Center for Rethinking Development at the Manhattan Institute
Thinking about Homeownership in Low-Income Neighborhoods Though Democrats have long championed governmental subsidies for
low- and moderate-income rental housing, they've recently been
caught flat-footed on homeownership. Perhaps they underestimated
the American home owning imperative, or maybe they remembered the
disastrous, default-ridden federal ownership programs of the
1960s and 1970s. But whatever the cause, Democrats have yielded
the high ground on homeownership to the Republicans over the last
few years. When President Bush called for new federal programs
targeted at
increasing minority homeownership in 2002,
the Democrats attacked, arguing that he intended to de-fund the old
subsidy programs. And indeed he did. But the more pressing
question is: do subsidized, moderate-income homeownership
programs work? Is President Bush correct that widespread
homeownership can restore once desolate neighborhoods while
producing spin-off benefits, such as improved public and private
services? And do subsidized homeownership programs then
stimulate banks and mortgage companies to make loans on new
development, letting government withdraw?
New York City's experience demonstrates that the answers are
all yesso long as some basic principles are followed.
Ironically, the most important principlethat buyers must make
an immediate financial investment in their homesmay be
undermined by President Bush's core proposal of zero-down
mortgages. New York's two most successful ownership
programs in distressed neighborhoodsNehemiah Houses
and the
New York City Housing Partnershiphave remained financially sound by insisting on
up-front commitments from buyers. Both have also emphasized an
approach the president's plan ignores: paring construction costs
to the bone.
"A down payment is a positive thing because it helps us
make sure that ownership is real," says Mike Gecan, senior organizer for
East Brooklyn Churches, which sponsors Nehemiah. "We watch out for 'mental rental,'
the idea that you get a house but you don't really feel like you own it, so you keep
acting like a renter." One result of their strict financial
policies is that Nehemiah's default rate is "statistically near
zero," says Gecanonly 8 to 10 households out of the 3900 homes
built over 20 years.
Similarly, Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the New York City Partnership
and former president of its Housing Partnership
subsidiary, says their default rate was consistently lower than
Fannie Mae's
conventional default rate in part because "once
people met that big commitment up front, they hung onto their
houses no matter what. There's no doubt but that a down payment
is important in terms of predictability."
There's also no doubt but that homeownership rhetoric rings true
with Americans.
APPEALING RHETORIC While New York has traditionally been a city of renters,
homeownership has increased from 27% in 1993 to 32.7% in
2002still well below the national urban rate of 49%. Among the
five boroughs, Staten Island has the highest rate of
homeowners64.6%and the Bronx at
22.5% edges out Manhattan at 22.6% for the lowest rate, according to the city’s
Housing and Vacancy Survey.
As in other cities, minority ownership
lags in New York. While 42.6% of white and 36% of Asian New York households owned their
own homes in 2002, only 29.2% of black and 15.2% of Hispanic households were homeowners.
Minority ownership was one of the many problems that Nehemiah and the Housing
Partnership identified and hoped to solve, though with somewhat different
approaches.
Shaun Donovan, commissioner of the city's Department
of Housing, Preservation and Development, points out that Nehemiah was about
community organizingbuilding power and strength in neighborhoods by empowering
the home buyerwhile the Partnership set
out to rebuild the locally based real estate capacity that had
been wiped out in neighborhoods like Bedford Stuyvesant, Bushwick,
Washington Heights, the South Bronx, and others. The result today, says Donovan, is that "without any assistance
from either the Partnership or city government, those same builders are now doing market-rate development in
those same neighborhoods." HPD also runs some smaller homeownership programs, such as HomeWorks,
under which small, vacant city-owned buildings are rehabilitated by builders to create one- to four-family homes for sale at market to individual homebuyers.
RISING FROM THE ASHES
From its first days Nehemiah was obsessed with costs, fighting
with city officials about expensive regulationssuch as
individual sewer hook-upsand eliminating all so-called frills
from the houses, which ended up looking stark indeed. In the third phase
of housing construction, Nehemiah is still obsessed with costs but is now
willing to build larger, less austere houses. The new development
in the Spring Creek section of Brooklyn's East New York has been designed by Alexander Gorlin,
a prominent Manhattan-based architect who is also designing Daniel Libeskind's apartment.
