Housing Policy Paper

There is a housing crisis within America, especially in growing states such as Georgia, Arizona, Florida, and New Mexico where rents increased by 6% to 9% from 2022 to 2023; and nearly half of all renters spend more than 30% of their incomes on rent. While all other household expenses have had inflation rates between 1% and 2% in 2024, year-to-year housing cost inflation has slowly declined from 8% (in January 2023) to 4.85% (in September 2024), which is still very high.  The Housing Crisis Response Act of 2023 is a bill introduced by Democratic Representative Maxine Waters of Los Angeles in June of 2023, and was co-sponsored by 64 Democratic Representatives (no Republicans).  This bill was the Democratic Party’s plan to address the housing crisis by providing housing expansion, community advancement, and the distribution of funds to public housing. This proposed bill has a broad focus, generally trying to supply affordable or subsidized housing to those who struggle to pay rent or find permanent housing they can afford, but specifically funding programs for rural rental housing, Native American housing, seniors, persons with disabilities, and residents of neighborhoods suffering from underinvestment and blight.  Essentially, the bill provides funding for the many programs run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but the bill would have significantly increased funding to HUD with very substantial increases in funding for housing choice vouchers and programs that would lead to the “construction, purchase, or rehabilitation” of affordable homes.  The purpose was to make a wide impact within the housing issue.  

However, as the House of Representatives was led by Republicans, and the no Republicans co-sponsored the bill, the bill faced poor prospects of passage in the 118th Congress. Instead, the Republican-controlled House passed a bipartisan funding continuation bill in late September of 2024 (the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025), and the Republican alternative bill for Housing and Urban Development (Title II of H.R. 4820) was postponed and never passed. The Republican bill (H.R. 4820) proposed $27.4 billion for housing choice vouchers, whereas the Housing Crisis Response Act of 2023 would have allocated $24 billion for Housing Choice Vouchers. In contrast, the Democratic Party bill would have made $65 billion for repairing and preserving over 500,000 public housing units, whereas the Republican bill proposed only the usual $8.4 billion for this purpose.  The Democratic bill aimed to increase the supply of affordable housing and invest significantly in public housing, whereas the Republican bill did not aim to do this, and instead made modest increases in funding for housing choice voucher program.

While neither of the housing bills (the Democratic Housing Crisis Response Act of 2023 and the Republican H.R. 4820 Appropriations Act) have been passed in the 118th Congress, the American housing crisis has worsened. The market forces creating a lack of affordable housing, the government’s failure to invest in permanent supported housing (a combination of subsidized housing and mental health and addiction treatment and support), the continuing meager and inadequate support for addiction treatment and mental health services, and the refusal to invest in significant increases in housing choice voucher programs or public housing, have all created an epidemic of homelessness across the nation. The January 2023 count of the homelessness population was 653,104 people, which was a huge increase over the 580,462 counted in 2022, which was itself the highest count since 2014, when recovery from the Great Recession was improving the situation. Between 2019 and 2023 the numbers who entered emergency shelters for the first time increased by nearly 25% (Soucy et al.). Even ones within a home face issues with maintaining that status. In 2021, nearly 50% of adult renters surveyed were experiencing housing insecurity in the form of likely to be evicted (Soucy et al.). There is an ever-growing need for affordable housing accommodation as there has been increasing homelessness and housing insecurity within America. Providing affordable housing and housing accommodation has shown to decrease issues that surround the crisis.

Public housing and housing accommodation make a positive change in the economy, overcrowding, job opportunities, poverty, health conditions, and school opportunities for children. It has been shown that for every $1 spent on public housing generates an additional $2.12 in economic activity (Pagaduan, Todman). Putting money into this project generates jobs and economic growth as well as providing a proactive solution to a crisis within America. By providing housing, children who are in households receiving housing support show improvement in their academic performance. When in subsidized housing programs, there are statistically significant benefits for children in terms of their future adulthood earnings (Pagaduan). Housing changes the living of the people it is provided to. The purpose of the Housing Crisis Response Act is to make a wide impact within the housing issue.

