As affordable housing markets continue to evolve, the financial landscape is shifting. With an increasing number of mortgages originating from non-federally regulated lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (“the Enterprises,” or GSEs) play a pivotal role in shaping access to affordable housing finance. A scorecard recently released by the Underserved Mortgage Markets Coalition identifies important areas where the GSEs have made progress in serving low- and moderate-income families—and spotlights opportunities for improvement.
Since 2018, the federal “Duty to Serve” (DTS) regulation has required the GSEs to prioritize serving three historically neglected markets: manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation, and rural housing. The goal of Duty to Serve is to increase the liquidity of mortgage investments and improve the distribution of investment capital available for mortgage financing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income families in those markets. Within their DTS requirements, each Enterprise must plan for outreach, loan product offerings, loan purchases, and investments and update their plans every three years with targeted objectives. The Enterprises’ latest revision, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s Duty to Serve (DTS) Underserved Market Plans for 2025–2027, was released in November 2024.
The Underserved Mortgage Markets Coalition (UMMC)—a coalition of 42 leading US housing organizations convened by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy—has long advocated for more focused action to improve outcomes for underserved markets, including through the Enterprises’ DTS commitments. In response to the updated plan, the coalition published a scorecard identifying the biggest successes and shortcomings of the 2025–2027 market plans and highlighting progress over time in some areas while underscoring shortcomings in others.
DTS plans are required by federal regulation to prioritize affordable housing finance, and the Scorecard 2025 evaluates the development of efforts around those priorities, such as new loan products, the GSEs’ purchasing efforts in targeted markets, and new partnership opportunities. The recent update incorporates several elements that the UMMC recommended in its DTS Blueprint 2024, as well as several opportunities for further improvement.
With the release, the coalition noted the positive steps that have occurred but also called on the Enterprises to do more to reach underserved housing markets.
“The UMMC commends Freddie Mac for including a Consumer Development Financial Institution- (CDFI) preferred product pilot in rural markets, among myriad positive steps toward expanding attainable homeownership,” said Jim Gray, who leads the UMMC in his role as senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute. “This program will also allow CDFIs to effectively collaborate with the GSEs and develop loan products and training designed for hard-to-reach markets—activities for which the coalition has long advocated.”
CDFIs have a strong track record of serving their communities and helping those they serve achieve sustainable homeownership. With a shared goal of expanding access to homeownership and reaching underserved communities and populations, CDFIs are a natural conduit for helping the GSEs achieve their housing and affordability goals and reduce ethnic and racial wealth gaps.
The Enterprises’ plans to purchase loans in manufactured housing communities received strong marks. With high site rents making manufactured housing a less affordable option than it traditionally has been, particularly for residents on fixed incomes, this initiative helps bridge an important gap in financing.
While the UMMC is encouraged by these new initiatives, it also identifies critical gaps in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s plans. The Scorecard highlights that both Enterprises fall short of the UMMC’s recommendations for energy efficiency loan purchases and green product development, which are increasingly essential as energy costs continue to rise and threaten long-term affordability. These programs, the UMMC asserts, are vital for ensuring that housing remains sustainable and accessible in the face of economic pressures. Additionally, the UMMC calls for stronger engagement in Native American markets, urging both Enterprises to set higher loan purchase targets for lending on tribal land, which remains an underfinanced housing market.
The UMMC strongly urges Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carefully consider the scorecard when refining their Duty to Serve plans and calls on the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to factor the scorecard into its evaluation of the Enterprises’ performance.
As the 2025–2027 Duty to Serve plans unfold, the UMMC will continue to monitor their implementation. The coalition intends to release a revised scorecard yearly, assessing how effectively the GSEs have carried out their plans and whether they have met the expectations established by affordable housing advocates.
Two Miami townhouses—built the same year, in the same Coconut Grove condo complex, with matching floor plans, identical balconies, and equivalent square footage—bear a striking resemblance to each other. Except for their property tax bills.
The owners of one unit, who purchased their townhome soon after it was built in 2006, will owe $4,092 in property taxes for 2024. Their new neighbors a few doors down, who bought their townhome last year, will pay more than three times as much in property taxes this year: $14,693, or almost $900 more per month.
The discrepancy can be traced to the State of Florida’s “Save Our Homes” amendment, which since 1995 has capped property tax assessment increases on primary (or “homestead”) residences to three percent a year or the rate of inflation, whichever is less, until the property changes hands.
By capping the rate at which a home’s assessed value can increase each year, assessment limits ensure that a property’s tax bill doesn’t skyrocket, even if its market value does. But that can also lead to disparities and distortions in local housing markets, creating winners and losers.
