- Demand and Supply of Mortgage Credit, Alex van de Minne & Federica Teppa, De Nederlandsche Bank Working Paper No. 486.
- How Auctions Amplify House-Price Fluctuations, Alina Arefeva.
- Low-Income Housing Policy, Robert A. Collinson, Ingrid Gould Ellen & Jens Ludwig, Kreisman Working Papers Series in Housing Law and Policy No. 29.
- Do Increases in Subsidized Housing Reduce the Incidence of Homelessness?: Evidence from the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, Osborne Jackson & Laura Kawano, FRB of Boston Working Paper No. 15-11.
- Housing, Poverty, and the Law, Matthew Desmond & Monica Clarice Bell, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 11, pp. 15–35, 2015.
- Local Government Finance as Integrated System: The Uneasy Case for Using Special Districts in Real Estate Finance (A Response to Odinet’s Super-Liens to the Rescue? A Case Against Special Districts in Real Estate Finance), Darien Shanske, Washington and Lee Law Review Online, Vol. 72, No. 191, 2015.
- Household Formation Over Time: Evidence from Two Cohorts of Young Adults, Daniel Cooper & María José Luengo‐Prado, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Research Paper Series Current Policy Perspectives Paper No. 15-4.
- Inequality, Financial Frictions, and Leveraged Bubbles, Julien Bengui & Toan Phan.
November 24, 2015
A propos of yesterday’s post on the great paradox of housing policy — people say that they want restrictive land use policies which limit the construction of new housing at the same time that they say that they want more affordable housing in their communities — I present Exhibit 1: Votes by Community Boards Running Strongly Against de Blasio Affordable Housing Proposals. This document provides evidence that people are strongly opposed to affordable housing in their own communities while bemoaning the lack of affordable housing in nearby communities. This state of affairs is so extreme that it deserves its own acronym, Not in New Yorkers Backyards, or NINYBY.
This document was produced by New York Law School’s CityLand periodical and it discusses a
comprehensive chart tracking every vote taken by community boards citywide on the ZQA and MIH text amendments. On September 21, 2015, the City Planning Commission referred for public review the Zoning for Quality and Affordability (ZQA) and Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) citywide text amendments. Since the public review process has begun, community boards across the city have met to discuss and vote on each of the two proposals. All 59 New York City Community Boards have until November 30th to vote on two citywide text amendments.
CityLand has created a comprehensive citywide chart that is tracking every community board action taken on ZQA and MIH.
* * *
Thus far, an overwhelming number of community boards have voted against both of these proposals, with MIH doing marginally better than ZQA. Within the boards themselves, the votes have been lopsided, with several recording unanimous votes against. Most Boards have backed up the votes with statements expressing their reasons for opposition. Some Boards that approved the measures included stipulations to the Yes votes.
New York City is never going to even begin to address its affordable housing issue if it does not implement policies like these proposed by the de Blasio Administration. Those who oppose these policies should at least admit that much is true.
- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has released its Rulemaking Agenda for Fall 2015, included is an estimate that the new mortgage servicing rules, proposed in November 2014, are estimated to be finalized by June 2016.
- The Chairman of the White House Counsel of Economic Advisers, Jason Furman, delivered a speech at the Urban Institute, entitled Barriers to Shared Growth: The Case of Land Use Regulation and Economic Rents in which he argues that land use restrictions such as tough zoning regulation exacerbate inequality and stifle development.
- New York City Mayor de Blasio has recently announced plans to spend $3 billion on supportive housing development for the homeless and victims of domestic violence.
November 23, 2015
Rick Hills and David Schleicher have posted Planning an Affordable City to SSRN. The abstract reads,
In many of the biggest and richest cities in America, there is a housing affordability crisis. Housing prices in these cities have appreciated well beyond the cost of construction and even faster than rising incomes. These price increases are a direct result of zoning rules that limit the ability of new supply to meet rising demand. The high cost of housing imposes a heavy burden on poorer and younger residents and, by forcing residents away from these human capital rich areas, has even reduced regional and national economic growth. While scholars have done a great deal to identify the problem, solutions are hard to come by, particularly given the strong influence of neighborhood “NIMBY” groups in the land-use process that resist any relaxation of zoning limits on housing supply.