The Housing Crisis Response Act calls for over 150 billion dollars to be set aside for crucial housing development. This is in the form of creating, advancing, or maintaining public housing, affordable and accessible housing, home ownership opportunities, and more. There are investments made to energy efficient housing, community development, and lead-paint hazard control and other housing related health concerns. Much of public housing has not been updated or replaced since 1999 (CLPHA). Over 90% of public housing is 30+ years old (CLPHA). Unfortunately, there is no mention of an idea of what to do with individuals in unsafe or unlivable assisted homes. There is not certainty they will have security in housing when the development or reconstruction of their original home needs to take place. Not only is there an increased need for housing, but there is also an extreme lack of expansion of public or affordable housing. This is why money is split into different sections, amounts varying on possible importance of need.

The bill was made with budget in mind. The money has already been allocated to different populations and types of housing. The financial aid is distributed via grants, other housing acts, and the Secretary of HUD. The grants can be awarded to local governments, assisted living facilities, public housing agencies, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit developers. The money is intended for investing, revitalizing, developing, assisting, supporting, and maintaining property and people. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that all the money given will be put towards the right thing. There is no allocated representative to watch a project through or mention of receipts kept of construction. Though, the various allocations and areas the policy will reach provide different means towards security of housing for those without. The bill has been made with the intention to reach a wide population.

The Housing Crisis Response Act has a plan to reach many experiencing housing insecurities. This bill has direct plans to address the housing crisis of people with disabilities, the elderly, Native American communities, rural communities, multifamily households, and first-generation home buyers. This population of citizens have the most need for housing stability as they are the most likely to experience housing insecurity. Unfortunately, this bill does not mention first generation immigrants which is another sensitive population to the housing crisis. Although, this is a wide range of people in need of the support and services this bill can cover, it might miss some vulnerable populations. The policy could change many people’s lives.

Overall, the Housing Crisis Response Act is a well planned out bill that addresses the crisis of housing and homelessness in America. It does this by allocating money towards different categories of development, revitalization, support, investment, assistance, and maintenance whether it be for sustainable housing or the people in need of housing.

Another criticism of the Democratic Party’s plan would come from fiscal conservatives who would point out that “taxes are already high” and “even with our high federal income taxes, we still don’t take in enough tax revenue to cover the spending we are already doing, so we have a big deficit that drives up the national debt and forces payment on the interest of the national debt to increase each year”.  Other criticisms might come from people who say the solution would be to move persons from areas where housing expenses are high to areas where housing expenses are low, rather than helping people afford housing in high-rent areas of the country. Others might question whether crowding is really so bad: “our ancestors in the 19th century lived in tiny homes or cabins, and they built this magnificent country”.  

A central contrast I would have highlighted is this: the Democratic plan calls for the creation of many new affordable housing units and a substantial increase in funding to maintain and rehabilitate existing public housing or housing units.  The Republican plan is pretty much to go along as things are, with some modest increases in the housing voucher program.  

Works Cited

Council of Large Public Housing Authorities. “Public Housing Facts.” CLPHA, 2012, clpha.org/public-housing/facts. 

Pagaduan, Julie. “Millions of Americans Are Housing Insecure: Rent Relief and Eviction Assistance Continue to Be Critical.” National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2 Dec. 2021, endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-insecurity-rent-relief-eviction-assistance/. 

Soucy, D., Janes, M., and Hall, A. “State of Homelessness: 2024 Edition.” National Alliance to End Homelessness, 5 Aug. 2024, endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/. 

Todman, A. (2019). Housing in America: Assessing the Infrastructure Needs of America’s Housing Stock. Testimony by Adrianne Rodman at the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, April 30, 2019. https://democrats-financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-116-ba00-wstate-todmana-20190430.pdf 

Waters, Maxine. “Legislative Search Results | Congress.Gov | Library of Congress.” H.R.4233 - Housing Crisis Response Act of 2023, 2023, www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4233. 

