Topic: Pobreza e inequidad

Photograph shows the head and upper torso of a man wearing a blue suit with a white shirt and blue tie. He stands outside in front of a municipal building with a fountain and tree in front of it.

Mayor’s Desk

On Leading a Post-Industrial City in a Post-National World
By Anthony Flint, Septiembre 12, 2019

 

Marvin Rees was born in Bristol, U.K., and grew up in the city’s public housing. From there, he went on to study economic history and politics at Swansea University, then global development at Eastern University in Pennsylvania and the Yale World Fellows global leadership program. Rees worked in public health, promoting racial equality in mental health care, and as a broadcast journalist for the BBC before seeking office in his hometown. When he was elected in May 2016, he became the first mayor of Black African-Caribbean descent to lead a European city. He has pledged to make Bristol—a former manufacturing hub that lies about 100 miles west of London and is home to more than 450,000 people—“a fairer city for all,” with a focus on affordable housing, improved transit, health care, and social mobility through access to education. Rees, 47, has also worked to improve communications and collaboration with constituents and civic groups. He lives in East Bristol with his wife and their three children. In this interview with Senior Fellow Anthony Flint, Rees reflects on equity, growth, and immigration, amid a tumultuous political climate in the United Kingdom.

Anthony Flint: One of your campaign billboards indicated you would build 2,000 homes per year once elected. What was behind that promise, and how has it played out?

Marvin Rees: The reason affordable housing became our top priority is because it is one of the single most important policy tools we have for delivering population health, a strong economy, a stable society, and good educational outcomes. We have a housing crisis as many American cities do. We haven’t built enough, and the private market alone hasn’t provided the opportunity to own a stable home. It’s been a challenge, in part because we didn’t have the organizational machinery in place to bring land forward and get it developed. But it looks like we are on track to meet that target, which is 2,000 homes a year by 2020, 800 [of them] affordable. There’s a whole mix: council houses where we own the land; a social housing association with rents below market rates; we’ve got volume builders who, within their schemes, are also required to provide affordable homes; and we are supporting self-build schemes, where communities come together [to build cohousing on underutilized land]. We’ve had the Bristol Housing Festival exhibition, which showcased modern methods of construction such as off-site manufacture. We place an emphasis on quality and community. What we don’t want to do is just put boxes up and slot people into them.

AF: As you think about sustainable growth and affordable housing, what in your view is the role of land policy, including the taxation of land? Where do you stand on land value capture and a land value tax?

MR: I’m from a public health and journalism background, so I had to have a crash course about how various parts of a city work. Land value is a massive challenge because land has become a commodity, passing through the hands of several owners, not to be built on but just to make money. We need powers at the local govern­ment level, and the national government needs to take action to change how land is used. Personal­ly, I think there’s a huge conversation to be had. In the U.K., we think education is a public good. We think the same about health, and hence we have a National Health Service. And I think for social justice and the strength of our economy we need to reframe how we think about land and housing. If we fail on this, we’ll end up with what we’ve seen across the world—the middle class disappears, and you end up with a bifurcated population and fragile state. This is a crisis.

AF: You have embraced the concept of reinven­tion for post-industrial cities, which is a big theme of the U.K. 2070 Commission, a research initiative that counts the Lincoln Institute as a partner. But how do you encourage growth in your city and others like it in the context of Brexit?

MR: Brexit is the wrong answer to the right problem. People have been left behind; they’ve lost hope. [People feel that] politics has become increasingly distant from them. The other problem Brexit has identified is that people have lost touch with their national story and narrative, and who they are. Just like in the United States, many want to go back to the 1950s. These are legitimate grievances, but Brexit is not going to solve the problem. Globalization has integrated our communities so we use the same products—there’s nothing British about Pizza Hut, right? In many ways we’re in a post-national world and we can’t leave our futures in the hands of national government. The city level of government is best placed to deliver, with cities forming international networks to work together on shared issues like climate change, immigration, and equity.

AF: Take a moment to explain Bristol’s One City Plan, which lays out a vision for where the city will be in 2050 and is shortlisted for the EU’s Capital of Innovation prize. How do you balance myriad ideas from constituents and pushing the agenda you have determined is needed?

MR: The One City Plan comes from an under­standing that what people receive is not by government alone—that people sit at the intersection of [decisions made by] the city, universities, the private sector . . . And if we want to shape the future, we have to grab ahold of that collective impact and get some alignment. It’s also based on the sense that we can’t wait to see what comes down the railroad tracks. We need to see where we need to be in 2050, and if we want to be there in 2050, what needs to be delivered by 2048 or 2025, and work our way back. It’s a living document with shared priori­ties and real agreement. Anyone in Bristol can pick up a copy of the plan and say, ‘Right, I see you are doing X by 2050, but I think it should be done by 2025.’ Carbon neutrality, for example. The One City Plan gives us the raw materials and shows how we can get to common ground.

