Do Affordable Housing Projects Harm Suburban Communities? Crime, Property Values, and Taxes in Mount Laurel, NJ

Abstract

This paper offers a mixed-method analysis of the municipal-level consequences of an affordable housing development built in suburban New Jersey. Opponents of affordable housing development often suggest that creating affordable housing will harm surrounding communities. Feared consequences include increases in crime, declining property values, and rising taxes. To evaluate these claims, the paper uses the case of Mt. Laurel, NJ – the site of a landmark affordable housing legal case and subsequent affordable housing development. Employing a multiple time series group control design, we compare crime rates, property values, and property taxes in Mt. Laurel to outcomes in similar nearby municipalities that do not contain comparable affordable housing developments. We find that the opening of the affordable housing development was not associated with trends in crime, property values, or taxes, and discuss management practices and design features that may have mitigated potential negative externalities.

Housing Assistance and Child Health: A Systematic Review

“…The American Academy of Pediatrics and other national health organizations have called for the development and evaluation of interventions that directly target the social determinants underlying child health disparities. 1–4 Given a large and consistent literature revealing a clear link between housing and health, 5 housing assistance programs (ie, publicly-supported housing subsidies subject to ongoing public debate 6,7 and budgetary threat 8–11 ) might play an important role in promoting the health of disadvantaged children. 12,13…”

The impact of the low-income housing tax credit on children's health and wellbeing in Georgia

“…The LIHTC was not initially designed to reduce CAN rates, but other studies have shown that policies that improve housing conditions, such as LIHTC and other inclusionary housing policies, remain promising strategies to reduce violence and injury risk (Albright et al, 2013; Freedman & Owens, 2011). While we did not find a significant association between the number of LIHTC units and CAN, it is possible that the LIHTC has a more nuanced, indirect effect on CAN not measured in the present study.…”

“…Additionally, poverty rates have been found to decline in high-poverty neighborhoods after the completion of LIHTC developments, and in general, there is little evidence that the LIHTC program contributes to poverty concentration or residential segregation (Ellen, Horn, & O’Regan, 2016; Freedman & McGavock, 2015; Horn & O’Regan, 2011). There are mixed findings regarding the impact of affordable housing on the stability of the surrounding community, but generally, associations between subsidized housing developments and neighborhood crime are weak or insignificant, suggesting that some concerns about affordable housing may be misguided (Albright et al, 2013; Ellen, Lens, & O’Regan, 2012; Freedman & Owens, 2011; Lens, 2014). In fact, one study demonstrated that LIHTC developments built in the poorest neighborhoods resulted in significant reductions in violent crime, but not property crime (Freedman & Owens, 2011).…”

“…Despite popular opinion that “public housing” results in decay of surrounding communities, LIHTC developments have been found to positively influence property upkeep in nearby communities (Edmiston, 2015). Other work has demonstrated that affordable housing could be developed in an affluent community without increasing social disorganization, crime and taxes, and without decreasing property values (Albright, Derickson, & Massey, 2013). In New York City, significant and sustained positive spillover effects of subsidized housing have been observed (e.g., increased property values, increased tax revenue, and reduced blight) (Schwartz, Ellen, Voicu, & Schill, 2006).…”

Border disorder: On urban boundary work and crime in the divided city

“…The main trend in current research in this field focuses on the links among the neo-liberal economy, widening socio-spatial gaps, the creation of urban borders, the eradication of public space and intensifying city violence (Caldeira, 1996; Davis, 1992). Some other scholars, who have also depicted the link between city polarization and the militarization of the crime world (Wacquant, 2008), perceive crime as a relationship that portrays national, ethnic and social class struggle (Albright et al, 2013; Ilan, 2011). The spatial manifestation of criminal activity as a specific hotspot is thus inherently associated with the ways in which urban space is divided up by different borders.…”