美国的住房状况与住房政策

通过整理2009和2011年美国住房调查数据,本文分析了美国的住房状况和住房政策,指出美国住房发展的核心问题不是总量缺乏,而是社会支付能力不足。本文在全面分析美国各项住房政策的基础上,描述了美国联邦和地方政府运用税收减免、公共住房建设、租房券资助、财政补贴和包容性区划等多种手段,体现出政策设计的组合与互补。最后,本文提出为了有针对性地制定住房政策,我国应当开展详尽的大规模住房状况调查,并根据实际情况组合运用各项住房发展政策。     

完善保障性租赁住房政策的必要性研究

将改革开放至今的我国住房政策划分为三个发展阶段,并通过政策分析指出造成现阶段我国"福利性"、"保障性"、"政策性"租赁住房供应不足,国民购房需求过剩的政策性原因。其次介绍和比较美国、日本以及我国在政策性住房供应方面所表现出的不同决策过程和决策手段,指出我国现有政策性住房供应方式选择的不足和问题点。最后立足于我国特有的住房问题,提出完善保障性租赁住房供应政策的具体建议和方法。     

“夹心层”住房需求特征实证分析——以广州为例

以广州为例,采取实证研究和网络调查等方式,广泛收集"夹心层"群体住房现状与需求的量化信息,并采用SPSS软件对数据进行深度挖掘;同时,通过实地调查、深度访谈等定性研究方式,分析"夹心层"群体对保障性住房的深层次需求特征及其原因。据此提出解决"夹心层"住房困难的相关政策建议,以及保障性产品建设与运营管理中应注意的若干问题。     

保障性住房建设与融资渠道

新加坡在保障性住房建设与管理方面取得了举世瞩目的成就,主要得益于＂居者有其屋＂的住房保障政策。＂居者有其屋＂政策由新加坡建屋发展局结合中央住房公积金政策以及严谨的保障性住房分配和管理制度,从根本上解决了新加坡人住房保障问题。据新加坡建屋发展局统计,超过80%的新加坡人居住在政府组屋中,保障性住房政策真正成为＂普惠性的政策＂。在新加坡的成功经验中,保障性住房的土地获取和资金筹集两个方面很有特点。     

新加坡保障性住房政策研究及借鉴

"十二五"是我国保障性住房建设的"加速跑"时期,国家与各省政府签订了保障房建设的协议,各城市政府也提出了保障性住房的建设目标与落实方案。为了更好地推进我国保障房建设,本文介绍了新加坡保障性住房政策,讨论了新加坡保障性住房体系的政策内容和特色,并以乌兰新镇的开发管理为例总结新加坡社区建设和管理经验,对我国保障性住房建设提出了参考建议。     

规划政策与可支付住房建设——来自美国和英国的经验

规划是近年来不少国家政府推动可支付住房供应的有效手段。政府通过规划鼓励或强制性要求开发商在住宅开发项目中配建一定比例廉价住房,在增加可支付住房供给的同时减少政府财政补贴,促进居住融合。我国一些城市也开始尝试引入配建模式推动廉租房或经济适用住房建设。鉴于国外利用规划手段推动可支付住房建设的丰富经验,本文将以美国的包容性区划和英国第106条款下的协议配建为例,对其指导原则、要素、成效及存在问题进行介绍和评述,以期为中国相关规划政策的制定提供参考和建议。     

比较住房政策与供需模式——我国保障性住房公共政策思考

目前我国保障性住房问题的根源在于保障性住房公共政策目标及其定位下的公共住房政策模式。研究从比较住房政策及供需模式角度出发,通过对其他国家公共住房模式实践经验的梳理与剖析,结合我国保障性住房现况,反思我国保障性住房目标政策模式,并借鉴国外的成功经验,提出完善我国保障性住房公共政策模式的相关建议,希望能引起更多学者对保障性住房建设的关注与研究。     

浅探县区保障性住房建设中存在的问题

住房问题是解决民生问题的首要,建设保障性住房在解决低收入群体住房问题、控制我国房价的上涨发挥着重要的作用。但是,保障性住房建设中还存在着一些问题,这些问题阻碍了保障性住房政策的实施。县区政府是作为保障性住房的具体实施单位,保障性住房制度的健全,中央保障性住房政策的贯彻落实情况等直接影响国家保障性住房政策的执行效果。本文就对县区保障性住房建设中存在的问题进行了浅谈,并就这些问题提出了解决措施。     

我国城市住房保障体系建设与创新发展研究

在梳理总结国外住房保障体系演变及启示的基础上,厘定我国城市住房保障体系建设的演进逻辑,基于住房保障需求、保障性住房供给及住房保障政策维度反思当前住房保障体系的主要问题,进而提出构建动态可支付的住房保障发展框架,为实现全体国民"住有所居"与良性发展奠定基础。     

