Displacement of Lower-Income Families 

in Urban Areas Report

May 2018

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development  |  Office of Policy Development and Research

Displacement of Lower-Income Families 

in Urban Areas Report

Introduction

collaboration and partnership with other local agencies. This 

report suggests four key strategies that could address displace-Gentrification is a form of neighborhood change that occurs when ment of lower-income families and long-time residents in 

higher-income groups move into low-income areas, potentially 

urban areas and alleviate the pressures on housing affordability altering the cultural and financial landscape of the original 

and community resistance to change.

neighborhood. In the most recent decade, gentrification has 

been manifested in the return to the cities, with redevelopment 1. Preserve existing affordable housing. Normally market and investment in many downtown areas of the nation. Greater 

forces increase housing supply to meet demand from demo-

demand for centrally located housing, particularly amidst an 

graphic changes, and rents of older units decrease with time 

existing affordability crisis, may be fueling community change 

and obsolescence in a process known as filtering down. 

in many American metropolitan areas. With increased demand 

Since the turn of the century, however, the supply of afford-

and housing costs comes increased housing-cost burdens, the 

able rental units has shrunk despite rapid growth in the 

potential for displacement of long-term low-income residents, 

number of very low-income renters. As of 2011, 710,000 

long-run resegregation of neighborhoods, and heightened 

units annually were lost to disinvestment and disrepair or 

barriers to entry for new low-income residents looking to move 

owner conversions, even as increased demand was causing 

to places of opportunity.

1.5 million affordable units annually to filter up to unafford-

able levels (Eggers and Moumen, 2015). Losses of about 

In the press, news about gentrification in cities such as San 

10,000 public housing units annually points to the need for 

Francisco, Chicago, and New York highlight tensions between 

programs such as HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration 

newcomers and existing residents and raise opposing perspectives (RAD) that help the private market invest in decent, safe, 

about neighborhood change. Alongside the change in culture 

and affordable housing.

that is happening in gentrifying neighborhoods, significant 

increases in rents and evictions have escalated the hostility felt 2. Encourage greater housing development, including but 

toward newcomers. On the opposite end of the spectrum, other 

not limited to affordable housing. Housing costs have 

articles claim that “gentrification is no longer a dirty word,” 

increased since the 1970s, building to today’s affordability 

praising the reductions in crime and greater access to amenities crisis, and are particularly pronounced for renters. Issues of 

that even long-time residents appreciate (Nevius, 2014). In the affordability are widespread and reach beyond the hottest 

middle of the debate, a third set of articles recognize that both coastal markets and gentrifying neighborhoods. Federal and 

of these trends and tensions occur and that, although gentrifi-

local policies that incentivize greater development of housing 

cation brings increased investments and has the potential to 

can ease pressures on overall housing affordability. 

decrease crime, higher-income residents benefit disproportion-

3. Engage existing community residents. Renewed investment ately and displacement is a real concern (PBS, 2003).

in urban areas may produce some benefits that long-time 

This report is in response to the House and Senate Committees 

residents in gentrifying neighborhoods can harness. However, 

on Appropriations’ request for the U.S. Department of Housing 

a common complaint among existing residents is political 

and Urban Development (HUD) to examine the effects of 

displacement. The new services and amenities that gentrifi-

rapidly rising rents in urban areas across the nation and avoid cation brings, such as dog parks and bike lanes, are seen as 

displacement. This report reviews the recent research on the 

intended for and attracting new, higher-income residents. 

causes and consequences of gentrification and identifies key 

Neighborhood change can often take place without regard 

steps policymakers can take to foster neighborhood change that 

for the concerns and requests of existing residents. Recogniz-

is both inclusive and equitable. Best practices on the ground 

ing that housing affordability and residential displacement 

have varied, but they all include a focus on the preservation 

are not the only concerns and seeking the active participa-

and production of affordable housing and are strengthened by 

tion of residents could capture the buy-in of residents and 

ensure that other coping strategies are successful. 

1

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

4. Take a broader look and using regional, rather than 

Share of Low-Income City Tracts in U.S. Metropolitan 

localized, strategies. Effective tools will focus on regional Areas Seeing Large Gains in Rents Relative to Metro-coordination, looking above the neighborhood level and be-

politan Area

yond housing. The federal government could be particularly 

helpful in encouraging regional cooperation and coordinat-

ing with multiple agencies on issues such as transportation 

and education.

This report is divided into four sections that give context to 

these solutions. First, the report describes the causes of gen-

trification and explores the trends of urban revitalization since Source: Ellen and Ding (2016)

the 1970s. Second, the report summarizes the recent research 

on some consequences of gentrification, both positive and 

neighborhoods (Baum-Snow and Hartley, 2016;   Couture and negative, including displacement potential, poverty concentra-Handbury, 2015). Zeroing in on downtown neighborhoods 

tion, and neighborhood conditions. Third, the report suggests 

in the largest metropolitan areas of the nation, where much of 

policy tools in the four categories in the preceding list. Finally, the urban revival has occurred, the growth in this current set 

the report highlights new innovations in gentrifying areas. 

of gentrifiers has been particularly pronounced. Downtown 

residents represented only 5 percent of the total population 

Patterns and Causes of 

during 2010 but, from 2000 to 2010, accounted for 24 percent 

of the total increase in the college-educated population ages 25 

Gentrification and the  

to 34 and nearly 12 percent of the total increase in the college-Broader Urban Revitalization

educated population ages 35 to 44 (Couture and Handbury, 

2015). Contrary to claims that retiring baby boomers, aged 45 

to 65, are increasingly likely to choose to live in urban  locations, Gentrification Trends

this demographic continues to suburbanize, along with house-

holds 65 and older. The urbanization of the college-educated is Gentrification, particularly of downtown areas, has increased 

a relatively new phenomenon, irrespective of age group. During 

since the 1990s. However, from 2000 to 2014, a greater num-

the 1990s, the college-educated population grew faster in 

ber of low-income, city census tracts experienced accelerated 

downtowns than in the suburbs in less than one-fourth of the 50 

gains in income and the number of White residents, over and 

largest metropolitan areas. Between 2000 and 2010, however, 

above the increases experienced in the larger metropolitan area, the college-educated population urbanized in most of the same 

than in previous decades (Ellen and Ding, 2016). Not only is 

50 metropolitan areas (Couture and Handbury, 2015). 

gentrification affecting a broader set of markets than during 

the 1990s, but it has also resulted in more dramatic economic 

The racial compositions of downtown urban neighborhoods 

changes. The biggest difference between the two periods has 

have also reversed previous trends of  White flight, when the been the greater prevalence of significant rent increases in the proportion of White residents within close proximity to central current period. The share of initially low-income city census 

business districts declined from 1970 to 1990. Baum-Snow 

tracts that saw large gains in rents relative to the metropolitan and Hartley (2016) attributed this reversal to the probability 

area more than doubled from 10 percent in the 1990s to 24 

that White residents with low socioeconomic status (SES) 

percent in the 2000s (Ellen and Ding, 2016).

indicators, such as educational attainment status, migrated out of city centers between 1980 and 2000 but were stable in their 

A compositional shift in the urbanizing population, not a surge neighborhood choice after 2000. In addition, the probability that in population growth in urban neighborhoods, has driven recent 

high-SES White residents migrated to city centers increased after neighborhood change. As in previous decades, the nation con-2000, prompting growth in the proportion of White residents 

tinues to suburbanize, with population growth in the nation’s 

in downtowns by 2010 (Baum-Snow and Hartley, 2016). 

suburban neighborhoods nearly three times faster than growth 

in urban cities (Kneebone and Berube, 2013). 

This current period of gentrification represents a broader urban revitalization, marking a reversal in the previous trends of 

Beginning in the 2000s, however, the young, college-educated 

significant population losses and the poor performance of down-

demographic has grown faster in urban rather than in suburban 

towns rela tive to the larger metropolitan areas (Baum-Snow and 2

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report Hartley, 2016). During the 1970s and 1980s, two-thirds of all 

successful in attracting a mix of market-rate, affordable, and 

census tracts within a central city experienced a  loss in income, low-income tenants. In all sites, most residents in new develop-relative to the larger metropolitan area. By the 1990s, more 

ments reported being satisfied with their units and neighborhoods. 

than 40 percent of all central-city census tracts experienced a Revitalization efforts also led to new community amenities 

relative  gain  in income (Ellen and O’Regan, 2009a). Similarly, such as police substations, community centers, and job training the number of people living in high-poverty neighborhoods 

centers (Popkin et al., 2004).

declined 24 percent in the 1990s compared with a doubling 

Despite its successes, some researchers argued that the program’s of the population in high-poverty neighborhoods from 1970 

aims resulted in gentrification of previously blighted neighbor-to 1990 (Jargowsky, 2003).1 Sharp declines in the general 

hoods and led to the permanent displacement of many low- 

population in urban neighborhoods occurred in the 1970s and 

income households (Goetz, 2013; Vale, 2013). The HOPE VI  

were reversed in the 1980s and 1990s but only for neighbor-

Panel Study, which tracked residents from five sites, asked 

hoods within a relatively short distance to central business 

public housing residents about their replacement housing 

districts (Baum-Snow and Hartley, 2016). Although the benefits 

preferences. Most responded that they would like to return to 

of urban revitalization for downtowns have been meaningful, it 

the site when completed (Popkin et al., 2002). However, in 

is critical to consider the full effects of these changes, including an updated 2016 study of all HOPE IV sites, original tenants 

whether benefits have been distributed equally to both new and 

occupy only an estimated 21 percent of all units that have been existing residents.

produced (Gress, 2016). Part of the discrepancy suggests that 

some residents who would have liked to return could not be-

Causes of Gentrification

cause of a loss in public housing units. As of the third quarter 2014, of those that were receiving services, about one-third of Understanding the mobility motivations of the young, college-prerevitalization residents remained relocated with a housing 

educated gentrifying demographic is important, because their 

choice voucher and about one-fourth relocated to other public 

choices are the ones that shape neighborhood change most 

housing (Gress, 2016). Evidence has shown that those indi-

significantly. The public and private investments during the 

viduals who utilized vouchers often had improved outcomes 

1990s that spurred redevelopment of many downtowns, with 

in terms of housing and neighborhood quality over those who 

greater availability of services and amenities that attracted the chose to relocate to another public housing development. Some 

current set of gentrifiers, may have laid the foundation for the anecdotal information suggests that some displaced households 

current urban revitalization (Couture and Handbury, 2015). 

Public Redevelopment Efforts and HOPE VI

HOPE VI

Federal and local spending on dog parks and bike shares, among 

The Housing Research Foundation’s study on eight HOPE VI 

other amenities, during the 1990s is likely to have influenced 

communities found generally positive neighborhood outcomes, 

the urbanization of the young, college-educated demographic 

including—

today. One particular redevelopment initiative, HUD’s Housing 

•  A 57-percent faster increase in average resident per-capita 

Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI), which 

incomes than in neighborhoods citywide.

began in 1992, may have influenced recent trends in changing 

•  An average unemployment decline of 10 percentage points 

communities. HOPE VI demolished 96,200 units of severely 

compared with no significant net change at city levels. 

distressed public housing throughout the nation, with the goal 

•  A decline in the poverty concentration of low-income house-

of revitalizing public housing projects and deconcentrating 

holds during the 1990s.

poverty.2 A study on the impact of HOPE VI found that many 

•  An average decline in the violent crime rate that was 30 percent severely distressed public housing projects were replaced 

greater than in the overall city.

with high-quality, lower-density, mixed-income housing that 

•  Higher rates of mortgage lending than in the overall county, contributed to the revitalization of entire inner-city communities, implying increasing rates of residential development.

along with improving conditions for surrounding neighborhoods 

Source: Zielenbach (2003)

(Popkin et al., 2004). Several HOPE VI developments were 

1 Defined as neighborhoods where the poverty rate is 40 percent or higher.

2 The number of units demolished as of fiscal year 2010. Congress has not funded HOPE VI since 2011.

3

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report opted not to return to the redeveloped HOPE VI sites for a 

evidence that the chosen neighborhoods were more accessible 

variety of reasons, including improved neighborhood quality 

to employment but, rather, movers had a lower total cost of 

and seeking not to disrupt their children’s education again. 

housing, because they moved to less-expensive neighborhoods. 

