Correction: Under the heading “Experience from the First Year,” the percent increase in FY2012 over what was collected in FY2011 under the previous PILOT program was incorrectly reported. The correct percentage is 28.4. Both the PDF and text version below list the correct amount.

Historically communities with high concentrations of nonprofit institutions such as hospitals, colleges, and museums have struggled with the reduced tax base associated with these tax-exempt properties. For Boston, Massachusetts, the preponderance of tax-exempt property, combined with a high reliance on the property tax for local revenue, has made this impact particularly acute. Beginning in the early 1970s, Boston began seeking payments from its nonprofit organizations as a way of offsetting the loss of revenue and the increase in public service demands associated with the institutions it hosts.

Although these payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) expanded over time, the City of Boston remained dissatisfied with its PILOT program. The revenue from PILOTs represented a small fraction of the city’s overall budget, and the size of contributions from nonprofit institutions varied widely. Since 2008 Boston has developed and implemented a new approach to PILOTs that has received considerable national attention. This article examines the conditions that led to the development of Boston’s new PILOT program, describes its approach, and reports on the city’s experience in its first full year.

Constraints on Boston’s Tax Base

Boston traditionally has been at the center of any discussion regarding PILOTs. The confluence of several political, fiscal, and demographic forces has created a volatile mix for the city and its nonprofit institutions. Boston is the economic and cultural center of New England and is home to some of the world’s most renowned hospitals and universities. As the state capital of Massachusetts, Boston also hosts a large number of government office buildings and facilities. Among its more unusual challenges is the city’s small geographic size in relation to its metropolitan area. Boston is the 22nd largest city by population, but it represents the 10th largest metropolitan area. As a result, exempt institutions that service the entire metropolitan area are concentrated within the city’s relatively small boundaries. In fact, over 50 percent of Boston’s land area is exempt from taxation (figure 1).

Boston also has a revenue structure that is unique among its large-city peers, primarily because it has no income, payroll, sales, or other significant source of tax revenue. Instead, Boston relies heavily on the property tax, which represents two-thirds of all city revenue (figure 2). While New York or Chicago also have large amounts of institutional property exempt from the property tax, those cities are able to tax the incomes, sales, and other economic activity which the universities, hospitals, and other large nonprofit institutions generate. In contrast, Boston receives no direct compensating revenue associated with the economic activity that is generated by its vibrant nonprofit sector.

Further, the growth of the property tax in Boston is constrained by Proposition 2½, a statutory limit on the level of property taxes. The most significant limitation is that the property tax levy for existing properties can increase by only 2.5 percent per year. Proposition 2½’s other primary limitation is a cap on the overall effective tax rate of 2.5 percent. As Boston is well below this limit at 1.8 percent, the impact of exempt property is not a factor for this provision as it is in other Massachusetts communities. The combined impact of the concentration of exempt property, the high reliance on the property tax, and the limits placed on property tax growth by Proposition 2½ result in a more profound fiscal impact of exempt property in Boston than in most major cities.

Reconciling the Benefits and Costs of Nonprofit Institutions

Despite these fiscal impacts, Boston is fortunate to have a vibrant nonprofit sector. The city hosts some of the world’s most prestigious hospitals and universities that provide exceptional health care, research, and education to their clients. In addition to fulfilling their charitable missions, these large institutions are significant economic generators that form the backbone of Boston’s knowledge-based economy. The health care industry alone accounts for 125,000 jobs in Boston.

There is an economic disconnect, however, between the benefits of nonprofit institutions and the costs of providing their properties with tax exemptions. The benefits of Boston’s nonprofits do not stop at the city’s borders; the educational, scientific, and cultural benefits of Boston’s institutions accrue to the region, state, country and, in many cases, the entire world. Yet the cost of providing public services to these institutions and the loss in revenue from removing their properties from the tax base fall squarely on Boston’s taxpayers.

This point is critical to understanding the importance of PILOTs to a city like Boston. Many observers believe that the current interest in PILOTs is driven by the short-term fiscal stress associated with the recent recession. According to this school of thought, once the economy recovers and the municipal outlook brightens, the pressure for PILOTs will ebb. Boston’s experience contradicts this assertion. The city has struggled with the fiscal impact caused by its nonprofit sector over a long period, through good fiscal times and bad. It is this fundamental disconnect between institutional benefits and fiscal costs that is the ultimate source of this debate. Until these benefits and costs are better reconciled, financial tension between the city and its nonprofits will continue.

Measuring the Fiscal Impact of Tax-Exempt Property

The impact of tax-exempt property on the city as a whole has long been the focus of spirited public discussion in Boston. One question that has often been asked is how much nonprofit institutions would pay if their properties were fully taxable. For a long time this question could not be answered. Since tax-exempt property paid no property taxes, the city had little incentive to maintain accurate data and up-to-date assessments for institutional property. However, the continuing focus on the fiscal impact of exempt property clearly required an answer to this question.

