Affordable Housing Crisis in America
Introduction:
The implicit and an explicit social contract to provide adequate affordable housing for its entire population. To date, this is a contract whose obligations remain unfulfilled. Evidence of this failure abounds in the vast numbers of homeless families on city streets, in the large numbers of families that have to live doubled and even tripled up with other families, and in the crushingly high rent burdens that many low-income families have to endure. the housing needs of our most disadvantaged citizens.
Through the enactment of building codes and other regulations, we have deemed that housing below minimal standards is unacceptable and unfit for human occupation. The cost of producing housing that meets even minimal standards, however, is above what many low-income households can afford.
The Contractual Obligation on Affordable Housing:
The explicit nature of the societal contract to meet the housing needs of all is spelled out in the Housing Act of 1949, which stipulates the “realization as soon as feasible of the goal of a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family.” But the Housing Act of 1949 was passed more than a half century ago by different politicians representing a different population.
An Unfulfilled Obligation on Affordable Housing:
America has come nowhere close to meeting this obligation. Although great progress has been made in improving the physical condition of housing, significant problems remain. For example, recent surveys of housing stock indicate that approximately 7% of all households and 15% of all low-income renter households live in units with severe or moderate physical problems (defined as malfunctioning plumbing, heating, or electrical systems, dilapidated public areas, or inadequate maintenance).3 Moreover, some of these physical deficiencies have serious health consequences, most notably, lead paint poisoning and exposure to pathogens stemming from pests.
Affordable Housing Problems:
Affordable housing is an intransigent problem that we have not come close to solving. Because housing is the single largest expenditure for most households, housing affordability has the potential to affect all domains of life that are subject to cost constraints, including health. Crushingly high rent burdens leave poor families with little money for food, doctor’s visits, or other necessities. Thus, households lacking affordable housing are vulnerable to diseases and illness associated with malnutrition and inadequate health care.
Policy Implications:
- A housing policy designed to fulfill the social contract of providing decent housing for all would be funded at the federal level, as all redistributive programs should; would be funded at levels necessary to ensure that all those with needs could have their needs met, as others have advocated6 ; and would be sensitive to the conditions of local housing markets. Federal funding is most efficient and avoids the problem of localities’ engaging in a race to the bottom, whereby each locality attempts to avoid attracting more poor households by providing overly generous housing benefits.
- Making housing an entitlement would not only help meet the needs of all, but would be inherently more equitable than the current system. Affordable housing is now rationed, for the most part, on a first come, first served basis. There is nothing equitable about a system that provides some households with a subsidy worth up to the market rate for rental units in that area, while other equally deserving households receive nothing.
Conclusion:
If our goal is to improve the health of the most disadvantaged among us, it would be unwise to ignore the crisis of affordable housing. Poor physical conditions, affordability, and location are the 3 dimensions through which housing affects health. From a policy perspective, eliminating the few remaining physical housing problems that plague some of the poor is the most feasible task, and it is the domain where the most progress has been made.