Affordable Housing Initiatives: A Case Study

During the early 2000 's, the United States housing market experienced growth at an unprecedented rate, leading to historical highs in home ownership. This surge in home buying was the result of multiple illusory financial circumstances which reduced the apparent risk of both lending and receiving loans. However, in 2007, when the upward trend in home values could no longer continue and began to reverse itself, homeowners found themselves owing more than the value of their properties, a trend which lent itself to increased defaults and foreclosures, further reducing the value of homes in a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle. The 2008 crash of the near-$7-billion housing industry dragged down the entire U.S. economy, and by extension, the global economy, with it, therefore having a large part in triggering the global recession of 2008-2012.

California’s housing situation is severe compared to the rest of the United States. California is included in the top three states with the most “housing cost burdened individuals” (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2015). In a list of 20 cities where rents were highest compared to income, 10 of the 20 cities were in California with Los Angeles, CA topping the list (Dewan, 2014). Opponents might say that households in poverty could never afford housing due to their impoverished state but poverty measures of California show that the abnormally high cost of housing in California makes matters more severe and causes the amount of households that are severely cost afflicted to increase. Furthermore, when poverty measures take into account California’s uniquely expensive and insufficient housing supply, the results show that housing costs contribute significantly to poverty. For example, when housing costs were included in the California Poverty Measure as well as federal Supplemental Poverty Measure, the poverty rates rose substantially (Wimer, Mattingly, & Levin, 2013) (Short, 2015). And when high housing costs were artificially substituted with low housing costs, poverty rates significantly dropped (Bohn, Danielson, & Levin, 2013). And it’s not just the poor who are affected! Even those who are moderate income earners are becoming financially burdened by high housing costs. Those who are moderately well off compared to low income earners are financially burdened by rent costs in expensive cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, CA (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University,

It is often easy to castigate large cities or third world countries as failures in the field of affordable housing, yet the crisis, like an invisible cancer, manifests itself in many forms, plaguing both urban and suburban areas. Reformers have wrestled passionately with the issue for centuries, revealing the severity of the situation in an attempt for change, while politicians have only responded with band aid solutions. Unfortunately, the housing crisis easily fades from our memory, replaced by visions of homeless vets, or starving children. Metropolis magazine explains that “…though billions of dollars are spent each year on housing and development programs worldwide, ? At least 1 billion people

What is known about the dearth of inexpensive living spaces in high-cost, heavy populated areas is its scarcity is a function of supply. Demand remains a non-issue for policy makers as demand has

This power helped white families considerably in gaining ownership of houses, but severely crippled home ownership ability for African American families. The role of the HOLC was to provide low interest loans and refinance homes to prevent foreclosure; the role of the FHA was to guarantee mortgages from default. Both of these organizations worked to minimize the risk of home loans for banks, making it easier for families to obtain loans and mortgages to buy homes. This resulted in an explosion of home ownership from the 1930’s to the 1960’s, “In 1930, only 30 percent of Americans owned their homes; by 1960, more than 60 percent were home owners.”

The housing crisis of the late 2000s rocked the economy and changed the landscape of the real estate business for years to come. Decades of people purchasing houses unfordable houses and properties with lenient loans policies led to a collective housing bubble. When the banking system faltered and the economy wilted, interest rates were raised, mortgages increased, and people lost their jobs amidst the chaos. This all culminated in tens of thousands of American losing their houses to foreclosures and short sales, as they could no longer afford the mortgage payments on their homes. The United States entered a recession and homeownership no longer appeared to be a feasible goal as many questioned whether the country could continue to support a middle-class. Former home owners became renters and in some cases homeless as the American Dream was delayed with no foreseeable return. While the future of the economy looked bleak, conditions gradually improved. American citizens regained their jobs, the United States government bailed out the banking industry, and regulations were put in place to deter such events as the mortgage crash from ever taking place again. The path to homeowner ship has been forever altered, as loans in general are now more difficult to acquire and can be accompanied by a substantial down payment.

In conclusion, homeownership in the United States have decline over the past years even being the lowest it has ever been, but has had an improving and strong market beginning in 2012 after a 27% decline from the 2006 peak, and the increasing homeownership rate is a worthwhile policy to allow the United State economy to

Housing First, Consumer Choice, and Harm Reduction for Homeless Individuals with a Dual Diagnosis. American Journal of Public Health, 94 (4), 651-656 . Retrieved June 14, 2008, from database.

Statistically, one out of seven families live in severe physical deficient housing. In fact, the housing and stock market revealed in July of 2009 that the Great Recession further widened the gap and income disparity between the average, hard-working Americans and the top 1% of wealthy Americans. Edward N. Wolff suggests that the average American produced a massive 36.1% drop in overall marketable assets while the top 1% of wealthy Americans only lost 11.1%. This income gap disparity ensures that ever-increasing need for affordable housing as the economic crisis worsens.

Macroeconomics is an excellent tool for the analysis of the housing industry as something like a capital good, as a home is considered to be, cannot easily be studied in a short-term platform. Real estate is a good that costs several times more than an average persons annual income, in the United States that number is typically 7 times as much, and in the United Kingdom that number is 14 times as much. Several factors of both supply and demand directly impact the housing market on a macroeconomic scale. (Business Economics, 1)

Housing demand includes household growth, real incomes, real wealth, tax concessions to both owner-occupied and rental housing, concessions to first homebuyers, returns on alternative investments, cost and availability of finance for housing and the institutional structure affecting housing finance provision (Yates, 2008). The growth in the number of households and in real income results in the increased pressure on housing demand.

In the late 2000’s, the US encountered an unforgettable financial crisis which was caused by low interest rates and sky high real estate prices. This enticed not only those within the US to purchase

For decades America’s foundation for the real estate market has been based on the conventional 30-year mortgage. However, the popularity should not blind one from the disadvantages that can be found with this type of mortgage. The main disadvantage is the structure of payments to the lender. With the 30-year loan, the initial three years are allocated to pay back interest, which is 68 percent of the monthly mortgage. The new Wealth Building Home Loan (WBHL) takes this burden off the borrowers, particularly households classified as low to middle income. WBHL will do this by focusing on paying back principal rather then interest, making it very appealing to prospective homebuyers. One will now be able to build equity in a much shorter timeframe while paying back their loan. The correlation between shorter amortization schedules, increased equity, and stricter underwriting standards will not only benefit the real estate market, but also the loan market. There will now be an increase in the amount of real estate transactions and mortgages as well a decrease in defaults.

In this report, the question “How much of the changes in the median selling price of homes in a city can be explained by the changes in median income of that city?” is answered. Home ownership is an important aspect of one’s life stages, and home prices are determined by demand and supply. The demand curve is affected by the one’s income, such that as one’s income increases, one is more willing to pay a higher price for the same quantity of goods (Baye & Prince, 2014). However, there are many other factors that might affect the demand curve, e.g. no. of children, in the household, the perceived quality of education in the school district, or the number of job positions (filled or open) around the city. According to Burda

Compare housing wealth and GDP, we can see that housing wealth is larger than GDP. Housing wealth also fluctuates over time. Figure 2 illustrates the ratio of nominal housing wealth to nominal GDP in the US. From the figure, we can find that the ratio of housing wealth to GDP has averaged around 1.5 between 1952 and 2008. However, it has moved dramatically throughout this period. At the beginning of these periods, it was equal to 1.28; we can see the lowest value happen in 1962 and in 2005 it reaches the highest value of 2.26. It is at the peak of the recent housing boom.