Florida’s assessment limit is similar to one established by the State of California’s Proposition 13, which since the 1970s has capped annual assessment increases at the lesser of two percent or inflation. About a dozen other states and Washington, D.C., also have some kind of assessment limit in place, which can create dramatic tax bill discrepancies between new and longtime homeowners.
In a recent 50-state comparison study of property taxes paid in 2023, researchers from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence found that, among major U.S. cities, the City of Miami has the largest discrepancy in property tax obligations between new homebuyers and existing homeowners. Someone who bought a median-priced Miami home in 2023, for example, would owe $9,205 in annual property taxes—almost three times more than someone who’s owned their nearly identical, comparably priced home for 12 years. New homebuyers in the cities of Tampa, Jacksonville, New York City, Oakland, and Sacramento pay more than twice as much in property taxes as longtime homeowners in similarly valued homes.
The difference in those tax bills often adds hundreds of dollars to a new buyer’s housing payment each month. That’s not just inequitable—it adds yet another cost hurdle for first-time buyers already struggling with higher home prices and mortgage rates.
One More Hurdle to Homeownership
“The tax disparities from assessment limits are increasingly a barrier to homeownership,” said Adam Langley, associate director of tax policy at the Lincoln Institute. “New homeowners, who are already paying so much more in mortgages due to rising home values and interest rates, are also paying significantly higher property tax bills in some places.
Consider the headwinds already facing first-time homebuyers in a city like Miami. The median home price in the Miami metro area has risen by $139,000 since September 2021, according to data from the national brokerage Redfin—a 34 percent increase, from $410,000 to $549,000.
Meanwhile, even though mortgage rates have ticked down from the 20-year highs of 2023, in September 2024 the average interest rate on a 30-year mortgage (6.2 percent) was still nearly four percentage points higher than it was three years before (2.35 percent), according to Freddie Mac. This makes financing a home far more expensive.
What does that add up to in actual housing costs? Someone who purchased a typical $410,000 Miami home in September 2021 with a conventional 30-year mortgage would have needed $82,000 for a standard down payment, and enough income to cover a $1,271 monthly mortgage payment before taxes, insurance, and HOA fees.
Today, buying the same median-priced Miami home would require a six-figure down payment of $109,800, and a monthly mortgage payment of $2,690—more than an additional $1,400 per month, largely due to higher interest rates and home prices (see Exhibit 1). And that’s before the property tax discrepancy that forces new homebuyers to pay hundreds of dollars more per month for the same services.
“For first-time buyers, this extra cost, on top of already high home prices and rising interest rates, can make the difference between affording a home and being priced out of the market altogether,” said Zev Freidus, president and broker at ZFC Real Estate. “It’s a frustrating dynamic because buyers often feel like they’re penalized for simply entering the market later, and this can lead to them reconsidering certain areas or downgrading their expectations.”
The tax cap is “incredibly popular with current homeowners,” Freidus adds, but it creates real barriers for new buyers and adds another layer of financial stress. “Many buyers don’t anticipate just how much their tax bill will jump until they’ve already made an offer,” he said. “I always emphasize this to first-time buyers, so they can budget accurately—but the difference in property tax payments can still come as a shock.”
Shifting the Burden
Property taxes are the primary source of revenue for many municipalities, funding essential services like police, fire, and schools, and they are generally considered a good tax—relatively transparent, fair, and stable through economic cycles.
By shifting some of the property tax burden according to tenure, however, assessment limits tend to make that fair tax less fair, said Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin. “There’s the inherent unfairness that existing homeowners— who already have all this equity in their home, who are already in a good financial position because they don’t have to deal with rising rents—are the ones who, on top of that, get this tax benefit,” she said.
“In practice, in most places, the research shows that assessment limits shift the tax burden away from wealthier neighborhoods toward poorer neighborhoods,” Langley adds.
In California, where Proposition 13 has limited annual assessment increases to the lesser of two percent or inflation since the 1970s, “higher-income Californians own more homes and own homes of higher value and, therefore, receive the majority of the total dollars of tax relief provided to homeowners by Proposition 13,” wrote the authors of a Lincoln Institute report prepared for the 30th anniversary of the famous—and famously controversial—California tax legislation. “Limits on assessed values, while favored by many homeowners, are a deeply flawed means to counter rising property taxes.”
Such assessment limits can also compound previous or entrenched inequities. “When you think about the people who were able to be homeowners when Prop 13 was enacted, they had likely benefited at least somewhat from redlining and the other unfair housing policies that were allowed before the Fair Housing Act,” Fairweather said.