Fentanyl Crisis and the FEND Off Fentanyl Act

On April 25^th of 2023, the leaders of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs introduced a bipartisan bill regarding the current drug crisis occurring in the United States. This bill is called the FEND (Fentanyl Eradication and Narcotics Deterrence) Off Fentanyl Act. The bill, from what I have gathered, is aimed at stopping the flow of income that drug traffickers get from smuggling the deadly drug into the United States. It enhances current U.S law in order for U.S government officials to be better equipped at disrupting the fentanyl supply chain and penalizing those who are trafficking the drug. The bill will also ensure the sanctions on the money laundering that makes the drug trade possible. 

 For those unaware of the effects of the crisis fentanyl has caused, in 2021 over 100,000 Americans died from drug overdoses and over 60% of those overdose deaths were caused by fentanyl. In 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (D.E.A) seized over 375 million deadly doses of fentanyl, which in theory is enough to supply a deadly dose to every person in the U.S. Earlier this year, there was a senate hearing regarding the bill and further action that could be taken in order to stop the devastating effects of this drug. It gained more popularity because of certain people speaking out against the drug, and in support of the bill while being televised. 

My personal thoughts on the fentanyl crisis in the U.S is that we need to be doing everything we can in order to stop it. I think that the FEND Off Fentanyl Act is a great first step in order to achieve this. However, I believe there are more steps that will need to be taken to get to a point where we can consider ourselves actively fighting the fentanyl crisis. I encourage students to read up on the drug and just how harmful it is, not only for those coming into contact with the substance, but for our country as a whole. 

Sources

Domestic and International Dimensions of the U.S. Fentanyl Crisis - United States Department of State

Banking Committee Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Address the Fentanyl Crisis | United States Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (senate.gov) 

Senator Brown chaired a hearing on this act back on January 11th of 2024. It's over two hours long, but you can get a good sense of what the government is hoping to achieve with this act. The three witnesses were Jason "Helly Roll" DeFord, (artist), Patrick Yoes (national president of the Fraternal Order of Police) and Christopher J. Urben (U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration). Senator Tim Scott said during the hearings that preliminary CDC reports on 2022 suggested that 75,000 Americans were killed by fentanyl that year. 

As of late March, the committee had not voted on this, and so it hasn't gone to the Senate floor for a vote, and the House hasn't considered it. However, it has some overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, and hopefully the House will pass this. 

The bill seems to demand some reporting on money laundering in trade with Mexico and China. It seems mainly to be a bill going after suppliers and banks that help suppliers legitimate their profits. This reminds me of the old George Carlin bit from about thirty years ago. 

There are many sources with information about fentanyl, such as the Drug Policy Alliance,  the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

For ending drug abuse and addiction, I think the key is prevention and treatment, but it's harder to get bipartisan consensus on prevention and treatment laws. Attacking those who profit from dangerous drug supplies won’t hurt, and it’s easier to get agreement on such policies. To quote Edward T. Devine (1867-1948), “seek out and strike effectively at those organized forces of evil, at those particular causes of dependence and intolerable living conditions which are beyond the control of individuals whom they injure and whom they too often destroy” and to paraphrase him, ending illegal drug trade and addiction would be easier than it is “if there were not strong pecuniary interests at stake.”  That is to say, the corrupt bankers and politicians (especially in Mexico and China) have lots of financial gain, and are organized to perpetuate the flow of drugs (and their financial gain). 

Should Landlords be forced to accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

 You lost your job, bills are piling up, and now you are losing your house. What do you do? An average of half a million Americans are homeless on any given night in the US. The government has claimed we are in the middle of a housing crisis saying, “homeownership rate has declined to 64.4 percent”( https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/232/text?format=txt). In 2019 there was a bill introduced in congress called the H.R.232 - Landlord Accountability Act of 2019 presented by representative Nydia M. Velazquez (A Democrat representing the New York 7th District, in Brooklyn), which was designed to prevent landlords from denying or discriminating against people for using Section 8 vouchers as payment for rent. 