The reductions in density and the mixed-income strategy of 

These findings may suggest that the national affordability crisis HOPE VI resulted in a net loss of about 44 percent of units 

may have played a role in the recent change of urban neighbor-

that would have received the deep, permanent public housing 

hoods. 

subsidies that would make units affordable for very low-income 

households. However, with the addition of affordable units 

Racial Composition and Crime

financed with the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC), 

It is likely, however, that a combination of several factors, 

units intended to be affordable to low- and moderate-income 

including falling citywide crime rates, has contributed to gentri-residents replaced roughly 85 percent of the original public 

fication of downtown areas. Much like the presence of highly 

housing units (Gress, 2016).

distressed public housing, high violent crime rates may have 

inhibited investment and in-migration into downtowns during 

Amenity Preferences 

the 1970s and 1980s. Between 1990 and 2012, the crime rate 

Public redevelopment can also be an impetus for expanded 

fell 44 percent nationally and even more significantly in central private investment in a neighborhood, with amenities that 

cities (Ellen and O’Regan, 2009b). Ellen, Horn, and Reed 

may attract a higher-income customer base. In recent research, 

(2016) found that declines in citywide crimes were associated 

Couture and Handbury (2015) posited that a greater prefer-

with increases in the probability that high-income and college-

ence for urban amenities—retail, entertainment, and service 

educated households chose to move into both high- and 

establishments—is the primary motivation for the movement of 

low- income central-city neighborhoods, relative to cities where the young, college-educated demographic into the central core 

the crime rates did not fall. They posited that high-income 

of cities. They concluded that labor market dynamics could 

households have a greater sensitivity to crime, because they 

not explain the movement into downtowns, because a rise in 

can; that is, because their resources, and therefore residential reverse commutation patterns (from downtown to suburbs) 

options, are greater, enabling them to outbid lower-income 

signals the importance of urban amenities. The empirical results households in lower-income but accessible neighborhoods 

on the types of businesses near growing central business districts (Ellen, Horn, and Reed, 2016; O’Sullivan, 2005).

suggest that the preference of this set of gentrifiers differs from their nongentrifying counterparts. In particular, this demographic Outcomes of Gentrification 

is more attracted to proximity to amenities, such as theatres 

and bars, and less sensitive to changes in house prices (Couture for New and Existing 

and Handbury, 2015). The recent income growth among the 

Residents

college-educated, as hypothesized by Rappaport (2009) and by 

Gyourko, Mayer, and Sinai (2013), increased their willingness 

This section discusses the research on the outcomes of gentri-

to pay for locations with a perceived high quality of life. 

fication and the different impact it may have on new versus 

existing residents.

Rental Affordability Crisis

At the same time the composition of urban neighborhoods has 

Displacement and Increasing Rent 

been changing, average rents across the nation have been ris-

ing, with the fastest rent growth in gentrifying neighborhoods 

Burdens

(Ellen and O’Regan, 2011). Rising housing costs, particularly 

for renters, may have forced households to consider a broader 

Research on Displacement

set of neighborhoods that they may not previously have consi dered. 

The most common critique of gentrification is its potential to 

Ellen, Horn, and O’Regan (2013) studied the motivations of 

displace long-term, low-income residents. Displacement can 

households that move into relatively low-income neighborhoods 

happen in many ways: direct displacement, in which residents 

and found that households that place less value on services, 

are forced to move out because of rent increases, building 

such as renters and childless households, and those with greater rehabilitation, or a combination of both; exclusionary displace-housing choice constraints, such as first-time homebuyers and 

ment, in which housing choices for low-income residents are 

minority households, are more likely to do so. They found no 

4

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report limited; and finally displacement pressures, when the entire 

residents continued to stay in the gentrifying areas of New 

neighborhood changes and the services and support system 

York after 1990, and that those who remained were able to 

that low-income families relied on are no longer available to 

do so through a combination of “regulatory protection and 

them (Slater, 2009). 

individual sacrifice or creativity” (Newman and Wyly, 2006: 

28). Displacement may be artificially low when measuring exit 

Although displacement may be the most common concern, 

rates after two decades of intense gentrification, because the 

most quantitative studies find little evidence of direct displace-most vulnerable residents would have exited earlier.

ment occurring. In fact, Ellen and O’Regan (2011) found 

that turnover rates, or the share of households that left their The researchers performed different variations of the previous 

housing units, did not rise among even the most vulnerable 

research and noted the difficulties in fully capturing displace-populations or in the neighborhoods with the largest gains in 

ment effects with the New York City Housing and Vacancy 

relative income. Surprisingly, their research found that exit 

Survey data used by Freeman and Braconi, because the survey 

rates were actually lower in gentrifying neighborhoods than 

does not identify persons who were previously displaced and 

in nongentrifying neighborhoods, even among renters or poor 

doubling up with a friend or relative nor anyone who leaves the households. Similarly, Freeman and Braconi’s (2004) research 

city, rather than leaving to another unit within city boundaries on displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods of New York 

(Newman and Wyly, 2006). Indeed, Freeman and Braconi 

found that low-income households were actually less likely to 

(2004) acknowledged that using turnover rates may understate 

move. Racial and ethnic minorities were significantly less likely displacement by including households that move to cheaper 

to report displacement, after controlling for age and income, in living arrangements within New York City but understate it by 

other research (Newman and Wyly, 2006). 

failing to incorporate those who leave the city, become homeless, or double up with friends or relatives. Although Newman and 

Even studies that find some evidence that gentrification and 

Wyly (2006) found similarly small displacement rates using 

displacement are linked, such as Freeman (2005), found only 

different data techniques, they acknowledge that thousands 

a modest relationship, at best. Moreover, Freeman (2005) did 

of displaced persons, even in cities of millions, are not insig-not find evidence that poor renters appeared to be particularly nificant and should not be dismissed, but also that the task of vulnerable to displacement or elevated mobility rates from gen-tracking the outcomes of low-income people is challenging and 

trification. Similar to Ellen and O’Regan (2011), he concluded 

akin to “measuring the invisible.” 

that housing succession through voluntary entries and exits, 

not displacement, was likely the “primary mechanism through 

Freeman and Braconi’s (2004) work also demonstrated the 

which gentrifying neighborhoods undergo socioeconomic 

limited amount of choice for low-income families in gentrifying change” (Freeman, 2005: 480).

neighborhoods. Rent increases in gentrifying  neighborhoods 

were associated with a decrease in the probability of poor 

Measures of Displacement Are Imperfect

households moving, and the same result was seen for college-

Measures of displacement generally focus on exit from a unit,  

educated households. Although the researchers, along with 

rather than exit from a neighborhood, which can tell an incom-

many others, associated this decline in the probability of moving plete story on the varying pressures of low-income households. 

to the desire of low-income households to stay in improving 

Freeman and Braconi’s (2004) research found little evidence of 

neighborhoods, with the services and amenities to which they 

displacement, as measured by exit from a specific unit, from the are accustomed, others argued that rising rents effectively 

seven gentrifying boroughs in New York City and concluded 

trapped poor households to stay in place (Freeman and Braconi, 

that the primary potential for harm to low-income families 

2004). As housing costs rise and the affordable housing stock 

in gentrifying neighborhoods is normal housing succession, 

falls, the options for poor households diminishes, severely 

in which a vacant rental unit is more likely to be leased by a 

limiting their residential mobility (Slater, 2009). 

middle-income household or the gradual shrinking of low-rent 

Not only do exit rates fail to capture the limited choices of low-housing.

income households to cope with rising housing costs but also 

Subsequent research inquired whether using turnover rates 

the exclusionary effects of gentrification. For families looking would fully capture all types of displacement that have occurred. 

to move into areas of opportunity, some neighborhoods are 

Newman and Wyly (2006) noted that displacement pressures 

inaccessible because of high rents, forcing low-income house-

from gentrification should be viewed over the longer run, 

holds to lower-cost neighborhoods with less investment than 

rather than a snapshot in time. It is likely that few low-income gentrified neighborhoods (Newman and Wyly, 2006).

5

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report Differing Outcomes 

As part of a recent HUD initiative, HUD facilitated discussions Although exit rates may increase for low-income renters who are in cities and regions around the country on expanding afford-unable to cope with higher housing costs, they may decline for 

able housing opportunity and increasing economic mobility. 

those who realize the benefits of neighborhood improvements. 

In areas where neighborhood change is particularly intense 

On net, then, exit rates may move very little or even decline, 

or advanced and displacement of minority and low-income 

even in the presence of some displacement. In addition to the 

households occurs at a rapid pace, local leaders highlighted 

difficulty of measuring displacement, studies on gentrification the need for policies that encourage equitable neighborhood 

and displacement were based on changes occurring in the 1990s, 

change. Tools that help areas amplify the upside potential of 

when rent increases were not as prevalent as they are today. 

renewed interest and investment in low-income urban areas, 

while limiting the potential downsides of displacement or 

Despite the difficulty in using turnover in gentrifying neighbor-long-term segregation, were an important part of the policy 

hoods as a measure of displacement, evidence suggests that 

discussion between local communities and HUD. 

those who move face worse outcomes than those who are able 

to stay. Recent work from Ding, Hwang, and Divringi (2015), 

Loss of Affordable Housing Units: Exclusionary 

which looked specifically at pathways of moves, found that 

Displacement

vulnerable households that do move are generally renters 

As mentioned previously, displacement can also occur when 

and are at greater risk of moving to neighborhoods that are 

neighborhood choices become limited from the lack of affordable worse off than the original neighborhood, in terms of home 

housing units, excluding them from the realm of possibilities 

values, unemployment rates, median incomes, and public 

for low-income families. Exclusionary displacement from the 

school per formance. Ding, Hwang, and Divringi (2015) posited 

loss of affordable housing units occurs across the nation, even that gentrification’s pressures on rents and home values are 

in nongentrifying neighborhoods, due to the rental affordability significant drivers in mobility decisions of residents. Indeed, crisis. HUD’s most recent worst-case housing needs assessment 

Newman and Wyly’s (2006) study found that cost consider-

estimated that the number of renter households with worst-case 

ations such as unemployment, income, and rising rents were 

needs—defined as renters with incomes less than 50 percent 

cited among the top reasons for moves. Similar to the results 

of the Area Median Income who do not receive government 

by Ding, Hwang, and Divringi (2015), renters who moved 

housing assistance and who pay more than one-half of their 

were forced to look for housing in the outer boroughs of New 

incomes for rent, live in severely inadequate conditions, or both—

York and into neighbors further into Brooklyn, Queens, and 

increased to 8.3 million in 2015, up from 7.7 million in 2013 

the Bronx, as Manhattan was becoming increasingly gentrified 

(HUD, 2017). Several demographic changes accounted for an 

(Newman and Wyly, 2006). Even if exit rates, on net, did not 

increased demand for rental units, including a pronounced 

suggest that displacement was occurring, outcomes from these 

shift from homeownership. Although the supply of rental units 

studies suggest that moving from gentrifying neighborhoods 

also increased, new inventory is generally for more expensive 

has negative impacts on vulnerable renters.

units; HUD reported that, “[f]or a growing population of very 

These factors may have contributed to the previously muted 

low-income renters, the expanding supply of rental units in 

public policy response when HUD investigated the potential 

2015 failed to translate into increased availability of affordable for displacement and found that the scale of displacement 

housing. Unlike more expensive units, the stock of rental hous-

was not sufficient to warrant concern during the 1980s. The 

ing affordable to very low-income renters shrank between 2013 

agency concluded that disinvestment accounted for a greater 

and 2015, the vacancy rates remained highest among the most 

proportion of displacement than neighborhood revitalization 

expensive units. For renters with extremely low incomes, the 

(HUD, 1979). Whereas the earlier focus was on stemming 

ratio of affordable and available units decreased… to 38 units 

urban decline rather than gentrification, recent trends in the 

per 100 renters” (HUD, 2017: xi). 

compositional shifts of downtowns and significantly higher rent growth in gentrifying areas put gentrification back on HUD’s 

Higher Rent Burdens for Low-Income Households 

agenda. HUD’s current concerns with neighborhood change 

Unsurprisingly, rents increased significantly faster in gentrify-have been informed by what the agency has heard from some 

ing neighborhoods than in nongentrifying areas during the 

cities around the nation, particularly regarding tensions around 1990s, a trend that is happening to a more significant degree 

the significant increases rents in high-demand neighborhoods 

since 2000 (Ellen and O’Regan, 2011). Freeman and Braconi’s 

now compared with previous periods. 