Gecan argues that the major problem for moderate-income housenholds is not the down payment
on conventionally built houses so much as the ongoing
payments. New York City's
construction costs are a third higher than any place else in the
country, and moderate-income households cannot afford the
resulting exorbitant sales prices.
"The best foreclosure insurance you can find," says Gecan, "is
keeping down the cost of construction so that buyers can pay 20
or 30% of their income and not 40 or 50%. Our buyers average
payments of around $600 a month, which they can afford while making
$32,000 a year as, say, city workers or low- to mid-level bank
employees."
But, of course, the costs of construction will stay high so long
as development remains subject to New York's highly political, prescriptive regulatory processes.
New York already had the highest
construction costs in the country before the City Council passed
its
lead abatement legislation last winter,
stalling the construction of many moderate-income housing projects
indefinitely. Now the Council is considering a bill to impose
mandatory "green" environmental restrictions on all new
government-financed projects.
Gecan also argues that the Bush administration is going after the wrong problem.
The real problem, he says, is scarcity of land, large amounts of which are being held
off the market by the federal government itself. The feds should be identifying sites
where affordable housing can be built, he argues, such as unused military bases.
New Yorkers may think immediately of Brooklyn’s largely underused Navy Yard.
Nehemiah and the Partnership built homes for some 20,000 lucky households. But the homeowners are
not the only who benefited.
A study by New York University concluded that property values in the
rings surrounding the homeownership projects rose relative to their community districts over the last
two decades. Author
Michael Schill concluded, "What New York really did differently was use
housing policy to rebuild neighborhoods." Banks now routinely give mortgages in neighborhoods once
dominated by tax foreclosures.
WHATS NEXT In December 2003, President Bush signed the American Dream Down
Payment Act to subsidize households that can afford monthly
mortgage payments but not the
down payment or closing costs.
The legislation authorizes $200 million a year in down payment
assistance to some 40,000 low-income families. New York City
has received $2.5 million, which the Bloomberg administration is
using for down payments and closing costs of up to $10,000 per
household for families of four making up to $50,000 annually. HPD Commissioner Donovan
believes the downpayment assistance will help close the homeownership gap for minority New Yorkers. The Bloomberg administration has also introduced a $12 million pilot program
to help formerly homeless families buy homes.
In Washington, Congress is considering the
Zero Down Payment Act
of 2004, introduced by Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH).
The bill
would require the Federal Housing Administration to offer
federally insured mortgage loans to eligible moderate-income
households to buy a house with no down paymentas opposed to
the current requirement of at least 3% for most borrowers. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new program would
cost the government $618 million from 2006 through 2009.
Copyright
Manhattan Institute
Julia Vitullo-Martin, September 2004
"As we work for a more secure world, we've got to work for a
better world, too," said President Bush, speaking before the St.
Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church in Atlanta in 2002.
"Part of being a secure America is to encourage homeownership."
Denouncing what he called "the homeownership gap," he urged
multiplying the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5
million to 18.5 million by the end of the decade. While a record
high 68% of American households own their own homesup from 40%
in 1940the minority ownership rate languishes at roughly 27
percentage points lower. The current homeownership rate for
African Americans is 47% and a
slightly higher 48% for Hispanic
Americans.
Nehemiah and the New York City Housing Partnership were founded
in the early 1980s, when city government owned large swathes of
vacant land in the outer boroughs. Some land had been left over
from misguided urban renewal projects, but most had been acquired
by the city in the financially troubled mid-1970s, when thousands
of private owners defaulted on their taxes. Mayor Ed Koch was
eager to see the land put to productive use, and Nehemiah and the
NYCHP thought they knew how to do it: build houses for
moderate-income, working families. They would get the land,
regarded as worthless by many, virtually for free, and they would
pare construction costs to the bone. They used different methodsNehemiah
built projects of 500-1,000 modest, identical-looking units on large tracts of
formerly city-owned land. The Partnership built projects of fewer than 100 units,
usually two- and three-family homes, scattered on different sites. By the end of the 1990s
NYCHP had built 13,521 new homes in 174 projects, and Nehemiah
had built 3200. (Nehemiah recently completed another 700 units.)
Both used various government subsidies in addition to the cheap
land. Both sold primarily to minority households. And both ran
very tight ships.
(http://www.manhattan-institute.org)