The plan is based on six stories [Health and Wellbeing; Economy; Homes and Communities; Environment; Learning and Skills; Connectivity]. Each of those stories has a board [made up of community members], and they are responsible for updates every year. Every six months we also have something called the City Gathering. The first one we had 70 or so people come together . . . and I said to them, between us we spend £6 billion [$7.4 billion] and employ 70,000 people in the economy. If we align ourselves on a small number of shared priorities, what could we not do? We have incredible power. We’re trying to create space for people to [connect and] come up with answers.

AF: As you’ve been going about your work, you’ve been the target of extremist and anti-immigration rhetoric. How do you manage being chief executive with a progressive agenda in that kind of climate?

MR: I manage it because I think the whole argument about immigration is, to put it charitably, a mistake, and less charitably, a big lie. Immigration is not the cause of people’s problems. I grew up poor and among those often preyed upon. To have members of the British elite running around, and you see something similar in the United States, blaming migrants for the state of the country that they have had all-encompassing power over for centuries—it’s a little bit rich. They have created a situation where relatively poor and powerless people are blaming other poor and powerless people for the state we are in. It’s also not difficult for me because I want to be in a place where I can say what I really think. I’m a mixed-race man. My dad came from Jamaica; my mum’s English heritage goes back in Bristol for a very long time. My granddad was from South Wales and before that Ireland. I’m a physical embodiment of migration, so I think it’s disingenuous to say migration is the cause of the world’s ills.

Another problem is that the migration discussion is being shaped by national govern­ments. That’s the wrong way around. What we need are national governments to start talking to cities and asking what cities need. [Cities are] more inclined to look at migration as an asset in terms of our connectivity to world markets. Following our Asian, African, or Eastern European populations—they connect us to international opportunities. National govern­ments are using abstract numbers and talking about how many more people to let in. And it’s completely different from the conversation we need to have.

AF: Last but certainly not least, what is your vision for how cities like Bristol can contribute to combating climate change, while also preparing for its inevitable impacts?

MR: We absolutely recognize it as a crisis with very real consequences. Increased flood risk, more extreme temperatures, desertification—we’ll end up with more rural-urban migration, and a source of conflict leading to more crises. For cities, the climate emergency will be inseparable from the global migration emergency. Cities have to be in the driving seat for a number of reasons. One is about political will. Certainly in the United States, your federal government seems to have no political will, but we’ve seen American mayors stepping up to lead when the federal government withdraws. Cities are more inclined to look in terms of interdependencies, whereas the national government is more occupied with boundaries. Cities are equipped with the political machinery to lead the way.

 


 

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Photograph: Marvin Rees, the mayor of Bristol, England, has prioritized affordable housing and climate change during his time in office. Credit: Office of the Bristol Mayor.

Curso

Planificación y Localización de la Vivienda Social en la Ciudad

Octubre 14, 2019 - Noviembre 15, 2019

Free, ofrecido en español


Descripción

El curso analiza el  rol que  juegan los mercados  de suelo de las ciudades para explicar la existencia, permanencia y características de la informalidad y la vivienda de interés social (VIS), más allá del enfoque tradicional de insuficiencia de ingresos de las familias para adquirir una vivienda adecuada. Se aborda una mirada sobre la producción suelo asequible, el rol que tiene la planificación urbana en la mala localización de la vivienda social en América Latina, y las mejoras que se pueden aplicar a los instrumentos de planificación urbana actuales para dar solución al problema de la informalidad. Se evaluarán experiencias concretas de localización de la VIS en la ciudad con énfasis en el rol del estado municipal.

Relevancia

La disciplina del planeamiento urbano mantiene una deuda con la gestión y localización de suelo para la vivienda social. Revisar el papel de la planificación urbana en la localización de la VIS puede abrir un rango de acción desde la escala local, para aportar al desafío de generar suelo urbano servido, asequible y bien localizado.

América Latina ha enfrentado en las últimas décadas la carencia de acceso a la vivienda con diferentes programas de construcción masiva de viviendas de interés social. Se han desarrollado políticas basadas en el subsidio a la demanda, así como otras apoyadas en el financiamiento de la oferta, aunque la mayoría de las viviendas sociales continúa localizándose en la periferia de la ciudad, lo que genera una variedad de problemas para las familias que residen en ellas

Bajar la convocatoria


Detalles

Fecha(s)
Octubre 14, 2019 - Noviembre 15, 2019
Período de postulación
Julio 17, 2019 - Agosto 14, 2019
Selection Notification Date
Septiembre 27, 2019 at 6:00 PM
Idioma
español
Costo
Free
Registration Fee
Free
Tipo de certificado o crédito
Lincoln Institute certificate

Palabras clave

expropiación, Favela, vivienda, inequidad, banco de tierras, uso de suelo, planificación de uso de suelo, planificación, segregación, recuperación de plusvalías, zonificación

Curso

Informalidad y Políticas de Regularización

Septiembre 23, 2019 - Noviembre 15, 2019

Free, ofrecido en español


Descripción

El curso reúne diferentes miradas sobre la informalidad con el propósito de ampliar la perspectiva crítica, tanto frente a la comprensión del problema, como a las formas de buscar soluciones. Se recorrerá una trayectoria desde lo conceptual a lo práctico, con aportes de disciplinas como la sociología, el urbanismo, la economía y el derecho.

