How Does Affordable Housing Affect Surrounding Property Values - Case Study Example

The benefit to affordable housing in Communities - Affordable housing is not detriment to neighborhoods Many Americans have outdated stereotypes and oppose new affordable housing developments in their neighborhoods. Well, if we are serious about wanting to provide all Americans with a safe, decent and affordable place to live we will have to change the way we think about affordable housing. The first step is to break down the myths that affordable housing will increase crime rates, decrease property values, and increasing tax burdens, as well as the stereotypical perceptions about project residents. The key to succeeding will be the willingness to change old perceptions, add new solutions to the mix, and update the conventional wisdoms. Affordable housing is an indispensable part of all communities they are not detriment to neighborhoods, and when they get done correctly they will have a positive economic impact. People require decent housing to be happy, healthy and successful. The in affordability of housing is a serious problem, mostly in the growing cities where the demand of affordable housing exceeds the stock of less expensive and older residences. Increasing the affordability of housing helps solve problems and achieve other planning objectives. These include: 1. Reduce the homelessness and its associated problems. 2. Flexibility and financial savings to lower income households. 3. Accommodating students, lower wage workers, hence supporting local economic development. 4. Allows aging in place. Affordable and accessible housing that are suitable for disable people allows residents to stay in their community through the changes. 5. Road and parking facility cost saving. The residents can help reduce parking congestion and the costs of parking to the government and businesses. 6. Increased levels of economic opportunity. An improved access to employment and education leads to increased rates of employment and wages. ffordability requires more than low mortgages and rents. True, affordable housing should [sic] affordable accessible housing, i.e. lower priced housing situated where the basic services are easily accessible without the use of automobiles. Affordable accessible housing allows the households with different incomes, needs and abilities to live as one in diverse and attractive neighborhoods. Affordable housing is, therefore, not detriment to the neighborhoods but offer the chance of people living together in harmony Affordable housing organizations become primarily concerned with providing help to many low and moderate income households to achieve significant and affordable housing. Housing, however, affects the surrounding neighborhoods they get located in, together with the lives of the residents. Nevertheless, properly managed and designed affordable housing can have a positive impact on the property values in the surrounding areas. The impact of affordable housing on property values The major reason for the opposition directed towards the development of affordable housing is the idea that the surrounding property values will get affected. Having new affordable housing creates concerns over the development of poorly maintained structures, negative changes in the neighborhood ways of life and lead to increased crime. These problems should be weighed against the ways that the development of affordable housing projects could impact the values of the surrounding property values positively. These developments could take the form of rehabilitation of dilapidated buildings and vacant lots. Affordable housing could be maintained and managed well (Ahrentzen 17). Developments of affordable rental projects with nonprofit management get found to have positive impacts to the surrounding properties. According to studies done in Minneapolis, small and moderate size nonprofit rental housing projects raised values of the surrounding property [sic]. In New York nonprofit affordable housing got found to have positive impacts on the surrounding property values. According to Ellen and Voicu (2006), the size of the positive impact varied with the scale of the project, small nonprofit projects had lesser impacts compared to larger projects. This determines the level of the project scales (Ellen & Voicu 31). The effect of a scale of a project on the values of the property depends on the context of the neighborhood. The scale effect becomes reversed in high income and low income neighborhoods, such that, in the low income neighborhoods, large projects have positive impacts while, in high income neighborhoods, the small projects are the most beneficial. The housing projects impacts depend also on the neighborhood context (Ahrentzen 18). Affordable housing will generate positive results when situated in low poverty neighborhoods. In high poverty neighborhoods, larger housing projects generate the most positive impacts. Regardless of the context of the neighborhood, affordable housing projects create the most neighborhood property value benefits when they are replacing vacant or abandoned buildings. Impact of affordable housing on the neighborhood crime People fear the development of affordable housing is the notion that it will lead to rise in criminal activities. According to Himle Horne (2009) this fear that affordable housing residents will bring an increase in the criminal activities is one of the viewed negative impacts of affordable housing projects. Nevertheless, these fears get based on emotional judgment