In New York City and Oregon, assessment limits don’t reset when a property is resold. “That helps address some inequities between new and longtime homeowners, but it can create even larger disparities across neighborhoods,” Langley said. “In New York City, it’s basically like your tax is based on a 1981 value. So, you have huge swaths of Manhattan, for example, that are paying very low effective tax rates relative to places in, say, the Bronx, that haven’t appreciated as much over the last four decades.” Assessment limits that don’t reset at sale also discourage new construction, since those homes bear a higher tax burden, and the permanent reduction in the tax base creates even larger tax shifts or revenue losses.
In New York City, assessment limits don’t reset when a home is sold, which can address inequities between longtime and new homeowners, but create disparities across neighborhoods. Credit: benedek via E+/Getty Images.
An assessment limit can also be “very distortionary for the housing market,” Fairweather added, because “it tends to encourage people to stay in the same home for longer than they would in the absence of this policy, because you lose the tax benefit when you move.” That can lead to a mismatch of housing preferences and realities: empty nesters staying in four-bedroom houses instead of downsizing, growing families sticking it out in smaller homes despite a need for more space, and young homebuyers stuck on the sidelines waiting for a starter home to free up.
To get around that “lock-in effect,” Florida made its assessment limit portable, allowing existing homeowners to move their tax savings to their next home. California allows some seniors to do the same. “That’s addressing one problem, but creating new problems that are arguably worse,” Langley said. “It’s eliminating the disincentive to move, which is good, but then it’s heightening those tax disparities, because you’re not even getting back to equity when people are selling.”
Better Ways to Quell a Tax Revolt
When property values rise quickly, as they have in the past five years, property tax bills can rise sharply as well, if a community fails to readjust its tax rate.
These “silent” tax hikes can frustrate residents—such property tax increases inspired the tax revolts of the 1970s and ’80s and the passage of Prop 13 in California—and particularly strain seniors or low-income homeowners, especially in gentrifying neighborhoods.
State and local officials looking to rein in property tax growth or offer tax relief to vulnerable residents should consider alternatives to assessment limits, said Langley.
Tax rate adjustments. The simplest way for a community to constrain rampant tax growth is to regularly adjust its property tax rate in response to changes in its property tax base, a process sometimes called mill rate offsetting. (The “mill rate” is the amount of tax levied per $1,000 of assessed value.) “Local governments have the discretion in most states to reduce their tax rates if property values are going up rapidly—and they should be doing that,” Langley said.
“Property tax bills should be determined fundamentally by spending needs, not property values. So, when property values go up a ton, tax rates should, most of the time, go down considerably,” Langley said. Meanwhile, in a situation where home values plummet, such as during the Great Recession, “rates probably need to go up to help stabilize revenues.”
Truth in Taxation. Twenty states have some kind of “Truth in Taxation” or “full disclosure” law in place, according to a new Lincoln Institute working paper. These policies require taxing entities to disclose any proposed increase in property tax revenues—whether due to higher tax rates or property values—and to hold a public hearing on the proposal. Most such states also require the local governing body to vote for any increase in the levy; they can’t simply leave rates unchanged and let taxes increase while “doing nothing.”
Unlike tax or assessment caps, Truth in Taxation measures don’t impose a uniform, binding limit on every community in a state, nor do they prevent a municipality from raising more property tax revenue when needed; the local government just needs to disclose that fact to the public. More often than not, research shows that an increase in transparency and accountability is enough to temper tax growth.
“Truth in Taxation grants local governments the discretion and flexibility to adopt tax revenue increases that align with local needs and preferences,” wrote Yonhui Um, author of the working paper and a senior policy and legal analyst at the Lincoln Institute. “As long as taxpayers are informed of the proposed tax increase and have an opportunity to weigh in on the proposal at a public hearing.”
Circuit breakers. Just as an electrical circuit breaker prevents a temporary overload of electrical current, a property tax circuit breaker targets tax relief to homeowners paying the highest share of their income in property taxes—such as seniors on fixed incomes, low-income homeowners in gentrifying neighborhoods, or those facing a sudden job loss or drop in income. A circuit breaker policy can ensure that no homeowner would have to pay more than, say, five percent of their income in property taxes. At that threshold, a household with $20,000 in income and a property tax bill of $2,000 would only have to pay the first $1,000 of their tax bill.
“In our view, the share of income spent on property taxes is the most meaningful measure of who needs relief,” Langley said. Someone who pays a very small portion of their income in property taxes, despite their home increasing in value, probably doesn’t need relief urgently. “Conversely, maybe you lost your job. Even if your property tax bill hasn’t gone up at all, you might end up in tax foreclosure if you don’t receive any tax relief. So, a circuit breaker would make sure those people receive relief.”
