ACE

Category: Housing and Transportation Policy

  • Homelessness in Austin, Texas

    Homelessness in Austin, Texas

    This brief was originally published by Rebecca Molina on November 30, 2021. It was updated by Jaya Sood on July 6, 2022.

    Introduction

    Austin, the capital of Texas, is the state’s fourth largest city. The city’s population is ethnically diverse—less than half of the population are of European descent, and more than one-third of the population is Hispanic. Many have moved to Austin for economic opportunity to find a job. With the city rapidly expanding, the price of housing is rising and affordable housing supply has not kept up with demand . In 2020, the number of people who were homeless in Austin was estimated to be 3,200 on a given night, which is likely to be an undercount because many people move in and out of homelessness throughout the year. 

    Who are the homeless in Austin, TX? 

    African Americans represent 1 in 3 people in the homeless population but 1 in 10 people in the Travis County/Austin area. People ages 25 – 44 are the largest group homeless population with 35.2% followed by 45 – 64 with 30.7%. The largest racial and ethnic groups are White (79.9%) and non-Hispanic (66.2%). Men overall have a disadvantage to women being homeless in the Austin area with 59.3% of men, 40.5% with women, and .2% of trans and non-binary. This could explain the reason many shelters in Austin are geared towards men. 6%of the homeless population are veterans.

    Household Size

    About 11% of those who are experiencing homelessness in Austin are families with children. 2 to 3 person households make up 13.7% of the population. Household size of 4 or more consists of 4.2%. 7% of youths between the ages of 13 to 24 are living alone.

    The Homeless Experience in Austin

    • Medical Issues: 44% report that they are experiencing health issues which require treatment. 30% of households report at least one member having a physical disability. Physical disabilities further limit housing options, because otherwise-affordable housing may not be accessible. 36% of households report experiencing mental health issues and 13.4% report having substance use issues.
    • Personal Violence: 53% report that at least one of the household members has been violently attacked when they were homeless. 
    • Poverty: 51% of households report they are unable to consistently meet their needs such as bathing, water, access to food, and other essentials.  

    City Policies and Resources 

    In spring of 2021, the city of Austin banned homeless camping. The law defines camping as an individual camping temporarily in a place with shelter. This includes a tent, sleeping bag, bedroll, blankets, or any form of shelter other than clothing to protect a person from weather and health reasons. People can camp for recreational purposes or on property that has been approved for homeless living. 

    The Austin Resource Center for the Homeless is the main service provider for the homeless population. This resource center offers emergency shelter, basic needs, and services. However, this center only has the capacity to house 130 men overnight, so demand outstrips supply. Several private shelters also provide similar services.

    The Travis County Commissioners Court recently allocated $110 million to rehouse the homeless. This goes along with the American Rescue Plan Act that is addressing homelessness and affordable housing across the country. Currently, another $50 million was requested by the Travis County Supportive Housing Collaborative to help develop new affordable housing communities across Austin to house around 1,000 people. 

  • Homelessness and COVID-19 in the United States

    Homelessness and COVID-19 in the United States

    The COVID-19 pandemic has created uncertainty for unhoused Americans. Due to their lack of safe housing, homeless individuals often face COVID-19 risk factors in their day-to-day lives. The congregate nature and hygienic challenges of shelter life also create the potential for rapid transmission of COVID-19 to this population. 

    Eviction and Federal Policies

    The ebb and flow of COVID-19 cases has also impacted unhoused communities economically, socially, and physically. Housing policies have shifted during the pandemic, most prominently in the form of rent forgiveness to eviction filings. Rent forgiveness was a form of relief to many, but evictions still occurred, increasing pandemic-related homelessness nationwide. To combat this, a federal order under the Public Health Service Act was passed to halt ongoing evictions to combat worsening COVID-19 prevalence and homelessness in the U.S.

    Homeless Shelters and Covid-19

    “Sheltered homelessness” is a term used to refer to people experiencing homelessness and residing in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or other temporary settings. The U.S. Center for Disease Control has provided interim guidance for shelters, which has continued to be updated since 2019. This guidance recommends pushing for vaccination within shelters, widespread proper personal protection equipment (PPE), and accessible broadcasts of free COVID-19 testing sites. The guide also states, “homeless shelters should not close or exclude people who are having symptoms or test positive for COVID-19 without a plan for where these clients can safely access services and stay.” The guide works to support unhoused individuals while also trying to navigate the uncharted territory of COVID-19.

