housing problems essay

As the United States has grown and the quality of the nation’s housing has improved, it has also become more expensive and less affordable to much of the nation’s population. Millions of Americans today find themselves spending so much for housing that they have difficulty meeting other necessities of life, while many others are thwarted in their dreams of homeownership.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the crisis in housing affordability has been a recurrent theme in the media, while solutions have been put forward by organizations and people across the political spectrum. But much of what is written about the problem is often misleading, while the solutions being most widely promoted would have little or no effect on the families most severely affected. In this article, I will describe the elements that make up the affordability crisis, and why they have just recently become so much more severe. Then I discuss the current efforts to address the problem and suggest what may be needed if it is ever to be truly resolved.

1. Breaking Down America’s Affordability Problems

There is no one affordability problem. There are many affordability problems, depending on one’s income, where one lives, and whether one is an owner or tenant. The most important, though, in terms of the suffering it causes and its significance for housing policy, is rental affordability or cost burden. It affects people of different incomes differently and varies greatly across the United States. A second problem is homebuyer affordability, or the extent to which high housing costs prevent households from becoming homeowners, but which mostly affects families of higher incomes than those whose lives are most deeply blighted by high rental costs. Most of this article will focus on rental affordability.

Households spending more than 30% of their gross income for rental costs, including utilities, are considered cost burdened. Those spending more than 50% of their gross income for rental costs are considered severely cost burdened. In 2021, 21.6 million renter households, almost half of all American renter households or one in six American households, were cost burdened. More than half of those, or 11.6 million renters, were severely cost burdened. The great majority of these households were very low-income households. While the percentage of cost burdened renters dropped slightly between 2014 and 2019, it has risen sharply since then. Two distinct and separate affordability problems, however, are nested in this total. I call them systemic cost burden and strong-market cost burden. They are very different.

Systemic Cost Burden

Very low-income families face the most severe rental affordability problems. They must contend with a systemic imbalance in the nation’s economy between what low-level jobs pay and what it costs a private landlord to provide a modest but decent rental dwelling unit. For example, the 25th percentile hourly wage (25% earn less and 75% earn more) in the United States for retail workers in 2021 was $12.43/hour. A worker in such a job, working 35 hours/week for 50 weeks (if she’s lucky) will earn a total of $21,131 for the year. If she is the sole support of her family, she can afford to pay no more than $528/month for rent without being cost burdened.

Most rental properties in most American communities are either single family homes or a small multifamily buildings. When you add up the operating costs, including maintenance, reserves, property management, taxes, insurance, water and sewer fees, and allowances for vacancies and collections, they typically run between $400 and $600 per year. Assuming the landlord’s cost to acquire and upgrade the property is a modest $100,000 and she aims for a 6% annual return on her investment, or has to pay a mortgage at that interest rate, the lowest rent they can charge and still come out ahead is $900 to $1100 per month, almost double what the 25th percentile retail worker and her family can afford.

Severe cost burden is concentrated among America’s poorest families. Of these families, 87% of renter households earning under $10,000/year and 67% of those earning $10,000 to $19,999 spend 50% or more of their gross income for housing. The poorest 20% of renters account for 60% of all households with severe cost burden. These families live in chronic instability. They struggle to pay for food, transportation, and other essentials, while their ability to pay their rent can easily be derailed by unexpected medical expenses or a car breakdown. Cost-burdened households, particularly single mothers with children, are at greatest risk of eviction. They move more frequently than other families and often experience episodes of homelessness, undermining their family life, their children’s future, and their neighborhood’s stability.

Strong Market Cost Burden

Systemic affordability problems exist everywhere in the United States. But in high-demand housing market areas like coastal California, New York City, or Washington, DC, the pressure created by strong demand and limited supply leads affordability problems to migrate upward; that is, families at progressively higher income levels experience affordability problems. Renters earning between $30,000 and $74,999 (roughly 40 to 100% of the national median) are much more likely to be cost burdened in Los Angeles than, say, in Philadelphia or Cincinnati. These renters are hurting, but the amount of money a family earning $75,000 and paying 40% of their income for rent has left over for other necessities is far greater than that available to the family earning $20,000.

Strong-market affordability flows from two intersecting problems: the cost of housing has been bid up by demand from more affluent households and is made worse by the difficulty and high cost of building in these areas. Housing production in areas like Los Angeles or San Francisco is severely constrained not only by restrictive regulations but by many other factors, including natural and environmental constraints. Those constraints, along with extremely high land costs, the high cost of labor and materials, and the effects of rigorous building and safety codes, have led the cost of building to skyrocket. A 2022 report pegged average construction costs in San Francisco at $439 per square foot. Using this construction cost, adding modest land and soft costs, a small new two-bedroom apartment would cost over $750,000, and would have to rent for over $4,000/month to break even. While building enough of those apartments might lead older buildings to filter down in price to where some middle-income families could afford them, tight land supply means that building enough to make a major difference might be well beyond what is realistically possible in San Francisco and many other supply-constrained strong market areas.

Affordability and the Ability to Buy a Home

Most American families aspire to homeownership. While for many years house prices and household incomes tended to move in parallel, starting around 2000 (except for a dip during the Great Recession) house prices have been rising faster than incomes. In addition to the price of the home, though, a family’s ability to afford a home depends on the interest rate on the mortgage, as well as the size of the down payment and the annual cost of property taxes, insurance, and other fees, which vary widely from one part of the United States to another. To measure this, the National Association of Home Builders and Wells Fargo have created a Housing Opportunity Index (HOI), which combines incomes, prices, and interest rates to estimate what percentage of the houses in any given housing market area are affordable to a family earning the median income for that area. The lower the HOI, the fewer homes that are affordable to such a family. See Figure 1.

The HOI goes up and down. Affordability dropped during the 2000–2007 housing bubble, rose sharply during the Great Recession, and stayed fairly stable between 2013 and 2020. Although house prices were rising during these years, their effect was mostly offset by dropping mortgage interest rates, which bottomed out in 2020. The steep drop in affordability since 2020 comes partly from rising prices and partly from rising interest rates. As with rental affordability, the affordability of homes for sale also varies widely across the country. There are areas where almost all homes are affordable to a median-income household (like Cumberland, Maryland or Elmira, New York) and those where hardly any are affordable (like Orange County, California). The 11 least affordable housing market areas are all in California, while of the 40 areas (out of 234) where a median-income family can afford 75% or more of the homes, 39 are in the Northeast or Midwest.

The ability of middle-class families to buy a home fluctuates widely over time and geography. Within 15 years, the HOI has yo-yoed from 40% to 80% and back to 40%. But there are still many places in the United States—although not necessarily those where most people want to buy homes—where homes are highly affordable. As we turn to the way the perception of affordability as a metastasizing crisis has grown seemingly overnight, it is important to maintain that perspective.

2. COVID and the Unexpected Crisis

While housing affordability has long been seen as a problem, it took on new urgency during the COVID-19 pandemic. Soon after the onset of the pandemic in early 2020, rentals and sales prices both began to rise much faster than ever before, even more than during the height of the bubble years. From the second quarter of 2020 to the fourth quarter of 2022, the median sales price for homes in the United States rose from $322,600 to $479,500, or nearly 50%. Although prices then began to tail off, the recent decline has been more than offset by rising mortgage interest rates. Rents also increased, by 13.5% in 2021 alone. While sales prices and rental growth are slowing down, they will likely never return to pre-pandemic levels. What can account for this increase, which was largely unpredicted by either researchers or industry professionals?

Many different factors came together in 2020 to create the conditions for sharp price and rent increases, as shown in Figure 3. New housing production has lagged behind demand since the onset of the Great Recession, creating a cumulative shortfall in supply, while new household formation, the main driver of housing demand, which was sluggish for many years, increased significantly during the late 2010s. At the same time, mortgage interest rates, which had been gradually declining since the 1980s, bottomed out at 2.66% in December 2020.

On top of this, the pandemic triggered both even greater demand and even less available supply. Many affluent renters realized that low mortgage interest rates made homeownership more attractive than continuing to rent. With people working from home rather than commuting to an office, many began to look for larger quarters, while others chose to relocate to communities farther from their workplace. Cities two or three hours from Manhattan—like Kingston, New York, or Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; or with strong natural amenities like Provo, Utah, or Sarasota, Florida—experienced sharp demand surges. The increase in demand was strongest among high-wage, upper-income households, disproportionately pushing prices upward.

At the same time, the number of homeowners putting their houses on the market dropped sharply. Many reasons have been suggested for this, including older owners’ reluctance to move or have strangers in their homes during the pandemic. As the market further tightened and mortgage interest rates began to rise, owners holding cheap mortgages realized that moving could mean much higher housing costs. Whatever the reasons, available housing inventory, which is highly seasonal, failed to rise as usual during the spring and summer of 2020, and then dropped precipitously during the second half of the year, just as demand was rising. By mid-2023, although the pandemic is no longer driving people’s behavior, inventory levels have remained far below pre-pandemic levels.

The increase in house prices and rents, however, has inserted the issue of affordability squarely into the American political mainstream. But what does that really mean for the millions of people impacted by high housing costs?

3. Can We Solve the Affordability Problem?

Housing costs have been on the national agenda for a long time. In 1978, the federal government created a Task Force on Housing Costs, whose final report opens by noting, “The high cost of housing is now a major problem for millions of Americans.” In 1990, President George H. W. Bush convened an Advisory Commission on Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing, while in 2004, president George W. Bush announced the America’s Affordable Communities Initiative to “bring homes within reach of hard-working families through regulatory reform.”

In some ways, nothing is new. But what people are talking about today is different in important ways. For one thing, the focus is overwhelmingly on a single issue: underproduction of new housing. While an undersupply of new housing, particularly in high-demand areas like coastal California, certainly contributes to the affordability problem, it is far from the only contributor to the problem. The focus, moreover, is on one specific obstacle to building more housing: land use regulation. That is, reforming the zoning laws local governments use to regulate the use, density, height, and other features of development.

This focus has brought together an unusually broad coalition, including homebuilders, as well as so-called YIMBY (“Yes in My Back Yard”) pro-development voices from left to right, libertarian tech bros, and left-wing housing advocates. However, the voices of those who argue that other strategies are needed, particularly organizations serving very low-income families, are barely heard.

The strength of the coalition pushing for zoning reform has already led to major changes in many municipal zoning ordinances and in the laws of a number of state governments. The latter is most important, since under the American system of government, state law defines how towns and cities regulate land use. Any change to a state’s zoning laws, therefore, changes the ground rules for hundreds of separate municipal zoning ordinances.

The first notable state zoning change was in Oregon in 2019, when it amended the state zoning law to abolish exclusive single-family zoning in cities over 10,000 in population. All such cities must now allow two dwelling units where only one could be built before, while cities over 25,000 must allow at least four. Reforms have since been enacted in California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. Eight states now require municipalities to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs)—second dwelling units on the same single family lot, either within the existing house or as a smaller separate structure—in single family zoning districts.

Ending the historic practice of exclusive single-family zoning, meaning zones where only single-family detached houses are allowed, has been a major goal of the zoning reform movement. That restriction governs the great majority of residentially zoned land in the United States, including almost all suburban land and large parts of central cities, including 70% of the residentially zoned land in Minneapolis and 81% in Seattle. Indeed, many people point to the moment in 2019, when Minneapolis amended its zoning laws to eliminate single-family zoning districts and to permit up to three housing units to be built on each individual building lot as the first major victory of the zoning reform movement.

This turnabout on zoning, although still embryonic, must be recognized as a major achievement on an issue that until recently was seen as all but politically untouchable. Yet is it the “solution” to the affordable housing crisis, or even, as has been argued, to homelessness? While some of the reforms will help, usually in small ways, the answer is an unequivocal no. Although the much-heralded Minneapolis reform affects 70% of the city’s land area, after two and a half years it had resulted in only 100 new housing units; put differently, it increased housing production in the city over that time by only 1%.

Part of the problem is that, as I have written elsewhere, there are compelling economic reasons why increasing density in already-built-up single-family districts—which describes almost all urban single-family districts—not only fails to lead to large-scale housing production, but all but dictates that any new housing will be significantly more expensive than the homes it replaces. Indeed, it is hard to escape the conclusion that—leaving aside ADUs, which are truly helpful—rezoning of built single-family areas is more about symbolism than about substance.