Given the scarce resources available for a project to value exempt property, Boston needed to be creative in coming up with a method to generate reliable assessments while minimizing the costs of collecting data. At the city’s disposal was a particular type of tax return that nonprofit institutions are required to file annually, as well as broad statutory authority to request from property owners the information necessary to value their properties. Boston was able to leverage these tools to collect detailed information on the property owned by nonprofit institutions—specifically, the physical characteristics (size, age, condition) and uses. Most major institutions maintain accurate data on their property holdings. Once the assessors had access to these data, they were able to plug the information into the city’s computer-assisted mass appraisal system (CAMA) to generate assessments for the properties. Site inspections were performed to verify the information provided by the institutions and to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the CAMA-generated assessments.

The resulting assessments were then shared with the institutions. Each was given the details on the valuation estimates for their real estate holdings and provided with an opportunity to meet with assessors to review the results and raise any concerns. The city incorporated this feedback to complete the final value for the properties. Given that this was the city’s first effort to generate assessments for nonprofit property, this review step provided a valuable check of valuation data quality as well as an opportunity to share the preliminary results of the revenue impact of their property tax-exemptions with each institution.

The analysis, which was completed in 2009, revealed that educational and medical tax-exempt property would have generated $347.9 million in revenue if it were taxable (City of Boston 2010). To put this amount in perspective, it would equate to approximately one-quarter of the city’s total tax levy of $1.4 billion in Fiscal Year 2009, and would be equivalent to roughly half the revenue generated by the office, retail, and hotel properties that make up the commercial tax levy (figure 3).

PILOT Task Force

Once the assessment information was used to determine the amount of tax each institution would pay in a nonexempt scenario, a number of shortcomings of the current PILOT program became apparent. While the former program was considered one of the more successful PILOT programs in the country, the amount of realized revenue appeared small when compared with the revenue that exempt properties would generate if they were taxable. PILOT payments from educational and medical institutions in 2009 totaled $14.5 million, or 4.2 percent of what institutions would pay if their properties were taxed, and equivalent to just 1 percent of the city’s property tax levy. In addition, the level of participation varied widely among institutions. Some institutions made substantial contributions under the program, while others made limited payments or chose not to participate at all.

To address these concerns, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino appointed a task force to review the PILOT program and asked it to:

• set a standard level of contributions to be met by all major tax-exempt landowning institutions;
• develop a methodology for valuing community benefits;
• propose a program structure that creates longer-term, sustainable partnerships between the city and its nonprofits;
• clarify the costs associated with providing city services to nonprofits; and<
• if necessary, provide recommendations on legislative changes needed at the local or state level.

The PILOT Task Force membership drew from a wide spectrum of participants: two leaders each from local colleges, nonprofit hospitals, and Boston’s business community; and one each from the city council, public sector unions, and community-based organizations. The Task Force met over a two-year period to explore both the benefits and costs to Boston of hosting its nonprofit institutions and how these factors should be considered in the PILOT process. Also key was the discussion on how to ensure that institutions contribute to the program on a consistent basis. In December 2010, the Task Force recommended the following PILOT guidelines to Mayor Menino.

PILOT Program Should Remain Voluntary

The Task Force members believed a legal or statutory requirement for PILOTs runs counter to the spirit of partnership between the city and its nonprofit institutions. That partnership is critical to encouraging broad and uniform participation.

All Nonprofits Should Participate

Much of the PILOT discussion previously focused on hospitals and universities. The Task Force, however, felt all nonprofits that own tax-exempt real estate within the city should contribute to the PILOT program. To protect smaller institutions with fewer resources, the PILOT program was limited to those nonprofits with property valued at more than $15 million.

Determining PILOT Payments

Many alternatives were considered for the basis of PILOT contributions, including a per-student or per-hospital-bed fee, or a charge based on the amount of land or building area. The Task Force determined that a charge driven by the assessed value of the institutions—reflecting size and quality of real estate holdings—would result in the most equity. There was a general consensus that nonprofits should contribute some amount toward their consumption of essential services such as police and fire protection, as well as public works such as street cleaning and snow removal. These services consume approximately 25 percent of Boston’s budget, and the Task Force found that a PILOT equal to 25 percent of an institution’s fully taxable amount was reasonable.

Credit for Community Benefits

The public benefit provided by nonprofit institutions was a major focus of the Task Force, which recommended that institutions receive up to a 50 percent credit on their PILOT in exchange for community benefits. This credit recognized the significant inkind contributions made by nonprofit institutions that directly benefit Boston residents. The credit was limited to 50 percent of the PILOT amount to ensure significant cash contributions from each institution. However, the Task Force felt that if an exceptional opportunity for a program or service were available, the 50 percent cap could be exceeded at the city’s discretion.

While the Task Force did not offer detailed specifics on the services that were eligible for PILOT credit, it did provide general guidance on the types of services that should qualify. To be eligible, community services must directly benefit City of Boston residents, support the city’s mission and priorities, offer ways for the city and nonprofit to collaborate to meet shared goals, and be quantifiable.

Phase-in Period

Finally, the Task Force recommended that the new PILOT formula be phased in over a period of not less than five years. Given the change in scope of the city’s PILOT program, the Task Force understood that institutions would require time to make the necessary adjustments in their budget and financial plans to accommodate increased PILOT amounts.

Implementing the New PILOT Program

When Mayor Menino accepted the Task Force recommendations in December 2010, the city needed a plan to implement the new PILOT program. First, letters were sent to all institutions that fell within the criteria of the program. Each letter included a copy of the new PILOT guidelines and an analysis detailing the calculation of the PILOT that the city would request under the new formula. Each letter also indicated that the city would seek a meeting with each institution in the coming months to discuss the new program.

