Figure 1: Sensitivity of δ̂ to σy
Note: This is a plot of estimates of the proportional effect
of OZ designation (\(\hat{\delta}\))
conditional on the volatility of unobserved development potential (\(\sigma_y\)). Each point gives the \(\hat{\delta}\) estimate when \(\sigma_y\) is set to the value on the
x-axis rather than estimated. Besides fixing \(\sigma_y\), the estimation procedure is the
same as in Section 5. The vertical line denotes the
estimate for \(\sigma_y\) in the
baseline model. Source: Authors’ calculations from the
simulated model described in Section 5.
This is a single-series line chart showing how the re-estimated proportional treatment effect of Opportunity Zone designation, delta-hat, changes as the volatility of unobserved development potential, $$sigma_y$$, is fixed at different values. The horizontal axis is fixed$$ sigma_y$$, ranging from 0.0 to about 1.25. The vertical axis is the re-estimated treatment effect, ranging from about -0.2 to 0.25. The plotted series declines steadily as sigma_y increases. When sigma_y is 0, the estimated effect is about 0.25, and delta-hat declines about linearly to 0 as $$sigma_y$$ rises to just above 1. The curve declines sharply at higher values of $$sigma_y$$, reaching about -0.19 at $$ sigma_y = 1.25$$. A vertical dashed line labelled 'Estimated $$sigma_y'$$ is drawn at roughly 0.67; interpolating the line at that point gives an estimated treatment effect of about 0.12.
Figure 2: Aid vs. Investment Tradeoffs
Note: This is a plot of the tradeoff between designating
tracts with high poverty vs. designating tracts that will respond more
to OZ designation. Each point gives the counterfactual average poverty
rate in designated areas (y-axis) and treatment effect of OZ designation
in designated areas (x-axis) when states have different prioritization
of investment (\(\theta\)). Dots move
down and to the right (lower poverty and higher investment response) as
\(\theta\) rises. Source:
Authors’ calculations from the simulated model described in Section 5.
This is a scatter plot tracing a policy frontier between poverty targeting and construction response under alternative values of the uniform investment-prioritization parameter theta. The horizontal axis is the treatment effect of designation, measured in additional construction starts per designated tract; it runs from roughly 0.09 to 0.145. The vertical axis is the average poverty rate for designated tracts; it runs from roughly 0.26 to 0.37. There is a roughly linear, negative relationship between treatment effects and poverty. At theta = 0, where states put no weight on investment potential, designated tracts have an average poverty rate of about 0.37 and the treatment effect is about 0.09 construction starts and the average poverty falls as theta rises to 1. At theta = 1, where states fully prioritize investment potential, the poverty rate is in designated tracts is about 0.26 and the treatment effect is about 0.145.
Figure A.1: State Planning Sensitivity
Note: This figure plots the state-specific coefficient
estimate on pre-OZ planning when the specification from Column (1) of
Table 2 is expanded to the interaction of
pre-OZ planning with state indicator variables. Planning sensitivity is
the imputed weight that a state placed on initial planning activity in
selecting tracts, namely, the state-specific coefficient estimate on
pre-OZ planning when the specification from Column (1) of Table 2 is expanded to include the interaction
of pre-OZ planning with state indicator variables. Investment
opportunity prioritization is a score (from 1 to 5) indexing how much a
state took into account investment potential in designating tracts (as
formed by GPT-5.2’s scoring of public comments regarding allocation
decisions). High investment opportunity prioritization states are
denoted by blue dots with labels above markers, while other states are
denoted by red dots, with labels below the markers.
Source: Authors’ calculations using Dodge Data & Analytics,
information on OZ designation from the IRS, ACS, LODES workplace area
characteristics, and Baum-Snow and Han, 2024.
This is a ranked scatter plot of state-specific planning-sensitivity estimates. The horizontal axis is state rank, from 0 to 50, ordered by the estimated preference for high-plan tracts. The vertical axis is the estimated preference for high-plan tracts, ranging from about -0.1 to 0.2. Each point is labelled with a two-letter state abbreviation. Blue points identify high investment-opportunity-prioritization states, while red points identify other states. Visually the states with the highest preference for planning (a high rank) tend to also have a high investment preference (blue dots). Specific values for the planning sensitivity and investment prioritization by state are in Table A.1.
Figure A.2: Multifamily Housing Statistics
(a) Multifamily Starts
(b) Multifamily Under Construction
(c) Multifamily Completions
Note: We compare data in implied unit starts,
units under construction, and unit completions from the Dodge data to
reported statistics for buildings with five or more units from the US
Census and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from
Dodge Data & Analytics, Inc. and the US Census and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, retrieved from Haver Analytics.
