El Instituto Lincoln ofrece una variedad de oportunidades para investigadores que se encuentran transitando momentos tempranos y medios de sus carreras. En esta serie, hacemos un seguimiento de nuestros becarios para conocer más sobre su trabajo. 

Con una maestría en Planeamiento Urbano y un doctorado en Antropología, hace tiempo que Adriana Hurtado Tarazona se interesa por la relación entre el comportamiento humano y la organización urbana y, en especial, cómo y dónde eligen vivir las personas. Luego de recibir una beca para estudiantes de posgrado del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe (ALC) del Instituto Lincoln, dedicó años al estudio de megaproyectos de viviendas de interés social en las afueras de ciudades de Colombia; esto le permitió pasar mucho tiempo conversando con las personas que vivían allí, para conocer cómo experimentaban la comunidad y el entorno construido. 

Hoy, Hurtado Tarazona es profesora adjunta de Planificación, Gobernanza y Desarrollo Territorial en el Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios sobre Desarrollo (CIDER) de la Universidad de los Andes en Bogotá, Colombia. “Doy un curso introductorio sobre instrumentos de planificación del suelo, así que todavía sigo hablando de lo que aprendí gracias al Instituto Lincoln en un curso al que asistí en Quito allá por 2005”, comenta.

En esta entrevista, que se editó por razones de longitud y claridad, Hurtado Tarazona analiza por qué la vivienda debería tratarse como una política social en lugar de una política económica, comparte opiniones sorprendentes de los residentes de viviendas de interés social y, además, explica por qué puede ser mejor otorgar dinero para que las personas mejoren su vivienda antes que subsidiar la compra de viviendas nuevas.

JON GOREY: ¿Cuál es el enfoque general de su investigación? ¿Y cómo cree que contribuyó en ese trabajo la beca del Instituto Lincoln?

ADRIANA HURTADO TARAZONA: Recibí la beca para la tesis de maestría en 2006. Estaba analizando el impacto en el valor del suelo de un sector de la infraestructura de los sistemas de transporte público masivo en autobús (BRT, por sus siglas en inglés) en Bogotá: el TransMilenio. Ese era uno de los primeros estudios que se realizaban porque, en ese momento, el TransMilenio se había implementado hacía solo cuatro años, por lo que era muy nuevo. Buscaba documentar los cambios en el espacio urbano en el área circundante a las dos grandes estaciones, desde la perspectiva del mercado del suelo y desde la perspectiva de los residentes en la zona.

Me encantó participar del programa, porque conocí a muchos de los profesores y las profesoras vinculados con el programa de América Latina. Disfruté mucho la experiencia. Y, hace tres años, una de mis estudiantes recibió la misma beca que yo había recibido casi 20 años antes. Fue interesante participar de nuevo desde un lugar diferente, acompañar a mi alumna y ser testigo de cómo ella pudo experimentar los beneficios de la beca.

JG: ¿En qué está trabajando ahora y en qué le interesaría trabajar a futuro?

AHT: Ahora estoy trabajando en cuatro proyectos de investigación. Dos de ellos están relacionados con el tema principal de mi tesis doctoral, que es la vivienda de interés social y, más específicamente, la producción y expansión urbana de megaproyectos de vivienda de interés social en las fronteras urbanas. Uno de los proyectos que finalizaremos este año con la Universidad de York en Toronto se llama “Periferias verticales”. Analizamos el impacto subjetivo de vivir en la periferia, pero también el impacto en el planeamiento urbano y la gobernanza del proceso de metropolización, en el que las viviendas de interés social traspasan los límites de las ciudades colombianas. El otro proyecto se enfoca en el impacto económico del acceso a las viviendas de interés social. Analizaremos puntualmente cómo los hogares administrados por mujeres tienen que modificar su economía doméstica a fin de poder mantenerse al día con los costos para acceder por primera vez a una vivienda de su propiedad.

El tercero es el proyecto de infraestructura del cuidado de personas, liderado por la Universidad de Washington en Seattle. Se trata de un proyecto comparativo entre Belfast, Belo Horizonte (en Brasil) y Bogotá. Estudiamos historias sobre el cambio urbano en general y, en Bogotá, nos centramos en cómo el cuidado se convirtió en un foco de la política urbana, lo cual no sucedía hasta hace muy poco, y analizamos el nacimiento del sistema de CUIDADO distrital como una infraestructura urbana. Tenemos reglamentaciones nuevas que entienden que la infraestructura del cuidado está al mismo nivel que la del agua, el alcantarillado y las carreteras, lo cual es muy interesante, e intentamos documentar qué condiciones posibilitaron este cambio.

Y el último proyecto en el que estoy trabajando con el Instituto Lincoln se trata de una beca de investigación pequeña que recibí el año pasado. Quien está a cargo de la investigación es de Brasil y, junto con Argentina, Bolivia, Perú y Colombia, estamos tratando de hacer un análisis comparativo de las intervenciones que buscan apoyar la densificación.

JG: ¿Hay algo que la haya sorprendido o que le haya resultado inesperado durante toda su investigación?

AHT: Les he preguntado a muchas personas si están contentas con sus viviendas a nivel general y la primera sorpresa fue desde una perspectiva urbanística. Quienes se dedican al urbanismo de forma local no suelen ver con buenos ojos estos megaproyectos de viviendas de interés social periféricos, masivos y estandarizados, porque se ubican lejos de la ciudad, están desconectados y presentan problemas de accesibilidad. Yo sabía eso y, entonces, me enfoqué en el trabajo de campo con esa perspectiva crítica en mente.

Sin embargo, cuando me senté con las personas, lo primero que me dijeron fue: “No, a mí me encanta esto. Me encanta el orden. Me encanta que todo sea estándar”. Lo que los urbanistas veían como una “ciudad inhabitable” o un “no-lugar”, a la gente le parecía bien: “Me gusta porque está planeado, es ordenado, es prolijo”. Eso fue lo primero que me sorprendió.

Y me sorprendió porque estas personas habían vivido en casas construidas por sí mismas en las que tenían más espacio y más flexibilidad en el uso de los espacios, además de que estaban mejor ubicadas en la ciudad. Pero, después de pasar más tiempo con ellos, me di cuenta de que se trataba de una cuestión de prioridades: como el mercado de viviendas no les permitía comprar en ningún otro lugar, eligieron ser propietarios a pesar del tiempo que debían pasar viajando, a pesar de estar lejos de la familia, los amigos y las redes de apoyo.

Sabían lo que estaban perdiendo, pero se trataba de una elección consciente de prioridades: “Estoy eligiendo esto, por sobre esto otro”. Y lo que priorizaban era la estabilidad de tener su propia casa, aunque fuera pequeña, estuviera lejos y costara mucho. Esta elección se relaciona de forma directa con las oportunidades de movilidad social que brinda este país, que se centran en el acceso a la propiedad. Ser parte de la clase media nueva en Colombia significa más que nada tener tu propia casa en las áreas formales de la ciudad, no en los barrios informales.

JG: En lo que respecta a su trabajo, ¿qué la mantiene despierta por la noche? ¿Y qué le da esperanza?

AHT: Lo que me preocupa es que la política de vivienda en Colombia, y creo que también en otros países, sigue la lógica del mercado inmobiliario, es decir, que la única forma de resolver el problema de la vivienda es construir viviendas nuevas y venderlas a hogares de bajos ingresos mediante subsidios. Pero también hay otras alternativas; existen muchas formas de abordar el problema de la vivienda.

