Below is a clip buried in Freddie Mac's 10-Q for the 2nd Quarter of 2009. Take a close look at the last line - if Freddie ends up selling its tax credit portfolio, the terms have the potential to change the affordable housing industry for a long time to come.
LIHTC Partnerships
We invest as a limited partner in LIHTC partnerships formed for the purpose of providing equity funding for affordable multifamily rental properties. The LIHTC partnerships invest as limited partners in lower-tier partnerships, which own and operate multifamily rental properties. These properties are rented to qualified low-income tenants, allowing the properties to be eligible for federal tax credits. Our investments in LIHTC partnerships totaled $3.9 billion and $4.1 billion as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively. Although these partnerships generate operating losses, we realize a return on our investment through reductions in income tax expense that result from tax credits. Our exposure is limited to the amount of our investment; however, the potential exists that we may not be able to utilize some previously taken or future tax credits. In consultation with our Conservator, we are considering potential transactions to realize the value of these interests, if market conditions are appropriate.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Long Two Months
Just finished two books on the subjects of cities, complexity, chaos theory, etc. The first was "The Self-Organizing Economy" by Paul Krugman. This book frustrated me for about 10 years, but I've finally made my way through it. The topic is fascinating, the writing less so. But, all in all, worth paying attention to (the guy won a Nobel Prize for his work in this area).
The second was "Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos" by M. Mitchell Waldrop. More like a history/story re: how the study of complexity began to take shape. The tough thing about this book is that it combines technical issues without much background info so while it is sort of interesting the lay person can/should skim various sections (if you are like me, you'll know when you get there because your eyes will glaze over).
Plus, I've since knocked down a couple of articles on the subject as well.
And, I found an interesting website on the topic: http://blog.casa.ucl.ac.uk/
Still lots more to learn and understand before getting back to some serious writing.
The second was "Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos" by M. Mitchell Waldrop. More like a history/story re: how the study of complexity began to take shape. The tough thing about this book is that it combines technical issues without much background info so while it is sort of interesting the lay person can/should skim various sections (if you are like me, you'll know when you get there because your eyes will glaze over).
Plus, I've since knocked down a couple of articles on the subject as well.
And, I found an interesting website on the topic: http://blog.casa.ucl.ac.uk/
Still lots more to learn and understand before getting back to some serious writing.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Micro or Macro?
For the last month I've been toying around with an idea that is both old and new for me - how the behavior/actions of individuals leads to contradictory outcomes for the group/whole. For example, I carry a gun for security, but then so does my neighbor, until we are all carrying guns - do we end up with more or less shootings both individually and as a whole? Or, I leave for work at 7:30 to get to work on time (i.e. I've allowed a little extra time in my current commute), but my neighbor does the same and so do a lot of other neighbors - yes, we may all get to work on time, but have we increased both individual commutes from 10 minutes to 20 minutes due to bottlenecks in traffic that would not occur if the departure times were coordinated?
Of course, once you think about it, you start to see this issue in a lot of things, but the first place I recall really thinking about it was working on my thesis regarding housing and school desegregation. As part of my research, I came across Thomas Schelling's book, Micromotives and Macrobehavior (). About that same time, A Beautiful Mind (the movie) was released and addressed similar topics regarding game theory (i.e. generally, the idea the behavior of a given agent results in/is affected by/and affects the behavior of others, which then affects the behavior decision making of the original agent, etc.). Since then, this issue has rattled around in the back of my head a lot but in vague ways.
The issue has some new aspects for me too. The more I've looked into it, the more I realize it has been under serious study for the last 40 years. Threads of this issue are found in Chaos Theory, Complexity, the Sante Fe Institute, etc. My particular interest is in the combination of geography and microbehavior (i.e. how/what we can learn from spatial data and the decisions of households that ultimately drives the formation and change of regions, cities, and neighborhoods). I think this bottom/up approach may shed serious light on policies aimed at desegregation, urban growth and decline, regionalism, and similar topics, perhaps much more than the traditional top/down approach (i.e. we have a city, how/why does it look the way it does).
So, expect to see more on this site as I dig deeper. Right now, I am in the middle of 20 articles, two books, and some serious math refreshing on the subject. If I survive that, maybe I have a new interest. If not, well, there's always gardening.
Of course, once you think about it, you start to see this issue in a lot of things, but the first place I recall really thinking about it was working on my thesis regarding housing and school desegregation. As part of my research, I came across Thomas Schelling's book, Micromotives and Macrobehavior (). About that same time, A Beautiful Mind (the movie) was released and addressed similar topics regarding game theory (i.e. generally, the idea the behavior of a given agent results in/is affected by/and affects the behavior of others, which then affects the behavior decision making of the original agent, etc.). Since then, this issue has rattled around in the back of my head a lot but in vague ways.
