The predictions [§9.8.3](<9.8.3 What is Predicted.md>) states are substantially confirmed by the existing empirical record, with the qualification the record itself supports: implementations have so far run at partial rates and in a limited set of jurisdictions, so the confirmation is of the mechanism's direction and structure rather than of any specific rate or design as final.

*Land-value capture's construction and anti-speculation prediction is confirmed by the split-rate and pure-land-tax record.* Pennsylvania's split-rate cities (Harrisburg and Pittsburgh across their decades running a higher rate on land than on improvements; Oates and Schwab's 1997 study of Pittsburgh's split-rate period) show construction activity and building-permit levels consistent with the predicted response relative to comparably-sized Pennsylvania cities taxing improvements and land at parity. Denmark's long-running land-value tax and Estonia's post-1993 national land tax (among the highest land-value-tax reliance of any OECD tax system, with negligible tax on improvements) show sustained construction and land-utilization patterns the framework's prediction anticipates, and Estonia in particular shows patterns consistent with reduced land-banking incentives relative to improvement-taxing jurisdictions. The specific rate at which the response saturates remains an open empirical question the record does not yet settle.

*Exclusionary zoning's paired-effect prediction is confirmed by the land-use-liberalization comparative record.* Houston, which lacks conventional use-based zoning, and Tokyo, whose national zoning law preempts most local exclusionary authority, both show new-housing-supply elasticity well above and price growth well below comparably-growing metropolitan areas with strong local exclusionary control (San Francisco and the broader California coastal metros), while California cities with the most restrictive local land-use control show the sharpest joint pattern of rising incumbent home values and falling in-migration and new-household formation the prediction specifies. Gyourko and Molloy's regulatory-restrictiveness indices and the broader Glaeser-and-Gyourko land-use-regulation literature find the same paired pattern holding across metropolitan areas generally: more restrictive local control predicts both higher existing-home appreciation and lower new construction, matching the prediction's joint-movement claim rather than independent movement.

*Deferral-until-transfer's no-displacement prediction is confirmed, at the more limited scale existing programs have run at.* The property-tax-deferral programs already operating for elderly and disabled homeowners in most US states and in the UK's local-authority deferred-payment schemes show no measurable increase in foreclosure or forced-sale events among enrolled households. Eventual recovery at transfer converges toward the deferred amount plus the program's specified interest rate, consistent with the prediction. The qualification the record itself flags is uptake, which has historically been low even among eligible households. That is a design-and-outreach problem rather than a mechanism failure, and one the generalization to the full floor population is required to solve directly rather than inherit.

*Community land trusts' durable-affordability prediction is confirmed by the multi-decade trust record.* The Champlain Housing Trust in Burlington, Vermont (operating since 1984, the longest continuously-running large community land trust in the United States) shows affordability held across multiple resale cycles at rates far closer to the original qualifying band than comparable income-restricted stock without a resale formula, and shows a foreclosure rate during the 2008 financial crisis roughly one-tenth that of the surrounding conventional-mortgage market (Thaden's 2011 Lincoln Institute study), a result directly attributable to the resale-formula mechanism limiting the acquisition price and thus the mortgage exposure of each purchasing household.

*The allowance-indexing prediction is confirmed by the housing-voucher capitalization literature.* Susin's 2002 study of the US Housing Choice Voucher program finds a measurable share of voucher expansion in low-vacancy metropolitan markets absorbed into higher rents rather than into improved housing outcomes for voucher holders. This is the capitalization the market-rent-indexing prediction specifies. Jurisdictions running vouchers alongside supply-side construction and land-use liberalization — rather than market-rent-indexed vouchers into a supply-constrained market alone — show markedly smaller absorption into rent, consistent with the paired provision-cost-index-and-elastic-supply prediction. A jurisdiction implementing the full provision-cost-indexed design as specified at [§9.8.2](<9.8.2 What is Required.md>) does not yet exist to test directly.

*The redlining site-value-gap prediction is confirmed by the contemporary appraisal-gap record.* The Brookings Institution's 2018 "The Devaluation of Assets in Black Neighborhoods" study (Perry, Rothwell, and Harshbarger) finds homes in majority-Black neighborhoods appraised at roughly twenty-three percent lower value than equivalent homes in neighborhoods with few or no Black residents, holding home and neighborhood characteristics constant, a gap whose geography substantially tracks 1930s–1968 HOLC redlining classification, confirming the predicted site-value gap independent of present household income and routing the reparative-obligation question directly to [§9.13](<9.13 Justice.md>).

The confirmation record as a whole shows the structural mechanisms operating in the predicted direction wherever they have been implemented, at whatever partial scale existing jurisdictions have run them at; no confirmed instance shows a predicted mechanism failing to produce its predicted effect, though several (the full provision-cost-indexed allowance chief among them) have not yet been implemented at the scale or in the combination the framework specifies, which [§9.8.5](<9.8.5 What is Concluded.md>) registers as an open installation question rather than as a gap in the confirmation.


---

← [9.8.3 What is Predicted](<9.8.3 What is Predicted.md>) | [9.8.5 What is Concluded](<9.8.5 What is Concluded.md>) →
