Displacement of Lower-Income Families 

in Urban Areas Report

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

May 2018
1

Displacement of Lower-Income Families 

in Urban Areas Report

Introduction

Gentrification is a form of neighborhood change that occurs when 

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

altering the cultural and financial landscape of the original 

neighborhood. In the most recent decade, gentrification has 

been manifested in the return to the cities, with redevelopment 

and investment in many downtown areas of the nation. Greater 

demand for centrally located housing, particularly amidst an 

existing affordability crisis, may be fueling community change 

in many American metropolitan areas. With increased demand 

and housing costs comes increased housing-cost burdens, the 

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

long-run resegregation of neighborhoods, and heightened 

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

to places of opportunity.

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

Francisco, Chicago, and New York highlight tensions between 

newcomers and existing residents and raise opposing perspectives 

about neighborhood change. Alongside the change in culture 

that is happening in gentrifying neighborhoods, significant 

increases in rents and evictions have escalated the hostility felt 

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

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

praising the reductions in crime and greater access to amenities 

that even long-time residents appreciate (Nevius, 2014). In the 

middle of the debate, a third set of articles recognize that both 

of these trends and tensions occur and that, although gentrification brings increased investments and has the potential to 

decrease crime, higher-income residents benefit disproportionately and displacement is a real concern (PBS, 2003).

This report is in response to the House and Senate Committees 

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

and Urban Development (HUD) to examine the effects of 

rapidly rising rents in urban areas across the nation and avoid 

displacement. This report reviews the recent research on the 

causes and consequences of gentrification and identifies key 

steps policymakers can take to foster neighborhood change that 

is both inclusive and equitable. Best practices on the ground 

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

and production of affordable housing and are strengthened by 

collaboration and partnership with other local agencies. This 

report suggests four key strategies that could address displacement of lower-income families and long-time residents in 

urban areas and alleviate the pressures on housing affordability 

and community resistance to change.

1. Preserve existing affordable housing. Normally market 

forces increase housing supply to meet demand from demographic changes, and rents of older units decrease with time 

and obsolescence in a process known as filtering down. 

Since the turn of the century, however, the supply of affordable rental units has shrunk despite rapid growth in the 

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

units annually were lost to disinvestment and disrepair or 

owner conversions, even as increased demand was causing 

1.5 million affordable units annually to filter up to unaffordable levels (Eggers and Moumen, 2015). Losses of about 

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

programs such as HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration 

(RAD) that help the private market invest in decent, safe, 

and affordable housing.

2. Encourage greater housing development, including but 

not limited to affordable housing. Housing costs have 

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

crisis, and are particularly pronounced for renters. Issues of 

affordability are widespread and reach beyond the hottest 

coastal markets and gentrifying neighborhoods. Federal and 

local policies that incentivize greater development of housing 

can ease pressures on overall housing affordability. 

3. Engage existing community residents. Renewed investment 

in urban areas may produce some benefits that long-time 

residents in gentrifying neighborhoods can harness. However, 

a common complaint among existing residents is political 

displacement. The new services and amenities that gentrification brings, such as dog parks and bike lanes, are seen as 

intended for and attracting new, higher-income residents. 

Neighborhood change can often take place without regard 

for the concerns and requests of existing residents. Recognizing that housing affordability and residential displacement 

are not the only concerns and seeking the active participation of residents could capture the buy-in of residents and 

ensure that other coping strategies are successful. 
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

2

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

localized, strategies. Effective tools will focus on regional 

coordination, looking above the neighborhood level and beyond housing. The federal government could be particularly 

helpful in encouraging regional cooperation and coordinating 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 gentrification and explores the trends of urban revitalization since 

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

on some consequences of gentrification, both positive and 

negative, including displacement potential, poverty concentration, and neighborhood conditions. Third, the report suggests 

policy tools in the four categories in the preceding list. Finally, 

the report highlights new innovations in gentrifying areas. 

Patterns and Causes of 

Gentrification and the 

Broader Urban Revitalization

Gentrification Trends

Gentrification, particularly of downtown areas, has increased 

since the 1990s. However, from 2000 to 2014, a greater number of low-income, city census tracts experienced accelerated 

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

above the increases experienced in the larger metropolitan area, 

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

gentrification affecting a broader set of markets than during 

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

changes. The biggest difference between the two periods has 

been the greater prevalence of significant rent increases in the 

current period. The share of initially low-income city census 

tracts that saw large gains in rents relative to the metropolitan 

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

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

A compositional shift in the urbanizing population, not a surge 

in population growth in urban neighborhoods, has driven recent 

neighborhood change. As in previous decades, the nation continues to suburbanize, with population growth in the nation’s 

suburban neighborhoods nearly three times faster than growth 

in urban cities (Kneebone and Berube, 2013). 

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

demographic has grown faster in urban rather than in suburban 

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

Areas Seeing Large Gains in Rents Relative to Metropolitan Area

Source: Ellen and Ding (2016)

neighborhoods (Baum-Snow and Hartley, 2016; Couture and 

Handbury, 2015). Zeroing in on downtown neighborhoods 

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

the urban revival has occurred, the growth in this current set 

of gentrifiers has been particularly pronounced. Downtown 

residents represented only 5 percent of the total population 

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

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

to 34 and nearly 12 percent of the total increase in the collegeeducated 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,

this demographic continues to suburbanize, along with households 65 and older. The urbanization of the college-educated is 

a relatively new phenomenon, irrespective of age group. During 

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

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

largest metropolitan areas. Between 2000 and 2010, however, 

the college-educated population urbanized in most of the same 

50 metropolitan areas (Couture and Handbury, 2015). 

The racial compositions of downtown urban neighborhoods 

have also reversed previous trends of White flight, when the 

proportion of White residents within close proximity to central 

business districts declined from 1970 to 1990. Baum-Snow 

and Hartley (2016) attributed this reversal to the probability 

that White residents with low socioeconomic status (SES) 

indicators, such as educational attainment status, migrated out 

of city centers between 1980 and 2000 but were stable in their 

neighborhood choice after 2000. In addition, the probability that 

high-SES White residents migrated to city centers increased after 

2000, prompting growth in the proportion of White residents 

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

This current period of gentrification represents a broader urban 

revitalization, marking a reversal in the previous trends of 

significant population losses and the poor performance of downtowns relative to the larger metropolitan areas (Baum-Snow and
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

3

Hartley, 2016). During the 1970s and 1980s, two-thirds of all 

census tracts within a central city experienced a loss in income, 

relative to the larger metropolitan area. By the 1990s, more 

than 40 percent of all central-city census tracts experienced a 

relative gain in income (Ellen and O’Regan, 2009a). Similarly, 

the number of people living in high-poverty neighborhoods 

declined 24 percent in the 1990s compared with a doubling 

of the population in high-poverty neighborhoods from 1970 

to 1990 (Jargowsky, 2003).1 Sharp declines in the general 

population in urban neighborhoods occurred in the 1970s and 

were reversed in the 1980s and 1990s but only for neighborhoods within a relatively short distance to central business 

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

of urban revitalization for downtowns have been meaningful, it 

is critical to consider the full effects of these changes, including 

whether benefits have been distributed equally to both new and 

existing residents.

Causes of Gentrification

Understanding the mobility motivations of the young, collegeeducated gentrifying demographic is important, because their 

choices are the ones that shape neighborhood change most 

significantly. The public and private investments during the 

1990s that spurred redevelopment of many downtowns, with 

greater availability of services and amenities that attracted the 

current set of gentrifiers, may have laid the foundation for the 

current urban revitalization (Couture and Handbury, 2015). 

Public Redevelopment Efforts and HOPE VI

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

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

the urbanization of the young, college-educated demographic 

today. One particular redevelopment initiative, HUD’s Housing 

Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI), which 

began in 1992, may have influenced recent trends in changing 

communities. HOPE VI demolished 96,200 units of severely 

distressed public housing throughout the nation, with the goal 

of revitalizing public housing projects and deconcentrating 

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

severely distressed public housing projects were replaced 

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

contributed to the revitalization of entire inner-city communities, 

along with improving conditions for surrounding neighborhoods 

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

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

low-income tenants. In all sites, most residents in new developments reported being satisfied with their units and neighborhoods. 

Revitalization efforts also led to new community amenities 

such as police substations, community centers, and job training 

centers (Popkin et al., 2004).

Despite its successes, some researchers argued that the program’s 

aims resulted in gentrification of previously blighted neighborhoods and led to the permanent displacement of many lowincome households (Goetz, 2013; Vale, 2013). The HOPE VI 

Panel Study, which tracked residents from five sites, asked 

public housing residents about their replacement housing 

preferences. Most responded that they would like to return to 

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

an updated 2016 study of all HOPE IV sites, original tenants 

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

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

some residents who would have liked to return could not because of a loss in public housing units. As of the third quarter 

2014, of those that were receiving services, about one-third of 

prerevitalization residents remained relocated with a housing 

choice voucher and about one-fourth relocated to other public 

housing (Gress, 2016). Evidence has shown that those individuals who utilized vouchers often had improved outcomes 

in terms of housing and neighborhood quality over those who 

chose to relocate to another public housing development. Some 

anecdotal information suggests that some displaced households 

HOPE VI

The Housing Research Foundation’s study on eight HOPE VI 

communities found generally positive neighborhood outcomes, 

including—

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

incomes than in neighborhoods citywide.

• An average unemployment decline of 10 percentage points 

compared with no significant net change at city levels. 

• A decline in the poverty concentration of low-income households during the 1990s.

• An average decline in the violent crime rate that was 30 percent 

greater than in the overall city.

• Higher rates of mortgage lending than in the overall county, 

implying increasing rates of residential development.

