Assessing the property value impacts of the dispersed subsidy housing program in Denver

Abstract

This study tests the hypothesis that the acquisition of existing property by the public housing authority and its subsequent rehabilitation and occupancy by subsidized tenants significantly reduced the property values of surrounding single‐family homes in Denver during the 1990s. This assessment examined pre‐ and post‐occupancy sales, while controlling for the idiosyncratic neighborhood, local public service, and zoning characteristics of the areas in order to identify which sorts of neighborhoods, if any, experienced declining property values as a result of proximity to dispersed housing tenants. The analyses revealed that proximity to a subsidized housing site generally had an independent, positive effect on single‐family home sales prices. The most notable exception to this pattern occurred in neighborhoods more than 20 percent of whose residents were black. Proximity to dispersed public housing sites in these neighborhoods resulted in slower growth in home sales prices in an other‐wise booming housing market and suggest a threshold within “vulnerable” neighborhoods whereby any potential gains associated with rehabilitating existing units are offset by the increased concentration of poor residents. © 2001 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

Nonprofit housing and neighborhood spillovers

“…However, it is possible that site selection might be related in some systematic way to pre-existing trends in house prices (see Santiago, Galster, & Tatian, 2001). In particular, one might worry that subsidized housing was built in micro-neighborhoods that were starting to appreciate relative to the surrounding area, even before the advent of these projects.…”

Urban renewal after the Berlin Wall: a place-based policy evaluation

“…Ahlfeldt & Maennig, 2010;Autor, Palmer, & Pathak, 2014;Ellen, Schill, Susin, & Schwartz, 2001;Helms, 2012;Ioannides, 2002;Koster & Van Ommeren, 2013;Rossi-Hansberg et al, 2010;Schwartz, Ellen, Voicu, & Schill, 2006), we contribute to a literature that has assessed the impact of various local public policies via capitalization effects (e.g. Ahlfeldt & Kavetsos, 2014;Cellini, Ferreira, & Rothstein, 2010;Dachis, Duranton, & Turner, 2012;Dehring, Depken, & Ward, 2008;Eriksen & Rosenthal, 2010;Gibbons & Machin, 2005;Oates, 1969;Santiago, Galster, & Tatian, 2001) and economic effects of spatially targeted policies more generally (Baum-Snow & Marion, 2009;Boarnet & Bogart, 1996;Busso, Gregory, & Kline, 2013;Freedman, 2012Freedman, , 2014Freedman & Owens, 2011;Gobillon, Magnac, & Selod, 2012;Ham, Swenson, İmrohoroğlu, & Song, 2011;Kline, 2010;Kline & Moretti, 2013, 2014aMurray, 1999;Neumark & Kolko, 2010;Sinai & Waldfogel, 2005). 6 Our analysis also connects to a more general research strand in urban economics that examines the amenity value of cities (e.g.…”

Placing the poor while keeping the rich in their place

“…A central concern with government interventions designed to place poor families in middle-class neighborhoods is the possibility of adverse economic impact on the neighborhood, e.g., through declining property values Smith 1999, Santiago, Galster, andTatian 2001) or triggering a downward economic spiral if long-time residents move away ("middle-class flight" or "white flight" in the racial integration context). There is a large literature on "flight" that debates many things such as whether the primary driver is increased egress or normal turnover coupled with lack of replacement (c.f., Galster 1998, Gould Ellen 2000, but with some exceptions concerning particular issues (e.g., Freeman and Rohe 2000), the consensus is that flight still occurs and is an important issue (Clotfelter 2001).…”