The issue has some new aspects for me too. The more I've looked into it, the more I realize it has been under serious study for the last 40 years. Threads of this issue are found in Chaos Theory, Complexity, the Sante Fe Institute, etc. My particular interest is in the combination of geography and microbehavior (i.e. how/what we can learn from spatial data and the decisions of households that ultimately drives the formation and change of regions, cities, and neighborhoods). I think this bottom/up approach may shed serious light on policies aimed at desegregation, urban growth and decline, regionalism, and similar topics, perhaps much more than the traditional top/down approach (i.e. we have a city, how/why does it look the way it does).
So, expect to see more on this site as I dig deeper. Right now, I am in the middle of 20 articles, two books, and some serious math refreshing on the subject. If I survive that, maybe I have a new interest. If not, well, there's always gardening.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Off the Beaten Path
I recently attended a Sagamore Institute for Policy Research (www.sipr.org) event with John Watkins (American Chamber of Commerce in China). I also just started Zakaria's "The Post-American World". Both of which have me thinking - is our relationship with China fundamentally different than all previous superpower relationships?
I think the answer is mostly yes because this relationship and/or conflict is primarily economic and cultural, not ideological, religious, or militaristic in nature (other than to protect economic interests). What ideology is China pushing? Communism? It doesn't seem that even China suggests communism as a viable form of government. What religion is China promoting? Buddhism (can a string be pushed)?
Some would argue that all superpower contests are economic in nature, perhaps so, but I would argue that they are often due to other causes and the economics become one form of weapon/defense. What happens when such a conflict is economic in nature? Here are some ideas:
1. military power is important but not omnipotent. It is important relative to a power's ability to protect its economic interests, but the interests themselves can be purchased rather than won by conflict.
2. the rule of law across countries (i.e. multi-jurisdictional arrangements) becomes more important than the rule of law within countries (i.e. a police force, a domestic judiciary, etc.).
3. transportation options (e.g. sea routes, pipelines, etc.), communication channels (e.g. satellites, a multinational presence, etc.), and economic blocs are more important than military alliances.
4. economic forms of organizations (e.g. partnerships, corporations, etc.) become more powerful than political forms of organization (e.g. city, states, nations, etc.).
I think the answer is mostly yes because this relationship and/or conflict is primarily economic and cultural, not ideological, religious, or militaristic in nature (other than to protect economic interests). What ideology is China pushing? Communism? It doesn't seem that even China suggests communism as a viable form of government. What religion is China promoting? Buddhism (can a string be pushed)?
Some would argue that all superpower contests are economic in nature, perhaps so, but I would argue that they are often due to other causes and the economics become one form of weapon/defense. What happens when such a conflict is economic in nature? Here are some ideas:
1. military power is important but not omnipotent. It is important relative to a power's ability to protect its economic interests, but the interests themselves can be purchased rather than won by conflict.
2. the rule of law across countries (i.e. multi-jurisdictional arrangements) becomes more important than the rule of law within countries (i.e. a police force, a domestic judiciary, etc.).
3. transportation options (e.g. sea routes, pipelines, etc.), communication channels (e.g. satellites, a multinational presence, etc.), and economic blocs are more important than military alliances.
4. economic forms of organizations (e.g. partnerships, corporations, etc.) become more powerful than political forms of organization (e.g. city, states, nations, etc.).
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Soloist
Linda and I attended a screening of The Soloist tonight - new film about a reporter that writes a story about a homeless man, befriends him, and ultimately struggles with his relationship to the homeless man/his ex-wife/etc. Stop reading if you like to see the movie before knowing the ending.
A couple of things I am sure of and a couple of things I am not. I am sure this movie accurately represents the difficulty many people face when engaging with the homeless. First, there is the frustration of getting plugged in to the "system". Seems like it would be easy - just volunteer/show up/be there - but it rarely is, at least on anything more than a one-time basis. Second, the issue of homelessness is often intertwined with other complicated problems like mental illness (see comments below). Third, once you get involved, you find that it is not necessarily a problem that wants a solution, or at least that wants a solution that you want (if this doesn't make sense, go see the movie). It is this last issue that I think discourages most volunteers - volunteers want solutions/fixes that make them feel good whereas most issues like this are in want of relationships (hey, could it be that liberals and conservatives can find something in common here??).
I am not sure this movie appropriately represents the homeless population at large. It focuses a lot on mental illness. This is certainly one issue closely tied to some homeless persons. It does not address many other correlated issues (e.g. substance abuse, domestic violence, etc.). And it does not reflect "economic" homelessness (i.e. homeless issues caused primarily by households that cannot afford a subsistence level of housing). This is the part that concerns me about a movie intended for the general public - does it create a perception that all homelessness is untreated mental illness?