The subsequent meetings were a critical step in the implementation, providing a forum for each institution to ask questions about the program and to voice concerns. While these sessions were designed originally to provide information to the institutions on the new program, they also provided significant, valuable feedback for the city that in turn offered further guidance on the rollout.

The city’s previous PILOT program included contracts that laid out the terms of each institution’s PILOT commitment. While the contracts were useful as a reference, their value as a legal instrument was questionable since PILOT payments remained voluntary. For example, the city had never sought to enforce payment under a PILOT contract. As the city faced the question of whether contracts would be employed in the new program, the notion of negotiating, drafting, and executing over 40 contracts with institutions was daunting. Given that the guidelines already provided the details of each institution’s requested participation, the city felt those documents should form the basis of the relationship with the institutions and decided to forgo the use of PILOT contracts.

Experience from the First Year

In October 2011, requests for payment of the first installments for FY2012 were sent to all participating institutions, and the results were impressive. The city collected a total of $19.5 million in cash payments, a 28.4 percent increase over what was collected in FY2011 under the previous PILOT program. This represented over 90 percent of what the city requested—an extraordinary level of participation given the first year of a new, voluntary program (figure 4). Boston also received an equivalent level of contributions in the form of community services provided by the nonprofit institutions, consistent with the PILOT guidelines.

A key component of the program’s initial success was the emphasis on promoting a sense of partnership between the city and its institutions. Based on its prior experience, the city understood that a more confrontational approach would not be effective in the short or long term. At the same time, the institutions needed to recognize that as charities they have a level of accountability to their host communities. This accountability was encouraged in part by providing a high degree of transparency in the process. Task Force meetings were open to the public, and materials used during the deliberations were posted on the city’s website.

This theme of transparency continued in the implementation phase of the program. Information detailing each institution’s participation in the program, from cash payments to the community services provided, was also posted on the city’s website. Institutions that had less than full participation in the program were given the opportunity to communicate their reasons. Specific details on the community services delivered by the institutions were also disclosed, providing an opportunity for institutions to highlight and promote their valuable service contributions.

The Importance of Community Services

In its discussions with nonprofit leaders during the implementation of the new program, the city discovered that institutions have a decided preference for providing community services over making cash payments. Given that service delivery is at the core of most nonprofits’ charitable missions, this was not surprising. Conversely the city generally places a higher value on cash payments, which provide flexibility in applying resources to meet the highest-priority service needs of the community.

To reconcile these two divergent preferences, the city has recognized that it must further develop its ability to harness the community-service portion of the PILOT program to meet its service demands. Currently community benefits often are offered by the institutions based on their own initiative. While these services have value to the city and its residents, they may not be among the city’s current service priorities. Even in cases where specific requests for services came directly from a city official to fill a near-term service gap, such ad hoc requests lack the prioritization and review that is associated with a more disciplined budgeting process.

Requests for PILOT services should be planned and prioritized to maximize their value to the city. Under such a structure services are more likely to either reduce or replace the cost to the city of providing a service, or to provide a new service to meet a priority that the city had been unable to deliver previously. Through careful planning, directing institutional resources to priority areas reduces the city’s financial commitment and makes it is easier for the city to forgo cash in favor of institutionally preferred services. This planning process is also beneficial to the institutions, as they are better able to budget for their PILOT service commitments. As the program continues through its phase-in period, the ability of the city and institutions to work cooperatively on a structured approach to community services will be critical to the continued success of the PILOT program.

Closing Thoughts

The process Boston has followed to construct its new approach to PILOTs was both thoughtful and inclusive. The expertise and perspectives of the Task Force members, combined with the city’s decades of experience on the issue of exempt property, led to program guidelines that were recognized as fair and reasonable. The process also demonstrated that for a PILOT program to be successful the city and its institutions must be partners, not combatants.

This philosophy has formed the basis of Boston’s approach to the implementation of its new PILOT program. And, despite its early success, there is still much work to be done. The city needs to balance its need for revenue with the institutions’ preference for services. If city officials and local institutions can continue to work cooperatively on the PILOT program, a balance can be struck that will work to the mutual benefit of the institutions, their constituents, and the residents of Boston.

About the Author

Ronald W. Rakow has been commissioner of the City of Boston Assessing Department since 1992, and he took on the additional role of deputy chief financial officer in 2011. He was appointed in 2010 to the Board of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, and is currently serving as the chair of the Research Committee of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO).

References

City of Boston. 2010. Mayor’s PILOT task force final report and recommendations, December.

City of Boston Assessing Department. 2009. Exempt property analysis: Educational and medical institutions, Fiscal Year 2009.

City of Boston Assessing Department. 2012. FY 2012 PILOT recap. http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/FY12_Second_Half_PILOT_Status_Report_for_Web_tcm3-33007.pdf

City of Boston Office of Budget Management. 2012. Fiscal year 2013 adopted budget. http://www.cityofboston.gov/budget/default.asp

The foreclosure crisis and its impact on the U.S. economy seem far from abating as mortgage delinquencies and foreclosure filings continue to climb. According to RealtyTrac, a total of 2.8 million properties had foreclosure filings during 2009, or one out of every 45 residences. That foreclosure rate was 21 percent higher than in 2008 and 120 percent higher than in 2007. Maintaining home ownership has proven to be a tenuous, if not impossible, proposition for many homeowners.

