Affordable Housing Policy and Programs, Fall 2006

CRP 343 / CRP 643

Monday-Wednesday, 10:10-11:25 AM, 208 West Sibley

Prof. Rolf Pendall / Office: 201 W. Sibley Hall / rjp17@cornell.edu / 255-5561

TA: Kerry McLaughlin, kam239@cornell.edu

Office hours: Monday 1:00-3:00, Wednesday 2:30-4:00, and by appointment (e-mail me)

 

Background

Affordable housing policy in the United States has evolved in recent decades from an emphasis on the construction of government-owned housing (public housing) to the distribution of subsidies so that low-income tenants can live in rental housing provided by the private sector. This evolution has occurred against the backdrop of substantial reductions in federal involvement in planning more broadly, and the rise—in some states—of strong state and local planning for affordable housing. As a consequence of these shifts, it has grown difficult to capture the range of housing policies that characterize the U.S. in the year 2000. This class is, even so, an attempt to introduce students to that broad range of housing policies and to explore several specific housing programs at work at the federal, state, and local levels.

 

What are policies and programs? Policies are either explicit or implicit guidelines for institutional action, and they consequently reflect institutional norms and ideologies. Governments have policies; so do corporations, universities, and even families. Policies can concern substantive issues; for instance, a government policy may require families to work in response for “temporary assistance,” and universities may prohibit plagiarism. Policies can also concern procedural issues; for instance, a university department may have a policy regarding “petitioning out of” core courses. Programs are concerted actions to carry out either explicit or implicit policies, though not every policy has a program to carry it out. The government policies enacted in the mid-1990s regarding welfare and work, for instance, have resulted in a program known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), replacing the earlier Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

 

When an institution is large and complex, it often contains contradictory norms and ideologies. As a consequence, large and complex institutions also often have self-contradictory policies for both substantive and procedural concerns. When a variety of agencies and a number of levels of government have responsibility for a particular policy area (housing or transportation, for instance), the complexity grows, and with it the probability that contradictory norms and ideologies will give rise to uncoordinated and contradictory programs.

 

In the context of affordable housing, current U.S. policy has a strong explicit focus on the development of livable communities; accommodating mixing among people of different races, ethnicities, and incomes; allowing state and local governments to tailor responses to unique conditions; and providing the maximum choice for low-income households. Since at least 1990s, furthermore, U.S. affordable housing policy has promoted low-income home ownership. Almost as explicitly, current policy also places a strong emphasis on the private sector (for- and non-profit builders, private households) as more important than government for making decisions about affordable housing. The highest-profile modern affordable housing programs—housing vouchers, “HOPE VI,” and low-income housing tax credits—are all manifestations of current explicit and implicit U.S. housing policy.

 

U.S. housing policy is, however, broader than just its affordable housing policy. The single most costly government housing program is the mortgage interest tax deduction, which allows certain home owners (those whose incomes and mortgage payments are high enough to justify itemizing) to deduct from their taxable income the amount they pay in mortgage interest. In the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, the U.S. federal government will forego tax revenues of $76 billion, the second-largest single tax expenditure in the federal budget. (The first, at $125.7 billion, is the exclusion of employer contributions for medical insurance premiums.) In addition, home owners are permitted to deduct the cost of state and local property tax (total value: $14.8 billion) and are often not obliged to pay capital gains taxes on home sales (total value: $36.3 billion). Tenants pay property taxes indirectly through their rent, but do not receive any credit for those payments. By way of comparison, the entire budget of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in FY 2005-2006 was about $43 billion, and the single most important federal program for the construction of new affordable housing—the Low Income Housing Tax Credit—involved tax expenditures of about $4 billion.[1]

 

Course style and sequence

The course will mix lectures and discussions, with some days devoted mostly to lectures (though questions and comments are always welcome) and others set aside for student-led debates and discussions.

 

To understand housing policy and programs, it helps to begin with some information about the status of housing in the U.S. today. The first three weeks provides that very brief background on “the facts,” and closes with a session on “housing paradigms.” Paradigms are self-contained sets of assumptions and ideologies that shape how we respond to the world; here, we will explore via a classroom debate three different paradigms on housing policy: conservative, liberal, and progressive. After the introductory weeks, we will spend until late October in an exploration of federal housing policy and programs, with a particular emphasis on public housing, housing vouchers, and the low-income housing tax credit (the biggest remaining federal program related to low-income housing construction). Beginning late in October, we will focus on emerging state and local programs and policy, with a particular emphasis on California and New Jersey because both states have been at the forefront of both state and local planning for affordable housing.