Source: Zielenbach (2003)

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.
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

4

opted not to return to the redeveloped HOPE VI sites for a 

variety of reasons, including improved neighborhood quality 

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

The reductions in density and the mixed-income strategy of 

HOPE VI resulted in a net loss of about 44 percent of units 

that would have received the deep, permanent public housing 

subsidies that would make units affordable for very low-income 

households. However, with the addition of affordable units 

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

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

residents replaced roughly 85 percent of the original public 

housing units (Gress, 2016).

Amenity Preferences 

Public redevelopment can also be an impetus for expanded 

private investment in a neighborhood, with amenities that 

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

Couture and Handbury (2015) posited that a greater preference for urban amenities—retail, entertainment, and service 

establishments—is the primary motivation for the movement of 

the young, college-educated demographic into the central core 

of cities. They concluded that labor market dynamics could 

not explain the movement into downtowns, because a rise in 

reverse commutation patterns (from downtown to suburbs) 

signals the importance of urban amenities. The empirical results 

on the types of businesses near growing central business districts 

suggest that the preference of this set of gentrifiers differs from 

their nongentrifying counterparts. In particular, this demographic 

is more attracted to proximity to amenities, such as theatres 

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

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

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

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

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

Rental Affordability Crisis

At the same time the composition of urban neighborhoods has 

been changing, average rents across the nation have been rising, with the fastest rent growth in gentrifying neighborhoods 

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

for renters, may have forced households to consider a broader 

set of neighborhoods that they may not previously have considered. 

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

households that move into relatively low-income neighborhoods 

and found that households that place less value on services, 

such as renters and childless households, and those with greater 

housing choice constraints, such as first-time homebuyers and 

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

evidence that the chosen neighborhoods were more accessible 

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

housing, because they moved to less-expensive neighborhoods. 

These findings may suggest that the national affordability crisis 

may have played a role in the recent change of urban neighborhoods. 

Racial Composition and Crime

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

including falling citywide crime rates, has contributed to gentrification of downtown areas. Much like the presence of highly 

distressed public housing, high violent crime rates may have 

inhibited investment and in-migration into downtowns during 

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

fell 44 percent nationally and even more significantly in central 

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

(2016) found that declines in citywide crimes were associated 

with increases in the probability that high-income and collegeeducated households chose to move into both high- and 

low-income central-city neighborhoods, relative to cities where 

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

households have a greater sensitivity to crime, because they 

can; that is, because their resources, and therefore residential 

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

households in lower-income but accessible neighborhoods 

(Ellen, Horn, and Reed, 2016; O’Sullivan, 2005).

Outcomes of Gentrification 

for New and Existing 

Residents

This section discusses the research on the outcomes of gentrification and the different impact it may have on new versus 

existing residents.

Displacement and Increasing Rent 

Burdens

Research on Displacement

The most common critique of gentrification is its potential to 

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

happen in many ways: direct displacement, in which residents 

are forced to move out because of rent increases, building 

rehabilitation, or a combination of both; exclusionary displacement, in which housing choices for low-income residents are 
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

5

limited; and finally displacement pressures, when the entire 

neighborhood changes and the services and support system 

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

them (Slater, 2009). 

Although displacement may be the most common concern, 

most quantitative studies find little evidence of direct displacement occurring. In fact, Ellen and O’Regan (2011) found 

that turnover rates, or the share of households that left their 

housing units, did not rise among even the most vulnerable 

populations or in the neighborhoods with the largest gains in 

relative income. Surprisingly, their research found that exit 

rates were actually lower in gentrifying neighborhoods than 

in nongentrifying neighborhoods, even among renters or poor 

households. Similarly, Freeman and Braconi’s (2004) research 

on displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods of New York 

found that low-income households were actually less likely to 

move. Racial and ethnic minorities were significantly less likely 

to report displacement, after controlling for age and income, in 

other research (Newman and Wyly, 2006). 

Even studies that find some evidence that gentrification and 

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

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

not find evidence that poor renters appeared to be particularly 

vulnerable to displacement or elevated mobility rates from gentrification. Similar to Ellen and O’Regan (2011), he concluded 

that housing succession through voluntary entries and exits, 

not displacement, was likely the “primary mechanism through 

which gentrifying neighborhoods undergo socioeconomic 

change” (Freeman, 2005: 480).

Measures of Displacement Are Imperfect

Measures of displacement generally focus on exit from a unit, 

rather than exit from a neighborhood, which can tell an incomplete story on the varying pressures of low-income households. 

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

displacement, as measured by exit from a specific unit, from the 

seven gentrifying boroughs in New York City and concluded 

that the primary potential for harm to low-income families 

in gentrifying neighborhoods is normal housing succession, 

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

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

housing.

Subsequent research inquired whether using turnover rates 

would fully capture all types of displacement that have occurred. 

Newman and Wyly (2006) noted that displacement pressures 

from gentrification should be viewed over the longer run, 

rather than a snapshot in time. It is likely that few low-income 

residents continued to stay in the gentrifying areas of New 

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

do so through a combination of “regulatory protection and 

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

28).Displacement may be artificially low when measuring exit 

rates after two decades of intense gentrification, because the 

most vulnerable residents would have exited earlier.

The researchers performed different variations of the previous 

research and noted the difficulties in fully capturing displacement effects with the New York City Housing and Vacancy 

Survey data used by Freeman and Braconi, because the survey 

does not identify persons who were previously displaced and 

doubling up with a friend or relative nor anyone who leaves the 

city, rather than leaving to another unit within city boundaries 

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

(2004) acknowledged that using turnover rates may understate 

displacement by including households that move to cheaper 

living arrangements within New York City but understate it by 

failing to incorporate those who leave the city, become homeless, 

or double up with friends or relatives. Although Newman and 

Wyly (2006) found similarly small displacement rates using 

different data techniques, they acknowledge that thousands 

of displaced persons, even in cities of millions, are not insignificant and should not be dismissed, but also that the task of 

tracking the outcomes of low-income people is challenging and 

akin to “measuring the invisible.”

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

limited amount of choice for low-income families in gentrifying 

neighborhoods. Rent increases in gentrifying neighborhoods 

were associated with a decrease in the probability of poor 

households moving, and the same result was seen for collegeeducated households. Although the researchers, along with 

many others, associated this decline in the probability of moving 

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

neighborhoods, with the services and amenities to which they 

are accustomed, others argued that rising rents effectively 

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

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

falls, the options for poor households diminishes, severely 

limiting their residential mobility (Slater, 2009).

Not only do exit rates fail to capture the limited choices of lowincome households to cope with rising housing costs but also 

the exclusionary effects of gentrification. For families looking 

to move into areas of opportunity, some neighborhoods are 

inaccessible because of high rents, forcing low-income households to lower-cost neighborhoods with less investment than 

gentrified neighborhoods (Newman and Wyly, 2006).
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

6

Differing Outcomes 

Although exit rates may increase for low-income renters who are 

unable to cope with higher housing costs, they may decline for 

those who realize the benefits of neighborhood improvements. 

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

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

difficulty of measuring displacement, studies on gentrification 

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

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

Despite the difficulty in using turnover in gentrifying neighborhoods as a measure of displacement, evidence suggests that 

those who move face worse outcomes than those who are able 

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

which looked specifically at pathways of moves, found that 

vulnerable households that do move are generally renters 

and are at greater risk of moving to neighborhoods that are 

worse off than the original neighborhood, in terms of home 

values, unemployment rates, median incomes, and public 

school performance. Ding, Hwang, and Divringi (2015) posited

that gentrification’s pressures on rents and home values are 

significant drivers in mobility decisions of residents. Indeed, 

Newman and Wyly’s (2006) study found that cost considerations such as unemployment, income, and rising rents were 

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

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

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

York and into neighbors further into Brooklyn, Queens, and 

the Bronx, as Manhattan was becoming increasingly gentrified 

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

suggest that displacement was occurring, outcomes from these 

studies suggest that moving from gentrifying neighborhoods 

has negative impacts on vulnerable renters.

These factors may have contributed to the previously muted 

public policy response when HUD investigated the potential 

for displacement and found that the scale of displacement 

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

agency concluded that disinvestment accounted for a greater 

proportion of displacement than neighborhood revitalization 

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

urban decline rather than gentrification, recent trends in the 

compositional shifts of downtowns and significantly higher rent 

growth in gentrifying areas put gentrification back on HUD’s 

agenda. HUD’s current concerns with neighborhood change 

have been informed by what the agency has heard from some 

cities around the nation, particularly regarding tensions around 

the significant increases rents in high-demand neighborhoods 

now compared with previous periods. 

As part of a recent HUD initiative, HUD facilitated discussions 

in cities and regions around the country on expanding affordable housing opportunity and increasing economic mobility. 

In areas where neighborhood change is particularly intense 

or advanced and displacement of minority and low-income 

households occurs at a rapid pace, local leaders highlighted 

the need for policies that encourage equitable neighborhood 

change. Tools that help areas amplify the upside potential of 

renewed interest and investment in low-income urban areas, 

while limiting the potential downsides of displacement or 

long-term segregation, were an important part of the policy 

discussion between local communities and HUD. 

Loss of Affordable Housing Units: Exclusionary 

Displacement

As mentioned previously, displacement can also occur when 

neighborhood choices become limited from the lack of affordable 

housing units, excluding them from the realm of possibilities 

for low-income families. Exclusionary displacement from the 

loss of affordable housing units occurs across the nation, even 

in nongentrifying neighborhoods, due to the rental affordability 

crisis. HUD’s most recent worst-case housing needs assessment 

estimated that the number of renter households with worst-case 

needs—defined as renters with incomes less than 50 percent 

of the Area Median Income who do not receive government 

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

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

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

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

increased demand for rental units, including a pronounced 

shift from homeownership. Although the supply of rental units 

also increased, new inventory is generally for more expensive 

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

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

2015 failed to translate into increased availability of affordable 

housing. Unlike more expensive units, the stock of rental housing affordable to very low-income renters shrank between 2013 

and 2015, the vacancy rates remained highest among the most 

expensive units. For renters with extremely low incomes, the 

ratio of affordable and available units decreased... to 38 units 

per 100 renters” (HUD, 2017: xi). 