Se analizará la relación causal entre informalidad y mercados de suelo y se revisarán prácticas comunes en la región. A través de dos estudios de caso se presentarán mecanismos alternativos de acceso al suelo servido, basados en la movilización de plusvalías para el financiamiento del desarrollo urbano.

Relevancia

El fenómeno de la informalidad urbana afecta a más de cien millones de personas en América Latina y la región no ha reaccionado positivamente a los programas de apoyo que se han aplicado en las últimas décadas. De aquí nace la necesidad de un abordaje interdisciplinario del problema y de cuestionar el rol de los mercados de suelo para explicar la existencia, permanencia y crecimiento de la informalidad, especialmente cuando tiene como consecuencia la segregación y exclusión de los habitantes más vulnerables de la ciudad.

Bajar la convocatoria


Detalles

Fecha(s)
Septiembre 23, 2019 - Noviembre 15, 2019
Período de postulación
Julio 17, 2019 - Agosto 14, 2019
Selection Notification Date
Septiembre 6, 2019 at 6:00 PM
Idioma
español
Costo
Free
Registration Fee
Free
Tipo de certificado o crédito
Lincoln Institute certificate

Palabras clave

Favela, mercados informales de suelo, pobreza, políticas públicas, seguridad de tenencia del suelo, segregación, barrio bajo, partes interesadas, tenencia, urbano, mejoramiento urbano y regularización

A woman feeds a toddler in a kitchen.

Affordable Housing

Study Shows Benefits of Shared Equity Housing for Affordability and Wealth-Building
By Brandon Frazier and Will Jason, Mayo 16, 2019

 

Shared equity housing programs are designed to provide a key to those who are locked out of homeownership, whether because of fast-rising housing prices, stagnant incomes, or a history of discriminatory policies. As new research shows, the programs do just that.

In the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy working paper “Tracking Growth and Evaluating Performance of Shared Equity Homeownership Programs During Housing Market Fluctuations,” Ruoniu Wang of Grounded Solutions Network and his coauthors study the performance of more than 4,000 shared equity housing units across 20 states over three decades—the largest study of shared equity to date. They demonstrate that shared equity housing promotes sustainable wealth-building opportunities and lasting affordability for lower-income households, and serves an increasing number of minority households.

Shared equity homeownership provides opportunities for families of color to access quality housing, build wealth, and counter systemic racial housing disparities,” said Grounded Solutions CEO Tony Pickett, citing how the median shared equity household accumulates approximately $14,000 across all housing cycles, compared to a median initial investment of $1,875 made at purchase.

We believe this study validates shared equity as a sustainable housing model, and our focus is on growing the scale of shared equity housing to a level where increased numbers of lower-income families view it as something they can participate in and benefit from.”

Comparing 58 programs across the country with data from Grounded Solutions’ HomeKeeper National Data Hub, the study measures the impact of the shared equity housing sector over 33 years, from 1985–2000 (pre-housing bubble), 2001–2006 (housing boom), 2007–2012 (housing bust), and 2013–2018 (housing recovery). It finds that 95 percent of shared equity mortgages are affordable for households earning 50 to 80 percent of area median income, and the share of minority households living in shared equity homes increased from 13 percent between 1985–2000 to 43 percent between 2013–2018.

“Shared equity programs unlock stable housing opportunities and provide a foothold for people who would not otherwise be able to access homeownership, one of the main wealth-building vehicles in the United States,” said George W. “Mac” McCarthy, president of the Lincoln Institute.

Under the shared equity housing model, lower-income residents are provided the opportunity to own a home—either directly or indirectly—at a lower cost than the open market rate. When a shared equity home changes hands, the resident reaps a portion of the gains, and a portion stays with the property, providing a perpetual subsidy and allowing others to purchase the same home at below-market cost.

The study covers three types of shared equity homeownership: community land trusts, deed-restricted housing, and limited-equity cooperatives. In community land trusts, a nonprofit corporation owns the land and provides a long-term lease to the resident, who owns the structure. In deed-restricted housing, the resident owns the entire property, but the resale price is restricted to preserve affordability. In a limited-equity cooperative, the residents own a share of a corporation, which wholly owns the property.

In addition to wealth-building and affordability, the study explores other dimensions of homeownership including the demographics of homeowners served, the structure of different programs, the levels of public and private funding, and the frequency with which participants sell their home.

 


 

Will Jason is associate director of communications at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Brandon Frazier is director of communications at the Grounded Solutions Network.

Photograph: Rawpixel/iStock via Getty Images