PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page | of 39
U.S. Low Income Housing Policy
A Dynamic System Evaluation
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 2 of 39
Table of Contents
I. Problem Definition
II. Model Structure
A. Overview
B. Details
If. Presentation and Analyses of Model Behavio:
A. Base Model Behavior.
B. Policy Analyses......
C. Links Between the Model and the Real Worl
IV. Conclusions ..
A. Policy Conclusion:
B. Insights
C. Future Work.
References.........
Appendix A — Business Sector ..
Appendix B - Upper Income Population Sector
Appendix C - Middle Income Population Secto:
Appendix D — Lower Income Population Sector.
Appendix E - Housing Sector...
Appendix F — Sector Interactions
Appendix G — Section 8 Policy......sscsssscsssscesssecesscnesssneseesenesesnecssssneseeneseeesneeeeneseeceneaes
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 3 of 39
I. Problem Definition
Poverty is on the rise in this country. Families, often single parents with children,
and the elderly are two of the largest groups affected. Subsidized housing is one of
ways to fight homelessness among these groups. This year’s budget proposal has
President Bush slashing funding to the department of Housing and Urban
Development, including many programs that help supply housing to the poor. In this
project I investigate various low income housing policies to determine how and why
they would or would not work.
Context
In Jay Forrester’s 1969 Urban Model, he proposed a series of low income housing
policies and showed their implementation effects in his model. They all failed. He
basically was saying that if you bring the jobs, the housing will take care of itself. I
have attempted to recreate his experimentation with his housing policies to see if I
get the same conclusions. Then I apply various low income housing problems that
have been actually implemented in the US and see if the model predicts the same fate.
The reference modes below are the normal urban decay that occurs in cities across
this country. Land is used up, housing is abandoned, and population, jobs and
business structures decline.
Audience
My Audience is policy makers; people in the state Senate and Assembly, people in
state agencies and lobbying groups.
Model Purposes
The purpose of the model is to determine first if Forrester was correct , second if
anything we have done in reality would have the same fate in his model and finally if
slashing the budget to HUD could actually be a good thing(I don’t think it is).
Model Boundaries
I started with the Urban 2 model from Introduction to Urban Dynamics, by Alfred
and Graham (1976). The time span for the model is 250 years. The first 150 years
allows the city to decay. The last 100 years is the policy implementation time frame.
Conceptual boundary for the model is a city (or a part of a city). Housing policies in
Jay Forrester’s book shows the programs costing nothing to the city. I believe that is
a way of having the money come from the US government. Programs though funded
at the US level, have lower governments make proposals on how to specifically use
the fund. Causal boundaries then are Endogenous, but have an implied exogenous
factor if funding is cut or increased.
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 4 of 39
Reference Modes (before any interventions)
Reference Modes
100,000 housing units
200,000 iobs
| Dmal
400.000 persons
6,000 unit
0 housing units
0 jobs
0 Dmal
0 persons
0 unit
0 25 $0 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Time (Year)
Total Houses :test housing units
Jobs :test jobs
Land fraction occupied : test Dmol
Population : test persons
total business structures : test unit
Initial Policy Options (see section III for further information)
Slum Clearance demolition of a fraction of the deteriorating structures
HOPE VI replacement of dilapidated public housing with mixed income housing
Section 8 housing vouchers money paid to private housing providers to make up the
rent differential for low income folks
Justification to look at the problem from a system dynamics perspective
The problem is one of the great case studies in systems dynamics. Cities really do
decline. Neighborhoods of low income housing often have innumerable problems
associated with them. Forrester’s model shows the city getting worse whenever a
housing plan is implemented. Why is this? Is he taking all the factors into count? Is
there any housing policy that isn’t tied to increases in income that would succeed,
especially considering the elderly whose income is not likely to rise and are out of
the workforce?
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 5 of 39
Il. Model Structure
A. Overview
Sector Overview
Diagram
Housing Sector
Upper Income
Land
Middle Income Business Sector
Lower Income New Businesses
aveilebilhy M ature Businesses
Deteriorating
Businesses
Demand
attractiveness from papiitanscey attractiveness
housing Upper income from jobs
wp] Middle Income
Lower Income
The Urban model has 3 sectors; businesses, housing and population. The limit to
growth archetype shown below is the primary archetype present in the model. People
are attracted to the city because of available jobs and housing. As long as land is
available, business structures and housing will be built which will attract even more
people. Once all (or nearly all) the land is occupied, the attractiveness of the city
decreases and population stabilizes. That would be just fine except there is one other
factor at work; time. Time ages business structures and housing. For business
structures, that means that fewer jobs are available at the site. For housing, it means
that property values go down. Affluent neighborhoods become middle income
neighborhoods and middle income neighborhoods become low income
neighborhoods. The city’s attractiveness as time goes on is for the less affluent since
there is more jobs and housing in these categories. This lowers the tax base and leads
to urban decay.
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 6 of 39
Population
LIMIT TO GROWTH ARCHETYPE
Construction
fills the land
+
land fraction
occupied
“6
Business and Housing C onstruction
‘
attractiveness
leads to
demand
B. Details
Business Sector (See Appendix A for the complete model and equation list)
Sim plified Business
land availability
Sector Land fraction
occupied 0
Cuan v
Lig Pins TN ao D gterio rating
we PH Business > Bales, > Sasmess . >)
ew Business [structures] pew business LStuctures | mature business [Structures deteriorating
Construction obsolescence obsolescence structures
demolition
Business construction affects of mature bus
M ult ier struct on new bus
+ construction “mature business
weighting factor
The business sector shows the aging process of the business structures. Only new
business structures are built. Mature and deteriorating business structures come about
through the aging process. The decision to build new business is based on land
availability and demand from the population. Less land available slows construction;
higher population present in the labor force quickens construction. Demolishing
deteriorated business structures adds to the available land. Newer business employed
more and higher paid workers. As a business ages, the number of jobs and the quality
of the jobs, housed in the structure, declines. The following graph shows the ripple of
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 7 of 39
deterioration in the form of peaks in new, mature and deteriorating business
structures. It also shows the decline in jobs that accompanies the deterioration.
bus structs and jobs
6,000 unit
200,000 jobs
3,000 unit
100,000 jobs
0 unit
0 jobs
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Time (Year)
Deteriorating business structures :test unit
M ature Business Structures : test unit
New Business structures :test unit
total business structures : test unit
Jobs :test jobs
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 8 of 39
Population Sector (See Appendices B, C and D for Upper, Middle and Lower
income sectors and equation lists)
Generic
Population Sector
Attractiveness-of-jobs
multip lier jobs
attractiveness
(balancing
loop)
<Labor participatio
fraction>
Attractiveness-of-housing population to Job
multiplier <houses> ratio
wi. somal to
housing ratio
jobs for this
population
housing
attractiveness }
Attractiveness (balancing households Out P
& <0 ut migratio
multip lier loop)
hormalb
+
Population ofa
Population In specific income | Population Out
migration level migration
A
apg
Population Deaths
Population
<Births normal Births
Oo
There is a population sector in the model for each income segment of the population.
