“Radical” Ideas for Reformulating U.S. Affordable Housing Policies

Print Share on LinkedIn More

Summer, 2011; Source: Shelterforce | All nonprofits concerned about housing and community development should be aware of Shelterforce magazine. It basically functions as the journal of record for the nonprofit CDC sector. (Disclosure: I have written for Shelterforce off and on, and several years ago, was on its editorial committee.) The latest issue offers six “radical” ideas for shaping housing policy, some of which ought to spur debate not just on their own merits, but for what nonprofits could and should be able to do with these recommendations.

Perhaps the most important “radical” proposal comes from Alan Mallach. His article takes on American housing policies that “have focused disproportionately on…using public funds to create a housing stock of units dedicated to lower income occupancy, separate from the private market.” But most lower income people live in private market housing, so this policy, while providing some good housing “for a small percentage of America’s low-income families…does nothing for the rest, while the effect of that housing on their neighborhoods is uneven and often problematic. We have created an affordable housing lottery that benefits only a handful of eligible households—many of whom could find decent housing in the private market without public help.”

His interesting point is that public-sector subsidies for lower-income homeownership end up going “to families who would have become homeowners anyway, while much of the rest goes to poor candidates for homeownership. . . . Few net stable new homeowners are created.” As an alternative, Mallach recommends building a “robust system” of counseling and education services to help people become homeowners, make home improvements and repairs, and provide assistance to families at risk of losing their homes.

“The more we do that,” Mallach says, “the greater the benefits—social as well as financial—for all lower income homeowners, not just the select few who win the public money lottery.”

Mallach questions why low-income housing tax credits, the major source for building new rental housing, are allocated state-by-state according to population rather than targeted to the areas where new rental developments will help rather than harm the local housing market. In addition, he calls for more assistance to “mom and pop” landlords who own one- to four-unit properties that could be upgraded for much less cost than building new rental apartments.

Mallach’s ideas as well as those of the other contributors to this issue of Shelterforce merit debate in the nonprofit sector regarding the place of nonprofits might in a radical reconceptualization of U.S. housing policy.—Rick Cohen

  • Keith Bender


    The Brookings study of 100 markets helps identify what the focused use of LITHC might adapt upon as a pendulum swings starting at one “People Extreme” since Zero Vehicle Households could serve as a desired goal. Building upon a connected transportation system and not just the broad brush approach seen in LITHC and Mass Transit. Maybe a rewrite of initials to combine the two : Low Income Affordable Transportation Oriented Housing Tax Credits. with ZVH as an additional bonus credit.

    The Definition of Affordable does need a “MakeOver” for reasons explained . Our love affair with Home ownership has backfired and may have simply acted like a run away Economic model train that goes round and round under the Christmas tree.

    Everybody wants one but after 30 years the percentage who do Own is still around 63%. So Home Ownership being subsidized and Rental Costs being taxed does seem a funny method to insure Sufferage. The income tax system as a front line behavior modifier is the easiest point of applying system wide adjustments to this leaking ship.

    The latest Census information proves 100% the failure of Reaganomics Trickle down with 50% of Income generated by only 20% of the Population making US Median Income $178,000. which makes 80% of the Working population in need of Affordability help.
    That’s Household income, but it does call into question the 80% figure who supposedly navigate the “private market”.

    Markets are concentrations of economic power and each is different from each other in all sorts of ways. So redefining the basic goal is something I hope we all agree on. Especially when Homelessness and the festering negative attributes it fosters divert our housing economics even further .
    If we educate at all we might start with the Human Rights versus Privileges.