DeacKillsaDevil
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2011
- Messages
- 2,477
- Reaction score
- 110
Low income housing doesn't affect property values?
- Thread starter DeacKillsaDevil
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
I do a lot of work with LIHTC projects, and there (not surprisingly) is a major flaw in that study: it completely ignores the site scoring process for the LIHTC project, which is designed to seek out locations that would not be affected by the presence of the project. When developers are bidding for allocation of the available tax credits, each proposed site is scored by the allocating state agency based on a variety of criteria to make it more practical and beneficial to the typical rent subsidy recipient. So close proximity to things like Family Dollars, WalMarts, bus lines, rehab centers, free clinics, and group daycare facilities will raise the score of the site and increase its probability of credit selection. Those entities are generally located in lower income areas already, so the presence of a LIHTC project isn't going to affect the surrounding property values, it fits right in with them because they are intended to help that already impoverished population. You're not putting a LIHTC project in Beverly Hills, because it wouldn't get awarded for the credits because the site score would be too low. There are low income projects in more middle-class areas, but those would be local bond projects, not LIHTC projects. So by focusing solely on LIHTC projects in attempt to reach their conclusion, whoever ran the "study" had no idea what they were doing - they looked at the wrong kind of property.
That being said, in 2015 the US Supreme Court said that the site scoring system had a disparate impact on blacks because it resulted in LIHTC projects being located in black communities (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense because of course they would that is who they are designed to help). As a result, in the event of a tie between site scores for two competing developments, the tiebreaker goes to the site with the higher surrounding community income. To the extent there are ties, this would put LIHTC projects in more affluent neighborhoods. But it is the double-edged sword because then the residents will have to pay higher prices for Harris Teeter than Family Dollar, not have ample bus access, etc. But those new rules are really just going into effect for 2017 projects which haven't even started the bid process yet, so have nothing to do with this study.
That being said, in 2015 the US Supreme Court said that the site scoring system had a disparate impact on blacks because it resulted in LIHTC projects being located in black communities (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense because of course they would that is who they are designed to help). As a result, in the event of a tie between site scores for two competing developments, the tiebreaker goes to the site with the higher surrounding community income. To the extent there are ties, this would put LIHTC projects in more affluent neighborhoods. But it is the double-edged sword because then the residents will have to pay higher prices for Harris Teeter than Family Dollar, not have ample bus access, etc. But those new rules are really just going into effect for 2017 projects which haven't even started the bid process yet, so have nothing to do with this study.