空间权制度在城市住房设施供应中的应用——以美国和日本为例

为应对城市发展中的住房设施供应需求，无论是满足低收入家庭的保障性住房，或是通过增加城市核心区住房供给以缓解城市人口空洞化现象，美国和日本均应用空间权相关技术，提出包容性区划、高层住宅诱导地区区划、用途容积型地区计划等创新性的区划形式，利用市场机制，有效增加城市所需住房类型和数量的供给，缓解社会中的居住阶层隔离、人口流失状况。通过背景解析，分析比较3种空间权制度的运作机制和实践情况，指出存在的问题；在此基础上，结合我国实际，思考空间权制度对我国保障性住房的积极作用，期待未来能探索出适合我国国情的实施路径。     

CAN INCLUSIONARY ZONING BE AN EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT HOUSING POLICY? EVIDENCE FROM LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE COUNTIES

ABSTRACT: Inclusionary zoning—requiring and encouraging developers to build some affordable housing in market‐rate projects—is a growing but deeply contested practice. We evaluate the experience of inclusionary zoning programs in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, including their structure and elements, effectiveness in delivering affordable housing, and effect on housing markets and supply, to address the debate. We find that the programs vary but are not heavily demanding and include cost offsets. Low in‐lieu fees, however, can be the weak link. Many of the mandatory programs are effective, if effectiveness is measured by comparing the affordable housing productivity of inclusionary zoning with other affordable housing programs. We found no statistically significant evidence of inclusionary zoning's adverse effect on housing supply in cities with inclusionary mandates. We conclude that critics underestimate the affordable housing productivity of inclusionary zoning, and overestimate its adverse effects on housing supply. Nonetheless, inclusionary zoning is no panacea and needs to be part of a comprehensive housing strategy.     

Inclusionary zoning and affordable housing in Sydney

Focus in this paper is placed on the issue of inclusionary zoning and developer contributions to provide affordable housing in the City West and Green Square urban redevelopment projects. Both are ambitious inner city urban renewal projects which form key parts of the New South Wales government's urban consolidation policy and also seek to maintain a social mix through the provision of social (i.e. affordable) housing.     

Inclusionary zoning and affordable housing in Sydney

Abstract

Focus in this paper is placed on the issue of inclusionary zoning and developer contributions to provide affordable housing in the City West and Green Square urban redevelopment projects. Both are ambitious inner city urban renewal projects which form key parts of the New South Wales government's urban consolidation policy and also seek to maintain a social mix through the provision of social (i.e. affordable) housing.     

Rethinking Federal Housing Policy

Problem: Federal housing policy is made up of disparate programs that a) promote homeownership; b) assist low-income renters’ access to good-quality, affordable housing; and c) enforce the Fair Housing Act by combating residential discrimination. Some of these programs are ineffective, others have drifted from their initial purpose, and none are well coordinated with each other.

Purpose: We examine the trends, summarize the research evaluating the performance of these programs, and suggest steps to make them more effective and connected to each other.

Methods: We review the history of housing policy and programs and empirical studies of program effectiveness to identify a set of best principles and practices.

Results and conclusions: In the area of homeownership, we recommend that the federal government help the nation's housing markets quickly find bottom, privatize aspects of the secondary mortgage market, and move to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and replace it with a 10-year homeownership tax credit. In the area of subsidized rental housing, we recommend that the current system of vouchers be regionalized (or alternatively, converted into an entitlement program that works through the income tax system), sell public housing projects to nonprofit sponsors where appropriate, and eliminate some of the rigidities in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. In the area of fair housing, we recommend that communities receiving Community Development Block Grants be required to implement inclusionary zoning programs.

Takeaway for practice: In general, we recommend that federal policy build on proven programs; focus on providing affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families and provide the funding to meet that goal; avoid grandiose and ideological ambitions and programs; use fewer and more coordinated programs; offer tax credits, not tax deductions; and promote residential filtering.

Research support: Partial funding support was provided by the National Science Foundation.     

Planning for Mixed Use: Affordable for Whom?

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Mixed-use zoning is widely advocated to increase density; promote active transportation; encourage economic development; and create lively, diverse neighborhoods. We know little, however, about whether mixed-use developments affect housing affordability. We question the impact of mixed-use zoning on housing affordability in Toronto (Canada) between 1991 and 2006 in the face of waning government support for affordable housing and increasing income inequality due to the occupational restructuring accompanying a shift to a knowledge-based economy. We fi nd that housing in mixed-use zones remained less affordable than housing in the rest of the city and in the metropolitan region. High-income service occupations experienced improved affordability while lower wage service, trade, and manufacturing occupations experienced stagnant or worsening affordability. Housing in mixed-use zones is increasingly affordable only to workers already able to pay higher housing costs. Our findings are limited to Canada's largest city but have lessons for large North American cities with similar urban economies and housing markets.