Higher Rent Burdens for Low-Income Households 

Unsurprisingly, rents increased significantly faster in gentrifying neighborhoods than in nongentrifying areas during the 

1990s, a trend that is happening to a more significant degree 

since 2000 (Ellen and O’Regan, 2011). Freeman and Braconi’s 
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

7

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

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

neighborhoods were paying more than the generally recognized 

standard of affordability (30 percent of their income) toward 

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

percent of their income toward rent. The average rent burden 

for poor households living in gentrifying neighborhoods, at 

61 percent, was also higher than the average rent burden for 

poor households living outside of gentrifying neighborhoods, 

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

burdens for both gentrifying and nongentrifying neighborhoods 

are far above the recognized standard of affordability, demonstrating that more affordable housing development is needed 

across the board. The patterns also show that these pressures 

can be exacerbated in rapidly changing neighborhoods.

Rent burdens have been even more pronounced because of a 

greater prevalence of rent increases in urban neighborhoods 

than in the 1990s, a cause for greater concern during the recent 

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

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

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

In Most of the Country, a Large Majority of LowestIncome Renters Are Severely Cost Burdened

Notes: Severely cost-burdened households pay more than 50 percent of income 

for housing. Data are for Core Based Statistical Areas.

Source: JCHS (2016)

Although the existing literature focuses primarily on the 

potential for housing and neighborhood displacement of lowincome residents, the impact of neighborhood change extends 

beyond housing alone. A primary motivation for existing 

residents’ desire to stay is the services and support systems 

on which low-income families rely, such as affordable mass 

transit, economic and workforce development, and other basic 

services. Urban revitalization often brings new amenities that 

attract higher-income in-movers but that are not always aligned 

with the needs of existing residents. 

Cultural displacement of a neighborhood—defined at least 

partly by the mix of shops and restaurants—is another oftencited critique. Recent research by Meltzer (2016) on small business exit rates in changing New York neighborhoods provided 

only mixed support for this concern. Small businesses do not 

appear to be at heightened risk of displacement from gentrifying neighborhoods, and retention rates among small businesses 

are generally higher than exit rates in both gentrifying and 

nongentrifying neighborhoods. However, gentrifying neighborhoods have a somewhat higher share of businesses that leave 

without any replacement. When businesses are replaced, they 

are generally in a different sector than the original, with the 

highest gains in businesses providing services, such as art and 

entertainment venues and employee placement services, and 

losses in goods-producing industries, such as manufacturing. 

Replacements are also more often chain stores, changing the 

feel of a neighborhood entirely (Meltzer, 2016).

A common view of the new amenities that gentrification brings 

to a neighborhood is that they are not meant for existing residents (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 

decrease in poverty rates of 5 percentage points compared with 

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

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

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

Program tenants tend to live in lower-poverty neighborhoods. 

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

investment and likely employment, the reduction in poverty in 

these tracts is perhaps unsurprising. In fact, the primary goal 
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

8

of HOPE VI revitalization efforts was to deconcentrate poverty 

and encouraged mixed-income development. One of the successful 

outcomes of HOPE VI neighborhoods studied was the decline 

in poverty concentration of low-income households from 81 

percent in 1989 to 69 percent in 1999 (Zielenbach, 2002).

Neighborhood Improvements

In recent research on the outcomes for public housing residents 

in gentrifying tracts of New York City, Dastrup and Ellen (2016) 

found improvements in a variety of neighborhood indicators. 

They found that public housing developments in gentrifying 

tracts have lower neighborhood violent crime rates and are 

zoned for public elementary schools with higher standardized 

test scores than their counterparts in lower-income communities. Residents of these neighborhoods are also more often 

employed, have slightly higher incomes, and have greater 

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

(2011) work found increased satisfaction among original 

renters who stayed in gentrifying neighborhoods, likely due to 

the improved neighborhood conditions. 

As communities change, low-income homeowners may face 

increased property taxes. If not paid, often a lien is placed on 

the property and can result in foreclosure. One recent policy 

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

the government forbade the sale of liens on homes whose 

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

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

(Cenziper and Sallah, 2014). 

Greater Access to Services 

Broader urban revitalization is also likely to bring a greater 

number of services that were previously absent in the neighborhood. A number of studies have demonstrated that low-income 

and minority neighborhoods have fewer and smaller retail 

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

higher-income neighborhoods (Alwitt and Donley, 1997; 

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

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

of competition may lead families to pay more for basic goods 

and services (Caplovitz, 1967; Hayes, 2000; Kaufman et al., 

1997). Meltzer and Schuetz’s (2012) study on retail establishments in New York City found that lower-income and minority 

neighborhoods had lower densities of commercial businesses 

and employment, smaller businesses, and a higher proportion 

of unhealthy restaurants. Growth of retail establishments 

increased between 1998 and 2007 and was particularly strong 

in gentrifying neighborhoods.

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

be a potential benefit of neighborhood change, especially if the 

type of establishment can promote better outcomes for its residents, such as mainstream financial institutions or healthy food 

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

(2012) research demonstrates that poor neighborhoods and 

predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods had a greater 

proportion of unhealthy food chains compared with higherincome areas. Although their research is silent on the effect of a 

rise in healthy establishments, some anecdotal instances suggest 

that gentrification has been associated with bringing healthy 

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

to the early 2000s, Harlem lacked larger grocery stores, leaving 

little choice for low-income residents except to shop at local 

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

revitalization from the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone 

spreading into underserved areas such as Harlem, the area has 

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

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

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

To be sure, the research has demonstrated that potential benefits 

accrue from gentrification. However, many of those benefits are 

available only to those who stay in changing neighborhoods. 

With rising housing costs often associated with neighborhood 

improvements, it is likely that a smaller proportion of lowerincome residents have the means to stay. Federal housing policies, such as public housing and HCVs, have had a meaningful 

impact on protecting some renters from displacement but are 

not the only solution to a multifaceted issue. 

Policy Responses to 

Gentrification 

A common theme echoed throughout conversations between 

HUD and local policymakers is that a broad-based approach 

to housing affordability is necessary for its success—one that 

both encourages housing development and affordable housing preservation, as well as community engagement from all 

residents. This section suggests four key strategies that could 

alleviate pressures on housing affordability and community 

resistance to change at all policy levels.

Preserve Existing Affordable Housing

Between 2001 and 2015, the number of affordable rental units 

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

renters increased by 4.2 million (Watson et al., 2017). Normally 
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

9

the rent for a given unit is expected to filter down as the unit 

ages, but insufficient construction of new affordable units 

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

to disinvestment and disrepair or owner conversions, even as 

increased demand was causing 1.5 million affordable units 

annually to filter up to unaffordable levels (Eggers and Moumen, 

2015). These rates are up significantly from 400,000 units 

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

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

units lost from stock include about 10,000 public housing 

units annually. In this context, programs that preserve existing 

affordable housing, particularly in gentrifying neighborhoods, 

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

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

Rental Assistance Demonstration

Public housing developments, in which subsidies are attached 

to particular units, may be an effective tool for helping lowincome families stay in place. However, the current structure 

and level of funding, which is through annual appropriations, 

has been inadequate to address the $26 billion backlog of 

deferred maintenance that can result in a permanent loss of 

public housing units (Finkel, 2010).

In response, HUD proposed, and Congress authorized, RAD 

in 2013. RAD’s main goal is to give public housing agencies 

(PHAs) a tool to preserve and improve public housing properties by moving units from the public housing program to more 

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

Section 8 contracts like project-based vouchers or project-based 

rental assistance. Through the movement from a funding 

platform of annual appropriations to long-term contracts, RAD 

enables PHAs to leverage external resources in order to invest 

in the public housing stock. PHAs can obtain mortgages to 

finance capital improvements and are eligible for LIHTCs. As 

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

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

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

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

for units that move to long-term project-based Section 8 contracts 

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

remain permanently affordable to low-income households.

Under RAD, residents continue to pay 30 percent of their income 

toward rent and maintain the same basic rights, and RAD maintains the public stewardship of the converted property through 

clear rules on ownership and use. 

Given the central location of the oldest public housing stock 

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

important tool in anchoring long-term affordable housing in 

and near gentrifying neighborhoods.3 For example, in New 

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

districts that are classified as gentrifying, and block groups that 

had average incomes above the city median in 2010 surround 

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

Ellen, 2016). RAD can be a means for ensuring that the existing 

stock of public housing is maintained and remains permanently 

affordable for low-income families to stay in place or move to 

places of opportunity. 

Housing Choice Vouchers

HUD’s HCV program is the largest federal rental housing program, providing housing subsidies for more than 2.2 million 

low-income households (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2015). Voucher holders pay 30 percent of their income 

toward rent, and the subsidy covers the difference between that 

and an allowable payment standard, determined largely by the 

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

assistance may be useful in broadening neighborhood choice 

for low-income families and help to alleviate some of the exclusionary displacement that occurs in central neighborhoods. 

The Urban Institute notes that, without federal rental assistance 

programs, the affordability crisis would be even worse, and the 

share of families who could have afforded adequate housing in 

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

Subsidies can be particularly helpful in keeping low-income 

families in gentrifying neighborhoods, where some evidence 

suggests positive outcomes for voucher holders who remain, 

including living in neighborhoods with lower poverty rates 

(Johnson, 2015).