The diagram above shows the generic structure. Births, Deaths and Out Migration
are based on normal rates. In Migration is based on the attractiveness of the city to
the population segment. Availability of jobs and housing increases In Migration.
However, as the population grows the availability of jobs and housing decreases.
This slows In Migration.
<Deaths normab
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 9 of 39
Housing Sector (see Appendix E for Housing Sector and equation list)
Sim plified Housing
Sector
Middle Income
Housing Demolition
Sy pe Ls ed
Upperlncome| Houses | Upper income SJ Middle Tcome L_#2US€S_} Lower Income
Housing Housing using Housing Demolition
; _ Obsolescence 0 bsolesee’nce e
Land fraction
occupied — <Upper Income Middle
household to housing Income
Housing
a a fi tio>
construction M ultip lier “CT
Middle Income Housing
construction Multiplier “——____ ct gle tne
+
Construction
The upper income population lives in upper income housing, the middle income
population lives in middle income housing and the lower income population lives in
lower income housing. In the base model no lower income houses are built. Lower
income people live in deteriorated upper and middle income housing. Similar to
business structures, housing structures deteriorate over time. Upper and middle
income houses are constructed if there is land and if there is demand from the
population. As land fills up, construction slows, as population grows demand is
increased and construction quickens. Demolishing housing structures free land for
other uses.
Interaction between the sectors including an equation list is shown in Appendix F.
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 10 of 39
Ill.Presentation and Analyses of Model Behavior
A. Base Model Behavior
A few words are warranted on the differences between the model built here and Jay
Forrester’s Urban model. This model has no way to transition between income levels
unlike the original Urban model. This is not a problem at this stage since housing
only policies are implemented. However, policies that have job components should
not be added to this version of the model. Population in this model is total population.
In the original urban model the stocks represent the workforce only. Family sizes in
the original Urban model are larger than those used here. Household size has fallen
over the years. I performed Sensitivity Analysis on these parameters and found that
the shape of the output was the same (not sensitive).
The Reference mode graph in Section I above shows the base behavior of the system.
This graph show the business structures, housing structures, jobs and population all
growing together until the land is mostly used up. Then businesses deteriorate and
the number of jobs decline making the city less attractive and so the population
declines. The following graph shows the attractiveness of the city as seen from each
population’s perspective. When the ratios displayed are above 1, they represent
unemployment and a housing shortage. When they are below one, they represent a
housing surplus and available jobs. The city therefore is attractive when these values
are equal to or less than 1. In the base model there is unemployment in all 3 income
segments and a surplus of housing for both the lower and middle income populations.
attractiveness
2 Dmal
2 persons/jobs
| Dmal
1 persons/jobs
0 Dmal
0 persons/jobs
0 25 50 75° 100 «125 150 175 200 225 250
Time (Year)
Lower Income household to housing ratio : test Dmal
Middle Income household to housing ratio : test Dmal
Upper Income household to housing ratio : test Dmal
Lower Income to Job ratio : test personsijobs
Middle Income to Job ratio : test personsijobs
Upper Income to Job ratio : test petsonsijobs
PAD724—Project Report
Spring 2005
B. Policy Analyses
Slum Clearance
Slum Clearance
Policy
yearly percent
clearance housing
slum
clearance
policy
length of program
program start year
Karen Jarzynka
Page 11 of 39
Deterioratin
Susiness
structures
deteriorating
business °
U
tructures
emo ition
2s
Lower Income
Housing Demolition
Lower Income
Housing
Demolition
Normal
As already known, we run out of land in this model. Too much land is being used for
housing and we have a surplus of housing for our lower and middle income
populations. What the city needs is jobs, but no sites are available to build them.
Forrester’s model performs slum clearance. In fact he also performs low income
housing construction which as he shows, makes the situation worse since there
wasn’t a shortage in the first place. His numbers may be showing crowding being
relieved but I need to investigate this situation further.
In this model, slum clearance is implemented basically the same as in the original
model except that this model includes business structures in the clearance. A fraction
(5%) of low income houses and deteriorating business
s are destroyed per year. The
program starts in year 150 which is in an already at risk city. The program runs to the
end of the simulation or 100 years.
The 2 graphs below show the results of the policy. The attractiveness graph shows a
decrease in unemployment for all income levels, but introduces a low income
housing shortage to the city. The structures graph shows reflects the same concept.
Business structures increase as a result of the policy (explaining the decrease in
unemployment). The graph also shows new construction of housing for upper and
middle income levels increasing due to the attractiveness increase in jobs for those
sectors. Remember that low income housing is not built in this model so even though
there is more low income jobs, low income housing does not increase.
PAD724—Project Report
Spring 2005
attractiveness
Karen Jarzynka
Page 12 of 39
Dmal
persons/jobs
1 Dmal
| persons/jobs
0 Dmal
0 persons/jobs
0 25 50 75 100 125
Time (Year)
150
175
200
Bw
250
Lower Income household to housing ratio : test w slum clearance
Middle Income household to housing ratio : test w slum clearance
Dmal
Upper Income household to housing ratio : test w slum clearance
Dmal
Dmal
Lower Income to Job ratio : test w slum clearance
Middle Income to Job ratio : test w slum clearance
persons/jobs
Upper Income to Job ratio : test w slum clearance
personsijobs
Structures
personsijobs
40,000 housing units
4,000 unit
20,000 housing units
2,000 unit
0 housing units
0 unit
0 25 50 75 100
125
150
Time (Year)
Lower Income Houses : test w slum clearance
175
200
housing units
Middle Income Houses : test w slum clearance
Upper Income Houses : test w slum clearance
housing units
Deteriorating business structures : test w slum clearance
Mature Business Structures : test w slum clearance
New Business structures : test w slum clearance
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 13 of 39
HOPE VI
HOPE VI is a program, originally known as the Urban Revitalization Demonstration
(URD), developed as a result of recommendations by the National Commission on
Severely Distressed Public Housing, which was charged with proposing a National
Action Plan to eradicate severely distressed public housing. Under this program,
distressed housing projects are demolished and replace with mixed income housing,
lessening concentrations of poverty by placing public housing in non-poverty
neighborhoods and promoting mixed-income communities.! As of June 30, 2003,
76,393 housing units had been demolished or were slated for demolition and 44,871
units had been built or renovated as replacement.”