Although rezoning of urban commercial or industrial areas for higher-density residential use may be somewhat more productive, zoning reform in heavily developed central cities like Minneapolis or San Francisco is likely to have only a limited effect on housing supply, if only because of the inordinate cost and difficulty of site assembly and the disproportionately high cost of construction, as discussed earlier. If enough new housing gets built, it may have some effect on reducing existing rents through the filtering process, but in most cases the effect is likely to be quite modest.

Increasing housing production in the suburbs is easier and likely to have far more impact. Vacant or underutilized sites, such as low-density strip commercial areas along arterial roads, are widely available and considerably less expensive to develop than urban sites. Rezoning those areas, along with rezoning underutilized office parks to allow multifamily housing, while changing the zoning of as-yet-undeveloped land currently zoned for single family homes, could actually lead to significant increases in housing production.

But the shortfall in housing production is not just a matter of zoning. Many other factors stand in the way of significantly increasing housing production, including non-zoning regulations, the difficulty and cost of site assembly in largely built-up cities, shortages of skilled construction workers and qualified subcontractors, and high barriers to entry for start-up land developers. None of these issues have yet been seriously tackled, and some have hardly been discussed. It is important to remember, moreover, that many regulations, like limits on building in floodplains or wetlands, are there for good reason.

All of this, however, fails to address the most urgent question. At best, a program of extensive zoning reform, coupled with other measures to increase housing production, may help ameliorate the problems of some struggling middle-class households squeezed by high costs and limited supply in high-demand markets such as coastal California and New York City. Even those effects are likely to be limited because of the inordinately high cost of the new housing that will be built. It will not begin to meet the needs of low-income families, whose lives are far more devastated by housing cost burdens, because the systemic gap between housing costs and incomes makes it impossible, however many units we build, for costs to filter down to where those families can afford housing in the private market. Even less will it help meet the needs of homeless people, who (more or less by definition) have very low incomes and who are often further burdened by social, mental, or physical disabilities.

It is widely held that where the cost of an essential public good exceeds the ability of people who need that good to pay for it, the public sector should help bridge the gap. Thus we provide minimum levels of health care and food through Medicaid and SNAP as entitlements for people whose incomes are too low to pay for those goods. But that is not true for housing. Instead of being an entitlement, housing assistance is a lottery. The most widely cited estimate is that only 24% of eligible households in need are able to obtain housing assistance, in most cases through a housing choice voucher, which pays the difference between the full market rent and what a low-income family can afford, while paying 30% of their income for rent. Almost all the other 76% are cost-burdened.

The single most important thing we can do to solve the affordability crisis among low-income families is to provide a housing allowance—whether through the current voucher program or a redesigned and improved program—for every household whose income is too low for them to afford modest but decent housing in the private market.

In many communities, where supply is adequate and prices relatively low, a well-designed entitlement housing allowance program might in itself largely address the affordability problem. In higher-priced strong market areas, it would have to be combined with a program to subsidize construction of affordable or mixed-income housing to provide an adequate supply of moderately priced dwellings where people could use their allowance, including supportive housing for homeless people. This would be expensive, but well within the means of the federal government. It would be a small part of what we currently spend on Medicaid and might well reduce Medicaid costs by improving family health in the bargain. Even then, however, it would have to be a regional, not a local program. Given the cost and scarcity of building sites and the exorbitant construction costs, it is hard to see how some cities like San Francisco could ever create enough housing to meet the needs of their lower-income residents.

This is not an either-or proposition. Zoning reform is long overdue, and recent reforms are a good step forward. But they address only one small piece of what is a complex systemic problem. Treating it as the solution is not only dangerously misleading, but ignores the urgent needs of millions of low-income families for whom zoning reform by itself is little more than a cruel hoax.

ALAN MALLACH is a senior fellow at the Center for Community Progress, Washington, DC.

New, Reduced Membership Dues

A new, reduced dues rate is available for CAOs/ACAOs, along with additional discounts for those in smaller communities, has been implemented. Learn more and be sure to join or renew today!

Strategies for increasing affordable housing amid the COVID-19 economic crisis

Subscribe to the brookings metro update, ingrid ellen , ingrid ellen paulette goddard professor of urban policy and planning, director for furman center for real estate and urban policy - new york university erin graves , erin graves senior policy analyst, policy advisor regional & community outreach - federal reserve bank of boston katherine o’regan , and katherine o’regan professor of public policy and planning; director of master of science in public policy program - new york university jenny schuetz jenny schuetz senior fellow - brookings metro.

June 8, 2020

• 13 min read

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of Americans lacked stable, affordable housing . Now, the crisis has highlighted the social and economic costs of this crucial gap in the safety net. People living in poor-quality, overcrowded, or unstable housing —or without any home at all—cannot follow public health directives to safely “shelter in place.” As a result, they are at far greater risk of contracting the virus , along with other chronic illness .

Many people in this population also face risks of instability. Housing costs are a major financial stressor for low-income households, who typically devote between a third and a half of their incomes to housing. Cost-burdened households are at risk of losing their homes to eviction or foreclosure, especially during economic downturns. These households are also unable to accumulate savings that could help them weather temporary income losses like so many have seen during the pandemic.

Stable, decent-quality, and affordable housing is also critical for communities and the overall economy. Housing instability can impede workers’ ability to secure and maintain employment. As the Great Recession showed, concentrations of foreclosed and vacant homes create negative spillovers across entire neighborhoods. The housing sector creates multiplier effects throughout the economy, so contractions in construction, upgrades, and sales can translate into reduced employment and consumer spending, deepening the recession. Financial pressure on low-income renters also harms small landlords , who are disproportionately people of color and account for a large share of unsubsidized affordable housing.

Local governments and nonprofit service providers are scrambling to put in place temporary measures to help those who lack stable housing, such as purchasing motels to shelter unhoused families, placing hand-washing stations in homeless encampments, and providing emergency rental assistance . This puts additional strain on the staff and budgets of local governments and nonprofits at a time when resources are especially scarce and long-term planning is hardest.

Future pandemics and natural disasters will put similar strains on housing systems. Once the current public health crisis has been contained, policymakers should make more serious efforts to reduce the number of households who lack affordable, stable, decent-quality housing, and focus on three goals:

• Increase the amount of long-term affordable rental housing, especially in high-opportunity communities.
• Protect existing affordable rental housing from physical deterioration and financial insecurity.
• Support affordable housing projects currently in the pipeline that face financial obstacles due to the pandemic.

In this piece, we explain why each of these goals is critical to supporting affordable housing infrastructure across the U.S. We then explore strategies aimed at achieving the first goal, specifically through the acquisition of existing housing. Several policies used in recent decades offer lessons for the design of similar programs moving forward, providing both examples to emulate and pitfalls to avoid. Future work will explore policy models that support the second and third goals. Finally, we pose a series of policy design questions to help stakeholders tailor policies to local needs and capacities.

Protecting and expanding affordable housing

Successful housing interventions need to reflect local housing market conditions as well as the resources of local governments and other stakeholders. The importance of preserving existing affordable housing versus expanding the inventory will differ across communities, as will the feasibility of acquisition versus new construction. Policymakers need a toolkit of flexible strategies to draw upon to meet the three goals outlined above.  

Goal #1: Increase the supply of long-term affordable rental housing

Even before the COVID-19 crisis, housing affordability and instability were serious problems. That’s especially true in high-cost coastal markets and high-opportunity neighborhoods everywhere. The immediate recovery period after the pandemic subsides may offer a rare opportunity: If housing asset prices drop (as widely anticipated), affordable housing providers could purchase existing low-cost units and add them to the stock of long-term affordable housing.

Some (but not all) of these properties may require rehabilitation and maintenance. A program to make this happen would require an initial subsidy allocation from the federal government, philanthropy, or both, in addition to low-cost loans (conveniently, at a time of very low interest rates). State and local governments are anticipating substantial revenue losses due to the economic crisis, so they will likely have limited ability to dedicate additional resources toward affordable housing. Targeting “high-opportunity” neighborhoods—communities with well-paying jobs, access to public transit, and good schools—may be of particular value. Successfully pursuing acquisition takes particular skills—staff capacity as well as resources—so this may not be a universally useful or successful strategy.

Goal #2: Preserve the physical and financial viability of existing affordable rental housing

The economic crisis may also accelerate the deterioration of the affordable housing stock or other elements with limited capital reserves and/or net operating income. Some affordable properties could also be lost if they are sold to market-rate investors who plan to raise rents.

To guard against this, policymakers should protect and preserve existing affordable housing from physical deterioration and financial instability. One strategy would be to offer grants or subsidized loans to current owners in exchange for accepting or extending existing affordability requirements. This may be particularly useful for smaller landlords, who in many markets are disproportionately Black and Latino or Hispanic.

Goal #3: Shore up affordable housing deals in the pipeline

The COVID-19 crisis also threatens the financial viability of housing deals—particularly subsidized housing projects—that are currently in the development pipeline but not yet completed. Shoring up future projects may not be as high a priority for some localities as protecting existing properties, but may be an area for partnerships with private capital sources.

How to expand affordable housing through acquisition

In recent decades, several local and national policies have been used to expand the affordable housing inventory through acquisition of existing buildings. Below, we discuss three local examples—one from King County, Wash., and two from New York City—as well as one federally funded national program.

The King County Housing Authority’s multifamily housing acquisition program

The King County Housing Authority (KCHA) has taken advantage of the flexibility granted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Moving to Work (MTW) program to pursue multifamily housing acquisitions in high-opportunity neighborhoods . MTW exempts participating public housing authorities from many existing public housing and housing choice voucher rules, and provides them with flexibility in how they use their federal funds.

In 2016, King County agreed to provide KCHA with access to the county’s triple-A credit rating to assist in developing or acquiring as many as 2,200 additional units over the next six years. By providing the housing authority with access to lines of credit from lenders, this financing support allows KCHA to act quickly when the opportunity arises to acquire a strategically located property. By securing additional units, KCHA can preserve long-term affordability and provide housing for Section 8 voucher holders in high-opportunity neighborhoods.

MTW’s flexibility has allowed King County to acquire mixed-income properties in high-opportunity areas through bond financing and other private financing tools . Since 2016, KCHA has acquired more than 1,500 units of housing along the region’s emerging mass transit corridors. The acquisition program is possible for two reasons : flexibility in spending federal money and strong credit ratings for both KCHA and King County.  

New York City’s 10-year plan

Like many U.S. cities, New York City suffered substantial population losses during the 1970s.  By the end of the decade, it had taken ownership of more than 100,000 vacant and occupied apartments as well as large tracts of vacant land through tax foreclosure. The city struggled to manage this vast stock of housing and land, and in 1985, Mayor Ed Koch announced an ambitious 10-year program , expanding it a few years later to commit $5.1 billion of city capital to create or preserve 252,000 housing units for low-, moderate-, and middle-income households.  By 2000, the plan had created 66,000 new housing units through construction or gut rehabilitation of vacant properties, and the renovation of another 116,000 occupied units.

The 10-year plan comprised a wide range of programs which provided subsidies to both nonprofit and for-profit developers. Generally, the city transferred land or buildings to developers at little or no cost and also provided capital subsidies in the form of below-market interest rate loans. Research shows that this effort was successful in not only providing about 200,000 homes, but it also aided in revitalizing neighborhoods that had been devastated by abandonment and arson.

While the 10-year plan wasn’t technically an acquisition program, there are lessons to be gleaned. First, with control of land, the city was able to lock in affordability before markets later recovered. One can argue about whether the affordability restrictions lasted long enough, but the program clearly boosted the supply of affordable homes. Second, the struggles the city faced in managing this large housing stock raise a cautionary note, and underscore the importance of quickly transferring ownership to capable and responsible nonprofit and for-profit owners. Third, while the scale of this program cannot be replicated, there was clearly value in creating off-the-shelf programs that multiple developers could use. Fourth, the city aimed at revitalizing neighborhoods, and as such, clustered its property transfers on particular blocks, aiming to create housing that could serve a mix of low-, moderate-, and in some cases, middle-income households.