rather than factual arguments. According to research done, affordable units in small quantities have no impact on neighborhood crime. Studies on the impact of affordable rental housing on neighborhood crime find no evidence of impact. Non profit rental housing creates a decrease in the neighborhood crime (Santiago 23). Studies conducted on the effect of public housing on the neighborhood crime in Denver, the existence of Denver Housing Authority public units had no impact on the levels of neighborhood crime. There existed weak evidence that showed a reduction in the crime levels after the opening of the Denver Housing Authority housing units. In Kentucky, traditional public housing increased levels of crime while the scattered public housing did not have any impact. According to Griffiths (2009), residents of public housing were half as likely to commit crimes as compared to non public housing residents. Questions have become raised in the past number of years, if high density housing leads to crime. No single study has proved any relationship between housing density and crime rates. Scattering of affordable housing also helps to check crime. In regions consisting of low income housing, particularly regions that lack community services and responsive police crime can be high. By encouraging, the development of affordable apartments in scattered regions crime rates will become reduced (Santiago 25). Compact development of housing provides excellent efficiency in the use of the public utilities and structures. The high density residential development needs less extensive infrastructures than the sprawls. For example, in California project developers usually pay for decent infrastructure capacity for their projects. When the residents cannot take advantage of the scale economies in issuing infrastructure, the extension costs will rise. The development of high density housing helps by providing scale of economies both in treatment plants and trunk lines. The little costs per unit of housing could become passed to the new residents, and the debts load can ensure fiscal stability all over the community (King 15). Tax payers and new residents can be saved their money, when they allow the construction of housing projects, where the service capacity and infrastructure are yet to get used. When communities allow the development of high density housing in the infill locations, the residents can rejuvenates the stagnant commercial districts and increase their retail sales. Affordable housing does not lead to an increase in auto traffic. Residents of affordable housing own fewer vehicles and drive less. In the city of California metropolitan area, two thirds of the renters and nearly more than three fourths of households living under the poverty line have no vehicles or own one. This is different from the 54 percent of all households and about 44 percent of households’ homeowners. Little ownership of cars means fewer trips, and majority auto commutes. In a study conducted in San Francisco Bay Area, the transport commission established that the low income households make an average of 3.6 trips each day, in relation to the 6.8 trips each day for the medium households and 9.9 trips per day for the high income households (King 17). The growth in traffic is due to the existing developments in the regions. In the 80’s, ownership of vehicles increased, and the residents drove frequently as women entered the job markets and income rose in record numbers. In a number of high density neighborhoods, and a number of neighborhoods that have a number of housing types, traffic is not a problem. Fewer auto trips regions that are of high densities. A study conducted in Sacramento, by the areas council of governments, established that the developments of multi families have fewer car ownership rates. The development of high density housing can lead to retail development and ease transit use and walking. Mixing of houses with commercial development is vital for traffic control, because non work trips represent the largest number of trips. With the development, of high density housing, stores that serve neighborhood communities move in, giving the residents the opportunity to walk to purchase groceries instead of driving there (Pettit 10). Affordable housing affects both the households that live in it and the residents of the community living nearby. Affordable housing lead to improved health outcomes for people living in the area, by reducing exposure to disaster in poor quality housing, improving the neighborhood conditions, and decreasing the budgetary constraints that prevent spending on nutrition and health insurance. According to researches done, poor housing conditions could lead to negative health results. Poor housing can also lead to respiratory illness. Households that contain cost burdens numerously cut corners on spending on nutrition and health insurance. Good quality, affordable housing will improve the health outcomes for the people by decreasing the exposure to various health hazards that become found in poor quality housing (Evans 5). Studies done show connections between health outcomes and the neighborhood characteristics. The neighborhood characteristics have a strong effect on the mental health and influence the risk for many negative health outcomes. The research done on the federal program Moving to Opportunity, which gave vouchers to the public housing residents to vacate from regions of concentrated poverty to areas of dispersed housing in the low poverty neighborhoods found increased