HOPE VI Policy
Déteriorating
usiness
structures deteriorating
yearly percent business
clearance housing Fea
slum
clearance
policy
length of program
program start year
Zs
Lower Income
Housing Demolition
Lower Income Lower Income
Housing
Construction pigusng
Normal emolition
Normal
Lower Income
Housing C onstruction
HOPE VI
Policy
Hope VI build ing
In this model, HOPE VI is implemented as a combination of slum clearance and
rebuilding of low income housing. Again, a fraction (5%) of low income houses and
deteriorating businesses are destroyed per year with the program starting in year 150
running until the end of the simulation. The rebuilding piece of the policy is
implemented by rebuilding a fraction (60%) of that which is torn down.
The same 2 graphs are shown for this policy. The attractiveness graph shows the
same decrease in unemployment for upper and middle income people but less of an
improvement for lower income people as compared to the slum clearance policy.
' US department of Housing and Urban Development, 2005, http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/about/
7 U.S. General Accounting Office, November 21, 2003, Public Housing: HOPE VI Resident Issues and
Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites, GAO-04-109 (Washington D.C.).
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 14 of 39
Again a low income housing shortage is introduced to the city, but not as severe. The
way this policy is implemented is the equivalent to a lower percentage of slum
clearance. There are a couple of problems in this. Since HOPE VI housing is
intended to be mixed income and less dense then normal low income housing, I
should have increased the construction of middle income housing or added a stock to
represent HOPE VI housing. The deterioration rates and density would need to
match what is acceptable for the middle income population. The structures graph is
nearly identical to slum clearance alone for business structures. The difference in
middle and upper income housing is due to the construction of the lower income
housing.
attractiveness
Dmal
persons/jobs
1 Dmal
1 persons/jobs
tf
0 Dmal
0 persons/jobs
0 25 50.75) 100) «125 «150 175) 200-225-250
Time (Year)
Lower Income household to housing ratio : test w slum clearance hope ¢@ —————______________— nal
Middle Income household to housing ratio : test w slum clearance hope 6 ——————_____________ mal
Upper Income household to housing ratio: test w slum clearance hope 6 mal
Lower Income to Job ratio : test w slum clearance hope 6
Middle Income to Job ratio : test w slum clearance hope 6
Upper Income to Job ratio : test w slum clearance hope 6
Structures
40,000 housing units
4,000 unit
20,000 housing units
2,000 unit
0 housing units
0 unit
0 25° 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Time (Year)
Lower Income Houses : test w slam clearance hope 6
Mid
Upp
Deteriorating b
Mature Bus
New Bu
structures : test w slum
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 15 of 39
Section 8 Housing Vouchers (See Appendix G for Section 8 implementation and
equation list)
Section 8 is a program to increase affordable housing choices for very low-income
families. Families with a tenant-based voucher choose and lease safe, decent, and
affordable privately-owned rental housing. Very low-income families (i.e. families
with incomes below 50% of area median income) and a few specific categories of
families with incomes up to 80% of the area median income are eligible for the
program. Within limits, he Public Housing Authority pays the owner the difference
between 30 percent of adjusted family income and the gross rent for the unit. The
family may choose a unit with a higher rent than the payment standard and pay the
owner the difference.*
In this model, section 8 is implemented with slum clearance since the no housing
shortage exists prior to slum clearance. The same fraction (5%) of low income
houses and deteriorating businesses are destroyed per year with the program starting
in year 150 running until the end of the simulation. The formulation of Section 8
houses was the trickiest piece of the model. I first formulated it based on the
availability of middle income housing, but used up more housing than needed. Next I
formulated it based only on need, but extreme condition testing showed the error in
that method. Finally, the formulation is based on both availability and need. Middle
income housing surplus and lower income housing shortage are calculated. The
minimum of these is the number of potential Section 8 houses. The potential is
multiplied by a fraction that is intended to represent political will. In the run shown,
100% was used. This formulation passed all tests.
The same 2 graphs are shown for this policy. The attractiveness graph shows the no
improvement in unemployment for upper and middle income people and only a
slight improvement for lower income people compared with the base run. Compared
with the slum clearance only run, the unemployment is higher for lower income
people and about the same for the others. The low income housing shortage that is
introduced is eliminated by this policy. Additionally, the middle income housing
surplus is decreased. The structures graph is nearly identical to slum clearance alone
for bus: structures. For housing, the overall quality of the housing stock is
increased with much higher percentage of upper and middle income houses.
3 US department of Housing and Urban Development, 2005,
http://www.hud. gov/offices/pih/programs/hev/tenant.cfm
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 16 of 39
attractiveness
2 Dmal
2 personsijobs
1 Dmal
I personsijobs
0 Dmal
0 personsijobs
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Time (Year)
Lower Income household to bow
Middle Incom
Upper Income household to housia;
Lower Income to Jab ratio : test w slum clearanc
Middle Income to Job ratio : test w slum clearan
Upper Income to Job ratio : test w slum clearance
Structures
40,000 housing units
4,000 unit
20,000 housing units
2,000 unit
0 housing units
0 unit
0 25° 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Time (Year)
Upper Income How
Deterior
Mature
New Busine
C. Links Between the Model and the Real World
Slum Clearance
The goal of slum clearance in the real world and the results in the model are both to
revitalize the city. The model showed an increase in businesses and jobs once land
was once again available. However, this policy is a political nightmare. The old
buildings are often part of the character of a city. Neighborhood demolition often
required eminent domain to acquire the land. Just because a place is run down does
not mean that the people who live there want to leave.
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 17 of 39
HOPE VI
The link between the model and the real world is inconclusive since there are
problems in the implementation. For example in the real world, cities with high
vacancy rates have the HOPE VI housing intended for middle income people remain
empty. Cities with a middle income housing shortage, like Washington D.C., have
low vacancy rates in the same housing. This model, as implemented cannot show this
phenomena.
Section 8 Housing Vouchers
One goal of section 8 housing is to disperse the lower income population throughout
the city to avoid pockets of deep poverty. The model could be showing this by the
increase in percentage of housing that is in the upper and middle income categories.
The implantation in this model is not based in reality. In reality budget constraints
are probably the biggest determinant rather than political will. More research is
needed to determine the most realistic implementation for this policy.