Overall, the movie is well written, has some some great music (if you like classical cello), etc. It is great to see a full length pop movie intended for a general audience that addresses homelessness and won't be in the documentary category. But, homeless advocates will have to guard carefully against reviews that simply conclude homelessness and mental illness are one and the same.
A couple of things I am sure of and a couple of things I am not. I am sure this movie accurately represents the difficulty many people face when engaging with the homeless. First, there is the frustration of getting plugged in to the "system". Seems like it would be easy - just volunteer/show up/be there - but it rarely is, at least on anything more than a one-time basis. Second, the issue of homelessness is often intertwined with other complicated problems like mental illness (see comments below). Third, once you get involved, you find that it is not necessarily a problem that wants a solution, or at least that wants a solution that you want (if this doesn't make sense, go see the movie). It is this last issue that I think discourages most volunteers - volunteers want solutions/fixes that make them feel good whereas most issues like this are in want of relationships (hey, could it be that liberals and conservatives can find something in common here??).
I am not sure this movie appropriately represents the homeless population at large. It focuses a lot on mental illness. This is certainly one issue closely tied to some homeless persons. It does not address many other correlated issues (e.g. substance abuse, domestic violence, etc.). And it does not reflect "economic" homelessness (i.e. homeless issues caused primarily by households that cannot afford a subsistence level of housing). This is the part that concerns me about a movie intended for the general public - does it create a perception that all homelessness is untreated mental illness?
Overall, the movie is well written, has some some great music (if you like classical cello), etc. It is great to see a full length pop movie intended for a general audience that addresses homelessness and won't be in the documentary category. But, homeless advocates will have to guard carefully against reviews that simply conclude homelessness and mental illness are one and the same.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Affordability Paradox
I came across a previous research project this week that I thought some folks might find interesting, this was done while I was at INHP. It addresses how you can both have one of the affordable housing markets in the country (based on the median income and house price) and yet have homeless (because the distribution away from the median is uneven). Cut and paste the link below into your browser.
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=F.4c3f10b0-98fd-470c-9759-2c4dfa5ecc83&hl=en
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=F.4c3f10b0-98fd-470c-9759-2c4dfa5ecc83&hl=en
Saturday, March 28, 2009
A Natural Right to Housing (part 5 and final)
I started this series of posts defining "rights" into three categories: natural, social, and economic. I chose to focus on natural rights in particular. Then, I stepped back to look at what three of the big thinkers from western civilization, namely Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, had to say about natural rights. This final post will summarize my own thoughts on the natural right to housing (or shelter), which admittedly have evolved over time as I have considered the issue.
The first and most basic premise that seems to underlie all discussions of natural rights is the right to self-preservation so long as others' right to self-preservation is not harmed. This seems logical and reasonable to me. Suicide is viewed negatively in many societies not just because of its effect on those that remain behind, but because it is the most blatant form of violation of this premise. Of the items needed for self-preservation, none are more basic than food and shelter (probably clothing too but that's a different argument).
Saying that a right to food and shelter is fundamental to self-preservation is not the same as saying that any one has a right to "take" it from someone else or that any one should be "given" these things. Instead, it is saying that every one has a right to provide these things for themselves. This is inalienable, it cannot be done away with by majority rule, by law, or even by one's own consent.
Which brings me to a tough question regarding property - what happens if we have either titled all land to private ownership, restricted the use of public (common) land in such a way that it cannot be used to provide food and shelter, or restricted the use of private property such that it cannot provide subsistence shelter (e.g. building codes or zoning)? In such a setting, common in today's world, then we have alienated the natural right of humans to provide their own shelter and food. This then is where a right to housing becomes critical to today's society and must take on mitigating policies.
What kind of mitigating policies can offset the alienation of such a right? It is difficult to do because implied in this right to shelter is autonomy, self-reliance, and choice. Most attempts to create mitigating policies will be a compromise of these features at best.
One example of a mitigating policy is fair share housing. Under this type of policy, every community must provide a portion of housing that is set aside for those that otherwise cannot afford housing. Why is this fair? Because the community's restrictions are in large part what prevents humans from sheltering themselves. It seems to me that the less common land that is available or the more restrictive the use of private property, the more broad the policy should then be.
A second, and more controversial, public policy response is squatting or homesteading. In this case, private property that is not being "used" can be used by, or even titled to, an active resident. This is similar to some of the writers noted above referencing that it is "labor as applied to things" that create property and so if it is not being used then it is not really property at all. I have more difficulty with this type of policy given that simply not using property is not the same as saying it is not useful to the owner.
