Low-Income Housing Problems and Reformatory:
Affordable housing in the United States faces several challenges including a lack of supply and a lack of quality housing for many tenants. This means that, for lowest-income housing seekers, many are left without affordable options or in inadequate housing. This housing can be unsafe and detrimental to the health and development of residents.
While this crisis can be seen nationwide, this Note will focus on the affordable housing offered by the D.C. Housing Authority (DCHA). The Department of Housing and Urban Development has conducted an audit of DCHA that identified major problems that must be remedied. This Note will detail the major issues with DCHA and offer a number of potential actions that could improve the operation of DCHA and the properties they manage.
The public interest vision of public housing in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area is derived from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and D.C. Code. HUD describes public housing’s mission as “provid[ing] decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.” HUD’s Public Housing Program, U.S. DEP’T HOUS. & HUM. DEV., https://www.hud.gov/topics/rental_assistance/phprog (last visited Feb. 19, 2022).
D.C. Code established a Housing Authority (DCHA or the Authority) which would be “responsible for providing decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings, and related facilities, for persons and families of low- and moderate-income in the District.” D.C. Code § 6-202(b) (1999), https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/6/chapters/2. This has been further defined in DCHA’s Transformation Plan, which promoted five relevant values for the Authority, including a more specific focus on the provision of housing to those households at or below 30% of area median income (AMI).
The problems DCHA, its residents, and its applicants face involve both the quality and quantity of existing public housing. The quality issue is dire as it involves individuals and families currently living in squalor. In 2018, DCHA found that 2,500 of the “roughly 8,000 housing units” managed by the Authority required “extremely urgent” repairs or else those units would become uninhabitable. Morgan Baskin, Nearly One-Third of the City’s Public Housing Stock is at Risk of Becoming Uninhabitable, WASH. CITY PAPER (Dec. 20, 2018), https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/182436/ nearly-onethird-of-the-citys-public-housing-stock-is-at-risk-of-becoming uninhabitable/.
The urgent repairs include units with black mold, major pest concerns, caved in ceilings, lead hazards, and “other environmental hazards.” These issues present an imminent threat to the health of residents, either in immediate damages or long-term afflictions. The Transformation Plan asserts a need for $2.2 billion to “modernize and/or redevelop” fourteen sites “and refresh the entire forty-one site public housing portfolio.” Data from January 2022 shows that a total of 24,368 people are on the DC housing waitlist for public housing options and that an additional 58,887 people are on the waitlist for both available voucher programs. See Annemarie Cuccia, There Are 40,000 People on DC’s Housing Waitlist, ST. SENSE MEDIA (June 15, 2022), https://www.streetsensemedia.org/article/40000-people-d-c-s-housing waitlist/#.Y5qYYnbMLZt.
The actual number of those waiting may be lower, as the response rate for both programs is low, due to the time it takes for DCHA to respond. Another metric from the National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates a need for an additional 32,990 rental units that are “affordable and available for extremely low-income renters.” District of Columbia, NAT’L LOW INCOME HOUS. COAL. (2022), https://nlihc.org/housingneeds-by-state/district Columbia. Even a significant reduction suggests a lack of availability. This issue will be compounded as existing stock is renewed and redeveloped, rendering it uninhabitable for a time. The quantity of available housing is and will be limited below the demand for the program.
When a government seeks to provide a service, particularly one where private competition is non-existent or negligible, it will inescapably find itself acting as a monopoly. Unlike traditional monopolies, which seek to maximize profit, these public monopolies seek to maximize the impact of their budgets.9 The relevant public body will operate on a “zero profit, zero loss, constraint.”10 This is “equivalent to . . . maximizing output.