En las ciudades colombianas, incluida Bogotá, el déficit cualitativo de vivienda es tres veces mayor que el déficit cuantitativo de vivienda. Esto significa que la cantidad de hogares que necesitan mejorar su vivienda es tres veces mayor que los que necesitan viviendas nuevas. Sin embargo, nuestra política de vivienda otorga todos los recursos y toda la atención a la construcción de viviendas nuevas. Si bien existen programas de mejora de viviendas en los vecindarios, no reciben suficiente presupuesto, no tienen la atención necesaria y no se los considera una manera legítima de resolver el problema de la vivienda.

Entonces, quisiera que cambie el enfoque y que se empiece a brindar más atención y más recursos para mejorar lo que ya tenemos, la ciudad que ya está construida. Esto sería beneficioso tanto para el medio ambiente como para la economía de las personas. Tiene muchas ventajas, pero por supuesto que es un proceso más lento. No involucra cifras muy grandes, ni es funcional al interés de los sectores inmobiliario y financiero.

Lo que me da esperanza es que hay ciertas intervenciones que están dando buenos resultados. Una de ellas es el apoyo a la densificación en barrios de origen informal. Se trata de programas que reconocen que hay barrios de origen informal, con viviendas construidas por quienes las habitan, que son más antiguos y que tienen una buena ubicación en la ciudad, por lo que ya tienen acceso a la infraestructura y los bienes y servicios urbanos, pero necesitan apoyo para crecer en altura.

Entonces, tenemos un programa que ofrece ayuda para reforzar la estructura y subsidios para que las personas construyan un segundo piso en sus casas. Esa unidad nueva la pueden ocupar ellas mismas, si son muchas, o pueden alquilarla a otras personas para tener una fuente nueva de ingresos. Opino que es un programa muy innovador, porque mejora la seguridad estructural de las casas y fomenta una mayor disponibilidad de viviendas, mientras que posibilita que los hogares de bajos ingresos obtengan ingresos nuevos a partir de la construcción de unidades nuevas.

El Estado está apoyando un proceso que sucedería de todos modos, con o sin su ayuda. Pero, con la intervención del Estado, las condiciones son mejores y más seguras, se trata de otra manera de invertir recursos públicos para solucionar el problema de la vivienda. De todas formas, estos son proyectos piloto de escala pequeña. En el futuro, quiero trabajar para buscar la manera de ampliar este proyecto y lograr que la mejora de la vivienda y el vecindario ocupe un lugar más central en la política urbana.

JG: ¿Puede hablar de la relación entre la antropología y el planeamiento urbano?

AHT: En todos los proyectos de investigación, intento pensar los procesos urbanos desde un punto de vista de la estructura, pero también de las experiencias de las personas, y creo que haber estudiado antropología y urbanismo me permite combinar esos enfoques. Es una combinación muy fructífera para observar los procesos desde diferentes perspectivas. Cuando se trata de temas técnicos, como los instrumentos de gestión del suelo o la recuperación de plusvalías, resulta útil conversar con quienes están pasando por ese proceso para tener más contexto sobre la situación.

Desde que hice la tesis de la maestría, tengo curiosidad por saber cómo entiende la gente el valor del suelo. En los contextos que analicé, las personas están muy preocupadas por los cambios en el valor del suelo de sus propiedades, pero las formas de lidiar con esos cambios o con la posibilidad de que esos cambios ocurran son muy diferentes.

Por ejemplo, para su tesis, mi alumna analizó desde una perspectiva etnográfica cómo las personas lidian con la incertidumbre que generan los retrasos en un plan de renovación urbana, cómo entienden el posible incremento del valor del suelo de su hogar y de qué forma esa aspiración de obtener una ganancia genera tensiones en la vida diaria respecto a otros valores del hogar, como el valor de uso.

Y me encontré con la misma situación en cuanto a las viviendas de interés social, es decir, la tensión constante entre pensar el hogar como un lugar para vivir y pensarlo como una inversión de la que quisieran sacar provecho. Esas dos narrativas, esos valores, están siempre en tensión, incluso si se trata de hogares de muy bajos ingresos, e impactan no solo en los comportamientos de la gente, sino también en el comportamiento de la comunidad, e incluso en cómo se relacionan con las instituciones públicas y la ciudad.

Esa es mi inquietud principal, y por eso combino hablar con las personas, estar con las personas y pasar el rato con ellas, con tareas más técnicas como analizar documentos, leyes, reglamentaciones y datos cuantitativos.

JG: ¿Sobre qué aspecto de las viviendas de interés social le gustaría que más personas entendieran?

AHT: Debemos entender que las políticas sobre la vivienda tienen que ver con las políticas sociales y no con las políticas económicas. En Colombia, así como sucede en otros países latinoamericanos que todavía no han caído en la hiperfinancierización, tenemos la oportunidad de evitar seguir la misma dirección que los Estados Unidos, España y otros lugares en los que la crisis de la vivienda está en su peor momento. Todavía no llegamos a ese estado.

JG: ¿Qué libro puede recomendar que haya leído hace poco o cuál es su programa de televisión favorito?    

AHT: Disfruté mucho la lectura del libro Préstamos fallidos, personas fallidas de Melissa García-Lamarca sobre personas endeudadas en Barcelona. Se trata de los impactos subjetivos de vivir endeudado y, además, de cómo la deuda no solo tiene que ver con un problema económico, sino también con un problema moral.

Estoy intentando vincular ese concepto con nuestro proyecto nuevo. Estoy empezando a leer análisis económico feminista y análisis económico antropológico, para entender en profundidad qué implica vivir con deuda y, en especial, una deuda por la vivienda, y qué impacto tiene en diferentes aspectos de la vida cotidiana. Porque la deuda no solo se limita a las hipotecas: las personas de bajos ingresos aquí tienen que recurrir a todo tipo de deudas, formales e informales, para cubrir el costo de vida. La deuda puede ser con un pariente, con el banco o puede ser una hipoteca, pero también puede haber deudas usurarias, como prestamistas o personas que cobran tasas de interés altas a hogares de bajos ingresos.

En cuanto a la televisión, intento ver contenido que no esté relacionado con estos temas. Estaba viendo Silo, una serie futurista distópica sobre una sociedad que vive en un edificio altísimo, pero bajo tierra: ¡algo muy deprimente! De todas formas, me gusta lo postapocalíptico.

Jon Gorey es redactor del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.

Imagen principal: Adriana Hurtado Tarazona de la Universidad de los Andes en Bogotá, Colombia. Crédito: Foto de cortesía. 

In the late 1980s, Anne Whiston Spirn launched an “action research project” to explore how small landscape interventions could help restore nature and rebuild community in low-income neighborhoods in West Philadelphia. The project was meant to last four years. Nearly four decades later, the West Philadelphia Landscape Project (WPLP) is still going strong—and it has yielded a harvest of both hope and hindsight.

In Mill Creek and other Philadelphia neighborhoods, local students, residents, landscape architects, and others worked together to create strategic pockets of ecological design—converting abandoned lots into community gardens and flood-absorbing green spaces, for example—and then tied those projects into the curriculum in local schools. This community-led approach earned national attention. Closer to home, it helped inspire Philadelphia’s Green City, Clean Waters plan, through which the city has installed green infrastructure like tree trenches, rain gardens, and stormwater bumpouts on over 3,000 acres of publicly and privately owned land citywide, reducing annual stormwater runoff into local waterways by three billion gallons.

In historically underserved communities, where residents shoulder a disproportionate burden of climate risks and pollution, adding green space would seem a natural step toward addressing long-standing inequities. But something else happened as the West Philadelphia Landscape Project gained momentum. In the mid-2010s, housing prices in neighborhoods like Mill Creek began to rise—and so did interest from institutional investors, who tend to raise rents more aggressively than noninvestor landlords, according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. All that greening, it seemed, was making the area more desirable to investors—and more expensive to live in.