 

Course requirements

·        Attendance/participation (10% of your grade): All students must attend classes and do all the readings marked as required in the syllabus.

·        Short papers. Over the course of the semester, you will write a series of four short (525-775 word) position papers staking out a reasoned but ideological position in a prominent debate in housing policy. Each paper counts for 5% of your grade.

·        Debates. You are required to participate in two debates or presentations associated with the short papers. Each one counts for 10% of your grade.

·        Term paper and poster session (50% of your grade): Every student is required to complete a term paper on an affordable housing topic of his or her choice. Under­graduate papers will be 10-12 pages long (2500 to 3000 words of text, not counting footnotes and references), with citations of at least 8 different sources. Graduate student papers are expected to be 18-25 pages long (4500-6250 words of text, not counting footnotes and references), with citations of at least 15 different sources. A one-paragraph topic statement is due in class no later than September 20. If you hand it in on time, you will receive an A for this part of your grade (5% of final grade). A draft outline of the paper is due in class no later than October 30. If you hand it in on time, you will receive an A for this part of your grade (5% of final grade). Unexcused late topic statements or outlines will receive a grade of zero (0). On November 27 and/or 29 (as assigned by the instructor), you will deliver a short poster presentation about your principal findings to small groups of your classmates, the instructor, and visiting critics. The presentation and poster together count for 15% of your final grade. The final paper (25% of your grade) is due in Pendall’s faculty mailbox December 8 at 4:30 (the ending time of the final exam, if there were one for this class).

 

Late work

·        Unexcused late topic paragraphs and outlines for the term paper will receive zero (0) grades. I will accept writer’s block as an excuse as long as you come to my office hours within a week after the due date and talk with me about what you might want to do. Preferably, do it before the due date.

·        Other late work will receive a one-grade penalty (from A to B, B to C, C to D, D to F) per day between the due date and when you turn them in. Medical excuses and family emergencies will of course be accepted.

 

Summary of assignments with due dates

What

Due

% of grade

Policy paradigms position paper

9/18

5%

Term paper topic statement

9/20

5%

HOPE VI position paper

9/25

5%

Vouchers vs. units position paper

10/16

5%

Term paper draft outline

10/30

5%

Rent control position paper

11/22

5%

Poster session

11/27 or 11/29

15%

Term paper

12/8

25%

Two debates

As scheduled

20%

Other class participation/attendance

 

10%

 

Academic integrity

Academic Integrity: Each student in this course is expected to abide by the Cornell University Code of Academic Integrity. Any work submitted by a student in this course for academic credit will be the student’s own work. Please cite all work that you rely on to write your papers. Direct quotations of other work should be enclosed with quotation marks, with a citation afterward that contains the page number of the work where available. When you rely substantially on another person’s work without quoting from it directly, please use in-text citations at the end of an appropriate section. Failure to provide complete and proper citations may constitute plagiarism, which violates the Cornell Code of Academic Integrity. If detected, plagiarism may result in a failing grade for the course.

 

More on term papers

Topics: There are quite a few topics not included in regular class sessions, and others that we will discuss superficially. Student papers and presentations are meant to fill part of this gap. Here are some broad categories, meant to be suggestive and not directive. Please come see me or e-mail me sooner rather than later if you are having trouble coming up with a topic.

·        A critique of an official housing plan of a city that is interesting to you.

·        A housing needs assessment for a city, county, or region that is interesting to you.

·        A description and critique of the housing policy of another nation.

·        An issue in affordable housing or for housing affordability. Examples include gentrification, homelessness, the role of gender in housing programs, the “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) problem, housing discrimination, how local land use controls affect housing affordability. Note that many of these topics may be covered to an extent in the class already.

·        Description and analysis of a particular housing program or policy, including specific case examples of how a program has worked in the U.S. or abroad. Examples include many local housing programs, low-income tenant ownership, co-housing (if it has an affordable housing angle), limited-equity co-ops, land banking, community land trusts. Term papers about the affordable housing policy framework in a foreign nation are also welcome in this category.