Homestead exemptions. A simple and common way municipalities and states offer property tax relief is through a homestead exemption, which provides homeowners with either a partial exemption from the property tax or a partial credit against their tax bill, but only on a primary “homestead” residence. This broad-based policy shifts the tax burden toward businesses, renters, and second-home owners, and can especially benefit low- and middle-income homeowners if applied as a fixed-dollar exemption.
Deferrals. Property tax deferral programs are most often targeted to seniors who are housing-rich but income-poor; imagine a retiree living off Social Security benefits in the home she’s owned for decades, in which time both its value and tax bill have increased sharply. Tax deferrals allow such homeowners to delay the payment of their property taxes until they sell the home—at which point, the full amount of deferred tax becomes due, typically with interest and paid for with the proceeds of the home sale. Unlike other forms of tax relief, deferrals impose no long-term cost on other taxpayers.
Why Tie Your Hands?
Each of these alternatives has its own pros and cons—as described in the Lincoln Institute Policy Focus Report, Property Tax Relief for Homeowners. But they’re all generally easier to tweak or adjust than an assessment limit, Langley said, which can be extremely difficult to reform after it’s enacted into law.
And while an assessment cap is typically a popular idea among existing homeowners, many overestimate its value. “There are a lot of people who perceive themselves as winners from an assessment limit when they’re actually losing out,” Langley said. “There’s research in Cook County, Illinois, and in New York City, for example, that shows a significant majority of homeowners are actually paying more under an assessment limit than they would without it, because the assessment limit requires a higher tax rate.”
Fairweather contended that there’s another way to rein in property taxes— by building more housing. “The reason people revolt against the taxes when property values go up is that they’re not linking it to the root cause, which is that there aren’t enough homes to keep property values in check,” she said. “The way to get property values down is to actually build more. But I think a lot of homeowners want to have their cake and eat it, too, in the sense of wanting more home equity. They like that part of property values going up, but they don’t like the higher taxes. They want the benefit, but they don’t want any of the cost.”
She notes that placing hard-and-fast restrictions on property taxes and assessments doesn’t just create inequitable situations for homeowners paying different tax bills on identical properties. It can hamstring a community and set the stage for long-term challenges— especially when the policy discourages first-time homebuyers.
States that cap property taxes leave local governments with “one arm tied behind their backs when it comes to raising revenue to support things like schools and local services,” she said. “And anything that reduces housing affordability for first-time homebuyers is going to make it harder for a city to attract workers—it’ll be harder to attract teachers, police officers, anybody who works to keep the city running in that middle-income band.”
Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Lead image: Since 1995, the state of Florida has capped property tax assessment increases on primary residences to three percent a year or the rate of inflation, whichever is less, until the property changes hands. Such caps can protect homeowners against skyrocketing tax bills, but lead to disparities in the taxes new and longtime homeowners pay. Credit: ntzolov via E+/Getty Images.
As Wars Rage, Cities Face a Dark New Era of Urban Destruction
This article is reprinted with permission from Bloomberg CityLab, where it originally appeared.
Not far from the pyramids of Giza, symbols of the endurance of civilization, a global group of urban planners and scholars recently gathered to confront the myriad threats afflicting the physical city.
Calamity associated with climate change continued to be top of mind at UN-Habitat’s World Urban Forum 12, a summit to promote equitable and sustainable global cities held in Cairo in November. But another driver of urban devastation loomed especially large: intensifying military conflict.
In Gaza and Ukraine, entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble, following on the vast destruction seen in Syria, Iraq, and the former Yugoslavia in the last nearly half-century. While attacking human settlement is hardly new—from the sacking of Rome to the London blitz to Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the razing of cities has grown in intensity and scope, researchers say, thanks to shifts in military strategy and advances in missile, bomb, and drone technology.
Accordingly, conflict-driven destruction—and the vastly complicated associated questions of humanitarian triage, refugees, and ultimately, rebuilding—played a prominent role in policy discussions at WUF12. With urban ruination occurring in real time not far away, one of the forum’s six major “dialogues” confronted the issue directly: In a session called “The Loss of Home,” delegates addressed “displacement caused by global crises, with a focus on rebuilding resilient communities and strengthening urban responses to protect the idea of home.”
The forum’s concluding resolution acknowledged the toll, citing “the need for resilient urban systems that can adapt and respond to the needs of all residents, fostering social cohesion and the reconstruction of homes” and noting that “local governments play a key role in driving solutions and integrating the forcibly displaced into urban development strategies.”
