Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorThayer, Chris
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-06T13:56:12Z
dc.date.available2018-06-06T13:56:12Z
dc.date.issued2018-05
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1853/59998
dc.description.abstractConventional wisdom in the affordable housing industry and among affordable developers holds that subsidy layering is a source of disproportionately increased legal expenses in LIHTC deals. In this paper, I discuss the available literature on subsidy layering with the LIHTC program (last contributed to in 2000) and that literature’s relationship to the LIHTC program’s growth and development, before evaluating the 728 (nationwide) available Qualified Allocation Plans to establish the Georgia LIHTC program’s suitability as a representative case study. To investigate the layering-expenses relationship claim, I study both the national LIHTC database and a new database of twelve years’ of LIHTC applications in Georgia to empirically test the relationship between layers of additional subsidy and project costs. The lower-quality national data shows no statistically significant relationship is present between subsidy layers and total LIHTC allocation, while the higher-quality (if geographically limited) Georgia data shows a relationship between subsidy layers and legal costs is present, but one with a very small effect size -- less than one-third of a standard deviation.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherGeorgia Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.subjectAffordable housingen_US
dc.subjectLow-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)en_US
dc.titleContesting Conventional Wisdom: The Link Between Subsidy Layering and Legal Expenses in the LIHTC Programen_US
dc.typeMasters Projecten_US
dc.contributor.corporatenameGeorgia Institute of Technology. School of City and Regional Planningen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record