·        Case histories of affordable housing providers: how a particular for- or non-profit affordable housing provider started, what major “battles” it faced, how it works with various levels of government and other organizations (including finance) to do its job, what role it plays in its communities, and/or how it decides what and where to build.

·        Case histories of complicated affordable housing projects. Focus on projects occupied no later than 2004.

 

Citations: I will expect a significant share of the citations to be from scholarly peer-reviewed articles rather than unverified web sources, especially when your papers are reviews of particular topics and programs rather than case studies of places, projects, and providers. Some prominent peer-reviewed journals that will be useful to you may include Housing Policy Debate, Housing Studies, Journal of Housing Research, Urban Studies, Journal of Planning Literature, Journal of the American Planning Association, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Urban Affairs Review, and Journal of Urban Affairs. If you choose to use books, focus on university presses; Brookings Institution books are also usually peer-reviewed. Reports from government agencies are also often useful sources of primary data and evaluations of programs and policies.

Readings

One book is required and should be available in the Campus Store as well as on reserve in the Fine Arts Library:

Schwartz, Alex F. 2006. Housing Policy in the United States: An Introduction

 

Class sessions, Affordable Housing Policies and Programs

 

There are two main kinds of readings listed here: required and recommended. The required readings are marked with an R. The recommended readings are marked with a +.

 

Weeks 1-4: Introducing affordable housing and housing markets

August 28: Introduction to the course; functions of housing

R Schwartz, Chapters 1 and 2

August 30: Affordability and housing problems in the U.S.

R Schwartz, Chapter 2

R Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2005. The State of the Nation’s Housing: 2005. Cambridge: The Joint Center. On-line: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2005/ ; read the whole thing and review Appendix tables.

R Center for Transit-Oriented Development and Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2006. The Affordability Index: A New Tool for Measuring the True Affordability of a Housing Choice. On-line: http://www.brookings.edu/metro/umi/pubs/20060127_affindex.htm .

R Kutty, Nandinee K. 2005. A New Measure of Housing Affordability: Estimates and Analytical Results. Housing Policy Debate 16(1): 113-142. On-line: http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_1601_Kutty.pdf

Questions to consider when reading, and for class discussion:

·        What do you think are the two most intriguing housing problems that face the U.S. today, based on the readings and your own experience?

·        What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of the “affordability standard” stipulating that people should spend no more than 30 percent of their income on housing? Do you think CTOD is “onto something”? What about Kutty?

September 4: The supply side of the housing market:
Realtors, housing builders, and supply constraints

R Ball, Michael. 2003. Markets and the Structure of the Housebuilding Industry: An International Perspective. Urban Studies 40(5-6): 897-916.

R Quigley, John M. and Larry A. Rosenthal. 2005. The Effects of Land Use Regulation on the Price of Housing: What Do We Know? What Can We Learn? CityScape 8(1): 69-137. Note: it isn’t as long as it looks at first—no need to look in detail at Table 5 or the Appendices. On-line at http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/cityscpe/vol8num1/ch3.pdf.

R Schwartz, pp. 199-204.

R Fredericksen, Patricia and Rosanne London. 2000. Disconnect in the Hollow State: The Pivotal Role of Organizational Capacity in Community-Based Development Organizations. Public Administration Review 60 (3): 230-239.

+ Walker, Christopher. 1993. “Nonprofit Housing Development: Status, Trends, and Prospects.” Housing Policy Debate 4(3): 369-414. On-line: http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_0403_walker.pdf.

+ Somerville, C. Tsuriel. 1999. The industrial organization of housing supply: Market activity, land supply and the size of homebuilder firms. Real Estate Economics 27 (4): 669-694. Available through the Cornell University Library Gateway.

Questions to consider when reading, and for class discussion:

·        Some observers believe that the answer to housing affordability problems is to unleash the private sector. How does the character/nature of the home building industry influence the plausibility of that idea? Have there been recent changes in industry structure that make private-sector for-profits more or less viable as the solution to housing affordability?

·        What are the biggest advantages of community control over non-profit residential development? What are some of the shortcomings? How can planners make it easier for CDC’s to build affordable housing? Can you think of any arguments about why planners shouldn’t do so?