“Those of us brought up as architects or urban planners, we know that the home is not just about the provision of shelter,” but is inextricably bound up with family, community, culture and identity, said Sultan Barakat, professor of public policy at Qatar Foundation’s Hamad Bin Khalifa University and one of the speakers at the dialogue.
Any plans for accommodating displaced peoples, or in the longer term, reconstruction—a politically fraught exercise that will depend on who is doing the rebuilding, and paying for it—must acknowledge these powerful associations, Barakat said.
While there is no single metric, researchers and international aid organizations agree that urban destruction driven by conflict has intensified in the first quarter of the 21st century. Since 2002, approximately 432,000 civilians have been killed, and 38 million forcibly displaced, according to the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University. Most were city dwellers, partly a reflection of continuing global rural-to-urban migration.
Over the last several decades, the battlefield has shifted to dense urban areas, military scholars say, often because insurgent or paramilitary forces have embedded themselves into the civilian population. In other cases, armies are simply seeking to make territorial gains city by city—an established military tactic that is today playing out in an excruciatingly drawn-out process.
“Evacuation and exile appear to be the main objective: depopulation lowers the human capital of countries and depresses their economies,” writes University of Glasgow professor Josef Konvitz in his 2023 article “People Are the Target: Urban Destruction in the 21st Century.” “Moreover, the increased number of refugees can be turned into an instrument to exert leverage on other countries, destabilizing regions far removed from the war zone.”
Advances in weaponry also play a role. While modern weapons systems can hit with great accuracy—and in some cases civilians are forewarned of an attack—the sheer volume and intensity of today’s urban bombardments has brought shocking devastation. By some measures, the campaign on Gaza has outpaced Allied bombings of Germany during World War II. Human rights groups have decried the use of weapons like ground-penetrating bunker buster ordnance, air-launched glide bombs and “barrel bombs”—oil barrels filled with explosives—on the populations of cities like Kharkiv in Ukraine and Aleppo in Syria. This carnage has brought into the discourse the concept of urbicide, referring to the deliberate destruction of cities, their iconic architecture, and their identity.
The end result, as listed by United Nations Under-Secretary Anacláudia Rossbach, executive director of UN-Habitat, which organizes the World Urban Forum: 1.4 million homes damaged or destroyed and 3.7 million people displaced in Ukraine; 227,000 homes destroyed and 2 million forced to flee in Gaza; and 6,700 residential buildings destroyed and 1.2 million people displaced in Lebanon.
“The situation is huge and urgent. The sense of emergency—we need to bring that to the table,” she said before a hushed audience at the event, offering to work with other parts of the UN, especially with regard to building safe housing. “My view on that is that we can support in looking at the long term. While all the agencies are very well equipped to provide immediate humanitarian support, we can help look beyond the humanitarian crisis. We can work with communities, with local governments, with local stakeholders, with the civil society, because we do have these entry points naturally throughout our work.”
Conflict-related destruction of cities is a “huge and urgent” situation, said Anacláudia Rossbach, executive director of UN-Habitat and former director of the Lincoln Institute’s Latin America and the Caribbean program, at the World Urban Forum in 2024. Credit: UN-Habitat.
Beyond near-term measures geared toward humanitarian relief and accepting refugees—an estimated 9 million are expected in Egypt alone—the broader discussion of reconstruction from these current conflicts is so politically fraught that it’s hard to envision a way back from all the destruction. The rebuilding of Europe under the Marshall Plan appears straightforward by comparison. As the journal article author Konvitz wrote: “Cities destroyed in world wars were rebuilt; cities destroyed in today’s urban battles, often in fragile, unstable states, may be left in ruins for years.”
Nevertheless, there are tools and methodologies available to facilitate rebuilding, these experts said in Cairo, from post-disaster land readjustment strategies to geospatial mapping, which can instantly assess the damage and define the land use parameters of reconstruction.
At WUF12, those with experience with the devastation of warfare on cities talked about the importance of neighborhood-scale planning. Mona Fawaz, professor in urban studies and planning at the American University of Beirut, warned against a focus on rebuilding individual buildings, which can engender competition. Instead, she envisioned building a “collective” that would have “custody over the neighborhood and the space of negotiation with public authorities. Once we don’t focus on the collective and we don’t put the public at the center of our attention, what happens is that people don’t come back.”
Another challenge, she said, is the regulatory framework. Consider that cities and villages in southern Lebanon, for example, were built before modern building codes: “So the framework allows only for reconstruction not as it used to be before, which destroys heritage and the sense of identity in these collectives, or then to build illegally.”