6

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

(2004) study found, for example, that, in New York during 

transit, economic and workforce development, and other basic 

the 1990s, three-fourths of low-income renters in gentrifying 

services. Urban revitalization often brings new amenities that 

neighborhoods were paying more than the generally recognized 

attract higher-income in-movers but that are not always aligned standard of affordability (30 percent of their income) toward 

with the needs of existing residents. 

rent, and one-half of low-income renters were paying up to 67 

Cultural displacement of a neighborhood—defined at least 

percent of their income toward rent. The average rent burden 

partly by the mix of shops and restaurants—is another often-

for poor households living in gentrifying neighborhoods, at 

cited critique. Recent research by Meltzer (2016) on small busi-61 percent, was also higher than the average rent burden for 

ness exit rates in changing New York neighborhoods provided 

poor households living outside of gentrifying neighborhoods, 

only mixed support for this concern. Small businesses do not 

at 52 percent (Freeman and Braconi, 2004). These average rent 

appear to be at heightened risk of displacement from gentrify-

burdens for both gentrifying and nongentrifying neighborhoods 

ing neighborhoods, and retention rates among small businesses 

are far above the recognized standard of affordability, demon-

are generally higher than exit rates in both gentrifying and 

strating that more affordable housing development is needed 

nongentrifying neighborhoods. However, gentrifying neighbor-

across the board. The patterns also show that these pressures 

hoods have a somewhat higher share of businesses that leave 

can be exacerbated in rapidly changing neighborhoods.

without any replacement. When businesses  are replaced, they Rent burdens have been even more pronounced because of a 

are generally in a different sector than the original, with the greater prevalence of rent increases in urban neighborhoods 

highest gains in businesses providing services, such as art and than in the 1990s, a cause for greater concern during the recent entertainment venues and employee placement services, and 

period. As of 2016, 72 percent of the lowest-income renters 

losses in goods-producing industries, such as manufacturing. 

(earning less than $15,000) face severe housing cost burdens, 

Replacements are also more often chain stores, changing the 

paying more than 50 percent of income toward rent (JCHS, 2016).

feel of a neighborhood entirely (Meltzer, 2016).

In Most of the Country, a Large Majority of Lowest-

A common view of the new amenities that gentrification brings 

Income Renters Are Severely Cost Burdened

to a neighborhood is that they are not meant for existing resi-

dents (Ellen and Torrats-Espinosa, 2016). Along with the loss 

of services crucial for low-income families, one of the perceived downfalls is a loss of minority political representation, as new residents successfully advocate for amenities and services they want while the needs of existing residents are pushed aside 

(Hyra, 2015). Even as existing residents cite neighborhood 

improvements, such as reductions in violent crime, they 

recognize that these gains may be only because more affluent 

residents have a stronger voice to demand greater policing and 

services (Tach, 2014).

Benefits to Residents Who Stay

Deconcentration of Poverty 

During the 1990s, gentrifying neighborhoods experienced a 

Notes: Severely cost-burdened households pay more than 50 percent of income for housing. Data are for Core Based Statistical Areas.

decrease in poverty rates of 5 percentage points compared with 

Source: JCHS (2016)

a 3-percentage-point gain in nongentrifying tracts (Ellen and 

O’Regan, 2011). Similarly, Ellen and Torrats-Espinosa (2016) 

Although the existing literature focuses primarily on the 

found that, as rents rise, Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) 

potential for housing and neighborhood displacement of low-

Program tenants tend to live in lower-poverty neighborhoods. 

income residents, the impact of neighborhood change extends 

Given the influx of higher-income residents and an increase in 

beyond housing alone. A primary motivation for existing 

investment and likely employment, the reduction in poverty in 

residents’ desire to stay is the services and support systems 

these tracts is perhaps unsurprising. In fact, the primary goal on which low-income families rely, such as affordable mass 

7

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report of HOPE VI revitalization efforts was to deconcentrate poverty 

An increase in the access of a greater number of services can 

and encouraged mixed-income development. One of the suc cess ful be a potential benefit of neighborhood change, especially if the outcomes of HOPE VI neighborhoods studied was the decline 

type of establishment can promote better outcomes for its resi-

in poverty concentration of low-income households from 81 

dents, such as mainstream financial institutions or healthy food percent in 1989 to 69 percent in 1999 (Zielenbach, 2002). 

establishments (Ding and Hwang, 2016). Meltzer and Schuetz’s 

(2012) research demonstrates that poor neighborhoods and 

Neighborhood Improvements

predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods had a greater 

In recent research on the outcomes for public housing residents proportion of unhealthy food chains compared with higher-in gentrifying tracts of New York City, Dastrup and Ellen (2016) income areas. Although their research is silent on the effect of a found improvements in a variety of neighborhood indicators. 

rise in healthy establishments, some anecdotal instances suggest They found that public housing developments in gentrifying 

that gentrification has been associated with bringing healthy 

tracts have lower neighborhood violent crime rates and are 

food options in a previous food desert, such as Harlem. Prior 

zoned for public elementary schools with higher standardized 

to the early 2000s, Harlem lacked larger grocery stores, leaving test scores than their counterparts in lower-income communi-little choice for low-income residents except to shop at local 

ties. Residents of these neighborhoods are also more often 

bodegas (mini markets) with few healthy options. With urban 

employed, have slightly higher incomes, and have greater 

revitalization from the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone 

educational attainment levels. Similarly, Ellen and O’Regan’s 

spreading into underserved areas such as Harlem, the area has 

(2011) work found increased satisfaction among original 

seen an increase in the number of chain grocery stores such as 

renters who stayed in gentrifying neighborhoods, likely due to 

Whole Foods and, at the same time, increasing rents that have 

the improved neighborhood conditions. 

forced out older soul food restaurants (Abellard, n.d.). 

As communities change, low-income homeowners may face 

To be sure, the research has demonstrated that potential benefits increased property taxes. If not paid, often a lien is placed on accrue from gentrification. However, many of those benefits are the property and can result in foreclosure. One recent policy 

available only to those who stay in changing neighborhoods. 

to address this issue was tested in Washington, D.C., where 

With rising housing costs often associated with neighborhood 

the government forbade the sale of liens on homes whose 

improvements, it is likely that a smaller proportion of lower-

owners owe less than $2,500 in taxes and granted a year-long 

income residents have the means to stay. Federal housing poli-

tax deferral to homeowners who owe less than $7,500 in taxes 

cies, such as public housing and HCVs, have had a meaningful 

(Cenziper and Sallah, 2014). 

impact on protecting some renters from displacement but are 

not the only solution to a multifaceted issue. 

Greater Access to Services 

Broader urban revitalization is also likely to bring a greater 

Policy Responses to 

number of services that were previously absent in the neighbor-

Gentrification 

hood. A number of studies have demonstrated that low-income 

and minority neighborhoods have fewer and smaller retail 

A common theme echoed throughout conversations between 

stores, such as supermarkets, banks, and drug stores, than 

HUD and local policymakers is that a broad-based approach 

higher-income neighborhoods (Alwitt and Donley, 1997; 

to housing affordability is necessary for its success—one that 

Carr and Schuetz, 2001; Helling and Sawicki, 2003; Powell 

both encourages housing development and affordable hous-

et al., 2007; Zenk et al., 2005). This limited choice and lack 

ing preservation, as well as community engagement from all 

of competition may lead families to pay more for basic goods 

residents. This section suggests four key strategies that could and services ( Caplovitz, 1967; Hayes, 2000; Kaufman et al., 

alleviate pressures on housing affordability and community 

1997). Meltzer and Schuetz’s (2012) study on retail establish-

resistance to change at all policy levels.

ments in New York City found that lower-income and minority 

neighborhoods had lower densities of commercial businesses 

Preserve Existing Affordable Housing

and employment, smaller businesses, and a higher proportion 

of unhealthy restaurants. Growth of retail establishments 

Between 2001 and 2015, the number of affordable rental units 

increased between 1998 and 2007 and was particularly strong 

decreased by 2.5 million, while the number of very low-income 

in gentrifying neighborhoods.

renters increased by 4.2 million (Watson et al., 2017). Normally 8

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report the rent for a given unit is expected to filter down as the unit Given the central location of the oldest public housing stock 

ages, but insufficient construction of new affordable units 

in the country, the existing public housing stock may be an 

drives up rent. As of 2011, 710,000 units annually were lost 

important tool in anchoring long-term affordable housing in 

to disinvestment and disrepair or owner conversions, even as 

and near gentrifying neighborhoods.3 For example, in New 

increased demand was causing 1.5 million affordable units  

York City, 58 percent of public housing units are in community 

annually to filter up to unaffordable levels (Eggers and Moumen, districts that are classified as gentrifying, and block groups that 2015). These rates are up significantly from 400,000 units 

had average incomes above the city median in 2010 surround 

lost from stock and 140,000 filtering up in an average year 

nearly two-thirds of public housing block groups (Dastrup and 

during the 1991-to-2001 period (Schwartz et al., 2016). The 

Ellen, 2016). RAD can be a means for ensuring that the existing units lost from stock include about 10,000 public housing 

stock of public housing is maintained and remains permanently 

units annually. In this context, programs that preserve existing affordable for low-income families to stay in place or move to 

affordable housing, particularly in gentrifying neighborhoods, 

places of opportunity. 

are important tools for ensuring that long-term, low-income 

residents who want to stay have the ability to do so. 

Housing Choice Vouchers

HUD’s HCV program is the largest federal rental housing pro-

Rental Assistance Demonstration

gram, providing housing subsidies for more than 2.2 million 

Public housing developments, in which subsidies are attached 

low-income households (Center on Budget and Policy Priori-

to particular units, may be an effective tool for helping low-

ties, 2015). Voucher holders pay 30 percent of their income 

income families stay in place. However, the current structure 

toward rent, and the subsidy covers the difference between that and level of funding, which is through annual appropriations, 

and an allowable payment standard, determined largely by the 

has been inadequate to address the $26 billion backlog of 

Fair Market Rent (FMR). HCVs and other forms of tenant rental 

deferred maintenance that can result in a permanent loss of 

assistance may be useful in broadening neighborhood choice 

public housing units (Finkel, 2010). 

for low-income families and help to alleviate some of the ex-

clusionary displacement that occurs in central neighborhoods. 

In response, HUD proposed, and Congress authorized, RAD 

The Urban Institute notes that, without federal rental assistance in 2013. RAD’s main goal is to give public housing agencies 

programs, the affordability crisis would be even worse, and the (PHAs) a tool to preserve and improve public housing proper-share of families who could have afforded adequate housing in 

ties by moving units from the public housing program to more 

2013 would have fallen from 28 to 5 percent (Johnson, 2015). 

stable funding platforms, such as long-term project-based 

Subsidies can be particularly helpful in keeping low-income 

Section 8 contracts like project-based vouchers or project-based families in gentrifying neighborhoods, where some evidence 

rental assistance. Through the movement from a funding 

suggests positive outcomes for voucher holders who remain, 

platform of annual appropriations to long-term contracts, RAD 

including living in neighborhoods with lower poverty rates 

enables PHAs to leverage external resources in order to invest 

(Johnson, 2015).

in the public housing stock. PHAs can obtain mortgages to 

finance capital improvements and are eligible for LIHTCs. As 

However, recent research suggests that, even for those with 

of October 2015, more than $2.5 billion of external funding 

subsidies, this protection is far from complete. Ellen and 

was raised for about 19,000 units. To date, 185,000 units have 

Torrats-Espinosa (2016) found that, in metropolitan areas 

already been awarded RAD status, which is the current cap on 

where rents are increasing more rapidly, voucher households 

RAD set by Congress (Econometrica, Inc., 2016). The funding 

tend to move more frequently to other neighborhoods, 

for units that move to long-term project-based Section 8 con tracts experience higher rent burdens, and become more spatially 

through RAD must be renewed by law, ensuring that these units 

concentrated. It is particularly likely that a voucher holder will remain permanently affordable to low-income households.

face a higher rent burden in a tight housing market, such as a 

gentrifying neighborhood, where housing units that meet pro-

Under RAD, residents continue to pay 30 percent of their income gram requirements become increasingly difficult to find (Finkel toward rent and maintain the same basic rights, and RAD main-and Buron, 2001). Similar results were found for families who 

tains the public stewardship of the converted property through 

relocated after HOPE VI. Evidence from the HOPE VI Resident 

clear rules on ownership and use. 

3 A caveat to the potential of keeping affordable housing developments in gentrifying neighborhoods is the ability of the PHA to move a RAD project to a different location.

