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

尽管实行了几十年的经济适用房政策，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。传统的低收入住房模式往往导致经济损失、丧失抵押品赎回权、重新租房或房屋净值为负。将低收入家庭迁往高收入社区已被证明是困难的，而且只有在有限的条件下才能成功。这些低收入住房政策模型缺少对将家庭与经济和社会资本联系起来的正式经济和制度安排的理解。社区土地信托（clt）提供了另一种政策模式，通过共享股权和直接或间接提供经济、社会和文化资本的制度安排，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，管理了土地，使其用途满足了居住在那里的人们的需求。本研究探讨了CLTs在多大程度上改善了居民的经济、文化和社会资本，以及它们如何影响社区。其基本假设是，如果贫困家庭想要进步，资产积累需要伴随着“本体论安全”（ontological security）——即物质世界和社会世界是值得信赖和不变的感觉。除了个人之外，本研究还考察了clt与增加社区稳定性和福祉的关系程度。它旨在启发关于如何平衡住房的公共和私人利益，如何充分利用公共补贴，以及如何将住房供应与社区发展结合起来的辩论。几十年来低收入住房政策的理论假设是，市场利率的住房所有权或搬迁到资本更丰富的地区将促进经济、文化和社会资本的积累。本研究是从对不同形式的资本增加积累的要求的另一种分析出发的。clt的机构支持和义务及其社区利益被视为创造经济、文化和社会资本积累条件的关键，方法是为贫困家庭的生活带来稳定，并为这些家庭提供永久的便利和支持。将对两个地理上分散的clt的房主进行调查，这些clt为种族和经济多样化的低收入和中等收入人群提供服务，并与其他寻求住房所有权的类似家庭的对照组一起进行调查。该调查和经CLT验证的数据将用于检验CLT住房所有权如何影响家庭财务（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、安全感和推动个人生活的能力（本体论安全）。使用多层次模型，将分析个人和普查数据，以更好地了解CLT和非CLT家庭的社区背景，并了解CLT家庭的存在如何影响社区。人口普查区层面的人口普查、住房和学校数据将通过比较以前的被调查者地址与CLT和非CLT的当前地点，来从空间上检验CLT场所制造的有效性和积极的邻里效应。

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.