literature review

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhpd20

Download by: [University of Utah] Date: 21 July 2017, At: 14:10

Housing Policy Debate

ISSN: 1051-1482 (Print) 2152-050X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhpd20

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, Community

Development, and Fair Housing: A Response to

Orfield et al.

Alex Schwartz

To cite this article: Alex Schwartz (2016) The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, Community

Development, and Fair Housing: A Response to Orfield et al., Housing Policy Debate, 26:2,

276-283, DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2016.1126469

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2016.1126469

Published online: 05 Feb 2016.Submit your article to this journal Article views: 294View related articles View Crossmark dataCiting articles: 1 View citing articles Housing Policy Debate, 2016

Vol . 26, no. 2, 276–283

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2016.1126469

FORUM COMMENTARY

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, Community Development,

and Fair Housing: A Response to Orfield et al.

Alex Schwartz

graduate Program in urban Policy analysis and Management, the new s chool, new york, ny , usa

In their recent article, “High Costs and Segregation in Subsidized Housing Policy,” Orfield, Stancil, Luce,

and Myott, argue that the placement of subsidized rental housing for low-income people in central

city neighborhoods violates the Fair Housing Act. They also argue that the cost of developing new

low-income housing is higher in the inner city than in suburban locations, and that there is no evidence

that the development of subsidized housing for low-income people in central city locations improves

the quality of the surrounding neighborhood or the lives of the residents (Orfield, Stancil, Luce, &

Myott, 2015a, 2015b). As the centerpiece of a “Forum” in Housing Policy Debate, the article was joined

by four commentaries about Orfield et al.’s thesis and the evidence marshaled to support it (Dawkins,

2015; Goetz, 2015; Khaddurri, 2015; Massey, 2015). Although the commentators raise several impor -

tant points, both supportive and critical, about the argument, their discussion was not exhaustive.

Orfield et al.’s article, as well as previous related work, has received considerable amounts of attention

in public discourse. For example, Thomas Edsall (2015) published a column in The New York Times that

drew closely on Orfield’s work to criticize affordable housing development as a strategy for community

development. The editorial board of The New York Times has also voiced similar concerns (“The End of

Federally Financed Ghettos,” 2015).

Given the prominence and apparent influence of Orfield’s viewpoint, I believe it is important to

provide a different, balanced view of subsidized housing, fair housing, and community development.

In this essay I raise several points not discussed in the commentaries, and I elaborate on a few that

were analyzed.

My argument has three dimensions. First, federal policy has played an immense role in promulgating,

abetting, and perpetuating racial discrimination and racial segregation, but the Low-Income Housing

Tax Credit is not a significant part of this story. Second, Orfield et al. are right to emphasize the need for

affordable housing to be accessible to good schools, but they overlook the fact that many recipients

of low-income housing subsidies do not have school-age children. These households may value other

neighborhood characteristics more highly than the quality of local schools. My third point is that Orfield

is overly dismissive of affordable housing as a community development strategy, and unfairly denigrates

the work of community development organizations. In developing this argument I join Orfield et al. in

drawing on data specific to the Minneapolis–St. Paul metropolitan area.

Federal Housing Policy and Racial Discrimination and Segregation

Current levels of racial discrimination in the housing market and of residential racial segregation would

not be so high were it not for federal, state, and local government policies. The courts did not ban

racial covenants until 1948. The Federal Housing Administration’s underwriting criteria prevented mil-

lions of Black Americans from becoming homeowners and the FHA redlined their neighborhoods so

CONTACT alex schwartz [email protected]

HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 277

that property owners could not obtain mortgages except on the most usurious terms (Immergluck,

2004; Jackson, 1987; Satter, 2010). Thousands of suburban communities have used and continue to use

land-use and building code regulations to limit if not exclude rental housing and homes that could

be affordable to lower income households (Downs, 1994; Pendall, 2013). Public housing during the

first two or three decades of the program was frequently built in ways and at densities that perpetu-

ated segregation, with development slated for Black occupancy situated in Black neighborhoods, and

White-only developments placed in White neighborhoods (Hirsch, 1998). Various administrative rules

and practices make it difficult for recipients of Housing Choice Vouchers to obtain housing outside of

low-income and segregated neighborhoods (DeLuca, Garboden, & Rosenblatt, 2013).