New York City Acquisition Fund

Launched in 2006, the New York City Acquisition Fund aimed to provide flexible funds to mission-driven developers to acquire and preserve affordable buildings which might otherwise be sold to speculative investors. The aim was to fill the need for flexible predevelopment loans that would allow affordable housing developers to act nimbly and buy available properties.

The Fund, which was started with initial seed capital from several philanthropic organizations,  provides capital for acquisition and predevelopment costs more quickly than other government programs. Foundation and city funds take first losses, while private lenders provide additional capital. Each dollar the city has invested in the Fund has leveraged $7 additional private dollars . The Fund is managed through a revolving credit facility. Three community development financial institutions (CDFIs) serve as originating lenders, and an asset management fund manages the Fund.

Over its first 10 years, the Fund provided $336 million in financing to create over 10,000 affordable homes, with 75% reserved for low-income residents. As successful as the program has been, one limiting factor has been that the city has to negotiate and underwrite each deal separately. There could be substantial advantages to structuring subsidies as part of an as-of-right financing package with affordability restrictions that would not require project-by-project negotiations.

Neighborhood Stabilization Program

The federal government created the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) to mitigate the impact of concentrated foreclosures in low-income neighborhoods during the 2007-2009 housing crisis. HUD allocated nearly $7 billion over three rounds of funding to local and state governments and nonprofit organizations. Funds could be spent on various activities intended to reclaim and reutilize vacant properties; in practice, most grantees used NSP funds either to acquire and rehabilitate properties or demolish vacant structures. The program initially targeted single-family homes, which accounted for most foreclosures. However, grantees in strong real estate markets—including New York City, Chicago, Boston and Washington, D.C.—used NSP funding to acquire and rehab multifamily rental properties, adding them to the long-term affordable inventory.

The primary focus on acquiring existing properties, rather than new construction, makes NSP quite different from the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and most other affordable housing programs. Acquisition offers two primary advantages over new construction, especially in high-cost housing markets. First, the per-unit cost of creating long-term affordable housing is much lower (even when properties require some rehab), which allows limited subsidy dollars to stretch farther. Second, in housing markets with highly restrictive local land use regulations , developing a new apartment building can take a decade or more . Acquiring existing buildings in relatively good physical condition can make affordable units available to low-income households much faster.

NSP grantees encountered some implementation difficulties that offer lessons for future programs. Most importantly, many organizations had limited prior experience in acquiring and rehabilitating vacant homes, while grantees with existing expertise were able to deploy resources more quickly and effectively. Some local governments had to work around institutional barriers such as procurement rules that hindered their ability to make strategic acquisitions .

The program’s rules also posed some challenges. The short timeline for committing funds (typical for stimulus spending programs) pushed some grantees to pursue acquisitions that did not meet their larger strategic goals. A requirement to purchase properties at discounted prices hindered grantees’ ability to compete with private investors.

One tension within the NSP was conflict among multiple goals. As part of the larger economic stimulus package, NSP grantees wanted program funding to support residential construction jobs through the rehabilitation work. But properties that needed extensive rehab had substantially higher per-unit costs, resulting in fewer units being acquired. The COVID-19 crisis is likely to create similar dilemmas for local organizations; developing a clear strategy and priorities early would help guide consistent actions later.

While NSP was explicitly meant to support hard-hit neighborhoods through geographically concentrated activity, distressed properties may be more dispersed in the current crisis. This suggests that the recovery period following COVID-19 could offer an unusual opportunity to increase the availability of affordable housing in high-opportunity neighborhoods—a different strategy than mitigating blight.

Tailoring policy toward local goals, resources, and market conditions

As policymakers develop strategies to address critical needs in their communities, there is a range of policy design questions that can help them tailor their programs.

• What are the highest priorities for the community? Policymakers in high-cost markets may place greater weight on ensuring long-term affordability for properties in appreciating neighborhoods. Communities with an older housing stock will have more properties in poor physical condition that could otherwise become uninhabitable.
• What kinds of entities should be eligible to participate? The ecosystem of affordable housing providers varies substantially across communities, including public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit firms. With appropriate affordability guidelines, any of these entities could be useful partners.
• Are local governments prepared to be long-term owners and/or property managers, or is the goal to transfer ownership to non-public-sector owners (either nonprofit or for-profit)? With the exception of local housing authorities, most local governments have little experience with property management and limited staff capacity to take this on.
• Are there opportunities to utilize alternative ownership models, such as community land trusts and limited equity cooperatives? These structures can secure long-term affordability and provide greater community voice.
• How can public funds be structured to leverage philanthropic or private funds without adding unnecessary complexity? The New York City Acquisition Fund and the Washington Housing Conservancy offer two models for flexible investment vehicles.
• How should long-term affordability provisions be designed and implemented? Without deep subsidies, it is difficult to make housing affordable to low-income households. Income-mixing at the project level can increase financial stability, while mixed-income neighborhoods offer residents greater economic opportunity.

Don’t let a crisis go to waste

The COVID-19 crisis has drawn widespread attention to the existing inequalities in American society, including disparate racial health impacts and the financial fragility of low-wage workers . As policymakers and voters become more aware of the social costs created by housing instability, there is an opportunity to address long-standing gaps in the safety net. Achieving meaningful reductions in housing insecurity will require more resources—and more thoughtful strategies—from public agencies, philanthropy , and private capital .

Thanks to Sarah Crump for excellent research assistance.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

Related Content

Leah Brooks, Genevieve Denoeux, Jenny Schuetz

June 3, 2020

Jenny Schuetz

May 12, 2020

Hannah Hoyt, Jenny Schuetz

June 2, 2020

Housing Infrastructure

Brookings Metro

Keon L. Gilbert, Calvin Bell

August 29, 2024

Caren Grown, Junjie Ren

August 19, 2024

Elizabeth Linos, Jan Whittington, Blair Levin, Christopher Severen, Noah Kazis, Alex Berke, Anika Singh Lemar, Robert Puentes

February 16, 2023

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key facts about housing affordability in the U.S.

A rising share of Americans say the availability of affordable housing is a major problem in their local community. In October 2021, about half of Americans (49%) said this was a major problem where they live, up 10 percentage points from early 2018. In the same 2021 survey, 70% of Americans said young adults today have a harder time buying a home than their parents’ generation did.

A variety of factors have set the stage for the financial challenges American homeowners and renters have been facing in the housing market, including incomes that haven’t kept pace with housing cost increases and a housing construction slowdown . A surge in homebuying spurred by record low mortgage interest rates during the COVID-19 pandemic has further strained the availability of homes.

Here are some of the key measures of the housing affordability crunch in the United States and the reasons behind it.

This Pew Research Center analysis about housing affordability in America draws from Center surveys designed to understand Americans’ views and preferences for where they live. It also uses outside data from sources including the Federal Reserve Bank and the U.S. Census Bureau.

Everyone who took the Pew Research Center surveys cited is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Rising demand for housing meets limited supply

• As home sales have boomed, active housing listings have dropped and the median home sale price has surged, according to data from the Federal Reserve. The number of active housing listings in the U.S. was at its lowest in at least five years in January 2022, with 408,922 active listings on the market. That’s a 60% drop from about 1 million listings in February 2020, just before the coronavirus recession hit the U.S. Around the same time, the national median sale price for a single-family home jumped 25% from $327,100 in the fourth quarter of 2019 (the last full quarter unaffected by the COVID-19 recession) to $408,100 in the fourth quarter of 2021, the most recent data available. The greatest increases were in the West, Midwest and Northeast. Housing vacancy rates, meanwhile, have dropped over the last decade. The vacancy rate for rental units fell from about 10% in 2010 to 5.6% at the end of 2021. The rate for homeowner units is down from about 2.6% in 2010 to 0.9% in 2021 (the most recent year with available data).
• Housing availability has been squeezed by a near-record increase in the number of American homeowners in 2020, a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data found. There were an estimated 2.1 million more homeowners in the fourth quarter of 2020 than there were a year earlier, equal to the previous record increase in homeowners, which occurred during the housing boom between 2003 and 2004. During 2020, the U.S. homeownership rate also increased to 65.8%, up from 65.1% a year earlier – a large year-over-year change, but still below the historical peak of 69.2% in 2004. The homeownership rate in the fourth quarter of 2021 (65.5%) was not statistically different from the rates in the fourth quarter of 2020 (65.8%) and the third quarter of 2021 (65.4%). Homeownership among households headed by White Americans rose an estimated 0.8 points from 2019 to 2020 – the only racial or ethnic group to see a statistically significant increase during that time. (Homeownership rates did not significantly increase for any racial or ethnic group between 2020 and 2021). In the fourth quarter of 2021, 74% of White adults owned a home, compared with 43% of Black Americans and 48% of Hispanic Americans. These disparities in homeownership have persisted over decades.

Renters are feeling the strain

• In 2020, 46% of American renters spent 30% or more of their income on housing, including 23% who spent at least 50% of their income this way, according to the most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau . This meets the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s definition of being “cost burdened.” Although spending 30% of income on housing has long been considered the most a household should spend in order to have money left over for essentials, some researchers have argued this housing affordability measure should be adjusted to reflect changes in the cost of other necessities, types of households and other factors.

• Renters across the U.S. have seen the average rent rise 18% over the last five years, outpacing inflation, according to consumer price index data from  the Bureau of Labor Statistics . Between 2017 and 2022, the cost of all goods and services increased by 16% due to inflation. During that span, the growth in rent prices exceeded inflation in every region but the Northeast: The average rent rose 21% in the West, 20% in the South and 18% in the Midwest. Rents were up 12% in the Northeast during that time.  From February 2020 to February 2022, rents were up 6%, compared with a 10% inflation rate amid loosening coronavirus restrictions.
• Renters tend to skew toward the lower ends of the economic scale when it comes to income and wealth , according to data from the Federal Reserve’s 2019  Survey of Consumer Finances . That year, about six-in-ten Americans in the lowest income quartile (61%) rented their homes, as did 88% of people with net worths below the 25th percentile. People with lower incomes or net worths were more likely to be renters: Only 10.5% of people in the top income quartile, for example, were renters. Younger Americans and those who are Black or Hispanic are more likely to be renters, according to an August 2021 Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Roughly a third of U.S. households (35%) were headed by renters in 2021, the last year for which the U.S. Census Bureau has reliable estimates. Households headed by Black or African American adults are more likely than the population overall to rent their homes (57% rent), along with 52% of Hispanic- or Latino-led households. Around a quarter of households led by non-Hispanic White adults (26%) rent. Americans younger than 35 are far more likely to rent than those in older age groups: 62% of this age group lives in rentals compared with 39% of those ages 35 to 44, and 30% of 45- to 54-year-olds.
• Looking ahead, Americans anticipate continued rent increases in 2022, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Survey of Consumer Expectations . Americans expect that rents will increase by 10% this year – that’s larger than the expected increase in price for any other commodity, including food (9.2%), college education (9.0%) and gas (8.8%).
• Economic Conditions
• Homeownership & Renting
• Personal Finances

Katherine Schaeffer is a research analyst at Pew Research Center .

Eggs, gasoline and car insurance: Where inflation has hit Americans hardest

Public’s positive economic ratings slip; inflation still widely viewed as major problem, economic ratings are poor – and getting worse – in most countries surveyed, biden’s job rating slumps as public’s view of economy turns more negative, trust in america: how do americans view economic inequality, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• American Growth Project
• Kenan Insights
• Attend Event
• Affiliated Centers

The Affordable Housing Crisis in 2023: Where Do We Stand, and What are the Solutions?

• &title=The Affordable Housing Crisis in 2023: Where Do We Stand, and What are the Solutions?&source=https%3A%2F%2Fkenaninstitute.unc.edu%2Fcommentary%2Fthe-affordable-housing-crisis-in-2023-where-do-we-stand-and-what-are-the-solutions%2F">

The affordable housing crisis in the United States has plagued Americans across the country since the Great Recession—and is only getting worse. 2022 estimates indicate that the U.S. needs some four to five million more homes on the market than it has right now . Housing costs have become increasingly untenable for renters and buyers alike; over 40% of renters are cost-burdened (meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs), and housing prices are rising faster than wage growth in 80% of U.S. markets . Moreover, the situation has been exacerbated by the work-from-home boom and supply chain shortages that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic. Demand increased as Americans moved to the suburbs; at the same time, supply decreased due to shortages of labor and building materials.

