Citizens for Political Reform are informed, opinionated Americans committed to understanding and fixing the partisan divide. Sign up to receive updates and find out how you can join us and improve our democracy.
Posted May 2, 2012
Welcome to the BPC Housing Commission expert forum! This forum is intended to foster interactive and substantive discussion about pressing housing issues. Each month contributors from different parts of the housing sector will be invited to respond to a discussion topic.
Guest posts are shared regularly with Housing Commissioners to help inform their work.
Have a pressing question you’d like us to consider? Please leave it in the comments section. We encourage you and our expert bloggers to add comments, contributing to the national dialogue on solutions for the future of the housing sector.
Expert bloggers are not members of the BPC Housing Commission. Any views expressed on this forum do not necessarily represent the views of the Housing Commission, its Co-Chairs, or the Bipartisan Policy Center.
![]()
Back to the Future: The 20% Solution
By Robert J. Cristiano
Around the turn of the last century in 1900, homeownership in America was 36.5 percent, consisting primarily of the family farm. American homeownership steadily increased to 46% in 1930 before dropping to 41.1% following the Great Depression. As a result of the Great Depression, banks failed and many Americans lost the family farm. The New Deal created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Fannie Mae to insure home loans and create a secondary market for mortgages. By 1960, homeownership had jumped to 61%. Ownership peaked near 70% in 2005.
In 1900, less than one-third of homes were mortgaged. In 1940, less than half of homeowners had any mortgage on their property. By 1960, the majority of homes were mortgaged. The traditional mortgage required a 20% down payment, providing a buffer for the lender, the Savings & Loan, and thus insuring a steady supply of capital. This system worked for a century.
Read the full post here.
![]()
Valuable Lessons from Europe
By Brian Montgomery
Many countries maintain high homeownership levels and functional mortgage markets. As the U.S. undergoes regulatory reform and market contraction, it is timely to draw on other countries’ experiences. Some European countries offer insight into alternative finance mechanisms, reform and accounting convergence for U.S. policymakers and lawmakers.
Although the U.S. ranks relatively high in homeownership at 66.1 percent of the population in 2011 (although if you back-out the estimated 1.6 million homes where the borrower has not made a payment in more than 24 months the rate could be as low as 63%), several European countries have higher rates (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).
Read the full post here.
![]()
Centralized Government Planning is Not the Answer
By Mark Calabria
Social scientists do not have the luxury of natural experiments. When it comes to housing policy, we will not exactly know the precise impact of saying removing the mortgage interest deduction until we do so. We are forced to rely on theory and imperfect comparisons. A useful and rich set of comparisons are the policies of other countries. Such offer us an interesting list of do’s and don’ts.
First let’s acknowledge that despite previous claims, America’s system of housing and mortgage finance is not “the envy of the world”. Few countries are scrambling to copy our various mortgage subsidies and few are interested in making mortgage credit as easy as it once was here. Yet many countries maintain homeownership rates comparable or higher than that of the U.S. Many also have housing markets that are far more affordable than the U.S. Of course others are more expensive and have lower rates of homeownership.
Read the full post here.
![]()
Government Must Empower Trusted Partners
By Bill Kelly
For affordable multifamily housing, we should explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of having the government rely more heavily on trusted partners, mostly nonprofits but potentially also other public and private owners with the right mission alignment. Various European models are worth exploring, but the UK's approach perhaps best captures the big idea.
Read the full post here.
![]()
Principles for Affordable Housing from Dubai to Kenya
By David A. Smith
Our work at the Affordable Housing Institute has taken us to over a dozen countries from the very poor (Kenya) to the very rich (Dubai), to say nothing of my 37 years' experience with the U.S. ecosystem. Here are some principles proven around the world:
Read the full post here.
![]()
Making the Case for Better Housing Policy
By Jonathan T.M. Reckford
Though commerce and social media have seemed to shrink the world and invalidate boundaries, the reality is that we must still look carefully at our assertions anytime we use the word “global.” At Habitat for Humanity, we have found this to be especially true about housing issues. There are very few universal truths about housing and land ownership, and no individual country has housing policy completely figured out.
Our desire to advocate for those in need of adequate and affordable shelter led us to become a primary partner in the Global Housing Policy Indicators Project in 2004. Through this project we began assessing regulations, policies and practices concerning housing in various locations.
Read the full post here.
![]()
Innovative Tools for a 21st Century Market
By Kent Watkins
To be sure, there are many robust technologies, tools, and regulatory frameworks to replicate from our own petri dishes of state, regional, and local governments. But, there is also a rich historical context of what we have ‘borrowed’ from or interacted with other countries, and the lessons learned from those experiences. We need to look at what is going on presently; and what can be re-constituted and illuminated anew for innovative tools in the housing sub-sector of the urban sector.
Read the full post here.
Comments
Post new comment