improvements in the mental health outcomes for the participants in the programs (Evans 3). Families staying in affordable housing spend more on health care and food unlike those living in unaffordable housing. Affordable housing gives positive impacts to the educational outcomes. This is because they improve the housing conditions among kids previously staying in overcrowded housing. Affordable housing can also lead to improved education outcomes in that it substantially reduces the kids’ exposure to poor air quality or lead paint. These vices could induce asthma attacks that may lead to academic deficits. In a study conducted in Chicago, it became established that there exists considerable improvements in the educational outcomes for kids moving from the central city public housing to the white suburbs. Children’s of owners of homes tend to perform better in their academic work. Studies indicate that children living in owned homes other than the rental units perform better on measures of educational attainment (Braconi 2). Affordable housing has become found to impact work, wealth accumulation, and public service dependence between the low income households. Homeownership shows a significant source of wealth accumulation between the households but majorly between the low income and the minority households. Affordable housing can lead to the increase in work opportunities and welfare recipients and also reduce public service dependence between the homeless individuals. Homeownership symbolizes the greatest source of the accumulation of wealth for a number of households. Housing wealth is a significant way of wealth accumulation between the low income and the minority households. Programs that support low income home ownership become more likely to increase the accumulation of wealth among the individuals. Affordable housing increases the earnings and the work between the welfare recipients (Boem 26). The creation of affordable housing generates jobs in the fields of construction. According to a research by the National Association of Home builders, it becomes estimated that building 100 affordable housing units for families in the different low income housing tax credit program, would lead to the creation of over 120 jobs. Even after the occupations of these homes, the effects from residents of these developed units can support more than 30 jobs I different industries. Developments of housing programs have positive impacts to the state and the local governments. When the affordable housing units get built or rehabbed, the government benefits from revenue collection. This is either through the form of fees for zoning, permitting and utilities. This can also be in the form of property taxes generated from the construction related economic activities. NAHB estimates that over 100 units of the affordable housing projects for families create equal amount of revenue for jurisdictions, with a number coming from the permit and utility user fees (Boem 24). Affordable housing programs bring down housing costs below the market rates. This effect leads to an increase in the amount of money present for the purchase of goods and services in an economy. Studies prove that, development of affordable housing ensures that more money is present to the residents to enable them satisfy their different none housing needs and leads to significant growths in local spending on essentials such as groceries and healthcare. Families with low incomes will spend their residual income to fulfill their basic household needs creating significant, immediate levels of economic activity. The rehabilitation and construction of households to make them “energy efficient” poses significant economical implications to regions that encourage such practices. Energy efficient housing methods bring benefits to the local economy. Increased development of energy efficient homes also creates additional employment and economic state by developing a market for highly trained green certified contractors, laborers and construction materials. Works Cited Ahrentzen, S. How Does Affordable Housing Affect Surrounding Property Values. Arizona: Arizona State University, 2008. Retrieved on June 19, 2012 from http://www.mcknight.org/files/pdfs/Research_MN_Values_Attitudes.pdf> Boehm, T. Housing and Wealth Accumulation: Intergenerational Impacts. London: Harvard University Press, 2001. Braconi, F. "Housing and Schooling." The Urban Prospect (2001): 1-4.Retrieved on June 19, 2012 from http://www. urbanedjournal.org/articles/article0020.html Ellen, I.G., and Voicu, I. "Nonprofit Housing and Neighborhood Spillovers." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(1) (2006): 31-52. Evans, G. "Housing Quality and Mental Health." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (2000): 3. Kling, J. "Experimental Analysis of Neighborhood Effects." .Econometrica (2007): 15- 19. MaRous, M. "Low-income housing in our backyards: what happens to residential property values? ." Appraisal Journal 64(1) (2004): 27-33. Retrieved on June 19, 2012 from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/mhc/papers/quercia.doc MaRous, M.S. "Low-income housing in our backyards: what happens to residential property values?" Appraisal Journal, (2001): 27-33. Pettit, K. "The Impact of Supportive Housing on Neighborhood Crime Rates." Journal of Urban Affairs. 24(3) (2002): 10-12. Santiago, A. "Neighbourhood Crime and Scattered-site Public Housing." Urban Studies. 40(11) (2003): 23-24. Retrieved on June 19, 2012 from http://usj.sagepub.com/content/40/11.toc Read More