Ammar Azzouz, a research fellow at the School of Geography and the Environment at the University of Oxford, agreed that if cities can ever recover from the horrors of conflict over recent years, rebuilding will need to be informed by more basic elements of urbanism. There is too much emphasis on the destruction of “cultural heritage and monuments and the ancient and the classical antiquity sites, but less often there is a focus on the everyday, on the mundane, on the bakery shops on the streets, the neighborhood, the schools,” he said.
“These power dynamics are so important, and I feel like we have to to move from our obsession in academia and journalism and international organizations of focusing on one mosque or one church or a bridge, to celebrate the success of reconstruction,” Azzouz said, asserting that master plans formulated by aggressors do not constitute genuine rebuilding at all. “We need to think about the wider question of what reconstruction means for the local people, and how can we listen to their voices.”
Lead image: A residential building in Odesa, Ukraine, damaged by a Russian drone strike in 2024. Credit: Office of the President of Ukraine via Flickr/CC0 1.0 Universal.
Report from Cairo: For Global Cities, Pressures Just Keep Building
Urban planners, elected officials, representatives of nonprofit organizations, and others came together in the historic metropolis of Cairo in late 2024 to confront the relentless pressures that global cities are facing, at the World Urban Forum 12 convened by the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). The theme of the summit was “It all starts at home.”
Growing populations, a continuing housing crisis, and climate change–triggered disasters including floods, droughts, and fires—as well as vast destruction associated with military conflict—have brought new intensity to efforts to support burgeoning urban areas across the globe, particularly in the developing world.
At the closing ceremony, UN-Habitat Executive Director Anaclaudia Rossbach, noting that two-thirds of the world’s population resides in urban areas, highlighted the pivotal role of local governments in shaping cities and human settlements. Rossbach, previously the director of the Latin America and the Caribbean program at the Lincoln Institute, said the conference set new records of engagement, with 24,000 participants from 182 countries.
“The World Urban Forum is a uniquely relevant event for those concerned about the quality and promise of human settlements large and small,” said Enrique R. Silva, chief program officer at the Lincoln Institute. “It’s an event that tackles the complex nature of urban issues by embracing a diversity of voices, techniques, and tools. For the Lincoln Institute, the World Urban Forum is a key space in which we can demonstrate how land and land policy can provide effective solutions to address housing, climate, and public health concerns, among other global, national, and local policy priorities.”
At the summit’s Dialogue 4: Localizing Finance and Financing Localization, Silva lauded local government efforts to boost own-source revenues, especially revenues that can be generated through the property tax or land value capture. “A local government’s capacity to leverage and manage own-source revenue not only strengthens its local finances, but also demonstrates to national and multilateral funders that it has the ability to plan, finance, and deliver projects,” he said. “This capacity can help local governments access larger sources of funding for much-needed projects.”
World Urban Forum attendees from around the world explored the Lincoln Institute exhibit space and engaged in discussions about land policy issues during the four-day conference. Credit: Lincoln Institute.
Representatives from the Lincoln Institute delegation participated in panels and training sessions focused on financing local development, climate mitigation and resilience, land value capture, and affordable housing. They also took part in an open house presented by the Center for Geospatial Solutions and a special Urban Library event featuring municipal leaders and the Lincoln Institute book Mayor’s Desk: 20 Conversations with Local Leaders Solving Global Problems. That event included the governor of Cairo, Ibrahim Saber Khalil, who will be the next local leader interviewed in the ongoing Mayor’s Desk series. Other municipal leaders who participated in the panel, Mayors and Innovators: Replicable Strategies for Local Political and Technological Change, included Manuel de Araujo, mayor of Quelimane, Mozambique; Kostas Bakoyannis, former mayor of Athens; and Marvin Rees, former mayor of Bristol, England.
The issue of climate change remains prominent in any consideration of global cities and their future, said Amy Cotter, director of urban sustainability at the Lincoln Institute.
“In this unparalleled global conversation about all things urban, the context of a changing climate is ever present,” she said. “City leaders are very aware of their dual roles—both agent and victim of climate change impacts—and eager for levers of change that they can control. I was impressed with their level of engagement in our sessions on land-based climate finance and on preparing for a potential climate-induced population influx, and their commitment to putting ideas and approaches into practice back home.”
New construction on the outskirts of Cairo, Egypt. The city, which hosted the World Urban Forum in 2024, is home to 22 million people. Credit: Anthony Flint.