Congress passed the Fair Housing Act in 1968, but it was largely symbolic for the next two decades,

as enforcement mechanisms were weak and penalties for noncompliance minimal (Massey & Denton,

1993; Yinger, 1995). The Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 did make it easier to prosecute Fair

Housing violations and stiffened the sanctions for violations (Schill & Friedman, 1999 ; Yinger, 1995), but

federal funding for Fair Housing enforcement has always been low. Moreover, the federal government

has always been reluctant to apply the law against the discriminatory or exclusionary land-use practices

of local governments (Hannah-Jones, 2012).

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is a minor player in this narrative—if it plays a role at

all. The LIHTC is the nation’s largest subsidy program for the construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition

of low-income rental housing. It has helped finance more than 2.5 million low-income units since its

inception in 1987, and has generated about 85,000 units annually since 2000. Almost all new subsidized

housing involves the LIHTC, as it is frequently combined with tax-exempt bonds, federal block grants,

and philanthropic donations. Nationally, the geography of LIHTC housing tracks closely with that of the Housing Choice Voucher

program, one which gives recipients, at least in theory, access to almost any neighborhood in the United

States. For example, although 29% of all LIHTC units are in census tracts where minority groups account

for 80% or more of the population, the same is true for 31% of all voucher holders; conversely, while

10% of all LIHTC units are in tracts where minorities make up less than 10% of the population, this is

only one percentage point less than the share of voucher holders in these neighborhoods (Schwartz,

2014: 171). Compared with public housing, housing supported by the LIHTC is far less concentrated in

impoverished, highly segregated neighborhoods.

Although a sizable share of all LIHTC units are located in census tracts with relatively high percentages

of minority populations and/or with high poverty rates, on balance the program has not been shown

to be a cause of racial segregation or concentrated poverty. Horn and O’Regan, for example, conclude

their econometric study of the LIHTC program and racial segregation with the following:

[w]e find no evidence that the LIHTC program is associated on average with greater racial segregation for minor -

ities. Indeed, MSAs with greater construction of LIHTC units experience relative declines in segregation. Focusing

on those units that may have the greatest potential for heightening segregation, we again find essentially no evi-

dence to support this concern but, rather, evidence of the reverse (Horn & O’Regan, 2011: 466–67; see Freedman

& McGavock, 2015) for similar findings regarding the relationship between the LIHTC and poverty concentration).

It is also important to recognize that the LIHTC operates at too small a scale to have a discernible effect

on racial segregation. Dawkins points this out in his commentary, but let me provide an illustration

from the Twin Cities.

1 The program has produced 22,966 affordable rental units in 406 developments

from its start in 1987 through 2014 2 (see Figure 1 and Table 1). Annually, this translates to an average of

821 new or rehabilitated units distributed across just 15 developments within the entire metropolitan

area. Moreover, more than half of the LIHTC housing produced to date is located outside Minneapolis

and St. Paul; in other words in the suburbs and smaller cities of the metro area. So, leaving aside the

question of whether suburban LIHTC housing is located in low-income or segregated neighborhoods,

it is extremely hard to understand how, in a metropolitan area of 1.3 million households (896,000

home owners and 371,000 renters), a shift of less than 6,000 LIHTC units from low-income neighbor -

hoods in the two cities to suburban locations would make any discernible dent on racial segregation

or economic isolation.

278 A. SCHWARTz

A key part of Orfield et al.’s argument against placing subsidized housing in low-income, predomi-

nantly minority neighborhoods, concerns the quality of local schools:

The [racial] “makeup” of the schools serving subsidized housing is an important indicator of the opportunity struc -

ture available to housing residents. Highly segregated schools are also nearly always high-poverty schools, and

school poverty is a powerful indicator of student performance. Racially integrated schools are of value in and of

themselves as well: integration is associated with better student performance of all races (Orfield et al. 2015a: 580)

I agree that schools are very important and that housing subsidies should enable people to access the

best possible schools for their children, whether this involves housing vouchers or supply-side subsi-

dies such as the LIHTC. However, it is also important to recognize that families with children under 18

account for 44% of all families in the United States and only 29% of all households—and 48 and 31%,

respectively, in the Twin Cities metro area. Most households, in other words, do not have school-age

Figure 1. liHtc units and developments placed in service, Minneapolis Metro area 1987–2014.

source: u .s. Department of Housing and urban Development, liHtc Database.