This figure contains three time-series panels comparing Dodge data with Census/HUD statistics for multifamily housing with five or more units. In each panel, the red line is Dodge and the black line is Census/HUD. The time axis runs from January 2005 to January 2025. Panel (a), Multifamily Starts, plots thousands of units with a vertical scale from 0 to 60. Both series are around 20,000 to 30,000 units per month in the mid-2000s, fall sharply during the financial crisis to roughly 5,000 to 10,000 around 2010, and then rise through the 2010s. By the late 2010s and early 2020s, both series are generally in the 25,000 to 45,000 range. Around 2022 to 2023, starts peak near 50,000 to 60,000, before falling in early 2025. The two series are noisy but track each other closely over the full period. Panel (b), Multifamily Under Construction, plots thousands of units with a vertical scale from 0 to 1,000. Census/HUD is around 400,000 units in 2005 to 2008, falls to about 200,000 around 2011, then rises steadily to about 600,000 by 2017 to 2019. Dodge follows the same broad path, starting lower in 2005, converging with Census/HUD by the late 2000s, and then moving somewhat above Census/HUD after about 2013. Both series climb sharply after 2020 and peak around 2023, with Dodge slightly above 1,000,000 units and Census/HUD just below 1,000,000. Both decline by early 2025, with Dodge near 850,000 and Census/HUD around 775,000 to 800,000. Panel (c), Multifamily Completions, plots thousands of units with a vertical scale from 0 to 80. Census/HUD completions are about 20,000 to 30,000 in 2005 to 2008; Dodge starts near zero in 2005 but rises to the 15,000 to 25,000 range by 2007 to 2009. Both series fall to about 10,000 around 2011, then trend upward. From the late 2010s through the early 2020s, completions mostly range from 20,000 to 40,000. In 2023 to 2024, both series show high readings and spikes, with both peaking a bit about 60,000. The panel shows that Dodge and Census/HUD give broadly similar cyclical patterns, though month-to-month differences can be large.
Figure A.3: Comparison of Completions in Dodge Real Estate Analyzer to
CoStar
(a) Office Completions
(b) Retail Completions
(c) Warehouse Completions
Note: Warehouses are compared to logistical
industrial properties from CoStar. Source:
Authors’ calculations using data from Dodge Data & Analytics, Inc.
and CoStar Suite (US).
This figure contains three time-series panels comparing the number of completed buildings in Dodge, shown in red, to CoStar, shown in black. The horizontal axis in each panel runs quarterly from 2005:Q1 to 2025:Q1. The panels cover office, retail, and warehouse completions. Panel (a), Office Completions, has a vertical scale from 0 to 2,500 buildings. In 2005 to 2009, CoStar reports much higher and more volatile office completions, with repeated spikes between roughly 1,500 and 2,200 buildings. Dodge is lower in the same period, mostly around 600 to 900 buildings. Both series fall sharply during and after the financial crisis. From about 2011 onward, both series are much lower and closer together, generally between 200 and 450 buildings per quarter, with CoStar sometimes slightly above Dodge. By 2025:Q1, both are around 250 to 350 buildings. Panel (b), Retail Completions, has a vertical scale from 0 to 5,000 buildings. CoStar shows a very large early spike near 5,000 buildings around 2008 and remains mostly above Dodge throughout the period. After the early spike, CoStar falls to roughly 1,000 to 1,500 buildings, rises to around 1,500 to 1,800 in the mid-to-late 2010s, and then trends back toward about 1,000 to 1,300 by the early 2020s. Dodge is smoother and lower: roughly 900 to 1,300 in 2005 to 2009, then about 500 to 900 from 2010 onward, ending around 600 to 700 in 2025:Q1. Panel (c), Warehouse Completions, has a vertical scale from 0 to 1,500 buildings. CoStar reports very high and volatile warehouse completions in 2005 to 2009, with several peaks around 1,000 to 1,500 buildings, while Dodge is mostly between 200 and 450. Both series drop to about 100 to 200 around 2011 to 2013. After that, both trend upward. CoStar rises to roughly 400 to 700 buildings by the late 2010s and early 2020s. Dodge also rises but remains somewhat lower for much of the period, increasing to about 300 to 550 by 2023 to 2025. The panel shows common cyclical movement after the early-period CoStar spikes, with Dodge generally below CoStar.
Figure A.4: Planning Starts Over Time
(a) Number of Planning Starts
(b) Value of Planning Starts
Note: These graphs plot estimates from: \[\text{Plan Start}_{i,t}=\beta_t\text{OZ
Designation}_i+\epsilon_{i,t}\] where \(\hat{\beta}_t\) estimates the difference in
planning start counts (top figure) or the value of planning starts in
millions of 2012 USD (bottom figure) in designated vs. eligible but not
designated tracts in quarter \(t\). The
vertical dashed line at zero is the time of designation in the second
quarter of 2018. The vertical dashed line at -8 is when OZ legislation
was first introduced in the second quarter of 2016. We also include a
horizontal dashed line at zero as a reference point. Contiguous tracts
are excluded and standard errors are clustered by state.
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from
Dodge Data & Analytics and information on OZ designation from the
IRS.