IV. Conclusions
A. Policy Conclusions
Housing Alone cannot turn around a deteriorating city but they help alleviate
housing shortages. Further research is needed before any conclusions can be drawn
about Forrester’s model.
B. Insights
Results are inconclusive because of my inability to verify the assumptions in
Forrester’s model. His tie of households to wage earners seems to miss both the
disabled as well as the elderly. His policies that are effective involve the movement
of people up the income ladder. Understanding is required of his model to determine
if he accounts for these missed populations.
While it may seem that section 8 housing is the best policy; it is especially
vulnerable to funding. In traditional public housing, once built, the housing is there.
For section 8 voucher users, budget cuts or even the failure to keep up with the cost
of living could make people lose their housing.
This model is unable to determine the craziness of cutting HUD’s budget, but
perhaps with more work it will be.
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 18 of 39
C. Future Work
My first task is to convert to Forrester’s Urban model. The differences between this
model and his are too great for a true comparison. Sensitivity testing of parameters
and assumptions within the Urban model is required to determine if changes since
1969 matter; work force participation, tie of household to an earner, ratio of the
different populations, etc.). Along with this may be a case study of a couple of actual
cities to understand income mix, homelessness rates and abandoned housing.
Second, research is needed on how Section 8 is really implemented as well as more
holistic policies like the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). An
understanding of the actual effectiveness of these programs as well as their political
feasibility is needed.
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 19 of 39
References
Introduction to Urban Dynamics, Alfred and Graham (1976)
Urban Dynamics, Forrester (1969)
This year’s budget effects on HUD funding, supplied by Prof. David Lewis
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 20 of 39
Appendix A - Business Sector
Business land = <Land fraction
multiplier f coupied>
New Business
construction normal
Business Land
Multiplier ie > hy
New Det ting
Pfs m{ Hae, Sp — Pera
: ;
New Business [structures] pew business LSt¥CHTES | mature business LStucture deteriorating
business
Construction obsolescence obsolescence jirgcinees
emolition
new business
Business construction obsolescence
Multiplier normal
affects of mature bus
structon new bus
construction
mature business
obsolescence
normal
deterioratingB usiness
demolition normal
Business laborforce
maltipher mature business
weighting factor
Business laborforce
multiplier f
affects of mature bus struct on new bus constructio
Mature Business Structures*mature business weighting factor
Units: unit
Business construction Multiplier=
Business laborforce multiplier*Business Land Multiplier
Units: Dmnl
Business laborforce multiplier=
Business laborforce multiplier {(Laborforce to job ratio)
Units: Dmnl
Business laborforce multiplier f(
[(0,0)-(2,2)],(0,0.2),(0.2,0.25),(0.4,0.35),(0.6,0.5),(0.8,0.7),(1,1),(1.2,1.35),(1.4,1.6),(1.6,1.8),(1.8,1.95),(2,2))
Units: Dmnl
Business Land Multiplier=
Business land multiplier f(Land fraction occupied)
Units: Dmnl
Business land multiplier f(
[(0,0)-(1,2)],(0,1),(0.1,1.15),(0.2,1.3),(0.3,1.4),(0.4,1.45),(0.5,1.4),(0.6,1.3),(0.7,0.9),(0.8,0.5),(0.9,0.25),(1,0))
Units: Dmnl
Deteriorating business structures= INTEG (
+mature business obsolescence-deteriorating business structures demolition,100)
Units: unit
deteriorating business structures demolition=
Deteriorating business structures*(deterioratingBusiness demolition normal+slum clearance policy)
Units: unit/Year
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 21 of 39
deterioratingBusiness demolition normal=
0.04
Units: 1/Year
Laborforce to job rati
Laborforce/Jobs
Units: persons/jobs
Land fraction occupied=
(land occupied by businesses+and occupied by housing)/Area
Units: Dmnl
mature business obsolescence=
Mature Business Structures*mature business obsolescence normal
Units: unit/Year
mature business obsolescence normal=
0.05
Units: 1/Year
Mature Business Structures= INTEG (
+new business obsolescence-mature business obsolescence,300)
Units: unit
mature business weighting factor=
0.6
Units: Dmnl
New Business Construction=
(New Business structures+affects of mature bus struct on new bus construction)*
New Business construction normal*Business construction Multiplier
Units: unit/Year
New Business construction normal=
0.09
Units: 1/Year
new business obsolescence=
New Business structures*new business obsolescence normal
Units: unit/Year
new business obsolescence normal=
0.067
Units: 1/Year
New Business structures= INTEG (
New Business Construction-new business obsolescence,600)
Units: unit
slum clearance policy=
PULSE(program start year, length of program )*yearly percent clearance housing
Units: 1/Year
total business structures=
New Business structures+Mature Business Structures+Deteriorating business structures
Units: unit
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 22 of 39
Appendix B — Upper Income Population Sector
Attractiveness-of-jobs
multiplier for upper
Altractiveness-of-jobs cliabor participati Upper income jobs per
jobs income pop t pation
multiplier ui f Upper Income act new business structure
Attractiveness-of-housing Housing Density 2
multiplier ui f
“i In Upper Income to UL jobs from new
a “ Job ratio struct
Houses>
\ Upper Income Sermon *
Attractiveness-of-housing Household PP
Upper Income TOUSeAOM size Job <N B 8
multiplier for upper pp 5 ution <New Bus
income pop household to housing jobs from enue LEEES
ratio mature struct
Attractiveness multiplier + ooninieeae Ul a
for upper income pop PP deteriorating struct Upper income jobs per
Households
mature business structure
Upper Income Pyare rtncome “De
J u
Vener Thenme In Population | Out migration business
migration
0 ut migration
Upper Income normal
Deaths
In migration
Upper income jobs per
normal
deteriorating business
structure
Births normal Deaths normal
Attractiveness multiplier for upper income pop=
" Attractiveness-of-housing multiplier for upper income pop"'*"'Attractiveness-of-jobs multiplier for
upper income pop"
Units: Dmnl
