Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] How Affordable is HUD Affordable Housing?

  This paper assesses the affordability of HUD rental assistance properties from the standpoint of transportation costs. HUD housing is, by definition, affordable from the standpoint of housing costs due ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: How Affordable is HUD Affordable Housing? Author: Ewing, Reid, Hamidi, Shima Year: 2015 This paper assesses the affordability of HUD rental assistance properties from the standpoint of transportation costs. HUD housing is, by definition, affordable from the standpoint of housing costs due to limits on the amounts renters are required to pay. However, there are no such limitations on transportation costs, and common sense suggests that renters in remote locations may be forced to pay more than 15 percent of income, a nominal affordability standard, for transportation costs. Using household travel models estimated with data from 15 diverse regions around the U.S., we estimated and summed automobile capital costs, automobile operating costs, and transit fare costs for households at more than 18,000 HUD rental assistance properties. The mean percentage of income expended on transportation is 15 percent for households at the high end of the eligible income scale. However, in highly sprawling metropolitan areas, and in suburban areas of more compact metropolitan areas, much higher percentages of households exceed the 15 percent threshold. This suggests that locational characteristics of properties should be considered by HUD when establishing eligibility for rental assistance subsidies. Title: How Affordable is HUD Affordable Housing? Author: Ewing, Reid, Hamidi, Shima Year: 2015 This paper assesses the affordability of HUD rental assistance properties from the standpoint of transportation costs. HUD housing is, by definition, affordable from the standpoint of housing costs due to limits on the amounts renters are required to pay. However, there are no such limitations on transportation costs, and common sense suggests that renters in remote locations may be forced to pay more than 15 percent of income, a nominal affordability standard, for transportation costs. Using household travel models estimated with data from 15 diverse regions around the U.S., we estimated and summed automobile capital costs, automobile operating costs, and transit fare costs for households at more than 18,000 HUD rental assistance properties. The mean percentage of income expended on transportation is 15 percent for households at the high end of the eligible income scale. However, in highly sprawling metropolitan areas, and in suburban areas of more compact metropolitan areas, much higher percentages of households exceed the 15 percent threshold. This suggests that locational characteristics of properties should be considered by HUD when establishing eligibility for rental assistance subsidies. Close

• 2. [Article] When Cities Shrink, Affordability Does Too

  To better understand the real costs of housing and transportation in a declining urban context, NITC researchers implemented a household survey to determine whether the assumptions made in existing research ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: When Cities Shrink, Affordability Does Too Author: Ganning, Joanna, Tighe, Jenna Rosie Year: 2017 To better understand the real costs of housing and transportation in a declining urban context, NITC researchers implemented a household survey to determine whether the assumptions made in existing research literature and in the LAI regarding household expenditures and transportation accessibility hold true when analyzing shrinking cities—generally, cities characterized by a long-term loss in occupied housing units. The project was led by Joanna Ganning of Cleveland State University, who has conducted previous research into shrinking cities with the support of the NITC program. Title: When Cities Shrink, Affordability Does Too Author: Ganning, Joanna, Tighe, Jenna Rosie Year: 2017 To better understand the real costs of housing and transportation in a declining urban context, NITC researchers implemented a household survey to determine whether the assumptions made in existing research literature and in the LAI regarding household expenditures and transportation accessibility hold true when analyzing shrinking cities—generally, cities characterized by a long-term loss in occupied housing units. The project was led by Joanna Ganning of Cleveland State University, who has conducted previous research into shrinking cities with the support of the NITC program. Close

• 3. [Article] What Do We Know About Location Affordability in U.S. Shrinking Cities?

  In late 2013, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) launched the Location Affordability Index (LAI) portal. Their dataset uses models to estimate typical amount households spend on housing ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: What Do We Know About Location Affordability in U.S. Shrinking Cities? Author: Ganning, Joanna, Tighe, Jenna Rosie Year: 2017 In late 2013, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) launched the Location Affordability Index (LAI) portal. Their dataset uses models to estimate typical amount households spend on housing and transportation at the block group level, and calculates “H + T Affordability,” the percent of household income spent on these items. In our previous research, we analyzed 81 shrinking cities to determine how location affordability differs across various neighborhoods. Our results suggest that households in declining neighborhoods, as compared to stable or redeveloping neighborhoods, face the greatest H + T affordability challenges in shrinking cities. Furthermore, in declining neighborhoods, virtually all of the additional affordability challenges encountered can be accounted for by differences in transportation affordability rather than housing. Since there is virtually no research to either validate or suggest bias in the LAI data, and a declining neighborhood in a shrinking city presents both a relatively common yet entirely dissimilar context to the norm, we feel that this data should be carefully calibrated to, and tested for, this setting to ensure that appropriate and efficient policy follow. In this report, we present the results of two research phases: a strictly quantitative first stage in which the LAI is disassembled and reassembled, taking stock of assumptions, methods, and accuracy. This work finds that the LAI generally over-estimates housing costs, but more for renters and more in metropolitan areas. Estimations of transportation cost burdens are built largely from unreliable data and using models which cannot be replicated, leading us to conclude that these cost burden estimates may not be reliable. In the second research phase, which is survey-based, we gather household-level data from 12 Census tracts in Cleveland, Ohio, to estimate household housing and transportation costs and cost burdens and gain a clearer sense of budget trade-offs where costs are unaffordable. The survey results support the first research stage. The LAI over-estimates housing costs for these neighborhoods by approximately 17% and transportation costs by approximately 126%, meaning the LAI estimates for transportation are not reliable. By and large, households trade essentials, investing, and paying bills (at all or in full) to cover their costs in housing and transportation. Title: What Do We Know About Location Affordability in U.S. Shrinking Cities? Author: Ganning, Joanna, Tighe, Jenna Rosie Year: 2017 In late 2013, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) launched the Location Affordability Index (LAI) portal. Their dataset uses models to estimate typical amount households spend on housing and transportation at the block group level, and calculates “H + T Affordability,” the percent of household income spent on these items. In our previous research, we analyzed 81 shrinking cities to determine how location affordability differs across various neighborhoods. Our results suggest that households in declining neighborhoods, as compared to stable or redeveloping neighborhoods, face the greatest H + T affordability challenges in shrinking cities. Furthermore, in declining neighborhoods, virtually all of the additional affordability challenges encountered can be accounted for by differences in transportation affordability rather than housing. Since there is virtually no research to either validate or suggest bias in the LAI data, and a declining neighborhood in a shrinking city presents both a relatively common yet entirely dissimilar context to the norm, we feel that this data should be carefully calibrated to, and tested for, this setting to ensure that appropriate and efficient policy follow. In this report, we present the results of two research phases: a strictly quantitative first stage in which the LAI is disassembled and reassembled, taking stock of assumptions, methods, and accuracy. This work finds that the LAI generally over-estimates housing costs, but more for renters and more in metropolitan areas. Estimations of transportation cost burdens are built largely from unreliable data and using models which cannot be replicated, leading us to conclude that these cost burden estimates may not be reliable. In the second research phase, which is survey-based, we gather household-level data from 12 Census tracts in Cleveland, Ohio, to estimate household housing and transportation costs and cost burdens and gain a clearer sense of budget trade-offs where costs are unaffordable. The survey results support the first research stage. The LAI over-estimates housing costs for these neighborhoods by approximately 17% and transportation costs by approximately 126%, meaning the LAI estimates for transportation are not reliable. By and large, households trade essentials, investing, and paying bills (at all or in full) to cover their costs in housing and transportation. Close