9

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report Tracking Study suggested that former residents ended up in 

n.d.b.). The Chicago Rehab Network estimates that hundreds 

neighborhoods with lower poverty rates, lower crime rates, and 

of rental homes have been preserved as a direct result of the 

better housing conditions than families living in public housing incentive (CRN, n.d.a.). 

awaiting revitalization, but these benefits were tempered by 

some residents’ financial insecurity (Buron et al., 2002). 

Preservation Catalog

One limit to the ability of rental vouchers to keep residents in Because of uncertain congressional appropriations, localities are place as rents increase may be how the FMR, on which pay-asked to do more with less when it comes to affordable housing 

ment standards are largely based, is calculated. Currently, the development and preservation. Using existing resources in the 

FMRs provide a single rent standard for an entire metropolitan 

most efficient way can help governments react in an uncertain 

area, which may understate the rapid rent growth occurring in 

budgetary environment.

certain central-city neighborhoods. HUD’s final rule on Small 

Lubell (2016) suggested numerous policy responses that 

Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs), published on November 16, 

could improve the efficiency of resource utilization, including 2016, may provide greater flexibility in this instance.4 Unlike a preservation catalog that identifies when subsidies or rental metropolitan-level FMRs, SAFMRs and their associated payment 

assistance will expire. The national online preservationdatabase.

standard amounts are calculated at the ZIP Code level. SAFMRs 

org currently identifies when assistance will expire but focuses recognize that neighborhoods within a single metropolitan area 

on federal subsidies and would greatly benefit from information can be drastically different in terms of opportunity, services, on state and local subsidies (Lubell, 2016). This database can 

and, thereby, rents and give greater choice to voucher house-

assist communities in prioritizing preservation targets well 

holds in determining their housing locations. For residents of 

ahead of subsidy expirations and help them react with the 

gentrifying neighborhoods, SAFMRs may help to stem displace-

appropriate tools. Currently, the database shows that 2 million ment by granting higher payment standards than the overall 

federally assisted rental units with affordable use restrictions metropolitan area.5 

will expire during the coming decade (JCHS, 2016).

Preservation-Friendly Incentives

On the local level, aligning incentives for existing affordable Encourage Greater Development

housing owners with the community’s preservation priorities 

In addition to preserving existing affordable units, encouraging can be effective in maintaining affordable units. Examples 

greater development of rental units at all levels can lower 

of preservation-friendly policies include tax abatements to 

housing costs and expand housing choice for residents, particu-

lower property taxes for owners who agree to preserve units as 

larly in areas with significant rent growth. Most of the current affordable, such as the Class 9 program in Chicago. The Class 9 

affordable housing stock is not subsidized but rather consists 

program reduces the assessment rate on substantial-rehabilita-

of older units that no longer command the highest rents or 

tion or new-construction rental projects to the same lower rate have filtered downward. Lubell (2016) described such units 

as single-family property assessments when a minimum of 35 

as “market-rate affordable” or “naturally occurring affordable”: percent of units is affordable (CRN, n.d.a.).6 

units that are affordable for low-income households without 

In addition to Class 9, Chicago’s Class S property tax incen-

direct government subsidies (JCHS, 2016; Lubell, 2016). 

tive program provides rate cuts to preserve more than 3,000 

How ever, older housing stock that could be market-rate affordable Section 8 housing units at risk of conversion to market-rate 

is often housing higher-income households due to a shortage in 

rental or condominium units, which are particularly at risk 

rental housing at all levels (JCHS, 2016). The Joint Center for in gentrifying neighborhoods. Because Housing Assistance 

Housing Studies of Harvard University estimated that downward-

Payment contracts began expiring in 1997, owners of more 

filtered units increased the supply of affordable units 4.6 percent than 1,000 Section 8 units have chosen to opt out in Illinois, 

between 2003 through 2013, which was more than offset by 

reducing the supply of subsidized housing in the state (CRN, 

the loss of 7.5 percent of similarly priced units due to unit 

4 “Small Area Fair Market Rents in Housing Choice Voucher Program Values for Selection Criteria and Metropolitan Areas Subject to Small Area Fair Market Rents.” 

Federal Register 81 (221) November 16, 2016. 

5 Note, however, that SAFMRs are mandated only for 24 metropolitan areas in which voucher households are particularly concentrated in high poverty neighborhoods. PHAs in other metropolitan areas are permitted to voluntarily adopt SAFMRs.

6 The effectiveness of the program has been limited, as the county reduced assessment factors to the same level for all multiunit apartment buildings.

10

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report upgrading that increased rents, or  upward filtering (JCHS, A particularly promising approach to applying property acqui-2016). Given the tightening of rental markets nationwide, 

sition funds in gentrifying neighborhoods is to target existing or the number of low-income renters far exceeds the number of 

upcoming transit development. The Urban Land Conservancy’s 

available and affordable units, such that both preservation and fund purchases and holds property in key sites in Denver for 

development of new units are necessary. Indeed, a National 

the construction and preservation of more than 1,000 afford-

Low Income Housing Coalition study found that, in 2014, 

able housing units in “current and future transit corridors” 

31 rental units were affordable  and available for every 100 

(Lubell, 2016: 146). Similarly, the Bay Area Transit-Oriented 

extremely low-income renters (Arnold et al., 2014).

Affordable Housing (TOAH) Fund is a $50 million fund that 

is focused on the production and preservation of affordable 

Federal Policies To Encourage Supply of Afford-

housing in transit-oriented neighborhoods that also sets aside 

able Housing

funds for neighborhood amenities such as community facilities, 

At the federal level, in addition to efforts to preserve the 

health clinics, and grocery stores (Lubell, 2016). These types 

existing stock, HUD has been looking for ways to promote 

of funds can be particularly useful for renters in and around 

the expansion of the affordable supply, including a review of  

gentrifying neighborhoods. Low-income households are often 

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) policies such as condo-

forced to trade location for affordability to such a degree that minium guidelines and rulemaking related to the production 

they can spend nearly three times more on transportation when 

and installation of manufactured housing.

living in neighborhoods with lower-cost housing (JCHS, 2016). 

Creating and preserving affordable housing near transit options Another opportunity lies with condominiums, traditionally a 

can alleviate some of the high cost burdens that low-income 

mainstay of affordable housing for both first-time homebuyers 

renters in these neighborhoods face.

and seniors. HUD is in the process of revising condominium 

project approval requirements in order to provide a Final 

Housing Supply and Local Regulations

Rule and updated policies. HUD anticipates that the updated 

Given rising rents, the question remains—why has the supply 

condominium project-approval regulations will be more flex-

of housing not caught up to demand? Researchers have increas-

ible, less prescriptive, and more reflective of the current market ingly focused on the role of restrictive land zoning regulations, than existing condominium project-approval provisions.

which have risen since the late 1970s, in increasing construction HUD also recently announced a top-to-bottom review of its 

costs. Glaeser, Gyourko, and Saks (2005a) found that, until the manufactured housing rules to assess their compliance costs 

1970s, rising quality of both housing and construction drove 

and whether those costs are justified against the backdrop of 

housing price increases. The authors concluded, however, that 

the nation’s shortage of affordable housing. Manufactured hous-

price increases instead reflect the difficulty of obtaining regula-ing plays a vital role in meeting the nation’s affordable housing tory approval for new home construction. Similarly, Gyourko, 

needs, providing nearly 10 percent of the total single-family 

Mayer, and Sinai (2013) demonstrated that the widening of 

housing stock. Estimates suggest that more than 22 million 

real home price distributions is correlated with variation in the American households reside in manufactured housing.

adoption of land use restrictions by communities.

A collection of work draws direct connections between local 

Property Acquisition 

zoning restrictions and the cost of housing for specific cities. 

Beyond federal efforts, local governments have had some 

For example, Glaeser, Schuetz, and Ward (2006) found that a 

suc cesses in developing affordable units in some neighborhoods 1-acre increase in a Boston-area town’s minimum lot size was 

where such units would be cost prohibitive through the use 

associated with about a 40-percent drop in housing permits. 

of property-acquisition funds. For example, the New York 

In areas with increased demand, such as Manhattan, land 

City Acquisition Fund grants up to $190 million in loans to 

use regulations are credited with constraining the supply of 

affordable housing developers through major financial institu-

housing and leading to increased prices (Glaeser, Gyourko, and 

tions that are protected by a guarantee (Lubell, 2016). More 

Saks, 2005b).

than 7,650 affordable units have been created or preserved as a result of the fund.7 

These patterns of increased housing costs and restrictions on 

supply since the 1970s suggest that this problem is not temporary and that we are not waiting for the market to catch up. In fact, 7 http://www.nycacquisitionfund.com/.

11

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report these regulations can be particularly restrictive for multifamily The Toolkit recognized that greater political influence of some housing and incentivize expensive housing development more 

neighborhoods provides increased ability to implement strict 

than moderately priced housing (Quigley and Raphael, 2005). 

local barriers. Such barriers often result in pushing any new 

Indeed, local governments often discourage or prohibit the type development to low-income, gentrifying neighborhoods. By 

of economical design that could encourage prompt, efficient, 

actively working to minimize these restrictions on further 

and affordable development of housing, such as modular units 

growth and to encourage greater regionwide development, state 

(White, Wilkins, and Pinto, 2016). At an average asking rent 

and local governments can reduce the displacement potential 

of about $1,381 per month, housing development currently 

for neighborhoods with particularly strong rent or housing 

under way is typically more expensive than the average renter 

price increases.

can afford (Anderson, n.d.). Whereas a household income of 

$55,000 would be required to afford that level of rent without 

Inclusionary Zoning Policies

incurring a high housing cost burden, the average income 

An empirical debate is ongoing about the magnitude of benefits 

for a renter is only $35,000. As housing construction and 

and associated negative effects of inclusionary zoning policies.

maintenance costs increase, units “rarely filter down to become affordable for low-income people” (Anderson, n.d.).

Some experts have noted that inclusionary zoning policies often fall short of their goals and, in hot housing markets, can raise The Obama White House’s “Housing Development Toolkit” 

construction costs significantly (Quigley and Raphael, 2005). 

highlighted the costs of local regulatory barriers to develop-

They can potentially lead to a decrease in unit production and, ment, including exacerbating the housing affordability crisis, 

ultimately, affordability.

creating a drag on the national economy, and reducing the 

number of families that HCVs could serve because of higher 

Other empirical studies have suggested that the number of 

per-unit costs.

affordable housing units produced from inclusionary zoning 

programs is underestimated and that these policies do not 

The Housing Development Toolkit suggested a variety of strate-

lead to significant declines in overall housing production or to gies that state and local governments could take to promote 

increases in rents and prices (Sturtevant, 2016).

greater housing development in the face of challenging political barriers to reform and improvement. Specifically, some of the 

A recent report by the Center for Housing Policy notes that the actions emphasized include—

success of inclusionary zoning policies depends on different 

factors; for example, offering additional incentives that offset 

•  Establishing by-right development, particularly in conjunc-

the cost to developers, such as fee waivers or expedited permit tion with affordable housing, transit-oriented development 

and approval times (Sturtevant, 2016). Therefore, aligning 

(TOD), or energy-efficiency policy goals to shorten the 

regulations that attempt to increase the supply of affordable 

building approval process.

housing with the correct incentives and in the correct markets 

•  Requiring vacant property registration and increasing fees 

may be instrumental to their success.

the longer a property remains vacant, encouraging owners to 

The current Administration is interested in reducing regula-

put properties to more productive uses, such as redevelop-

tory barriers to the production of affordable housing that 

ment or donating land to nonprofit developers.

has constrained supply and left many American families cost 

•  Reducing minimum lot sizes and eliminating off-street park-

burdened.

ing requirements, which significantly add to housing costs 

and can impede the affordability of a project.

Engage Community Residents

•  Allowing for accessory dwelling units that can address a 

greater trend toward intergenerational living.

Greater development is needed to meet current demand and to 

compensate for decades of restricted supply. High-density and 

•  Establishing density bonuses or development taxes that 

affordable housing development is often met with community 

incentivize the addition of affordable housing units. (The 

resistance, however. Successful development plans will seek the White House, 2016)

buy-in of the community in a variety of ways that reach beyond 

only housing. 

12

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report State and Local Measures on Affordable Housing 

micro-level segregation continues to occur (Tach, 2014). 