We talk to Andra Ghent, Professor of Finance at the University of Utah’s David Eccles School of Business , to discuss the problem of housing affordability, as well as what solutions might be possible for the public and private sectors.

How has the work-from-home boom changed housing affordability and migration patterns since the pandemic?

People need more space to be able to work remotely. We know this from pre-pandemic data showing that people that worked remotely spent a larger fraction of their income on housing and had more rooms in their home (see graph below from Stanton and Tiwari, 2021). Importantly, it’s not just dedicated home office space that people want more of when they work remotely. They also use the other parts of their home more intensively (bathrooms, kitchens, basement gyms) since they’re more likely to do all the ancillary activities they did at the office at home now. The increase in work-from-home thus lead to a big increase in housing demand that increased housing prices.

Working from home makes living in the suburbs less costly, since people only need to commute 2-3 days per week instead of 4-5. Subsequently, it shifted housing demand towards the suburbs, particularly in cities where people face long commutes, where suburban space is relatively cheap, and with high shares of white-collar workers.

In the long run, the increase in house prices will moderate a bit as home builders are able to add more space where people want to live. That said, municipalities have enacted increasingly onerous land use regulations that are making it harder for home builders to add supply—even in the long run—so some of the increase in home prices is permanent.

How are higher interest rates affecting renters as opposed to homeowners?

Unfortunately, any fall in home prices from the increase in interest rates is not due to either a short-run or long-run improvement in affordability for either renters or buyers. Home prices are just the capitalized value of the future expected stream of rents, and the rate at which they are being capitalized has risen. This is part of why you are seeing some moderation in home prices or even outright declines in some places. Mostly, the rise in rates means that some people who previously could have qualified for a mortgage can’t right now. As a result, there are fewer buyers bidding on any homes on the market.

The rise in interest rates also means that many would-be home sellers are effectively locked into their current home, since they can’t take their current mortgage rate with them if they buy a new house. This means the market for existing homes is especially thin.

Rents are not falling significantly, so it would be a mistake to think that affordability has improved because of the increase in interest rates. Nothing has improved for renters; in fact, new construction of housing is declining because homebuilders are having a harder time getting deals to pencil with the increase in interest rates. That means that the rise in rates will decrease affordability in the medium-term.

What solutions are most viable from the public and private sectors? Are there examples of successful policies that have increased the supply of affordable housing?

We need states to step in and preempt municipalities from enacting and enforcing land use restrictions that raise housing costs. Land use control is a police power that is constitutionally guaranteed to states, not cities. While states often delegate the power to municipalities, they can take it back when cities don’t use it for the public benefit. Because housing markets are regional, any individual city does not bear the full cost of making it hard to build.

The best chance we have to improve housing affordability in the long term is to reduce construction costs through automation of construction processes. There is a lot of innovation going on in housing construction – “modular” housing, 3D printing, and so forth – but right now there are problems getting these processes to scale and become affordable. We’ve seen little to no productivity growth in housing construction in 50 years, unlike what we’ve seen in the rest of the manufacturing sector, because we haven’t seen scale in manufactured housing.

So, we need manufactured housing built at scale. To make this possible, we need harmonization of land use law to make it possible to build the same type of housing in many cities and know it adheres to code. HUD can change its manufactured housing definition to allow home builders to remove the chassis and still have it count as manufactured housing. This needs to be accompanied by laws at the state level mandating that manufactured housing is a permitted housing type in any zoning code that allows single-family housing. Otherwise, manufactured housing will get relegated to parks.

• Keyword(s):
• affordable housing 22
• economic outlook 250
• real estate 19

Andra Ghent

Professor of Finance , University of Utah

You may also be interested in:

• Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise
• Kenan Institute
• Kenan Scholars
• Find an Expert
• Sign up to receive communications from the Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise
• Manage Subscriptions

Australia’s ‘deeply unfair’ housing system is in crisis – and our politicians are failing us

Senior Lecturer in Urbanism, University of Sydney

Disclosure statement

Laurence Troy receives funding from the the Australian Research Council (ARC), and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

University of Sydney provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

“The fact that one of the least populated countries on Earth contains the world’s second most expensive housing is a national calamity, and a stunning failure of public policy,” writes Alan Kohler, in the latest Quarterly Essay .

He doesn’t mince words. We are in a housing crisis – and it is a public policy failure of the biggest kind. This crisis is about more than housing: it is a social and economic crisis, creating a society defined by inherited wealth.

Review: Quarterly Essay 92: The Great Divide – Australia’s Housing Mess and How to Fix It by Alan Kohler (Black Inc.)

This has not happened overnight. Kohler maps out 70 years of housing public policy in Australia, starting with changes to the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement in 1954, when the program was redirected to support home ownership by forcing the states to sell much of what was being built.

By 1971, approximately 40% of the houses built by the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement – which had included 96,000 in its first decade, from 1945 to 1955 – had been sold.

These changes have led to a generational fracture in housing pathways and a breakdown in one of the key pillars that defined Australia’s welfare state in the 20th century.

Somewhat refreshingly, Kohler captures a sentiment many of us with newly minted mortgages or stuck in private rental know, deep down: Australia’s housing system is in crisis, it is deeply unfair and our politicians are failing us.

Read more: Friday essay: how policies favouring rich, older people make young Australians Generation F-d

‘Housing is a human right’

Kohler argues the seeds of the problems we now face were established not long after the second world war, when, as he points out, the Australian government was directly funding the delivery of over 50,000 dwellings annually. Over half a century, the decline in government support for the development of new housing – and in particular for new public housing – underlies the current crisis.

In 1947, just 53.4% of Australians owned a home. By 1966, this had risen to 71.4%. Robert Menzies, prime minister from 1949 to 1966, claimed the credit. Now, in 2023, it’s dropped to around 66%.

But, Kohler says, the credit Menzies claimed for expanding access to housing is “unjustified” – instead, he and his Minister for Social Services, Bill Spooner, “destroyed” public housing and “set the scene for decades of mistakes by their successors in the Coalition”.

The subversion of the public housing program from the mid-50s onwards, reflecting the conservative and nationalist agenda of the Menzies government that instigated it, shifted the policy position on public housing from being a key plank in the building of a modern nation, to one of residual welfare. Kohler makes the case that “housing is not welfare, it’s an economic right”.

Housing is more than that: it is a human right. The wider point though, is that housing and housing policy is integral to the economic welfare of all Australians – and only considering it in terms of social welfare, a policy space that has suffered from malign neglect over half a century, has consigned housing policy to the wilderness.

Read more: Insecure renting ages you faster than owning a home, unemployment or obesity. Better housing policy can change this

Tax reduction and capital gains

While the conditions may have been set long ago, the key changes that culminated in this affordability crisis began around 2000. Discounts on capital gains, introduced by the Howard government in 1999, lit the fuse on this housing bonfire.

The tax and wealth advantages of property investing were so beneficial, it unleashed a tidal wave of demand in housing. High-income-earners in particular could reduce tax on their income, then get a kicker on capital gains later. Kohler notes that these changes have meant:

whereas in the rest of the world investing in real estate is all about getting rental income from tenants, in Australia it’s about getting an income tax deduction and then capital gain.

The charts presented in the essay can almost pinpoint the exact moment these changes passed through parliament (see below). Dwelling prices detached themselves from income growth.

Since 2000, there has been a 6% component growth in dwelling values, compared with only 3% for incomes. Prices are so detached from incomes, it is no longer possible for the average earning household to afford the average house.

Housing now defines class

As the essay’s title suggests, Kohler makes the case that over the past 30 years, public policy has created a society increasingly defined and divided by inherited wealth. Wealth is now determined, he argues, by two things: where you live, and the house you inherit from your parents.

There are two important dimensions to this. The first is that wealth (and wealth creation) has been deeply embedded in housing ownership. Lisa Adkins, Melinda Cooper and Martijn Konings at the University of Sydney have termed this the “asset economy” and argue new class positions are being defined through housing assets.

Traditionally, class was often defined through the type of job you did. Now, it is increasingly defined by how much property you own. Renters of course, don’t even get a look-in. This change really got underway from the mid-1980s, led by the then-Labor government through financial deregulation, broad privatisation of urban services and residualisation of welfare.

Secondly, opportunity is now no longer tied to education and hard work: it’s now inherited. The simple arithmetic on the historical trends Kohler presents exposes how the scale of the problem has shifted since the 1990s. The median price of housing has grown from around three times the median income in 1990 to around eight times in 2023.

For housing to be affordable, house prices would need to halve, or incomes would need to grow at 4% per year for 20 years, while house prices stayed the same. Neither is likely. As our recent research has shown, the problem is so extreme that in places like Sydney, the only pathway to ownership is through inherited wealth and the bank of Mum and Dad.

Housing: ‘a cartel of the majority’

Many of the broad threads of this essay were on point. They lay out how policy has not only failed to address housing problems, but actively created them. There were, however, some contradictory moments.

The first was around housing supply. After noting the key historical threads, Kohler points the finger at recalcitrant planners for blocking development. But planners, as he points out, “do not build housing, developers do”. Moreover, he acknowledges the whole “property development business model favours selling apartments to individual investors who can pay more”.

Blaming planners is not new, but it ultimately misses the point. A recent analysis suggested there were over 100,000 approved but unbuilt dwelling units in Australia between 2012 and 2000. The supply system itself is now thoroughly geared to capital flowing from investors. If developers cannot sell to them, or simply cannot make enough profit, the banks won’t lend and developers won’t build.

As Kohler notes, the politics of this is simple:

housing is a cartel of the majority, with banks and developers helping them maintain high house prices with the political class actively supporting them.

Even if financing constraints could be overcome and developers could build what they liked, the Reserve Bank Australia itself noted this would only drop prices by about 2.5%. When prices rose by 25% in 2021, this hardly seems revolutionary.

The real issue of supply is exposed in the essay, but unfortunately not returned to in the resolution. Our recent analysis showed Australia would need to deliver around 45,000 social housing dwellings per year for 20 years to meet the current backlog in demand.

When Commonwealth and state governments managed to create over 50,000 dwellings in 1950, when the population was one third what it is today, meeting today’s need should not be a problem. But the current government ambition is just 30,000 over five years – which is woeful. Even if those numbers are delivered, the share of social housing will still be going backwards.

There is much to like in this essay, which clearly demonstrates that the current housing crisis is about so much more than the shelter it represents.

Housing is deeply implicated in the very idea of what it means to be Australian and the egalitarian values many Australians hold dear. Unfortunately, the inequalities that are emerging are cementing new class inequalities – now, your chances in life will be completely dependent on the family you were born into.

The sooner we realise this, the sooner there can be a collective reflection. We need to ask: is that what we really want?

• Real estate
• Quarterly Essay
• Public housing
• Home ownership
• Book reviews
• Robert Menzies
• Capital gains

Service Centre Senior Consultant

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

How Housing Policy Is Failing America's Poor

Section 8 was intended to help people escape poverty, but instead it’s trapping them in it.

When a woman in McKinney, Texas, told Tatiana Rhodes and her friends to “go back to your Section 8 homes” at a public pool earlier this month, she inadvertently spoke volumes about the failure of a program that was designed to help America’s poor.

Created by Congress in 1974, the “Section 8” Housing Choice Voucher Program was supposed to help families move out of broken urban neighborhoods to places where they could live without the constant threat of violence and their kids could attend good schools.

But somewhere along the way, “Section 8” became a colloquialism for housing that is, to many, indistinguishable from the public-housing properties the program was designed to help families escape.

How did this happen? To begin with, Section 8 is poorly designed. It works like this: Families lucky enough to get off lengthy waiting lists are allowed to look for apartments up to a certain rent, which varies for each metro region. This figure is called the “fair market rent,” and is calculated by HUD every year for each metro area. The tenant pays about 30 percent of his income,  and the voucher covers the rest of the rent (this is based on the idea that families should not spend more than one-third of their income on rent).

But the fair market rent cut-off point often consigns voucher-holders to impoverished neighborhoods. This is in part because of how that number is calculated: HUD draws the line at the 40th percentile of rents for “typical” units occupied by “recent movers” in an entire metropolitan area, which includes far-flung suburbs with long commutes and, as a result, makes the Fair Market Rent relatively low. In New York City, for example, the Fair Market Rent for a one-bedroom is $1,249, a price that would relegate voucher-holders to the neighborhood of Brownsville in Brooklyn, one of the most dangerous places in the city, and where the most public housing is located.