" Attractiveness-of-housing multiplier for upper income pop"'=
" Attractiveness-of-housing multiplier ui f"(Upper Income household to housing ratio)
Units: Dmnl
" Attractiveness-of-housing multiplier ui f"(
[(0,0)-(2,2)],(0,1.4),(0.2,1.4),(0.4,1.35),(0.6,1.3),(0.8,1.15),(1,1),(1.2,0.8),(1.4,0.65),
(1.6,0.5),(1.8,0.45),(2,0.4))
Units: Dmnl
" Attractiveness-of-jobs multiplier for upper income pop"=
" Attractiveness-of-jobs multiplier ui "(Upper Income to Job ratio)
Units: Dmnl
" Attractiveness-of-jobs multiplier ui f"(
[(0,0)-(2,2)],(0,2),(0.2,1.95),(0.4,1.8),(0.6,1.6),(0.8,1.35),(1,1),(1.2,0.5),(1.4,0.3),(1.6,0.2),(1.8,0.15),(2,0.1))
Units: Dmnl
Births normal=
0.03
Units: 1/Year
Deaths normal=
0.015
Units: 1/Year
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 23 of 39
Deteriorating business structures= INTEG (
+mature business obsolescence-deteriorating business structures demolition,100)
Units: unit
In migration normal=
01
Units: 1/Year
Labor participation fraction=
0.35
Units: Dmnl
Mature Business Structures= INTEG (
+new business obsolescence-mature business obsolescence,300)
Units: unit
New Business structures= INTEG (
New Business Construction-new business obsolescence,600)
Units: unit
Out migration normal=
0.07
Units: 1/Year
UI jobs from deteriorating struct=
Deteriorating business structures*Upper income jobs per deteriorating business structure
Units: jobs
UI jobs from mature struct=
Mature Business Structures*Upper income jobs per mature business structure
Units: jobs
UI jobs from new struct=
Upper income jobs per new business structure*New Business structures
Units: jobs
Upper Income Births=
Upper Income Population*Births normal
Units: persons/Year
Upper Income Deaths=
Upper Income Population*Deaths normal
Units: persons/Year
Upper Income Household size=
3
Units: persons/household
Upper Income household to housing ratio=
Upper Income Households/(Upper Income Housing Density*Upper Income Houses)
Units: Dmnl
Upper Income Households=
Upper Income Population/Upper Income Household size
Units: household
Upper Income Houses= INTEG (
Upper Income Housing Construction-Upper income Housing Obsolescence,4400)
Units: housing units
Upper Income Housing Density=
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 24 of 39
0.6
Units: household/housing units
Upper Income In migration=
Upper Income Population*In migration normal*Attractiveness multiplier for upper income pop
Units: persons/Year
Upper Income Jobs=
UI jobs from deteriorating struct+UI jobs from mature struct+UI jobs from new struct
Units: jobs
Upper income jobs per deteriorating business structure=
35
Units: jobs/unit
Upper income jobs per mature business structure=
4
Units: jobs/unit
Upper income jobs per new business structure=
6
Units: jobs/unit
Upper Income Out migration=
Upper Income Population*Out migration normal
Units: persons/Year
Upper Income Population= INTEG (
Upper Income Births+Upper Income In migration-Upper Income Deaths-Upper Income Out migration,
12500)
Units: persons
Upper Income to Job ratio=
Upper Income Population*Labor participation fraction/Upper Income Jobs
Units: persons/jobs
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 25 of 39
Appendix C — Middle Income Population Sector
Attractiveness-of-jobs
multiplier for middle income
Pop Middle income jobs per
Attractiveness-of-jobs
new business structure
maliplier mit Addeaclivenoss-eEhousing Middle Income
multiplier mi f Housing Density Wilde laciae MI jobs from new
Middl Job ratio Hcl
Hous Middle Income
Attractiveness-of-housing Household size Middle Income <New Business
multiplier for middle income Jobs tructures>
pop Middle Income
households ate = Middle income jobs per
Attractiveness multip lier Middle Income resi mature business structure
for middle income pop ‘Household to housing M1 jobs from
ratio deteriorating struct <M ature Busin
Structures>
>| —_- Middl b
Middle Income Middle income jobs per
M Hale Isp In Populus M Ak iaeone Out deteriorating business
f ation migration = Structure
oma wuae | Middle Income norm wos
Income Deaths : oe
Births
Attractiveness multiplier for middle income pop=
" Attractiveness-of-housing multiplier for middle income pop"*
Attractiveness-of-jobs multiplier for middle income pop"
Units: Dmnl
Attractiveness-of-housing multiplier for middle income pop"=
Attractiveness-of-housing multiplier mi f"(Middle Income household to housing ratio)
Units: Dmnl
Attractiveness-of-housing multiplier mi f"(
[(0,0)-(2,2)],(0,1.4),(0.2,1.4),(0.4,1.35),(0.6,1.3),(0.8,1.15),(1,1),(1.2,0.8),(1.4,0.65),
(1.6,0.5),(1.8,0.45),(2,0.4))
Units: Dmnl
Attractiveness-of-jobs multiplier for middle income pop'"=
" Attractiveness-of-jobs multiplier mi f"(Middle Income to Job ratio)
Units: Dmnl
Attractiveness-of-jobs multiplier mi f"(
[(0,0)-(2,2)],(0,2),(0.2,1.95),(0.4,1.8),(0.6,1.6),(0.8,1.35),(1,1),(1.2,0.5),(1.4,0.3),(1.6,0.2),(1.8,0.15),(2,0.1))
Units: Dmnl
Births normal=
0.03
Units: 1/Year
Deaths normal=
0.015
Units: 1/Year
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 26 of 39
Deteriorating business structures= INTEG (
+mature business obsolescence-deteriorating business structures demolition,100)
Units: unit
In migration normal=
01
Units: 1/Year
Labor participation fraction=
0.35
Units: Dmnl
Mature Business Structures= INTEG (
+new business obsolescence-mature business obsolescence,300)
Units: unit
MI jobs from deteriorating struct=
Deteriorating business structures*Middle income jobs per deteriorating business structure
Units: jobs
MI jobs from mature struct=
Mature Business Structures*Middle income jobs per mature business structure
Units: jobs
MI jobs from new struct=
Middle income jobs per new business structure*New Business structures
Units: jobs
Middle Income Births=
Middle Income Population*Births normal
Units: persons/Year
Middle Income Deaths=
Middle Income Population*Deaths normal
Units: persons/Year
Middle Income Household size=
4
Units: persons/household
Middle Income household to housing ratio=
Middle Income households/(Middle Income Housing Density*(Middle Income Houses-
Section 8 houses))
Units: Dmnl
Middle Income households=
Middle Income Population/Middle Income Household size
Units: household
Middle Income Houses= INTEG (
Middle Income Housing Construction+Upper income Housing Obsolescence-
Middle Income Housing Demolition-Middle Income Housing Obsolescence,6400)
Units: housing units
Middle Income Housing Density=