Table 1. overview of l ow income Housing tax credit (liHtc ) housing in the Minneapolis–s t. Paul-bloomington Metropolitan area

( cbsa-Mn only).

s ource: u .s. Department of Housing and urban Development, liHtc data base.

TotalMinneapolis–St. Paul Rest of metro area

Total LIHTC developments & units total liHtc developments 406 147 259

t otal liHtc units 22,996 10,027 12,969

Percent share liHtc developments 100.036.2 63.8

Percent share litHc units 100.043.6 56.4

a verage annual developments placed in service 14.55.3 9.3

a verage annual units placed in service 821358 463

Ownership Percent total units owned by nonprofits 20.320.7 19.7

Construction type Percent share new construction units 10037.3 62.7

Percent share acquisition/rehab units 10051.8 48.2

Percent share of units by bedrooms 0–1 bedroom (N = 9,541) 10055 45

2 bedrooms (N = 8,689) 10045 55

3+ bedrooms (N = 4,168) 10035 65

Qualified Census Tract (QCT) Percent total units in Qct s 25.256.6 0

HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 279

children and therefore may value other neighborhood characteristics more highly than the quality of

local schools.

It is also important to recognize that subsidized housing is not exclusively designed or intended

for families with children. Some subsidized housing is built for the elderly; other properties house

formerly homeless individuals. Many units may cater to other childless households who may not care

about schools. Forty-one percent of all housing units subsidized with the LIHTC in the Twin Cities

metropolitan area consist of one-bedroom or studio apartments, which are unlikely to accommodate

many children. Two-bedroom units, which may not always house families with children, account for

39% of the total. Units with three or more bedrooms, the ones most likely to accommodate families

with children, represent only 18% of all LIHTC housing. Moreover, larger LIHTC units are already more likely to be located in the suburbs than are smaller

units. Indeed, 65% of all LIHTC apartments with three or more bedrooms and 55% of all two-bedroom

apartments are located in the suburbs other localities outside of Minneapolis and St. Paul (see Table 1). Orfield et al. seem to suggest that the Fair Housing Law requires that all LIHTC and other subsidized

housing should be situated outside low-income and predominantly minority neighborhoods of the

central cities and inner-ring suburbs. This position gives scant regard for the fact that as the largest

subsidy source for low-income rental housing development, and one of the only sources, the LIHTC is

increasingly used for the preservation of existing subsidized housing in addition to the development of

new housing. Nationally, according to the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, nearly 2.2 million

units of federally subsidized housing are at risk of loss due to the expiration of subsidy contracts and

compliance periods, including more than 1.2 million units of LIHTC housing (Harvard Joint Center for

Housing Studies, 2015: 33).

States and localities frequently use the LIHTC to rehabilitate and refinance existing low-income hous -

ing. Indeed, all but four states specify preservation as a criterion for awarding tax credits to proposed

projects. If public policy proceeded along the lines suggested by Orfield et al., housing tax credits for

rehabilitation of existing housing in urban cores could not be deployed, placing thousands of fami-

lies at risk of residing in physically deficient conditions or, as neighborhoods gentrify, displacement.

Moreover, the nation would lose thousands of subsidized housing units at a time when there are more

than three qualified low-income households for every unit of federally subsidized housing. Preserving

existing housing is also usually less expensive than building new housing. On the other hand, I agree with Orfield et al. that the “basis boost” given to projects located in

high-poverty census tracts can result in an excessive amount of tax-credit housing located in the most

distressed and racially segregated neighborhoods.