Development

Higher-income residents often avoid areas immediately 

Complementing federal incentives for new affordable housing 

surrounding subsidized developments they consider unsafe, 

development, local governments have sought new means 

and lower-income residents are often priced out of establish-

for affordable housing construction while garnering public 

ments that high-income residents frequent. These patterns 

support. In San Francisco, Proposition A, a $310 million bond 

show up in neighborhood organizations that are designed to 

measure for affordable housing, was passed with 74 percent 

serve the needs of particular interest and social groups, as well. 

of voters supporting the bond during the November 2015 

For example, block associations that attract higher-income 

referendum (Brooks and Pickoff-White, 2015). The measure is 

residents promoted activities such as wine tastings and historic expected to finance the construction or rehabilitation of 30,000 

preservation, whereas asso ci ations based in affordable housing affordable units, and a significant portion of the bond will be complexes focused on social services and ethnic cultural 

used to target affordable housing development specifically in 

celebrations (Tach, 2014). 

the gentrifying Mission District neighborhood. Although the 

Clearly, meaningful integration involves more than merely 

city has been concerned with the displacement of minority and 

mixed-income neighborhoods. The most successful neighbor-

low-income households, on top of affordability pressures from 

hood organizations at promoting social cohesion in South End 

the technology boom, placing the bond for a public vote shifted Boston were those that reflected broad-based interests and were which actors prioritize housing affordability. By doing so, San not cost prohibitive (Tach, 2014). For low-income residents 

Francisco leaders already garnered widespread public support 

to garner the benefits of neighborhood change, communities 

before any affordable units have been constructed. 

should also pursue policy objectives further than affordable 

housing by supporting neighborhood organizations that foster 

Support for Community-Led Organizations

greater connections between newcomers and long-time resi-

Although residential displacement is a primary concern of 

dents and that encourage civic engagement among all groups. 

many changing neighborhoods, communities should also act 

to ensure that residents who can remain are not alienated from 

Regional Cooperation and Strategies

neighborhood changes. Stemming the social tensions that come 

with the potential for cultural and political  displacement of 

As the number of lower-income and poor households continues 

long-term residents can encourage meaningful social interactions to grow faster in the suburbs than in the nation’s biggest cities, with newcomers and foster greater integration (Hyra, 2017). 

local suburban agencies struggle to keep up with demand for 

Researchers, such as Chaskin and Joseph (2015), recognize that 

services, because they lack the fiscal and nonprofit architecture meaningful integration will require more than policy responses 

(Kneebone and Berube, 2013). Historically, social service 

geared toward housing. If communities are not intentionally 

resources were more likely to be supported and funded in 

“activating the mix,” as they call it, or working to ensure that urban centers, where large concentrations of poor households 

increased mixing currently occurring in cities is “real,” then di-resided. However, gentrification, along with the rental afford-

versity, if achieved, is much less likely to remain. Indeed, Hyra ability crisis and housing bust in the mid-2000s, has resulted in (2016: 171) argued that, “we must look beyond residential 

an influx of lower-income and poor households into suburban 

and small business displacement… impacts to understand how 

communities. 

to effectively facilitate community conditions in economically 

transitioning neighborhoods that better support social cohesion Murphy and Wallace (2010: 1164) found that, at the start of 

and interaction among traditionally segregated populations.” 

the 2000s, the suburban poor were more isolated than their 

One way for all levels of government to support this kind of 

city counterparts from organizations that could help them 

meaningful integration is through current funding that can be 

with their daily needs and “even more so from those offering 

directed to support community-led organizations that encour-

opportunities for mobility.” This finding illustrates the interage cross-race and cross-class connections (Hyra, 2016). 

connectedness between neighborhoods and communities. A 

shortage of housing in one city, and any policies that contribute South End Boston provides a good example of the need for 

to it, spill over to surrounding communities. An ecosystem 

these types of policy responses. Despite the area’s racial and 

of neighborhoods and communities exists. The impact of 

economic diversity, with high-income and generally White 

gentrification is not isolated to the changing neighborhood, and homeowners living in close proximity to minority renters, 

addressing the forces behind it requires regional strategies.

13

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

Convening and Sharing Best Practices

Beyond stemming discrimination, the 1968 Fair Housing Act 

HUD recently joined local communities in five regions around 

requires that HUD and other federal agencies affirmatively 

the country to talk about the most challenging issues of 

further fair housing in the administration of housing programs. 

class, race, and housing’s role in accessing opportunity. San 

This obligation applies to jurisdictions and grantees receiving Francisco held one of the initial five convenings, in which 

HUD funds. HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 

significant change in the Mission District neighborhood was at 

(AFFH) final rule sets forth the requirements and process for 

the forefront of the conversation. The Mission District histori-those program participants.

cally has been populated by Mexican and Central American 

immigrants but is currently seeing an influx of younger, White 

Key parts of the rule relevant to this discussion are—

technology professionals.

•  Program participants receiving HUD funding are required to 

HUDUser.gov also documents and elevates policies, case complete an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), identifying 

studies, and best practices that state and local leaders can 

fair housing issues.

use in ensuring inclusive community development (HUD, 

•  The AFH is done with a standardized assessment tool and 

n.d.a.). Online resources are an example of how the federal 

associated data and maps to help in assessing patterns of 

government can support local efforts to respond to community 

segregation and what those patterns may mean for access to 

change and can encourage the coordination and cooperation of 

important neighborhood services, for example.

multiple localities and agencies. 

•  Grantees then set forth their priority goals for addressing 

Data Sharing

those issues and incorporate this analysis into their follow-on planning processes—such as the Consolidated Plan for 

In support of regional coordination, data sharing among 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) grantees and 

agencies and municipalities can help communities respond 

the PHA plans—which include strategies and steps to be 

appropriately to the shifting makeup of their neighborhoods 

taken (O’Regan, 2016).

and needs. Utilizing existing networks, such as the National 

League of Cities and the National Association of Counties, can 

Grantees are required to have meaningful community participa tion assist in this effort by providing data and technical assistance as part of identifying issues and setting goals. HUD also strongly to inform local leaders of trends and best practices across cities encourages joint or regional submissions, so that multiple 

and counties. Local organizations can take a leadership role in jurisdictions and entities work together on the assessments and creating and supporting scaled and integrated solutions across 

goals. The coordination and planning for these assessments 

jurisdictions and agencies. 

may serve as a backdrop for broader conversations on how to 

support efforts to maximize the upside potential of increased 

Within the federal government, interagency efforts to promote 

investment into gentrifying neighborhoods while minimizing 

region-level planning decisions have also proven successful 

some of the downsides, including displacement.

thanks to cooperation between departments on a similar goal. 

In the Sustainable Communities Initiative, HUD worked closely 

Neighborhoods that are currently undergoing gentrification, 

with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. 

or are likely to in the near future, could pose an opportunity 

Environmental Protection Agency to provide grants that sought 

for a particularly impactful strategy within AFFH. These areas 

to improve regional and local planning efforts to integrate 

frequently already contain minority households and already 

housing, transportation, economic and workforce development, 

experience increased investments such that neighborhood 

and infrastructure investments (HUD, n.d.b.). Programs that 

services and conditions are improving. Employing strategies 

encourage a broader look at neighborhood change beyond 

here to minimize displacement and secure affordable housing 

housing and that integrate agency resources and tools can be 

has the potential for securing longer-term diversity.

especially helpful in assisting gentrifying areas.

AFFH might provide an opportunity for localities and regions 

to address the housing affordability and displacement pressures Award Coordinated Efforts

from a more holistic perspective.

AFFH, along with work across jurisdictions and agencies, 

are good examples of coordinated efforts that can respond 

more effectively to the pressures of broad community change. 

14

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report However, both federal and local governments can go further 

4. Regional cooperation and strategies—

by acknowledging these interjurisdictional groups as qualified 

•  Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

grantees, by explicitly rewarding collaborative and integrative 

•  Convening and sharing best practices.

approaches within existing funding streams, such as awarding 

more points to grant applications, or both (HUD, n.d.b.). For 

•  Data sharing.

example, HUD’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program 

•  Award coordinated efforts.

recognizes the importance of flexibility in empowering 

communities to create affordable housing and awards grants 

to collaborative entities that contain both entitlement and 

Local Policy Platforms That Address 

nonentitlement communities. However, only entitled cities and 

Equitable Development

counties are eligible for CDBGs for viable urban community 

development and expanding economic opportunity.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

In addition to providing direct incentives for coordination, the Strategies employed—

federal government can also assist in the data-sharing efforts of local collaboratives by aligning data requirements and reporting ü Preserve existing affordable housing through property 

systems across agencies and programs, when possible (Knee-

acquisition and rehabilitation of units in disrepair. 

bone and Berube, 2013). Standardizing data systems could 

ü Encourage greater housing development including, but not 

help municipalities see an immediate effect on administrative 

limited to, affordable housing.

costs but encourage greater cooperation and communication.

ü Engage and educate existing community residents on tools 

New Innovations in 

needed to participate in planning and zoning decisions and 

incentivize local and minority hiring.

Responding to Gentrification

ü Improve data collection to adequately address the degree of 

Local governments and organizations are also looking at 

displacement and craft effective policy solutions from these 

innovative and comprehensive ways to ensure equity in 

findings.

neighborhood development and change. This section highlights 

In Philadelphia, the development boom in center city has resulted several communities whose innovative work incorporates 

in rapid price appreciation for housing and gentrification of 

elements of the four strategies discussed previously. 

neighborhoods in the downtown core. The Philadelphia As-

1. Preserve existing affordable housing—

sociation of Community Development Corporations (PACDC) 

has attempted to address these issues with its equitable 

•  Rental Assistance Demonstration.

development policy platform, entitled Beyond Gentrification, 

•  Housing choice vouchers.

Toward Equitable Neighborhoods. Among a multitude of policy 

•  Preservation-friendly incentives.

re commendations, the platform highlights the need to preserve 

quality affordable housing through the repair of existing mixed-

•  Preservation catalog.

income properties, encourage more market-rate development 

2. Encourage greater development—

and increase the dedicated funding for the Philadelphia Housing 

•  Federal Housing Administration insurance rate cuts.

Trust Fund and attack blight through consolidated public 

ownership of land and acquiring delinquent properties through 

•  Property acquisition.

the Philadelphia Land Bank, implemented in 2014, and improved 

•  Housing supply and local regulations.

code enforcement on vacant properties to hold owners account-

•  Inclusionary zoning policies.

able to their neighbors (Hahn and Brey, 2015). PACDC also 

encourages inclusive communities with resident engagement 

3. Engage community residents—

and education. Through the Philadelphia Planning Commission’s 

•  State and local measures on affordable housing develop-

Citizens Planning Institute, PACDC encourages that commu-

ment.

nity residents be given the tools and knowledge to participate 

•  Support for community-led organizations.

in the Registered Community Organization process and other 

planning and zoning decisions. Along these lines, the initiative 15

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report hopes to expand economic opportunities on neighborhood 

Chicago, Illinois

corridors with programs like storefront improvements for 

Strategies employed—

small business; increased hiring for minority-, women-, and 

disadvantaged-owned business enterprises; and incentivizing 

ü Preserve existing affordable housing by acquiring foreclosed 

large employers to hire locally.

properties and rehabilitating units.

PACDC has been endorsed by 42 member organizations and 

ü Encourage greater housing development including, but not 

calls on the city to develop a coordinated effort with partners, limited to, affordable housing through creation of a land bank.

such as housing counselors to track data on displacement and 

ü Taking a broader look and using regional, rather than local-

rent increases in order to inform appropriate policy actions. 

ized, strategies by cooperating with multiple agencies and 

Local policy platforms such as PACDC’s may be helpful in 

securing funds through a wide range of programs.

garnering support for comprehensive responses that go beyond 

affordable housing and beyond neighborhoods. 

Some cities, such as Chicago, grappling with changing urban 

downtowns alongside growing suburban poverty already 

Washington, D.C.

cooperate on a regional and interagency level. The Chicago 

Strategies employed—

Southland Housing and Community Development Cooperative 

and the West Cook County Housing Collaborative consist of 29 

ü Encourage greater affordable housing development through 

Chicago municipalities that collectively secured $44 million for property acquisition in partnership with nonprofits.

housing and community development initiatives (Snyderman 

and Dever, n.d.). With funds from various government grants 

ü Engage existing community residents in the development 

from programs such as the HUD’s Neighborhood Stabilization 

of a plan, along with policy experts, government officials, 

Program, CDBG Disaster Recovery Program, and the Sustain-

and business owners to create the 11th Street Bridge Park 

able Communities Initiative, the two collaboratives began the 

Equitable Development Plan (EDP).

process of rehabilitating or demolishing foreclosed properties, ü Improve access to quality education through early learning 

started a TOD fund and a land bank for the acquisition of 

centers, adult education and services for the youth and arts, 

foreclosed properties, and created a geographic information 

and stimulating economic development.

system to map demographic and economic trends (Snyderman 

and Dever, n.d.). 

