Methods of Housing Analysis

Techniques and Case Studies

A. James Gregor

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351505536
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Économie
• Categoría: Économétrie

In order to understand and formulate housing policy and programs, it is necessary to have a working knowledge of the internal economic operation of housing from the points of view of both the investor and the owner. James W. Hughes argues that investors' and owners' behavior and activity tend to be governed by market forces and other realities. In that regard, he begins this work by analyzing market rates of return in real estate and housing undertakings, and the variety of analytical techniques which underlie their determination.Methods of Housing Analysis is designed to provide urban planners with an introduction to the basic, quantitative techniques associated with the analysis of housing. A myriad of specific analytical methods has evolved in each of the professions concerned with this subject area. Planners, investors, developers, engineers, appraisers, social scientists, and governmental officials all tend to exhibit unique perspectives when examining housing and have developed their analytical frameworks accordingly.The work is comprised of an extensive discussion by the author, detailed case studies and examples, and a number of essays by leading experts that detail specific analytical procedures and demonstrate their use. The book is divided into four major sections: analysis of the internal operation of housing; basic cost-revenue analysis; expanded cost-revenue/benefit analysis; and government regulation of housing. The thorough nature of Hughes' discussion and of the related readings makes this volume an ideal textbook and reference source.

IV Government Regulation of Housing

Introduction

This final section presents a variety of concepts and associated quantitative methods whose commonality is established by their relation to external governmental controls placed upon housing. These regulations and strictures can be viewed as centripetal constraining actions — peripheral forces directed inwardly on housing. This perspective complements that of the last two sections, which centered on the impact of housing as it manifests itself outward on its various external environments.

The broader subject matter encompassing the quantitative techniques of this section is increasing steadily as governmental regulation expands. Moreover, the subject of governmental housing regulation is often in flux; certain issues achieve dominant public attention and then fade. The end result is usually either the institutionalization of new conventions which become an integral part of professional activity or the acknowledgement of but careful avoidance of the residue of older conventions. In either case, new quantitative focuses emerge and assume their places within the array of analytical procedures defining the scope of contemporary planning activity.

For several reasons this introduction lends itself to brevity. First of all, a number of prerequisite techniques have already been delineated in detail, particularly those providing the basis of rent control regulatory formulas. Also, the subject matter under discussion here is, for the most part, within the exclusive domain of traditional planning concerns, making treatment of certain preliminaries unnecessary. The financial analyses and appraisal techniques in the earlier sections, on the other hand, were drawn from external but related professional competences.

Moreover, the status of this section is only preliminary when viewed in terms of the evolutionary state of the methods entertained. A number of contemporary concerns which are in the early stages of technical development have been selected and the longitudinal experience of some of the resulting techniques is limited. Consequently, it is just as important at this time to emphasize current conceptual difficulties as it is to isolate definitive analytical methods. In short, this section’s objective is to set down the evaluative framework within which the relevant quantitative methods will evolve, as well as to present the techniques currently in field use.

The Spatial Deconcentration of Housing Opportunities

During the 1960s, the dispersion of the nation’s population from central cities into suburban rings reached such proportions that ancillary commercial and economic functions followed in its wake.¹ By the early 1970s, employment facilities replicated the population flows of the previous decade, leaving many of the aging economic centers in a severely depressed state. Cognizant of the cost-revenue implications of permitting low-income housing (see Section II) within their borders, as well as a host of other rationales,² many suburban communities readily accepted the fiscal and economic benefits of decentralizing industry and consciously ignored the housing needs of its associated workers.³ Central city residents, particularly those from minority groups, became spatially segregated from an increasing share of metropolitan employment opportunities. Likewise, the concentration of low-valuation housing in core areas, as well as their declining commercial and industrial ratable bases, exacerbated the cities’ already tenuous fiscal positions. Amidst the growing reaction to this state of affairs, the rationale for dispersion of lower income housing throughout a broad metropolitan region developed. Such dispersion would, among other things, enhance low-income central city residents’ opportunities to reap the full benefits of American society.

The positive aspects of dispersion are difficult to refute. Indeed, court decisions on zoning, action by regional jurisdictions, and federal legislation all have affirmed its logic. Yet, as has been demonstrated earlier in this volume, there often exists a substantial gap between recognition of a problem and its reduction to workable quantitative procedures to produce reasonably accurate analyses and guides for policy implementation. And nowhere is this more evident than in the methods of approaching the question of dispersing housing opportunities throughout a broad regional area.