Some researchers, policy makers, and advocates are questioning whether conventional, market-oriented home ownership is the best form of housing for low-income households and communities. While others continue to extol the many benefits of home ownership, they question the way it is structured and suggest that alternative models of resale-restricted, owner-occupied housing may help low-income homeowners keep their homes more successfully.

Research on one of these alternative models, the community land trust (CLT), found delinquencies and foreclosures to be far lower among the owners of CLT homes than the owners of unrestricted, market-rate homes during the market downturn of 2007–2009. This article presents these findings and examines aspects of CLTs that may help to explain the sustainability and success of CLT home ownership.

Community Land Trusts

CLTs are nonprofit organizations that utilize public and private funds to provide affordable home ownership opportunities for low-income households (usually those with gross incomes less than 80 percent of the area median income). Traditionally, CLTs purchase and retain title to the land under detached houses, attached townhouses, or multi-unit condominiums. The land is leased to residents who hold a deed to their individual homes. Some CLTs use other legal mechanisms, including deed covenants, second mortgages, or cooperative housing models, to convey ownership and subsidize properties.

CLTs provide homeowners with pre-purchase and post-purchase stewardship services to protect them from high-cost or predatory mortgage lending. CLTs also intervene to cure delinquencies and prevent foreclosures. In exchange, homeowners accept limitations on the resale price and the equity they may remove from their homes. Through this arrangement, households unable to afford market-rate homes are able to realize most of the financial and social benefits of home ownership, while CLTs are able to maintain affordability of their homes for future buyers.

Reevaluating Low-Income and Minority Home Ownership

Cross-sectional investigations have found that home ownership is the most robust explanatory factor of wealth in low-income and minority households. Home equity made up 56 percent of the wealth in households within the bottom quintile on income in 2000 relative to 32 percent for all households (Herbert and Belsky 2008). Before the housing market crisis, home equity accounted for approximately 62 percent of wealth for African-Americans and 51 percent for Hispanics, but only 44 percent for whites (McCarthy, Van Zandt, and Rohe 2001).

The financial benefits of home ownership may only be realized if low-income households are able to enter and sustain it. Longer durations of tenure greatly increase the likelihood of financial returns. When studies have examined home ownership over time, they find that low-income households take longer to enter owner-occupied housing and are more likely to return to renting; indeed, roughly half of low-income households exit home ownership within five years of purchase (e.g., Reid 2005).

Risk factors associated with losing one’s home are more common among low-income and minority homeowners. They are more likely to obtain high-risk loans for purchase and refinance, and they are more vulnerable to trigger events, such as unemployment or health issues, which are associated with higher incidents of delinquencies and foreclosures (Immergluck 2009). Almost half of low-income households are severely cost-burdened by their housing expenses (Joint Center for Housing Studies 2008). Length of tenure, loan terms, affordability, and trigger events may impact sustaining home ownership and affect the likelihood that low-income and minority homeowners will accumulate wealth or debt.

Costs of Foreclosure to Communities

The costs of foreclosure extend well beyond the households that lose their homes, impacting the immediate neighborhood and surrounding municipality. Studies in Columbus (Ohio), Chicago, and New York City have shown that foreclosed properties significantly diminished nearby housing values, and that rates of depreciation were greater for lower-income than higher-income neighborhoods. Depreciation leaves remaining homeowners vulnerable to negative equity, default, and foreclosure. Foreclosures, which are associated with rises in vacant properties and crime, tend to cluster in low-income and minority neighborhoods (Immergluck 2009).

Foreclosures also impose costs on municipalities due to vacant property demolition, administrative fees, and outstanding or declining property taxes. Apgar and Duda (2005) modeled the costs of a foreclosure in Chicago and found that more than a dozen agencies could be involved in over two dozen activities, which were estimated to cost the city up to $34,199 per foreclosure. Moreno (1995) estimated the cost to Minneapolis and St. Paul for the foreclosure of houses with FHA mortgages and found that municipal losses were approximately $27,000 per foreclosure. Higher rates of delinquencies and foreclosure filings during 2009 portend continued losses for households, neighborhoods, and municipalities.

Overview of the CLT Study

In March 2010, the National Community Land Trust Network (the Network) designed and conducted the 2009 CLT Delinquency & Foreclosure Survey (Thaden 2010). All 229 CLTs in the Network’s database were invited to participate in the online survey, and 53 CLTs (23 percent) completed it. Eleven respondents did not have CLT homes with outstanding mortgages at the end of 2009, so they were not included in the final analysis. The remaining 42 CLTs in 22 states had 2,279 resale-restricted, owner-occupied homes in their portfolios, 2,173 of which had outstanding residential mortgages as of December 31, 2009. The median number of mortgaged homes for these CLTs was 30.

The primary purpose of the survey was to examine how many residential mortgages held by CLT homeowners (referred to as CLT loans) had been seriously delinquent, entered the foreclosure process, or completed the foreclosure process in 2009. Survey items were designed for comparison with results from the Network’s 2008 survey, as well as results from the 2008 and 2009 National Delinquency Surveys conducted by the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA).