    • New York City, where one-fifth of all U.S. sheltered homeless live, issued an emergency declaration to ease crowding in shelters during the summer of 2021. This influx of homeless individuals into midtown Manhattan caused a response from groups that advocate for stricter COVID-19 regulations, such as The Coalition for Homelessness. In response to The Coalition for the Homeless’ demands to reevaluate NYC shelter situations, Mayor Bill DeBlasio said “What we’re seeing so far in Omicron: intense surge but less impact, and we also believe it’ll be for a brief period of time, so that does not suggest doing things the way we did last year.” DeBlasio’s response supported a shift back to pre-pandemic safety measures within homeless shelters.
    • In Boston, Boston Healthcare for the Homeless provided 500 beds at the Boston Convention Center for homeless individuals who contracted COVID-19. Per the 2020 Census data, Boston has a homeless population of 6,203 individuals, and many streets are lined with tents occupied by unhoused individuals. The city has been taking measures to clear the streets while also calling on outreach workers to provide information about available shelter beds in the area. 
    • Los Angeles has faced public opposition to the crowding of shelters due to the surge in the Omicron variant. In the last week of 2021, more than 140 shelters in Los Angeles county had experienced an outbreak of COVID-19. In response, the city is crafting a temporary housing strategy to slow the spread within the homeless population.

    The variance in COVID-19 regulation from city to city shows the uncertainty surrounding the most effective methods for keeping unhoused populations safe. Most recently, many city-wide mask and vaccination mandates have been lifted as case numbers decrease. 

    As the United States makes its way into the third year of the pandemic, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2021 Annual Homeless Assessment Report found that there was an eight percent decrease in sheltered homelessness throughout the country. The overall Community Vulnerability Index value—which tracks COVID-19 cases across communities of varying vulnerability—has been on a rapid decline over the past two months. While homelessness still persists across the country, the presence of COVID-19 within unhoused communities is generally on the decline, causing public officials to slow, or end the implementation of protective measures.

  • The CARES Act

    The CARES Act

    The Coronavirus Aid, Recovery, and Economic Support Act (CARES Act) was passed on March 23, 2020, under former president Donald Trump’s administration. This act was passed to mitigate the damage that the sudden and rapid emergence of the COVID-19 virus had on the economy in the United States—particularly local businesses—and the livelihoods of citizens. 

    Past Recessions and Government Action

    The economic downturn caused by COVID-19 was not the first time that America has suffered a recession. For instance, in 1907, 73 financial institutions failed, primarily due to the bankruptcy of two small brokerage firms, which sparked distrust in companies and banks. However, this panic also convinced Americans that the government had a role to play in solving economic crises. In 1910, discussions about the formation of a central bank began, and by 1914, the Federal Reserve was created. Similarly, at the start of the Great Depression in 1929, the unemployment rate stood at 3.2% and peaked at 24.9% by 1933. To recover the economy, the Social Security Act of 1935 was passed, authorizing funds to be paid out to states (through the Social Security Administration), based on wages earned a few years before a beneficiary turned 65. Overall, the Great Depression changed the structure of the government and the general attitude towards the role of the government in solving economic crises.

    Economic Provisions

    Many provisions within the CARES Act directed financial support to businesses and individuals whose finances were directly impacted by COVID-19. For example, Section 2102 expanded unemployment compensation between January to December of 2020, granting 39 weeks of federal unemployment compensation to individuals who may have previously been ineligible under the laws of their state or territory. In addition, Section 1102 amended Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act by allowing the Small Business Administration to lend money to businesses that do not employ more than 500 people. This section required that such businesses use these loans solely to repay necessary business expenses, including compensation (i.e. wages and salaries, paid vacation time, health benefits, paid or unpaid leave, etc.) and utility costs. These measures provided money to both individuals and businesses to reduce the effects of the pandemic. 

    Housing Provisions

    However, economic recessions and depressions not only impact employment prospects, but housing prospects as well. For example, not long after the pandemic began, tenants felt the impact of the contraction of the economy. Concerns over the spread of COVID-19 prompted private and governmental employers to either shut down or only partially open their workplaces, which left many employees, or residential tenants, without the stream of income that they had received before. Thus, the CARES Act also imposed a national foreclosure moratorium through Section 4022, and a national eviction moratorium through Section 4024, which ended in June 2021. Since the end of the foreclosure and eviction moratoriums, there has been a rising trend in eviction numbers. For example, since March 2020, Houston, Texas has seen 67,304 eviction filings by landlords, while Albuquerque, New Mexico has seen 9,339 evictions, and New York City 89,312. In response, states have supplemented provisions of the CARES Act with their own anti-eviction legislation. This provided tenants with additional time to make payments towards rent and business expenses. However, state moratoriums were also a temporary measure.

