After a recent conversation with colleagues prompted by reading together the sociological work Evicted as well as my own thinking about residential segregation, I wanted to put together a blog post summarizing possible policy solutions to housing issues. I am not optimistic but here are the possible options I see at multiple levels:
- Provide incentives for developers and builders. This is a common strategy across different government levels: builders and developers are given access to choice properties or are able to build higher-end housing if they build cheaper housing or provide monies that could be used for cheaper housing. A number of major cities, including Chicago, have such incentives. However, it does not seem to have made a major dent in the amount of affordable housing that is needed. I have heard that argument that governments have simply not offered big enough incentives – there is a tipping point where this could really push builders and developers to construct cheaper housing. I don’t think I buy this argument. Even though there is clearly a market right now for cheaper housing, why would builders and developers not try to build the priciest stuff they can to bring in more profit?
- Other market-driven solutions beyond incentives. I’m on the record here as skeptical that free markets can address issues of residential segregation and housing. Vouchers have their supporters since they theoretically would allow poorer residents to access areas of the housing market they otherwise could not. At the same time, introducing vouchers leads to other issues such as inflated prices/rents and negative reactions to those with the vouchers.
- Local government action. Municipal officials have a good amount of control over what can be built within their boundaries. However, they are constrained by (1) local residents who want to protect their community (examples of NIMBY in action here and here) and (2) limited budgets and revenues so they are typically trying to maximize property and sales taxes while minimizing use of social services. The biggest tool municipalities have are local zoning guidelines that often constrict what can be built (see recent suburban non-housing examples here and here). One way that wealthier areas exclude those who are not so wealthy is to not allow multi-family housing or set guidelines requiring larger lot sizes.
- Metropolitan action. Housing is really an issue that spans municipalities as the majority of people live in one place and commute to another for work (plus drive elsewhere for other amenities). Yet, metropolitan governance does not exist on a large-scale in the United States. Outside of a few regions, this is not a viable option: people in different communities do not have ways to collaborate nor would they necessarily want to. This is particularly true of wealthier communities. Residents would argue that this is the purpose of local government: local residents should get to make decisions about their own communities rather than handing off money and/or control to an outside body that wishes to damage their quality of life. See examples of how this can play out regarding affordable housing in one region and another involving transportation across a whole region.
- State governments. States could decide to impose regulations and guidelines but then they would have to overrule municipalities. This is difficult. For example, Illinois in 2004 an affordable housing guideline where every community was supposed to have a certain percentage of their housing stock within affordable limits. The guidelines could have been useful but they had no teeth and what counted as affordable was loosely defined. As this 2015 Chicago Tribune article suggests, wealthier communities did not submit to the guidelines and “Lee acknowledged that the agency has no authority to enforce the mandate if municipalities do not submit affordable housing plans.” Nothing really changed – and I’m guessing this was intentional.
- Federal government. Even though the United States has public housing, it was difficult to get off the ground and is not viewed favorably by many. That whole single-family homes fights communism thing plus the American ideal is everyone owning a home. Even if public housing had some successes, on the whole federal efforts have promoted white suburbs mortgages for single-family homes are subsidized. Results for federal initiatives involving vouchers, such as Moving to Opportunity, are mixed as many of the residents end up in similar poor neighborhoods and it is not clear if certain long-term outcomes such as education and employment are positively affected. Federal efforts consistently draw negative responses from conservatives. Operators in the housing industry – the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, lenders, and others – mobilize to protect the mortgage interest deduction and single-family homes. American Apartheid suggested we lack the political will to enforce the 1968 Housing Act and thus we still have discrimination in housing (from mortgages to real estate agents to landlords and more).
- The court system. Given the relative lack of action by local and state officials, housing and zoning cases do occasionally make it to state and federal courts. I argued a few years back that I could envision the Supreme Court approving inclusionary zoning (I’m not sure I still think this given the current makeup of the court). They can indeed take action and compel other governmental bodies to address issues. Some famous cases include the Gatreaux case in Chicago where a court ordered scattered-site housing and the Mount Laurel cases in New Jersey combating exclusionary zoning. The problem with these is that they require taking legal action in the first place, they can take a long time to litigate, and while the results may be compelling, they are still often viewed unfavorably and putting the changes into action are not easy.
- Non-profits and religious groups. Either sets of groups have limited resources – housing is a very expensive proposition on a large scale – or are more interested in other concerns. Groups like Habitat for Humanity may do good things but they can only build so many houses and not all communities or neighborhoods are welcoming to their projects. Churches, particularly big ones, could access a good amount of resources but housing is more of a structural issue that many conservative Christians may not want to get into.
All of these options are difficult to implement. On the whole, many wealthier suburbanites and urban residents do not want any kind of cheaper or subsidized housing in their neighborhoods or community.
If I had to pick two levels that provide the best opportunities, I might go with local government and the courts. Zoning guidelines are often developed by average citizens sitting on local committees. Get named to such committees and you can influence this process. The courts are a way to get around the unpopularity of introducing cheaper housing as such measure are unlikely to find broad support. At the same time, as noted above, the court route has its own challenges.
Perhaps the most daunting option in my mind is trying to influence the federal level. Does any political party talk seriously about housing? After all, one journalist captured this quote:
The former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, told me this: “Most countries have socialized health care and a free market for mortgages. You in the United States do exactly the opposite.”
It will be hard to alter an entire system based on providing socialized mortgages for the middle-class and above.
27 thoughts on “Eight (unlikely and unpopular) policy options for addressing housing issues”
Brian, I don’t know if you know that I am part of a community organizing group and part of what I do is work for initiatives to increase affordable housing in Kane County (and to a lesser extent DuPage too). I am going to pass on this post to our members and ask them to read through it. I am sure your schedule is busy but a some point we should talk and it may be helpful if you could actually come and talk to our core group that deals with affordable housing issues.
Thanks Jeff. I remember you mentioning this to me. I have no experience working on housing issues on the ground but the issue is central in several articles I’ve published. If I can be of any help, let me know. (And I know I have a lot still to learn.)
Pingback: If “Ninety percent or so of renters still want to become homeowners,” what could this lead to? | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Linking Microsoft giving $500 million for Seattle area housing to tech companies and declining gov’t support for housing | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Consequences of an auto loan bubble | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Promote smaller, cheaper housing by calling it “missing middle housing” | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Which 2020 candidate will set themselves apart by promoting homeownership? | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Trump administration pushes housing deregulation | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Reminder: “Americans have no comparable safety net for housing” | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The Democratic debate included several minutes of conversation about housing! | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Paper suggesting Americans adopt sufficiency limits for the size of homes | Legally Sociable
Pingback: President Trump suggests suburbs can exclude and exercise local control | Legally Sociable
Pingback: What could lead to Americans considering what they want the suburbs to be | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Missing any conversation about housing in the 2020 presidential campaign | Legally Sociable
Pingback: What it means if a 20% rent price drop in Manhattan may be enough to reverse the market | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Will those who won COVID-19 housing bidding wars want to ease the path for others? | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Large actors in the US housing market and building more homes | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Looking toward the end of COVID-19 housing help | Legally Sociable
Pingback: View housing – and America? – as “a country of 384 metro areas” | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The arguments for and against banning zoning for only single-family homes | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Perhaps celebrity-led affordable housing is not the answer | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Hot rental market in Phoenix and supplying enough housing | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The implications of unevenness in rapid housing value appreciation | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Looking to global examples to address housing crunches in expensive cities | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The places in the United States with a housing surplus | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Multiple factors behind the decline in starter homes in the United States | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The difficulty in getting a number on how many housing units needed in the United States | Legally Sociable