Green space doesn’t just filter and cool the surrounding air, absorb stormwater, and improve physical and mental health. It’s  also proven to increase nearby property values.

That can be good for homeowners whose neighborhoods have been denied investment over the years, which has systematically happened to communities of color. But while rising home values benefit property owners, they can put displacement pressure on renters. About half of the households in cities like Atlanta, Baltimore, Charlotte, Philadelphia, and Seattle rent their homes, while nearly two-thirds rent in cities like Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York.

“It was shocking to me … how quickly the disinvestment, vacancies, and abandoned buildings were replaced by speculation and development,” says Spirn, who was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania when she started the project in West Philadelphia and now teaches at MIT. “Right now, the communities that I’ve worked in, like Mill Creek, are under siege by speculators and developers.”

Greening Without Displacement

In a study of 28 North American and European cities that made major investments in green spaces or climate adaptation between 1990 and 2016, urban greening was either a leading or contributing factor in citywide gentrification in 17 places. In Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, and other cities, greening was just one factor contributing to gentrification. In places like Atlanta, Copenhagen, and Montreal, urban greening was seen as the primary driver of gentrification.

Home values within a half-mile of Atlanta’s Beltline greenway, for example—a 22-mile loop of trails and parks connecting 45 Atlanta neighborhoods—increased 18 to 27 percent more than those of properties elsewhere in the city between 2011 and 2015.

“Until urban greening is so pervasive that there’s no price differential for its presence, we’re going to have to confront the fact that it’s an amenity that people respond to by bidding up prices,” says Amy Cotter, director of urban sustainability at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Large-scale parks and greenways are most associated with gentrification, says James Connolly, associate professor of planning at the University of British Columbia and coauthor of the green gentrification study and a working paper commissioned by the Lincoln Institute. “That is a highly visible amenity, and like any other highly visible amenity—like a new transit station, or a new high-profile development,” he says, “any of those things would change real estate markets around the area, and greening is no different.”

Large projects like parks and greenways aren’t the only urban greening efforts that can drive gentrification. Investors and developers pay attention to municipal investment. And even smaller interventions like rain gardens and street trees can be interpreted as signs of a cultural or economic shift.

“These smaller green infrastructure interventions, some of them are just tiny rain gardens or curbside greening types of things,” Connolly says—so it’s not that real estate markets are reacting to a major new amenity that’s changing the community dynamic. But taken collectively, “these many different interventions can start to produce a kind of a shift in perception,” Connolly adds. “In Philadelphia, for example, we can see evidence of this, where those really small-scale interventions, when you aggregate them, are highly correlated with shifts in racial dynamics and shifts in gentrification in the city.”

All of this means that residents of historically marginalized communities may develop a justified skepticism toward new green projects, even when the interventions are intended to improve a neighborhood or better protect it from climate risks such as flooding or extreme heat.

In the decade and a half after Schuylkill River Park opened in South Philadelphia, median home prices rose 1,120 percent, neighborhood residency shifted from majority Black to majority white, and local cultural institutions such as the New Light Beulah Baptist Church found it necessary to shutter or relocate, writes Sterling Johnson, a PhD candidate at Temple University, and Kimberley Thomas, associate professor of geography at Temple. “The language may have changed since the early 20th century, but environmental stewardship still looks like colonization to many low-income Black people.”

And in Detroit, roughly a quarter of residents refused to accept free street trees in front of their homes—not because they didn’t understand the benefits of tree canopy, but due to lingering distrust of the city, according to a study by Christine Carmichael, then at the University of Vermont.

If cities don’t acknowledge and seriously address the potential for displacement caused by green interventions, Connolly says, “then what we end up with is a really diminished political support for urban greening, because we end up with a lot of people that just sort of see it as, ‘That’s not for me, so why would I support it?’”

‘Yes, and’ Policymaking

The tension between urban greening intended to improve quality of life and the economic displacement that often follows is an issue that demands “Yes, and” planning and policymaking. “You can’t have residential security at the expense of environmental security, and you can’t have environmental security at the expense of residential security,” Connolly says. “These two things cannot be traded off against one another—we need both.” He also notes that urban greening doesn’t always lead to displacement; in almost half of the cities studied, greening had little to no gentrification impact.

A city can use any number of specific policy tools to help mitigate displacement when greening a neighborhood; indeed, the remedies are similar regardless of what’s causing the displacement pressure, but they must be applied in tandem with (or even before) green interventions.

Community land trusts, for example, can help residents take an ownership stake in their neighborhood and ensure permanent housing affordability. Rent stabilization measures can keep rent hikes in check, so tenants aren’t priced out of their community. “Opportunity to purchase” laws, such as those in Washington, DC, allow tenants or cities first dibs on purchasing a home if a landlord decides to sell. Inclusionary zoning, affordable housing requirements, developer fees, and other tools can all help ease displacement pressure, too.

“It’s not one thing, it’s a package of tools,” says Isabelle Anguelovski, research professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and head of the Barcelona Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability (BCNUEJ), who coauthored the gentrification study and working paper with Connolly and BCNUEJ researcher Emilia Oscilowicz.

“It’s something that is both tax-driven and incentives-driven,” she continues. “Vancouver has a tax on empty housing. Some states, like Washington, have rent control at the broader state level. Portland, Oregon, has something called a ‘Right to Return’ policy, which is for residents who were gentrified out in past decades or displaced by urban renewal in the 1960s.”

Other taxes and developer fees can be used for public housing construction, rental subsidies, or supporting small local retailers who might otherwise be priced out of their longtime community. “At the local level, if taxes are earmarked very clearly the right way, cities can use those funds to buy vacant lots or derelict buildings and transform them into social and public housing.”

Incentives, meanwhile, can take the form of density bonuses, which permit developers to build taller structures than would otherwise be allowed in exchange for setting aside more units for income-restricted housing—say, 30 percent of the building. “Oftentimes, municipalities don’t manage to get more than 10 or 15 percent,” Anguelovski says. “But growing cities that are attractive to developers have the ball in their court. So they should not be afraid of pushing developers, because those are cities that have an array of assets that people want.”

Community-Led Greening, with Collaborative Intention

None of these displacement interventions are particularly mysterious or difficult to implement, Cotter says. But doing it well requires collaboration among agencies that might not normally work together: “It’s not the urban forester’s job to think about rent stabilization.”

That’s why Connolly and Anguelovski, who presented research for a forthcoming Policy Focus Report at a Lincoln Institute workshop in June, say it’s essential for cities to take a coordinated, cross-sectoral approach to greening. Even if the parks department or water commission is taking the lead on a particular green intervention, Connolly explains, the effort should involve other key city departments as well, so that “green infrastructure is going in with a plan for housing and transportation infrastructure integrated into the plan.”

Barcelona showed this approach is possible, if not perfect, under the mayorship of Ada Colau, Connolly says. “From the mayor’s office down, they mandated that a lot of their agencies start to have more of this transversal conversation about how the existing resource planning gets integrated with other dimensions of the government and other city operations,” Connolly says.

“Try, to the extent possible, to avoid putting these two things in conflict, to avoid having your greening agency create things that make the housing affordability measures more difficult to achieve,” he says. “Just have those conversations together—which doesn’t mean don’t do housing affordably, and doesn’t mean don’t do greening—it means do them in close conversation with one another, as well as bringing in things like social supports and transit infrastructure and things like that … I’m not saying that’s a simple thing. But Barcelona did make some nice movements in this direction.”