ü Supporting healthy environments through services by 

pro viding medical care, food and nutrition, and services for 

San Francisco, California

seniors.

Strategies employed—

In Washington, D.C., Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

(LISC DC) contributed $50 million to the Elevating Equity 

ü Encourage greater housing development including, but 

Initiative to ensure equality in development around the 11th 

not limited to, affordable housing along transit lines in the 

Street Bridge Park (LISC DC, 2016). Recognizing the potential 

region.

for displacement once the park is complete, LISC DC’s initiative ü Partner with private and public organizations and use 

aims at early action in five different areas within a 1-mile radius regional strategies to address high traffic to centralized city of the future park. Like PACDC’s policy platform, the EDP 

locations.

was developed by LISC DC in coordination with government 

officials, business owners, policy experts, and community 

The San Francisco Bay Area’s TOAH Fund is a $50 million 

members and stakeholders to employ the strategies discussed 

public-private financing resource collaboration of the nonprofit previously. In addition to the policy plan, LISC DC will provide and philanthropic organizations, public agencies, Community 

grants, loans, and technical assistance in achieving these four Development Financial Institutions, and banks, including the 

goals around the 11th Street Bridge area. 

Great Communities Collaborative, the Association of Bay Area 

Governments, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commis-

sion. The fund will provide financing for affordable housing 

development, retail services, and services like childcare centers and health clinics along transit lines throughout the nine-county 16

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report Bay Area (Kneebone and Berube, 2013). The fund has financed 

Atlanta, Georgia

several developments, including the Eddy and Taylor Family 

Strategies employed—

Housing, 5th and Howard in San Francisco, Leigh Avenue 

Senior Apartments in San Jose, and West Grand Development 

ü Encourage multimodal transportation options.

in Oakland (Seifel Consulting Inc., 2013). 

ü Preserve existing affordable housing.

Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota

ü Encourage greater housing development including, but not 

Strategies employed—

limited to, affordable housing.

ü Create and preserve access to affordable housing.

ü Engage existing community residents.

ü Encourage a strong local economy by connecting people to 

ü Taking a broader look and using regional, rather than local-

construction and permanent jobs.

ized, strategies.

ü Create vibrant and transit-oriented places through place-

Atlanta is currently undergoing a transformative infrastructure making and maintaining the character of individual neigh-investment that has the potential to drastically change the way bor hoods.

residents move around and interact with their city. The idea 

for the Atlanta Beltline grew from a 22-mile network of unused 

ü Facilitate effective communication and collaboration among 

railroad corridors. The project will eventually connect 45 neigh-diverse partners.

borhoods via a system of transit, trails, and greenways.

ü Engage existing community residents.

The Atlanta Beltline thoughtfully incorporates multimodal 

transportation options and affordable housing into the plan. 

ü Take a broader look and using regional, rather than localized, The initiative will include 33 miles of biking and walking 

strategies.

trails, as well as streetcar service. Getting ahead of the expected A collaborative of public, nonprofit, and philanthropic partners increased demand along the corridor, the city of Atlanta and 

is working together to mitigate displacement along the Metro 

other partners are creating and preserving affordable housing 

Green Line, which connects the central business districts of 

in the neighborhoods connected by the Beltline. Of the 28,000 

Minneapolis and Saint Paul, as it continues to expand (Sage-

housing units included in the strategic implementation plan, 20 

Martinson, 2016). This work began with the Central Corridors 

percent will be affordable (HUD, n.d.d.). 

Funders Collaborative and eventually expanded to other transit 

The Beltline serves as an example of how to advance equitable 

corridors in the region thanks to HUD’s Sustainable Communi-

development through large infrastructure projects. The project 

ties Initiative. 

has spurred both public and private investment across the city. 

The collaborative has succeeded, 5 years in to the initiative, 

By creating new linkages between neighborhoods, the project 

in preserving or building 3,573 affordable units and serving 

addresses longstanding patterns of segregation and opportu-

968 households with resources to help stabilize lower income 

nity. For more information on the project, read the full article, families in their homes. Beyond the quantitative metrics, a key 

“The Atlanta Beltline,” on HUDUser.gov.

indicator of success was the degree to which multistakeholder 

collaboration took place. The collaborative facilitated the 

Portland, Oregon

coordination of several partners across sectors (HUD, n.d.c.). 

Strategies employed—

Other communities can learn from the collaborative’s experi-

ü Preserve housing affordability, by not only acquiring and 

ence. Lessons learned include how to maximize coordinated 

setting aside land for affordable housing development, but 

investments, convene partners, and utilize existing resources 

also providing information to residents about tenant rights, 

and programs to target shared goals. For more information on 

foreclosure and home values, and providing direct assistance 

this work, see “Corridors of Opportunity Along the Green Line” 

and information to lower home utility and maintenance costs.

on HUDUser.gov. 

ü Retain existing neighborhood businesses by providing 

 assistance to small business owners.

17

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report ü Help families achieve economic self-sufficiency by connect-The policy responses this report suggests attempt to amplify 

ing priority populations to targeted employment and prepar-

the benefits of gentrification, and the increased investments it ing them for long-term success and by providing affordable 

brings, while minimizing the costs, such as potential displace-

childcare to working parents.

ment of low-income families and long-term resegregation of 

cities. Although greater housing production is necessary in 

ü Engage existing community residents and organizations, 

communities struggling to keep up with the increased demand 

such as neighborhood associations, churches, and govern-

for affordable housing, for the outcome of community change 

ment agencies.

to be shared opportunity, efforts at meaningful integration 

Like so many cities across the country, Portland, Oregon has 

across socioeconomic and racial lines are just as important. 

experienced a sharp increase in housing demand in the past 

15 years. This demand has driven up housing costs in many 

References

neighborhoods, pushing lower-income residents to other parts 

of the city or further out in the suburbs. In the neighborhood 

Abellard, Natasha. n.d. “Gentrification Brings Health Food to 

of Cully, an effort to address this displacement sheds light on 

Harlem.” http://projects.nyujournalism.org/voicesofharlem/

strategies cities can utilize to ensure that low-income residents 

gentrification-brings-healthy-food-harlem/.

can remain in their neighborhoods. 

Alwitt, Linda, and Thomas Donley. 1997. “Retail Stores in Poor 

The organization, Living Cully, is comprised of community 

Urban Neighborhoods,”  The Journal of Consumer Affairs 31 (1): development organizations working together to meet the needs 

139–164. 

of residents in Cully. Living Cully works closely with the local government to advance their mission. Additionally, they look 

Anderson, Bendix. n.d. “New Construction Is not Enough.” 

beyond their own neighborhood to understand how citywide 

http://www.sms.hanleywood.com/specialreports/SMS_

and regional policies and broader market forces affect their 

SpecialReport_July16-FullArticle-AHF.htmlHF.html.

residents (HUD, n.d.e.). 

Arnold, Althea, Sheila Crowley, Elina Bravve, Sarah Brundage, 

More details on Living Cully’s strategies to mitigate displace-

and Christine Biddlecombe. 2014.  Out of Reach 2014. Washing-ment in a rapidly changing neighborhood can be found on 

ton, DC: National Low Income Housing Coalition.

HUDUser.gov.

Baum-Snow, Nathaniel, and Daniel Hartley. 2016. “Causes and 

Consequences of Central Neighborhood Change, 1970–2010.” 

Concluding Remarks

Paper presented at the Research Symposium on Gentrification 

and Neighborhood Change, May 25. 

A recent study by  Governing suggests that gentrification is still Brooks, Jon, and Lisa Pickoff-White. 2015. “S.F. Election: Lee 

rare nationwide, with only 8 percent of neighborhoods reviewed 

Re-Elected, Peskin Wins, Airbnb Curb Fail.” http://ww2.kqed.

experiencing gentrification since 2000 (Maciag, 2015). Many 

org/news/2015/11/03/san-francisco-2015-election-results/.

researchers agree that the larger issue is concentrated poverty, with 75 percent of high-poverty neighborhoods staying poor  

Buron, Larry, Susan Popkin, Diane Levy, Laura Harris, and 

from 1970 to 2010 (Cortright and Mahmoudi, 2014). By intro-

Jill Khadduri. 2002.  The Hope VI Resident Tracking Study: A ducing high-income households into previously predominately 

Snapshot of the Current Living Situation of Original Residents from low-income neighborhoods, gentrification may be a part of the 

Eight Sights. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates Inc.; Washington, solution to concentrated poverty. Indeed, Ellen and Torrats-DC: Urban Institute .

Espinosa (2016) described the observed decline in poverty 

levels for voucher neighborhoods as the gentrification effect. 

Caplovitz, David. 1967.  The Poor Pay More: Consumer Practices of Low-Income Families. New York: Free Press.

Communities undergoing gentrification have a particularly ripe 

opportunity to harness the upsides of neighborhood change 

Carr, James, and Jenny Schuetz. 2001.  Financial Services in and to address concentrated poverty, which some observers de-Distressed Communities: Framing the Issue, Finding Solutions. 

scribe as the biggest urban challenge the nation currently faces Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation.

(Cortright and Mahmoudi, 2014). However, to create stably 

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2015. “Policy Basics: The diverse neighborhoods and communities, policy responses are 

Housing Choice Voucher  Program.” http://www.cbpp.org/research/

needed beyond the neighborhood and beyond housing. 

housing/policy-basics-the-housing-choice-voucher-program.

18

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report Cenziper, Debbie, and Michael Sallah. 2014. “Groundbreaking 

Ellen, Ingrid Gould, Keren Mertens Horn, and David Reed. 

Protections Proposed for D.C. Homeowners Behind on Taxes,” 

2016. “Has Falling Crime Invited Gentrification?” Paper 

The Washington Post, March 18. 

presented at the Research Symposium on Gentrification and 

Neighborhood Change, May 25.

Chaskin, Robert, and Mark Joseph. 2015.  Integrating the Inner City: The Promise and Perils of Mixed-Income Public Housing Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Katherine O’Regan. 2009a. “Reversal 

Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

of Fortunes? Lower-Income Urban Neighborhoods in the US in 

the 1990s,”  Urban Studies  45 (4): 845–869.

Chicago Rehab Network (CRN). n.d.a. “Class 9.” http://www.

chicagorehab.org/policy/class9.htm.

———. 2009b. “Crime and U.S. Cities: Recent Patterns and 

Implications,”  The Annals of the American Academy of Political 

———. n.d.b. “Property Tax: New Class S Incentive.” http://

and Social Science 626: 22–38.

www.chicagorehab.org/resources/docs/policy/class_s.pdf.

———. 2011. “How Low-Income Neighborhoods Change: 

Cortright, Joe, and Dillon Mahmoudi. 2014. “Lost in Place: 

Entry, Exit, and Enhancement,”  Regional Science and Urban 

Why the Persistence and Spread of Concentrated Poverty— 

Economics  41: 89–97.

not Gentrification—Is Our Biggest Urban Challenge.” 

http://cityobservatory.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/

Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Gerard Torrats-Espinosa. 2016. 

LostinPlace_12.4.pdf.

“High-Cost Cities, Gentrification, and Voucher Use.” Paper 

presented at the Research Symposium on Gentrification and 

Couture, Victor, and Jessie Handbury. 2015. “Urban Revival in 

Neighborhood Change, May 25. 

America, 2000 to 2010.” faculty.hass.berkeley.edu/courture/

download/Couture_Handbury_Revival.pdf.  

Finkel, Meryl. 2010. “Revitalizing Public Housing: What 

Will It Take?” http://abtassociates.com/Noteworthy/2010/

Dastrup, Samuel, and Ingrid Gould Ellen. 2016. “Linking 

Revitalizing-Public-Housing--What-Will-It-Take-.

Residents to Opportunity: Gentrification and Public Housing,” 

aspx?utm_source=SEP+enewsletter+WORKING+DRAFT&u

Cityscape 18 (3): 87–107.

tm_campaign=Housing+enews-+June&utm_medium=email.

Ding, Lei, and Jackelyn Hwang. 2016. “The Consequences 

Finkel, Meryl, and Larry Buron. 2001.  Study on Section 8 

of Gentrification: A Focus on Residents’ Financial Health in 

Voucher Success Rates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Philadelphia,”  Cityscape 18 (3): 25–53.

Housing and Urban Development.

