Ad valorem housing subsidies may reduce house building

In this paper it is shown that an ad valorem housing subsidy set by a central regulator (or a raise in the ad valorem housing subsidy rate) may reduce the number of houses built in the market and increase the price paid by the buyers of houses. The analysis considers a situation where there is imperfect competition in the housing market and a local regulator that decides on density, or on the number of sites for housing development, and that cares about a combination of the profits of housing developers and the surplus of buyers of houses.

Access to housing and direct housing subsidies: some Latin American experiences

Includes bibliography

Public housing operating subsidies : hearing before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development of the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, first session, October 29, 1981.

Item 1013-A, 1013-B (microfiche)

Federal subsidies for public housing : issues and options.

Item 1005-C

Policy Coordination in an Oligopolistic Housing Market

This paper analyzes the consequences of the interaction between two different levels of government (regulators) in the development of housing policy when their decisions determine the level of competition in the housing market. The analysis discusses the implications derived from a lack of coordination between a local regulator who controls the supply of land for housing development and a central regulator who decides on housing subsidies. The results suggest that lack of coordination has significant effects on prices and supply of houses, housing developers’ profits, and buyers’ surplus.

Systematic Review of Supported Housing Literature 1993 – 2008

Supported housing for individuals with severe mental illness strives to provide the services necessary to place and keep individuals in independent housing that is integrated into the community and in which the consumer has choice and control over his or her services and supports. Supported housing can be contrasted to an earlier model called the “linear residential approach” in which individuals are moved from the most restrictive settings (e.g., inpatient settings) through a series of more independent settings (e.g., group homes, supervised apartments) and then finally to independent housing. This approach has been criticized as punishing the client due to frequent moves, and as being less likely to result in independent housing. In the supported housing model (Anthony & Blanch, 1988) consumers have choice and control over their living environment, their treatment, and supports (e.g., case management, mental health and substance abuse services). Supports are flexible and faded in and out depending on needs. Results of this systematic review of supported housing suggest that there are several well-controlled studies of supported housing and several studies conducted with less rigorous designs. Overall, our synthesis suggests that supported housing can improve the living situation of individuals who are psychiatrically disabled, homeless and with substance abuse problems. Results show that supported housing can help people stay in apartments or homes up to about 80% of the time over an extended period. These results are contrary to concerns expressed by proponents of the linear residential model and housing models that espoused more restrictive environments. Results also show that housing subsidies or vouchers are helpful in getting and keeping individuals housed. Housing services appear to be cost effective and to reduce the costs of other social and clinical services. In order to be most effective, intensive case management services (rather than traditional case management) are needed and will generally lead to better housing outcomes. Having access to affordable housing and having a service system that is well-integrated is also important. Providing a person with supported housing reduces the likelihood that they will be re-hospitalized, although supported housing does not always lead to reduced psychiatric symptoms. Supported housing can improve clients’ quality of life and satisfaction with their living situation. Providing supported housing options that are of decent quality is important in order to keep people housed and satisfied with their housing. In addition, rapid entry into housing, with the provision of choices is critical. Program and clinical supports may be able to mitigate the social isolation that has sometimes been associated with supported housing.

A summary report of current findings from the Experimental Housing Allowance Program /

"HUD-PDR-303."

Current housing problems and possible federal responses.

Mode of access: Internet.

Rural housing programs : long-term costs and their treatment in the federal budget.

Mode of access: Internet.

Transmittal of Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 Public Housing/Section 8 income limits ; Estimated median family incomes for fiscal year 1996.

"Previous editions are obsolete."

HUD mortgage interest subsidies tax yield (HUD-MISTY).

Cover title: HUD mortgage interest subsidies.

Costs of HUD multifamily housing programs : a comparison of the development, financing and life cycle costs of Secton 8, Public Housing, and otheer major HUD programs /

"HUD-PDR-708"--P. [4] of cover.

Building a home buyers' educational program /

"Based upon work supported by the Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under special project number 92-EXCA-2-0219"--T.p. verso.

Chile: subsidies, credit and housing deficit

Includes bibliography.

Sustainable and affordable housing : a myth or reality

The Australian government has released a draft National Building Framework that will likely tighten the building standard for new houses to meet higher sustainability requirements. There are uncertainties about the impact this could have on the cost of housing and the supply of affordable housing. This paper aims to provide evidence-based conclusions on the possibility of delivering sustainable and affordable housing for low income people. The case studies are gathered from Brisbane and Gold Coast. Case studies are analysed by unpacking the features that were included to meet sustainability and affordability goals for housing. This paper outlines the key factors for their success and also challenges for replication of the projects. The study shows that the key success drivers for delivering sustainable and affordable housing are providing planning incentives, subsidies for increased energy efficiency, supportive regulatory frameworks and appropriate allocation of infrastructure charges. It shows that government can prioritise their resources to support affordable and sustainable housing for low income people.