4 Alternatively, projects located in neighborhoods

with strong public schools and other resources could be allocated basis boosts as well, especially since

land costs are likely to be higher in these communities. In fact, state housing finance agencies have been

able to do just that since 2008, when the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 gave states the

ability to set their own criteria for awarding basis boosts to LIHTC projects to better reflect their priorities

Some states have used this authority to issue basis boosts to projects located in areas with high-cost

land, and presumably in high-performing school districts and other amenities (see Shelbourne, 2011).

Subsidized Housing and Community Development

Orfield et al. are disdainful of the organizations that develop housing in low-income neighborhoods, and

of housing development as a community development strategy. Orfield et al. seem especially scornful

of nonprofit housing groups and the intermediaries that support them, although for-profit groups are

criticized as well. They speak of a “poverty housing industry,” and “regulatory capture,” in describing

for-profit and especially nonprofit housing groups active in low-income communities. Moreover, they

cite the salaries of the chief executives, implying that producers of low-income housing should be paid

less; furthermore, they state that senior staff do not live in the neighborhoods they work in, implying

that they are therefore not fully committed to the well-being of these places. In addition, Orfield et al.

280 A. SCHWARTz

claim that there is no evidence to suggest that housing development improves the quality of life in

low-income neighborhoods.

In my opinion, Orfield et al.’s scurrilous attack on low-income housing groups is outrageous. It is espe -

cially unfortunate that he cites the salaries of nonprofit executives—as this information was repeated

in Thomas Edsall’s column in The New York Times. The authors imply that the six-figure salaries of some

CDC executive directors are excessive. They do not compare these salaries with those of the chief exec -

utives of other nonprofit organizations of similar size, or of for-profit housing groups either. They also

fail to consider the pension, medical, and other fringe benefits these executives receive in relation to

the benefits received by the chief executives of other nonprofit and for-profit organizations of similar

size and complexity. Nor do they consider the number of years that the executives have worked at

their organizations. Orfield et al. imply that executives of nonprofit housing groups are overpaid, but

provide no evidence to support this suggestion. Orfield et al. also overemphasize the role of nonprofit organizations in the development of low-income

rental housing. By law, 10% of all Low-Income Housing Tax Credits must be allocated every year to nonprofit

organizations. In the Minneapolis–St. Paul metro area, nonprofit organizations account for 20% of all LIHTC

housing developed since 1987. For-profit developers are clearly dominant. Moreover, nonprofit organiza-

tions account for the same 20% share of all LIHTC housing in the suburbs and in the two central cities of

Minneapolis and St. Paul (see Table 1 ). In short, the vast majority of housing produced through the LIHTC

program has been developed by for-profit organizations, not nonprofits, yet for some reason Orfield et al.

focus almost entirely on nonprofit organizations. Orfield et al. provide very little evidence to support their claim that housing investment in

low-income neighborhoods fails to foster community development. To support this argument,

the authors refer to a single example, the Franklin-Portland Gateway project in Minneapolis. They

say that several informants recommended this project as the best example of the salutary effects

of low-income housing development within an inner city community. They provide a variety of

demographic and economic indicators to show that conditions in the immediate vicinity of the

project did not improve over time, and that the area compares unfavorably across most indicators

with other low-income Minneapolis communities. Goetz (2015) raises several issues with this case study. First, Goetz points out that the Franklin-

Portland Gateway project is not yet finished and that the mortgage crisis and subsequent Great

Recession occurred soon after the project began. He also questions the wisdom of some of the indica-

tors Orfield et al. use in their analysis. I agree with Goetz that it is probably premature to judge the ultimate effect of the Gateway project

on the surrounding community. Moreover, Orfield et al. do not apply statistical techniques such as differ -

ence-in-difference or adjusted interrupted time series (Ellen & Voicu, 2007; Galster, Tatian, & Accordino,

2006) to assess whether the development altered the longer-term trajectory of neighborhood change

in the Gateway area. Nor do they check to see if the nearby neighborhoods used for comparison also

saw significant real estate investments.A bigger problem with Orfield et al.’s argument is that it is based on but a single example. The

authors make no reference to other studies that have examined the effect of housing development on

community conditions. Orfield et al. justify their decision on the fact that Gateway is the largest, most

prominent low-income housing development in the Twin Cities, and that it was the only one nominated

by the experts they canvassed for suggestions. This is immaterial. The article addresses a national if

not international audience, and their argument was clearly not meant to apply only to Minneapolis.