Ding, Lei, Jackelyn Hwang, and Eileen Divringi. 2015. Gentrifi-

Freeman, Lance. 2005. “Displacement or Succession? Resi-

cation and Residential Mobility in Philadelphia. Working paper 

dential Mobility in Gentrifying Neighborhoods,”  Urban Affairs 15–36. Philadelphia: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

Review 40 (4): 463–491.

Econometrica, Inc. 2016. “Evaluation of HUD’s Rental Assis-

Freeman, Lance, and Frank Braconi. 2004. “Gentrification 

tance Demonstration (RAD): Interim Report.” https://www.

and Displacement: New York City in the 1990s,”  Journal of the 

huduser.gov/portal/publications/RAD_Evaluation.html.

American Planning Association  70 (1): 39–52. 

Eggers, Frederick J., and Fouad Moumen. 2015.  Rental Market Glaeser, Edward, Joseph Gyourko, and Raven Saks. 2005a. 

Dynamics: 2009–2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Why Have Housing Prices Gone Up? NBER Working Paper No. 

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Develop-

1129. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

ment and Research.

———. 2005b. “Why Is Manhattan so Expensive? Regulation 

Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Lei Ding. 2016. “Advancing Our 

and the Rise in Housing Prices,”  The Journal of Law and Econom-Understanding of Gentrification.” Paper presented at the 

ics  48: 331–369.

Research Symposium on Gentrification and Neighborhood 

Change, May 25.

Glaeser, Edward, Jenny Schuetz, and Bryce Ward. 2006.  Regu-

lation and the Rise of Housing Prices in Greater Boston. Cambridge, Ellen, Ingrid Gould, Keren Horn, and Katherine O’Regan. 

MA: Harvard University, Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston.

2013. “Why Do Higher-Income Households Choose Low-

Income Neighborhoods? Pioneering or Thrift?”  Urban Studies 

Goetz, Edward. 2013.  New Deal Ruins: Race, Economic Justice, 50 (12): 2478–2495.

and Public Housing Policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

19

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report Gress, Garyn, Seungjong Cho, and Mark Joseph. 2016. “HOPE 

Kneebone, Elizabeth, and Alan Berube. 2013.  Confronting 

VI Data Compilation and Analysis.” https://www.huduser.gov/

Suburban Poverty in America. Washington, DC: Brookings 

portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HOPE-VI-Data-Compilation-and-

Institution Press.

Analysis.pdf.

Local Initiatives Support Coalition Washington DC (LISC DC). 

Gyourko, Joseph, Christopher Mayer, and Todd Sinai. 2013. 

2016. “LISC DC Launches a $50 Million Elevating Equity 

“Superstar Cities,”  American Economic Journal: Economic Policy  

Initiative.” http://www.liscdc.org/home-story/lisc-dcs-50-

5 (4): 167–199.

million-elevating-equity-initiative/.

Hahn, Ashley, and Jared Brey. 2015. “PACDC Hopes Candidates 

Lubell, Jeffrey. 2016. “Preserving and Expanding Affordability 

Will Focus on Equitable Neighborhood Development.” http://

in Neighborhoods Experiencing Rising Rents and Property 

planphilly.com/articles/2015/02/19/pacdc-hopes-candidates-

Values,”  Cityscape 18 (3): 131–150 .

will-focus-on-equitable-neighborhood-development.

Maciag, Mike. 2015. “Gentrification in America Report.” http://

Hayes, Lashawn. 2000. Do the Poor Pay More? An Empirical 

www.governing.com/gov-data/census/gentrification-in-cities-

Investigation of Price Dispersion in Food Retailing. Working 

governing-report.html.

paper 446. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Department of 

Meltzer, Rachel. 2016. “Gentrification and Small Business: 

Economics, Industrial Relations. 

Threat or Opportunity?”  Cityscape  18 (3): 57–85.

Helling, Amy, and David Sawicki. 2003. “Race and Residential 

Meltzer, Rachel, and Jenny Schuetz. 2012. “Bodegas or Bagel 

Accessibility to Shopping and Services,”  Housing Policy Debate Shops? Neighborhood Differences in Retail and Household 

14 (1–2): 69–101.

Services,”  Economic Development Quarterly 26 (1): 73–94.

Hyra, Derek. 2015. “The Back-to-the-City Movement: Neigh-

Murphy, Alexandra, and Danielle Wallace. 2010. “Opportuni-

borhood Redevelopment and Processes of Political and Cultural 

ties for Making Ends Meet and Upward Mobility: Differences in 

Displacement,”  Urban Studies 52 (10): 1753–1773.

Organizational Deprivation Across Urban and Suburban Poor 

———. 2016. “Commentary: Causes and Consequences 

Neighborhoods,”  Social Sciences Quarterly 91 (5): 1164–1186.

of Gentrification and the Future of Equitable Development 

Nevius, Charles W. 2014. “Gentrification no Longer a 

Policy,”  Cityscape 18 (3): 169–177 .

Dirty Word.” http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/

———. 2017.  Race, Class, and Politics in the Cappuccino City. 

Gentrification-no-longer-a-dirty-word-4302093.php.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Newman, Kathe, and Elvin Wyly. 2006. “The Right To Stay 

Jacobus, Rick. 2015.  Inclusionary Housing (Policy Focus Report). 

Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

New York City,”  Urban Studies 43 (1): 23–57.

Jargowsky, Paul. 2003.  Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: The O’Regan, Katherine. 2016. “Commentary: A Federal Perspective 

Dramatic Decline of Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s. Washing-on Gentrification,”  Cityscape 18 (3): 151–162.

ton, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

O’Sullivan, Arthur. 2005. “Gentrification and Crime,”  Journal of Johnson, Matthew. 2015. “Stepping Up: How Cities Are 

Urban Economics  57: 73–85.

Working To Keep America’s Poorest Families Housed.” http://

Popkin, Susan, Bruce Katz, Mary Cunningham, Karen Brown, 

www.urban.org/features/stepping-how-cities-are-working-

Jeremy Gustafson, and Margery Turner. 2004.  A Decade of 

keep-americas-poorest-families-housed.

HOPE VI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges. Washington, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (JCHS). 

DC: Urban Institute.

2016. “The State of the Nation’s Housing 2016.” http://www.

Popkin, Susan J., Diane Levy, Laura E. Harris, Jennifer Comey, 

jchs.harvard.edu/research/state_nations_housing.

Mary K. Cunningham, and Larry Buron. 2002.  HOPE VI Panel 

Kaufman, Philip, James MacDonald, Steve Lutz, and David 

Study: Baseline Report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute .

Smallwood. 1997.  Do the Poor Pay More for Food? Item Selection Powell, Lisa, Sandy Slater, Donka Mirtcheva, Yanjun Bao, and 

and Price Differences Affect Low-Income Household Food Costs, Frank Chaloupka. 2007. “Food Store Availability and Neigh-Agricultural Economics Report No. 759. Washington, DC: U.S. 

borhood Characteristics in the United States,”  Preventative Department of Agriculture.

Medicine 44: 189–195.

20

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 2003. “Flag Wars.” http://

———. n.d.c. “Corridors of Opportunity Along the 

www.pbs.org/pov/flagwars/what-is-gentrification/.

Green Line.” https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/

study-09082016-1.html.

Quigley, John M., and Steven Raphael. 2005. “Regulation and 

the High Cost of Housing in California,”  American Economic 

———. n.d.d. “The Atlanta Beltline.” https://www.huduser.

Review 95 (2): 323–328.

gov/portal/casestudies/study-12052016.html.

Rappaport, Jordan. 2009. “The Increasing Importance of Quality 

———. n.d.e. “Mitigating Displacement in a Rapidly Changing 

of Life,”  Journal of Economic Geography 9 (6): 779–804.

Neighborhood.” https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/

study-09282016-3.html.

Sage-Martinson, Jonathan. 2016.  Remarks at the Research 

Symposium on Gentrification and Neighborhood Change. Philadel-

———. 1979.  Displacement Report. Report on Housing Displace-

phia: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

ment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Schwartz, Heather, Raphael Bostic, Richard Green, Vincent 

Reina, Lois Davis, and Catherine Augustine. 2016.  Preserva-

———. 2017. “Worst Case Housing Needs. 2017 Report to 

tion of Affordable Rental Housing: Evaluation of the MacArthur 

Congress.” https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/

Foundation’s Window of Opportunity Initiative. Arlington, VA: 

pdf/Worst-Case-Housing-Needs.pdf.

RAND Corporation.

Vale, Lawrence. 2013.  Purging the Poorest: Public Housing and the Seifel Consulting Inc., 2013. “Bay Area Transit-Oriented 

Design Politics of Twice-Cleared Communities. Chicago: University Affordable Housing Fund: Assessment and Lessons Learned.” 

of Chicago Press.

http://www.greatcommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/

Watson, Nicole Elsasser, Barry Steffen, Marge Martin, and 

TOAH_report.pdf.

David A. Vandenbroucke.  2017.  Worst Case Housing Needs: 

Slater, Tom. 2009. “Missing Marcuse: On Gentrification and 

2017 Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Displacement,”  City 13 (2–3): 293–311.

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Develop-

ment and Research.

Snyderman, Robin, and Beth Dever. n.d. “Building Capacity 

Through Collaboration in Chicago’s Suburbs.” http://

White, Tom, Charlie Wilkins, and Edward J. Pinto. 2016. 

confrontingsuburbanpoverty.org/case-studies/building-

Economic Rental Housing by Design for Communities That Work. 

capacity-through-collaboration-in-chicagos-suburbs/.

Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

Sturtevant, Lisa. 2016.  Separating Fact From Fiction To Design White House, The. 2016. “Housing Development Toolkit.” 

Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs. Washington, DC: Center 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/

for Housing Policy.

Housing_Development_Toolkit f.2.pdf.

Sullivan, Brian. 2016. “FHA To Cut Insurance Rates on Multi-

Zenk, Shannon, Amy Schulz, Barbara Israel, Sherman James, 

family Mortgages.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/

Shuming Bao, and Mark Wilson. 2005. “Neighborhood Racial 

press/press_releases_media_advisories/2016/HUDNo_16-008.

Composition, Neighborhood Poverty and the Spatial Accessibil-

ity of Supermarkets in Metropolitan Detroit,”  American Journal Tach, Laura. 2014. “Diversity, Inequality, and Microsegrega-of Public Health 95 (4): 660–667.

tion: Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in a Racially and 

Economically Diverse Community,”  Cityscape  16 (3): 13–45.

Zielenbach, Sean. 2002.  The Economic Impacts of HOPE VI on 

Neighborhoods. Washington, DC: Housing Research Founda-

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

tion. http://www.housingresearch.org.

n.d.a. “Prosperity Playbook Toolkit.” https://archives.huduser.

gov/portal/pp/home.html.

———. 2003. “Assessing Economic Change in HOPE VI 

Neighborhoods,”  Housing Policy Debate 14 (1): 621–655.

———. n.d.b. “Sustainable Communities Initiative.” http://

portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/hudprograms/sci.

21

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report Appendix. HUD’s Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse Database 

Records: Displacement and Gentrification, as of June 9, 2017

Gentrification Response: A Survey of Strategies 

Confronting San Francisco’s Housing Crisis in 

To Maintain Neighborhood Economic Diversity

2015

Publication date: 2016

Publication date: 2015

Location: New York

Location: San Francisco, California

Organization: New York Universtiy, Furman Center 

Organization: Council of Community Housing Organizations

Web location: http://furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurmanCenter_

Web location: http://www.sfccho.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/

GentrificationResponse_26OCT2016.pdf.

CCHO-Housing-Agenda-2015-FINAL-1-14-2015.pdf.

This report describes policies that local governments can use 

This paper presents the Council of Community Housing 

to address concerns about displacement in gentrifying neighbor-

Organizations’ strategies to relieve San Francisco’s affordable hoods. The authors present policies that create or preserve 

housing crisis. In general, the strategies seek to confront the affordable housing in gentrifying neighborhoods and assist 

displacement of low-income residents and add affordable 

displaced tenants or those at risk of displacement. Several 

housing units at a rate that is balanced with the growth of 

 measures that reduce regulatory barriers are included to ad-

market-rate developments. 

dress concerns that such policies inhibit housing development. 