Housing inadequacy—affecting an estimated 2.8 billion people worldwide—was the weighty topic at Meeting the Moment: Innovations in Housing Supply to Address Inequality in Cities, where Darla Munroe, director of Research and Cross-Cutting Initiatives at the Lincoln Institute, discussed the affordability of manufactured homes, as well as zoning reform efforts in the US aimed at increasing housing supply.
The Lincoln Institute has been engaged in UN-Habitat’s World Urban Forum summits for nearly 20 years.
Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, host of theLand Matters podcast, and a contributing editor of Land Lines.
Lead image: Anthony Flint of the Lincoln Institute, center, meets with Cairo Governor Ibrahim Saber Khalil, left, at the World Urban Forum. Khalil will be the next local leader profiled in the ongoing Mayor’s Desk series. Credit: Lincoln Institute.
Seven Need-to-Know Trends for Planners in 2025
By Jon DePaolis, Enero 16, 2025
SHARE
This content was developed through a partnership between the Lincoln Institute and the American Planning Association as part of the APA Foresight practice. It was originally published by APA in Planning.
In the immortal words of Ferris Bueller, “Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.”
Keep that in mind when you find that your next trip on a long weekend—which could be every weekend as more and more companies move to a four-day work week—will be on a solar—powered plane. Or when you buy your next multitool, which turns out to be made of a plastic that can change its form and properties when it’s heated or cooled.
With a world moving faster than even a 24-hour news cycle can handle, it’s more important than ever for planners to stay one step ahead of the issues and prepare communities as change occurs.
2025 Trend Report for Planners
On January 29, the American Planning Association (APA) will publish the 2025 Trend Report for Planners in partnership with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. APA’s Foresight team and the APA Trend Scouting Foresight Community have identified existing, emerging, and potential future trends that planners will want to be aware of and understand so that they can act, prepare, and learn.
The report includes about 100 trends and signals, exploring them in future scenarios, deep dives, podcasts, and more. Here are just a few of the trends you need to know about.
1. More Housing Hurdles: Insurance Costs, Climate Impacts, and Population Shifts
Population is growing much more slowly in the US than in previous decades, and the Census Bureau projects just a 9.7 percent population growth over the next 75 years. The concept of family is changing, too. Single-person households and couples without children now make up more than half of all US households. Single-parent and multigenerational households also are on the rise, as are roommate situations.
Less than one-fifth of US families now fit the traditional “nuclear family” model, and the typical concepts regarding households continue to evolve. But one thing that has not changed in recent years: finding housing that’s affordable is getting more difficult. According to research by Zillow, households need to earn $47,000 more than they did just four years ago to afford a single-family home. Inflation, high interest rates, and the shortage of affordable housing have put the American Dream out of reach for many, with homeownership now almost 50 percent more expensive than renting.
Meanwhile, cities in the Northeast and Midwest are seeing population losses, while states in the South and West continue to gain residents even as climate change impacts are striking those areas the hardest. Relative tax burdens and lower costs of living are likely key factors. In fact, the drastic impacts of climate change are threatening the health, safety, and lives of millions of people, with 34 percent of people in the US living in areas at risk of natural disasters and flooding and 41 percent of rental units vulnerable to climate change.
Climate change–related losses are also generating chaos in the insurance market. Insurance providers are raising rates substantially in many areas and have become reluctant or have refused to insure homes in hazardous areas. Big insurers have pulled out of Florida, Louisiana, and California, a state where insurance giant State Farm stopped accepting applications because of “rapidly growing catastrophic exposure.” (Future scenarios in the Trend Report can help planners explore how this situation could play out in the next 10 years.)
To mitigate insurance market impacts to homeowners, regulators can employ strategies such as mandating insurance industry transparency and forbidding “bluelining,” the increase in premiums or withdrawal of services in high-risk areas by providers. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners recently adopted a National Climate Resilience Strategy for Insurance to guide regulators and providers alike, and Florida has passed several laws aiming to reduce insurance premiums and provide mitigation grants to homeowners and multifamily property owners.
2. Public Spaces for Shaggy—and Scooby Too
As the need for public, “third places” grows, some cities are reimagining how spaces can adapt or where new ones can be created. This includes factoring in places for pets, especially since more US households have pets than children. The global pet industry is expected to reach nearly $500 billion by 2030. Cities can obtain a “pet-friendly” certification to fetch more tourists, and the number of US dog parks is exploding, with a 40 percent increase in public dog park development from 2009 to 2020. In San Francisco, developers are adding dog-specific areas near housing complexes to attract buyers.