• 4. [Article] The effects of large-lot zoning on the single-family housing market

  This study investigated the private costs to individual households of large-lot zoning policies. The study asked whether typical zoning ordinances create shortages of small lots or small structures and, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The effects of large-lot zoning on the single-family housing market Author: Roberts, Rebecca S. This study investigated the private costs to individual households of large-lot zoning policies. The study asked whether typical zoning ordinances create shortages of small lots or small structures and, if so, what the magnitude of the resultant welfare loss is. The hypotheses were suggested by a theoretical model developed to explain the effect of a shortage of small lots on housing prices: 1) Mean lot size is larger under large-lot zoning; 2) The coefficient of lot size in a hedonic house price index is smaller under large-lot zoning; 3) Structure size and lot size are closely related; 4) Mean structure size is larger under large-lot zoning; 5) The coefficient of structure size in a hedonic house price index is smaller under large-lot zoning. The hypotheses were tested by comparing parameters of housing markets in western Oregon cities with relatively restrictive and unrestrictive minimum lot size requirements. Relevant parameters in each city were calculated from a sample of houses sold in each city in 1977-78. The sampling frame and house prices and characteristics were obtained from county assessors' records. Mean lot sizes were significantly larger in the restrictive cities than in the unrestrictive cities. Lot sizes for new houses were significantly larger even after controlling for structure size, indicating differences in income distributions were not entirely responsible for differences in lot sizes. The coefficients of lot size in the hedonic price indices were significantly smaller for restrictive cities. These results provide strong evidence zoning in the restrictive cities was misallocating lot sizes. Under restrictive assumptions, the welfare loss to the marginal household displaced from a small lot was estimated to be about $1,000. Lot and structure sizes for new houses were significantly correlated, but mean structure sizes in restrictive cities were not significantly larger than in the unrestrictive cities. Nor were structure size coefficients in the hedonic price indices significantly smaller. These results indicate there is no strong evidence zoning was misallocating structure sizes in the restrictive cities, limiting the estimated welfare loss to that stemming solely from shortages of small lots. Title: The effects of large-lot zoning on the single-family housing market Author: Roberts, Rebecca S. This study investigated the private costs to individual households of large-lot zoning policies. The study asked whether typical zoning ordinances create shortages of small lots or small structures and, if so, what the magnitude of the resultant welfare loss is. The hypotheses were suggested by a theoretical model developed to explain the effect of a shortage of small lots on housing prices: 1) Mean lot size is larger under large-lot zoning; 2) The coefficient of lot size in a hedonic house price index is smaller under large-lot zoning; 3) Structure size and lot size are closely related; 4) Mean structure size is larger under large-lot zoning; 5) The coefficient of structure size in a hedonic house price index is smaller under large-lot zoning. The hypotheses were tested by comparing parameters of housing markets in western Oregon cities with relatively restrictive and unrestrictive minimum lot size requirements. Relevant parameters in each city were calculated from a sample of houses sold in each city in 1977-78. The sampling frame and house prices and characteristics were obtained from county assessors' records. Mean lot sizes were significantly larger in the restrictive cities than in the unrestrictive cities. Lot sizes for new houses were significantly larger even after controlling for structure size, indicating differences in income distributions were not entirely responsible for differences in lot sizes. The coefficients of lot size in the hedonic price indices were significantly smaller for restrictive cities. These results provide strong evidence zoning in the restrictive cities was misallocating lot sizes. Under restrictive assumptions, the welfare loss to the marginal household displaced from a small lot was estimated to be about $1,000. Lot and structure sizes for new houses were significantly correlated, but mean structure sizes in restrictive cities were not significantly larger than in the unrestrictive cities. Nor were structure size coefficients in the hedonic price indices significantly smaller. These results indicate there is no strong evidence zoning was misallocating structure sizes in the restrictive cities, limiting the estimated welfare loss to that stemming solely from shortages of small lots. Close