Another bigger, almost philosophical shift that Connolly thinks cities should make is moving away from an “opportunistic” approach to greening, in which cities with specific climate or environmental targets jump at any chance they get to add green interventions to advance those goals. If there’s an opportunity to plant some trees or put in a park somewhere, they reflexively do it, Connolly explains. “But those opportunities are created for certain reasons, usually associated with development. So if you have a solely opportunistic approach to greening, then you’re always going to be linking greening to these development cycles and therein lies a challenge.” Instead, he recommends taking a more intentional, big-picture approach. “Even if there’s not an opportunity for greening, how can we ourselves create one?”

Spirn, of the West Philadelphia Landscape Project, who has spent much of the past five years working with her students on strategies to prevent displacement related to urban greening, agrees: “It’s really important to start thinking about how you help people stay in their homes before you start building new green infrastructure projects,” she concludes. And whatever strategy a city employs to do that needs to be resident-focused, she adds. “Green infrastructure needs to be about more than just greening. It needs to be about people.”

Some worry that this approach—greening with more intention, and with more input and agency from empowered community residents—can’t keep pace with the urgency of the climate crisis. “There’s a concern that being equitable, respecting self-determination, will slow us down in a dangerous way—and I get that, but I also reject that assumption,” Cotter says. “It’s an equity imperative for us to tackle climate change as quickly as possible, because the people who are going to suffer most are the populations that always get marginalized, the same people whose self-determination and agency has been undermined by systems of structural racism.”

If communities can lead decision-making in the face of climate change, Cotter continues, “I don’t think they’d be slower. I think they’d be clear-eyed about what needs to happen, do it faster, and come up with solutions that actually reflect local conditions and local needs.”

Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: A residential street in West Philadelphia. Credit: City of Philadelphia.

Owning property and leaving it to one’s family has long been considered fundamental to the American dream, a cornerstone of generational wealth. The United States has one of the world’s most established private real estate markets, and individuals and investors alike expect that their property rights will be protected.

Yet hundreds of thousands of Americans own property in a state of precariousness and vulnerability that echoes informal settlements elsewhere in the world. The homes they’ve lived in for years, often inherited from parents or ancestors without a will, confer upon them the responsibilities but not the legal protections of homeownership. Such properties can easily be subject to a forced sale with little warning. Many owners of this type of property, commonly referred to as heirs property, may not realize just how tenuous their claim to their home or land is, until they’re at risk of losing it.

Heirs property exists all over the country, in both rural and urban settings—though it’s most widespread across the South—and disproportionately impacts Black Americans, who for generations have experienced discrimination and exclusion from the kinds of legal and financial systems that undergird the formalized processes of homeownership.

Indeed, the exploitation of heirs property is seen as a major reason Black Americans suffered more than 11 million acres of involuntary land loss between 1910 and 1997, representing more than $325 billion in lost wealth. Developers from North Carolina to Florida have managed to pry heirs property from Gullah Geechee descendants of enslaved West Africans, who were among the first African Americans to own substantial land holdings. In places like Hilton Head, South Carolina, such family land has been converted into valuable coastal real estate—in most cases, without the consent of the rightful owners.

In January, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy convened more than two dozen legal experts, practitioners, and community advocates to discuss challenges associated with heirs property. “Researchers know the problem very well, and have experience with local communities,” says Xinrui Shi, associate director of comparative law and land policy at the Lincoln Institute. “But we can help them connect the dots on the policy side—we see the connection of heirs property to the property tax, disaster management, economic development, and systemic injustices. So the objective of the conference was to bring these different types of expertise together to see how land policies can help address the challenges at a systems level.”

Fractional Ownership and Forced Sales

Heirs property creates two big vulnerabilities “that often intersect and interact with each other,” says Heather K. Way, director of the Housing Policy Clinic at University of Texas School of Law.

The first is fractional ownership. When multiple family members inherit a property together, each heir gets an “undivided interest” in the property—meaning they own a share of the whole thing, not a specific, divisible portion of it. As generations pass, the number of co-owners can grow exponentially—from, say, four children, to 13 grandchildren, to 42 great-grandchildren.

That fractionated ownership makes heirs property highly vulnerable to a forced sale, Way says: “Under our partition laws, any outside party can acquire any of the heirs interest in the property, and file a partition action.”

A partition action is simply a legal mechanism to sever co-ownership in this type of situation; it’s up to a court to decide whether a property can be physically divided in proportion to everyone’s share. While 10 acres of open land can potentially be split evenly among five heirs, there’s no fair way to divvy up a house. “For properties in urban areas or smaller lots, that‘s going to inevitably lead to a forced sale of the land,” Way says.

What that means is that a distant relative with a small interest in an inherited property can file a partition action to essentially cash out their share of the estate. But it also means a developer can seek out such heirs and purchase their shares, with the intent of filing for partition. In either case, partition can result in a forced sale of the entire property—often at auction, for pennies on the dollar—even if other descendants are actively living there and caring for the property.

Mavis Gragg, North Carolina-based attorney and cofounder of HeirShares, recalls the case of two brothers she worked with, aged 18 and 23. They were living in their grandmother’s home, where they had been raised. But when the grandmother died, the brothers ended up co-owning the house with her widower, who moved away and remarried. He filed a partition action, but the brothers couldn’t afford to buy him out. Since the house couldn’t be physically, equitably divided, “the partition action actually triggered a possibility of homelessness for the kids,” Gragg says.

“The fact that we have inheritance laws is speaking to the American dream,” she adds. “Owning something, taking care of your family, you have so much more agency when you own real estate. But our laws fall short of actually making it successful across generations.” (Listen to a 2024 interview with Gragg on the Land Matters podcast.)

Tangled Titles

Heirs property usually, though not always, involves a second vulnerability: a clouded or tangled title, meaning there’s no legal paper trail showing who inherited the property.

“Heirs property owners are highly susceptible to loss,” Gragg says. “But the real challenge for most families with inherited property is that they don‘t have a clear ownership history.”

Someone who’s living in an inherited family home is, in a sense, experiencing land informality. When an occupant’s name doesn’t match the property’s deed, and they can’t prove ownership, “they face tenure insecurity, lack of access to capital, and barriers to obtaining insurance or other forms of protection,” says Semida Munteanu, associate director of valuation and land markets at the Lincoln Institute.

While they’re still responsible for paying taxes and maintaining the property, it can be difficult for heirs property occupants to access assistance, such as property tax relief programs designed to help low-income homeowners stay in their homes. A homestead exemption, for example, can reduce an owner occupant’s property tax burden by thousands of dollars a year—but only if they can prove ownership.

“Tax relief programs are designed to prevent people from being forced out of their homes due to high property tax bills, but most programs have homeownership requirements for eligibility,” Munteanu says. “When you can‘t prove that you‘re the owner through traditional means, such as a recorded title deed, then you may not have access to the relief.”

And that, Way says, makes heirs property owners more susceptible to another form of land loss: property tax foreclosure. In studying the prevalence of heirs properties among tax foreclosures in Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, Way found a striking connection. “In Tarrant and Dallas counties, over half of the property tax foreclosures are heirs properties, which is really stunning.”

Lost Opportunity

Even if a property is not forcibly sold through partition or through tax foreclosure, heirs property owners can lose out on wealth in other ways.

It’s difficult to get a home equity loan or home insurance with a clouded title, for example, or to sell the property at market value. (Most buyers, and their lenders, will insist upon a clear title.) Any meaningful action, like refinancing the mortgage or replacing the roof, requires the written consent of every single heir. And it’s difficult to access home improvement loans or even most home repair assistance programs when one’s name doesn’t match the deed. That can make it harder to modernize or weatherize a property, or to keep up with necessary maintenance.

Theoretically, a lender could extend a loan secured by heirs property, says Cassandra Johnson Gaither, research social scientist at the USDA Forest Service. “But practically speaking, that’s not likely to happen,” she adds, when there are potentially dozens of heirs all over the country. “Because the creditor would have to get the agreement of all of the co-owners—and in many cases, that is next to impossible to do, even if the lender was willing to.”