Technically, voucher holders can live anywhere in a region that meets the price restrictions. But the tendency is for people to stay in neighborhoods that are familiar to them, though a few areas have created robust mobility-counseling programs to try and mitigate this. Additionally, as Eva Rosen has detailed , landlords in low-income areas aggressively recruit voucher-holders, as the vouchers are a much more reliable source of rent than other low-income tenants have available.

The failings of Section 8 go far beyond flaws in how the program was designed to how the the states have implemented it. People can argue all they want about the merits of subsidized housing, but given that Section 8 exists, it would seem advantageous for states and municipalities to take advantage of federal funds to help families find better housing. But many states seem especially determined to keep voucher-holders in areas of concentrated poverty.

“The whole idea of Section 8 in the beginning was that it was going to allow people to get out of the ghetto,” said Mike Daniel, a lawyer for the Inclusive Communities Project, told me. (Daniel has sued HUD over the way it is carrying out the program in Dallas.) “But there’s tremendous political pressure on housing authorities and HUD to not let it become an instrument of desegregation.”

For example, in much of the country, landlords can refuse to take Section 8 vouchers, even if the voucher covers the rent. And, unlike the landlords in poor neighborhoods in Eva Rosen’s study, many landlords of buildings in nicer neighborhoods will do anything to keep voucher-holders out. The result is that Section 8 traps families in the poorest neighborhoods.

One study in Austin found that there were plenty of apartments around the city that voucher-holders could afford. But only a small portion of those apartments would rent to voucher-holders.

The report, by the Austin Tenant’s Council, found that 78,217 units in the Austin metro area—about 56 percent of those surveyed—had rents within the Fair Market Rent limits. But only 8,590 of those units accepted vouchers and did not have minimum income requirements for tenants. Most were located on the east side of Austin, in high-poverty areas with underperforming schools and high crime rates. (The survey only looked at apartment complexes with at least 50 units.)

“Families don't have very many choices as to where they can actually use the voucher,” said Nekesha Phoenix, the Fair Housing Program Director at the Austin Tenants’ Council. “Although there are properties north and west that they could actually afford to live in, they can't do it because the properties won't take the voucher.”

Some cities have tried to prevent this. Last year Austin passed a “Source of Income” ordinance that prohibited landlords from refusing to rent to people solely because they have a voucher. And 12 states, as well as the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Chicago, and Philadelphia have all done the same.

But in Austin the landlords successfully pushed back. The Austin Apartment Association sued the city over the ordinance, asking for an injunction to block it. The apartment owners say that being forced to accept Section 8 meant more paperwork, onerous lease terms, and “ burdensome inspections .” (Section 8 properties have to be inspected to ensure they are sanitary and safe.)

After a district judge left the law standing, the Texas legislature in May passed a bill banning any municipality from passing Source of Income ordinances. Source of Income discrimination will once again become legal in Austin when the state law goes into effect in September.

“A housing authority that on its own set out to use housing choice voucher as an instrument of desegregation would be brought to its knees by the elected officials of the cities that they’re in,” Daniel told me.

Why do some landlords try so hard to attract voucher-holders and others try so hard to avoid them? Section 8 tenants pay the rent reliably and stay in apartments for longer than market-rate tenants, according to Isabelle Headrick, the executive director of Accessible Housing Austin!, who is also a property owner. Though the apartment owners’ lobby had said that Section 8 requires landlords to sign a 400-page document and makes it more difficult to evict tenants, Headrick says that the contract is only 12 pages, and that the inspections required are “no more difficult than what a responsible landlord should be doing anyway.”

“Having Section 8 tenants makes my job easier, not harder,” she said.

But in Dallas, the Inclusive Communities Project found that some landlords who owned many units throughout the city would rent to voucher-holders in low-income neighborhoods, but not in high-income neighborhoods, even if the tenants could afford both apartments. Though the landlords would say they refused the vouchers because they didn’t want to deal with the paperwork, housing advocates say that property owners don’t want Section 8 tenants (read: minorities) in buildings because they might drive away market-rate tenants.

The Inclusive Communities Project sued HUD over the way it calculated Fair Market Rents in Dallas. It is now trying to make an arrangement with Dallas-area landlords so that it can rent apartments from them and then sublease them to Section 8 tenants, taking away landlords’ excuses for not wanting to deal with Section 8 paperwork. (Daniel also sued the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs over how it distributed tax credits for low-income housing, a case the Supreme Court will rule on in the next few days.)

“The idea that Section 8 people should be required to stay in areas of slum and blight—at some point they’re going to realize that’s just racial segregation,” Daniel told me.

Often, voucher-holders in Austin have such a hard time finding housing that they need to ask for multiple extensions to find housing. Tenants lose the voucher if they don’t use it in 60 to 90 days.

David Wittie, a voucher-holder in Austin, ran into this problem when he was looking for a new place last year. Wittie called around and found a few places that said they took vouchers. But by the time he got on a bus and arrived at the apartment building to sign a lease, the units would be rented. Wittie, who has been in a wheelchair since he contracted from polio in 1956, said that he had to ask for three extensions before he found a place.

“All I wanted was to find a nice place to live,” he told me.

In cities such as Austin, where rents are rapidly rising because of an influx of new, affluent residents, voucher holders may be having even tougher times finding a place to rent because the cost of housing has gotten so expensive. There are no rent-control laws in the state of Texas, and rents in Austin have gone up 7 percent over the past year, making it nearly impossible to find a place that is affordable with a voucher.

The result is that voucher-holders are pushed farther out from a city’s core, and into buildings that are dilapidated and have multiple code violations: In 2012, city enforcement officers ordered an apartment complex in Austin evacuated after a second-floor walkway sagged and then collapsed . Officials blamed termite damage, and said the low-income and Section 8 voucher-holders were hesitant to report unsafe conditions because they knew how hard it was to find an affordable place to live and didn’t want to be evicted.

Rufus Jones, a 51-year-old visually-impaired voucher-holder, had to look for a new apartment two years ago when the building where he’d lived for 13 years was sold to a new owner who quickly raised the rent. After months of searching, Jones moved into a place that soon became nightmarish when he discovered it was infested with cockroaches. The apartment was located in a noisy building where the hot water often didn’t work and where the sewage pipes leaked, but the final straw came when a roach crawled into Jones’s ear when he was sleeping and he had to go to the ER to get it out.

It took Jones a long time to find the place he now lives, since fewer and fewer apartments would accept vouchers. But when I visited him at the apartment, a low-slung building on the far north side of Austin, he told me it wasn’t much better.

His new place is infested with rodents, which crawl into his bedroom and bathroom through holes in the wall, waking Jones’s service dog and Jones himself. Jones’s current place is only on one bus line, and he’s now once again going through the process of finding his way around a new neighborhood.

“It’s just so horrible right now—I can’t sleep, and I’m stressed out the whole time,” he told me.

The Housing Choice Voucher program is the nation’s largest housing subsidy, serving 2.2 million families, which is still only about 25 percent of eligible households. It makes up a big part of the government’s efforts to improve housing conditions for America’s poorest families.  Advocates have called time and again for HUD to alter the Housing Choice Voucher program to make it a better tool for families to improve their lots in life, and some changes are afoot.

“There’s a growing recognition that there’s a shortage of affordable housing, and that families with vouchers have a hard time using them in neighborhoods and communities that haven’t traditionally had voucher families in them,” said Phil Tegeler, the executive director of the Poverty & Race Research Action Council.

As the result of a settlement, HUD tested a new program in Dallas and a few other metro areas that calculates fair market rent based on zip codes, rather than for a metro area as a whole. Called the Small Area Fair Market Rent Program, the idea is to make the voucher more valuable to landlords in nicer neighborhoods. Under the program, if a voucher holder wants to rent a place in the 75231 zip code, the Vickery Park area of Dallas, the voucher would support a rent up to $580 for a one-bedroom. Vickery Park is a lower-income area that gained notoriety as the home of America’s first Ebola victim. But if a voucher holder wants to rent an apartment in Forney, Texas, zip code 75126, the voucher would cover rent of a one-bedroom up to $1,090. Forney has some of the lowest crime rates in the state, and has also been designated the “Antique Capital of Texas.”

A study out of Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies found that the Dallas small-area fair market rent program was successful in helping voucher families move to neighborhoods with lower violent-crime rates and lower poverty rates. Kathy O’Regan, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, told me that the results of that study motivated HUD to use small-area Fair Market Rents in more areas. Earlier this month, HUD sought comments the idea of potentially changing the way Fair Market Rents are calculated.

“We agree with critics—we believe that we should be able to do better,” she told me. “It doesn’t look from geographic patterns as though households are getting enough choice.”

A HUD study also found that public housing authorities are significantly underfunded when it comes to managing Section 8. Administrative costs, which are used to pay for mobility counseling, have been limited by Congress. HUD is asking Congress to consider changing the limits on administrative costs for voucher programs.

“We want to give households choice, choices that help them in improving their lives,” she said.

If Section 8 can be fixed, it’ll be money well spent. The government spends billions of dollars each year creating a program that, for some families, is akin to winning the lottery. But what’s the point of winning the lottery if there’s nowhere safe to spend it?

About the Author

More Stories

When Your Amazon Purchase Explodes

The Utter Inadequacy of America’s Efforts to Desegregate Schools

• Share full article

Advertisement

The Morning

Homeless in america.

The homelessness crisis is getting worse.

By German Lopez

America’s homelessness problem has the makings of an acute crisis.

Shelters across the U.S. are reporting a surge in people looking for help, with wait lists doubling or tripling in recent months. The number of homeless people outside of shelters is also probably rising, experts say. Some of them live in encampments, which have popped up in parks and other public spaces in major cities from Washington, D.C., to Seattle since the pandemic began.

And inflation is compounding the problem: Rent has increased at its fastest rate since 1986 , putting houses and apartments out of reach for more Americans.

The crisis means more people do not know where they will sleep tonight. Living in the streets, people are exposed to more crime, violence and bad weather, including extreme heat . They can lose their job in the chaos of homelessness, and they often struggle to find another one without access to the internet or a mailing address. “There’s a certain posture that you take when you are homeless,” Ivan Perez, who lived in a tent in Los Angeles, told The Times . “You lose your dignity.”

Homelessness has become a particularly bad political problem for the Democrats who govern big cities, where it is most visible. It has played a role in recent elections, like the recall of San Francisco’s district attorney last month. More Americans now say they worry a great deal about homelessness compared with the years before the pandemic.

The origins of the current homelessness crisis go back decades — to policies that stopped the U.S. from building enough housing, experts said. Seven million extremely low-income renters cannot get affordable homes, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition .

Today’s newsletter will look at how the country got to this point.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Homelessness is a Housing Problem

How structural factors explain u.s. patterns.

Gregg Colburn Clayton Page Aldern University of California Press, March 2022

It's in the title. In Homelessness is a Housing Problem , housing scholar Gregg Colburn and data journalist Clayton Aldern seek to explain the substantial variation in rates of homelessness apparent in cities across the United States.

Using accessible statistics, the researchers test a range of conventional beliefs about what drives the prevalence of homelessness in a given city—including mental illness, drug use, poverty, weather, generosity of public assistance, and low-income mobility—and find that none explain why, for example, rates are so much higher in Seattle than in Chicago. Instead, housing market conditions , such as the cost and availability of rental housing, offer a more convincing explanation.

Rates of homelessness vary widely across the country

Why? Homelessness is a Housing Problem seeks to explain this variance and offer policy solutions for different regional contexts.

Individual vulnerabilities like poverty don't explain regional variation

Contrary to expectations, rates of homelessness tend to be lower where poverty rates are higher.

Housing-related factors predict rates of homelessness

Over the course of the book, the researchers illustrate how absolute rent levels and rental vacancy rates are associated with regional rates of homelessness. Many other common explanations—drug use, mental illness, poverty, or local political context—fail to account for regional variation.

Developing a typology of cities

The researchers group cities into categories to help readers understand different rates of homelessness. Cities can be grouped by population growth and the way in which their housing supplies respond to increases in demand.