September 6: Facilitating demand: Housing finance and the tax System

R Schwartz, Chapters 3 and 4

Questions to consider when reading, and for class discussion:

·        Have you ever bought a house? Does Chapter 3 shed light on anything that was mysterious to you previously? If you haven’t bought, refinanced, or gotten a second mortgage on a house, talk to someone you know about the experience of getting financing. What were some of the hardest parts? If the person has a long memory and remembers buying or refinancing 25 years ago, find out about that too.

·        Try to think of one good and one bad thing each about

·        the mortgage interest tax deduction

·        the deductibility of state and local property taxes

·        the non-taxed status of capital gains from most home sales

September 11: Submarkets, Filtering, and Residential Segregation

R Watkins, Craig A. 2001. The definition and identification of housing submarkets. Environment and Planning A 33 (12): 2235-2253, especially 2235-2243, but give the empirical results a try too. Available when logged into the Cornell University system at http://www.envplan.com.proxy.library.cornell.edu:2048/epa/fulltext/a33/a34162.pdf.

R Skaburskis, Andrejs. 2006. Filtering, City Change and the Supply of Low-priced Housing in Canada. Urban Studies 43 (3): 533-558. On-line via Cornell University Library Gateway.

R Iceland, John and Rima Wilkes. 2006. Does Socioeconomic Status Matter? Race, Class, and Residential Segregation. Social Problems 53(2): 248-273.

Questions to consider when reading, and for class discussion:

·        Is there anywhere in the United States where you think filtering works to produce more affordable housing for low-income households? What are the consequences or implications? Why do you think so many Canadian metropolitan areas have (at least in Skaburskis’s viewpoint) so little hope of producing affordable housing through filtering?

·        To what extent do you think housing submarkets prevent filtering from working? Why would they?

·        What are the implications of place stratification (see Iceland and Wilkes) for housing market options of racial and ethnic minorities? For what racial or ethnic group is place stratification most pronounced?

September 13: Discrimination,Fair Housing, and Community Reinvestment

R Schwartz, Chapter 11

R Yinger, John. 1998. “Housing Discrimination is Still a Problem.” Housing Policy Debate 9(4), 893-927. On-line: http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_0904_yinger.pdf .

R Galster, George and Erin Godfrey. 2005. By Words and Deeds: Racial Steering by Real Estate Agents in the U.S. in 2000. Journal of the American Planning Association 71 (3): 251-268.

R Apgar, William and Mark Duda. 2003. The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Community Reinvestment Act: Past Accomplishments and Future Regulatory Challenges. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 9(2), June, 169-191. On-line: http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/epr/03v09n2/0306apga.pdf .

Questions to consider when reading, and for class discussion:

·        Some observers view segregation as a natural outcome of different preferences among groups for living near one another. Such observers, if they acknowledge discrimination at all, tend to assert that it would occur even in the absence of discrimination. Why would this occur? If they’re right (i.e., that whites and African-Americans in particular live apart simply because whites prefer to live among other whites), why should public policy encourage racial integration? How can it be achieved? And other than racial residential integration, are there acceptable mechanisms to overcome at least some of the problems that ensue from segregation?

September 18: Policy paradigms: a debate

This class requires students to take a position on policy: what is the most convincing argument for a specified paradigm, and the most convincing arguments against others? Students will be divided into “liberal,” “progressive,” and “conservative” teams. Each student will prepare and hand in a 525- to 775-word position paper citing at least three references. A limited number of students from each position will volunteer to participate in the debate, with wider discussion to follow. Instructions on line at http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/rjp17/firstdebate.htm . Please do your own research for this paper and debate; some useful places to start include the following:

+ Hartman, Chester. 1998. “The Case for a Right to Housing,” with responses by James Carr and Peter Salins. Housing Policy Debate 9(2): 223-266. On-line—Hartman’s article: http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_0902_hartman.pdf Carr’s response: http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_0902_carr.pdf Salins’s response: http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_0902_salins.pdf

+ Selected readings from Bratt, Rachel et al. 2006 A Right To Housing: Foundation For A New Social Agenda. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. On reserve at Fine Arts Library. See especially chapters 11, 7, 17, and 18.