In this Article, we argue that binding and comprehensive urban planning, one of the most criticized ideas in land-use law, could be part of an antidote for regulatory barriers strangling our housing supply. In the middle of the last century, several prominent scholars argued that courts should find zoning amendments that were contrary to city plans ultra vires. This idea was, however, largely rejected by courts and scholars alike, with leading academic figures arguing that parcel-specific zoning amendments, or “deals,” provide space for the give-and-take of democracy and lead to an efficient amount of development by encouraging negotiations between developers and residents regarding externalities from new building projects.
We argue, by contrast, that the dismissal of plans contributed to the excessive strictness of zoning in our richest and most productive cities and regions. In contrast with both planning’s critics and supporters, we argue that plans and comprehensive remappings are best understood as citywide deals that promote housing. Plans and remappings facilitate trades between city councilmembers who understand the need for new development but refuse to have their neighborhoods be dumping grounds for all new construction. Further, by setting forth what can be constructed as of right, plans reduce the information costs borne by purchasers of land and developers, broadening the market for new construction. We argue that land-use law should embrace binding plans that package together policies and sets of zoning changes in a number of neighborhoods simultaneously, making such packages difficult to unwind. The ironic result of such greater centralization of land-use procedure will be more liberal land-use law and lower housing prices.
For me, the paper highlights one of the great paradoxes of housing policy — people say that they want restrictive land use policies which limit the construction of new housing at the same time that they say that housing is too darn expensive in their communities.
The paper’s proposal to adopt “binding and comprehensive urban planning” is an intriguing one that could solve that paradox, but I wonder if there is sufficient political will to implement it over the interests of the parties that benefit from our current ad hoc system of land use regulation.
- The Second Circuit did not revive $1.2 billion suit against Quicken Loans for due to a statute of limitations issue. Deutsche Bank alleged that Quicken loans breached its contract in transfer of a “shoddy” mortgage portfolio.
- JPMorgan settled mortgage delay class action with two class representatives for failure to give notice of a mortgage payoff of thousands of NYS homeowners.
- Judge does not disqualify a Federal Trade Commission attorney in suit for scheme to defraud distressed homeowners for his role in the investigation.
- The Federal Circuit found that HUD is not party to a contract “under which the company’s low-income housing subsidies were revoked.”
- The Securities and Exchange Commission claims that at least $10 million in funds from EB-5 were diverted to Chinese investors. The SEC is bringing a fraud suit against a doctor, an office manager and businesses for this alleged diversion.
November 20, 2015
Enterprise Community Partners have posted Promoting Opportunity Through Equitable Transit-Oriented Development (eTOD): Barriers to Success and Best Practices for Implementation. It opens,
Development patterns directly relate to a community’s strength. Individual families, the local economy, municipal governments and the environment all benefit when well-located housing, jobs and other necessary resources are connected by efficient transportation and infrastructure networks. Equitable transit-oriented development (eTOD) is an important approach to facilitating these connections. This paper defines eTOD as compact, often mixed-use development with multi-modal access to jobs, neighborhood-serving stores and other amenities that also serves the needs of low- and moderate-income people. The preservation and creation of dedicated affordable housing is a primary approach to eTOD, which can ensure that high-opportunity neighborhoods are open to people from all walks of life. eTOD supports the achievement of multiple cross-sector goals, including regional economic growth, enhanced mobility and access, efficient municipal and transportation network operations, improved public health, and decreased cost of living.
Yet it is sometimes difficult for planning agencies, local governments, transit agencies, housing organizations, private developers, and other institutions that influence development to act in concert to overcome barriers to eTOD. Each stakeholder has a unique mission with disparate goals and compliance burdens and must comply with complex and sometimes contradictory rules and regulations. However, improving coordination between these sectors can shift a potentially adversarial relationship into a symbiotic partnership. As the public resources that support transportation and infrastructure networks and housing affordability remain threatened, such efficient coordination is an especially important goal. (5, references omitted)
eTOD has a lot going for it: it’s environmentally responsible, it’s socially responsible, it can promote nice development. It is a shame that it is so hard to pull off. It would be great if HUD could take the lead in promoting eTOD, perhaps in tandem with its recent fair housing initiatives.