“We know that one of the impediments heirs property owners face is being able to maintain their property and to keep it in good condition,” Way says. State and local programs provide billions of dollars in home repair assistance to low-income homeowners, “but in the vast majority of cases, those programs are off-limits to heirs property owners with tangled titles,” Way says.

Often that’s just the result of policy inertia, she adds, with program rules rooted in the understandable caution of the city lawyers who drafted them. But Way says it’s important to consider the intersectionality between heirs property and other issues in our communities.

“If you‘re barring the ability of heirs property homeowners to access home repair assistance, they‘re not going to be able to repair or maintain their homes, and those are the homes that are eventually going to become abandoned and vacant,” Way says. “And that‘s going to create all sorts of other costs and impacts for cities in the long run, in terms of tax delinquencies, code enforcement costs, demolition costs. So not only does that result in robbing that family of their greatest asset by not facilitating their ability to repair or maintain their home, it‘s going to have all these ripple effects and direct costs to cities and to communities in the form of abandoned and vacant properties.”

Johnson Gaither stresses that many heirs property owners take very good care of their parcels. But the uncertainty of ownership status can often make heirs property owners reluctant to invest time or money in a property—which can increase risks for the broader community, and not just in urban areas.

“Broadly speaking, because of the insecurities around this kind of property ownership, owners —if they even know that they have an ownership interest in the property—are probably less likely to invest in it,” Johnson Gaither says. “If they‘re not investing in the property, they‘re not, say, managing for wildfire. They‘re not clearing the understory if they have forest land.”

The US Legal System: A Fixer-Upper

At the January conference, attendees discussed some of the ongoing efforts to remedy heirs property issues, and what more can be done.

One legislative effort to address some of the worst impacts of partition sales is the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (UPHPA), now adopted by 23 states and introduced in six more. Under the UPHPA, when one heir or co-owner seeks a partition, the remaining co-owners have a right of first refusal—a chance to organize and buy out the lone petitioner. If a buyout isn’t possible, the court must take into account sentimental value and family legacy, and give real preference to dividing the property rather than selling it. And if a sale is deemed necessary, the property must be appraised for its fair market value and sold on the open market, rather than at auction. Some states have modified the law further—as in New York, where only heirs, not investors, can start the partition process.

Another policy states can readily adopt is to allow heirs property owners to provide alternative proof of ownership to qualify for property tax relief or other assistance. Texas, for example, now allows heirs to submit an affidavit along with other documents as proof of ownership in their application for a homestead exemption.

When it comes to disaster relief, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) since 2021 has allowed heirs property owners to submit a statement of ownership to access individual assistance recovery funds. (After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, up to $165 million in relief funds went unclaimed due to title issues.) But some longer-term relief is administered through block grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which has yet to make such a change—though some states, including Texas and Louisiana, now accept sworn affidavits and other documentation as proof of ownership for these funds.

States can also make it easier for homeowners to pass on their property—more akin to designating a beneficiary for a 401(k) than drawing up a will, which involves cumbersome, costly processes for both generations. In order for a will to be effective, heirs have to file it through probate court, which can take a lot of time and money, says Francine Miller, senior staff attorney at Vermont Law and Graduate School’s Center for Agriculture and Food Systems. “But there are tools, and they’re different in every state, to transfer real property without it having to go through a will,” she says.

More than 30 states now permit either a transfer-on-death deed (TODD) or a lady bird deed (so called because President Johnson reportedly used this method to transfer property to his wife), “where you can literally sign a deed to a person, and it doesn’t take effect until you die, and then it doesn’t have to go through probate,” Miller says. “They have to file that with the land records in order to transfer the title, but that’s a whole lot easier than probate.”

Of Trust and Trusts

For legal reforms to work as intended, they need to consider input from impacted communities, says Josiah ‘Jazz’ Watts, community engagement director for Vulnerable Communities Initiative and justice strategist for One Hundred Miles. “You can technically and legally do a lot of things to help people,” he says, “but if you do not understand the dynamics of families, it could all be in vain, and it may not have the positive impact that it needs to have.” Some Gullah Geechee residents, for example, pushed back against a loan program in the 2018 Farm Bill that accepted heirs property as collateral, concerned that it could lead to further loss of ancestral lands.

In researching cases where heirs property owners had gone through the title clearing process, Johnson Gaither heard similar sentiments. “The supposition is that once these titles are cleared, that should enable people to move more into the economic mainstream,” Johnson Gaither says. While people who had a cleared title were, unsurprisingly, more likely to assume loans, “a good number of them were not interested in getting loans,” she says. “They didn’t want to get into a situation where their property might be taken away from them—that was really stressed.”

Clearing a property’s title can be costly—if it’s even possible to do. Pew Charitable Trusts estimated the average cost of resolving a tangled title in Philadelphia to be $9,200. Legal aid organizations and law school clinics can offer heirs property owners free or discounted services, but their capacity and reach is limited. “Being able to find strong legal partners, good attorneys that you can trust, in small rural towns—that can be extremely difficult,” Watts says.

But in some of the communities he works with along the Georgia coast, “once a year they will have an estate planning clinic,” he says, with partners such as the Georgia Heirs Property Law Center, Georgia Legal Services, or Atlanta Legal Aid. “Those partnerships are incredible success stories,” he adds. “We have had partnerships with private law firms, through their pro bono departments, and then also with great attorneys like Veronica McClendon, who has done work on Sapelo Island and in other places for families, where she’s helped them to secure their estates, and also fight against unfounded claims on their on their family land.”

Such education and outreach is also crucial to preventing the creation of more heirs property. The Initiative on Land, Housing, and Property Rights at Boston College School of Law, for example, has partnered with the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance to include a session on estate planning as part of the organization’s first-time homebuyer curriculum.

While creating a will or a transfer-on-death deed is an important baseline step for homeowners, Gragg says entity-centered forms of estate planning, such as living trusts or LLCs, are better suited to ensuring property stays in a family for generations. “If we’re thinking about multiple generations of real estate ownership, individual wills are not enough,” she says, because they only apply to a single transfer. Even if every family member makes a will—which is rarely the case—that only secures the home for a single generation.

“Think about conservation easements,” she explains. “The reason we make them perpetual is because we want to ensure that certain things happen over time. That requires very specific conditions, it’s a comprehensive strategy.” Instead of relying on a patchwork of individual wills, an entity-centered model lays out a plan for the property itself under a single, broader umbrella.

Forming a trust or family LLC is more expensive than a basic will, but Gragg says these are investments worth making. “The reality is that it can cost thousands of dollars to [set up a trust],” Gragg says. “But I think paying those thousands of dollars is a much better deal than losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in value because you lost ownership due to a partition.”

It can be difficult for families—and, for that matter, legislators—to discuss death and the uncertainty of the future. But heirs property experts say these conversations are essential.

“I always tell families, especially matriarchs and patriarchs,” Watts says, “that today, right now, you have the power to craft what the legacy will be for your family. For your name. For your land.”

Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: View from a home on Sapelo Island, Georgia. Over the last couple of decades, descendants of the formerly enslaved people who established communities on the small island in the late 1800s have fought to reestablish their rights to the land. Credit: Wirestock/Alamy Stock Photo.

The Lincoln Institute provides a variety of early- and mid-career fellowship opportunities for researchers. In this series, we follow up with our fellows to learn more about their work.

With a master’s degree in urban planning and a PhD in anthropology, Adriana Hurtado Tarazona has long been fascinated by the intersection of human behavior and urban form—especially how and where people choose to live. After receiving a graduate student fellowship from the Lincoln Institute’s program on Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), she spent years studying social housing megaprojects on the outskirts of Colombia’s cities, speaking at length with the people who lived in them to learn how they experienced their community and built environment.