3. Water Is Precious and Under Threat
The Gulf of Mexico is the hottest it has been in the modern era, causing rapidly forming storms like hurricanes Helene and Milton this past year that devastated the US East Coast. Meanwhile, temperatures in the Great Barrier Reef are the highest they’ve been in four centuries, while heat-driven ocean expansion has caused a third of global sea level rise. In the Persian Gulf, water is scarce and valuable, as growing populations and development reach an all-time high. Globally, a quarter of all food crops are threatened by unreliable or highly stressed water supplies. At the same time, water currents in the Arctic and the Atlantic appear to be slowing down, with the potential to change weather patterns and put food-producing regions at risk.
Meanwhile, large-scale commercial water bottling operations driven by private equity are posing an increasing risk to the stability of local water sources in the US, as is the growth of artificial intelligence (AI) data centers that need massive amounts of water for cooling. That is threatening local and regional reservoirs, aquifers, and freshwater sources, and some places are implementing water usage regulations as a response.
4. Could We Evolve to a Post-Work World?
The COVID-19 pandemic and the rise in remote work has blurred the lines of traditional work patterns. Take the growing popularity of “workcations” and “bleisure,” which suggest that work and personal life may increasingly overlap. Not everyone likes it; Australia enacted a “right to disconnect” law for workers in August 2024.
At the same time, our relationship with our work is shifting. A 2023 Pew Research Center study uncovered a new trend: only four in ten US workers see their job as central to their overall identity. This shift is reinforced by the idea of viewing a job as a verb (something you do) rather than a noun (something you are, like an accountant or technician).
Attitudes toward leisure are changing, too. If individuals use their free time to pursue personal projects or passions, leisure could replace work as a primary focus in life. With the percentage of Americans older than 65 expected to rise to 23 percent by 2025, these current and future retirees also are seeking to make the most of their next chapter in life.
5. Digital Fatigue (and Pushback) Sets In
Digital fatigue is real. It is showing up in various ways, from a growing distrust of online news and increasing concerns over AI-generated content to disillusionment with online dating. Schools are banning mobile phones in classrooms, and states are restricting children’s access to social apps. The US surgeon general has even suggested that social media platforms should carry warning labels like those on cigarettes. In July, the Senate passed the first major internet safety bill for children in two decades.
These measures reflect a broader effort to balance the benefits of technology with the need to be more conscious about the younger generation’s well-being. For planners, this trend suggests a greater need to balance digital public engagement with face-to-face interactions, fostering meaningful communication and empathy within communities. This includes creating in-person opportunities to engage younger people in planning processes, which can help connect those generations to their communities and each other.
6. Fungus Is the Future
Pop culture may lead you to think an age of fungi marks the last of us, but the ecological and health benefits of fungi should have more than just “mushroompreneurs” jumping for joy. Fungi can help shift us away from fossil fuels, lower cholesterol, help with successful organ transplants, tackle plastic pollution, eliminate micropollutants from contaminated water, and transition to more sustainable food systems. In 2023, US mushroom sales reached $1.04 billion, and the market is projected to triple in the next 10 years. As planners look for nature-based solutions for urban environments, fungi could become a key partner in creating better living spaces for all.
7. Balancing Green Energy Demand with Indigenous Rights
As the interest in renewable energy has spiked, so has the need for mining the raw minerals and metals required by these technologies—with some estimates believing demand will quadruple by 2040. These include lithium, cobalt, and silicon, as well as over a dozen rare earth elements. But mining comes with myriad human and environmental costs, often occurring in and at the expense of disadvantaged areas. This potentially pits government and private interests against Indigenous peoples, primarily through the extraction and exploitation of resources on tribal lands.
More than half of projects to extract energy transition materials are on or near Indigenous land, and Indigenous peoples are directly impacted by over a third of global environmental conflicts, either through landscape, land, or livelihood loss. Some efforts are underway to boost Indigenous sovereignty.
Central to the issue—and potential solutions—are land use and ownership, as well as the ability to apply different lenses to see the points of view and needs of the people these decisions will affect the most. Protecting the sovereign rights of Indigenous peoples could reduce the negative impact of environmental conflicts over the green energy transition and provide solutions. One such way is by adopting Indigenous knowledge into existing approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation, like how several Native American nations are reintroducing bison to the US plains to enhance environmental and socioeconomic outcomes.
The 2025 Trend Report for Planners was written by Petra Hurtado, Ievgeniia Dulko, Senna Catenacci, Joseph DeAngelis, Sagar Shah, and Jason Jordan. It was edited by Ann Dillemuth.
Jon DePaolis is APA’s senior editor.
Lead image: Steam rises above the cooling towers of Google’s data center in The Dalles, Oregon. Credit: Courtesy of Google.