What are Section 8 vouchers? Section 8 vouchers or housing choice vouchers are given to low-income families by the government so that the family can rent or afford a home for a rate within the limits of their income. Vouchers are also not used for public housing; these are used for housed or apartments that are on the open market or else in a designated housing voucher residence (there are two types of housing choice vouchers; one for the open housing market and the other for designated properties). This program started in 1968 as part of the 1968 Civil Rights Act (the Fair Housing Act), and is run through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and serves approximately 2.2 million families. There is a controversy concerning this program related to H.R. 232; should landlords be forced to accept these housing choice vouchers, and should we even continue to assist low-income households afford housing with a voucher system like this one? 

On one side you have people saying that it is wrong that landlords are able to discriminate against and deny housing choice vouchers. There are some state laws that protect some housing choice vouchers but not all of them, “1 in 3 voucher households are protected by non-discrimination laws” ( https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/prohibiting-discrimination-against-renters-using-housing-vouchers-improves-results). That means that out of the 2.2 million families that are served only 660,000 are protected under the law in various states across the country. The argument for being against the denial of the vouchers is not limited to concerns about whether HCV-using families find places to rent, but it is also about the type of housing they can find; where and what type of housing can be bought with these vouchers with the current discriminatory laws in place? The side against denial of section 8 vouchers says “Landlords’ refusal to accept vouchers is likely a significant contributor to the fact that only 14 percent of families with children in the HCV program live in low-poverty neighborhoods” (https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/prohibiting-discrimination-against-renters-using-housing-vouchers-improves-results). For HCV program to help low-income persons escape the social isolation of living in high-poverty neighborhoods, it must be possible for them to find landlords in more wealthy (low-poverty) areas where, so often, the schools and public facilities are better, crime rates are lower, and children will meet and befriend more peers from non-poverty households. According to advocates for the laws to ban landlord discrimination against HCV-using renters, the fact that only 14% of HCV-using households with children find places to rent outside of communities with concentrated poverty is an indictment of the current system. They also argue that this refusal to accept vouchers is part of what promotes the destructive stereotype of people with section 8 vouchers being lazy, criminals, and slobs. As landlords deny use of the vouchers in nicer neighborhoods, this forces the low-income HCV-using households into poverty-stricken ones where the prejudicial stereotype builds. 

On the other side of the argument, you have those who believe that it is within a landlord’s rights to deny anyone. They bought the property, they own it, they maintain it, and they face a risk with each tenant that the tenant could damage their property, ruin the environment for other renters, or cause significant hassles for the landlord. And in the spirit of a free and open market, the seller (the landlord) should have full say in who rents and lives within the house, provided they are not discriminating against protected status identities (such as race, religion, gender, nationality, ethnicity, etc.). Being a person with a low income is not a protected status identity, since landlords must be allowed to refuse to rent to potential tenants who seem unlikely to afford the rent.  

One of the biggest complaints of the Landlord Accountability Act of 2019 from the landlord side is that the bill fined landlords for not keeping apartments up to certain inspection standards. This side claims that most of the time the standards that are imposed by HUD for these apartments are unnecessary and are at the landlord’s expense to maintain the buildings to the HUDs ridiculous standard. That is, landlords are accustomed to maintaining their rental properties at levels of quality that meet local building codes and standards, but the HCV Program has much higher standards, and meeting those standards would require many landlords to significantly increase their property investments through remodeling or expensive renovations that local codes would not require. If landlords must all meet the HCV Program standards so that their properties would be acceptable for HCV-using tenants, the improvements and the cost of upkeep of building could exceed the rent from tenants, and—the landlords claim—their returns on their investments would make property ownership for rental financially unsustainable.  This is a problem more often identified among landlords of more affordable housing units, as the older and cheaper-rent properties are less likely to meet HUD’s standards for the HCV program. 