The authors

Click or tap below to order the book from UC Press.

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Housing Shortages (Real Past IELTS Exam/Test)

by Dave | Real Past Tests | 9 Comments

This is an IELTS writing task 2 sample answer essay on the topic of housing shortages from the real exam.

It’s kind of a tricky question and not a very common topic.

A very similar question came up on the test a few years ago, so it is good to get some practice with this unusual topic!

Please consider signing up for my Patreon here in order to support my efforts and receive exclusive Ebooks and materials related to IELTS!

There are severe social consequences to housing shortages in cities and only the government can solve these problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Real IELTS Exam/Test

Many people today feel that limited housing in urban areas can only be seriously addressed by governmental action. In my opinion, private investiture in this area will always be low so governments bear the burden of responsibility.

Only limited support for housing problems will come from the private sector. Large real estate and construction firms are mainly motivated to generate the greatest profits and will therefore largely cater projects towards a wealthy clientele. This means building large apartments and homes that likely replace smaller homes, exacerbating any existing housing crisis. In New York City, for example, ambitious developers knocked down government housing projects and built luxury apartments and brownstone homes. These efforts push poor residents out of the city and further away from their work and engender a variety of social problems.

The only realistic solution for housing shortages in major urban areas in governmental intervention. Governments can either build themselves or accept bids from construction companies. There are inspirational examples of public works projects in cities all around the world. The typical process is that the government will delineate an undeveloped or poorly planned area for new homes and accept bids from private companies. Since these areas are unavailable for unregulated commercial exploitation, the government holds power over the private companies. Once these projects are completed, they can house thousands of residents affordably, which allows occupants to find quality jobs in the city and eventually move out of these housing developments.

In conclusion, the government is the major catalyst in all housing solutions in cities. Governments ought to prioritise these efforts before cities become too gentrified and this hinders upwards social mobility.

1. Many people today feel that limited housing in urban areas can only be seriously addressed by governmental action. 2. In my opinion, private investiture in this area will always be low so governments bear the burden of responsibility.

• Paraphrase the overall topic for the essay.
• Write a clear opinion – choose a side!

1. Only limited support for housing problems will come from the private sector. 2. Large real estate and construction firms are mainly motivated to generate the greatest profits and will therefore largely cater projects towards a wealthy clientele. 3. This means building large apartments and homes that likely replace smaller homes, exacerbating any existing housing crisis. 4. In New York City, for example, ambitious developers knocked down government housing projects and built luxury apartments and brownstone homes. 5. These efforts push poor residents out of the city and further away from their work and engender a variety of social problems.

• Write a topic sentence with a clear main idea at the end of it.
• Begin developing or explaining your main idea.
• Continue to develop it with specific details.
• Here I give an example of a real city – be as specific as possible.
• Conclude with the result of your example.

1. The only realistic solution for housing shortages in major urban areas in governmental intervention. 2. Governments can either build themselves or accept bids from construction companies. 3. There are inspirational examples of public works projects in cities all around the world. 4. The typical process is that the government will delineate an undeveloped or poorly planned area for new homes and accept bids from private companies. 5. Since these areas are unavailable for unregulated commercial exploitation, the government holds power over the private companies. 6. Once these projects are completed, they can house thousands of residents affordably, which allows occupants to find quality jobs in the city and eventually move out of these housing developments.

• Another topic sentence with a main idea at the end.
• Start developing your main idea.
• You don’t always need a specific example if it is a common occurrence.
• Develop the process in detail.
• The more nuanced your argument, the higher your score.
• State the result again to conclude the paragraph.

1. In conclusion, the government is the major catalyst in all housing solutions in cities. 2. Governments ought to prioritise these efforts before cities become too gentrified and this hinders upwards social mobility.

• Repeat your overall opinion.
• Add in a final detail or thought for full marks from the IELTS examiner.

What do the words in bold below mean?

Many people today feel that limited housing in urban areas can only be seriously addressed by governmental action . In my opinion, private investiture in this area will always be low so governments bear the burden of responsibility .

Only limited support for housing problems will come from the private sector . Large real estate and construction firms are mainly motivated to generate the greatest profits and will therefore largely cater projects towards a wealthy clientele . This means building large apartments and homes that likely replace smaller homes , exacerbating any existing housing crisis . In New York City, for exampe, ambitious developers knocked down government housing projects and built luxury apartments and brownstone homes . These efforts pushe poor residents out of the city and further away from their work and engender a variety of social problems.

The only realistic solution for housing shortages in major urban areas in governmental intervention . Governments can either build themselves or accept bids from construction companies. There are inspirational examples of public works projects in cities all around the world. The typical process is that the government will delineate an undeveloped or poorly planned area for new homes and accept bids from private companies. Since these areas are unavailable for unregulated commercial exploitation , the government holds power over the private companies. Once these projects are completed, they can house thousands of residents affordably , which allows occupants to find quality jobs in the city and eventually move out of these housing developments.

In conclusion, the government is the major catalyst in all housing solutions in cities. Governments ought to prioritise these efforts before cities become too gentrified and this hinders upwards social mobility .

limited housing not enough places to live

urban areas cities

seriously addressed dealt with well

governmental action steps taken by the government

private investiture companies

bear the burden of responsibility have a duty towards

limited support not much help

private sector companies/corporations

firms companies

generate the greatest profits make the most money

largely cater projects towards a wealthy clientele mostly just care about rich projects

likely replace smaller homes probably get rid of small houses/apartments

exacerbating making worse

existing housing crisis already there problems with housing

to a great degree significantly

ambitious developers knocked down companies looking to make money destroyed

housing projects where lots of people live, tends to be poorer people

built luxury apartments construct nice homes

brownstone homes nice homes made from a brown material

pushes poor residents out of the city gentrifies

further away from their work not near their jobs

engenders creates, leads to

realistic solution practical resolution

governmental intervention governments stepping in

accept bids take offers

inspirational examples strong instances of

public works projects built for the public

typical process normal way

delineate allow for, circumsribe

unavailable for unregulated commercial exploitation cannot be developed for profit

holds power over controls

house verb meaning to provide a house for

affordably cheaply

occupants residents

major catalyst biggest driver behind

prioritise consider most important

gentrified getting richer and pushing out poorer residents

hinders upwards social mobility stops people from getting richer

Pronunciation

ˈlɪmɪtɪd ˈhaʊzɪŋ   ˈɜːbən ˈeərɪəz   ˈsɪərɪəsli əˈdrɛst   ˌgʌvənˈmɛntl ˈækʃ(ə)n ˈpraɪvɪt ɪnˈvɛstɪʧə   beə ðə ˈbɜːdn ɒv rɪsˌpɒnsəˈbɪlɪti . ˈlɪmɪtɪd səˈpɔːt   ˈpraɪvɪt ˈsɛktə fɜːmz   ˈʤɛnəreɪt ðə ˈgreɪtɪst ˈprɒfɪts   ˈlɑːʤli ˈkeɪtə ˈprɒʤɛkts təˈwɔːdz ə ˈwɛlθi ˌkliːɑːnˈtɛl ˈlaɪkli rɪˈpleɪs ˈsmɔːlə həʊmz ɛksˈæsə(ː)beɪtɪŋ   ɪgˈzɪstɪŋ ˈhaʊzɪŋ ˈkraɪsɪs tuː ə greɪt dɪˈgriː   æmˈbɪʃəs dɪˈvɛləpəz nɒkt daʊn   ˈhaʊzɪŋ ˈprɒʤɛkts   bɪlt ˈlʌkʃəri əˈpɑːtmənts   ˈbraʊnˌstəʊn həʊmz ˈpʊʃɪz pʊə ˈrɛzɪdənts aʊt ɒv ðə ˈsɪti   ˈfɜːðər əˈweɪ frɒm ðeə wɜːk   ɪnˈʤɛndəz   rɪəˈlɪstɪk səˈluːʃən   ˌgʌvənˈmɛntl ˌɪntə(ː)ˈvɛnʃən əkˈsɛpt bɪdz   ˌɪnspəˈreɪʃən(ə)l ɪgˈzɑːmplz   ˈpʌblɪk wɜːks ˈprɒʤɛkts   ˈtɪpɪk(ə)l ˈprəʊsɛs   dɪˈlɪnɪeɪt   ˌʌnəˈveɪləbl fɔːr ʌnˈrɛgjʊleɪtɪd kəˈmɜːʃəl ˌɛksplɔɪˈteɪʃən həʊldz ˈpaʊər ˈəʊvə   haʊs   əˈfɔːdəbliː ˈɒkjʊpənts   ˈmeɪʤə ˈkætəlɪst   praɪˈɒrɪˌtaɪz   ˈʤɛntrɪfraɪd ˈhaɪndəz ˈʌpwədz ˈsəʊʃəl məʊˈbɪlɪti

Listen and repeat:

Vocabulary Practice

Remember and fill in the blanks:

Many people today feel that l______________g in u_____________s can only be s___________________d by g__________________________n . In my opinion, p____________________________e in this area will always be low so governments b________________________________y .

Only l__________________t for housing problems will come from the p________________r . Large real estate and construction f__________s are mainly motivated to g________________________________s and will therefore l________________________________________e . This means building large apartments and homes that l___________________________s , e_______________________g any e________________________________s . This has happened t________________________e in New York City where a_________________________________n government h______________________s and b________________________________s and b__________________________s . This p________________________________y and f__________________________k and e___________________s a variety of social problems.

The only r__________________n for housing shortages in major urban areas in g______________________________n . Governments can either build themselves or a__________________s from construction companies. There are i______________________s of p________________________________s in cities all around the world. The t____________________s is that the government will d__________________e an undeveloped or poorly planned area for new homes and accept bids from private companies. Since these areas are u_____________________________________________________________n , the government h___________________r the private companies. Once these projects are completed, they can h________e thousands of residents a______________y , which allows o______________s to find quality jobs in the city and eventually move out of these housing developments.

In conclusion, the government is the m______________t in all housing solutions in cities. Governments ought to p________________e these efforts before cities become too g______________d and this h___________________________________y .

Listen and check:

Listening Practice

Watch a specific housing crisis problem in the short video below:

Reading Practice

Read here about how going green can help with the housing crisis:

https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/citi-2018/how-sustainable-development-has-taken-root-nationwide/1969/

Speaking Practice

Answer the questions below from the real speaking exam :

Where you Live

• Where is your hometown?
• Would you like to live there in the future?
• What don’t you like about your home?

Writing Practice

Write about the following related topic and then read my sample answer:

Some believe that because everyone needs a place to live, governments should provide houses for those who are too poor to afford their own. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Real Past IELTS Exam/Test

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer: Government and Housing

Recommended For You

Latest IELTS Writing Task 1 2024 (Graphs, Charts, Maps, Processes)

by Dave | Sample Answers | 147 Comments

These are the most recent/latest IELTS Writing Task 1 Task topics and questions starting in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and continuing into 2024. ...

Recent IELTS Writing Topics and Questions 2024

by Dave | Sample Answers | 342 Comments

Read here all the newest IELTS questions and topics from 2024 and previous years with sample answers/essays. Be sure to check out my ...

Find my Newest IELTS Post Here – Updated Daily!

by Dave | IELTS FAQ | 18 Comments

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Retirement (Real Past IELTS Tests/Exams)

by Dave | Real Past Tests | 5 Comments

This is an IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer essay on the topic of retirement from the real past IELTS test/exam. It is ...

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay General Training: Staying Fit (Real Past IELTS Exam/Test)

by Dave | Sample Answers | 2 Comments

This is an IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer essay from the real IELTS exam/test related to the topic of staying fit. It's ...

IELTS Writing Task 2 General Training Sample Answer Essay: Fashion (Real Past IELTS Exam/Test)

by Dave | Real Past Tests | 8 Comments

This is an IELTS writing task 2 sample answer essay from the general training exam on the topic of fashion. It was a ...

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The second paragraph has 3 sentences starting with “This”

Yes, that is a bit repetitive – let me edit that!

Since these areas are unavailable for unregulated commercial exploitation, the government holds power over the private companies. Once these projects are completed, they can house thousands of residents affordably, which allows occupants to find quality jobs in the city and eventually move out of these housing developments. https://noithatdongthanh.vn/showroom-go-oc-cho-noi-that-dong-thanh.html

Thanks for commenting Adam! I haven’t check out your link…

In my opinion, private investiture in this area will always be low so governments bear the burden of responsibility. What does “private investiture” mean in this sentence, sir?