Actions to reduce regulatory barriers include incentivizing 

To preserve affordable housing, property tax relief can be used private-sector development of low- and moderate-income 

for apartments occupied by targeted income groups and owner-

housing by adjusting the inclusionary zoning fee structure 

occupied properties where low-income seniors or long-term 

and providing new incentives for offsite affordable buildings 

residents live. Inclusionary zoning, along with transferable 

constructed to meet the zoning requirement. The paper also 

development rights and linkage fees, can be used to produce 

proposes the reinstatement of tax increment financing and the 

new affordable housing. To ensure that voluntary inclusionary 

dedication of a portion of hotel taxes on short-term rentals 

zoning is attractive to developers and that mandatory inclusion to be used for affordable housing. Also, fees are proposed to 

does not inhibit market-rate development, these programs can 

capture some of the value gained when public land is used for 

be supplemented with subsidies, allow for relatively higher 

private development and when property is rezoned for more 

maximum rents, and provide waivers for developments with 

intensive use.

constraining economic conditions. 

Displacement: The Gnawing Injustice at the 

To reduce regulatory barriers for policies that protect tenants Heart of Housing Crises

from displacement, the report notes that rent stabilization 

programs can limit the number of protected units, allow for 

Publication date: 2016

greater rent increases at vacancy, and limit the regulatory 

Location: Seattle, Washington

period of units, as well as provide tax reductions for stabilized Organization: Sightline Institute

properties. The report also identifies programs requiring 

Web location: http://www.sightline.org/2016/08/10/

permits for substantial construction activities to avoid tenant 

displacement-the-gnawing-injustice-at-the-heart-of-housing-

harassment. Some communities provide fast-track permitting 

crises/.

to reduce costs for landlords who have records of respecting 

In this article about displacement in Seattle, author Dan Bertolet tenants’ rights. For tenants who are displaced, communities can states that “the root cause ... is a shortage of homes, and the use unified tenant screening reports, which can be efficient for only real solution is to build lots more housing of all types... 

both tenants and landlords. Jurisdictions can provide incentives 

.” Bertolet also notes that this citywide market-rate construc-

to landlords who agree to use the unified report.

tion could be supplemented by targeted affordable housing 

preservation in low-income neighborhoods where large 

displacement is expected and in high-income neighborhoods 

where population diversity may be lost. 

22

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report Noting that regulatory restrictions prevent new construction 

Urban Displacement Policy Tools Map

that meets the demand for more housing in growing cities like 

Publication date: 2016

Seattle, the author claims that a development moratorium and 

Location: Bay Area, Los Angeles County, San Francisco Bay 

rent control would not stop displacement. Further, Bertolet 

Area, California

states that zoning regulations that limit the number of houses 

Organization: University of California, Berkeley, Urban 

that can be developed—in particular the single-family districts Displacement Project

that apply to half of the city—are the “key roadblock” to 

Web location: http://www.urbandisplacement.org/policy-

building more housing. The author acknowledges that public 

tools-2.

regulations can be crafted to increase the supply of affordable housing, such as tax exemptions for affordable multifamily 

The Urban Displacement Project at the University of California, development and mandatory inclusionary housing that care-Berkeley website provides resources for communities in the 

fully balances density increases with affordability requirements.

San Francisco Bay area and Southern California to retain 

affordable housing in the face of neighborhood change. One 

Transit-Averse Development? The Challenges of 

of the resources is the Policy Tools Map, an interactive map 

Infill

presenting 14 antidisplacement policies adopted by more than 

100 cities in the San Francisco Bay Area. The map displays the 

Publication date: 2015

cities grouped by the number of adopted policies, as well as the Location: Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, California

cities that have adopted specific policies. 

Organization: University of California, Berkeley, Urban 

Displacement Project

The policies to reduce regulatory barriers include permitting 

Web location: http://www.urbandisplacement.org/blog/transit-

single-room occupancy housing, giving density bonuses for af-

averse-development-challenges-infill.

fordable housing, offering incentives for inclusionary housing, and establishing rent control that enables reasonable returns for This blog analyzes the effects of transit investment on housing apartment owners. The website includes white papers on rent 

development and displacement near rail stations in the San 

control, inclusionary housing, and condominium conversion 

Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. Based on records of 

and case studies of neighborhoods vulnerable to displacement.

development between 2000 and 2014, authors Karen Chapple 

and Mitchell Crispell find that transit-oriented development 

occurs in only a few neighborhoods. 

Gentrification and Neighborhood Change: 

 Helpful Tools for Communities

The authors attribute the lack of development near transit 

Publication date: 2015

stations to several factors. One is low-density zoning that is 

Location: National

still in place, despite the Association of Bay Area Governments Organization: Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood 

having classified station areas as Priority Development Areas. 

and Community Improvement, University of Illinois at Chicago

Even where the zoning has changed, according to the authors, 

Web location: http://media.wix.com/ugd/992726_7c881aaf567

development costs—land costs and construction costs because 

24952a4d8fd30039f35a0.pdf.

of the tight construction market, difficult building sites, and costs associated with buildings more than eight stories—are so 

In this report, the Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighbor-

high that investments may be infeasible. In addition, neighbors hood and Community Improvement provides a toolkit of 

anxious about change often threaten legal action under the 

strategies to address gentrification, defined as the displacement state’s environmental regulations. The authors also note that 

of low-income households when housing costs rise as higher 

the exemption from those regulations that SB 375 allows to 

income households move into a neighborhood. The strategies 

promote sustainable development is not as useful as it could be, are categorized for use before gentrification occurs, at its 

because obtaining an exemption is costly and time consuming. 

mid-stage, and in the late-stage, and the report defines each 

strategy, identifies key stakeholders, and lists opportunities 

These infill challenges, according to the authors, can make 

and challenges. As an important step for any program dealing 

development infeasible. In those cases, affordable housing 

with gentrification, the authors urge neighborhood residents, 

would require deep subsidies. Market-rate developers might 

local businesses, nonprofit organizations, officials, and other delay their projects until area rents increase, or they might 

interested parties to build partnerships. 

develop sites farther away from the transit station.

23

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report The strategies addressing regulatory barriers include tax 

The white paper also proposes several tools related to taxes, 

abatements that keep property taxes at preredevelopment levels 

including tax exemptions for multifamily developments that 

for ownership and rental properties occupied by lower income 

include a certain percentage (such as 15 or 20 percent) of 

households or long-time residents. Similarly, the report lists 

affordable units and tax freezes, credits, or deferrals for seniors tax relief as a tool to encourage employer-assisted housing. 

and those on fixed incomes, which can be especially useful 

Inclusionary zoning is a helpful antigentrification tool although, in areas where property taxes rise quickly. In addition, the 

if not carefully structured, it can lead to concentrated affordable authors suggest that communities can create tax increment 

housing in low-income neighborhoods or to housing affordable 

financing districts in which a portion of increased tax revenues to moderate- rather than low-income households. Inclusionary 

is devoted to constructing or preserving affordable housing, 

housing is most useful when in-lieu fees are not accepted and 

especially for households that may be displaced by develop-

the affordable units are built in the neighborhood where the 

ment pressures.

market development occurs, according to the authors. The 

report also includes activities to strengthen protections for ten-DC’s First Right Purchase Program Helps To 

ants, such as rent control, but warns that low- and moderate-

Preserve Affordable Housing and Is One of DC’s 

income households may not gain benefits from this strategy.

Key Anti-Displacement Tools

Publication date: 2014

Equitable Development Promising Practices To 

Location: Washington, D.C.

Maximize Affordability and Minimize Displace-

Organization: DC Fiscal Policy Institute

ment in Nashville’s Urban Core

Web location: http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/ 

Publication date: 2014

09/9-24-13-First_Right_Purchase_Paper-Final.pdf.

Location: Nashville and Davidson Counties, Tennessee

The white paper highlights the District of Columbia’s First Right Organization: Vanderbilt University, Community Research and 

Purchase program, a key tool that has preserved nearly 1,400 

Action Program

affordable housing units since 2002. This program provides 

Web location: http://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/

financial and technical assistance to a tenant group to purchase 

Planning/docs/NashvilleNext/ResourceTeams/Housing_

and, in many cases, rehabilitate their building when the owner 

Gentrification_EquitableDevelopment.pdf.

decides to sell. However, author Jenny Reed contends that the 

This research report written for NashvilleNext by the Com-

program’s lengthy and complicated process for applying for 

munity Research and Action Program at Vanderbilt University, 

assistance has limited the effectiveness of the program. 

highlights best practices for the creation of affordable housing The white paper proposes several solutions for shortening the 

and prevention of residential displacement. The authors 

application process. For example, the author recommends 

emphasize the need for such strategies by stating that residents starting the review process before the required studies are 

of increasingly desirable neighborhoods are at risk of displace-completed, making revisions to the application form to facilitate ment, homeowners and renters alike. The authors propose an 

underwriting, and waiving requirements that do not apply to 

equitable development toolkit with 15 tools in four categories: tenant purchases of multifamily buildings. Moreover, the white 

fund it, build it, preserve it, and retain residents. The paper paper suggests having benchmarks during the application 

also identifies which tools are appropriate for neighborhoods 

process to help tenants meet deadlines for information and 

with weak, improving, and strong housing markets. 

decisions.

Several tools reduce regulatory barriers to affordable housing. 

These tools include affordable infill housing in the Build It 

The Growing Transit Communities Strategy

category, which is proposed for accessory dwelling units and 

Publication date: 2013

mixed-use developments, which could assume or explicitly 

Location: Puget Sound region, Washington

require the housing to be affordable. In the same category is 

Organization: Growing Transit Communities Partnership, 

inclusionary housing, which may offer density bonus, height 

Puget Sound Regional Council

bonus, or other incentive (such as reduced setbacks and 

Web location: http://www.psrc.org/assets/9539/

parking requirements, expedited permitting, fee reductions or 

GTCStrategyReport2013-10-03.pdf.

waivers, and tax exemptions). 

24

Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report The Puget Sound Regional Council’s Growing Transit Com-Austin, Texas: The East Austin Neighborhood

munities Partnership prepared a strategy for directing growth 

Publication date: 2008

to areas accessible to the region’s rapid transit system. To ac-Location: Austin, Texas

commodate the 25-percent growth in housing projected in the 

Organization: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

region’s Vision 2040 plan, the Partnership recommends that 

Web location: http://www.frbsf.org/cpreport/docs/austin_ tx.pdf.

local governments implement land use reforms, reductions in 

developmental barriers, and fair housing strategies to provide 

This report studies the effects of gentrification of low-income affordable housing choices near high-capacity transit service. 

neighborhoods on housing affordability in Austin, Texas. Ac-

cording to the report, the increased demand for housing in the 

Eight proposed strategies would provide affordable housing 

area increases housing prices in low-income neighborhoods, 

choices near transit stations, with actions to be taken by the 

creating a housing affordability gap. The report highlights the state, regional council, transit agencies, local governments, 

SMART Housing program that offers fee waivers, expedited 

and housing providers. In addition to increased funding for 

reviews, and tax increment financing to increase housing 

affordable rental and ownership housing, the strategies include affordability. In addition, the Homestead Preservation District actions by local governments to reduce barriers to affordable 

will use land banks and land trusts to enable community 

housing. Where affordable housing exists, the Partnership calls orga nizations to purchase and hold land for residential housing for minimal displacement through incentives to preserve or 

to maintain affordability through 99-year leases.

replace the existing housing as new development occurs. The 

Partnership also calls for new affordable units to be provided 

Homestead Preservation Districts and Reinvest-

either by requiring them in all developments or by encouraging 

ment Zones

them at the developer’s option through more intensive zoning 

or density bonuses. Suggestions to reduce barriers include 

Publication date: 2007

market-driven parking requirements, reduced parking for se-

Location: Texas

niors and other special populations, maximum parking limits, 

Organization: State of Texas

shared parking, parking for carsharing, as well as parking costs 

Web location: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/LG/

unbundled from housing costs. Expedited permitting and 

content/htm/lg.012.00.00373a.00.htm.

waivers of impact or permit fees for affordable housing projects This Texas state statute allows for the creation of municipal 

are proposed, as well as tax exemptions based on the duration 

homestead preservation districts to increase homeownership 

and depth of affordability. 

opportunities, provide low- and moderate-income housing, and 

The Partnership also recommends that local governments 

prevent loss of affordable housing units. Establishing these new enact standards for universal design and promote fair housing 

development districts enables cities to utilize a number of tools, through education, as well as through training for community 

including community land trusts, land banks, and reinvestment 

groups to provide outreach services. Finally, the Partnership 

zones to preserve homeownership in disadvantaged neighbor-

calls on the state to adopt legislation prohibiting discrimination hoods and help ease the effects of gentrification. The statute 

against households using rental subsidies.

also authorizes incentives such as density bonuses and tax 

increment financing to promote housing development.

25