This side also claims that the tenants from the section 8 program are less than appealing. A New York landlord stated “Section-8 tenants are the absolute bottom of the barrel. No one wants them because they are disruptive and bring criminal activity with them. I also think the NYC law is unconstitutional. A landlord should have the right to refuse a source of income” (https://citylimits.org/2016/06/07/crackdown-on-landlords-who-rebuff-section-8/). Another said, “I have NEVER EVER HEARD nice things about renting to section 8 tenants. it’s not about discrimination for being poor; it’s about discrimination because you are a horrible tenant” (https://citylimits.org/2016/06/07/crackdown-on-landlords-who-rebuff-section-8/). In this case the argument is that they are not discriminating against poor persons, but rather they are discriminating because the section 8 voucher is a reliable signal that the tenant’s behavior while renting will be costly and vexing. This side claims that they have allowed section 8 vouchers in the past, and the tenants were rude, dirty, destructive, and brought crime into the area, so their discrimination is based on experience, rather than unfounded stereotypes. 

There are forums for landlords to discuss tenants to whose HCV-program benefits, and the forums provide a mixed set of anecdotes, and these are not scientific samples that can be applied draw any conclusions, other than the conclusion that there is a wide range of reported experiences.

Chinmay J of Northern Virginia reported in the Bigger Pockets forum in 2018 in response to the query “Is Section 8 Housing as bad as people say?” the following: 

You will always get two diametrically opposing views on section 8.  It’s one of the most polarizing real estate conversations.   I am very much for it. The county/city pays you on time.. Always..The first month might be delayed due to administrative reasons, but from then onwards its like clockwork. 

I have 1 Section 8 tenant right now, whom I have vetted like anyone else. They are good people. They pay their own utilities. No issues.  They stay long term unlike 1 or 2 yrs for some other tenants. Eventually, I plan on making all my properties, at least in the state of Virginia, Section 8 properties. 

Also, the county/city does yearly inspections. The tenants are at the mercy of the the city/county approving them for the next year. If they are found in violation of rules like unauthorized pets, authorized guests, drugs, damage to the property, they could lose their vouchers. Once they lose the vouchers, it’s not easy to get reinstated.  There is always a huge waiting period.  Huge demand for housing and not enough supply. 

(https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/521124-is-section-8-housing-as-bad-as-people-say)

Dawn Anastasi of Milwaukee, Wisconsin reported in the in the same forum the following:

Section 8 is just a program. It's about vetting the people, regardless of the program. 

I had 3 tenants on Section 8. One worked her way off the program and she's still in my rental. The other two are pretty boring tenants, they pay their rent and take care of their units. I personally like boring tenants.

Many others had similar points in favor of Section 8.  The SparkRental website gives a balanced list of the advantages and drawbacks of renting to Section 8 tenants (https://sparkrental.com/become-section-8-landlord/), with many comments echoing these posts from landlords at the bigger pockets website. YouTube videos for landlords are also, on balance, cautiously optimistic about renting to HCV-program users; for example, Clayton and Natali Morris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A5Z-gwo9IY and Jim Ingersoll https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t702mIAyj40 recommend accepting HCV program tenants, provided landlords do the same screening as they do with their other tenants, checking with previous landlords and looking up police records.  In contrast, Peter Murphy of Re/Max suggests that Section 8 does not offer any benefits to landlords (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/572a39c4c6fc08512e0f088d/t/5ad78003575d1fd308310607/1524072451761/SECTION+8+FAQ.pdf). Ama of the Bronx (New York) also reports on a bad experience with Section 8, and the comments section of her post at propertydo.com is full of any posts describing HCV-tenants as “animals” with anecdotes of bad experiences: 

I am a first time Section 8 landlord and my experience with Section 8 rentals was not a good one. My Section 8 tenant was supposed to move into my three bedroom apartment with her 3 children and her husband (who was not in the Section 8 program). 

Within 2 months of moving in, the number of occupants in the apartment became 9 instead of 5. I asked her to rectify the situation and I even sent a complaint to the Section 8 housing authorities but to no avail.

Unfortunately I needed the rent money to pay my mortgage so I put up with it. Now their lease is up and I asked her to move out but she refused. She can't get a transfer from Section 8 because she owe me three months of rent. 

Now I have to spend money and time to take her to court in order to evict her. The frustrating thing is the law is always on their side and the judge will most likely give her up to 6 months extension (of the lease). 

I have learned my lesson which is "no more Section 8 tenants for me." I wish the rest of you luck.

Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any studies with good sampling that can give us confidence about the actual likelihood of HCV-using tenants being riskier propositions for landlords. And, so, the complaints by landlord interests that laws restricting their ability to reject payment in the form of HCV-program payments for low-income tenants will expose them to terrible tenants is difficult to evaluate, especially if the laws forbidding landlords from outright rejection of HCV-program tenants allows those landlords to use the same screening for such tenants as they do for those who are not using HCV-program benefits.

The H.R.232 - Landlord Accountability Act of 2019 was introduced in the House of Representatives in January of 2019. The bill never made it out of committee, and there is no record of the bill being re-introduced in the new congress that was seated in January of 2021. Representative Nydia M. Velazquez from New York was the original sponsor of this bill. She so far has proposed 163 bills in the year of 2021 as of March 11^th. Since the bill was proposed in 2019 it is unlikely that she would sponsor the bill again since it did not get out of committee, and would face poor prospects in the Senate anyway. However, if you have any thoughts, questions, or concerns with this policy or any other you are encouraged to contact your local or federal officials for your region. 

Student wants support for bill to publicize 2-1-1 referral hotline services

 The Honorable Dick Durbin

Chair, Committee on the Judiciary

525 S. 8th Street

Springfield, IL 62703

Dear Senator Durbin:

The Main purpose of the S. 4989(116^th): HELP Act of 2020 is to strengthen existing non-emergency government funded support agencies. The main component of the bill is the improving the 211 services in each state. This bill should be approved and put into effect immediately for a multitude of reasons.

This bill will take stress off the current emergency services. Roughly 20 percent of all 911 calls are non-emergency calls. My father was a fireman for twenty years and was a fire chief for four years, and he said that about 15 percent of the 911 calls he got were non-emergency. He also says that he knows that the police deal with more non-emergency situations than firefighters. This bill will make the information about the 211 services more available to the public. In doing so, people will be more likely to reach out to 211 services in non-emergency situations like helping the homeless. This will allow emergency services to have more focus on responding to actual emergencies. This will also lower the amount of incarceration and arrests that are made by 911 emergency referrals. This will mean spending less money on arrests on people such as the homeless who get arrested for having no where to go. 

This bill will also look at each state individually to decide allocation of money and resources. This will be determined by looking predictors such as population, density of population, and poverty rate to ensure that each state is given the appropriate resources. Overall, the bill authorizes an appropriation of $350 million yearly in the first two years and would decrease after two years to $300 million or less yearly within five years of the bill being passed. The bill also states that 25 percent of the funding needed will not come from the federal government, but instead will be funded by selling products and with donations given. It also says that less the one percent of the funding would be spent on administrative costs. Meaning most of the funding form the federal government would go to improving current systems and making sure that they are available for everyone to utilize in addition to making information about the services more readily available.

I asked over thirty people if they knew what the 211 number is and what services they provide, and not a single person could tell me anything about service. It is our responsibility to teach people that there are resources readily available for non-emergency help such as the homeless, mental health, suicide prevention, domestic violence, and other human needs. It is also our responsibility to provide care for those individuals who need these resources other than arresting them or other extreme and unnecessary measures that cost taxpayers more money. Arresting them does not help them and just makes it more likely that they will get arrested again. Referring people in non-emergency need can get people the help they need to keep or make them into self-providing citizens. 

In conclusion, the S. 4989(116^th): HELP Act of 2020 should be passed. It will take pressure off of emergency services by informing people about the number’s existence. It will also make sure that people have the necessary helping resources available in all communities at any hour of the year. There are also no new agencies being produced from this bill it is only meant to expand and improve what is already been in place so that it can better serve the communities that need it the most. Overall, the money that the bill authorizes seems relatively small compared to other federal programs, and the cost is expected to decrease over time. Meaning if we invest the money now it will mean spending less in the future. We have tired the current method for years and the problems are not getting any better, so it is time to try something a little more old fashion by letting the community help people by giving people access to the communities resources. 

https://www.factretriever.com/911-emergency-call-facts

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s4989/text/is