+ Landis, John D. 1993. “American Housing Policy: Past, Present, and Future: Introduction.” Berkeley Planning Journal 8: 85. Volume on reserve at Fine Arts.

+ Dreier, Peter. 1993. “Enacting a Progressive Housing Agenda.” Berkeley Planning Journal 8: 86-93. Volume on reserve at Fine Arts.

+ Weiss, Marc A. 1993. “Housing Policy Can Work.” Berkeley Planning Journal 8: 94-99. Volume on reserve at Fine Arts.

+ Salins, Peter D. 1993. “Let the Market Meet our Housing Needs.” Berkeley Planning Journal 8: 100-105. Volume on reserve at Fine Arts.

+ Freeman, Lance. 2002. “America’s Affordable Housing Crisis: A Contract Unfulfilled.” American Journal of Public Health 92 (5): 709-712. On-line: See instructions on how to access at http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/rjp17/onlinereadings.htm

+ Thiele, Bret. 2002. “The Human Right to Adequate Housing: A Tool for Promoting and Protecting Individual and Community Health.” American Journal of Public Health 92 (5): 712-715. On-line: See instructions on how to access at http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/rjp17/onlinereadings.htm

Weeks 5-9: US Federal Housing Policy Past, Present, and Future

September 20: Public Housing and its Reinvention

R Schwartz, Chapter 6.

R Roberto Quercia and George Galster.  1997. “The Challenges Facing Public Housing Authorities in a Brave New World.”  Housing Policy Debate 8(3): 535-592 (includes commentaries by Nutt-Powell, Gallo, Hornburg, and Lang). On-line: http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_0803_quercia.pdf , http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_0803_nuttpowell.pdf,  http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_0803_hornburg.pdf ,

Questions to consider when reading, and for class discussion:

·        What were some important advances and advantages offered by the Public Housing program from its initiation?

·        What were some key constraints of the public housing program, both in the initial legislation and subsequently, that have limited the program’s effectiveness?

·        What are some of the ways in which PHAs are becoming more like private sector housing providers? Will this transformation help overcome the “constrained quadrilemma” discussed in Quercia and Galster’s article? If so, how?

Turn in topic paragraph about your term paper today.

September 25: HOPE VI—Debate

This class requires students to tackle the question: Is HOPE VI good or bad? Students will be divided into “pro” and “con” teams. Each student will prepare and hand in a 525- to 775-word position paper with at least two arguments in favor of your position and one against the opposing position. Undergrads: cite at least three references; grad students: cite at least four references. A limited number of students from each position will volunteer to participate in the debate. For these position papers, please find your own references.

September 27: Affordable housing by private sector for- and non-profit builders

R Schwartz, Chapter 7.

R    Bratt, Rachel, Avis C. Vidal, Alex Schwartz, Langley C. Keyes, and Jim Stockard. 1998. “The Status of Nonprofit-Owned Affordable Housing: Short-Term Successes and Long-Term Challenges.” Journal of the American Planning Association 64(1): 39-51. On-line through the Campus Gateway.

+    Peiser, Richard B. “The Fallout from Federal Low-Income Housing Preservation Programs: A Case Study in Estimating Damages.” Housing Policy Debate 10(2): 371-393. On-line: http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_1002_peiser.pdf .

·        What are the biggest advantages of community control over non-profit residential development? What are some of the shortcomings? How can planners make it easier for CDC’s to build affordable housing? Can you think of any arguments about why planners shouldn’t do so?

·        What trade-offs do you think are acceptable and appropriate when we create incentives for private sector for-profit developers to build affordable housing?

·        Given these trade-offs, but also given the characteristics of non-profit builders, is a widespread shift to non-profit development a good way to avoid these dilemmas of for-profit affordable housing development now? What might it take to advance non-profits?

October 2: Low Income Housing Tax Credit

R Schwartz, Chapter 5.

+ (but strongly recommended) Cummings, Jean and Denise DiPasquale. 1999. “The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: An Analysis of the First Ten Years.” Housing Policy Debate 10(2): 251-307, with responses by Benson F. Roberts and F. Barton Harvey III (pp. 309-320) and Michael A. Stegman (321-332). On-line: http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_1002_cummings.pdf , http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_1002_roberts.pdf , http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_1002_stegman.pdf .