1
Units: household/housing units
Middle Income In migration=
Middle Income Population*In migration normal*Attractiveness multiplier for middle income pop
Units: persons/Year
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 27 of 39
Middle Income Jobs=
MI jobs from deteriorating struct+MI jobs from mature struct+MI jobs from new struct
Units: jobs
Middle income jobs per deteriorating business structure=
Units: jobs/unit
Middle income jobs per mature business structure=
8
Units: jobs/unit
Middle income jobs per new business structure=
2
Units: jobs/unit
Middle Income Out migration=
Middle Income Population*Out migration normal
Units: persons/Year
Middle Income Population= INTEG (
Middle Income Births+Middle Income In migration-Middle Income Deaths-
Middle Income Out migration,25000)
Units: persons
Middle Income to Job ratio=
Middle Income Population*Labor participation fraction/Middle Income Jobs
Units: persons/jobs
New Business structures= INTEG (
New Business Construction-new business obsolescence,600)
Units: unit
Out migration normal=
0.07
Units: 1/Year
Section 8 houses=
Actual LI households in section8 housing/Middle Income Housing Density
Units: housing units
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 28 of 39
Appendix D — Lower Income Population Sector
Attractiveness-of-jobs
-_— multiplier lif
Attractiveness-of-jobs
multiplier for lower income
pop
Atractiveness-of-housing
multiplier lif
Lower income jobs per
fraction>
yf new business structure
Lower Income ‘ | LowerIncome to LI jobs from new
Housing Density Job ratio struct
Attractiveness-of housing <New Busines
multiplier for lower income structures
Pop Lower Income houses> Lower lancome
household to housing Jobs = Lower income jobs per
ratio LI jobs from <¢——mature business structure
mature struct
<O ut migratio <M ature Business
Attractiveness mutipliee | LT
for lower income po ‘ower Mame ower income
“ ab Structures>
Household size households
<a
Lower Income
Lower Income In Lower Income Out
Population
migration migration
Lower income jobs per
deteriorating business
structure
LI jobs from
deteriorating struct
<In migratio
Lower Income
Deaths
Lower
Income
Births
normal>
<Deteriorating
business structures>
Attractiveness multiplier for lower income pop=
" Attractiveness-of-housing multiplier for lower income pop"*
"Attractiveness-of-jobs multiplier for lower income pop "
Units: Dmnl
" Attractiveness-of-housing multiplier for lower income pop"'=
"Attractiveness-of-housing multiplier li f" (Lower Income household to housing ratio)
Units: Dmnl
" Attractiveness-of-housing multiplier li f"(
[(0,0)-(2,2)],(0,1.4),(0.2,1.4),(0.4,1.35),(0.6,1.3),(0.8,1.15),(1,1),(1.2,0.8),(1.4,0.65),
(1.6,0.5),(1.8,0.45),(2,0.4))
Units: Dmnl
" Attractiveness-of-jobs multiplier for lower income pop "=
Attractiveness-of-jobs multiplier li f" (Lower Income to Job ratio)
Units: Dmnl
"Attractiveness-of-jobs multiplier li f"'(
[(0,0)-(2,2)1,(0,2),(0.2,1.95),(0.4,1.8),(0.6,1.6),(0.8,1.35),(1,1),(1.
Units: Dmnl
5),(1.4,0.3),(1.6,0.2),(1.8,0.15),(2,0.1))
Births normal=
0.03
Units: 1/Year
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 29 of 39
Deaths normal=
0.015
Units: 1/Year
Deteriorating business structures= INTEG (
+mature business obsolescence-deteriorating business structures demolition,100)
Units: unit
In migration normal=
041
Units: 1/Year
Labor participation fraction=
0.35
Units: Dmnl
LI jobs from deteriorating struct=
Deteriorating business structures*Lower income jobs per deteriorating business structure
Units: jobs
LI jobs from mature struct=
Mature Business Structures*Lower income jobs per mature business structure
Units: jobs
LI jobs from new struct=
Lower income jobs per new business structure*New Business structures
Units: jobs
Lower Income Births=
Lower Income Population*Births normal
Units: persons/Year
Lower Income Deaths=
Lower Income Population*Deaths normal
Units: persons/Year
Lower Income Household size=
3
Units: persons/household
Lower Income household to housing ratio=
Lower income households/((Lower Income Houses*Lower Income Housing Density)+
(Section 8 houses*Middle Income Housing Density))
Units: Dmnl
Lower income households=
Lower Income Population/Lower Income Household size
Units: household
Lower Income Houses= INTEG (
Lower Income Housing Construction+Middle Income Housing Obsolescence-
Lower Income Housing Demolition,3200)
Units: housing units
Lower Income Housing Density=
15
Units: household/housing units
Lower Income In migration=
Lower Income Population*In migration normal*A ttractiveness multiplier for lower income pop
Units: persons/Year
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 30 of 39
Lower Income Jobs=
LI jobs from deteriorating struct+LI jobs from mature struct+LI jobs from new struct
Units: jobs
Lower income jobs per deteriorating business structure=
5
Units: jobs/unit
Lower income jobs per mature business structure=
Units: pounce
Lower income jobs per new business structure=
Units: jobsronit
Lower Income Out migration=
Lower Income Population*Out migration normal
Units: persons/Year
Lower Income Population= INTEG (
Lower Income Births+Lower Income In migration-Lower Income Deaths-
Lower Income Out migration,12500)
Units: persons
Lower Income to Job ratio=
Lower Income Population*Labor participation fraction/Lower Income Jobs
Units: persons/jobs
Mature Business Structures= INTEG (
+new business obsolescence-mature business obsolescence,300)
Units: unit
Middle Income Housing Densit
1
Units: household/housing units
New Business structures= INTEG (
New Business Construction-new business obsolescence,600)
Units: unit
Out migration normal=
0.07
Units: 1/Year
Section 8 houses=
Actual LI households in section8 housing/Middle Income Housing Density
Units: housing units
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 31 of 39
Appendix E — Housing Sector
oO
A yearly percent
clearance housing
Middle Income
Housing Demolition Middle Income
en q Housing Demolition
program start year
slum
clearance
policy
Upper Income Housing
availability Multiplier f Upper Income Housing
construction normal
M th Income length of program
Upper lacome Housing
availabilty Muli er Type _ dd
| ak a mf EE
Income oa Uses ‘
Unger Ticome Houses Unperincome Ouses | Middle Income Lower Income
ousing ousing A Housing Housing Demolition
Construction Obsolescence Obsolescence
x Lower Income
