- The Role of Prepayment Penalties in Mortgage Loans, by Andrea Beltratti, Matteo Benetton & Alessandro Gavazza, CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP10504.
- Inclusion by Design, Thinking Beyond a Civil Rights Paradigm, by Robin Paul Malloy, Land Use Law and Disability: Planning and Zoning for Accessible Communities, Cambridge University Press, 2015.
- Cancer Diagnoses and Household Debt Overhang, by Arpit Gupta, Edward R. Morrison, Catherine Fedorenko & Scott D. Ramsey, Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 514.
- Zoning and Land Use Planning: How Real is Gentrification, by Michael Lewyn, 43 Real Est. L.J. 344 (Winter 2014).
- Maximizing Inclusionary Zoning’s Contributions to Both Affordable Housing and Residential Integration, by Tim Iglesias, Washburn Law Journal, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2015.
- Securitization and Mortgage Default, by Ronel Elul, FRB of Philadelphia Working Paper No. 15-15.
- The Effect of Large Investors on Asset Quality: Evidence from Subprime Mortgage Securities, by Manuel Adelino, W. Scott Frame, & Kristopher Gerardi, FRB Atlanta Working Paper No. 2014-4.
Tag Archives: inclusionary zoning
Housing out of Thin Air
NYU’s Furman Center has posted a policy brief, Creating Affordable Housing out of Thin Air: The Economics of Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning in New York City. It opens,
In May 2014, New York City’s new mayor released an ambitious housing agenda that set forth a multi-pronged, ten-year plan to build or preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing. One of the most talked-about initiatives in the plan was encapsulated in its statement, “In future re-zonings that unlock substantial new housing capacity, the city must require, not simply encourage, the production of affordable housing in order to ensure balanced growth, fair housing opportunity, and diverse neighborhoods.” In other words, the city intends to combine upzoning with mandatory inclusionary zoning in order to increase the supply of affordable housing and promote economic diversity. (1)
Inclusionary zoning, “using land use regulation to link development of market-rate housing units to the creation of affordable housing,” is seen by many as a low-cost policy to support a broader affordable housing approach. (2) There is a limit to the reach of such a program because developers will only build if the overall project pencils out, including any units of mandatory inclusionary zoning.
The policy brief’s conclusions are important:
In many neighborhoods, including some that the city has already targeted for the new program, market rents are too low to justify new mid- and high-rise construction, so additional density would offer no immediate value to developers that could be used to cross-subsidize affordable units. In these areas, inclusionary zoning will need to rely on direct city subsidy for the time being if it is to generate any new units at all regardless of the income level they serve.
Where high rents make additional density valuable, there is capacity to cross-subsidize new affordable units without direct subsidy, but the development of a workable inclusionary zoning policy will be complex. The amount of affordable housing the city could require without dampening the rate of new construction or relying on developers to accept lower financial returns or landowners to be willing to sell at lower prices will vary widely depending on a neighborhood’s market rent, the magnitude of the upzoning, and, to a lesser extent, on the level of affordability required in the rent-restricted units. Where developers must provide the required affordable housing, and whether they can instead pay a fee directly to the city, also bears heavily on the number of affordable units a mandatory inclusionary zoning policy has the potential to generate, but raises other difficult issues. (14-15)
The de Blasio Administration’s housing and land use team is very sophisticated (including the Furman Center’s former director, Vicki Been, now Commissioner at the Department of Housing Preservation and Development), so the City will be well aware of these constraints on a mandatory inclusionary housing program. Nonetheless, it will be of great importance to design a flexible program that can adapt to changing market conditions to ensure that such a program is actually a spur to new development and not merely a well-intentioned initiative.
Reiss on NYC Development Rules
Law 360 quoted me in Looser Rules Pave Way For NYC Affordable Housing Projects (behind a paywall). It opens,
The commissioner of New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development detailed Wednesday how the agency will streamline the development process for affordable housing projects, allowing developers faced with new mandatory inclusionary zoning rules to breathe easier.
Since Mayor Bill de Blasio announced his ambitious plan to create or preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing in the city over the next 10 years, developers and their attorneys have been cautiously optimistic.
Many have seen the positive side of residential projects being allowed in places where they would not have been previously, thanks to planned zoning changes. But with those zoning changes comes a mandate to build an affordable component with any new development, and the administration has been adamant that there will be few — if any — new monetary incentives.
