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

Santiago, Anna Maria; Galster, George; Tatian, Peter

doi:10.1002/1520-6688(200124)20:1<65::aid-pam1004>3.3.co;2-l

Cited by 32 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A growing body of literature demonstrates that properly planned and implemented public and nonprofit investment in housing construction or rehabilitation and related community improvements can have a significant, positive spillover effect on properties near the site of the investment (Cowherd 2001;Ding and Knaap 2003;Ellen et al 2001;Ellen and Voicu 2006;Galster, Tatian, and Accordino 2006;Galster, Tatian, and Pettit 2004;Galster et al 2004a;Galster et al 2004b;Santiago, Galster, and Tatian 2001;Schill et al 2002;Smith and Hevener n.d.). While the methodological rigor of many recent studies breeds confidence in their findings relative to earlier ones, these studies measure spillover in terms of increased property values, leaving open the question of whether investment multiplier effects contributed to the increases.…”

Section: Multiplier Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic, Geographic Targeting of Housing and Community Development Resources

Thomson

2008

Urban Affairs Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article critically examines a conceptual framework for strategic, geographic targeting, an allocation model for improving efficiency in community development programs. It reviews the theoretical and empirical literature, discusses constraints and policy implications, and outlines a research agenda. Cost-savings, multiplier, and interaction effects form the core rationale for strategic, geographic targeting. Focus and neighborhood spillover effects complement these and are likely to occur more rapidly when strategic, geographic targeting is used. While the literature is largely silent on the cost-savings, focus, and neighborhood spillover effects, it supports the multiplier effect and demonstrates that it is contingent on the attainment of investment thresholds. It also identifies interventions that are likely to interact positively with programs targeting housing investment.

show abstract

Section: Multiplier Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic, Geographic Targeting of Housing and Community Development Resources

Thomson

2008

Urban Affairs Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, one of the cores of NIMBY sentiment from local residents often stems from the fear that subsidized housing would bring increased crime into the neighborhood due to the influx of "undesirable" households (Ellen, Lens, & O'Regan, 2012;Nguyen, 2005). NIMBY attitudes have posed a significant barrier for the placement of subsidized housing, presenting a conundrum for policymakers pursuing more affordable housing options (Freeman & Botein, 2002;Galster, Tatian, & Smith, 1999;Santiago, Galster, & Tatian, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond anecdotal evidence: Do subsidized housing developments increase neighborhood crime?

Woo

Joh

2015

Applied Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…and enduring effects on property values within 500-foot radii of the sites, as well as short-term boosts for properties located up to 2000 feet away (Santiago, Galster, and Tatian 2001). The effects of public housing development have been less conclusive.…”

Section: Housing Policy Debate 495mentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the local economic impacts of HOPE VI

Zielenbach¹,

Voith²,

Mariano³

2010

Housing Policy Debate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study identifies and measures the demonstrable changes to local political economies that can be reasonably attributed to HOPE VI redevelopments. It examines the extent to which the developments have contributed to increases in surrounding property values, decreases in serious crimes, additional regional economic activity, and changes in local tax revenues. It weighs these benefits against the public costs associated with the program.Despite the expenses associated with HOPE VI, the redevelopments generate significant net social welfare benefits. In most cases, the collective tenant and neighborhood benefits exceed the net public costs of redevelopment. In addition, the redevelopments spark additional regional economic activity and contribute to an increase in the local tax base. HOPE VI's effects are far from uniform, however, and depend on the location of the redeveloped property, the characteristics of project funding, the strength of the local real estate market, and the presence of other development pressures.

show abstract

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

Cited by 32 publications

References 0 publications

Strategic, Geographic Targeting of Housing and Community Development Resources

Strategic, Geographic Targeting of Housing and Community Development Resources

Beyond anecdotal evidence: Do subsidized housing developments increase neighborhood crime?

Estimating the local economic impacts of HOPE VI

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About