Candeub Memorial Lecture:
Learning from Mount Laurel
Douglas S. Massey
Sociology and Woodrow Wilson School
Princeton University
Climbing Mount Laurel:
The Struggle for Affordable Housing and Social Mobility in an American Suburb
Douglas S. Massey, Len Albright, Rebecca Casciano, Elizabeth Derickson & David N. Kinsey
Cloth | July 2013 | $35.00 / £24.95 | ISBN: 9780691157290
Holy Trinity of Neighbor Concerns:
Property Values, Crime, and Taxes
“I would like to stay in Mt. Laurel and continue to
live at my present address without the fear that
my property values are going to deteriorate”
“My concern is the impact this will have on the
community as a whole. Have we talked with
anyone from the police department?”
“I don't feel we should pay taxes that they will not
pay, nor do we have to pay their sewer and water
and all the streets. I think that's a big consi-
deration the township has to take into account.”
Quasi-Experimental Design:
Effect of Project on Community
Multiple Control Group Time Series Experiment
00000000000000000 X 00000000000000000
00000000000000000 00000000000000000
00000000000000000 00000000000000000
Figure 5.1. Trends in Crime rates in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, and
three com pa rsion townships(Source: NJ Division of State Police).
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1554 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Figure 5.3. Trends in property values in Mount Laurel and
neighborhoods adjacent to the Ethel Lawrence Homes. (Source:
Asbury Park Press Property Records 1994-2010)
—Mount Laurel To',,driship — Hillside Lane Holliday Village
$600,000
5500,000
Year
Figure 5.4. Effective tax rates for Mount Laurel and three comparison townships (Source: NJ Division of Taxation)
3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 / — — —Cinnamirr.,onMouriL Laurel Eve. ha Cherry Hill
14. / EEE.
.1.
PIM. REla
AIN
PPM / 11.1. .1.
P.
EPP
m/E
4efiff ......
F
Opening of / fla / >9.04
•
"er• 4‘.. S.
N... 4. / · 11
ce
Ethe Lawrence
Homes
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 200 2 2003. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Moving to Opportunity (MTO) in Chicago
Figure 11.2. Residential flows of MTO families from origin to destination neighborhoods,
1995–2002, by density of social support networks in Chicago community areas (2002).
Social support is classified in equal thirds. Loop arrows reflecting “churning” within the
same neighborhood and ties between tracts are proportional to volume of movement.
The Spatial Imperative
Figure 3.5 Disadvantage Distributions for White and African American Neighborhoods
0_64 0.91 1.18 1.45
Very Low Disadvantage Average Disadvantage Very High Disadvantage
Black Median Black Median
Black (75%+)0 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 100
(Per capital income, in thousands of dollars)
Disparate Income Distributions in White and Black Neighborhoods
Exposure to Neighborhood Disadvantage by Race and Class
Lower Lower Upper Upper Lower Lower Upper Upper Lower Lower Upper Upper
Middle Middle Middle Middle Middle Middle
Quasi-Experimental Design
Effect of Project on Residents
Matched Control Group Comparison
R O X O
R O O
Figure 7.1. Exposure to violence and disorder in neighborhoods of ELH
residents and non-residents in 1999 and 2009.
52.5 / 48.1
Residents
9.2
1999 2009
Figure 7.2. Effect of ELH residence on exposure to disorder and violence
within neighborhoods
0 1
Total Sample- Total Sample- Matched Sample-
No Controls With Controls With Controls
0
- 0.1
- 0.2
- 0.3
- 0.4
- 0.5 -0.6 -0.7
- 0.8
- 0.9
-1
Figure 8.4. Effect of years lived in ELH on mental distress
0.6
0 1 2 4
7 8 9 10
Years in Ethel Lawrence Homes
Figure 8.5. Effect of ELH residence on economic independence
Tota[ Samp'e-No Controls Total Sample-With Controls Matched Sample-With Controls
Comparison Condition
ELH Residence
0.120*
Frequency of Negative Life Events / / Economicindependence
Figure 9.1 Path model showing effect of ELH residence on mental distress and economic independence among adults estimated from matched samples
Figure 8.8. Effect of ELH residence on the likelihood that child has a quiet place to study
3.0002.500
2.522 *
2.206 / t
2.000
1.500
1.199 / 4
1.000
0.500
0.000
Total Sample-No Controls Total Sample-With Controls Matched Sample-With Controls
Comparison Condition
Figure 8.11. Effect of years of ELH residence on parental support for
academics
0 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10
Years in Ethel Lawrence Homes
Figure 8.12 Effect of ELH residence on hours studied per week
6.359** / 6.298**6,000
5.000
4.519*
4.000 3.000 2,000 1.000 -
0.000
Total Sample-No Controls
Total Sample-With Controls Comparison Condition
Figure 8.13. Effect of years in ELH on hours studied per week
Years in Ethel Lawrence Homes
Figure 8.14. Effect of ELI-I residence on school quality
Total Sample-No Controls Total Sample-With Controls Matched Sample-With Controls
Comparison Condition
Hours Studied / Supportive Parental BehaviorGrade Point Average
-0.327+
Figure 9.2. Path model showing effect of ELH residence on academic outcomes among children estimated from matched sample
Figure 3.3. Funding of the development of the Ethel Lawrence Homes
tate of New Jersey
%
Federal Low I nicornE Housing Tax Credits
49%
Conclusions
1. Possible to build affordable housing in affluent suburb without negative
effects on host community
-no effect on taxes, property values, or crime rates
2. For adults, access to affordable housing in an affluent suburb improves life:
-reduces exposure to disorder & violence
-lowers frequency of negative life events
-improves mental health
-increases economic independence
-does not reduce social support
3. For children, access to affordable housing in an affluent suburb improves
education:
-improves learning conditions at home
-increases hours of study
-improves school quality
-reduces exposure to disorder and violence within schools
-does not reduce grade achievement
4. Affordable housing developed under LIHTC is a cost-effective way to
promote racial and class integration and promote social mobility of the
disadvantaged