So when HPD Commissioner Vicki Been told attendees at a Citizens Budget Commission event Wednesday that sweeping changes are coming to the way the agency does business that will cut a lot of red tape and speed up the process, many developers and their attorneys were pleased.
“It was great to hear,” said John Kelly, an affordable housing expert and partner at Nixon Peabody LLP. “I think it’s the right first step, and it’s necessary if they’re really going to carry out the plan they want to do.”
Included in that first step will be significant changes to the two elements of the development process that experts say create the biggest bottlenecks: design review and clearance.
The design and architecture review will likely be completely overhauled, Been told the attendants at Wednesday’s meeting, and the HPD will shift to the self-certification system backed up by random audits that has seen success elsewhere in city government, including at the Department of Buildings.
These changes are expected to cut down on the waiting time that many developers often suffer through as they try to get a project off the ground, adding unnecessary costs and — perhaps most importantly for Been’s purposes — dissuading some from seeking out affordable housing opportunities.
HPD staff will still have a hand in reviewing projects, but the changes — which Been said will be explained in more detail soon — are expected to be significant.
“It’s exciting to start to see specifics of the plan, we’ve all been kind of waiting for that,” said Jennifer Dickson, senior planning and development specialist at Herrick Feinstein LLP.
But she noted that the process, even with the proposed tweaks, is extremely complex. As the city attempts to make affordable housing development more attractive and expand inclusionary zoning districts, a growing number of architects and developers with little experience in this arena will be joining the fray.
“I think they will be looking to the city agencies to continue to guide them,” Dickson said.
The specific extent to which HPD officials will remain involved in the process is one of many questions that remain unanswered. Another is exactly how the agency will ensure compliance with a new self-certification process, outside of random audits.
“The risk of self-certification is: What if people don’t certify well? There’s always a balance of government regulation between reducing red tape on one hand, and assuring people live up to the appropriate standards on the other,” said David Reiss, a real estate professor at Brooklyn Law School.
Promoting Affordable Housing, and the Winner Is . . .
I had blogged about a competition to generate ideas to lower the cost of affordable housing, the Minnesota Challenge to Lower the Cost of Affordable Housing. I was pretty excited about this challenge and was happy to see that a winner has been chosen: the University of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA).
CURA’s winning proposal is here. Basically, they
propose a three-stage program for addressing the state and local regulatory cost driver. First, we will identify and summarize best practices at the state and local levels for reducing regulatory and permitting barriers to affordable housing. There is a significant national database of initiatives that can provide examples for possible implementation here, as well as the Affordable Housing Toolkit established by ULI Minnesota. Second, we will conduct an analysis of where a more complete adoption of best practices is likely to have the largest effect on the production of affordable housing, particularly those suburban cities with the largest future affordable housing goals. Finally, we will take advantage of the fact that the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities is currently drafting a Regional Housing Policy plan, which is a vehicle that could implement regulatory reforms and create incentives for local governments to adopt practices and policies to reduce development costs. (1)
These are all valuable things to do, but I have to say that I am disappointed that this is as good as it gets when it comes to innovation regarding reducing the cost of affordable housing construction. Perhaps the takeaway lesson is that building affordable housing is expensive and that we can only cut costs a bit at the margins. I am hoping, however, that I am wrong about that and that some innovative ideas are still out there. Are there big ideas about inclusionary zoning? About modular construction? About public/private partnerships? We’ll have to wait and see.
Inclusionary Housing and Stigma
Hughen and Read have posted their abstract for Inclusionary Housing Policies, Stigma Effects and Strategic Production Decisions to SSRN (it is not available for download from there and must be purchased from the publisher one way or the other). The abstract reads,
Inclusionary housing policies enacted by municipal governments rely on a combination of legal mandates and economic incentives to encourage residential real estate developers to include affordable units in otherwise market-rate projects. These regulations provide a means of stimulating the production of mixed-income housing at a minimal cost to the public sector, but have been hypothesized to slow development and put upward pressure on housing prices. The results of the theoretical models presented in this paper suggest that inclusionary housing policies need not increase housing prices in all situations. However, any observed impact on housing prices may be mitigated by density effects and stigma effects that decrease demand for market-rate units. The results additionally suggest real estate developers are likely to respond to inclusionary housing policies by strategically altering production decisions.
