Can Risk Management boost the supply of Affordable Housing Development and Management?

A shortage of affordable housing is a major problem in Australia today. This is mainly due to the limited supply of affordable housing that is provided by the non-government housing sector. Some private housing developers see the provision of affordable housing for lower income people as a high risk investment which offers a lower return than broader market-based housing. The scarcity of suitable land, a limited government ‘subsidy’, and increasing housing costs have not provided sufficient development incentives to encourage their investment despite the existing high demand for affordable housing. This study analyses the risk management process conducted by some private and not-for-profit housing providers in South East Queensland, and draws conclusions about the relationship between risk assessments/responses and past experiences. In-depth interviews of selected non-government housing providers have been conducted to facilitate an understanding of their approach to risk assessment/response in developing and in managing affordable housing projects. These developers use an informal risk management process as part of their normal business process in accordance with industry standards. A simple qualitative matrix has been used to analyse probability and impacts using a qualitative scale - low, medium and high. For housing providers who have considered investing in affordable housing but have not yet implemented any such projects, affordable housing development is seen as an opportunity that needs to be approached with caution. The risks associated with such projects and the levels of acceptance of these are not consistently identified by current housing providers. Many interviewees agree that the recognition of financial risk and the fear of community rejection of such housing projects have restrained them from committing to such investment projects. This study suggests that implementing improvements to the risk mitigation and management framework may assist in promoting the supply of affordable housing by non-government providers.

Can risk management boost the supply of affordable housing development and management?

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyse the risk management process conducted by some private and not-for-profit affordable housing providers in South East Queensland, and draw conclusions about the relationship between risk assessments/responses and past experiences.----- Design/methodology/approach: In-depth interviews of selected non-government housing providers have been conducted to facilitate an understanding of their approach to risk assessment in developing and in managing affordable housing projects. Qualitative data are analysed using thematic analysis to find emerging themes suggested by interview participants.----- Findings: The paper finds that informal risk management process is used as part of normal business process in accordance with industry standards. Many interviewees agree that the recognition of financial risk and the fear of community rejection of such housing projects have restrained them from committing to such investment projects. The levels of acceptance of risk are not always consistent across housing providers which create opportunities to conduct multi-stakeholder partnership to reduce overall risk.----- Research limitations/implications: The paper has implications for developers or investors who seek to include affordable housing as part of their portfolio. However, data collected in the study are a cross-section of interviews that will not include the impact on recent tax incentives offers by the Australian Commonwealth Government.----- Practical implications: The study suggests that implementing improvements to the risk mitigation and management framework may assist in promoting the supply of affordable housing by non-government providers.----- Originality/value: The focus of the study is the interaction between partnerships and risk management in development and management of affordable rental housing.

Public Land for Affordable Housing: An Evaluation of a HALA Proposal in Seattle

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Submission to the Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into affordable housing 20 August 2014: De-risking development of medium density housing to improve housing affordability and boost supply

This submission addresses the problem of housing price inflation, the chronic under-supply of new housing stock, and the resultant decline in housing affordability for low and middle income households. It specifically focusses on the supply of medium density housing (multi-unit development) in Melbourne, although we believe that the observations made about housing in supply in Melbourne are relevant in other urban centres and to other types of housing supply. In terms of medium density housing (MDH) our concern also extends to the poor quality and design. Why the market tends to deliver generic apartments of poor quality and design which are uncompetitive with lower density housing and amenity despite planning objectives, and how this apparently intractable problem can be overcome is the topic of this submission...

Making affordable housing a reality : hearing before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development of the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, second session, June 28, 1984.