The Network’s survey replicated the definitions used by the MBA for loans that were (1) “In the Foreclosure Process,” which includes loans in the process of foreclosure regardless of the date the foreclosure procedure was initiated; and (2) “Seriously Delinquent,” which includes loans that were at least 90 days delinquent or in the process of foreclosure. The secondary purpose of the Network’s survey was to explore the practices and policies of CLTs that may help to explain the primary results.

Delinquencies, Foreclosures, and Cures

When comparing the performance of CLT loans to that of conventional mortgages for market-rate homes, it is important to emphasize that CLT loans are held by low-income households. MBA and Residential Mortgage-Backed Security (RMBS) loan samples are not limited to low-income borrowers. Considering that low-income homeowners in the market are more prone to delinquencies and foreclosures, the differential outcomes reported below may have been even greater if loans held by low-income borrowers could have been isolated for comparison in MBA and RMBS samples.

Serious Delinquencies and Foreclosure Filings in 2009

Figure 1 presents the percentages of CLT loans and MBA prime and subprime loans that were seriously delinquent or in the foreclosure process at the end of the fourth quarter of 2009. Only 0.56 percent of CLT mortgages were being foreclosed (12 out of 2,151 loans; CLT median = 0, range = 0–2), whereas the percentage of MBA loans in the foreclosure process was 3.31 percent for prime loans, 15.58 percent for subprime loans, 3.57 percent for FHA loans, and 2.46 percent for VA loans (MBA 2010). When all types of MBA loans were combined, the overall MBA percentage was 4.58 percent. Overall, MBA loans were 8.2 times more likely to be in the process of foreclosure than CLT mortgages.

On December 31, 2009, 1.62 percent of CLT mortgages were seriously delinquent (34 out of 2,099 loans; CLT median = 0, range = 0–6), while the MBA loan percentage was 7.01 percent for prime loans, 30.56 percent for subprime loans, 9.42 percent for FHA loans, and 5.42 percent for VA loans. A prime loan within the MBA sample was 4.3 times more likely to be seriously delinquent at the end of 2009 than a CLT mortgage.

2008 and 2009 Comparisons

The percentage of CLT mortgages in the foreclosure process at the end of 2008 was 0.52 percent (10 out of 1,930 loans), demonstrating a percentage point change of .04 over one year. For all MBA loans, the percentage in the foreclosure process at the end of 2008 was 3.30 percent, showing a percentage point increase of 1.28 by the end of 2009. The respective percentage point increases were 1.43 for prime loans, 1.87 for subprime loans, 1.14 for FHA loans, and 0.80 for VA loans.

The percentage of CLT mortgages that were seriously delinquent at the end of 2008 was 1.98 percent (36 out of 1,815 loans), demonstrating a percentage point decrease of -0.36 (figure 2). The percentage of MBA prime loans that were seriously delinquent at the end of 2008 was 3.74 percent, a percentage point increase of 3.27. The percentage point increases were 7.45 for subprime loans, 2.44 for FHA loans, and 1.30 for VA loans (MBA 2009).

In sum, the percentage of MBA loans that were in the foreclosure process or seriously delinquent increased from the end of 2008 to the end of 2009, while the percentages for CLT loans remained consistently lower.

The CLT Network’s surveys gathered additional information not collected by the MBA. During 2009, 0.42 percent of CLT loans completed foreclosure (9/2,160) compared to 0.26 percent during 2008 (5/1,928), which illustrates a percentage point change of 0.16. When homeowners are foreclosed upon, CLTs have a vested interest in recovering the property from the lender in order to minimize the loss of the public subsidy and preserve the affordability of the unit. No foreclosed CLT homes were lost from CLT portfolios during 2009.

2009 Cure Rates

The 2009 Network survey also gathered information on the number of serious delinquencies during the year and the total that were resolved. The percentage of CLT loans that had ever been seriously delinquent during 2009 was 2.80 percent (58/2,075). Respondents reported that 29 out of 57 were cured (51 percent).

CLTs have unique contractual rights to implement stewardship activities and intervene with homeowners and lenders in order to make mortgage payments current or preclude foreclosure completion. Respondents were asked to explain how they provided these cures, which included facilitating short-sales, offering financial counseling or referrals to foreclosure prevention programs, providing direct grants or loans to homeowners, arranging sales and purchases of a less expensive unit, and working with homeowners and lenders on permanent loan modifications.

Fitch Ratings, a global rating agency, reports cure rates for RMBS loans. They define cure as the percentage of delinquent loans returning to a current payment each month. The percentage of RMBS delinquent loans in August 2009 that had been cured was 6.6 percent for prime loans and 5.3 percent for subprime loans. Since CLTs define cures as resolving impractical financial situations for their homeowners, rather than solely as making mortgage payments current, RMBS and CLT rates are not comparable. However, these findings indicate that CLTs more often terminate serious delinquencies through a broader range of activities.

Stewardship Activities of CLTs

Intrinsic to the CLT model is a commitment to stewardship, which aims to promote positive outcomes and sustainable home ownership for residents long after they have purchased a CLT home. While stewardship is a core component of every CLT’s programming, its implementation can vary greatly. Therefore, the survey collected data on the prevalence and variety of stewardship activities in an effort to explain the low rates of delinquency and foreclosure among CLT homeowners.

