With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free.
Already have an account?
- Access everything in the JPASS collection
- Read the full-text of every article
- Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep
- Access everything in the JPASS collection
- Read the full-text of every article
- Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep
For millions of Americans, public transportation is more than a mere convenience; it is a necessity for accessing jobs, educational opportunities, healthcare services, and other everyday needs, while living within their financial means. It can be significantly difficult, however, to finance the construction or preservation of affordable housing in location-efficient areas: high demand to live in transit-accessible areas drives up land costs, making it a challenge to acquire desirable sites for affordable housing and putting existing affordable rental housing at risk (Armstrong, 1994; Cervero and Duncan, 2002a, 2002b; Debrezion, Pels, and Rietveld, 2007; Gruen, Gruen & Associates, 1997; Immergluck, 2007; Lin, 2002). As the largest affordable rental housing production and preservation program in the nation, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program provides an opportunity to ensure that housing affordable to low- and moderate-income families is developed and preserved near public transportation. Yet, nearly 30 years after its enactment, the LIHTC Program remains one of the least studied federal programs. This article addresses a fundamental question: How can the LIHTC Program most effectively be used to promote the preservation and development of affordable rental housing near transit? To answer this question, this study relies on qualitative analysis of interviews of more than 100 housing policy agency staff, developers, and housing and transit policy experts and on a quantitative analysis of more than 400 qualified allocation plans issued during an 8-year period.
The goal of Cityscape is to bring high-quality original research on housing and community development issues to scholars, government officials, and practitioners. Cityscape is open to all relevant disciplines, including architecture, consumer research, demography, economics, engineering, ethnography, finance, geography, law, planning, political science, public policy, regional science, sociology, statistics, and urban studies. Cityscape is published three times a year by the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R;) of the U.S. Department of Housing Urban Development. PD&R; welcomes submissions to the Refereed Papers section of the journal, which will be evaluated through our double blind referee process by highly qualified referees in the field.
The Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) of the U.S. Department of Housing Urban Development seeks to be the preeminent housing and urban research organization, one which conducts policy analysis and creates and synthesizes data and evidence through open, challenging, creative, collaborative, diverse, and respectful exchanges of ideas to move policy and improve American communities and lives.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
Cityscape
© 2015 US Department of Housing and Urban Development