Today, Hurtado Tarazona is an associate professor of planning, governance, and territorial development at the Interdisciplinary Center for Development Studies (CIDER) at Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá, Colombia. “I teach an introductory course on land planning instruments, so I’m still talking about what the Lincoln Institute taught me back in 2005, when I went to a course in Quito,” she says.

In this conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, Hurtado Tarazona discusses why housing ought to be a social policy versus an economic one, shares some of the surprising sentiments she’s heard from residents of social housing, and explains why paying people to upgrade existing homes may be a better solution than subsidizing new homebuyers.

JON GOREY: What is the general focus of your research, and how did your Lincoln Institute fellowship support that work?

ADRIANA HURTADO TARAZONA: I received the fellowship for my master’s thesis in 2006. I was doing an analysis of the impact on land values of some of the BRT infrastructure in Bogotá —the TransMilenio. It was one of the first studies; at the time, the TransMilenio had only four years of implementation, so it was very new. I was trying to document the changes in the urban space around the two big stations, from the perspective of the land market and from the perspective of the residents of the area.

It was very nice to be in that program, because I got to meet a lot of the professors linked with the Latin America program. I loved the experience. And three years ago, one of my students got the same fellowship that I got almost 20 years before. So it was really nice to now be in a different position, sponsoring my student, and she got to live the benefits of that fellowship.

JG: What are you working on now, and what are you hoping to work on next?

AHT: Right now I have four research projects—two of them are related to the main topic of my PhD thesis, which is social housing, specifically the production and urban expansion of social housing megaprojects in urban borders. One project, which we are finishing this year, is called vertical peripheries, with York University in Toronto. We analyze the subjective impact of living in the periphery, but also the impacts on urban planning and governance of this metropolitanization process, where the social housing overflows the urban limits of Colombian cities. The other one is focused on the economic impact of access to social housing. So we are going to analyze specifically how women-led households have to change their domestic economies to keep up with the costs of accessing homeownership for the first time.

The third one is the care infrastructure project, led by the University of Washington in Seattle. It’s a comparative project between Belfast, Belo Horizonte in Brazil, and Bogotá. We are trying to analyze stories of urban change in general, and specifically, in Bogotá, we are analyzing how care became a focus of urban policy, which was not the case until very recently, and we are analyzing the birth of the district CARE system as urban infrastructure. We have these new regulations that understand care infrastructure at the same status as water, sewage, and roads, which is very interesting, and we are trying to document how that could happen, under what conditions did that happen?

And another thing I’m doing with the Lincoln Institute is a small research grant from last year. The main researcher is from Brazil, and along with Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia, we’re trying to do a comparative analysis of interventions that try to support densification.

JG: What’s something surprising or unexpected you’ve learned in your research?

AHT: I have been asking people if they’re happy with their homes, in general, and the first surprise was from an urbanistic perspective. Local urbanists are very critical of these peripheral, massive, standardized, social housing megaprojects, because they are far away from the city, disconnected, with problems of accessibility. I knew all that, and I came to the fieldwork with this very critical perspective.

But then I sat with people, and the first thing they told me was, ‘No, I love this. I love the order. I love that everything is standard.’ Everything that urbanists see as the ‘unlivable city’ and the ‘nonplace,’ the people were saying, ‘No, I like this because it’s planned, it’s orderly, it’s clean.’ That was the first thing that surprised me.

And it surprised me more because they had lived before in self-constructed houses where they had more space, more flexibility of spaces, and they were better located in the city. But then when I spent time with them, I started realizing that this is part of the trade-off people make, because the housing market didn’t allow them to buy anywhere else, and they prioritized homeownership in the formal city over the time they had to spend in transport, over being close to family, to friends, to networks of support.

They knew what they were losing, but this was part of a very conscious trade-off: I am losing this, but I’m gaining this. And the thing they were gaining was the stability of their own home, even if it was small, far away, and very expensive. And that has a lot to do with the opportunities that this country gives to people for social mobility, which are narrowly focused on having access to property. Being part of the new middle class in Colombia means primarily having your own home in the formal city, not in the informal neighborhoods.

JG: When it comes to your work, what keeps you up at night? And what gives you hope?

AHT: What worries me is that housing policy in Colombia—and I think this is the case in other countries also—follows the logic of real estate agents, that the only way to solve the housing problem is to build new housing and sell it to low-income households with subsidies. But we also have lots of alternatives and lots of different ways to address the housing problem.

In Colombian cities, including Bogotá, the qualitative housing deficit is three times more than the quantitative housing deficit. So that means three times more households need better housing and not new housing. But our housing policy gives all the resources and all the attention to building new housing. Neighborhood housing upgrade programs exist, but they don’t have enough budget, they don’t have enough attention, and they are not seen as the legitimate way to solve the housing problem.

So what I really wish we would do is to change the focus and to start paying enough attention and giving enough resources to upgrading what we already have, the built city. It would be environmentally better, economically better for people. There are a lot of advantages, but of course, it’s a slower process. It doesn’t show lots of big numbers, and it doesn’t follow the interest of these real estate and financial sector agents.

What gives me hope is that we have some interventions that are showing good results. One of them is the support for densification in informal-origin neighborhoods. These are programs that recognize that there are neighborhoods of informal origin, with self-constructed homes, that are older, they have good locations in the city, they already have access to the urban goods and services and infrastructure, but they need support to grow in height.

So we have a program here that offers help in structural reinforcement, and they offer subsidies for people to build a second floor on their houses, and then that new unit they could use to live in, if they are crowded, or they could rent it to other households, so they have a new source of income. I think it’s a really innovative program, because at the same time, it ameliorates housing availability and the structural security of the houses, and also gives low-income households the opportunity to have new income from these new units.

The state is supporting a thing that will happen anyway, with or without their help. But if the state intervenes, it happens better, it happens more securely, and it’s a different way to invest public resources to solve the housing problem. But these are small pilot projects. So the thing I want to work on in the future is to figure out how to scale this up and make housing and neighborhood upgrading a more central part of urban policy.

JG: Can you talk about the connection between anthropology and urban planning?

AHT: In all my research projects, I try to understand urban processes from above and from the ground, and I think the combination of having studied anthropology and urban planning allows me to do that. It’s a very good way to understand one process from different perspectives. And specifically for technical topics, such as land management instruments or land value capture, when you talk to people that are living the process, you can amplify your understanding.

Since my master’s thesis, I’ve been curious about how people understand land value. In the contexts I studied, people are very preoccupied about the changes in land value of their properties, but they deal with those changes, or prospective changes, in very different ways.

For example, my student’s thesis was analyzing ethnographically how people deal with the uncertainty of the delays of an urban renewal plan, how they understand the prospective land value increment of their home, and how that aspiration of profit implies tensions in daily life with other values of their home, like the use value of their home.

And I have found the same thing in social housing, this constant tension between the home as a place for living and the home as an investment, from which they are interested in profiting. Even if they are very low-income households, those two narratives and values of home are always in tension, and they impact not only their individual behaviors, but also their community behaviors, and even their ways of relating to public institutions and the city.

So that’s my main curiosity, and that’s why I combine talking to people, being with people, and just spending time with them, with more technical things like analyzing documents, laws, regulations, and quantitative data, too.

JG: What’s one thing you wish more people understood about social housing?

AHT: We need to recenter housing policy as a social policy and not as an economic policy. We have the opportunity in Colombia, and other Latin American countries that have not yet fallen into hyper-financialization, to not follow the trajectory of the United States, of Spain, of places in which the housing crisis is worse now than ever; we are not yet in that state.