The greater affordability and lower loan-to-value ratio found in CLT homes may explain part of the difference between CLT and MBA loans. However, stewardship is almost certainly a contributing factor. Without the protective shield of the CLT, low-income CLT homeowners would be prey to the same economic pressures and circumstantial factors that threaten home ownership sustainability among their market-rate counterparts. Survey results indicate that CLTs are implementing stewardship policies and practices in the following five areas, which may help to explain why CLT loans have outperformed the market.

Pre-Purchase Education

Homebuyer education enables sound mortgage decisions and prepares individuals for the responsibilities of home ownership. Because owning a CLT home entails unique contractual rights, responsibilities, and resale restrictions, supplemental education is offered frequently. The study found that 85 percent of CLTs required general homebuyer education and 95 percent required CLT-specific education prior to purchase.

Pre- and Post-Purchase Stewardship

Pre-purchase stewardship also included referrals to CLT-trained lawyers and lenders, an activity reported by 83 percent of the respondents. A one-on-one meeting of prospective homebuyers with a financial counselor was required by 71 percent of CLTs. Approximately 50 percent of all CLTs offered such post-purchase stewardship services as ongoing financial literacy training; staff outreach to homeowners; formal communications to remind them of policies; referrals for contractors or repairs; and mandatory meetings with defaulting homeowners.

Prevention of High-Risk Loans

Research finds that subprime and predatory lending have occurred more often during acquisition of refinance and home equity loans than during purchase (Immergluck 2009). Eighty-three percent of CLTs required their homeowners to seek the CLT’s permission to refinance or take out home equity loans, thus ensuring that the loan terms will not compromise affordability or home ownership sustainability and that homeowners comprehend the loan’s impact on their equity.

Detection of Delinquencies

CLTs also adopted policies and practices to monitor and detect homeowners who may be headed toward serious delinquency. Most CLTs charge a monthly ground lease fee (typically $10–50) to offset their costs. According to 90 percent of respondents, late payment of these fees was used as an indicator that a homeowner may be late paying their mortgage. Further, 69 percent of CLTs reported that they detected delinquencies through informal interactions with homeowners, and 55 percent of CLTs reported that 80–100 percent of seriously delinquent homeowners contacted the CLT on their own volition. Close to 50 percent of CLTs reported that lenders were legally obligated to notify the CLT of delinquencies or foreclosure proceedings.

Intervention with Delinquent Homeowners

CLTs reported an array of interventions with homeowners at risk of foreclosure. Two activities that are instrumental components of federally sanctioned foreclosure prevention programs were also implemented by CLTs: 71 percent contacted lenders as soon as they became aware of delinquencies; and 57 percent provided homeowners with direct financial counseling. Over half of CLTs reported other activities that enable residents to keep their homes, such as providing rescue funds for outstanding mortgage payments. For homeowners unable to keep their homes, 49 percent of CLTs reported activities to prevent completed foreclosures, such as facilitating sales to low-income buyers or directly purchasing the homes.

Discussion and Conclusions

The prevalence of stewardship activities among the nation’s CLTs may help to explain why CLT loans are outperforming most market-rate loans in terms of delinquencies and foreclosures. It may also explain the high cure rates among CLT mortgages that become seriously delinquent, as CLTs intervene to arrest the slide toward foreclosure. In this respect, CLT home ownership appears more sustainable than private market options for low-income homeowners, suggesting that CLTs may provide a less speculative and more reliable avenue to wealth accumulation for low-income and minority homeowners.

Low-income households can only enjoy the economic benefits of home ownership if they are able to remain homeowners for a number of years. If they lose their homes to foreclosure—or simply return to renting after discovering that the costs and burdens of home ownership are too difficult—low-income households cannot build wealth. The findings of the Network’s survey make clear, however, that few CLT homeowners are losing their homes to foreclosure. Moreover, other research on CLT homeowners has found that they far exceed the 50 percent home ownership retention rate reported among conventional market, low-income homeowners. Preliminary results from a study by The Urban Institute, which includes three CLTs, found that over 91 percent of low-income households remained homeowners five years after buying a CLT home. They either continued to occupy their CLT home or resold it to purchase a market-rate home (Temkin, Theodos, and Price, forthcoming).

CLT home ownership not only lessens foreclosures and increases the chances of success among the population most at-risk of losing their homes, but it also indirectly prevents costs of foreclosure for neighbors, municipalities, and lenders. Such exemplary performance implies that greater investment in this model, including its stewardship activities, is both warranted and overdue.

Only one-third of CLTs reported receiving any funding for foreclosure prevention activities during 2009, while many reported increasing stewardship activities to buffer homeowners from the economic downturn and foreclosure crisis. The study also found that only one-third of CLTs received funding to create new CLT units from foreclosed and vacant housing stocks during 2009. Hence, CLTs are not adequately resourced to create home ownership opportunities from the crisis, which could help to preclude negative outcomes associated with unsustainable home ownership in the future.

Jacobus and Abromowitz (2010) call for a reevaluation of the ways that the federal government encourages home ownership. They recommend targeting existing resources to purchase-subsidy programs like CLTs in order to more efficiently use public dollars and expand and maintain home ownership opportunities. This study provides further support for that policy recommendation.

