The structural-necessity derivation at [§9.8.2](<9.8.2 What is Required.md>) generates testable predictions distinct from the derivation itself; confirming or disconfirming them against the empirical record is the office of [§9.8.4](<9.8.4 What is Confirmed.md>), and this section states what the framework predicts before that record is read.

*Land-value capture predicts increased construction and reduced land speculation wherever it is implemented at meaningful rates.* Because a tax on unimproved site value cannot be passed forward in price (the supply of land is fixed regardless of the rate charged for holding it, so the incidence falls entirely on the holder rather than on a tenant or buyer), while a tax on improvements discourages building them, the framework predicts that jurisdictions shifting their tax base from improvements toward site value will show more construction, denser development, and less vacant or under-used land banked for speculative appreciation than otherwise-similar jurisdictions that tax improvements at the same or a higher rate.

*Exclusionary zoning predicts rising site values for incumbents and falling access for newcomers moving together, not separately.* Because the framework reads exclusion and extraction as one act rather than two, it predicts that municipalities adopting more restrictive land-use controls (larger minimum lot sizes, single-family-only zoning, restrictive permitting) will show incumbent property values rising and new-household formation and in-migration falling in the same period, with the two trends tracking each other rather than moving independently.

*Deferral-until-transfer predicts the elimination of forced-sale and forced-vacancy events attributable to land-value capture specifically, without eliminating the fund's eventual recovery of the deferred amount.* Because the mechanism converts an annual cash demand into a lien collectible at a future transfer, the framework predicts that jurisdictions adopting deferral will show no measurable increase in foreclosure, tax-sale, or displacement events among enrolled households relative to comparable non-enrolled households, while the fund's recovered revenue at eventual transfer converges toward the full deferred amount plus the specified interest rate over time.

*Community land trusts predict durable affordability and resistance to the price cycles that erode other subsidized-housing stock.* Because the resale-formula mechanism removes the appreciation windfall that would otherwise accrue to a departing resident, the framework predicts that community land trust units will remain affordable to households at or near the original qualifying income band across multiple resale cycles and across housing-market booms and busts, in contrast to income-restricted units without a resale formula, which the framework predicts will show affordability erosion (rising qualifying incomes, declining representation of the original target band) as each resale occurs at or near market price.

*A market-rent-indexed allowance predicts capitalization into rent; a provision-cost-indexed allowance predicts no such capitalization.* Because indexing to market rent signals to holders that the floor will track whatever they charge, the framework predicts that jurisdictions expanding a market-rent-indexed housing allowance in a supply-constrained market will show a measurable share of the expansion absorbed into higher rents rather than into better-housed recipients, with the leakage largest where vacancy is lowest and supply is least elastic; jurisdictions that index the allowance to the cost of provision instead, while simultaneously liberalizing supply constraints, are predicted to show materially smaller or no such capitalization.

*Racially exclusionary land-use history predicts a present-day site-value gap correlated with historical redlining classification, independent of current household income.* Because the historical record developed at [§9.2](<9.2 Belonging.md>) operated by suppressing site values in redlined areas relative to otherwise comparable areas, the framework predicts that current land values, adjusted for present-day improvement quality and household income, will remain measurably lower in historically-redlined tracts than in comparably-located non-redlined tracts, a gap the reparative-obligation question at [§9.13](<9.13 Justice.md>) takes up directly.

Each prediction is falsifiable in the ordinary sense: a land-value-capture jurisdiction that shows no construction response, a deferral program that produces displacement at rates comparable to a conventional cash levy, a land trust that erodes in affordability at the same rate as unrestricted subsidized stock, or a provision-cost-indexed allowance that capitalizes into rent at the same rate as a market-rent-indexed one would count against the structural mechanism the framework derives, not merely against a poorly-implemented instance of it. [§9.8.4](<9.8.4 What is Confirmed.md>) reads the record against each in turn.


---

← [9.8.2 What is Required](<9.8.2 What is Required.md>) | [9.8.4 What is Confirmed](<9.8.4 What is Confirmed.md>) →