JG: What’s the best book you’ve read lately, or a favorite TV show you’ve been streaming?  

AHT: I really enjoyed reading Melissa García-Lamarca’s book about people in debt in Barcelona, Non-Performing Loans, Non-Performing People. It’s about the subjective impacts that living in debt has on people, and how we understand debt as not only an economic issue, but also as a moral issue.

I’m trying to link that with our new project. I’m starting to read feminist economic analysis and anthropological economic analysis, to have a very deep understanding about what living in debt, and housing debt specifically, means for people, and what impact does this have on different aspects of their daily lives. Because here, debt is not only restricted to mortgages—low-income people here have to resort to all kinds of formal and informal debt to pay their living costs. So it’s debt with a relative, debt with a bank, the mortgage, and then it also links even to criminal debt, a criminal lender, people that charge illegally high interest rates to low-income households.

I try to watch TV on really unrelated topics. I was watching Silo, which is a dystopian futurist series about people that live in a high rise, but it’s subterranean—which is really depressing! But I like these post-apocalyptic things.

Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: Adriana Hurtado Tarazona of Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá, Colombia. Credit: Courtesy photo.

That we need more affordable housing—a lot more of it—is hardly in dispute. Attainable housing is the foundation of economic and social stability for American families, and by most estimates, the shortage of available, affordable homes in the US numbers in the millions.

And yet actually building more of the affordable housing that everyone seems to agree we need remains a challenge in communities across the country, as theoretical support crashes headlong into real-world resistance and constraints.

In a December webinar hosted by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, experts dove into the devilish details to address two of the thorniest questions that tend to haunt housing discussions: Where can we locate affordable housing? And how do we pay for it?

Mapping Public, Buildable Lots

In the first of two sessions, Jeff Allenby, director of geospatial innovation at the Lincoln Institute’s Center for Geospatial Solutions (CGS), shared how CGS is leveraging technology to help local policymakers get the data they need to act on housing.

“We’ve developed a unique, rapid, and robust method to unlock critical information about America’s housing stock,” Allenby said, describing Who Owns America, a unique analysis CGS developed to help local leaders understand and act on emerging issues like out-of-state investor ownership or locating underutilized lots in parcel-by-parcel detail. “It’s the same type of sophisticated insights the private sector uses to profit from residential housing, but instead we put these insights in the hands of policymakers so they can protect and preserve affordability.”

CGS cleans and standardizes parcel-level ownership data, fusing it “with authoritative sources like deed information, corporate structures, and census data to fill in gaps and paint a richer picture all in one place,” Allenby explained. “There’s never been such a severe shortage of homes in the United States,” Allenby said. “To address it, we need more housing—affordable housing—built close to where people work and where they want to live. But the big question we’re trying to answer is, where do we build it?” he added. “For us, the answer starts with data—building an inventory of available land in your area.”

Researchers and officials from across the political spectrum have expressed a growing interest in siting new housing on city- or government-owned property. That prompted CGS to evaluate all the government-owned lots across the country and their potential to support new housing, explained Reina Chano Murray, associate director at CGS. “We were curious: How much land is government owned, and how much of an impact can it truly have?” she said.

Murray demonstrated how the CGS team identified over 270,000 acres of buildable, transit-served lots owned by government agencies in major metro areas—enough acreage to support nearly two million homes at the relatively low density of seven units per acre. Most of that land, Murray noted—237,000 acres—is controlled by local governments, making them uniquely positioned to act. “Ultimately, the ability to turn these housing opportunities into reality rests with local policymakers,” she said.

The process began with identifying publicly owned land at all levels of government and scouring parcel records for keywords that would indicate government ownership, such as “Department of Transportation.” Many records are not so straightforward or standardized, though. Murray said her team has encountered “over 50 different ways to spell USA or United States of America, and the variations in naming conventions only increase” at the local level.

From there, the team winnowed the data further to include only census tracts in urban areas and economic centers — where the most housing demand exists — and further still, to areas within a quarter-mile of a transit stop with hourly service or better at rush hour. Murray’s team then removed parks and other green spaces, vital infrastructure, and public buildings, such as administrative offices, schools, community colleges, and hospitals.

To narrow it down to truly buildable lots, they excluded places located in flood hazard areas and chose parcels of at least 20,000 square feet where any existing structures occupied no more than 5 percent of the lot. “We now have a clear and data-backed answer that indicates significant opportunity for addressing the affordable housing crisis using government-owned land,” Murray said. “Our analysis identified over a quarter of a million acres of prime, development-ready land in transit-accessible, urban neighborhoods.”

Murray then presented findings from another inquiry. In response to so-called “YIGBY” laws (Yes In God’s Backyard) passed in California and Arizona—which make it easier for churches, temples, mosques, and other faith-based organizations to build housing on their properties—the Boston-based Lynch Foundation commissioned CGS to determine how much affordable housing could be built on land owned by faith-based organizations in Massachusetts.

After identifying about 7,000 properties owned by faith-based organizations statewide, a team of 15 students at Boston College “virtually visited” each site through a custom application, using Google Street View to examine each parcel and answering basic survey questions, such as whether there was developable space on-site or additional buildings not used for worship. CGS confirmed 1,973 faith-based parcels deemed to have over 203 million square feet of total developable space. At seven homes per acre, Murray said, “That’s enough land to build over 140,000 units of affordable housing in Massachusetts alone.”

The effort took less than two months to complete, from start to finish—showing plenty of potential for religious institutions to alleviate the housing shortage and for technology to help policymakers quickly and accurately identify buildable land that has been hiding in plain sight.

Funding the Future

If locating land is the first step, finding the financing to build housing on those lots is the next challenge. Lincoln Institute Senior Fellow R.J. McGrail welcomed three partners affiliated with Lincoln’s Accelerating Community Investment (ACI) initiative to discuss funding strategies for affordable housing development.

Laura Brunner, president and CEO of the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority, kicked things off on a positive note. She explained how Cincinnati, like other Midwestern cities, has been a prime target for institutional investors whose playbook involves outbidding first-time buyers to purchase single-family homes, then renting them out, often at inflated rates, locking residents out of homeownership opportunities.

But in 2022, the Port learned about a portfolio of almost 200 investor-owned rental houses that were being auctioned out of receivership. With a goal of restoring homeownership opportunities for the city’s low- and middle-income residents, the Port issued both taxable and tax-exempt bonds to enter a $15.5 million bid on the portfolio—and won.

“We first went to our nonprofit partners to ask if they would support us, and what we heard back was, ‘Yes, you have a mandate, a moral imperative to do this. We have to save these homeownership opportunities,’” Brunner said.

The plan was to rehab the vacant homes and sell them at prices affordable to buyers earning 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), while stabilizing the existing tenants and getting them prepared for eventual homeownership through home-buying education and financial counseling.

“We issued these bonds really confident that we were going to be able to take 200 homes and put them back into homeownership from rental without any subsidy, which is unheard of—all the new home construction we do requires a significant amount of subsidy,” Brunner said.

But while the receiver had claimed 10 of the properties were vacant, at least 60 of them turned out to be unoccupied—and in very bad shape. The Port has thus spent more money than expected to get the vacant houses ready for resale (and, at a local appraiser’s suggestion, to perform essential upgrades that most low-income homebuyers can’t afford to do themselves, like installing air conditioning). “When we found out the condition the houses really were in, we did need subsidy,” Brunner said. “But we’ve been successful . . . raising a number of grants that allow us to continue to keep the price down as much as possible.”

To date the Port has rehabbed and sold half of the 60 vacant homes at an average price of $150,000. “These are low- and moderate-income Black and brown neighborhoods [where residents] have basically not had an opportunity to purchase a home because such a high percentage were owned by these investors, and so we’re suppressing the sales price as much as we can,” she said.