About the Authors

Emily Thaden, M.S., is a doctoral candidate in the Community Research and Action Program at Vanderbilt University and is employed as the Shared Equity Development Specialist at The Housing Fund in Nashville, Tennessee.

Greg Rosenberg, J.D., is director of the CLT Academy of the National Community Land Trust Network and the former executive director of the Madison Area Community Land Trust. He was a contributing author to The Community Land Trust Reader (Lincoln Institute, 2010), and is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School.

References

Apgar, W. C., and M. Duda. 2005. Collateral damage: The municipal impact of today’s mortgage foreclosure boom. Minneapolis, MN: Homeownership Preservation Foundation.

Herbert, C.E., and E.S. Belsky. 2008. The homeownership experience of low-income and minority households: A review and synthesis of the literature. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 10(2): 5–60.

Immergluck, D. 2009. Foreclosed: High-risk lending, deregulation, and the undermining of America’s mortgage market. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Jacobus, R., and D.M. Abromowitz. 2010. A path to homeownership: Building a more sustainable strategy for expanding homeownership. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress (February).

Joint Center for Housing Studies. 2008. State of the nation’s housing 2008. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Joint Center for Housing Studies.

McCarthy, G.W., S. Van Zandt, and W.M. Rohe. 2001. The economic benefits and costs of homeownership: A critical assessment of the literature (Working Paper No. 01-02). Washington, DC: Research Institute for Housing America.

Moreno, A. 1995. The cost-effectiveness of mortgage foreclosure prevention. Minneapolis, MN: Family Housing Fund.

Mortgage Bankers Association. 2009. Delinquencies continue to climb in latest MBA National Delinquency Survey. Washington, DC (March 5).

–––—. 2010. Delinquencies, foreclosure starts fall in latest MBA National Delinquency Survey. Washington, DC (February 19).

Reid, C.K. 2005. Achieving the American dream? A longitudinal analysis of the homeownership experiences of low-income households (CSD Working Paper 05-20). St. Louis, MO: Washington University, Center for Social Development.

Temkin, K., B. Theodos, and D. Price. Forthcoming. Balancing affordability and opportunity: An evaluation of affordable homeownership programs with long-term affordability controls. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Thaden, E. 2010. Outperforming the market: Making sense of the low rates of delinquencies and foreclosures in community land trusts. Portland, OR: National Community Land Trust Network. (This report is also available as a working paper on the Lincoln Institute Web site.)

One of the longest standing debates in community economic development is between “place-based” and “people-based” approaches to combating poverty, housing affordability, chronic unemployment, and community decline. Should help go to distressed places or distressed people?

This policy brief covers key issues surrounding the use of nonprofit payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs): payments made voluntarily by tax-exempt nonprofits as a substitute for property taxes. It describes the current use of PILOTs in the United States, explores some reasons why nonprofits offer PILOTs and why there is growing interest in these payments, weighs the pros and cons of PILOTs, and offers recommendations.

Across the globe, implementing the Paris climate agreement is expected to cost more than US$12 trillion over 25 years.

So it’s not surprising that much of the conversation since the agreement was finalized in December has been about climate finance. And one of the big topics in climate finance—particularly among city leaders—is “green bonds.”

But what exactly are green bonds, and why should local authorities care about them? Here’s a brief explanation of the major issues.

What Is a Green Bond?

A green bond is a type of debt instrument much like any other bond—except that the proceeds must be earmarked for projects that produce a positive environmental impact.

The first bonds marketed this way were issued by the European Investment Bank in 2007 and World Bank in 2008. Since then, other development banks, corporations, and governments have joined the trend. According to the Climate Bonds Initiative, a research group that tracks the market, total green-bond issuances shot up from US$3 billion in 2012 to about US$42 billion in 2015.

Local authorities represent a growing slice of this market. They see green bonds as one tool that could help pay for renewable energy, transit systems, and water infrastructure, among other things.

The U.S. state of Massachusetts sold the first municipal green bond in June of 2013, followed a few months later by the city of Gothenburg, Sweden. Other recent issuers include the city of Johannesburg; the transit authorities of New York City, Seattle, and London; and the water authority of Washington, DC.

Are Green Bonds Any Different Than Other Municipal Bonds?

Not really. The mechanics work the same as any other municipal bond issuance. The main difference is the environmental aims of whatever the city is using the bond proceeds to pay for.

In addition, green-bond issuers face some additional paperwork—essentially to prove to investors that their money is actually being used to benefit the environment.

To some degree, green bonds are a marketing tool. Labeling a bond that will pay for subway repairs as “green” makes it more appealing to investors. “The reality is a lot of cities are issuing green bonds, they’re just not calling them that,” says Jeremy Gorelick, who teaches municipal finance at Johns Hopkins University in the U.S. city of Baltimore.

That may be true in advanced economies such as the United States, where a mature municipal-bond market has been functioning for more than a century. In the developing world, most cities are unable to issue bonds at all, and for a variety of reasons. In many countries, cities need to obtain legal authority from their national governments to issue a bond in the first place. They also have a lot of work to do in terms of establishing creditworthiness.