Takeaway for practice: Mixed-use developments may reduce housing affordability in core areas and inadvertently reinforce the sociospatial inequality resulting from occupational polarization unless supported by appropriate affordable housing policies. Planners should consider a range of policy measures to offset the unintentional outcomes of mixed-use developments and ensure affordability within mixed-use zones: inclusionary zoning, density bonuses linked to affordable housing, affordable housing trusts, and other relevant methods.     

开发商参与保障房配建市场化模式研究

保障房配建是我国保障房建设的重要模式,而开发商配建动力不足严重制约着其顺利推行。在阐释保障房配建运作模式现状,剖析开发商配建积极性低的原因基础上,从土地供应、配建保障房的商品房类型、房屋产权、租金设定与支付、准入与退出管理5 个方面进行了基于市场化的保障房配建模式优化;运用博弈模型进行可行性论证,得出的结论是市场化运作模式可行;根据保障房配建存在的问题,提出完善相关法规及政府监督机制、合理规划配建比例等方面的政策措施,以激励开发商进行保障房配建,完善我国保障房配建制度。     

31 Flavors of Inclusionary Zoning: Comparing Policies From San Francisco,Washington, DC,and Suburban Boston

Problem: Over the past several decades, inclusionary zoning (IZ) has become an increasingly popular, but sometimes controversial, local means of producing affordable housing without direct public subsidy. The conversation about IZ has thus far largely ignored variations in the structure of IZ policies, although these variations can impact the amount of affordable housing produced and the effects of IZ on production and prices of market rate housing.

Purpose: We provide a detailed comparison of the ways in which IZ programs have been structured in the San Francisco and Washington metropolitan areas and in suburban Boston.

Methods: We create a unique dataset on IZ in these three regions by combining original data collected from several previous surveys. We use these data to compare the prevalence, structure, and affordable housing output of local IZ programs.

Results and conclusions: In the San Francisco Bay Area, IZ programs tend to be mandatory and apply broadly across locations and structure types, while including cost offsets and alternatives to onsite construction. In the Washington, DC, area, most IZ programs are also mandatory, but have broader exemptions for small developments and low-density housing. IZ programs in the Boston suburbs exhibit the most heterogeneity. They are more likely to be voluntary and to apply only to a narrow range of developments, such as multifamily housing, or within certain zoning districts. The amount of affordable housing produced under IZ varies considerably, both within and across the regions. There is some evidence that IZ programs that grant density bonuses and exempt smaller projects produce more affordable housing.

Takeaway for practice: Although variation in IZ program structures makes it hard to predict effectiveness, IZ's adaptability to local circumstances makes it a particularly attractive policy tool. IZ programs can easily be tailored to accommodate specific policy goals, housing market conditions, and residents' preferences, as well as variations in state or local regulatory and political environments.

Research support: This article is adapted from a longer working paper written with financial support from the Center for Housing Policy, the research affiliate of the National Housing Conference.     

税收政策对保障性住房供给的影响分析

在我国保障性住房有效供给严重不足、政府决心加大保障性住房建设的情况下,对保障性住房供给方式以及税收政策的影响进行了分析与研究。根据住房过滤与梯度消费理论,完善性地构建了保障性住房多层次供给模型。并以这个模型作为税收政策对保障性住房作用的契入点,分析了现有的税收政策对各种保障性住房供给的影响,提出了对保障性住房供给方税收政策改革的合理化建议。     

The Past and Future of Housing Policy Innovation: The Case of US State Housing Trust Funds

State governments are increasingly expected to help fill the gap between the demand and supply of affordable housing within the US. Little systematic attention has been paid to state housing strategies over the years, despite a lengthening record of policy innovation. This paper asks what factors influence state adoption of housing trust funds (HTFs), and if these factors differ based on how the trust fund is financed and which state agency is responsible for administering it. Utilizing an event history analysis of pooled cross-sectional data, the paper finds that whether or not a state adopts a HTF, who administers it, and how they fund it, varies based on rates of new, single-family development, the size of the black population, prior state housing expenditures, and citizen ideology. The broader implications of these findings are considered for future housing policy innovations beyond states and HTFs.     

Involving the Private Sector in Affordable Housing Provision: Can Australia Learn from the United Kingdom?

The focus of this article is to clarify the preconditions for the successful leverage of private investment to help both maintain and expand the affordable housing stock in Australia. To do this we examine a range of initiatives that have enabled such leverage in the UK and explore the lessons that can be drawn for Australia from this experience. The article provides an overview of UK experience since the 1980s and, from this, identifies the key factors that have both contributed to and constrained the expansion of affordable housing in the UK. It signals the key barriers and emerging challenges for the continued operation of this system of affordable housing provision in the UK and draws out the lessons, both positive and negative, that might help determine what is needed in Australia in order to fulfil the stated objective of the current Commonwealth State Housing Agreement—namely, to attract significant private investment into the provision of affordable housing. The concluding section addressing what might be done to increase the potential for leverage in the Australian situation, in the context of this policy goal.