Moreover, the authors are naïve or disingenuous to think that a single subsidized development is likely

to revitalize an entire neighborhood. The Franklin-Portland Gateway project to date includes 126 units

of new housing, 97 of which are affordable, with 120 units to be built in a future phase of the project.

Assuming all of the completed units are occupied, the project accounts for less than 12% of the sur -

rounding census tract’s estimated 1,068 households in 2010 (ACS 5-year estimates). It is not realistic to

expect a project of this relatively small scale would be sufficient to transform the overall neighborhood

over a period of less than a decade—much less during a period that experienced the worst recession

HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 281

since the Great Depression. Studies have demonstrated that individual low-income housing develop -

ments can improve conditions (as proxied by changes in property values) in their immediate vicinity,

but the effect diminishes sharply with distance (Ellen & Voicu, 2007). Housing development may be an important element for community revitalization, but it is seldom

sufficient. Indeed, most community development organizations engage in a wide array of activities

to improve the quality of life in the neighborhoods they serve. Besides housing development and

rehabilitation, these include various types of housing counseling (eviction and foreclosure prevention,

home-purchase advice, home maintenance assistance), economic development, social services (after

school programs, seniors programs, nutrition programs, prisoner reentry programs), and advocacy

and community organizing (see National Alliance of Community Economic Development Associations,

2010). Housing is often part of broader comprehensive community initiatives (Kubisch, Auspos, Brown,

& Dewar, 2010 ). It is also difficult to isolate the effect of housing and community development activities

when neighborhoods are often affected by much stronger economic and social currents (e.g., job loss,

crime spikes).

However, as difficult as it is to document and assess the impact of affordable housing development

and other place-based community development endeavors, such studies do exist. For example, Orfield

et al. could have cited Galster, Levy, Sawyer, Temkin, and Walker’s (2005) analysis of the neighborhood

impact of four community development corporations in four cities, which compared change in prop -

erty values in neighborhoods with extensive CDC activity with change in four control neighborhoods.

Combining econometric analysis and qualitative research, they found that CDCs did make a difference.

Orfield et al. could also have referred to Galster, Tatian, and Accordino’s study (2006) of targeted com-

munity development investments in Richmond VA. Using econometric techniques, they found that low-

income neighborhoods that saw major amounts of investment saw substantially greater appreciation

in the value of single-family homes than did similarly distressed neighborhoods that did not receive

similar amounts of investment (Galster et al., 2006). Orfield et al. could also have cited a recent study of

how a CDC’s acquisition and rehabilitation of distressed housing in the East Liberty neighborhood of

Pittsburgh resulted in dramatic reductions in crime (Berg, 2015; Fabusuyi & Vitoria, 2013). Orfield et al.

could also have looked at studies showing how concentrated investments in housing development

and rehabilitation completely rebuilt the urban fabric in many previously devastated neighborhoods

of the South Bronx, Harlem, and Central Brooklyn (Schwartz, 1999). Indeed, many neighborhoods, such

as Williamsburg and Bushwick in Brooklyn, and Harlem in Manhattan that saw extensive investments

in affordable housing are now being priced beyond the reach of most New Yorkers.

This speaks to yet another benefit of affordable housing development in the inner city. Markets can

change. Neighborhoods can lose and gain favor. Neighborhoods that were once impoverished and

segregated can, if their location is right, become trendy and expensive. This has happened across much

of New York City, Washington, DC, Chicago, IL, San Francisco, CA, Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, Pittsburgh,

PA, and other cities. In such situations, subsidized housing (and, in New York, rent regulation) is what

enables low-income families to remain in place.