    As a whole, the CARES Act provided temporary financial assistance to Americans. It gave money to individuals and businesses to support the recovery of lost wages and revenue and protected tenants via a federal eviction moratorium. However, as the measures within the CARES Act were only temporary, the future of American businesses, as well as American people’s tenancy and homeownership status, will depend largely on the state of the economy as it works to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • Smart Growth and Green Construction Policies’ Impact on Housing

    Smart Growth and Green Construction Policies’ Impact on Housing

    Cities have been increasingly implementing measures to lessen the environmental impact of housing development and create more efficient dwellings. Smart growth is a new strategy for development which is being explored in many communities. It advocates the end of zoning (segregation of types of development), using green construction practices, repurposing old buildings, and considering the life cycle of a building. Green construction and LEED certifications are also increasingly being implemented to push developers toward more sustainable construction. LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and is used globally. LEED advocates for conserving water and energy, using green materials during construction and renovation, and building in efficient locations. 

    The Standard Zoning Act, implemented in the 1920s, aimed to “avoid an undue concentration of population”. Policies and acts like this are still widely in use and limit the amount of housing with walkability, or the ability to access resources without a vehicle. Smart growth aims to counter this by allowing re-zoning measures to develop mixed-use areas, improve walkability, and limit the need for transportation. Similarly, it advocates for housing to be inclusive of family and residence styles. This means allowing young adults, single adults, and older adults to have housing alongside family residences. Smart growth also pushes for smarter land use in developments. Many low-income residences are built in areas with minimal consideration for historical environmental patterns like flooding. This puts these residents at higher risk because they “have fewer resources to prepare for storms or flee to safer territory.”

    Impact On Developers

    Major cities like San Francisco and Boston have begun to implement smart growth ideas and LEED certification requirements. San Francisco requires that small residential buildings must have at least a 75-point score from Build It Green, high rises must have a similar score to small residential buildings or a silver LEED rating, commercial buildings must meet a Gold LEED rating. The more restrictive the requirements, the higher the cost of building. LEED certification can increase the overall construction cost by  4-11%. While incentives are used in many areas to push developers to meet these certifications, there is still a significant cost associated. These costs can deter development projects or get passed on to the consumer, both of which can be detrimental to the affordable housing supply. 

    Impact on Businesses, Homeowners, and Renters

    Mixed zoning increases foot traffic, which benefits small businesses, and limits transportation costs and time. Removing density limits also allows for more residential spaces which can improve walkability and limit the amount of personal or public transportation that people rely on. Smart growth’s advocacy for considering environmental patterns creates residential and commercial buildings in areas that are more sustainable in the long-term and less costly in terms of insurance. Although LEED certifications increase development costs, which can increase costs in the short term, LEED certifications make energy, water, and other resource consumption more efficient, which can bring down prices in the long term. The issue moving forward will be finding the balance between the two so that energy-efficient dwellings can be accessible to all income levels. 

    Moving Forward

    According to analysis from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, “many of the reasons consumers cite for preferring suburban housing reflect social attributes, such as personal security, higher-quality public services (particularly schools) and greater property value security, rather than the physical attributes of sprawl.” All these reasons could be addressed within compact urban living while also allowing for public transportation, walkability, and protecting the environment.

  • Smart Growth Implementation at the Local Level

    Smart Growth Implementation at the Local Level

    Steps Towards Smart Growth 

    The Goal: to create an attractive, livable area with walkable amenities and residences, while simultaneously cutting down on suburban sprawl, traffic, and new roads and infrastructure. 

    Identifying the Bones

    Identifying the bones refers to identifying the most attractive, unique, and important parts of an area. For some spaces, it could be that they are a gateway to a major national park, a main street, a historical downtown, open spaces, etc. The first step in this process is identifying the features of an area which have the most appeal. Afterwards, city planners build around these parts to create an overall livelier town. Some examples of these “bones” are New Orleans, Louisiana’s French Quarter; Charleston, South Carolina’s Historical District and beach, and Charlottesville, Virginia’s gateway to Shenandoah Valley National Park, University of Virginia and Jefferson’s Monticello. After identification, it is necessary to examine current growth trends to understand whether these will slow or increase. It is also pivotal to understand the town’s dynamics and relations to the area surrounding the “bones,” such as whether the town operates as a commuter town into another area or vice-versa. These dynamics will affect what smart growth looks like, and may provide an incentive to create different types of public transportation. 

