United States Department of Housing and Urban Development



Candeub Memorial Lecture:

Learning from Mount Laurel

Douglas S. Massey

Sociology and Woodrow Wilson School

Princeton University

Climbing Mount Laurel:

The Struggle for Affordable Housing and Social Mobility in an American Suburb

Douglas S. Massey, Len Albright, Rebecca Casciano, Elizabeth Derickson & David N. Kinsey

Cloth | July 2013 | $35.00 / £24.95 | ISBN: 9780691157290

[pic]

Holy Trinity of Neighbor Concerns:

Property Values, Crime, and Taxes

“I would like to stay in Mt. Laurel and continue to

live at my present address without the fear that

my property values are going to deteriorate”

“My concern is the impact this will have on the

community as a whole. Have we talked with

anyone from the police department?”

“I don't feel we should pay taxes that they will not

pay, nor do we have to pay their sewer and water

and all the streets. I think that's a big consi-

deration the township has to take into account.”

Quasi-Experimental Design:

Effect of Project on Community

Multiple Control Group Time Series Experiment

00000000000000000 X 00000000000000000

00000000000000000 00000000000000000

00000000000000000 00000000000000000

Figure 5.1. Trends in Crime rates in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, and

three com pa rsion townships(Source: NJ Division of State Police).

| |New Jersey Mount Laurel - Evesharn | |Cherry Hill — Cinnaminson |

| | | | |

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1554 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Figure 5.3. Trends in property values in Mount Laurel and

neighborhoods adjacent to the Ethel Lawrence Homes. (Source:

Asbury Park Press Property Records 1994-2010)

—Mount Laurel To',,driship — Hillside Lane Holliday Village

$600,000

5500,000

Year

Figure 5.4. Effective tax rates for Mount Laurel and three comparison townships (Source: NJ Division of Taxation)

|3.3 3.1 |— — —Cinnamirr.,on | | |

|2.9 2.7 | | | |

|2.5 2.3 | | | |

|2.1 1.9 | | | |

|1.7 1.5 | | | |

| |MouriL Laurel Eve. ha Cherry Hill | | |

| |14. |EEE. | | |

| |.1. |11.1. .1. | | |

| |PIM. REla |P. | | |

| |AIN |EPP | | |

| |PPM |m/E | | |

| |4efiff ...................... | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | |F |

| | | | | |

| |Opening of |fla |>9.04 |11 |

| | | |• |ce |

| | | |"er• 4‘.. S. | |

| | | |N... 4. | |

| |Ethe Lawrence | | | |

| |Homes | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 200 2 2003. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Moving to Opportunity (MTO) in Chicago

[pic]

Figure 11.2. Residential flows of MTO families from origin to destination neighborhoods,

1995–2002, by density of social support networks in Chicago community areas (2002).

Social support is classified in equal thirds. Loop arrows reflecting “churning” within the

same neighborhood and ties between tracts are proportional to volume of movement.

The Spatial Imperative

Figure 3.5 Disadvantage Distributions for White and African American Neighborhoods

[pic]

0_64 0.91 1.18 1.45

Very Low Disadvantage Average Disadvantage Very High Disadvantage

Black Median Black Median

|Black (75%+) |

0 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 100

(Per capital income, in thousands of dollars)

Disparate Income Distributions in White and Black Neighborhoods

Exposure to Neighborhood Disadvantage by Race and Class

Lower Lower Upper Upper Lower Lower Upper Upper Lower Lower Upper Upper

Middle Middle Middle Middle Middle Middle

Quasi-Experimental Design

Effect of Project on Residents

Matched Control Group Comparison

R O X O

R O O

Figure 7.1. Exposure to violence and disorder in neighborhoods of ELH

residents and non-residents in 1999 and 2009.

|63.5 |Non-Residents |

|52.5 |48.1 |

| | |

|Residents | |

| | |

| |9.2 |

| | |

1999 2009

Figure 7.2. Effect of ELH residence on exposure to disorder and violence

within neighborhoods

| |Figure 7.4. Effect of ELEI residence on exposure to negative life events | | | | |

|0 1 | | | | | | |

| |Total Sample- Total Sample- Matched Sample- | | | | |

| |No Controls With Controls With Controls | | | | |

|0 | | | | | |

|0.1 | | | | | |

|0.2 | | | | | |

|0.3 | | | | | |

|0.4 | | | | | |

|0.5 -0.6 | | | | | |

|-0.7 | | | | | |

|0.8 | | | | | |

|0.9 | | | | | |

|-1 | | | | | |

| |[pic] | |

| | | | | | | |

Figure 8.4. Effect of years lived in ELH on mental distress

[pic]