Item 1013-A, 1013-B (microfiche)

Building a successful partnership to increase affordable rental housing supply in Queensland

Accessibility to housing for low to moderate income groups in Australia has been experiencing a severe decline since 2001. On the supply side, the public sector has been reducing its commitment to the direct provision of public housing. Despite high demand for affordable housing, there has been limited supply generated by non-government housing providers. One possible solution to promote an increase in affordable housing supply, like other infrastructure, is through the development of multi-stakeholder partnerships and private financing. This research aims to identify current issues underlying decision-making criteria for building multi-stakeholder partnerships to deliver affordable housing projects. It also investigates strategies for minimising risk and ensuring the financial outcomes of these partnership arrangements. A mix of qualitative in-depth interviews and quantitative surveys has been used as the main method to explore stakeholder experiences regarding their involvement in partnership arrangements in the affordable housing sector in Queensland. Two sets of interviews were conducted following an exploratory pilot study: one set in 2003-2004 and the other in 2007-2008. There were nineteen respondents representing government, private and not-for-profit organisations in the first stage interviews and surveys. The second stage interviews were focussed on twenty-two housing providers in South East Queensland. Initial analyses have been conducted using thematic and statistical analyses. This study extends the use of existing decision making tools and combines the use of a Soft System Framework to analyse the ideal state questionnaires using qualitative thematic analysis. Soft System Methodology (SSM) has been used to analyse this unstructured complex problem by using systematic thinking to develop a conceptual model and carrying it to the real world situations to solve the problem. This research found that the diversity of stakeholder capability and their level of risk acceptance will allow partnerships to develop the best synergies and a degree of collaboration which achieves the required financial return within acceptable risk parameters. However, some of the negativity attached to future commitment to such partnerships has been found to be the anticipation of a worse outcome than that expected from independent action. Many interviewees agree that housing providers' fear of financial risk and community rejection has been central to dampening their enthusiasm for entering such investment projects. The creation of a mixed-use development structure will mitigate both risk and return as the commercial income will subsidise the affordable housing development and will normalise concentration of marginalised low-income people who live in a prime location with an award winning design. In addition, tenant support schemes and rent-to-buy incentive programs will encourage them to secure their tenancies and significantly reduce the risk of rent arrears and property damage. There is also a breakthrough investment vehicle offered by the social developer which sells the non-physical but financial product to individual and institutional investors to mitigate further financial risk. Finally, this study recommends modification of the current value-for-money framework in favour of broader partnership arrangements which are more closely aligned with risk minimisation strategies.

Affordable housing solutions : affordable housing providers’ perspective

Accessibility to housing for low to moderate income groups in Australia has experienced a severe decline since 2002. On the supply side, the public sector has been reducing its commitment to the direct provision of public housing. Despite strong demand for affordable housing, limited supply has been generated by non-government housing providers. This paper identifies and discusses some current affordable housing solutions which have been developed by non-government housing providers to ameliorate the problem. This study utilises case studies generated from nineteen housing providers during in-depth interviews in South East Queensland in 2007-2008. The case studies are classified into four categories which relate to the nature of their product: affordable rental housing, mixed housing, affordable housing for people with special needs and low cost home ownership. Each category is discussed on the basis of the characteristics typical of that organisation of housing provider, their partnership arrangements and main target market. In addition, the special design and facilities required for people with special needs which include high care accommodation and aged care are highlighted. Finally, this study recommends offering a continuum of solutions to affordable housing for low income people by means of a rent-to-buy scheme.

Affordable housing solutions : affordable housing providers’ perspective

Accessibility to housing for low to moderate income groups in Australia has been experiencing a severe decline since 2002. On the supply side, the public sector has been reducing its commitment to the direct provision of public housing. Despite strong demand for affordable housing, limited supply has been generated by nongovernment housing providers. This paper identifies and discusses some current affordable housing solutions to ameliorate the problem which have been developed by non-government housing providers. This study utilises case studies generated from nineteen housing providers during indepth interviews in South East Queensland in 2007-2008. The case studies are classified into four categories which relate to the nature of their product: affordable rental housing, mixed housing, affordable housing for people with special needs and low cost home ownership. Each category is discussed on the basis of the characteristics typical of that organisation of housing provider, their partnership arrangements and main target market. In addition, the special design and facilities required for people with special needs which include high care accommodation and aged care are highlighted. Finally, this study recommends offering a continuum of solutions to affordable housing for low income people by means of a rent-to-buy scheme.