    Education and Polling

    A key part of the process is understanding how the residents of an area will respond to a smart growth program. The local government should take steps towards educating their residents about the possible benefits of smart growth. These steps would likely involve the creation of pamphlets, PSAs, local news articles, and more, while also involving local business owners as a means of promoting the program. Polling can happen after various plans are drawn to examine what appeals to the residents and best fits the town. 

    Zoning and Housing

    The next step is to adjust zoning regulations to allow for new development. Zoning regulations should be changed or adapted to favor high density residential areas. Typically, suburban zoning is more difficult to change since these areas generally have more incentive and more political power than other ones do. However, transitioning developed areas into higher-density areas helps to prevent further sprawl. In some instances it would be easier to pass high density zoning measures by appealing to the more “removed” governments – i.e., the state rather than the local government, and in some areas, the local government rather than the HOA (Homeowner’s Association). 

    Along with these regulations, many cities elect to include affordable housing requirements for new developments. Affordable housing is one of the primary reasons for suburban sprawl; therefore, creating affordable housing within a walkable distance to shopping, groceries, businesses, etc. could reduce the overall sprawl, as well as land per unit, walls per unit, infrastructure, and more. Reducing sprawl is important as it protects farmlands, habitats and more. Typically, they approach this through inclusionary zoning, which ties the affordable housing development to the market-rate housing development by incentivizing or requiring specific percentages of units in new developments to be affordable for households with certain income ranges. One method by which affordable housing zones or laws are implemented is by requiring one-quarter of new units to be affordably priced for a period of 5-15 years. This differs depending on the city, but overall allows for a variety of income levels to live within walkable distance. Generally speaking, those who oppose inclusionary zoning oppose it because they believe that the market alone should dictate housing and rental prices. In addition, inclusive zoning often faces opposition from existing residents, because it can change low-density, suburban areas into more high-density semi-urban areas. Those opposed feel that existing residents should be able to select what type of community they wish to live in, and local decision making should be respected. In this way, the preferences of more privileged residents who already own homes in the area come into conflict with less privileged residents currently priced out of the area. For more information on inclusive zoning, see ACE’s brief on the subject.

    Zoning regulations could also be adjusted to allow for mixed-zoning – residential and commercial. This facilitates walkability by creating jobs and amenities close to residences.  Implementing parking maximums rather than parking minimums will limit the amount of land used for parking lots. Parking minimums are the most common form of government regulation in regard to parking. They ensure that certain types of businesses and restaurants have adequate parking for customers. However, parking lots contribute to sprawl heavily and space buildings out further than necessary which discourages walking. Parking maximums limit the amount of parking that a business can have by capping the number of spaces. By having parking maximums, the town or locale can control where and how much parking is available to help to concentrate the activities, amenities, and residences. Parking maximums can be difficult to adjust to, especially in areas where the majority of transportation is done by car. Businesses do have to worry that if they have insufficient parking or no parking that customers will choose other businesses. Thus if this method is used, it is generally in the best interest of the business owners to have the maximums applied to a region of a town such as a downtown so that all businesses have the same parameters. 

    Afterwards, tax incentives can be used to push developers and consumers to build and live in more central areas. This also discourages sprawl, and saves farmlands, habitats and more. A split-rate tax, when incentives are used to encourage developing existing areas rather than undeveloped areas, may also be used to incentivize redeveloping brownfields (a property that has known or potential contamination – the EPA provides grants for cleaning up these sites). This will help save money by centralizing infrastructure such as sewer, energy, and roadways. 

    Beyond the Local Level 

    The state can facilitate smart growth at the local level. Maryland recently created a cabinet position that focuses on smart growth, as well as an office dedicated to smart growth. Similarly, New Jersey Governor James McGreevey announced smart growth as a central issue for his office and established a Smart Growth Policy Council. Because these steps for smart growth are generally only conceivable at a local level, the support from state and federal governments could come in the form of grants, resource offices with smart growth specialists, or subsidies for areas implementing smart growth. At the federal level, the EPA advocates for smart growth and provides funding in the form of grants for smart growth features, however, there have also been a few federal officeholders that have advocated for smart growth policies within Congress and other bureaucracies.