Upper i ww Upper Income Housing hese teousing Lows lagi
Bper income Housing: Obsolescense normal ousin Noma Dgmo itd a
construction M ultip lier ofthe Normal
Lower Income
Housing C onstruction
Middle Income Housing Midd Iecome y
construction M ultip lier Construction <
Normal
Middle Income Housing
availability M ultip lier
Lower Income Housing
availability M-ultip er
Housing Land
M ultip lier
Middle Income Housing
Housing land availabilty Multiplier f
Lower Income Housing
multiplier f
Lower Income Housing
availability M ultip lier £
construction M ultip lier
Hope VI building=
0
Units: Dmnl
HOPE VI Policy=
PULSE(program start year, length of program )*yearly percent clearance housing*Hope VI building
Units: 1/Year
Housing Land Multiplier=
Housing land multiplier f(Land fraction occupied)
Units: Dmnl
Housing land multiplier f(
[(0,0)-(1,2)],(0,0.4),(0.1,0.7),(0.2,1),(0.3,1.25),(0.4,1.45),(0.5,1.5),(0.6,1.5),(0.7,1.4),(0.8,1),(0.9,0.5),(1,0))
Units: Dmnl
Land fraction occupied:
(land occupied by businesses+and occupied by housing)/Area
Units: Dmnl
length of program=
50
Units: Year
Lower Income household to housing ratio=
Lower income households/((Lower Income Houses*Lower Income Housing Density)+
(Section 8 houses*Middle Income Housing Density))
Units: Dmnl
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 32 of 39
Lower Income Houses= INTEG (
Lower Income Housing Construction+Middle Income Housing Obsolescence-
Lower Income Housing Demolition,3200)
Units: housing units
Lower Income Housing availability Multiplier=
Lower Income Housing availability Multiplier {(Lower Income household to housing ratio)
Units: Dmnl
Lower Income Housing availability Multiplier f(
[(0,0)-(2,2)1,(0,1),(0.2,1),(0.4,1),(0.6,1),(0.8,1),(1,)),.2,1),..4,0,(1.6,1),(1.8,1),(2,D)
Units: Dmnl
Lower Income Housing Construction=
Lower Income Houses*Lower Income Housing Construction Normal*
Lower Income Housingconstruction Multiplier
Units: housing units/Year
Lower Income Housing construction Multiplier=
Housing Land Multiplier*Lower Income Housing availability Multiplier
Units: Dmnl
Lower Income Housing Construction Normal=
HOPE VI Policy
Units: 1/Year
Lower Income Housing Demolition=
Lower Income Houses*(Lower Income Housing Demolition Normal+slum clearance policy)
Units: housing units/Year
Lower Income Housing Demolition Normal=
0.04
Units: 1/Year
Middle Income household to housing ratio=
Middle Income households/(Middle Income Housing Density*(Middle Income Houses-
Section 8 houses))
Units: Dmnl
Middle Income Houses= INTEG (
Middle Income Housing Construction+Upper income Housing Obsolescence-
Middle Income Housing Demolition-Middle Income Housing Obsolescence,6400)
Units: housing units
Middle Income Housing availability Multiplier=
Middle Income Housing availability Multiplier f(Middle Income household to housing ratio)
Units: Dmnl
Middle Income Housing availability Multiplier f(
[(0,0)-(2,2)],(0,0.2),(0.2,0.25),(0.4,0.35),(0.6,0.5),(0.8,0.7),(1,1),(1.2,1.35),(1.4,1.6),(1.6,1.8),(1.8,1.95),(2,2))
Units: Dmnl
Middle Income Housing Construction=
Middle Income Houses*Middle Income Housing Construction Normal*
Middle Income Housingconstruction Multiplier
Units: housing units/Year
Middle Income Housing construction Multiplier=
Housing Land Multiplier*Middle Income Housing availability Multiplier
Units: Dmnl
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 33 of 39
Middle Income Housing Construction Normal=
0.04
Units: 1/Year
Middle Income Housing Demolition=
Middle Income Houses*Middle Income Housing Demolition Normal
Units: housing units/Year
Middle Income Housing Demolition Normal=
0.01
Units: 1/Year
Middle Income Housing Obsolescence=
Middle Income Houses*Middle Income Housing Obsolescence Normal
Units: housing units/Year
Middle Income Housing Obsolescence Normal=
0.03
Units: 1/Year
program start year=
150
Units: Year
slum clearance policy=
PULSE(program start year, length of program )*yearly percent clearance housing
Units: 1/Year
Upper Income household to housing ratio=
Upper Income Households/(Upper Income Housing Density*Upper Income Houses)
Units: Dmnl
Upper Income Houses= INTEG (
Upper Income Housing Construction-Upper income Housing Obsolescence,4400)
Units: housing units
Upper Income Housing availability Multiplier=
Upper Income Housing availability Multiplier {(Upper Income household to housing ratio)
Units: Dmnl
Upper Income Housing availability Multiplier f(
[(0,0)-(2,2)],(0,0.2),(0.2,0.25),(0.4,0.35),(0.6,0.5),(0.8,0.7),(1,1),(1.2,1.35),(1.4,1.6),(1.6,1.8),(1.8,1.95),(2,2))
Units: Dmnl
Upper Income Housing Construction=
Upper Income Houses*Upper Income Housing construction normal*
Upper Income Housing construction Multiplier
Units: housing units/Year
Upper Income Housing construction Multiplier=
Housing Land Multiplier*Upper Income Housing availability Multiplier
Units: Dmnl
Upper Income Housing construction normal=
0.05
Units: 1/Year
Upper income Housing Obsolescence=
Upper Income Housing Obsolescense normal*Upper Income Houses
Units: housing units/Year
Upper Income Housing Obsolescense normal=
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 34 of 39
0.03
Units: 1/Year
yearly percent clearance housing=
0
Units: 1/Year
Appendix F — Sector Interactions
Land per business
Structure
etures> 9
ORS al natit land occupied by Area
————
ess_ structures businesses
<New Business
eno rang Land per house
ctures>
wp Land fraction
<Upper Incc ad ian LZ occupied
Middle Income
ouses> land occupied by
: Fraction of Lower housing
<Lower Income Income Houses Births <Lo nial
Homver , Births>
<Middle Income we Income
8 houses> Percentage Deaths>
“erie Se rnin z oy dle Income
Deaths
r Income ey “hi ™ -
Population> Labor participation >
fraction
pperIncome rons wists, xd In Migration <g——___<Upper Income I
Jobs> n>
a “i Out Migration a iio omet
<M idle Income Laborioreew job (idle Income In
fahes <Lower Income ratio migration>
Jobs> Lower Income |
lower licome Oi <Middle Inc migration>
migration> m2 <Uppe Income Out
migration>
Area=
10000
Units: Acre
Births=
Lower Income Births+Middle Income Births+Upper Income Births
Units: persons/Year
Deaths=
Lower Income Deaths+Middle Income Deaths+Upper Income Deaths
Units: persons/Year
Deteriorating business structures= INTEG (
+mature business obsolescence-deteriorating business structures demolition,100)
Units: unit
Fraction of Lower Income Houses:
(Lower Income Houses+Section 8 houses)/Total Houses