However, recent research suggests that, even for those with 

subsidies, this protection is far from complete. Ellen and 

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

where rents are increasing more rapidly, voucher households 

tend to move more frequently to other neighborhoods, 

experience higher rent burdens, and become more spatially 

concentrated. It is particularly likely that a voucher holder will 

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

gentrifying neighborhood, where housing units that meet program requirements become increasingly difficult to find (Finkel 

and Buron, 2001). Similar results were found for families who 

relocated after HOPE VI. Evidence from the HOPE VI Resident 

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.
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

10

Tracking Study suggested that former residents ended up in 

neighborhoods with lower poverty rates, lower crime rates, and 

better housing conditions than families living in public housing 

awaiting revitalization, but these benefits were tempered by 

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

One limit to the ability of rental vouchers to keep residents in 

place as rents increase may be how the FMR, on which payment standards are largely based, is calculated. Currently, the 

FMRs provide a single rent standard for an entire metropolitan 

area, which may understate the rapid rent growth occurring in 

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

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

2016, may provide greater flexibility in this instance.4 Unlike 

metropolitan-level FMRs, SAFMRs and their associated payment 

standard amounts are calculated at the ZIP Code level. SAFMRs 

recognize that neighborhoods within a single metropolitan area 

can be drastically different in terms of opportunity, services, 

and, thereby, rents and give greater choice to voucher households in determining their housing locations. For residents of 

gentrifying neighborhoods, SAFMRs may help to stem displacement by granting higher payment standards than the overall 

metropolitan area.5

Preservation-Friendly Incentives

On the local level, aligning incentives for existing affordable 

housing owners with the community’s preservation priorities 

can be effective in maintaining affordable units. Examples 

of preservation-friendly policies include tax abatements to 

lower property taxes for owners who agree to preserve units as 

affordable, such as the Class 9 program in Chicago. The Class 9 

program reduces the assessment rate on substantial-rehabilitation or new-construction rental projects to the same lower rate 

as single-family property assessments when a minimum of 35 

percent of units is affordable (CRN, n.d.a.).6

In addition to Class 9, Chicago’s Class S property tax incentive program provides rate cuts to preserve more than 3,000 

Section 8 housing units at risk of conversion to market-rate 

rental or condominium units, which are particularly at risk 

in gentrifying neighborhoods. Because Housing Assistance 

Payment contracts began expiring in 1997, owners of more 

than 1,000 Section 8 units have chosen to opt out in Illinois, 

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

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

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

incentive (CRN, n.d.a.). 

Preservation Catalog

Because of uncertain congressional appropriations, localities are 

asked to do more with less when it comes to affordable housing 

development and preservation. Using existing resources in the 

most efficient way can help governments react in an uncertain 

budgetary environment.

Lubell (2016) suggested numerous policy responses that 

could improve the efficiency of resource utilization, including 

a preservation catalog that identifies when subsidies or rental 

assistance will expire. The national online preservationdatabase.

org currently identifies when assistance will expire but focuses 

on federal subsidies and would greatly benefit from information 

on state and local subsidies (Lubell, 2016). This database can 

assist communities in prioritizing preservation targets well 

ahead of subsidy expirations and help them react with the 

appropriate tools. Currently, the database shows that 2 million 

federally assisted rental units with affordable use restrictions 

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

Encourage Greater Development

In addition to preserving existing affordable units, encouraging 

greater development of rental units at all levels can lower 

housing costs and expand housing choice for residents, particularly in areas with significant rent growth. Most of the current 

affordable housing stock is not subsidized but rather consists 

of older units that no longer command the highest rents or 

have filtered downward. Lubell (2016) described such units 

as “market-rate affordable” or “naturally occurring affordable”: 

units that are affordable for low-income households without 

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

However, older housing stock that could be market-rate affordable 

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

rental housing at all levels (JCHS, 2016). The Joint Center for 

Housing Studies of Harvard University estimated that downwardfiltered units increased the supply of affordable units 4.6 percent 

between 2003 through 2013, which was more than offset by 

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.
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

11

upgrading that increased rents, or upward filtering (JCHS, 

2016). Given the tightening of rental markets nationwide, 

the number of low-income renters far exceeds the number of 

available and affordable units, such that both preservation and 

development of new units are necessary. Indeed, a National 

Low Income Housing Coalition study found that, in 2014, 

31 rental units were affordable and available for every 100 

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

Federal Policies To Encourage Supply of Affordable Housing

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

existing stock, HUD has been looking for ways to promote 

the expansion of the affordable supply, including a review of 

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) policies such as condominium guidelines and rulemaking related to the production 

and installation of manufactured housing.

Another opportunity lies with condominiums, traditionally a 

mainstay of affordable housing for both first-time homebuyers 

and seniors. HUD is in the process of revising condominium 

project approval requirements in order to provide a Final 

Rule and updated policies. HUD anticipates that the updated 

condominium project-approval regulations will be more flexible, less prescriptive, and more reflective of the current market 

than existing condominium project-approval provisions.

HUD also recently announced a top-to-bottom review of its 

manufactured housing rules to assess their compliance costs 

and whether those costs are justified against the backdrop of 

the nation’s shortage of affordable housing. Manufactured housing plays a vital role in meeting the nation’s affordable housing 

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

housing stock. Estimates suggest that more than 22 million 

American households reside in manufactured housing.

Property Acquisition 

Beyond federal efforts, local governments have had some 

successes in developing affordable units in some neighborhoods 

where such units would be cost prohibitive through the use 

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

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

affordable housing developers through major financial institutions that are protected by a guarantee (Lubell, 2016). More 

than 7,650 affordable units have been created or preserved as a 

result of the fund.7

A particularly promising approach to applying property acquisition funds in gentrifying neighborhoods is to target existing or 

upcoming transit development. The Urban Land Conservancy’s 

fund purchases and holds property in key sites in Denver for 

the construction and preservation of more than 1,000 affordable housing units in “current and future transit corridors” 

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

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

is focused on the production and preservation of affordable 

housing in transit-oriented neighborhoods that also sets aside 

funds for neighborhood amenities such as community facilities, 

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

of funds can be particularly useful for renters in and around 

gentrifying neighborhoods. Low-income households are often 

forced to trade location for affordability to such a degree that 

they can spend nearly three times more on transportation when 

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

Creating and preserving affordable housing near transit options 

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

renters in these neighborhoods face.

Housing Supply and Local Regulations

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

of housing not caught up to demand? Researchers have increasingly focused on the role of restrictive land zoning regulations, 

which have risen since the late 1970s, in increasing construction 

costs. Glaeser, Gyourko, and Saks (2005a) found that, until the 

1970s, rising quality of both housing and construction drove 

housing price increases. The authors concluded, however, that 

price increases instead reflect the difficulty of obtaining regulatory approval for new home construction. Similarly, Gyourko, 

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

real home price distributions is correlated with variation in the 

adoption of land use restrictions by communities.

A collection of work draws direct connections between local 

zoning restrictions and the cost of housing for specific cities. 

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

1-acre increase in a Boston-area town’s minimum lot size was 

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

In areas with increased demand, such as Manhattan, land 

use regulations are credited with constraining the supply of 

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

Saks, 2005b).

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/.
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

12

these regulations can be particularly restrictive for multifamily 

housing and incentivize expensive housing development more 

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

Indeed, local governments often discourage or prohibit the type 

of economical design that could encourage prompt, efficient, 

and affordable development of housing, such as modular units 

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

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

under way is typically more expensive than the average renter 

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

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

incurring a high housing cost burden, the average income 

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

maintenance costs increase, units “rarely filter down to become 

affordable for low-income people” (Anderson, n.d.).

The Obama White House’s “Housing Development Toolkit” 

highlighted the costs of local regulatory barriers to development, including exacerbating the housing affordability crisis, 

creating a drag on the national economy, and reducing the 

number of families that HCVs could serve because of higher 

per-unit costs.

The Housing Development Toolkit suggested a variety of strategies that state and local governments could take to promote 

greater housing development in the face of challenging political 

barriers to reform and improvement. Specifically, some of the 

actions emphasized include—

• Establishing by-right development, particularly in conjunction with affordable housing, transit-oriented development 

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

building approval process.

• Requiring vacant property registration and increasing fees 

the longer a property remains vacant, encouraging owners to 

put properties to more productive uses, such as redevelopment or donating land to nonprofit developers.

• Reducing minimum lot sizes and eliminating off-street parking requirements, which significantly add to housing costs 

and can impede the affordability of a project.

• Allowing for accessory dwelling units that can address a 

greater trend toward intergenerational living.

• Establishing density bonuses or development taxes that 

incentivize the addition of affordable housing units. (The 

White House, 2016)

The Toolkit recognized that greater political influence of some 

neighborhoods provides increased ability to implement strict 

local barriers. Such barriers often result in pushing any new 

development to low-income, gentrifying neighborhoods. By 

actively working to minimize these restrictions on further 

growth and to encourage greater regionwide development, state 

and local governments can reduce the displacement potential 

for neighborhoods with particularly strong rent or housing 

price increases.

Inclusionary Zoning Policies

An empirical debate is ongoing about the magnitude of benefits 

and associated negative effects of inclusionary zoning policies.

Some experts have noted that inclusionary zoning policies often 

fall short of their goals and, in hot housing markets, can raise 

construction costs significantly (Quigley and Raphael, 2005). 

They can potentially lead to a decrease in unit production and, 

ultimately, affordability.

Other empirical studies have suggested that the number of 

affordable housing units produced from inclusionary zoning 

programs is underestimated and that these policies do not 

lead to significant declines in overall housing production or to 

increases in rents and prices (Sturtevant, 2016).

A recent report by the Center for Housing Policy notes that the 

success of inclusionary zoning policies depends on different 

factors; for example, offering additional incentives that offset 

the cost to developers, such as fee waivers or expedited permit 

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

regulations that attempt to increase the supply of affordable 

housing with the correct incentives and in the correct markets 

may be instrumental to their success.

The current Administration is interested in reducing regulatory barriers to the production of affordable housing that 

has constrained supply and left many American families cost 

burdened.