·        Tax credits are a complicated and costly way to get housing built. Try to identify three main advantages and three main disadvantages of credits.

·        If you had to design the qualified allocation plan (QAP) to create the criteria for awarding tax credits in the face of stiff competition among applicants for the credits, what would some of your most important criteria be? How would this differ among three different states: e.g., West Virginia, New Jersey, Arizona? What about rules for states with strong “upstate/downstate” differences, like New York and Pennsylvania (both of which have strong growth in some parts of the state but weak demand in others)?

October 4: Case study: Putting together a tax credit deal (Guest presentation, Paul Mazzarella, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service)

October 9: No class; fall break

October 11: Introduction, housing vouchers

R Schwartz, Chapter 8.

October 16: Vouchers versus units: Debate

This class requires students to tackle the question: Which is a better strategy: Subsidize units or provide housing vouchers? Students will be divided into “unit” and “voucher” teams. Each student will prepare and hand in a 525- to 775-word position paper with at least two arguments in favor of your position and one against the opposing position. Undergrads: cite at least three references beyond the Schwartz chapter (8); grad students: cite at least four references beyond the Schwartz chapter. A limited number of students from each position will volunteer to participate in the debate. For these position papers, please find your own references.

October 18: Low iucome home ownership: Market mechanisms

R Duda, Mark and Eric Belsky. 2001. The Anatomy of the Low-Income Homeownership Boom in the 1990s. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, Low-Income Homeownership Working Paper Series LIHO.01-1. On-line: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/homeownership/liho01-1.pdf .

R Rohe, William M., Shannon Van Zandt, and George McCarthy. 2001. The Social Benefits and Costs of Homeownership: A Critical Assessment of the Research. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, Low-Income Homeownership Working Paper Series LIHO-01.12. On-line: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/homeownership/liho01-12.pdf .

R Renuart, Elizabeth. An Overview of the Predatory Lending Process. Housing Policy Debate 15(3): 467-502. On-line: http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_1503_Renuart.pdf.

+ Gates, Susan Wharton, Vanessa Gail Perry, and Peter M. Zorn. 2002. “Automated Underwriting in Mortgage Lending: Good News for the Underserved?” Housing Policy Debate 13(2): 369-391. On-line: http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_1302_gates.pdf

October 23: Shared equity models for affordable home ownership

R Davis, John E. Shared Equity Homeownership: The Changing Landscape of Resale-Restricted,Owner-Occupied Housing, Chapters 1 and 2 plus Chapter 5. Available at a URL to be announced.

+ Davis, Shared Equity Homeownership, case studies (read as many as you want to)

Weeks 9-13: State and local housing policy and programs

October 25: State and local roles in affordable housing

R Schwartz, Chapter 9 (through p. 199)

R Basolo, Victoria. 1999. “Passing the housing policy baton in the US: Will cities take the lead?” Housing Studies 14(4): 433-452. Available on-line through the ABI/INFORM database.

+ Terner, I. Donald and Thomas B. Cook. 1990. “State housing policy,” chapter 4, pp. 113-135 in DiPasquale, Denise and Langley C. Keyes, eds., Building foundations: Housing and federal policy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Available as an e-book, http://campusgw.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/ebooks.cgi?bookid=17225 .

October 30: State Housing Policy in California and New Jersey; The “fair share” idea

Turn in outline of your paper today.

R Lewis, Paul G. Can State Review of Local Planning Increase Housing Production? Housing Policy Debate 16(2): 173-200. On-line: http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_1602_lewis.pdf. See also Robert Puentes’s response to this article at http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_1602_puentes.pdf.

R Calavita, Nico, Kenneth Grimes, and Alan Mallach. 1997. “Inclusionary Housing in Califor­nia and New Jersey: A Comparative Analysis.” Housing Policy Debate 8(1): 109-142. On-line: http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_0801_calavita.pdf.

+ California Housing Element Law. 2001. California Government Code, Section 65580-65589.8. On-line: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65580-65589.8.

+ New Jersey Fair Housing Act. 2001. New Jersey Statutes, Sections 52:27D-301 through ‑329. On-line: http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/rjp17/NJ_fairhousingact.htm.