It means money from companies – they are private, not public, like the government.

Is that clear?

Hi Dave, is it important to write about the social consequences in this essay and to what extent should we mention them here because in some other sample essays of the same topic that I’ve read, there is no mention of these in either the introduction or the body. Thanks

The question mentions social consequences so you should touch on them.

It’s hard not to because almost everything is related to ‘social consequences’ – but you should emphasize it to be safe since it is explicitly in the prompt.

If it wasn’t there, then there would be no need.

Is that clear, Dinh?

Many today feel that limited housing can only be addressed by government action. In my opinion, private companies as well as individuals concomitant with government can bring major solution. To commence with, government with authorities have the capacity to tackle housing crisis by taking various measures. Government could restrict building landed housings and encourage the people to reside in multi-storey apartments to deal with house shortages in big cities. To execute this plan, the public sector can either invest in the projects to undertake the establishment of more apartments by themselves or by inviting the bids from private firms or contractors. For example, Indian government funded thousands of low price high rise buildings in delhi in order to house more and more residents. This allows occupants to find quality jobs in the city and eventually move out of these housing developments.

Nevertheless, private companies can perform more positive reforms to cope with housing deficit in urban cities. Many private firms are solely motivated to generate monetary gains and could therefore largely cater projects in small cities by opening several factories and offices there. Thereby, it will open the gates to more job opportunities for local residents and help to curb migration to metro cities. This solution is longer lasting as it rewards small towns with great resources to develop and also lessen the problem of inadequate shelter in capital cities. In conclusion, though the government intervention can bring major changes, private businesses in concert with citizens can help combat this issue to a great extent. Authorities ought to prioritise the more positive strategy to reduce population density in urban areas.

Exclusive Ebooks, PDFs and more from me!

Sign up for patreon.

Don't miss out!

"The highest quality materials anywhere on the internet! Dave improved my writing and vocabulary so much. Really affordable options you don't want to miss out on!"

Minh, Vietnam

Hi, I’m Dave! Welcome to my IELTS exclusive resources! Before you commit I want to explain very clearly why there’s no one better to help you learn about IELTS and improve your English at the same time... Read more

Patreon Exclusive Ebooks Available Now!

IELTS Mentor "IELTS Preparation & Sample Answer"

• Skip to content
• Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

• IELTS Sample

IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

Ielts writing task 2 sample 121 - housing problem in big cities has social consequences, ielts writing task 2/ ielts essay:, the increasing housing problem in big cities has social consequences. some people say that only government can solve this problem..

• IELTS Essay

IELTS Materials

• IELTS Bar Graph
• IELTS Line Graph
• IELTS Table Chart
• IELTS Flow Chart
• IELTS Pie Chart
• IELTS Letter Writing
• Academic Reading

Useful Links

• IELTS Secrets
• Band Score Calculator
• Exam Specific Tips
• Useful Websites
• IELTS Preparation Tips
• Academic Reading Tips
• Academic Writing Tips
• GT Writing Tips
• Listening Tips
• Speaking Tips
• IELTS Grammar Review
• IELTS Vocabulary
• IELTS Cue Cards
• IELTS Life Skills
• Letter Types

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Copyright Notice
• HTML Sitemap

Your Article Library

Essay on housing problems in urban areas (1683 words).

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Essay on Housing Problems in Urban Areas!

Shelter is the basic human requirement. Even after 57 years of independence, the country is still grappling with the growing shelter problem, especially of the poor. The problem has further been compounded by the rapid increase in urban population. Constant migration of rural population to cities in search of jobs is causing unbearable strain on urban housing and basic services.

There is a severe housing shortage in the urban areas with demand – supply gap increasing day-by-day. The National Building Organization (NBO) had estimated the 1991 urban housing shortage at 8.23 million, and had expected the absolute shortage to decline progressively to 7.57 million in 1997 and 6.64 million in 2001.

Image Courtesy : 3.bp.blogspot.com/-VFM4rMXp67U/UTW0Gf9_MtI/15.jpg

In some small towns in India, the problem is not the lack of housing facilities but the lack of adequate housing facilities. Here, there is a surplus of houses when compared with households but these houses are unfit to reside.

The people who are most likely to become homeless are those who have least resources as providing housing is a profit-oriented industry. They cannot purchase houses nor can they afford high rent, so they live in unfit accommodation, as the rents demanded for such an accommodation is much low. Some very poor people prefer to squat rather than even rent an accommodation, thus leading to the growth of slums.

Homelessne ss:

Homelessness is a complex problem; the circumstances of homeless people vary greatly. Homelessness is sometimes a product of shortage of houses, but in some cases homeless­ness is caused due to other reasons also. Four main issues are found to be the causes for homelessness:

(i) Shortages of housing:

If there are not enough places for people to live, then some­one has to go without and those who are excluded are generally the poorest people.

(ii) Entitlement to land:

People erect temporary shelters rather than be homeless. Squatters usually build temporary shelters at first, but over time these settlements are given concrete shape and become more established.

(iii) Entitlement to housing:

If people are not entitled to use the houses which exist, they may be homeless, even when there is no apparent shortage. Some people are excluded because of their circumstances—street children are an example. The main reason for exclusion, however, is financial—homeless people are those who cannot afford the housing which is available.

(iv) Personal situation of homeless people:

Homelessness is often attributed to the characteristics of the homeless person, such as alcoholism and psychiatric illness; or to the social situation of homeless people, such as unemployment and marital breakdown (this condition mostly happens with women in India). People in these situations only become homeless if they are excluded from housing, or do not have enough resources to secure alternative housing.

Congestion:

Many households in urban areas have to cope with increasingly crowded conditions, although this is certainly not true for everyone. The housing conditions improve when people build high buildings, sometimes more than five storeys, to increase the number of houses. Many urban centres have very high population densities. The house owners therefore rent out numerous rooms to migrants. Poor migrants five under the most crowded condi­tions. They do not have access to ancestral residential land.

Therefore, they depend on the rented accommodation, which they often share with many others to save money. Some poor households of the original population also live in very crowded dwellings for two other reasons. First, many families expand and split up into multiple households, while the land available for construction becomes unaffordable. They are thus forced to fit more people into the same space or house or else to split up the existing plots and dwellings to accom­modate a new household. Second, in the absence of sufficient income from other sources, some households are inclined to rent out a portion of their living space or sheds to tenants.

Consequences of Congestion:

Some of the consequences of congestion (over crowdedness) are as follows:

i. According to official estimates, the present shortage of houses is about 7 million in urban areas. About 19 per cent of the Indian families live in less than 10 square metres of space leading to congestion. For example, about 44 per cent of families in the urban areas live in one room only.

ii. The economics and health costs of congestion and haphazard movement of traffic are very heavy, besides exposing commuters and pedestrians to a high risk of accidents. Urban environment also suffers from degradation caused due to over­population. The dust load in the air in these cities is very high.

iii. Crowding (higher density of population) and peoples apathy to other persons’ problems is another problem growing out of city life. Some homes (which consist of one single room) are so overcrowded that five to six persons live in one room. Overcrowding has very deleterious effects. It encourages deviant behaviour, spreads diseases and creates conditions for mental illness, alcoholism and riots. One effect of dense urban living is people’s apathy and indifference. Most of the city dwellers do not want to get involved in others affairs even if others are involved in accidents, or are molested, assaulted, abducted and sometimes even murdered.

Means to Overcome the Problem:

In India, housing is essentially a private activity. The state intervenes only to provide legal status to the land. The state intervention is also necessary to meet the housing require­ments of the vulnerable sections and to create a positive environment in achieving the goal of ‘shelter for all’ on self-sustainable basis.

In view of the above aim, the government introduced Housing and Habitat Policy in 1998, which aimed at ensuring the basic need ‘Shelter for all’ and better quality of life to all citizens by harnessing the unused potentials in the public, private and household sectors. The central theme of the policy was creating strong Public/Private partnership for tackling the housing and habitat issues.

Under the new policy, government would provide fiscal concessions, carry out legal and regulatory reforms, in short government as a facilitator would create the environment in which access to all the requisite inputs will be in tune in adequate quantum and of appropriate quality and standards.

The private sector, as the other partner, would be encouraged to take up the land for housing construction and invest in infrastructure facilities. Cooperative sector and Public Housing Agencies are also being encouraged to share the responsibility of providing housing facilities. The government has even repealed the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act (ULCRA), 1976, to facilitate land for housing activity. Upgradation and renewal of old and dilapidated housing is also encouraged.

Another major problem is the lack of resources especially with people belonging to the middle class. To overcome this problem, housing finance institutions such as National Housing Bank, a subsidiary of the Reserve Bank of India, was established in July 1988.

The Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) also started functioning with the financial support provided by the Government of India. HUDCO’s focus is on provid­ing housing facilities for economically weaker sections (EWS) and for low income group (LIG). With the advent of many private banks, a number of schemes such as providing tax concessions and lower interest rates have been introduced to promote the housing sector.

The government has also introduced some schemes to curb the housing problem. They are as follows.

i. Subsidized industrial housing scheme:

This scheme was started in September 1952, to provide houses to the labourers who worked before 1948 and 1952. The Govern­ment of India gave loans to the extent of 65 per cent to various industries, state government, legal housing construction societies and cooperative societies to construct houses for the labourers. The labourers could purchase these houses according to the rules framed by the government.

But these houses could not be sold or alienated without prior permission of the government. But this scheme did not succeed much because of the lack of cooperation of mill owners. In the third Five-Year-Plan, it was made obligatory for mill owners to provide housing facilities to their labourers. In the fourth Five-Year-Plan, a provision of Rs. 45 crore was made for this purpose. The fifth plan also included similar provisions. Apart from the central government, state governments have also formed various Housing Boards and implemented societies and various schemes.

ii. LIG housing schemes:

This scheme was started in 1954. Persons who have income less than Rs. 600 per annum could get a loan up to 80 per cent. Local and cooperative bodies are given such loans.

iii. Slum clearance and improvement scheme:

This scheme was started in the year 1956 to give financial assistance to the state governments and local bodies for improving the slum areas. It was estimated then that about 12 lakh houses were not fit for dwelling. Hence, the long-term and short-term schemes were started. But as it was not possible to provide houses to all the people living in slum areas, this scheme could not progress satisfactorily.

iv. Middle-income group housing scheme:

Under this scheme, the people of middle-income group are given loans for constructing the houses. The state govern­ment also gives loans on low rates of interest.

vi. Rental housing schemes :

This scheme was started in 1959 to provide houses on rent to the state government employees.

vi. Land acquisition and development scheme:

The government felt that the LIG and middle-income group people could construct houses if land was made available to them on a reasonable price. For this purpose, a plan was set up under which the state governments could acquire land and plots at suitable places, develop them and give them away to the needy people.

Conclusion:

The government has now started focusing on providing housing facilities but has not thought much about solving problems that are connected with human settlements, such as the problems of improving and managing the civic services, constructing inexpensive houses and conserving energy and recycling waste. Lack of proper water supply and sanitation facilities for drainage system and garbage disposal are major problems in most of the modern urban centres of today.

Related Articles:

• Residential Areas in Cities and Problem of Housing
• Essay on The Conditions of the Urban Poor in India

Urbanization

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Housing Shortage in Big Cities Can Cause Severe Social Consequences – IELTS Writing Task 2

Updated On Dec 08, 2023

Share on Whatsapp

Share on Email

Share on Linkedin

Table of Contents

Structure breakdown, band 7 sample answer for housing shortage in big cities can cause severe social consequences writing task 2, band 8 sample answer for housing shortage in big cities can cause severe social consequences writing task 2, band 9 sample answer for housing shortage in big cities can cause severe social consequences writing task 2, connectors used in the above sample answers.

Limited-Time Offer : Access a FREE 10-Day IELTS Study Plan!

The “Housing Shortage in Big Cities Can Cause Severe Social Consequences” is an Agree/Disagree Writing Task 2 question that has previously appeared in an IELTS test. The essay writing section of the IELTS Writing Module can be a difficult task for many IELTS aspirants. Thus, it is vital that you polish your essay writing skills before attempting the IELTS.