Engage Community Residents

Greater development is needed to meet current demand and to 

compensate for decades of restricted supply. High-density and 

affordable housing development is often met with community 

resistance, however. Successful development plans will seek the 

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

only housing. 
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

13

State and Local Measures on Affordable Housing 

Development

Complementing federal incentives for new affordable housing 

development, local governments have sought new means 

for affordable housing construction while garnering public 

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

measure for affordable housing, was passed with 74 percent 

of voters supporting the bond during the November 2015 

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

expected to finance the construction or rehabilitation of 30,000 

affordable units, and a significant portion of the bond will be 

used to target affordable housing development specifically in 

the gentrifying Mission District neighborhood. Although the 

city has been concerned with the displacement of minority and 

low-income households, on top of affordability pressures from 

the technology boom, placing the bond for a public vote shifted 

which actors prioritize housing affordability. By doing so, San 

Francisco leaders already garnered widespread public support 

before any affordable units have been constructed. 

Support for Community-Led Organizations

Although residential displacement is a primary concern of 

many changing neighborhoods, communities should also act 

to ensure that residents who can remain are not alienated from 

neighborhood changes. Stemming the social tensions that come 

with the potential for cultural and political displacement of 

long-term residents can encourage meaningful social interactions 

with newcomers and foster greater integration (Hyra, 2017). 

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

meaningful integration will require more than policy responses 

geared toward housing. If communities are not intentionally 

“activating the mix,” as they call it, or working to ensure that 

increased mixing currently occurring in cities is “real,” then diversity, if achieved, is much less likely to remain. Indeed, Hyra 

(2016: 171) argued that, “we must look beyond residential 

and small business displacement... impacts to understand how 

to effectively facilitate community conditions in economically 

transitioning neighborhoods that better support social cohesion 

and interaction among traditionally segregated populations.” 

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

meaningful integration is through current funding that can be 

directed to support community-led organizations that encourage cross-race and cross-class connections (Hyra, 2016). 

South End Boston provides a good example of the need for 

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

economic diversity, with high-income and generally White 

homeowners living in close proximity to minority renters, 

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

Higher-income residents often avoid areas immediately 

surrounding subsidized developments they consider unsafe, 

and lower-income residents are often priced out of establishments that high-income residents frequent. These patterns 

show up in neighborhood organizations that are designed to 

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

For example, block associations that attract higher-income 

residents promoted activities such as wine tastings and historic 

preservation, whereas associations based in affordable housing 

complexes focused on social services and ethnic cultural 

celebrations (Tach, 2014). 

Clearly, meaningful integration involves more than merely 

mixed-income neighborhoods. The most successful neighborhood organizations at promoting social cohesion in South End 

Boston were those that reflected broad-based interests and were 

not cost prohibitive (Tach, 2014). For low-income residents 

to garner the benefits of neighborhood change, communities 

should also pursue policy objectives further than affordable 

housing by supporting neighborhood organizations that foster 

greater connections between newcomers and long-time residents and that encourage civic engagement among all groups. 

Regional Cooperation and Strategies

As the number of lower-income and poor households continues 

to grow faster in the suburbs than in the nation’s biggest cities, 

local suburban agencies struggle to keep up with demand for 

services, because they lack the fiscal and nonprofit architecture 

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

resources were more likely to be supported and funded in 

urban centers, where large concentrations of poor households 

resided. However, gentrification, along with the rental affordability crisis and housing bust in the mid-2000s, has resulted in 

an influx of lower-income and poor households into suburban 

communities. 

Murphy and Wallace (2010: 1164) found that, at the start of 

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

city counterparts from organizations that could help them 

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

opportunities for mobility.” This finding illustrates the interconnectedness between neighborhoods and communities. A 

shortage of housing in one city, and any policies that contribute 

to it, spill over to surrounding communities. An ecosystem 

of neighborhoods and communities exists. The impact of 

gentrification is not isolated to the changing neighborhood, and 

addressing the forces behind it requires regional strategies.
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

14

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

Beyond stemming discrimination, the 1968 Fair Housing Act 

requires that HUD and other federal agencies affirmatively 

further fair housing in the administration of housing programs. 

This obligation applies to jurisdictions and grantees receiving 

HUD funds. HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 

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

those program participants.

Key parts of the rule relevant to this discussion are—

• Program participants receiving HUD funding are required to 

complete an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), identifying 

fair housing issues.

• The AFH is done with a standardized assessment tool and 

associated data and maps to help in assessing patterns of 

segregation and what those patterns may mean for access to 

important neighborhood services, for example.

• Grantees then set forth their priority goals for addressing 

those issues and incorporate this analysis into their follow-on 

planning processes—such as the Consolidated Plan for 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) grantees and 

the PHA plans—which include strategies and steps to be 

taken (O’Regan, 2016).

Grantees are required to have meaningful community participation 

as part of identifying issues and setting goals. HUD also strongly 

encourages joint or regional submissions, so that multiple 

jurisdictions and entities work together on the assessments and 

goals. The coordination and planning for these assessments 

may serve as a backdrop for broader conversations on how to 

support efforts to maximize the upside potential of increased 

investment into gentrifying neighborhoods while minimizing 

some of the downsides, including displacement.

Neighborhoods that are currently undergoing gentrification, 

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

for a particularly impactful strategy within AFFH. These areas 

frequently already contain minority households and already 

experience increased investments such that neighborhood 

services and conditions are improving. Employing strategies 

here to minimize displacement and secure affordable housing 

has the potential for securing longer-term diversity.

AFFH might provide an opportunity for localities and regions 

to address the housing affordability and displacement pressures 

from a more holistic perspective.

Convening and Sharing Best Practices

HUD recently joined local communities in five regions around 

the country to talk about the most challenging issues of 

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

Francisco held one of the initial five convenings, in which 

significant change in the Mission District neighborhood was at 

the forefront of the conversation. The Mission District historically has been populated by Mexican and Central American 

immigrants but is currently seeing an influx of younger, White 

technology professionals.

HUDUser.gov also documents and elevates policies, case 

studies, and best practices that state and local leaders can 

use in ensuring inclusive community development (HUD, 

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

government can support local efforts to respond to community 

change and can encourage the coordination and cooperation of 

multiple localities and agencies. 

Data Sharing

In support of regional coordination, data sharing among 

agencies and municipalities can help communities respond 

appropriately to the shifting makeup of their neighborhoods 

and needs. Utilizing existing networks, such as the National 

League of Cities and the National Association of Counties, can 

assist in this effort by providing data and technical assistance 

to inform local leaders of trends and best practices across cities 

and counties. Local organizations can take a leadership role in 

creating and supporting scaled and integrated solutions across 

jurisdictions and agencies. 

Within the federal government, interagency efforts to promote 

region-level planning decisions have also proven successful 

thanks to cooperation between departments on a similar goal. 

In the Sustainable Communities Initiative, HUD worked closely 

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

Environmental Protection Agency to provide grants that sought 

to improve regional and local planning efforts to integrate 

housing, transportation, economic and workforce development, 

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

encourage a broader look at neighborhood change beyond 

housing and that integrate agency resources and tools can be 

especially helpful in assisting gentrifying areas.

Award Coordinated Efforts

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. 
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

15

However, both federal and local governments can go further 

by acknowledging these interjurisdictional groups as qualified 

grantees, by explicitly rewarding collaborative and integrative 

approaches within existing funding streams, such as awarding 

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

example, HUD’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program 

recognizes the importance of flexibility in empowering 

communities to create affordable housing and awards grants 

to collaborative entities that contain both entitlement and 

nonentitlement communities. However, only entitled cities and 

counties are eligible for CDBGs for viable urban community 

development and expanding economic opportunity.

In addition to providing direct incentives for coordination, the 

federal government can also assist in the data-sharing efforts of 

local collaboratives by aligning data requirements and reporting 

systems across agencies and programs, when possible (Kneebone and Berube, 2013). Standardizing data systems could 

help municipalities see an immediate effect on administrative 

costs but encourage greater cooperation and communication.

New Innovations in 

Responding to Gentrification

Local governments and organizations are also looking at 

innovative and comprehensive ways to ensure equity in 

neighborhood development and change. This section highlights 

several communities whose innovative work incorporates 

elements of the four strategies discussed previously. 

1. Preserve existing affordable housing—

• Rental Assistance Demonstration.

• Housing choice vouchers.

• Preservation-friendly incentives.

• Preservation catalog.

2. Encourage greater development—

• Federal Housing Administration insurance rate cuts.

• Property acquisition.

• Housing supply and local regulations.

• Inclusionary zoning policies.

3. Engage community residents—

• State and local measures on affordable housing development.

• Support for community-led organizations.

4. Regional cooperation and strategies—

• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

• Convening and sharing best practices.

• Data sharing.

• Award coordinated efforts.

Local Policy Platforms That Address 

Equitable Development

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Strategies employed—

ü Preserve existing affordable housing through property 

acquisition and rehabilitation of units in disrepair. 

ü Encourage greater housing development including, but not 

limited to, affordable housing.

ü Engage and educate existing community residents on tools 

needed to participate in planning and zoning decisions and 

incentivize local and minority hiring.

ü Improve data collection to adequately address the degree of 

displacement and craft effective policy solutions from these 

findings.

In Philadelphia, the development boom in center city has resulted 

in rapid price appreciation for housing and gentrification of 

neighborhoods in the downtown core. The Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations (PACDC) 

has attempted to address these issues with its equitable 

development policy platform, entitled Beyond Gentrification, 

Toward Equitable Neighborhoods. Among a multitude of policy 

recommendations, the platform highlights the need to preserve 

quality affordable housing through the repair of existing mixedincome properties, encourage more market-rate development 

and increase the dedicated funding for the Philadelphia Housing 

Trust Fund and attack blight through consolidated public 

ownership of land and acquiring delinquent properties through 

the Philadelphia Land Bank, implemented in 2014, and improved 

code enforcement on vacant properties to hold owners accountable to their neighbors (Hahn and Brey, 2015). PACDC also 

encourages inclusive communities with resident engagement 

and education. Through the Philadelphia Planning Commission’s 

Citizens Planning Institute, PACDC encourages that community residents be given the tools and knowledge to participate 

in the Registered Community Organization process and other 

planning and zoning decisions. Along these lines, the initiative 
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

16

hopes to expand economic opportunities on neighborhood 

corridors with programs like storefront improvements for 

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

disadvantaged-owned business enterprises; and incentivizing 

large employers to hire locally.