November 1: Housing plans

R    Association of Bay Area Governments. 2002. Blueprint 2001 for Bay Area Housing: Housing Element Ideas and Solutions for a Sustainable and Affordable Future. Sections 1 and 2 On-line: http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdf/Blueprint_2001/Blueprint_2001-Section_1.pdf and http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdf/Blueprint_2001/Blueprint_2001-Section_2.pdf . Note: these are big files, so plan ahead about downloading them.

R Gramlich, Ed. 1999. HUD’s Consolidated Plan: An Action Guide for Involving Low Income Communities. Identifying Needs, Setting Priorities, Monitoring Your Government’s Performance. Washington, DC: Center for Community Change. Read chapters 1 and 3; skim other chapters (not necessary to skim the appendices, but know this resource is available). On-line: http://www.communitychange.org/publications/conplan.pdf .

November 6: Local strategies for affordability: Inclusionary zoning and beyond

R Pendall, Rolf. 2006. From hurdles to bridges? Local land-use regulations and the pursuit of affordable rental housing. Draft paper produced for Rethinking Rental Housing conference, Cambridge, Mass., November 15. On-line at http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/rjp17/pendall_jchs.pdf.

R    Center for Community Change. 2002. Housing Trust Fund Progress Report 2002: Local Responses to America's Housing Needs. On-line: http://www.communitychange.org/shared/publications/downloads/HousingSurvey2002.pdf

+    Brown, Karen Destorel. 2001. “Expanding Affordable Housing Through Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons From The Washington Metropolitan Area.” A discussion paper prepared by The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, October. On-line: http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/report/report/relfiles/bi_inclusionary2.pdf.

+ California Coalition for Rural Housing and Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, Inclusionary Housing in California: 30 Years of Innovation, 2003, available at http://www.nonprofithousing.org/knowledgebank/publications/Inclusionary_Housing_CA_30years.pdf.

November 8: Affordable Housing in New York City

R    City of New York. 2004. The New Housing Marketplace: Creating Housing for the Next Generation, 2004-2013. On-line: http://nyc.gov/html/hpd/downloads/pdf/10yearHMplan.pdf

R    Schwartz, Alex. 1999. “New York City and Subsidized Housing: Impacts and Lessons of the City’s $5 Billion Capital Budget Housing Plan.” Housing Policy Debate 10(4): 839-877. On-line: http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_1004_schwartz.pdf

+    City of New York. 2005. The New Housing Marketplace: Progress Report, 2005. On-line: http://nyc.gov/html/hpd/downloads/pdf/2005-annual-report.pdf .

November 13: State and local actions for shared-equity home ownership

R Davis, John E. Shared Equity Homeonwership: The Changing Landscape of Resale-Restricted,Owner-Occupied Housing, chapter 4. Available at http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/rjp17/SharedEquityHome.pdf .

November 15: Flag Wars—session extends to 11:45

I will be away during this session. Please be sure to attend to watch this documentary about gentrification, which we will discuss on November 20. Before seeing the movie, please read:

R Duany, Andres. 2001. Three Cheers for Gentrification. American Enterprise Magazine, April/ May 2001. On-line: http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.15591/article_detail.asp .

R Freeman, Lance and Frank Braconi. 2004. Gentrification and displacement: New York City in the 1990s. Journal of the American Planning Association 70(1): 39-52.

R Newman, Kathe and Elvin K. Wyly. 2006. The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New York City. Urban Studies 43(1): 23-57.

November 20: Discussion, Flag Wars and gentrification

For this discussion, we’ll talk about Flag Wars in the context of the readings listed on November 15.

November 22: Debate: Rent control

This final debate / position paper concerns rent control, probably the single most contentious issue in housing policy. Economists almost universally hate it, but local governments still use it for a variety of purposes and in several manifestations. There is a lot of material written on rent control; students can find materials to support their pro and con positions. Same rules apply about length of paper and number of citiations (3 undergrad, 4 grad).

Week 14: Poster sessions

November 27: Poster Sessions

November 29: Poster Sessions / Course evaluation

December 8: Term papers due, 4:30 PM, Pendall’s faculty mailbox


[1] All statistics from U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Tables 469 and , available at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/federal_govt_finances_employment/federal_budgetreceipts_outlays_and_debt/ as of August 10, 2004.