Tag Archives: Center for Housing Policy

Inclusionary Housing: Fact and Fiction

Posted on by

photo by Bart Everson

The Center for Housing Policy has issued a policy brief, Separating Fact from Fiction to Design Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs. I am not sure fact was fully separated from fiction when I finished reading it.  It opens,

Inclusionary housing programs generally refer to city and county planning ordinances that require or incentivize developers to build below-market-rate homes (affordable homes) as part of the process of developing market-rate housing developments. More than 500 local jurisdictions in the United States have implemented inclusionary housing policies, and inclusionary requirements have been adopted in a wide variety of places—big cities, suburban communities and small towns.

Despite the proliferation of inclusionary housing programs, the approach continues to draw criticism. There have been legal challenges around inclusionary housing requirements in California, Illinois, Idaho, Colorado and Wisconsin, among others. In addition to legal questions, critics have claimed inclusionary housing policies are not effective at producing affordable housing and have negative impacts on local housing markets.

While there have been numerous studies on inclusionary housing, they unfortunately do not provide conclusive evidence about the overall effectiveness of inclusionary housing programs. These studies vary substantially in terms of their research approaches and quality. In addition, it is difficult to generalize the findings from the existing research because researchers have examined policies in only a handful of places and at particular points in time when economic and housing market conditions might have been quite different. Given these limitations, however, the most highly regarded empirical evidence suggests that inclusionary housing programs can produce affordable housing and do not lead to significant declines in overall housing production or to increases in market-rate prices. However, the effectiveness of an inclusionary housing program depends critically on local economic and housing market characteristics, as well as specific elements of the program’s design and implementation. (1, endnotes omitted and emphasis in the original)

The brief concludes that, in general, ” mandatory programs in strong housing markets that have predictable rules, well-designed cost offsets, and flexible compliance alternatives tend to be the most effective types of inclusionary housing programs.” (11, emphasis removed)

I have to say that this research brief does not give me a great deal of confidence that mandatory inclusionary zoning programs are going to be all that effective.  Indeed, the conclusion suggests that many ducks need to line up before we can count on them to make a real dent in affordable housing production. While this by no means should imply that they should be curtailed, we should continue to evaluate them carefully to see if they live up to their promise.

The State of Moderate-Income Housing

Posted on by

photo by Jaksmata

The Center for Housing Policy’s most recent issue of Housing Landscape gives its 2016 Annual Look at The Housing Affordability Challenges of America’s Working Households (my discussion of the Center’s 2015 report is here). it opens,

Millions of working households face big challenges in finding affordable housing, particularly in areas with strong economic growth. In 2014, more than 9.6 million low- and moderate-income working households were severely housing cost burdened. Severely cost burdened households are those that spend more than half of their income on housing costs. Overall, 15 percent of all U.S. households (17.6 million households) had a severe housing cost burden in 2014, with renters facing the biggest affordability challenges. In 2014, 24.2 percent of all renter households were severely burdened compared to 9.7 percent of all owner households. These percentages were even higher for working households, of whom 25.1 percent of renters and 16.2 percent of owners had a severe housing cost burden.

Housing costs continue to rise, particularly for working renters, who saw their median housing costs grow by more than six percent from 2011 to 2014. And for the first time since 2011, housing costs increased for working owner households as well, marking the end of a three-year downward trajectory. Additionally, more working households were renting their homes as opposed to buying—52.6 percent of working households were renters in 2014, up nearly two percentage points from 2011, when the share was 50.8 percent.

With more working households renting their homes, demand for rental housing continues to grow, pushing rents even higher in already high-cost rental markets. And although incomes are growing for many working households, this growth is not always sufficient to offset rising rents, meaning that working renter households are increasingly having to spend a higher proportion of their incomes on housing costs each month. (1)

The report outlines a series of good policy proposals (many of which are politically unfeasible in the current environment) to address this situation. But my main takeaway is that the wages of working-class households “are not sufficient for meeting the cost of adequate housing.” (5) Their housing problem is an income problem.

Millennials, Paycheck to Paycheck

Posted on by

Grace

The National Housing Conference and the Center for Housing Policy issued a report, Paycheck to Paycheck: A Snapshot of Housing Affordability for Millennial Workers. The report opens,

Public perception of millennials tends to paint a picture of highly educated hipsters living in city micro-units, or perpetual youth living in their parents’ basements. However, those stereotypes do not adequately portray the diversity of race, education, income, family types, living arrangements and employment among millennials.