  • Homelessness Crisis in Boston’s South End Neighborhood

    Homelessness Crisis in Boston’s South End Neighborhood

    The area around Melnea Cass Boulevard and Massachusetts Avenue, two major roadways that unite Boston’s South End neighborhood with the neighborhood of Roxbury, is known by locals as a tent city. This area of Boston, nicknamed “Methadone Mile,” has long been known for open drug dealing, high levels of addiction, and a severe lack of clean water and proper hygiene.

    In October 2021, Boston’s acting mayor Kim Janey announced an executive order to combat the ongoing humanitarian crisis occurring between Mass and Cass. Though the area has been facing a public health crisis for years, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated concerns. To keep the spread of disease at bay, Janey imposed the removal of tents, claiming that, “tents are not appropriate for housing…they lack clean water and hygiene facilities.” 

    According to Janey’s memo, if people repeatedly refuse to leave their tents, they may be charged with disorderly conduct. Additionally, if anyone were to pose a serious threat of harm to themselves or others, the Boston Police may petition to involuntarily commit them as a last resort. The prospect of rehabilitation rather than retribution is one that the City of Boston has not implored in their plan, nor in other involvement with the issue at large. 

    Removal of the tent city has been the only option explored by the City of Boston, but others have different suggestions. The South End-Roxbury Community Partnership, an advocacy group that opposes the forced removal of the tent city, have outlined a different plan for the city to take. Their plan starts with pushing Governor Baker to execute his executive power to intervene and treat the opioid crisis as a prevalent and pervasive Public Health Emergency across the state of Massachusetts. The partnership demands that the state create and fund homelessness and addiction services across Massachusetts as soon as possible while also immediately increasing sanitation access and public health services. The partnership also proposes that the Shattuck Hospital in Jamaica Plain, an adjacent neighborhood, be converted into a temporary emergency recovery center with new supportive housing. 

    Since Janey’s executive order in October, the city has elected a new mayor, Michelle Wu. Wu has indicated that the city will may explore other options in relation to the homeless community, specifically in the South End. On the issue, Wu feels that “…the urgent need for clean and safe streets can’t come at the expense of destabilizing treatment for those who need it & destroying property of those who have no home to store things, while just moving people on to somewhere else.” Wu’s plan is to have the area between Mass and Cass cleared out by rehoming affected individuals and connecting them to health services by January 12, 2022.

  • Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers

    Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers

    There is not enough affordable housing to meet demand from middle- and low-income households. The federal government can play a role in incentivizing the private market to create new affordable housing to supplement the stock of naturally occurring affordable housing. In the United States, public-private partnerships have historically been the most successful policies in creating affordable housing.

    Current Project-Based Section 8 Voucher Policies

    A current federal program that incentivizes developers to construct affordable housing is project-based Section 8 vouchers. Similar to traditional Section 8 vouchers (read more about Section 8 vouchers here), project-based Section 8 vouchers assist low-income families in paying rent. Participating households contribute 30% of their monthly income to rent and the federal government covers the remaining amount. However, project-based Section 8 vouchers differ from traditional Section 8 vouchers in that the voucher is tied to a housing unit rather than moving with a household. Typically, developers seek out project-based Section 8 vouchers from local public housing authorities when figuring out the financial aspects of a project before the project is constructed. Developers actively seek out project-based Section 8 vouchers because they are a stable source of income for housing developments. Housing developments are usually not feasible if the rent is set at a rate affordable to low and middle income families. Many housing units are built at market rate rents, however, by applying the voucher, developers are able to make profit and invest in more housing developments. So, because of the vouchers, developers are still able to charge rents at market rate; they are able to make projects financially feasible while still providing housing units that are affordable to low-income households.

    Current limitations of Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers

    Project-based Section 8 vouchers have a lot of potential as a policy but are limited in their usefulness because of policy constraints. Local public housing authorities are allocated a certain amount of Section 8 vouchers and they can assign up to 20% of their allocated vouchers to be project-based vouchers. This limits the development of affordable housing units and leads to public housing authorities seldom allocating Section 8 vouchers to be tied to a housing unit. If project-based Section 8 voucher is to be used as a potential policy to incentivize developers to create more affordable housing, the program will have to be expanded to allow for more units to be built through the program, and it will need to be separated from the administration of traditional Section 8 vouchers.

