPs in high-poverty neighborhoods are about as likely to be profitable as the rest of the market, but are also financially riskier. I found no compelling evidence of a link between profit and more exploitative management practices at the low end of the market. These findings call for a change in policymakers’ understanding of profit and exploitative management among low-end SRPs.
{"title":"The Prevalence, Profitability, and Risks of Milking Among Low-End Small Rental Properties","authors":"Nathaniel Decker","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2210560","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2210560","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Low-cost but unsubsidized one- to four-unit rental properties provide a critical source of housing for millions of low- and moderate-income renters. These properties are disproportionately in high-poverty neighborhoods and, until recently, studies of these low-end small rental properties (SRPs) primarily focused on their financial viability. Scholars found that, in general, these properties were marginally profitable at best and carried serious financial risks. Recently, however, studies have found that low-end SRPs may be as profitable as or even more profitable than properties in lower-poverty neighborhoods, and have suggested that these profits are driven by exploitative management. I surveyed the owners and managers of SRPs to understand whether low-end properties were more likely to be profitable and whether the owners who did achieve profits at the low end used “milking” strategies. I found that SRPs in high-poverty neighborhoods are about as likely to be profitable as the rest of the market, but are also financially riskier. I found no compelling evidence of a link between profit and more exploitative management practices at the low end of the market. These findings call for a change in policymakers’ understanding of profit and exploitative management among low-end SRPs.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49537355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-25DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2197431
Jaclene Begley, Mark Palim
Housing affordability is a key policy concern and an important component of sustainable homeownership. It follows that reducing housing costs without increasing the risk of mortgage default is a critical approach to sustaining homeownership for current and future generations. In this paper, we break down the different elements of housing costs, specifically focusing on the nuances of mortgage costs. We use internal Fannie Mae data to establish a pro forma of housing costs for different owner-occupant borrower profiles over a typical ownership period (all homebuyers, first-time homebuyers [FTHBs], and low-income first-time homebuyers [LI FTHBs]). We find that the biggest contributors to overall housing costs are transactions costs, ongoing utility expenses, property taxes, home improvement costs, and the component of the mortgage interest rate that compensates investors for the time value of money, with utilities and home improvement costs particularly conspicuous for FTHBs and LI FTHBs. The guaranty fees charged by the government-sponsored enterprises and private mortgage insurance are estimated to be less than 6% of the cost of homeownership. These general patterns hold across racial and ethnic groups, although mortgage insurance alone is roughly 6% of total costs for Black and Hispanic FTHBs and LI FTHBs compared to 2% for white FTHBs and LI FTHBs. Overall, our findings suggest that nonmortgage housing costs are key areas that policymakers should focus on to reduce housing costs and foster sustained homeownership rates.
{"title":"Mortgage Costs as a Share of Housing Costs—Placing the Cost of Credit in Broader Context","authors":"Jaclene Begley, Mark Palim","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2197431","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2197431","url":null,"abstract":"Housing affordability is a key policy concern and an important component of sustainable homeownership. It follows that reducing housing costs without increasing the risk of mortgage default is a critical approach to sustaining homeownership for current and future generations. In this paper, we break down the different elements of housing costs, specifically focusing on the nuances of mortgage costs. We use internal Fannie Mae data to establish a pro forma of housing costs for different owner-occupant borrower profiles over a typical ownership period (all homebuyers, first-time homebuyers [FTHBs], and low-income first-time homebuyers [LI FTHBs]). We find that the biggest contributors to overall housing costs are transactions costs, ongoing utility expenses, property taxes, home improvement costs, and the component of the mortgage interest rate that compensates investors for the time value of money, with utilities and home improvement costs particularly conspicuous for FTHBs and LI FTHBs. The guaranty fees charged by the government-sponsored enterprises and private mortgage insurance are estimated to be less than 6% of the cost of homeownership. These general patterns hold across racial and ethnic groups, although mortgage insurance alone is roughly 6% of total costs for Black and Hispanic FTHBs and LI FTHBs compared to 2% for white FTHBs and LI FTHBs. Overall, our findings suggest that nonmortgage housing costs are key areas that policymakers should focus on to reduce housing costs and foster sustained homeownership rates.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135068180","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-31DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2186749
Dan Treglia, Thomas Byrne, Vijaya Tamla Rai
{"title":"Quantifying the Impact of Evictions and Eviction Filings on Homelessness Rates in the United States","authors":"Dan Treglia, Thomas Byrne, Vijaya Tamla Rai","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2186749","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2186749","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49645209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：