Submission to Senate Economics References Committee, An Inquiry in to Affordable Housing

Developer paid fees or infrastructure charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to pay for new infrastructure. However, property developers claim that these costs are merely passed on to home buyers, with adverse effects to housing affordability. Despite numerous government reports and many years of industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify this passing on effect to home buyers and the consequent effect on housing affordability. Hence there remains no data from which governments can base policy decision on, and the debate continues. This research examines the question of the impact of infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Australia. It employs hedonic regression methods to estimate the impact of infrastructure charges on house prices and vacant lot prices in Brisbane, Australia during 2005-2011, using a data set of 29,752 house sales, comprising 4,699 new house sales and 25,053 existing house sales and 13,739 lot sales. The regression results for the effect of infrastructure charges on house prices in Brisbane indicated that for every $1.00 of infrastructure charge levied on developers, all house prices increase by $3.69 or a 369% overpassing of these government levies onto home buyers. Thus, this one government levy could be responsible for $877 per month on home owner mortgage repayments in Brisbane, Queensland. This research is consistent with international findings, that support the proposition that developer paid infrastructure charges are passed on to home buyers and are a significant contributor to increasing house prices and reduced housing affordability. Understanding who really pays for urban infrastructure is critical to both the housing affordability and infrastructure funding debates in Australia and this research provides the first empirical data for policy makers to assess their policy objectives and outcomes against.

Identifying the financial barriers to deliberative, affordable apartment development in Australia

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the financial barriers to the supply of affordable apartments in Australia and examine whether demand aggregation and ‘deliberative development’ (self-build) can form a new affordable housing ‘structure of provision’. Design/methodology/approach Market design, an offshoot of game theory, is used to analyse the existing apartment development model, with ‘deliberative development’ proposed as an innovative alternative. Semi-structured interviews with residential development financiers are used to evaluate whether deliberative development could obtain the requisite development finance. Findings Our investigation into the financial barriers of a deliberative development model suggest that while there are hurdles, these can be addressed if key risks in the exchange process can be mitigated. Hence, affordability can be enhanced by ‘deliberative development’ replacing the existing speculative development model. Research implications Market design is a new innovative theoretical approach to understanding the supply of housing, offering practical solutions to affordable apartment supply in Australia. Originality/value This research identifies financial barriers to the supply of affordable apartments; introduces theoretical understandings gained from market design as an innovative solution; provides evidence that a new structure of building provision based on ‘deliberative development’ could become a key means of achieving more affordable and better designed apartments.

Affordable Housing in Kennebec County

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development defines affordable housing as a household paying no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. That is, families who pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, healthcare, and transportation. This project focused on Kennebec County, Maine. Between 1990 and 2000, market demand for housing increased at a faster rate than did the supply of housing. Despite the addition of 6,719 homes, the average home price increased faster than average household income. This raises the question of just how many households in Kennebec County are facing unaffordable housing. Using shapefiles and data provided by the US Census Bureau, a map was created with ArcGIS to illustrate the percentage of households, down to the Census Block level of detail, that are paying more than 30 percent of their income to housing. By looking at this information I was able to get a better picture of the housing situation and where in the county households are having the hardest time meeting their needs. The results indicate that households in the more urbanized sections of the county are more likely than rurally located households to be facing unaffordable housing. Namely, Waterville and Augusta held the highest percentage of households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing.

Affordable Housing Policies: An Overview

As urban housing markets throughout the United States increasingly exhibit challenges of affordability, federal, state, and local governments have placed renewed emphasis on housing, specifically mixed-income housing, which integrates affordable housing incentives into multifamily development projects. With such incentives, one must wonder what comprises a successful affordable housing policy and how affordable housing can be successfully implemented into a community. This article attempts to answer these questions by detailing the history of affordable housing policies, exploring some of the current affordable housing policies and programs, comparing affordable housing programs from different regions, and discussing some successful affordable housing programs and lessons that can be learned from them.