Modelling the effects of affordable housing ‘sticks’ and ‘carrots’ for developer-delivered projects

IF 0.8 Q3 Economics, Econometrics and Finance
G. Warren-Myers, Erryn McRae, Katrina Raynor, Matthew Palm
{"title":"Modelling the effects of affordable housing ‘sticks’ and ‘carrots’ for developer-delivered projects","authors":"G. Warren-Myers, Erryn McRae, Katrina Raynor, Matthew Palm","doi":"10.1080/14445921.2019.1693322","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The literature suggests both “Stick” and “Carrot” initiatives can encourage property developers to include Affordable Housing in their developments. Such initiatives include affordable housing contributions or requirements (the stick) and land cost subsidies, density bonuses, access to low-interest finance, reduced planning timeframes and reduced car parking requirements (the carrots). Despite their widespread application internationally, Australian developers and policymakers have resisted affordable housing incentive structures. Recent legislation in Victoria empowers local planners to approve affordable housing contributions and incentives on acase-by-case basis. This paper provides aquantitative study investigating the feasibility of introducing housing affordability contributions and incentives when developers enter the planning process. This paper demonstrates aone-size fits all approach to affordable housing contributions and incentives may not be appropriate, modelled through scenario analysis of three different sized case studies. Optimum scenarios identified a balance of carrots and sticks. However, project characteristics determined the applicability and effectiveness of an incentive for aproject. Therefore, asingular approach may not be appropriate for all projects in amunicipality or state; and alayered and flexible approach for “Sticks” and “Carrots” should be considered to maximise the social benefit of these incentives and ensure developers financial viability.","PeriodicalId":44302,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Rim Property Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14445921.2019.1693322","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Rim Property Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14445921.2019.1693322","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT The literature suggests both “Stick” and “Carrot” initiatives can encourage property developers to include Affordable Housing in their developments. Such initiatives include affordable housing contributions or requirements (the stick) and land cost subsidies, density bonuses, access to low-interest finance, reduced planning timeframes and reduced car parking requirements (the carrots). Despite their widespread application internationally, Australian developers and policymakers have resisted affordable housing incentive structures. Recent legislation in Victoria empowers local planners to approve affordable housing contributions and incentives on acase-by-case basis. This paper provides aquantitative study investigating the feasibility of introducing housing affordability contributions and incentives when developers enter the planning process. This paper demonstrates aone-size fits all approach to affordable housing contributions and incentives may not be appropriate, modelled through scenario analysis of three different sized case studies. Optimum scenarios identified a balance of carrots and sticks. However, project characteristics determined the applicability and effectiveness of an incentive for aproject. Therefore, asingular approach may not be appropriate for all projects in amunicipality or state; and alayered and flexible approach for “Sticks” and “Carrots” should be considered to maximise the social benefit of these incentives and ensure developers financial viability.
为开发商交付的项目建立经济适用房“大棒”和“胡萝卜”效应模型
文献表明,“大棒”和“胡萝卜”都可以鼓励房地产开发商在其开发项目中纳入经济适用房。这些举措包括负担得起的住房贡献或要求(大棒)、土地成本补贴、密度奖金、获得低息融资、缩短规划时间表和减少停车要求(胡萝卜)。尽管它们在国际上得到了广泛的应用,但澳大利亚的开发商和政策制定者一直抵制经济适用房的激励结构。维多利亚州最近的立法授权当地规划人员根据具体情况批准经济适用房捐款和激励措施。本文提供了一项定量研究,探讨了在开发商进入规划过程时引入住房负担能力贡献和激励的可行性。本文通过对三个不同规模的案例进行情景分析,证明了适用于所有人的经济适用房贡献和激励措施可能并不合适。最佳方案确定了胡萝卜和大棒的平衡。然而,项目特征决定了项目激励的适用性和有效性。因此,单一的方法可能并不适用于市或州的所有项目;“大棒”和“胡萝卜”的分级和灵活方法应该被考虑,以最大限度地发挥这些激励措施的社会效益,并确保开发商的财务可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信