Orfield et al.’s article is a polemic against place-based community development strategies that involve

the development or preservation of low-income housing. The authors write as if affordable housing

development within low-income urban neighborhoods is incompatible with fair housing. This is a false

dichotomy. Indeed, the federal government says as much in its final rule for “Affirmatively Furthering

Fair Housing.” The Final Rule explicitly states that “place-based solutions” in racially and/or ethnically

defined areas of concentrated poverty are consistent with a “balanced approach” to fair housing. More

specifically, the rule:

recognizes the role of place-based strategies, including economic development, to improve conditions in high-pov - erty neighborhoods, as well as preservation of the existing affordable housing stock, including HUD-assisted

housing, to help respond to the overwhelming need for affordable housing. Examples of such strategies include

investments that will improve conditions and thereby reduce disparities in access to opportunity between impacted

neighborhoods and the rest of the city or efforts to maintain and preserve the existing affordable rental housing

282 A. SCHWARTz

stock, including HUD-assisted housing, to address a jurisdiction’s fair housing issues (U.S. Department of Housing

& Urban Development, 2015: 42,279).

Fair housing need not and should not be incompatible with affordable housing investments in

low-income and minority communities. Both are essential. Needless attacks on one goal or the

other do not benefit either cause. Rather than engage in a full-bore attack on subsidized housing

as a community development strategy in low-income communities, the goals of fair housing would

be better served by addressing discriminatory practices among realtors and other actors in the

housing and mortgage markets, and exclusionary land-use policies of many suburban jurisdictions.

Notes

1. My analysis is based on a larger definition of the Minneapolis–St. Paul metropolitan area than that used by Orfield

et al. Whereas they focus on a seven-county region covered by the HousingLink data base of subsidized housing,

my analysis is based on the Minnesota portion of the Minneapolis–St Paul-Bloomington Core Based Statistical

Area. Although this larger geography encompasses more counties than Orfield et al.’s definition, it is only slightly

larger in total households (1.3 million vs. 1.1 million in 2010).

2. This figure excludes 3,500 market-rate units that are part of some of the region’s LIHTC developments.

3. The 6,000-unit figure refers to the 5,600 units located in “Qualified Census Tracts”—tracts where at least 50% of all

households have incomes below 60% of the area median family income.

4. Table 1 shows that more than half of Minneapolis’ and St. Paul’s LIHTC housing is located in Qualified Census

Tracts, while the rest of the metro area has none. In the metro area as whole, 25% of all LIHTC units are situated

in Qualified Census Tracts.

5. Michael Bodaken, Executive Director of the National Housing Trust, made this point in his presentation at a

symposium in New York City sponsored by the New York Housing Conference on “Fair Housing: Impact on Affordable Housing Preservation and Development” (September 11, 2015).

Acknowledgements

The author is very grateful to Michael Bodaken, George Galster, Dan Immergluck, Marc Jahr, and Kirk McClure for their

insightful comments on earlier drafts of this essay.

Notes on Contributors

Alex Schwartz is a professor of Urban Policy at the New School. He is the author of Housing Policy in the United States (3rd

Edition) (Routledge, 2014) and the managing editor for North America for the international journal Housing Studies. His

areas of research include low-income housing policy, community development, and fair housing.

References

Berg, N. (2015). How community-led renovation is helping a rundown pittsburgh neighbourhood fight crime.” The Guardian (July 8). Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/08/rundown-pittsburgh-neighbourhood-crime-

social-housing

Dawkins, C. (2015). Place-based housing assistance and access to opportunity: Implications for fair housing in the Twin Cities. Housing Policy Debate, 25, 644–648.

DeLuca, S., Garboden, P. M. E., & Rosenblatt, P. (2013). Segregating shelter: How housing policies shape the residential locations of low-income minority families.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 647,

(May): 268–299

Downs, A. (1994). Reducing regulatory barriers to affordable housing erected by local governments.” chapter 10. In

G. Thomas Kingsley, & M. A. Turner, (Eds.), Housing Markets and Residential Mobility. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Edsall, T. (2015). “Where should a poor family live?” New York Times (Aug 5). Retrieved from http://www.

nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/where-should-a-poor-family-live.html?rref=collectionpercent2Fcolum

npercent2Fthomas-b-edsall&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_

unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=collection

Ellen, I. G., & Voicu I. (2007). “The impact of low income housing tax credit housing on surrounding neighborhoods: Evidence from New York city”. Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy New York University. Retrieved from

http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/ImpactofLowIncomeHousingcombined.pdf

HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 283

Fabusuyi, T., & Vitoria H. (2013). East liberty crime data analysis. Pittsburgh, PA: Numeritics. Retrieved from http://www.

eastliberty.org/sites/default/files/page/files/Report_of_the_ELDI_Crime_Study.pdf

Freedman, M., & McGavock T. (2015). Low-income housing development, poverty concentration, and neighborhood inequality. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34, 781–804.