In fact, most millennials do not live in micro-units or with their parents. Many are getting married and starting families. Even though millennials are more highly educated than previous generations, many face limited job prospects. And many millennial workers are in relatively low-paying jobs and have difficulty finding housing they can afford. As a result, they spend a burdensome share of their paycheck on housing, leaving little for other expenses, including student debt payments, savings for a mortgage down payment and childcare. (1)

The report makes a variety of conservative assumptions. For instance, it assumes that a loan to value ratio of 28% of income and it assumes that households have only one worker. It proposes a variety of policies to expand mortgage credit, affordable housing subsidies and zoning reforms to increase the supply of housing.

Given that the report comes from two affordable housing advocacy groups, its policy proposals to increase the supply of affordable housing for millenials are not surprising. But I do think it is worth thinking about household formation a bit more in this context.

Many of us do not give much thought to how households form.  When we think about our own experience, we might conclude that when we had enough money to get our own place we did just that. But, in fact, the rate of household formation is significantly affected by broader economic forces, namely the state of the job market. If an individual does not believe that her income is stable, she will delay creating her own household. Thus, she might live with her parents or share an apartment with others. Reports like this one assume that there is a natural rate of household formation just as many people assume that there is a natural rate of homeownership. As a general rule, those people generally assume that higher is better.

It might be worth considering that household formation and homeownership rates are driven by the interplay of much larger forces. Instead of trying to move those rates for their own sake, it might be more important to look at fundamentals in the economy, like the unemployment rate and wage growth, and let household formation and homeownership rates take care of themselves.

Friday’s Government Reports Roundup

Posted on by

Friday’s Government Reports Roundup

Posted on by

Connecting Housing to Health

Posted on by

The Center for Housing Policy’s latest issue of Insights from Housing Policy Research featured a research summary on The Impacts of Affordable Housing on Health:

the authors examined recent research on the various ways in which the production, rehabilitation, or other provision of affordable housing may affect health outcomes for children, adults, and older adults. This report is organized around ten hypotheses on the contribution of affordable housing to supporting positive health outcomes. Overall, the research supports the critical link between stable, decent, and affordable housing and positive health outcomes. (1, footnote omitted, emphasis in the original)

The authors conclude that “providing affordable housing is a valuable strategy to support and improve wellbeing. It is important for policymakers to understand that safe, adequate, and affordable housing is not just shelter but also an investment in good health for low-income households.” (8)

The article seems pretty result-driven, so I am not sure how reliable it is as a research summary. I was particularly struck by its frequent conflating of causation and correlation. This conflation is seen in the conclusion above: there is surely a link between housing and health, but what is causing what?

Take the first hypothesis: “Affordable Housing Can Improve Health Outcomes by Freeing Up Family Resources for Nutritious Food and Health Care Expenditures.” (2) Sure, but so can increased income or decreased expenses in other parts of a budget. This first hypothesis isn’t really a story about affordable housing, but about poverty. So a better question might be — what is the most efficient way to increase resources for food and health care? The research cited does not appear to make the case that affordable housing is the right answer to that question.

There is no question that this is first and foremost an advocacy document. This should come as no surprise, given that the Center for Housing Policy is the research division of the National Housing Conference. That being said, the footnotes do provide an overview of the research in this area. Some readers might find it useful in that regard.

 

Housing Affordability for Moderate-Income Households

Posted on by

The Center for Housing Policy’s most recent issue of Housing Landscape gives its Annual Look at The Housing Affordability Challenges of America’s Working Households. The Center finds that

Overall, 15.2 percent of all U.S. households (17.6 million households) were severely housing cost burdened in 2013. Renters face the biggest affordability challenges. In 2013, 24.3 percent of all renter households were severely burdened compared to 10.0 percent of all owner households. (1, footnote omitted)

The Center summarizes “the severe housing cost burdens of low- and moderate-income working households.” (1) Unsurprisingly. these households face

significantly greater affordability challenges than the overall population. In 2013,21.2 percent of working households were severely cost burdened (9.6 million households).Twenty-five percent of working renters and 17.1 percent of working homeowners paid more than half of their incomes for housing that year. (1)

The report notes some modest good news:

Since 2010,the overall share of working households with a severe housing cost burden has  fallen.This modest decline is the result of a complex combination of factors, including the shift of  some higher-income households from homeownership into rental housing. An insufficient supply of rental housing and sustained increases in rents have led to millions of working households having to pay too much for housing or live far from their jobs, in substandard housing,or in poor-quality neighborhoods. (1)

Federal and local housing policy has not yet come to grips with the fact low- and moderate-income households have been paying a significant portion of their income in housing costs year after year. Household have to make difficult trade-offs among cost, distance from employment, housing quality and neighborhood quality.

The Center notes that more can be done to support affordable housing at the federal and state levels, but it is not clear to me that there are any politically feasible policy responses that can make a serious dent in the affordability of housing for working households.