Am I in favor of a right for all people, regardless of their behavior, to be housed? As far as the housing part of that question, yes (i.e. human is human and carries with it a right to be sheltered). But, that does not also make all behavior acceptable (i.e. drunk is drunk and does not also carry with it a right to be housed). It seems to me these are two separate questions - what is the right to housing and what is acceptable behavior? There are many other examples that come up as well (e.g. mental illness, substance abuse, victims of crimes, etc.) and I would conclude in a similar way.
Should we simply create more shelter beds? No, I am not suggesting a right to congregate living. In fact, in a state of nature, it is exactly not congregated living. Rather, the right to housing must reflect humanity's desire for autonomy (hey, I am a Midwesterner, we are nothing if not libertarians at heart). Perhaps shelter beds are appropriate for some temporary and emergency settings, but not as a matter of long standing policy.
Other forms of supply (e.g. tax credits for housing, government insured mortgages, etc.) or demand (e.g. Section 8 vouchers) subsidies are also possible. These all hold the potential for ensuring the right to housing but each must be evaluated on its merits (i.e. efficiency, effectiveness at addressing the local housing issue that is causing some to be unsheltered, etc.).
In summary, yes, a natural right to housing exists. We have committed the most egregious of sins by both alienating this right and not offering sufficient mitigating policies to offset the violation. Continuing to violate this natural right harms our community and must be addressed as a question of economics and justice.
The first and most basic premise that seems to underlie all discussions of natural rights is the right to self-preservation so long as others' right to self-preservation is not harmed. This seems logical and reasonable to me. Suicide is viewed negatively in many societies not just because of its effect on those that remain behind, but because it is the most blatant form of violation of this premise. Of the items needed for self-preservation, none are more basic than food and shelter (probably clothing too but that's a different argument).
Saying that a right to food and shelter is fundamental to self-preservation is not the same as saying that any one has a right to "take" it from someone else or that any one should be "given" these things. Instead, it is saying that every one has a right to provide these things for themselves. This is inalienable, it cannot be done away with by majority rule, by law, or even by one's own consent.
Which brings me to a tough question regarding property - what happens if we have either titled all land to private ownership, restricted the use of public (common) land in such a way that it cannot be used to provide food and shelter, or restricted the use of private property such that it cannot provide subsistence shelter (e.g. building codes or zoning)? In such a setting, common in today's world, then we have alienated the natural right of humans to provide their own shelter and food. This then is where a right to housing becomes critical to today's society and must take on mitigating policies.
What kind of mitigating policies can offset the alienation of such a right? It is difficult to do because implied in this right to shelter is autonomy, self-reliance, and choice. Most attempts to create mitigating policies will be a compromise of these features at best.
One example of a mitigating policy is fair share housing. Under this type of policy, every community must provide a portion of housing that is set aside for those that otherwise cannot afford housing. Why is this fair? Because the community's restrictions are in large part what prevents humans from sheltering themselves. It seems to me that the less common land that is available or the more restrictive the use of private property, the more broad the policy should then be.
A second, and more controversial, public policy response is squatting or homesteading. In this case, private property that is not being "used" can be used by, or even titled to, an active resident. This is similar to some of the writers noted above referencing that it is "labor as applied to things" that create property and so if it is not being used then it is not really property at all. I have more difficulty with this type of policy given that simply not using property is not the same as saying it is not useful to the owner.
Am I in favor of a right for all people, regardless of their behavior, to be housed? As far as the housing part of that question, yes (i.e. human is human and carries with it a right to be sheltered). But, that does not also make all behavior acceptable (i.e. drunk is drunk and does not also carry with it a right to be housed). It seems to me these are two separate questions - what is the right to housing and what is acceptable behavior? There are many other examples that come up as well (e.g. mental illness, substance abuse, victims of crimes, etc.) and I would conclude in a similar way.
Should we simply create more shelter beds? No, I am not suggesting a right to congregate living. In fact, in a state of nature, it is exactly not congregated living. Rather, the right to housing must reflect humanity's desire for autonomy (hey, I am a Midwesterner, we are nothing if not libertarians at heart). Perhaps shelter beds are appropriate for some temporary and emergency settings, but not as a matter of long standing policy.
Other forms of supply (e.g. tax credits for housing, government insured mortgages, etc.) or demand (e.g. Section 8 vouchers) subsidies are also possible. These all hold the potential for ensuring the right to housing but each must be evaluated on its merits (i.e. efficiency, effectiveness at addressing the local housing issue that is causing some to be unsheltered, etc.).
In summary, yes, a natural right to housing exists. We have committed the most egregious of sins by both alienating this right and not offering sufficient mitigating policies to offset the violation. Continuing to violate this natural right harms our community and must be addressed as a question of economics and justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