PACDC has been endorsed by 42 member organizations and 

calls on the city to develop a coordinated effort with partners, 

such as housing counselors to track data on displacement and 

rent increases in order to inform appropriate policy actions. 

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

garnering support for comprehensive responses that go beyond 

affordable housing and beyond neighborhoods. 

Washington, D.C.

Strategies employed—

ü Encourage greater affordable housing development through 

property acquisition in partnership with nonprofits.

ü Engage existing community residents in the development 

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

and business owners to create the 11th Street Bridge Park 

Equitable Development Plan (EDP).

ü Improve access to quality education through early learning 

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

and stimulating economic development.

ü Supporting healthy environments through services by 

providing medical care, food and nutrition, and services for 

seniors.

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

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

Initiative to ensure equality in development around the 11th 

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

for displacement once the park is complete, LISC DC’s initiative 

aims at early action in five different areas within a 1-mile radius 

of the future park. Like PACDC’s policy platform, the EDP 

was developed by LISC DC in coordination with government 

officials, business owners, policy experts, and community 

members and stakeholders to employ the strategies discussed 

previously. In addition to the policy plan, LISC DC will provide 

grants, loans, and technical assistance in achieving these four 

goals around the 11th Street Bridge area. 

Chicago, Illinois

Strategies employed—

ü Preserve existing affordable housing by acquiring foreclosed 

properties and rehabilitating units.

ü Encourage greater housing development including, but not 

limited to, affordable housing through creation of a land bank.

ü Taking a broader look and using regional, rather than localized, strategies by cooperating with multiple agencies and 

securing funds through a wide range of programs.

Some cities, such as Chicago, grappling with changing urban 

downtowns alongside growing suburban poverty already 

cooperate on a regional and interagency level. The Chicago 

Southland Housing and Community Development Cooperative 

and the West Cook County Housing Collaborative consist of 29 

Chicago municipalities that collectively secured $44 million for 

housing and community development initiatives (Snyderman 

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

from programs such as the HUD’s Neighborhood Stabilization 

Program, CDBG Disaster Recovery Program, and the Sustainable Communities Initiative, the two collaboratives began the 

process of rehabilitating or demolishing foreclosed properties, 

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

foreclosed properties, and created a geographic information 

system to map demographic and economic trends (Snyderman 

and Dever, n.d.). 

San Francisco, California

Strategies employed—

ü Encourage greater housing development including, but 

not limited to, affordable housing along transit lines in the 

region.

ü Partner with private and public organizations and use 

regional strategies to address high traffic to centralized city 

locations.

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

public-private financing resource collaboration of the nonprofit 

and philanthropic organizations, public agencies, Community 

Development Financial Institutions, and banks, including the 

Great Communities Collaborative, the Association of Bay Area 

Governments, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 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 
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

17

Bay Area (Kneebone and Berube, 2013). The fund has financed 

several developments, including the Eddy and Taylor Family 

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

Senior Apartments in San Jose, and West Grand Development 

in Oakland (Seifel Consulting Inc., 2013). 

Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota

Strategies employed—

ü Create and preserve access to affordable housing.

ü Encourage a strong local economy by connecting people to 

construction and permanent jobs.

ü Create vibrant and transit-oriented places through placemaking and maintaining the character of individual neighborhoods.

ü Facilitate effective communication and collaboration among 

diverse partners.

ü Engage existing community residents.

ü Take a broader look and using regional, rather than localized, 

strategies.

A collaborative of public, nonprofit, and philanthropic partners 

is working together to mitigate displacement along the Metro 

Green Line, which connects the central business districts of 

Minneapolis and Saint Paul, as it continues to expand (SageMartinson, 2016). This work began with the Central Corridors 

Funders Collaborative and eventually expanded to other transit 

corridors in the region thanks to HUD’s Sustainable Communities Initiative. 

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

in preserving or building 3,573 affordable units and serving 

968 households with resources to help stabilize lower income 

families in their homes. Beyond the quantitative metrics, a key 

indicator of success was the degree to which multistakeholder 

collaboration took place. The collaborative facilitated the 

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

Other communities can learn from the collaborative’s experience. Lessons learned include how to maximize coordinated 

investments, convene partners, and utilize existing resources 

and programs to target shared goals. For more information on 

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

on HUDUser.gov. 

Atlanta, Georgia

Strategies employed—

ü Encourage multimodal transportation options.

ü Preserve existing affordable housing.

ü Encourage greater housing development including, but not 

limited to, affordable housing.

ü Engage existing community residents.

ü Taking a broader look and using regional, rather than localized, strategies.

Atlanta is currently undergoing a transformative infrastructure 

investment that has the potential to drastically change the way 

residents move around and interact with their city. The idea 

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

railroad corridors. The project will eventually connect 45 neighborhoods via a system of transit, trails, and greenways.

The Atlanta Beltline thoughtfully incorporates multimodal 

transportation options and affordable housing into the plan. 

The initiative will include 33 miles of biking and walking 

trails, as well as streetcar service. Getting ahead of the expected 

increased demand along the corridor, the city of Atlanta and 

other partners are creating and preserving affordable housing 

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

housing units included in the strategic implementation plan, 20 

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

The Beltline serves as an example of how to advance equitable 

development through large infrastructure projects. The project 

has spurred both public and private investment across the city. 

By creating new linkages between neighborhoods, the project 

addresses longstanding patterns of segregation and opportunity. For more information on the project, read the full article, 

“The Atlanta Beltline,” on HUDUser.gov.

Portland, Oregon

Strategies employed—

ü Preserve housing affordability, by not only acquiring and 

setting aside land for affordable housing development, but 

also providing information to residents about tenant rights, 

foreclosure and home values, and providing direct assistance 

and information to lower home utility and maintenance costs.

ü Retain existing neighborhood businesses by providing 

assistance to small business owners.
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

18

ü Help families achieve economic self-sufficiency by connecting priority populations to targeted employment and preparing them for long-term success and by providing affordable 

childcare to working parents.

ü Engage existing community residents and organizations, 

such as neighborhood associations, churches, and government agencies.

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

experienced a sharp increase in housing demand in the past 

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

neighborhoods, pushing lower-income residents to other parts 

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

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

strategies cities can utilize to ensure that low-income residents 

can remain in their neighborhoods. 

The organization, Living Cully, is comprised of community 

development organizations working together to meet the needs 

of residents in Cully. Living Cully works closely with the local 

government to advance their mission. Additionally, they look 

beyond their own neighborhood to understand how citywide 

and regional policies and broader market forces affect their 

residents (HUD, n.d.e.). 

More details on Living Cully’s strategies to mitigate displacement in a rapidly changing neighborhood can be found on 

HUDUser.gov.

Concluding Remarks

A recent study by Governing suggests that gentrification is still 

rare nationwide, with only 8 percent of neighborhoods reviewed 

experiencing gentrification since 2000 (Maciag, 2015). Many 

researchers agree that the larger issue is concentrated poverty, 

with 75 percent of high-poverty neighborhoods staying poor 

from 1970 to 2010 (Cortright and Mahmoudi, 2014). By introducing high-income households into previously predominately 

low-income neighborhoods, gentrification may be a part of the 

solution to concentrated poverty. Indeed, Ellen and TorratsEspinosa (2016) described the observed decline in poverty 

levels for voucher neighborhoods as the gentrification effect. 

Communities undergoing gentrification have a particularly ripe 

opportunity to harness the upsides of neighborhood change 

and to address concentrated poverty, which some observers describe as the biggest urban challenge the nation currently faces 

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

diverse neighborhoods and communities, policy responses are 

needed beyond the neighborhood and beyond housing. 

The policy responses this report suggests attempt to amplify 

the benefits of gentrification, and the increased investments it 

brings, while minimizing the costs, such as potential displacement of low-income families and long-term resegregation of 

cities. Although greater housing production is necessary in 

communities struggling to keep up with the increased demand 

for affordable housing, for the outcome of community change 

to be shared opportunity, efforts at meaningful integration 

across socioeconomic and racial lines are just as important. 

References

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

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

gentrification-brings-healthy-food-harlem/.

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

Urban Neighborhoods,” The Journal of Consumer Affairs 31 (1): 

139–164. 

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

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

SpecialReport_July16-FullArticle-AHF.htmlHF.html.

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

and Christine Biddlecombe. 2014. Out of Reach 2014. Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing Coalition.

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

Consequences of Central Neighborhood Change, 1970–2010.” 

Paper presented at the Research Symposium on Gentrification 

and Neighborhood Change, May 25. 

Brooks, Jon, and Lisa Pickoff-White. 2015. “S.F. Election: Lee 

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

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

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

Jill Khadduri. 2002. The Hope VI Resident Tracking Study: A 

Snapshot of the Current Living Situation of Original Residents from 

Eight Sights. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates Inc.; Washington, 

DC: Urban Institute.

Caplovitz, David. 1967. The Poor Pay More: Consumer Practices of 

Low-Income Families. New York: Free Press.

Carr, James, and Jenny Schuetz. 2001. Financial Services in 

Distressed Communities: Framing the Issue, Finding Solutions. 

Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2015. “Policy Basics: The 

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

housing/policy-basics-the-housing-choice-voucher-program.
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

19

Cenziper, Debbie, and Michael Sallah. 2014. “Groundbreaking 

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

The Washington Post, March 18. 

Chaskin, Robert, and Mark Joseph. 2015. Integrating the Inner 

City: The Promise and Perils of Mixed-Income Public Housing 

Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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

chicagorehab.org/policy/class9.htm.