    Arguments in Favor of Expanding Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers

    • Project-based Section 8 vouchers can be used to develop mixed income housing developments, or a community where the residents are not of the same economic class. Many believe that mixed-income communities can help alleviate poverty, increase property values, and promote social tolerance. Mixed-income communities, as opposed to social housing in a separate area from high-income communities, can also reduce the stigma of public housing projects and address issues like education inequality.
    • The main alternative to project-based Section 8 housing is the low income housing tax credits (LIHTC) which can sometimes fail to support the lowest income households. The rent in properties using low income housing tax credits are calculated by taking 30% of the area median income, which is the midpoint of residents’ income in a region. This measurement can be inflated if a region has high income inequality, raising the area median income to a point where 30% of that income in a month is too high for households living in poverty. Project-based Section 8 vouchers are based on the individual household’s income, making the amount of rent they are required to pay under the program more realistic for households in poverty.

    Those in favor of expanding project-based Section 8 vouchers point to the fact that the infrastructure to administer such an expansion is already in place and would not involve developing a bureaucratic process. 

    Arguments against expanding Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers

    Cost is the main barrier to expanding project-based Section 8 housing. Covering partial rent for millions of households would increase the amount that the federal government spends on rental assistance, which was $51 billion in 2019. In addition project-based Section 8 vouchers do not have the same flexibility for households compared to traditional Section 8 vouchers. If a household must move for whatever reason, they will lose their benefits. While this consistency allows for the creation of more affordable housing units, it can also harm households accessing the programs.

  • Public-Private Partnerships in Housing

    Public-Private Partnerships in Housing

    Low-income housing, otherwise known as affordable housing, is a phrase used to refer to the various residential provisions available to individuals or families with a low household income. While a low-income status can look different from person to person, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), housing is affordable if it costs 30% or less of a family’s annual income. When it comes to affordable housing and providing economic and social support through policy, there is a debate when it comes to whether or not public-private partnerships are effective for affordable housing efforts and reducing the role of government in housing. Public-private partnerships (P3s) are arrangements between public agencies and private companies that exist to serve the public wherein both entities are sharing the risks and rewards. The public side of P3s typically takes the form of a government agency, and private entities can be non-profit organizations, developers or lenders, private civic organizations, or individuals. A toll road that is operated by a private company but is located on private land a classic public-private partnership. In terms of housing, P3s look like public housing authorities contracting private developers to construct affordable housing on private land.

    Historical Background for P3s

    P3s became possible with the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1965, and the 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act encouraged cooperation between the government and business by establishing the National Corporation for Housing Partnerships, a public enterprise that acted as a tool for private entities to initiate housing construction programs. P3s became more popular during the period of privatization and regulation in the 1980s because they represented a compromise between government services and private enterprises. 

    As a federal agency, HUD’s public-private partnerships have produced programs such as the Federal Housing Administration’s mortgage insurance programs and Section 8 project-based housing to provide people with affordable housing options. P3s allow the government to share risks with the private sector, leverage investments for greater effect, take advantage of efficiencies outside of the government, and employ broader knowledge and skills. On the flip side, policies and programs that have public-private partnership structures have their own drawbacks such as opportunities for corruption and increases in the complexity of housing policy due to new intermediaries.

  • Environmental Policy Impact on Housing in the U.S.

    Environmental Policy Impact on Housing in the U.S.

    Main Policies

    The Clean Air Act was established to help regulate emissions, and made housing closer to public transportation more desirable and thus, more expensive. The Clean Water Act was established to regulate run-off, development, residential and commercial pollution. It regulates development by requiring proper storm drainage or other means to prevent harmful runoff, this causes development prices to increase thus, raising housing prices. The Comprehensive Environmental Response Act (CERCLA) is a superfund that was created to help clean up hazardous waste. It makes owners responsible for toxic waste found on their property. The process of checking or removing toxic waste is expensive and contributes to housing prices. The Endangered Species Act is meant to protect species in danger of becoming extinct and to protect habitats and food sources. Desirable land close to protected land becomes more expensive because of the decrease in supply. 