Galster, G., Levy, D., Sawyer, N., Temkin, K., & Walker, C. (2005). The impact of community development corporations on urban

neighborhoods. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Galster, G., Tatian, P., & Accordino, J. (2006). Targeting Investments for Neighborhood Revitalization. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72, 457–474.

Goetz, E. (2015). Poverty-pimping CDCs: The search for dispersal’s next bogeyman. Housing Policy Debate, 25, 60–618.

Hannah-Jones N. (2012). Living apart: How the government betrayed a landmark civil rights law. ProPublica (July 8). Retrieved from http://www.propublica.org/article/living-apart-how-the-government-betrayed-a-landmark-civil-rights-law

Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. (2015). State of the nation’s housing 2015. Cambridge, MA: Author.

Hirsch, A. (1998). Making the second ghetto. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Horn, K., & O’Regan, K. (2011). The low income housing tax credit and racial segregation. Housing Policy Debate, 21, 433–473.

Immergluck, D. (2004). Credit to the community: Community reinvestment and fair lending policy in the United States. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Jackson, K. (1987). Crabgrass frontier: The suburbanization of the United States. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Khaddurri, J. (2015). The affordable housing industry needs to develop capacity to work in high opportunity neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate, 25, 639–643.

Kubisch, A. C., Auspos P., Brown P., & Dewar T. (2010). Voices from the field III: Lessons and challenges from two decades of

community change effort. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change. Retrieved from http://

www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/pubs/VoicesIII_FINAL_0.pdf

Massey, D. S. (2015). The social science of affordable housing. Housing Policy Debate, 25, 634–638.

Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). American apartheid. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

National Alliance of Community Economic Development Associations. (2010). Rising above: Community economic development in a changing landscape. Washington, DC: Author. www.naceda.org/sites/default/files/Risingpercent20Above_

Finalpercent20NACEDApercent20Censuspercent20Reportpdf

Orfield, M., Stancil, W., Luce, T., & Myott, E. (2015a). High costs and segregation in subsidized housing policy. Housing Policy Debate, 25, 574–607.

Orfield, M., Stancil, W., Luce, T., & Myott, E. (2015b ). Response to poverty-pimping CDCs: The search for dispersal’s next

bogeyman. Housing Policy Debate, 25, 619–633.

Pendall, R. (2013). Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion In J. R. Tighe & E. Mueller, (Eds.), The Affordable Housing Reader (pp. 416–437). New York, NY: Routledge.

Satter, B. (2010). Family properties: how the struggle over race and real estate transformed chicago and urban America.

New York, NY: Picador.

Schill, M., & Friedman, S. (1999). The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988: The first decade. Cityscape, 4, 57–78.

Schwartz, A. (1999). New York city and subsidized housing: Impacts and lessons of the city’s $5 billion capital budget plan. Housing Policy Debate, 10, 839–877.

Schwartz, A. (2014). Housing Policy in the United States (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Shelbourne, M. (2011). States’ use of basis boost reflects their priorities. Novogradac Journal of Tax Credits 2, 2 : 1–5. Retrieved from http://www.novoco.com/journal/2011/02/novogradac_jtc_2011-02_lihtc_pg15.pdfU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2015). Affirmatively furthering fair housing. final rule. Federal Register, 80, 116 (July 16). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf

“The End of Federally Financed Ghettos”. (2015). Editorial. The New York Times (July 11). Retrieved from www.nytimes. com/2015/07/12/opinion/the-end-of-federally-financed-ghettos.html

Yinger, J. (1995). Closed doors, opportunities lost: The continuing costs of housing discrimination. New York, NY: Russell Sage

Foundation.