Interrupting Place-Based Inequality: Building Sustainable Communities Through Shared-Equity Homeownership

尽管实施了几十年的保障性住房政策，但低收入家庭的稳定和可持续住房仍然稀缺，不平等程度处于历史最高水平。传统的低收入拥有者模式往往会导致财务损失、丧失抵押品赎回权、回归租房或负房屋资产。事实证明，将低收入家庭重新安置到较高收入社区是困难的，只有在有限的条件下才能成功。这些低收入住房政策模式缺少对将家庭与经济和社会资本联系起来的正式经济和体制安排的理解。社区土地信托基金(CLT)提出了一种替代政策模式，通过直接和间接提供经济、社会和文化资本的共享股权和体制安排，提供高质量的负担得起的住房。CLT还稳定了社区的住房市场，并管理土地，使其使用服务于居住在那里的人的需求。这项研究调查了社区技术在多大程度上改善了居民的经济、文化和社会资本，以及它们是如何影响社区的。基本的假设是，如果贫困家庭想要发展，资产积累需要伴随着“本体论安全”--即物质和社会世界值得信赖和恒久不变的感觉。这项研究不仅着眼于个人，还考察了CLT与提高社区稳定性和幸福感之间的关联程度。它旨在启发关于如何平衡住房方面的公共和私人利益、如何最大限度地利用公共补贴以及如何将住房供应与社区发展相结合的辩论。几十年低收入住房政策的理论假设是，无论是市场对住房拥有率进行评级，还是搬迁到资本更丰富的地区，都将促进经济、文化和社会资本的积累。这项研究源于对增加不同形式资本积累的要求的另一种分析。社区信托基金的体制支持和义务及其社区福利被认为是为积累经济、文化和社会资本创造条件的关键，因为它为贫困家庭的生活带来了稳定，并产生了这些家庭永久可获得和支持的社区。将对两个地理上分散的CLT的房主进行调查，这些家庭服务于种族和经济上不同的中低收入人口，以及其他寻求拥有住房的类似家庭的对照群体。这项调查和CLT验证的数据将被用来检验CLT住房拥有者如何影响家庭财务(经济资本)、教育水平(文化资本)、社区参与(社会资本)以及稳定感、安全感和推动生活向前发展的能力(本体安全感)。使用多层次模型，将分析个人和人口普查数据，以更好地了解CLT和非CLT家庭的社区环境，并了解CLT家庭的存在对社区的影响。将使用人口普查区域一级的人口普查、住房和学校数据，通过将以前的受访者地址与CLT和非CLT现有地点进行比较，在空间上检验CLT造地的效果和积极的邻里影响。

Despite decades of affordable housing policies, stable and sustainable housing for low-income households is scarce and inequality is at an all-time high. Traditional models of low-income ownership have often led to financial losses, foreclosure, a return to renting, or negative home equity. Relocating low- income households to higher income communities has proven difficult to do and successful only under limited conditions. Missing from these models of low-income housing policy is an understanding of the formal economic and institutional arrangements that connect households to economic and social capital. Community Land Trusts (CLTs) present an alternative policy model that provides quality affordable housing through shared equity and institutional arrangements that directly and indirectly provide access to economic, social and cultural capital. CLTs also stabilize the housing market for communities and steward the land so that its uses serve the needs of people who live there. This study investigates the extent to which CLTs bring about improvements in residents' economic, cultural, and social capital and how they affect communities. The underlying hypothesis is that asset accumulation needs to be accompanied by "ontological security" -- the sense that the material and social worlds are trustworthy and constant -- if poor households are to advance. Looking beyond the individual, this study examines the extent to which CLTs are associated with increased community stability and well being. It aims to enlighten debates about how to balance public and private interests in housing, how to make the most of public subsidies, and how to integrate housing provision and community development. The theoretical assumption of decades of low-income housing policy presumes that either market rate homeownership or relocation to more capital rich locations will facilitate the accumulation of economic, cultural and social capital. This study proceeds from an alternate analysis of the requirements for increased accumulation of different forms of capital. The institutional supports and obligations of CLTs and their community benefits are seen as critical in creating the conditions for the accumulation of economic, cultural and social capital by introducing stability into the lives of poor households and producing communities permanently accessible to and supportive of these households. Homeowners in two geographically dispersed CLTs serving ethnically and economically diverse low- and moderate -income populations will be surveyed along with comparison groups of other similar households seeking homeownership. The survey and CLT verified data will be used to examine how CLT homeownership affects household finances (economic capital), educational levels (cultural capital), community engagement (social capital), and sense of stability, safety and ability to move one's life forward (ontological security). Using multi-level models, individual and census data will be analyzed to better understand the community contexts of CLT and non-CLT households and to see how communities are affected by the presence of CLT homes. Census, housing and school data at the census tract level will be used to spatially examine the efficacy of CLT place-making and positive neighborhood effects by comparing previous respondent addresses to CLT and non-CLT present locations.