    Impact on Urban vs. Suburban Housing

    The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act do not have as great an impact in urban areas because of the availability of public transportation, and storm drainage or other issues are typically integrated into the infrastructure of a city. Further, apartment buildings with 5+ units generally use less energy. These Acts have more effect on suburban living because of the environmental inefficiency of suburban living. Suburbs typically have larger homes, are more spread out, have larger/higher numbers of vehicles, and often infrastructure is not in place prior to the development of the area. The larger homes require more energy to heat or cool and suburban residents consume more gasoline because of their driving habits. Emissions from cars and transportation account for about 50% of all household emissions which can be avoided by using public transportation or alternative means of movement. City-dwellers have a smaller carbon footprint than suburbanites. Suburban areas tend to have fewer transportation options, although they are good candidates for electrical vehicles and solar energy. 

    The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is more likely to affect suburban development than urban development. This is mostly because “conventional housing development has contributed to converting rural land at a rate three times faster than population growth.” This means that they are encroaching on rural land that hosts more wild species. There are cases in urban areas where the ESA applies, but it is far more common in suburban and rural areas. 

    Benefits of Smart Growth and Green Construction

    Advocacy for “smart growth” and green construction also impacts housing supply. Smart growth encourages green construction or approaches that consider the building’s whole life cycle. This means considering alternative uses for the building after its original purpose has been served or considering how the demolition of the building will impact the local environment. Green construction/building standards involve considering and pushing for the use of sustainable sites, energy and water-efficient materials and practices, sustainable materials and resource use, indoor environmental quality, emissions, operations, and maintenance (the resources available to fix issues safely and sustainably). Green construction can lead to savings on utilities through more efficient systems by reducing energy and water consumption. Examples of this include better insulation, low-flush toilets, building design that conserves heat such as window placement.

  • Housing First: Solutions for Homelessness and Housing Insecurity in the United States

    Housing First: Solutions for Homelessness and Housing Insecurity in the United States

    In March 2021, the California Housing Partnership and Housing California released a ten-year project to address the housing crisis in the state. The mission of “Roadmap Home 2030” is to provide affordable housing for low-income households and the homeless population in California. Housing as a human right is the foundation of the Roadmap’s framework and backed with equity and evidence-based solutions. The project also aims to minimize racial disparities in homeownership, homelessness, and housing insecurity. In order to achieve these goals, the Roadmap outlines a four-step approach that highlight the most important aspects of the housing crisis: 

    1. Create affordable homes: 1.2 million homes will be built for homeless people in California.
    2. Protect low-income renters: 1 million low-income renters in California and 300,000 households that face eviction every year.
    3. End homelessness: house the 150,000 people who are homeless every night and 400,000 people who are homeless throughout the year. 
    4. Ensure racial equity: reduce racial equity gaps in housing that harm Latinx, Black, and Indigenous people . 

    In a 2019 study, the National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates that 567,715 people experience homelessness on any given night, including 96,141 people who are chronically homeless and 35,038 homeless youth. Using the Roadmap Home as a template, the federal government can implement a similar policy to properly address the housing crisis and those who are most vulnerable. 

    Expanding the Roadmap Home

    The biggest barriers for creating affordable housing nationally are the increasing demand and the insurmountable price for development. These push and pull factors of the free-market have caused 40 million Americans to spend more than 30% of their incomes on housing while homeownership decreases and rental prices increase. At the national level, the Roadmap Home project would require immense funding and support in order to meet the demands for housing. Federal and state funding are allocated based on need, determined by the local housing authority and its tracking of the homeless population throughout the year, homes facing eviction or foreclosure, households that are severely cost-burdened, and other populations in need of affordable housing. In California, the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Department of Social Services administer these funds across the state. Focusing on localized needs allows for efficient and effective use of funding. 

    Funding

    Lawmakers in California proposed a policy that eliminates second-home tax credits on income taxes for people with multiple homes that would create $300 million dollars in revenue for affordable housing. Bringing this to the national level would allow for a large influx of revenue specified for affordable housing development. Mortgage deductibles often receive scrutiny for benefiting wealthy homeowners, where the average household that benefits from mortgage deductibles have incomes above $100,000. In addition, both state and federal ventures can increase incentives for developers to construct affordable housing by increasing the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). The LIHTC is the most important policy for affordable housing development in the country and since its creation in 1986, the LIHTC program has subsidized construction or rehabilitation of over 2 million units, or roughly 110,000 affordable units every year. Congress sets the amount of LIHTC that can be allocated to each state and developers are required to rent units to low-income households in return for the credit. In 2018, each state was allocated $3.1 million or $2.70 per capita. Credits are claimed over a ten-year period causing most developers to sell the credits to private investors in order to secure funding to start construction. If Congress restructured the allocation of the LIHTC to coincide with each state’s demand for affordable housing, funds could be used more effectively and efficiently. This approach emphasizes the need for local authorities to track housing insecure populations throughout the year to secure adequate funding. 

    Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) also provide a similar incentive for developers when local municipalities recruit private companies to build affordable housing. PPPs are contracts between public partners (government entities) and private partners that outlines responsibilities and financial mechanisms for both parties in a long-term project. Local municipalities can defer taxes and offer assets like land, buildings, and entitled parcels to assist with maintaining equal benefits for developers and low-income households. The public partner incentivizes the private partner at a price point that allows low-income households to occupy the units and still produce profit. PPPs allow for public entities to conduct important social or economic projects with capital and competency from for-profit developers. It is vital for contracts to outline potential risk factors and social or environmental forces that could impact said project due to their long-term characteristics. This generation of capital for affordable housing is vital for the extended Roadmap Home project and municipalities with high homeless and low-income populations should prioritize the partnerships where federal or state funding is not available. 

    Meeting Demand

     Beyond funding, the immense demand for housing among low-income and moderate-income households creates another barrier to this project. To create affordable and safe housing, federal and state entities need to look towards more sustainable options. Land and zoning create another obstacle for developers by limiting where affordable units can be constructed. To combat this, state-aided programs should focus on acquiring motels and hotels for rehabilitation into affordable housing units. Rehabilitation is significantly cheaper than developing new units from scratch and these buildings are already zoned for a multi-family dwelling. The Roadmap Home 2030 report estimates that a new unit costs $172,000 to construct, whereas acquiring and rehabilitating old hotels and motels costs $59,000 per unit. This model allows for quicker and more efficient provision of affordable units. Funding options for developers should be centralized in each state to streamline the application process and make this project more efficient. Many states have disjointed funding channels for affordable housing, forcing developers to submit applications to multiple different sources, increasing the cost of affordable housing through the tedious burden to acquire funding.

    The Opposition

     Another obstacle that cannot be ignored is the strong opposition to affordable housing and social services as a whole. Many oppose increasing the social safety net and government intervention. Also, creating a national project for affordable housing centralizes the housing sector in the social safety net, another reason that many voters would be less inclined to support an expanded Roadmap Home.

    Government involvement is a necessity when it comes to affordable housing and preventing homelessness. Leaving it up to the free market necessarily impacts low-income households and has started to pull down middle-income households as well. Between 2005 and 2015, the supply of moderately priced rental units for $800 a month decreased by 261,000 units whereas units renting for $2,000 or more increased by 1.5 million units. However, without a substantial push for affordable housing, more Americans will be affected by the housing crisis, as the renting base is already expanding.

    Outside of politics, there are significant social stigmas associated with affordable and public housing. The presence of “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) has spread throughout neighborhoods in response to affordable housing projects, homeless shelters, and other social services. “NIMBYism” is characterized by residents in a specific neighborhood that oppose affordable housing projects being built in their “backyard” and make conscious efforts to dissuade the developers. Instead of looking at the broader problem of homelessness and housing insecurity, residents see the influx of low-income residents to threaten property values, safety, and aesthetics of the neighborhood.

    Key Takeaways

    For the last fifty years, the U.S. has tried to address the affordable housing crisis to no avail. Now, while still experiencing the economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever for vulnerable populations to have shelter. The biggest component of this policy is the emphasis on housing as a human right and using equity-based methods to house everyone. The United States is too large and decentralized for the federal government to fund and construct affordable housing. Instead, the federal government and local authorities need to strengthen communication in order to streamline funding in an efficient way, allotted based on regional need. The LIHTC is already the most important policy for affordable housing development so increasing the number of credits allotted will benefit increased housing development. Similarly, the rehabilitation of old buildings is already a successful project in many areas, with places such as Denver that implemented a 139 micro-apartment complex in a former Quality Inn and Suites for low-income and houseless people. These are affordable and achievable housing goals that this country can achieve, but first, housing needs to be understood as a necessity for everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status.

    Reflection Questions

    1. Does everyone deserve to be housed?
    2. Do federal and state authorities have a responsibility to provide affordable housing for everyone? 
    3. Do you see disparities in housing where you live? 
    4. What other approaches could solve the housing crisis besides direct action for funding and development?