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

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

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

Why the Persistence and Spread of Concentrated Poverty—

not Gentrification—Is Our Biggest Urban Challenge.” 

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

LostinPlace_12.4.pdf.

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

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

download/Couture_Handbury_Revival.pdf.

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

Residents to Opportunity: Gentrification and Public Housing,” 

Cityscape 18 (3): 87–107.

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

of Gentrification: A Focus on Residents’ Financial Health in 

Philadelphia,” Cityscape 18 (3): 25–53.

Ding, Lei, Jackelyn Hwang, and Eileen Divringi. 2015. Gentrification and Residential Mobility in Philadelphia. Working paper 

15–36. Philadelphia: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

Econometrica, Inc. 2016. “Evaluation of HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD): Interim Report.” https://www.

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

Eggers, Frederick J., and Fouad Moumen. 2015. Rental Market 

Dynamics: 2009–2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

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

Understanding of Gentrification.” Paper presented at the 

Research Symposium on Gentrification and Neighborhood 

Change, May 25.

Ellen, Ingrid Gould, Keren Horn, and Katherine O’Regan. 

2013. “Why Do Higher-Income Households Choose LowIncome Neighborhoods? Pioneering or Thrift?” Urban Studies

50 (12): 2478–2495.

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

2016. “Has Falling Crime Invited Gentrification?” Paper 

presented at the Research Symposium on Gentrification and 

Neighborhood Change, May 25.

Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Katherine O’Regan. 2009a. “Reversal 

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

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

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

Implications,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political 

and Social Science 626: 22–38.

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

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

Economics 41: 89–97.

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

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

presented at the Research Symposium on Gentrification and 

Neighborhood Change, May 25. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voucher Success Rates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development.

Freeman, Lance. 2005. “Displacement or Succession? Residential Mobility in Gentrifying Neighborhoods,” Urban Affairs 

Review 40 (4): 463–491.

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

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

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

Glaeser, Edward, Joseph Gyourko, and Raven Saks. 2005a. 

Why Have Housing Prices Gone Up? NBER Working Paper No. 

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

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

and the Rise in Housing Prices,” The Journal of Law and Economics 48: 331–369.

Glaeser, Edward, Jenny Schuetz, and Bryce Ward. 2006. Regulation and the Rise of Housing Prices in Greater Boston. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University, Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston.

Goetz, Edward. 2013. New Deal Ruins: Race, Economic Justice, 

and Public Housing Policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

20

Gress, Garyn, Seungjong Cho, and Mark Joseph. 2016. “HOPE 

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

portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HOPE-VI-Data-Compilation-andAnalysis.pdf.

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

“Superstar Cities,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 

5 (4): 167–199.

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

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

planphilly.com/articles/2015/02/19/pacdc-hopes-candidateswill-focus-on-equitable-neighborhood-development.

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

Investigation of Price Dispersion in Food Retailing. Working 

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

Economics, Industrial Relations. 

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

Accessibility to Shopping and Services,” Housing Policy Debate

14 (1–2): 69–101.

Hyra, Derek. 2015. “The Back-to-the-City Movement: Neighborhood Redevelopment and Processes of Political and Cultural 

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

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

of Gentrification and the Future of Equitable Development 

Policy,” Cityscape 18 (3): 169–177.

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

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

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

Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Jargowsky, Paul. 2003. Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: The 

Dramatic Decline of Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Johnson, Matthew. 2015. “Stepping Up: How Cities Are 

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

www.urban.org/features/stepping-how-cities-are-workingkeep-americas-poorest-families-housed.

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (JCHS). 

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

jchs.harvard.edu/research/state_nations_housing.

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

Smallwood. 1997. Do the Poor Pay More for Food? Item Selection 

and Price Differences Affect Low-Income Household Food Costs, 

Agricultural Economics Report No. 759. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

Kneebone, Elizabeth, and Alan Berube. 2013. Confronting 

Suburban Poverty in America. Washington, DC: Brookings 

Institution Press.

Local Initiatives Support Coalition Washington DC (LISC DC). 

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

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

million-elevating-equity-initiative/.

Lubell, Jeffrey. 2016. “Preserving and Expanding Affordability 

in Neighborhoods Experiencing Rising Rents and Property 

Values,” Cityscape 18 (3): 131–150.

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

www.governing.com/gov-data/census/gentrification-in-citiesgoverning-report.html.

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

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

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

Shops? Neighborhood Differences in Retail and Household 

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

Murphy, Alexandra, and Danielle Wallace. 2010. “Opportunities for Making Ends Meet and Upward Mobility: Differences in 

Organizational Deprivation Across Urban and Suburban Poor 

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

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

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

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

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

Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in 

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

O’Regan, Katherine. 2016. “Commentary: A Federal Perspective 

on Gentrification,” Cityscape 18 (3): 151–162.

O’Sullivan, Arthur. 2005. “Gentrification and Crime,” Journal of 

Urban Economics 57: 73–85.

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

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

HOPE VI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges. Washington, 

DC: Urban Institute.

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

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

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

Powell, Lisa, Sandy Slater, Donka Mirtcheva, Yanjun Bao, and 

Frank Chaloupka. 2007. “Food Store Availability and Neighborhood Characteristics in the United States,” Preventative 

Medicine 44: 189–195.
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

21

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

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

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

the High Cost of Housing in California,” American Economic 

Review 95 (2): 323–328.

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

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

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

Symposium on Gentrification and Neighborhood Change. Philadelphia: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

Schwartz, Heather, Raphael Bostic, Richard Green, Vincent 

Reina, Lois Davis, and Catherine Augustine. 2016. Preservation of Affordable Rental Housing: Evaluation of the MacArthur 

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

RAND Corporation.

Seifel Consulting Inc., 2013. “Bay Area Transit-Oriented 

Affordable Housing Fund: Assessment and Lessons Learned.” 

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

TOAH_report.pdf.

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

Displacement,” City 13 (2–3): 293–311.

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

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

confrontingsuburbanpoverty.org/case-studies/buildingcapacity-through-collaboration-in-chicagos-suburbs/.

Sturtevant, Lisa. 2016. Separating Fact From Fiction To Design 

Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs. Washington, DC: Center 

for Housing Policy.

Sullivan, Brian. 2016. “FHA To Cut Insurance Rates on Multifamily Mortgages.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/

press/press_releases_media_advisories/2016/HUDNo_16-008.

Tach, Laura. 2014. “Diversity, Inequality, and Microsegregation: Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in a Racially and 

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

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

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

gov/portal/pp/home.html.

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

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

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

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

study-09082016-1.html.

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

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

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

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

study-09282016-3.html.

———. 1979. Displacement Report. Report on Housing Displacement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development.

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

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

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

Vale, Lawrence. 2013. Purging the Poorest: Public Housing and the 

Design Politics of Twice-Cleared Communities. Chicago: University 

of Chicago Press.

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

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

2017 Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

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

Economic Rental Housing by Design for Communities That Work. 

Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

White House, The. 2016. “Housing Development Toolkit.” 

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

Housing_Development_Toolkit f.2.pdf.

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

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

Composition, Neighborhood Poverty and the Spatial Accessibility of Supermarkets in Metropolitan Detroit,” American Journal 

of Public Health 95 (4): 660–667.

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

Neighborhoods. Washington, DC: Housing Research Foundation. http://www.housingresearch.org.

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

Neighborhoods,” Housing Policy Debate 14 (1): 621–655.
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

22

Appendix. HUD’s Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse Database 

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

Gentrification Response: A Survey of Strategies 

To Maintain Neighborhood Economic Diversity

Publication date: 2016

Location: New York

Organization: New York Universtiy, Furman Center 

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

GentrificationResponse_26OCT2016.pdf.

This report describes policies that local governments can use 

to address concerns about displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods. The authors present policies that create or preserve 

affordable housing in gentrifying neighborhoods and assist 

displaced tenants or those at risk of displacement. Several 

measures that reduce regulatory barriers are included to address concerns that such policies inhibit housing development. 

To preserve affordable housing, property tax relief can be used 

for apartments occupied by targeted income groups and owneroccupied properties where low-income seniors or long-term 

residents live. Inclusionary zoning, along with transferable 

development rights and linkage fees, can be used to produce 

new affordable housing. To ensure that voluntary inclusionary 

zoning is attractive to developers and that mandatory inclusion 

does not inhibit market-rate development, these programs can 

be supplemented with subsidies, allow for relatively higher 

maximum rents, and provide waivers for developments with 

constraining economic conditions. 

To reduce regulatory barriers for policies that protect tenants 

from displacement, the report notes that rent stabilization 

programs can limit the number of protected units, allow for 

greater rent increases at vacancy, and limit the regulatory 

period of units, as well as provide tax reductions for stabilized 

properties. The report also identifies programs requiring 

permits for substantial construction activities to avoid tenant 

harassment. Some communities provide fast-track permitting 

to reduce costs for landlords who have records of respecting 

tenants’ rights. For tenants who are displaced, communities can 

use unified tenant screening reports, which can be efficient for 

both tenants and landlords. Jurisdictions can provide incentives 

to landlords who agree to use the unified report.

Confronting San Francisco’s Housing Crisis in 

2015

Publication date: 2015

Location: San Francisco, California

Organization: Council of Community Housing Organizations

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

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

This paper presents the Council of Community Housing 

Organizations’ strategies to relieve San Francisco’s affordable 

housing crisis. In general, the strategies seek to confront the 

displacement of low-income residents and add affordable 

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

market-rate developments. 

Actions to reduce regulatory barriers include incentivizing 

private-sector development of low- and moderate-income 

housing by adjusting the inclusionary zoning fee structure 

and providing new incentives for offsite affordable buildings 

constructed to meet the zoning requirement. The paper also 

proposes the reinstatement of tax increment financing and the 

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

to be used for affordable housing. Also, fees are proposed to 

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

private development and when property is rezoned for more 

intensive use.