The authors conclude that “Density bonuses can limit the upward pressure on housing prices in strong markets, but may prove much less effective in weak markets where developers have little incentive to increase production in response to this type of economic incentive.” (609)
As NYC Mayor de Blasio drafts his ambitious affordable housing plan, he needs to maintain flexibility in his inclusionary zoning initiative. I think the stigma effects discussed in the article are much less relevant in NYC than in many other jurisdictions because NYC has a long history of successful mixed-income housing projects. But I do think that the de Blasio Administration needs to ensure that its initiative is designed to work effectively during both strong and weak markets. The administration will also need to ensure that it works well in the outer boroughs as well as in Manhattan’s red hot housing market.
Long-Term Homeownership Affordability
Amnon Lehavi has posted Can the Resale Housing Market Be Split to Facilitate Long-Term Affordability? to SSRN. The paper argues that
a comprehensive affordable housing policy requires the formal splitting of the homeownership market into (at least) two distinct segments: one designated for the general public and following a conventional pricing mechanism through free market supply and demand, and the other designated for eligible households and controlling both initial supply and subsequent resale of housing units through regulated affordability-oriented pricing mechanisms.
While regulation of the pricing of affordable housing units during their initial allocation is a standard feature of housing policy–whether such affordable units are produced by a public authority or a private developer–regulation of pricing upon resale to subsequent buyers has received less attention as a matter of both theory and practice, thus leaving a substantial gap in
design mechanisms aimed at promoting a sustainable affordable housing policy.(1)
This is not really a new argument, but the paper takes the position that existing efforts to regulate resales of affordable housing in the homeownership market can be scaled up significantly. The paper does not take on some of the bigger questions that this position implicates — for instance, should scarce homeownership dollars be spent on rental housing instead — but it does develop a concrete proposal:
This paper seeks to enrich policy design options by introducing two alternative cap-on-resale mechanisms for the affordable housing segment: “Mixed Indexed Cap” (MIC) and “Pure Indexed Cap” (PIC). It explains how such models could be utilized to attain a policy goal of promoting long-term social mobility, allowing multiple low- and modest-income households to engage in capital building by sequentially enjoying increments of appreciation of properties in the affordable housing segment.
In so doing, the paper addresses a series of challenges posed by the design of a cap-on-resale mechanism: Could such a mechanism ensure that the homeowner is granted a fair return upon resale, providing the owner with proper incentives to invest efficiently in the property during the tenure, while setting up a resale rate that would make the unit truly affordable for future homebuyers? (1)
New York Ciy has experimented with affordable homeownership and has not come up with an ideal solution to the problem of affordability upon resale. Given the renewed focus on affordable housing policy in NYC, this attention to affordable homeownership policy is most welcome.
Reiss (and Others) on Post-Bloomberg Brooklyn
The NY Daily News ran a story on a panel I moderated last night at Brooklyn Law School, The Fab Four! Brooklyn Heights Councilmen Since 1975 Share Stage and Talk About Past, Future, Bloomberg. The speakers gave their thoughts on a variety of topics, including what’s next for New York City:
David Reiss: What are your predictions for a post-Bloomberg Brooklyn?
Levin: The likely mayor is going to be very far to the left. (Bill de Blasio) has been more engaged with people that are not elite and he has a greater vision of equity. It’s a big challenge because it’s a big city, like steering a gigantic ocean liner. I don’t think there will be lots of changes on day one but there will be policy changes that can be shifted that will cause a big change, like universal pre-kindergarten and mandatory inclusionary zoning. His goal is to decrease the economic disparity in the city and it’s a big challenge.
Yassky: A lot of the changes you’ve seen are here to say. There’s a much bigger swatch of Brooklyn that will be professional office workers, people who are working in Manhattan and not in traditional blue collar jobs. That spread throughout Brooklyn is here to stay. So many neighborhoods have excellent public spaces which is ameliorating inequality in the near term. It’s taking better public goods, like parks, to do it, and you don’t need rose colored glasses to see that. These changes don’t reverse very quickly and easily.
Fisher: He’ll be a mayor from Brooklyn, so it’s got to be a good thing for all of us. The nostalgia here is over; Brooklyn is the world again. When I grew up, people were nostalgic for the good old days. No one is nostalgic for those days now. Brooklyn has really reached a turning point. The bar has been raised in post-Bloomberg Brooklyn. So many people in Brooklyn now expect government to function and be responsive. As long as people feel invested in the borough, they’ll make it possible for Steve and whoever comes after to keep the progress going.