The Port, which has also created affordable housing through a local land bank it’s managed since 2011, requires homebuyers to occupy its homes for at least five years before reselling. And after more than a decade of doing so, their efforts are creating real neighborhood wealth, Brunner said.

“We’ve done it long enough now that we’ve had about 30 people that have subsequently sold their house, and what we found is that those homeowners had a profit of 52 percent,” Brunner said. “So it proves that, even in these deeply distressed neighborhoods, we are making a market and . . . there’s wealth creation opportunity, which is what we’re all about.”

Plugging Gaps with Flexible Funding

MassHousing, the state housing finance agency for Massachusetts, also views homeownership as a way to help close the racial wealth gap, said Executive Director Chrystal Kornegay. “We sell tax-exempt and taxable bonds and use the proceeds of those bonds to lend to low- and moderate-income homebuyers,” she explained, as well as to developers of rental housing to ensure they keep a portion of their units affordable.

But when MassHousing conducted a study on where people of color were buying homes in Massachusetts, the organization noticed a pattern: Not only was new housing not being built at the pace it was two decades ago, Kornegay said, “but where it was being built was not the places in which people of color lived.” In response, the agency is trying to ensure some of its programs, such as down payment assistance for first-time buyers and incentives for affordable housing developers, are used more often in communities where people of color want to live.

Kornegay then discussed how zoning is often perceived as the primary obstacle to getting more affordable housing built but said that financing has become an even bigger hurdle in recent years, due to higher interest rates and other market conditions.

“Getting access to capital has become a huge barrier,” she said, noting that over 20,000 already-permitted units in Massachusetts have stalled out in development “because the capital stack for those deals just didn’t make sense anymore.”

Most large-scale, multifamily buildings in Massachusetts are permitted through the state’s comprehensive permit law, known as 40B, Kornegay said. And since those projects require at least 20 percent of the units to be affordable, at 80 percent of AMI, “they have affordability built into them,” she said. So Massachusetts created a flexible financial product geared specifically toward such projects, available through MassHousing, called “Momentum Equity.” While not a subsidy, it’s designed to blend with private financing and inject the extra capital needed—up to 25 percent of a project’s equity—to get more of those developments off the sidelines and into production. (Equity financing refers to an investment-style ownership stake, as opposed to a loan that is paid back at agreed-upon terms.)

A second new product, which can be paired with Momentum Equity funding, is called the FORGE loan. “We’ve created this product along with Freddie Mac, in which MassHousing as a lender would put up 10 percent of the total loan amount and serve in the first loan-loss position,” Kornegay explained, thereby securing more favorable lending terms. “These products together really can make an impact in the capital stack and get a bunch of units into construction in the next six to 12 months.”

Tapping Federal Funds Outside of HUD

Greg Heller, director of housing and community solutions at the global consulting firm Guidehouse, described how the two major pandemic relief acts passed by Congress provided a huge influx of federal money that could be used for housing over the past few years—and how more funding exists, if communities know where and how to look for it (and if the funds survive possible freezes or cuts enacted by the Trump administration).

Federal pandemic relief funding provided “new sources of capital that could be applied for things like eviction prevention programs, for things like housing and counseling, and first and foremost for gap financing for either tax-credit projects or non-tax-credit projects,” he said. “Everybody all over the country was trying to figure out how to harness and use these new financing sources.” About 10 percent of the $350 billion that cities and counties received in local recovery funds through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) went to housing, he added—money that needs to be spent by 2026.

What’s interesting, Heller added, is that none of that money came through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). “Obviously, HUD continues to play a leading role . . . but all of these sources came through Treasury, and Treasury started to play a significant role in creating guidance around these programs and understanding how to blend and braid and layer this financing with conventional HUD entitlement sources.”

With ARPA funds hitting their obligation deadlines in 2026, Heller said, “the question is what comes next? And the answer is the funds in the Inflation Reduction Act.”

While ARPA funds were very flexible and could be used for a broad range of activities, he said, the IRA funds are funneled through specific programs at different agencies, including the US Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Treasury, as well as HUD.

“They all have different program guidelines, they all have different definitions of things like low-income disadvantaged communities, and so again it falls on cities, states, counties, to figure out how to harness these programs and use them to fill capital gaps for affordable housing, because it’s one-time funding,” he said. But the scale of the funding makes it worth wrestling with the complexity of the programs, he added.

The EPA, for example, has made $27 billion in funding available through three sources: the $7 billion Solar for All program, the $6 billion Clean Communities Investment Accelerator, and the $14 billion National Clean Investment Fund. “The latter two are flowing through awardees which are coalitions of green banks and CDFIs who are developing their product and starting to close loans and get those funds out on the street, and a lot of that is going to affordable housing,” he said.

The Solar for All program works through designated state entities and regional nonprofits, who aren’t as accustomed to housing finance. But Guidehouse has been working with state housing finance agencies to find ways to also tap into these funds, which can be used to help cover costs associated with rooftop solar installations and building electrification, for example.

“There’s a huge opportunity, for not just financing [on-site] energy generation, but also a range of other costs within the projects to get them solar-ready,” he said. “So those are tremendous opportunities for gap financing for affordable housing projects.”

Heller also urged attendees not to overlook home energy rebates from the Department of Energy, even if they’re more commonly associated with single-family homeowners who want to install a heat pump or insulate their attic, for example.

“These are actually huge opportunities for financing affordable multifamily [housing],” he said. “It’s $8.8 billion, and 10 percent of every state’s rebate assistance has to go to low-income multifamily . . . so there’s a huge focus on low-income multifamily, and there’s categorical eligibility for a whole range of subsidized affordable housing programs, including LIHTC, public housing, HUD and FHA multifamily programs, and a variety of others.”

“Then finally there are a range of tax credit programs that were amended through the IRA to make them more flexible and more available for affordable multifamily projects,” he said.

Of course, Heller acknowledged, some of those programs could see cuts or changes in the Trump administration. “There’s uncertainty [about] how that’s going to impact the programs and their guidance and availability moving forward, and I don’t think anybody has the answer on all of that quite yet,” he said. But the administration has shown an interest in financing more affordable housing, so there could be new opportunities as well, he added. “There will continue to be new programs that everyone has to sort of, in real time, figure out how to pivot and harness those funds and get them into projects that need them.”

Where There’s a Way, There’s a Will?

Wrapping up the webinar, Lincoln Institute President and CEO George W. McCarthy reflected on how a huge national challenge—such as building an extra million homes per year on top of the 1.4 million a year we’re already constructing—can feel unassailable. “[And yet] we produced 2.4 million units of housing in 1972—a much smaller economy, a much smaller population,” McCarthy noted. “So it’s not that we can’t do it.”

As the presenters made clear, he said, buildable lots and funding options do exist—it’s a matter of showing people how to put the pieces together. “We have CGS ready to map it out for you, we have R.J. ready to show people how to blend public, private, and civic capital,” he said. “If we have the money, we have the land, we have the financing, what is missing? And what’s missing, of course, is the political will.”

And even that may not be the immovable obstacle it once was. Citing 12 states from across the political spectrum that have stepped in to preempt local zoning “to make sure that it’s possible to build housing where people have been preventing it from being built,” McCarthy said, “it’s not as if we don’t have some kind of bipartisan support for taking this on.”

With the land, money, and knowledge necessary to address our housing shortage, McCarthy concluded, “we just have to summon the real political will to get it done—and that’s a less daunting task than people would have you believe.”

Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: The Boston Housing Authority’s Old Colony redevelopment project has used federal funding to convert distressed public housing into safe, affordable, energy-efficient rental units. Credit: Andy Ryan Photography via BHA.