Displacement: The Gnawing Injustice at the 

Heart of Housing Crises

Publication date: 2016

Location: Seattle, Washington

Organization: Sightline Institute

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

displacement-the-gnawing-injustice-at-the-heart-of-housingcrises/.

In this article about displacement in Seattle, author Dan Bertolet 

states that “the root cause ... is a shortage of homes, and the 

only real solution is to build lots more housing of all types... 

.” Bertolet also notes that this citywide market-rate construction 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. 
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

23

Noting that regulatory restrictions prevent new construction 

that meets the demand for more housing in growing cities like 

Seattle, the author claims that a development moratorium and 

rent control would not stop displacement. Further, Bertolet 

states that zoning regulations that limit the number of houses 

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

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

building more housing. The author acknowledges that public 

regulations can be crafted to increase the supply of affordable 

housing, such as tax exemptions for affordable multifamily 

development and mandatory inclusionary housing that carefully balances density increases with affordability requirements.

Transit-Averse Development? The Challenges of 

Infill

Publication date: 2015

Location: Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, California

Organization: University of California, Berkeley, Urban 

Displacement Project

Web location: http://www.urbandisplacement.org/blog/transitaverse-development-challenges-infill.

This blog analyzes the effects of transit investment on housing 

development and displacement near rail stations in the San 

Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. Based on records of 

development between 2000 and 2014, authors Karen Chapple 

and Mitchell Crispell find that transit-oriented development 

occurs in only a few neighborhoods. 

The authors attribute the lack of development near transit 

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

still in place, despite the Association of Bay Area Governments 

having classified station areas as Priority Development Areas. 

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

development costs—land costs and construction costs because 

of the tight construction market, difficult building sites, and 

costs associated with buildings more than eight stories—are so 

high that investments may be infeasible. In addition, neighbors 

anxious about change often threaten legal action under the 

state’s environmental regulations. The authors also note that 

the exemption from those regulations that SB 375 allows to 

promote sustainable development is not as useful as it could be, 

because obtaining an exemption is costly and time consuming. 

These infill challenges, according to the authors, can make 

development infeasible. In those cases, affordable housing 

would require deep subsidies. Market-rate developers might 

delay their projects until area rents increase, or they might 

develop sites farther away from the transit station.

Urban Displacement Policy Tools Map

Publication date: 2016

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

Area, California

Organization: University of California, Berkeley, Urban 

Displacement Project

Web location: http://www.urbandisplacement.org/policytools-2.

The Urban Displacement Project at the University of California, 

Berkeley website provides resources for communities in the 

San Francisco Bay area and Southern California to retain 

affordable housing in the face of neighborhood change. One 

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

presenting 14 antidisplacement policies adopted by more than 

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

cities grouped by the number of adopted policies, as well as the 

cities that have adopted specific policies. 

The policies to reduce regulatory barriers include permitting 

single-room occupancy housing, giving density bonuses for affordable housing, offering incentives for inclusionary housing, 

and establishing rent control that enables reasonable returns for 

apartment owners. The website includes white papers on rent 

control, inclusionary housing, and condominium conversion 

and case studies of neighborhoods vulnerable to displacement.

Gentrification and Neighborhood Change: 

Helpful Tools for Communities

Publication date: 2015

Location: National

Organization: Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood 

and Community Improvement, University of Illinois at Chicago

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

24952a4d8fd30039f35a0.pdf.

In this report, the Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement provides a toolkit of 

strategies to address gentrification, defined as the displacement 

of low-income households when housing costs rise as higher 

income households move into a neighborhood. The strategies 

are categorized for use before gentrification occurs, at its 

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

strategy, identifies key stakeholders, and lists opportunities 

and challenges. As an important step for any program dealing 

with gentrification, the authors urge neighborhood residents, 

local businesses, nonprofit organizations, officials, and other 

interested parties to build partnerships. 
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

24

The strategies addressing regulatory barriers include tax 

abatements that keep property taxes at preredevelopment levels 

for ownership and rental properties occupied by lower income 

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

tax relief as a tool to encourage employer-assisted housing. 

Inclusionary zoning is a helpful antigentrification tool although, 

if not carefully structured, it can lead to concentrated affordable 

housing in low-income neighborhoods or to housing affordable 

to moderate- rather than low-income households. Inclusionary 

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

the affordable units are built in the neighborhood where the 

market development occurs, according to the authors. The 

report also includes activities to strengthen protections for tenants, such as rent control, but warns that low- and moderateincome households may not gain benefits from this strategy.

Equitable Development Promising Practices To 

Maximize Affordability and Minimize Displacement in Nashville’s Urban Core

Publication date: 2014

Location: Nashville and Davidson Counties, Tennessee

Organization: Vanderbilt University, Community Research and 

Action Program

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

Planning/docs/NashvilleNext/ResourceTeams/Housing_

Gentrification_EquitableDevelopment.pdf.

This research report written for NashvilleNext by the Community Research and Action Program at Vanderbilt University, 

highlights best practices for the creation of affordable housing 

and prevention of residential displacement. The authors 

emphasize the need for such strategies by stating that residents 

of increasingly desirable neighborhoods are at risk of displacement, homeowners and renters alike. The authors propose an 

equitable development toolkit with 15 tools in four categories: 

fund it, build it, preserve it, and retain residents. The paper 

also identifies which tools are appropriate for neighborhoods 

with weak, improving, and strong housing markets. 

Several tools reduce regulatory barriers to affordable housing. 

These tools include affordable infill housing in the Build It 

category, which is proposed for accessory dwelling units and 

mixed-use developments, which could assume or explicitly 

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

inclusionary housing, which may offer density bonus, height 

bonus, or other incentive (such as reduced setbacks and 

parking requirements, expedited permitting, fee reductions or 

waivers, and tax exemptions). 

The white paper also proposes several tools related to taxes, 

including tax exemptions for multifamily developments that 

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

affordable units and tax freezes, credits, or deferrals for seniors 

and those on fixed incomes, which can be especially useful 

in areas where property taxes rise quickly. In addition, the 

authors suggest that communities can create tax increment 

financing districts in which a portion of increased tax revenues 

is devoted to constructing or preserving affordable housing, 

especially for households that may be displaced by development pressures.

DC’s First Right Purchase Program Helps To 

Preserve Affordable Housing and Is One of DC’s 

Key Anti-Displacement Tools

Publication date: 2014

Location: Washington, D.C.

Organization: DC Fiscal Policy Institute

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

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

The white paper highlights the District of Columbia’s First Right 

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

affordable housing units since 2002. This program provides 

financial and technical assistance to a tenant group to purchase 

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

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

program’s lengthy and complicated process for applying for 

assistance has limited the effectiveness of the program. 

The white paper proposes several solutions for shortening the 

application process. For example, the author recommends 

starting the review process before the required studies are 

completed, making revisions to the application form to facilitate 

underwriting, and waiving requirements that do not apply to 

tenant purchases of multifamily buildings. Moreover, the white 

paper suggests having benchmarks during the application 

process to help tenants meet deadlines for information and 

decisions.

The Growing Transit Communities Strategy

Publication date: 2013

Location: Puget Sound region, Washington

Organization: Growing Transit Communities Partnership, 

Puget Sound Regional Council

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

GTCStrategyReport2013-10-03.pdf.
Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report

25

The Puget Sound Regional Council’s Growing Transit Communities Partnership prepared a strategy for directing growth 

to areas accessible to the region’s rapid transit system. To accommodate the 25-percent growth in housing projected in the 

region’s Vision 2040 plan, the Partnership recommends that 

local governments implement land use reforms, reductions in 

developmental barriers, and fair housing strategies to provide 

affordable housing choices near high-capacity transit service. 

Eight proposed strategies would provide affordable housing 

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

state, regional council, transit agencies, local governments, 

and housing providers. In addition to increased funding for 

affordable rental and ownership housing, the strategies include 

actions by local governments to reduce barriers to affordable 

housing. Where affordable housing exists, the Partnership calls 

for minimal displacement through incentives to preserve or 

replace the existing housing as new development occurs. The 

Partnership also calls for new affordable units to be provided 

either by requiring them in all developments or by encouraging 

them at the developer’s option through more intensive zoning 

or density bonuses. Suggestions to reduce barriers include 

market-driven parking requirements, reduced parking for seniors and other special populations, maximum parking limits, 

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

unbundled from housing costs. Expedited permitting and 

waivers of impact or permit fees for affordable housing projects 

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

and depth of affordability. 

The Partnership also recommends that local governments 

enact standards for universal design and promote fair housing 

through education, as well as through training for community 

groups to provide outreach services. Finally, the Partnership 

calls on the state to adopt legislation prohibiting discrimination 

against households using rental subsidies.

Austin, Texas: The East Austin Neighborhood

Publication date: 2008

Location: Austin, Texas

Organization: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

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

This report studies the effects of gentrification of low-income 

neighborhoods on housing affordability in Austin, Texas. According to the report, the increased demand for housing in the 

area increases housing prices in low-income neighborhoods, 

creating a housing affordability gap. The report highlights the 

SMART Housing program that offers fee waivers, expedited 

reviews, and tax increment financing to increase housing 

affordability. In addition, the Homestead Preservation District 

will use land banks and land trusts to enable community 

organizations to purchase and hold land for residential housing 

to maintain affordability through 99-year leases.

Homestead Preservation Districts and Reinvestment Zones

Publication date: 2007

Location: Texas

Organization: State of Texas

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

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

This Texas state statute allows for the creation of municipal 

homestead preservation districts to increase homeownership 

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

prevent loss of affordable housing units. Establishing these new 

development districts enables cities to utilize a number of tools, 

including community land trusts, land banks, and reinvestment 

zones to preserve homeownership in disadvantaged neighborhoods and help ease the effects of gentrification. The statute 

also authorizes incentives such as density bonuses and tax 

increment financing to promote housing development.