Gorelick, who is advising the city of Dakar, Senegal, on its efforts to issue its first municipal bond, recommends that cities in this situation not aim for the bond market right away. He says they can first try borrowing from central governments or their related municipal development funds before approaching development finance institutions for concessionary loans or commercial banks for market-rate debt. The idea is to build creditworthiness and the sort of transparent accounting that bond investors active in debt capital markets will demand.

Why Are Cities So Interested in Green Bonds?

There are many reasons. The key one is that investors really want green bonds in their portfolios right now. As a result, municipal issuers have seen sales of green bonds “oversubscribed”—a good problem for a city to have.

When Gothenburg issued its first green bonds in 2013, “we didn’t know if there would be any interest from investors,” says Magnus Borelius, Gothenburg’s head of treasury. Within 25 minutes, investors had placed €1.25 billion worth of orders—many times more than expected—and Gothenburg had to begin turning them away. “We were overwhelmed,” Borelius says.

Cities benefit from strong investor demand in a number of ways. Most important, it means they can attract new kinds of investors, diversifying the pool of people and institutions with an interest in their city. “It’s good to have a lot of investors know you have access to capital,” Borelius says. Since issuing green bonds, he adds,  “we’ve had increased contact with investors—they’re more interested in the city, and they’re coming to visit us.”

Strong investor demand “puts the issuer in an advantageous position,” says Lourdes Germán, a municipal finance expert with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Local authorities can use their leverage to increase the size of their offering, demand a longer payback period, or seek better pricing. While some cities have reported getting more favorable pricing on green bonds, Germán says issuers shouldn’t count on it. “It remains murky whether calling it ‘green’ gets better pricing,” she says.

What’s in It for Investors?

A growing number of investors want to see their money going toward environmentally sustainable projects. Some are motivated by the fight against climate change; others are simply hedging climate risks in their portfolios.

The result is that more pension funds and private-asset managers these days have some kind of mandate to think green. For example, last month, the Swedish public pension fund AP2 said it was allocating 1 percent of its €32 billion portfolio to green bonds. When you’re talking about huge institutional investors, commitments like this add up quickly.

On top of that, municipal bonds, at least in established markets like the U.S., are generally viewed as safe investments. So green bonds issued by cities are particularly desirable. “Institutional investors have a fiduciary duty and won’t invest in a product that won’t deliver a return,” says Justine Leigh-Bell, a senior manager at the Climate Bonds Initiative. “We have here an investment-grade product by blue-chip issuers where the risk is low.”

How Do You Know If a Bond Is “Green”?

There are no hard rules around that—which is a concern for both investors and environmentalists. However, the market for green bonds is evolving quickly, and some voluntary standards are emerging for issuers.

One, developed largely by large banks through the International Capital Market Association, is called the Green Bond Principles. Another was developed through the Climate Bonds Initiative and is known as the Climate Bonds Standard. The People’s Bank of China also recently released its own guidelines on green bonds.

Nobody has to use these standards, but there’s a strong push in the direction of doing so. “If I called my fire truck ‘green,’ investors might raise an eyebrow,” Germán says. “But it’s a two-sided market, so there’s some check and balance. An issuer will raise that money only if an investor believes it’s really for a green purpose.”

A growing number of municipal issuers are seeking out third-party opinions to validate their bonds’ “greenness.” That’s what Gothenburg does. The Swedish city also has created a “green bond framework” to be transparent with investors about what the city considers “green” and how it selects projects.

“It’s still early days in this market,” says Skye d’Almeida, who manages the sustainable infrastructure finance network for the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. “So it’s very important to avoid any ‘greenwashing’ scandals where cities say they issued a green bond and investors find out down the track that it wasn’t green. That would erode confidence in the market. So having some independent party verify and being very transparent about the use of the proceeds is something cities should be prepared to do.”

Does It Create a Lot of Extra Work or Cost for the City to Issue a Green Bond?

Some. Leigh-Bell puts the cost of an independent review at between US$10,000 andUS$50,000, depending on who is doing the review and other factors. That’s a rounding error on deals that are often valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Issuing green bonds can create extra work for city staff. Ahead of an issuance, there’s the need to scour the city’s capital investment plans for projects that qualify as green. Afterward, there’s work involved in tracking the use of proceeds and reporting that information to investors. According to d’Almeida, these jobs have the positive side effect of forcing people to work across their silos—finance staff must collaborate with transportation or environmental staff, for instance.

Borelius says that has been the case in Gothenburg. “The first question people ask me about green bonds is, ‘How much extra work is it?’” he says. “If you don’t put treasury people and sustainability people at the same table, it will be a lot of extra work. But if you’re issuing a green bond, you should have that in place.”

Johannesburg Mayor Mpho Parks Tau agrees that mobilizing around green bonds has paid organizational dividends. Asked recently if labeling bonds “green” is mostly about marketing, the mayor responded that the exercise has been useful for aligning local government as an institution around his environmental agenda. “We are able to say to the institution, actually, the bulk of our capital program is going to be about sustainability.”

Christopher Swope is managing editor of Citiscope.

Image credit: Dennis Tarnay, Jr. / Alamy

This article originally appeared at Citiscope.org. Citiscope is a nonprofit news outlet that covers innovations in cities around the world. More at Citiscope.org.