0.6

0 1 2 4

7 8 9 10

Years in Ethel Lawrence Homes

Figure 8.5. Effect of ELH residence on economic independence

Tota[ Samp'e-No Controls Total Sample-With Controls Matched Sample-With Controls

Comparison Condition

ELH Residence

0.120*

|Frequency of Negative Life Events |[pic] |Economic |

| | |independence |

Figure 9.1 Path model showing effect of ELH residence on mental distress and economic independence among adults estimated from matched samples

Figure 8.8. Effect of ELH residence on the likelihood that child has a quiet place to study

|3.000 | | | |

|2.500 | | | |

| | | |2.522 * |

| | | | |

| |2.206 |t | |

|2.000 | | | |

| | | | |

|1.500 | | | | |

| | | | | |

| |1.199 | | |4 |

|1.000 | | | | |

| | | | | |

|0.500 | | | | |

| | | | | |

|0.000 | | | |

Total Sample-No Controls Total Sample-With Controls Matched Sample-With Controls

Comparison Condition

Figure 8.11. Effect of years of ELH residence on parental support for

academics

0 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10

Years in Ethel Lawrence Homes

Figure 8.12 Effect of ELH residence on hours studied per week

|6.359** |6.298** |

6,000

5.000

4.519*

4.000 3.000 2,000 1.000 -

0.000

Total Sample-No Controls

Total Sample-With Controls Comparison Condition

Figure 8.13. Effect of years in ELH on hours studied per week

Years in Ethel Lawrence Homes

Figure 8.14. Effect of ELI-I residence on school quality

[pic]

Total Sample-No Controls Total Sample-With Controls Matched Sample-With Controls

Comparison Condition

|Hours Studied |Supportive Parental Behavior |

Grade Point Average

-0.327+

Figure 9.2. Path model showing effect of ELH residence on academic outcomes among children estimated from matched sample

Figure 3.3. Funding of the development of the Ethel Lawrence Homes

tate of New Jersey

%

Federal Low I nicornE Housing Tax Credits

49%

Conclusions

1. Possible to build affordable housing in affluent suburb without negative

effects on host community

-no effect on taxes, property values, or crime rates

2. For adults, access to affordable housing in an affluent suburb improves life:

-reduces exposure to disorder & violence

-lowers frequency of negative life events

-improves mental health

-increases economic independence

-does not reduce social support

3. For children, access to affordable housing in an affluent suburb improves

education:

-improves learning conditions at home

-increases hours of study

-improves school quality

-reduces exposure to disorder and violence within schools

-does not reduce grade achievement

4. Affordable housing developed under LIHTC is a cost-effective way to

promote racial and class integration and promote social mobility of the

disadvantaged

-----------------------

[pic]

Cinnaminson

Township

Camden 7'}'

City

Cherry Hill Township

Mount Laurel Tovmst_iip_

Evesham ) Township

Ethel Lawrence Homes

Median Household Income

$23,421 - $43,728

$43,729 - $50,106

$50,107 - $60,286

$60,287 - $86,872

1

NJ

[pic]

Crime Rate

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

0

' 6,

Homes

M a. f ~ *

•

• •

Opening of Ethel Lawrence

•

•

.41%.

4

• • • " ...D. " e" " * " '

• ª% " ...

" " " " " "

" " " " "

" " " " " "

do*

44

"

Year

[pic]

• ...D. • e• • * " '

▪ •...

••••••

•••••

••••••

do*

44

•

Year

[pic]

Figure 5.2. Trends in property values in Mount Laurel and three

comparison townships 1994-2010. (Source: NJ Department of Taxation)

|Mount |Laurel Township | |Evesham Township |

|$350,000 $325,000 | | | |

|$300.000 $275,000 | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | |Opening of | |

| | |Ethel Lawrence ----> | |

| | |Homes | |

| | | | | | |

|$250,000 | | | | |

| | | | | |

|5225,000 | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|$200,000 | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|$175,000 | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |„ow. 1111 | |

|$150,000 | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |de, |Elm |•••• |, ....... | |

|$125,000 | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|5100,000 | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

Average Home Price

— Cherry Hill Township — —Cinnaminson Township

e-N

f.