The Emerging Requirements

The first contribution to this section, by Robert W. Burchell and David Listokin, is a report keyed to the questions posed by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the landmark decision Oakwood at Madison, Inc. v. Twp. of Madison.⁴ While the decision is clearly specific to a single state, the scope of its concerns is not unique. New Jersey’s land use (and, by inference, housing) litigation is considered prototypical for other parts of the country. What has come to pass there will almost certainly have ramifications throughout the nation. Moreover, the concerns raised in Oakwood v. Madison have already become manifest in other arenas — fair share housing plans and the “expected to reside” component of the Community Development Act. Since the analytical procedures inherent in these two concepts comprise the subject matter of the two succeeding readings, the Burchell-Listokin analysis provides a unique synthesizing framework.

Simply stated, Oakwood v. Madison held invalid a municipal zoning ordinance on the grounds that it failed to provide its fair share of the housing needs of its region. That is, a municipality has an obligation to meet the housing needs both of its own population and of some broader region. From this apparently simple declaration a torrent of unanswered questions has arisen which centers around the quantification and practical application of broad, and generally unspecified, concepts. What is a “fair share” region and who should specify it? What are the analytical procedures and data requirements inherent in its derivation? What interregional and intraregional refinements have to be made; i.e., how does one define sending and receiving zones within a region, how can adjacent regions be segregated from one another, and how are changes in spatial structure to be monitored?

Assuming that the data requirements and analytical techniques pose no significant problems in responding to these questions, a series of additional methodological concerns arises. What are the relevant partitions of housing needs, i.e., the criteria to demarcate low- and moderate-income households presently underhoused? How can these subgroups be linked to cost specific housing types which can then be reflected in a zoning ordinance? What are the allocation procedures for ultimately assigning municipalities their quotas of fair share housing?

These are basic questions of quantitative import; the first reading of this section provides a set of initial methodological guidelines for their resolution via alternative analytical procedures. It is in the following two readings, however, that the operational field techniques developed to date are presented.

Fair Share Housing Allocation

Governmental housing regulation is beginning to concern itself with the spatial distribution of low-income housing throughout broad regional and metropolitan areas. The second reading of this section, “Fair Share Housing Allocation,” examines the intricacies of the current distributive mechanisms as they have been formulated to date. Much of the impetus for their development has not been a result of federal prodding (as is the case in the Bleakly reading) but rather of actions of state and more local political jurisdictions.

Although fair share allocation procedures have, in many cases, been rigorously applied, a host of critical issues is still under discussion. As suggested earlier, much concern at present still relates to practical application — the workable quantitative methods — of strategies which on the surface appear to be relatively straightforward. Consequently, Listokin first examines the necessary components preliminary to establishing an allocative equation:

1. The procedures for defining an allocation region
2. The delineation of allocation subareas
3. The array of housing types to be allocated
4. The relationship of fair share to housing need

Given some workable resolution of these factors, it is possible to begin to construct a distributive mechanism. The elements to be resolved first include allocation criteria and their translation into operational indicators. These would include subárea carrying capacities, i.e., land availability and fiscal position, existing shares of the housing to be allocated, and current subárea needs (as reflected by substandard, overcrowded housing). Given these measures and preliminary elements, only then is it possible to derive a distributive formula which represents the basic allocation strategy.

The formulas can take many forms and comprise, at most, simple statistical and algebraic manipulations. The general approaches are first discussed by Listokin; he then provides an appendix wherein the full details of Dayton, Ohio’s (Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission’s) technical procedures are presented. The Dayton Plan, and its subsequent modifications, is considered the nation’s first fair share plan. Two other allocative mechanisms are then examined, both of which are predicated on journey-to-work criteria.

Inherent in the process of fair share housing allocation and essential to the concept of “expected to reside” is the prediction of housing need in general, and low-income housing need in particular.

Housing Need

Housing need and demand have been approached from a number of perspectives, although definitive procedures have yet to be form...

Índice

• Cover Page
• Methods of Housing Analysis
• copy
• Contents
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• SECTION I: ANALYSIS OF THE INTERNAL OPERATION OF HOUSING
• SECTION II: BASIC COST-REVENUE ANALYSIS
• SECTION III: EXPANDED COST-REVENUE/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
• SECTION IV: GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF HOUSING
• APPENDIX
• SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY