2003
DOI: 10.1177/1078087403253903
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Impact of Community Development Corporations on Neighborhood Housing Markets

Abstract: Housing investment activities of community development corporations (CDCs) can be associated with a positive impact on the residential real estate market within their respective service area. Relying on a pseudo-experimental approach, the appreciation rate of single-family housing in CDC treatment and comparison areas is tested with a traditional hedonic model with pooled data. The results suggest that the area that is served by the 12 established CDCs operating in Center Township in the city of Indianapolis e… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…assumes that difference between target neighborhood change and change in control neighborhoods is attributable to intervention See Weiss (1972); Vidal, Howitt, and Foster (1986); Taub (1988Taub ( , 1990; Mueller (1995); Taylor (2002); Smith (2003); Zielenbach (2003) Pre-and postintervention Indicator level or slope in target neighborhood after intervention is compared with level or slope in target neighborhood before intervention Counterfactual is preintervention level or slope;…”
Section: Postintervention Relative Change Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…assumes that difference between target neighborhood change and change in control neighborhoods is attributable to intervention See Weiss (1972); Vidal, Howitt, and Foster (1986); Taub (1988Taub ( , 1990; Mueller (1995); Taylor (2002); Smith (2003); Zielenbach (2003) Pre-and postintervention Indicator level or slope in target neighborhood after intervention is compared with level or slope in target neighborhood before intervention Counterfactual is preintervention level or slope;…”
Section: Postintervention Relative Change Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…assumes that difference between pre-and postintervention level or slope is due to the intervention See Weiss (1972), Rossi (1999), Bloom andLadd (1982) Bloom (2003) Indicator level or slope in target neighborhood after intervention is compared with level or slope in target before intervention and with changes in control neighborhoods before and after intervention Counterfactual is change in control neighborhoods before and after intervention; assumes that "change in the differences" between target and control neighborhoods before and after intervention is due to intervention See Engberg and Greenbaum (1999), Greenbaum and Engberg (2000), Bloom and Glispie (1999) Thus, only the relative advantages of the target neighborhood over the control neighborhoods after the intervention are taken as evidence of impact 4 (e.g., Weiss 1972;Vidal, Howitt, and Foster 1986;Taub 1988Taub , 1990Mueller 1995;Taylor 2002;Zielenbach 2003;Smith 2003).…”
Section: Postintervention Relative Change Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Indeed, the idea of building a mixed‐income or even a gentrified neighborhood out of what had been a problematic dumping ground or a formerly segregated ghetto has appeal to old‐timers and newcomers alike, even when they are minorities (Brown‐Saracino & Rumpf, 2011; Boyd, 2008; Chaskin & Mark, 2010; Freeman, 2005; Papachristos, Smith, Scherer, & Fugiero, 2011; Sullivan, 2007). They see that the place where they live not only looks better and is a more congenial place to live but also earns them a better return on their housing investment (Smith, 2003).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%