-.•

199L 1996 1998 2000 2002 2001 2006 2408 2410

Year

Opening of

Ethel Lawrence Homes

[pic]

ia)

$400,000

w

mo $300,000 w

OJ

$200,000

5100,000

•

ME.

2008 2010

$ 0

1994

1996

1998

2002

2004

2006

2000

Effective Tax Rates

[pic]

The Neighborhood Effects Debate

[pic]

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0% l_dimr LIMP. L

-1_25 -0_98 -0_11 -0.44 -0.17 0_10 I 37

[pic]

q White Nghds.

n Af. Am. Nghds.

[pic]

Number of Chicago Areas in 2000

70

40

10

25

5

15

[pic]

White (75%+)

[pic]

1.81

1.59

1.60

0.46

0.59

0.52

Blacks

Whites Hispanics

0.98

0.82

0.75

4.73

0.58

70

60

'15

-2 50 0

f.e)

1:3

C 40 ru

ia)

L.)

c7.)

IT) 30

0 X

20

10

0

[pic]

Total Sample-With Controls

Matched Sample-With Controls

Total Sample-No Controls

-39.88

-42.15 **

[pic]

Figure 8.2. Effect of ELH residence on index of mental distress

0.050

Total Sample-No Controls

Matched Sample-With Controls

Total Sample-With Controls

0.000

- 0.050

- 0.100

Size of Effect

- 0.150

- 0.200

-0.213 +

-0.221 •.

- 0.250

Value on Index of Mental Distress

1.1 1.05 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65

Matched Comparison B = -0.018

'ma

,Mmy_

••••

+N.

[pic]

••••

MM.

'MN

Unmatched Comparison B = -0.025+

[pic]

Increase in Index of Economic Independence

0.35

0.25

0.15

0.05

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

[pic]

1 2

6

4 IT

Figure 8.7 . Effect of years lived in ELH on economic independence

Unmatched Comparison B = 0.040*

• Matched Comparison B = 0.039*

Years in Ethel Lawrence Homes

|w |0. 3.5 3|

|-s |2.5 |

|w |Ls |

|O | |

w

0

-0.5

-0.419**

|Exposure to Neighborhood |0,172** | |

|Disorder and | | |

| |[pic] |Mental Distress |

0.296** 0.377*

Size of Logisitic Regression Coefficient

[pic]

Total Sample-No Controls

Total Sample-\.:Vith Controls

Comparison Condition

Matched Sample-With Controls

Figure 8.10. Effect of all residence on index of parental support

0.7

0.595*

0.565 +

0.6

0.5

Value on Index of Parental Support

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

3

2.5

4-1

0

1:1

(1) 2

C

1.5

0

CL3

• 1 O

w 7

0.5

0

| |Matched Comparison |... |

| |B = 0.079** | |

| | |Unmatched Comparison | |

| | |B = 0.084* | |

7.000

Matched Sample-With Controls

Hours Studied per Week

[pic]

Matched Comparison B = 0.874**

16

14

Unmatched Comparrison

B = 0.807**

5 7 9 10

0

2

4

2

1.200

1.000

+70.800

0

0

=0.600

(,)

+LS

-o

c0.400

0.200

0.000

[pic]

ELH Residence

0.432**

Quiet Place to Study

School 0.232+

0.444**

0.344**

|[pic] |Quality |[pic] |

| |School Disorder and Violence| |

Other 1%

Federal Home Loan

Bank of New York 3%

Private secto r developers 8%

Fair Share Housing

)evelo p merit, I nc, and affiliates 5%

[pic]

TH5 S•TRILIC,TaE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

AND SOCIAL MOBILITY IN AN ANIER.ICAN SUBURB

DOUG LAS 5. MASSE Y. tE 19 ALBRIC HT, REBECCA CASC 11441 &MIAS ETH DE A IC KSON, AND DAVID. N. KI P.IBEY

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download