This figure contains two event-study panels. Both panels plot estimates of beta_t from a regression of the planning-start outcome on Opportunity Zone designation. The horizontal axis is quarters relative to designation and runs from -16 to +16. The vertical dashed line at -8 marks when Opportunity Zone legislation was introduced in 2016:Q2, and the vertical dashed line at 0 marks designation in 2018:Q2. A horizontal dashed line at zero is included in both panels. The blue line with dots is the point estimate, and the shaded blue region is the confidence interval. Panel (a), Number of Planning Starts, plots the relative number of planning starts for designated tracts compared with eligible but not designated tracts. The vertical scale runs from about -0.1 to 0.2. The point estimates are usually positive. They start near 0.10 at quarter -16, fluctuate between about 0.02 and 0.09 before quarter -8, are about 0.02 at quarter -8, and rise again before designation. At quarter 0, the estimate is about 0.13. After designation, the estimates remain mostly positive, generally between 0.04 and 0.10, except for a brief dip to about -0.02 around quarter +3. The confidence interval is wide and often crosses zero, but the point estimates are generally above zero both before and after designation. Panel (b), Value of Planning Starts, plots the relative value of planning starts in millions of 2012 dollars. The vertical scale runs from about -5 to 20. The estimates are mostly positive throughout the window. Before designation, they are typically around $4 million to $10 million, including about $5 million at quarter -8 and about $9 million to $10 million around quarters -5 to -3. At quarter 0, the estimate is about $8 million. After designation, estimates mostly remain between about $6 million and $10 million, with a high point around $12 million to $13 million near quarter +12 and a low point around $4 million near quarter +13. Overall, the figure shows that designated tracts had more and higher-value planning activity than other eligible tracts even before designation.
Figure A.5: Cumulative Planning Starts by OZ Status
Note: This is a plot of the cumulative number
of plan starts since the start of 2013, averaging over tracts that were
designated as OZs (blue), and tracts that were eligible but not
designated as OZs (red). The vertical dashed lines denote when OZ
legislation was first introduced (2016:Q2) and opportunity zone
designations were made (2018:Q2). Contiguous tracts are excluded.
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from
Dodge Data & Analytics and information on OZ designation from the
IRS.
This is a two-line time-series chart showing cumulative planning starts per tract since 2013:Q1. The blue line represents tracts that were designated as Opportunity Zones, and the red line represents tracts that were eligible but not designated. The horizontal axis runs from 2013:Q2 through the early 2020s. The vertical axis runs from 0 to 3 cumulative planning starts per tract. Vertical dashed lines mark 2016:Q2, when Opportunity Zone legislation was introduced, and 2018:Q2, when designations were made. Both lines rise over time, but the blue designated-tract has a consistently steeper slope, and the gap widens steadily. Both groups start at 0. By 2016:Q2, designated tracts have roughly 0.8 cumulative planning starts per tract, compared with about 0.5 for eligible non-designated tracts. By 2018:Q2, designated tracts are around 1.3, compared with about 0.9 for eligible non-designated tracts. By 2019:Q2, the corresponding values are roughly 1.6 and 1.1. By 2022:Q2, designated tracts are around 2.6, while eligible non-designated tracts are around 1.7. At the end of the sample, designated tracts are slightly above 3.0, while eligible non-designated tracts are around 2.0.
Figure A.6: Relative Probability of Project Abandonment and Construction
Start in Designated versus Eligible Tracts.
(a) Relative Abandonment Rate
(b) Relative Construction Start Rate
Note: These graphs plot estimates from: \[\text{Transition}_{i,t}=\beta_t\text{OZ
Designation}_i+\epsilon_{i,t}\] where \(\hat{\beta}_t\) estimates the difference in
the probability that a project in planning is abandoned (top figure) or
transitions to being under construction (bottom figure) in designated
vs. eligible but not designated tracts in month \(t\). The sample includes projects that were
in planning in the previous month. The vertical dashed line at zero is
the time of designation in the second quarter of 2018. We also include a
horizontal dashed line at zero as a reference point. Contiguous tracts
are excluded and standard errors are clustered by state.
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from
Dodge Data & Analytics and information on OZ designation from the
IRS.
This figure contains two monthly event-study panels for projects that were already in planning in the previous month. The horizontal axis in both panels is months relative to designation, from -36 to +36. The vertical dashed line at zero marks designation in 2018:Q2, and the horizontal dashed line at zero is a reference line. The blue line with dots is the estimated difference for designated tracts relative to eligible but not designated tracts, and the shaded region is the confidence interval. Both vertical axes run from about -0.2 to 0.2. Panel (a), Relative Abandonment Rate, plots the relative probability that a project in planning is abandoned. The estimates fluctuate around zero throughout the three years before and after designation. Most point estimates are between about -0.05 and +0.05. The confidence band generally spans zero, often covering roughly -0.10 to +0.10, and there is no sustained break at designation. Panel (b), Relative Construction Start Rate, plots the relative probability that a project in planning transitions to being under construction. The estimates also fluctuate around zero. Before designation, most estimates lie between about -0.08 and +0.05. After designation, most estimates remain between about -0.05 and +0.03, except for a spike of about +0.11 around 11 months after designation and a final positive point around +0.07 at month +36. The confidence band is wide and generally includes zero. The figure indicates little evidence of a persistent change in abandonment rates or in the rate at which already-planned projects moved to construction in designated tracts relative to other eligible tracts.