Units: Dmnl
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 35 of 39
In Migration=
Lower Income In migration+Middle Income In migration+Upper Income In migration
Units: persons/Year
Jobs=
Lower Income Jobs+Middle Income Jobs+Upper Income Jobs
Units: jobs
Labor participation fraction=
0.35
Units: Dmnl
Laborforce=
Population*Labor participation fraction
Units: persons
Laborforce to job ratio=
Laborforce/Jobs
Units: persons/jobs
Land fraction occupied=
(land occupied by businesses+land occupied by housing)/Area
Units: Dmnl
land occupied by businesses=
total business structures*Land per business structure
Units: Acre
land occupied by housing=
Total Houses*Land per house
Units: Acre
Land per business structure=
0.2
Units: Acre/unit
Land per house=
O41
Units: Acre/housing units
Lower Income Births=
Lower Income Population*Births normal
Units: persons/Year
Lower Income Deaths=
Lower Income Population*Deaths normal
Units: persons/Year
Lower Income Houses= INTEG (
Lower Income Housing Construction+Middle Income Housing Obsolescence-
Lower Income Housing Demolition,3200)
Units: housing units
Lower Income In migration=
Lower Income Population*In migration normal*Attractiveness multiplier for lower income pop
Units: persons/Year
Lower Income Jobs=
LI jobs from deteriorating struct+LI jobs from mature struct+LI jobs from new struct
Units: jobs
Lower Income Out migration=
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 36 of 39
Lower Income Population*Out migration normal
Units: persons/Year
Lower Income Population= INTEG (
Lower Income Births+Lower Income In migration-Lower Income Deaths-
Lower Income Out migration,12500)
Units: persons
Mature Business Structures= INTEG (
+new business obsolescence-mature business obsolescence,300)
Units: unit
Middle Income Births=
Middle Income Population*Births normal
Units: persons/Year
Middle Income Deaths=
Middle Income Population*Deaths normal
Units: persons/Year
Middle Income Houses= INTEG (
Middle Income Housing Construction+Upper income Housing Obsolescence-
Middle Income Housing Demolition-Middle Income Housing Obsolescence,6400)
Units: housing units
Middle Income In migration=
Middle Income Population*In migration normal*Attractiveness multiplier for middle income pop
Units: persons/Year
Middle Income Jobs=
MI jobs from deteriorating struct+MI jobs from mature struct+MI jobs from new struct
Units: jobs
Middle Income Out migration=
Middle Income Population*Out migration normal
Units: persons/Year
Middle Income Population= INTEG (
Middle Income Births+Middle Income In migration-Middle Income Deaths-
Middle Income Outmigration,25000)
Units: persons
New Business structures= INTEG (
New Business Construction-new business obsolescence,600)
Units: unit
Out Migration=
Lower Income Out migration+Middle Income Out migration+Upper Income Out migration
Units: persons/Year
Percentage population growth=
(Births+In Migration-Deaths-Out Migration)/Population
Units: 1/Year
Population=
Lower Income Population+Middle Income Population+Upper Income Population
Units: persons
Section 8 houses=
Actual LI households in section8 housing/Middle Income Housing Density
Units: housing units
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 37 of 39
total business structures=
New Business structures+Mature Business Structures+Deteriorating business structures
Units: unit
Total Houses=
Lower Income Houses+Middle Income Houses+Upper Income Houses
Units: housing units
Upper Income Births=
Upper Income Population*Births normal
Units: persons/Year
Upper Income Deaths=
Upper Income Population*Deaths normal
Units: persons/Year
Upper Income Houses= INTEG (
Upper Income Housing Construction-Upper income Housing Obsolescence,4400)
Units: housing units
Upper Income In migration=
Upper Income Population*In migration normal*Attractiveness multiplier for upper income pop
Units: persons/Year
Upper Income Jobs=
UI jobs from deteriorating struct+UI jobs from mature struct+UI jobs from new struct
Units: jobs
Upper Income Out migration=
Upper Income Population*Out migration normal
Units: persons/Year
Upper Income Population= INTEG (
Upper Income Births+Upper Income In migration-Upper Income Deaths-Upper Income Out migration,
12500)
Units: persons
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 38 of 39
Appendix G — Section 8 Policy
<Lower Income
Housing Density> incom
<M iddle Income Capacity of LI Houses>
households> houses =
<M iddle Income
Houses>
Low Income
<Lower income
MI housing surplus housing shortage qq
a households>
Capacity of MI
houses
Potential LI households Percent of need
in section 8 Politically willing to
meet
<M iddle Income Actual LI households in
Housing Density> section’ housing
ig ae
Section 8 houses
Actual LI households in section8 housing=
Potential LI households in section 8*section8 policy
Units: household
Capacity of LI houses=
Lower Income Houses*Lower Income Housing Density
Units: household
Capacity of MI houses=
Middle Income Houses*Middle Income Housing Density
Units: household
Low Income housing shortage=
MAX( 0, Lower income houscholds-Capacity of LI houses)
Units: household
Lower income households=
Lower Income Population/Lower Income Household size
Units: household
Lower Income Houses= INTEG (
Lower Income Housing Construction+Middle Income Housing Obsolescence-
Lower Income Housing Demolition,3200)
Units: housing units
Lower Income Housing Density=
15
PAD724—Project Report Karen Jarzynka
Spring 2005 Page 39 of 39
Units: household/housing units
MI housing surplus=
MAX(0, Capacity of MI houses-Middle Income households)
Units: household
Middle Income households=
Middle Income Population/Middle Income Household size
Units: household
Middle Income Houses= INTEG (
Middle Income Housing Construction+Upper income Housing Obsolescence-
Middle Income Housing Demolition-Middle Income Housing Obsolescence,6400)
Units: housing units
Middle Income Housing Densit
1
Units: household/housing units
Percent of need Politically willing to meet=
0
Units: Dmnl
Potential LI households in section 8=
MIN(MI housing surplus, Low Income housing shortage)
Units: household
program start year=
150
Units: Year
Section 8 houses=
Actual LI households in section8 housing/Middle Income Housing Density
Units: housing units
section8 policy=
STEP(Percent of need Politically willing to meet, program start year)
Units: Dmnl
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0