The   IELTS Writing Task 2  i s a section of the IELTS General Training and Academic tests that assesses your ability to write a well-structured and coherent essay in response to a given topic.

In this task, you’re presented with an IELTS Writing Task 2 agree or disagree essay that asks to what extent you agree or disagree with the given statement. So, you are allowed to give a partial view of it at times to address it. To further hone your IELTS writing skills, check out a comprehensive collection of  IELTS writing task 2 practice tests  from IELTSMaterial.com.

Here, you get access to 3 IELTS writing task 2 Agree/Disagree sample answers ranging from band 7-9 along with their vocabulary highlighted. So, why wait? Start reading the blog!

You should spend 40 minutes on this task.

Learn some more ways to Achieve a band score of 8   for Writing Task 2 and check out the IELTS essay for ‘Housing Shortage in Big Cities Can Cause Severe Social Consequences’ given below.

The lack of housing in metropolitan cities is becoming a more pressing issue for the citizens, yet many think that the government should be in charge of addressing this disaster through proper rules and regulations. I agree with the latter statement, and I shall support my views in the paragraphs that follow.

First of all, I believe that people are migrating to modern cities for a variety of reasons. One reason could be for financial gain or even to pursue higher education. Moreover, many believe that getting into a university is much simpler than finding a place to live, and this is unquestionable in today’s fast-paced world. For instance, it’s harder to locate an apartment in developing cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, etc. than it is to get a seat in the city’s university. It is true that people must spend a significant amount of money just to survive as a result of modernization.

Adding on to this, the increase in population in certain major cities has a direct impact on this particular situation. Consequently, the limited availability of resources in those cities, including the water, land and food, does not match with the increased demand. Hence, this becomes a hectic duty of the respective state government in order to minimize social consequences. For instance, the government can make a collective decision to implement efficient housing schemes in all the developing cities with the help of international agencies. As a result, this might help lower the housing issue and cause less of a hassle.

In conclusion, when a huge set of people move into a particular developing city to have a better and more sophisticated life, it obviously will come with certain drawbacks due to overpopulation. To tackle this, the government should take responsibility and try sorting the issue soon to maintain harmony among the citizens and the society.

• Metropolitan

Meaning: Relating to or characteristic of a metropolis, a large and densely populated urban area.

Example: The metropolitan lifestyle offers numerous cultural and employment opportunities.

Meaning: Requiring immediate attention; urgent.

Example: The lack of housing in metropolitan cities is becoming a more pressing issue for citizens.

• Unquestionable

Meaning: Beyond doubt or dispute; not open to question.

Example: In today’s fast-paced world, it is unquestionable that finding housing in major cities is a challenging task.

• Modernization

Meaning: The process of adapting to modern needs or habits.

Example: The need for housing solutions is a consequence of rapid urbanization and modernization.

Meaning: Characterized by intense activity, confusion, or disorder.

Example: Managing the housing crisis in major cities can be a hectic duty for the government.

• Overpopulation

Meaning: The condition of having a population too large for the available resources.

Example: Overpopulation in metropolitan areas strains housing resources and leads to social consequences.

Do you have an essay on this topic?

Post yours in the comment section so that one of our expert IELTS trainers can evaluate it and reply to your comment!

Get  Evaluated  for FREE!

Certain individuals believe that shortages of houses in major urban cities need substantial government intervention to effectively handle the related social consequences. I firmly agree with the statement that the government must intervene and try to solve the issue. Hence, this essay will discuss the same with appropriate examples.

To begin with, it is evident that the level of the housing shortage exceeds the capacity of citizens or private entities to address the problem hassle-free. Hence, governmental initiatives can organize resources properly on a larger scale, enabling the implementation of ambitious projects to increase affordable housing. Additionally, regulatory measures enforced by the government can put the process in a proper, ensuring that the construction and development align with the broader goal of alleviating the housing crisis.

Furthermore, government action is crucial in establishing and enforcing policies that address the root causes of housing shortages, for instance, zoning restrictions and land use regulations. By taking a proactive role in urban planning, the government can create an environment conducive to sustainable housing solutions, fostering long-term stability. New Deal policies in the United States during the 1930s, for example, aimed at the creation of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). This not only facilitated widespread home ownership but also stimulated economic recovery during a period of profound social and economic upheaval.

In conclusion, the serious social problems caused by housing shortages make it clear that we need solid government intervention. Only with strong and coordinated efforts from the government can we really deal with all the challenges linked to not having enough housing in big cities, making urban living more fair and stable.

• Substantial

Meaning: Considerable in importance, value, or degree.

Example: The government needs to allocate substantial funds to address the housing crisis effectively.

• Comprehensively

Meaning: In a thorough and inclusive manner, covering all aspects.

Example: The government’s approach should comprehensively tackle the various factors contributing to the housing shortage.

• Alleviating

Meaning: Easing or reducing the intensity of a problem or difficulty.

Example: The government’s efforts should focus on alleviating the housing crisis by increasing the supply of affordable homes.

Meaning: Taking action in anticipation of future problems or needs.

Example: A proactive approach to urban planning involves addressing potential housing shortages before they become severe.

Meaning: Compelling or ensuring compliance with rules or laws.

Example: Government enforcement of zoning restrictions is crucial for effective urban planning.

• Root causes

Meaning: The fundamental reasons behind a problem.

Example: Government policies should address the root causes of housing shortages, such as zoning restrictions.

Meaning: The division of a city or town into zones with specific land-use regulations.

Example: Zoning restrictions play a crucial role in determining the types of structures that can be built in different areas.

Aspiring to Crack the IELTS Writing?

Get expert help today with a  FREE Demo   session! Sign up, Now!

It is argued that, due to urbanization, the housing shortage is a rising issue that is causing major social problems and that the intervention of the government would play a crucial role in solving it at the earliest. While some argue that important government measures must be taken to tackle this, others emphasize the importance of collaborative efforts between public and private entities. I partially agree with the given statement and will be discussing it in this essay.

Firstly, strong government action will clear the housing crisis of such magnitude and complexity if authoritative interventions happen because the government has the resources and power to quickly carry out big projects for affordable housing. Moreover, proper government plans can set clear rules about where and how buildings can be constructed, making a better environment for more housing to be built. In countries like Sweden and Germany, for instance, active government involvement in housing policies has contributed to stable and inclusive urban development in the modern world. Government-backed programs ensure a balance between supply and demand, promoting affordability and preventing social stratification based on housing accessibility.

However, a more nuanced perspective suggests that rather than just relying on the government to take initiatives, collaborative endeavors between the public and private sectors are to be seen as essential for a holistic approach. Private enterprises, for instance, can also contribute innovation, efficiency, and investment capabilities, offering a dynamic response to the housing shortage. On the whole, public-private partnerships, fostering the development of mixed-use spaces, can integrate residential and commercial areas, creating vibrant and sustainable urban environments.

In conclusion, while recognizing the potential of government intervention in solving housing shortages, a balanced and pragmatic approach involves collaborative efforts. A synergy between the public and private sectors can yield innovative solutions, ensuring the creation of adequate housing while effectively addressing the intricate social consequences of this pervasive issue.

• Urbanization

Meaning: The process of making an area more urban, typically characterized by increased population density and infrastructure development.

Example: The rapid urbanization of the small town led to the construction of skyscrapers and improved transportation networks.

Meaning: The great size or extent of something.

Example: The housing crisis has reached a magnitude that requires urgent attention.

• Stratification

Meaning: The division of a society into different classes or layers.

Example: Social stratification based on housing accessibility can lead to inequality.

Meaning: Efforts or attempts to achieve a goal.

Example: Collaborative endeavors between the public and private sectors are crucial for effective solutions.

Meaning: The combined effect of collaboration that is greater than the sum of individual efforts.

Example: Public-private partnerships create synergy, enhancing the impact of housing development initiatives.

Meaning: Dealing with issues in a practical and sensible way.

Example: A pragmatic approach involves considering both government intervention and private collaboration for effective housing solutions.

Meaning: Spread widely throughout an area or a group of people.

Example: The pervasive issue of housing shortages affects communities across the globe.

Connectors, also known as connectives or transition words, are words or phrases that link ideas or parts of a sentence or paragraph together. Here are some of the connectors used in the above sample answers:

• First of all
• Adding on to this
• Consequently
• For instance
• As a result
• To tackle this
• To begin with
• Additionally
• Furthermore
• On the whole
• In conclusion
• To conclude

Remember to proofread your essay for grammar, vocabulary, and spelling errors. These tips, combined with practice, will help you write well-structured and coherent IELTS Writing Task 2 Agree/Disagree essays like the ‘Housing Shortage in Big Cities Can Cause Severe Social Consequences IELTS Writing Task 2.’

More Writing Topics:

• People from prison – Agree or disagree essay
• Animals Are in Danger of Extinction – Writing Task 2 Agree and Disagree 
• 9 Tips for IELTS 2023 Writing Task 2 (Target BAND 8+)
• People should follow the customs and traditions – Agree and Disagree 
• Using the internet in schools – Agree or disagree essay

Practice IELTS Writing Task 2 based on Essay types

Start Preparing for IELTS: Get Your 10-Day Study Plan Today!

Nehasri Ravishenbagam

Nehasri Ravishenbagam, a Senior Content Marketing Specialist and a Certified IELTS Trainer of 3 years, crafts her writings in an engaging way with proper SEO practices. She specializes in creating a variety of content for IELTS, CELPIP, TOEFL, and certain immigration-related topics. As a student of literature, she enjoys freelancing for websites and magazines to balance her profession in marketing and her passion for creativity!

Eplore other Writing Task 2 Articles

Raajdeep Saha

Kasturika Samanta

Courtney Miller

Post your Comments

Recent articles.

Akanksha Tripathi

IELTSMaterial Master Program

1:1 Live Training with Band 9 Teachers

4.9 ( 3452 Reviews )

Our Offices

Gurgaon city scape, gurgaon bptp.

Step 1 of 3

Great going .

Get a free session from trainer

Have you taken test before?

Please select any option

Email test -->

Please enter Email ID

Mobile Band 9 trainer -->

Please enter phone number

Application

Please select any one

Already Registered?

Select a date

Please select a date

Select a time (IST Time Zone)

Please select a time

Mark Your Calendar: Free Session with Expert on

Which exam are you preparing?

Great Going!

Keep up to date with the Big Issue

The leading voice on life, politics, culture and social activism direct to your inbox.

How we can end the housing crisis and fix the UK, explained

The head of policy and a senior policy adviser at the Chartered Institute of Housing explore the options to end the housing crisis

Illustration: Mateusz Napieralski

Housing should provide a foundation for life, but many people in the UK today face huge challenges accessing and maintaining an affordable, decent home that meets their needs.  

Private rents are increasing at the fastest rate since records began and evictions have escalated . Latest YouGov polling for Shelter shows that more than half (55%) of private renters in England have had their rent put up in the last year, putting huge strain on people’s finances – 2.1 million tenants (37%) are now struggling or behind with their rent. 

Some 1.8 million private renters in England – one in three of all renters – receive help through universal credit or legacy housing benefit to afford their home. The local housing allowance (LHA) sets the maximum they can claim and is meant to ensure people can access the cheapest 30% of local homes. But analysis by Chartered Institute of Housing and Shelter shows that last year fewer than one in five private rents in England were within LHA rates. This particularly affects young single people who find it impossible in many areas to find accommodation.  

Get the latest news and insight into how the Big Issue magazine is made by signing up for the Inside Big Issue newsletter

High rents are not just an issue in England. Annual private rental prices increased by 6.5% in Wales and 5.7% in Scotland in the 12 months to July 2023.   

Housing pressures are not just affecting renters. The cost of new mortgages has risen from 1.5% at the start of 2022 to 5.25% in August. The Financial Conduct Authority suggest around 200,000 households were in mortgage arrears in mid-2022 and a further 570,000 will be at risk of default over the next two years because their housing costs will exceed 30% of their incomes.  

 Over three million people are currently pushed into poverty by their housing costs and one in five children are now living in overcrowded, unaffordable or unsuitable homes. More councils than ever before report they are facing an increase in people experiencing homelessness, while their stock of temporary accommodation, such as B&Bs, is running out.  

This is more than a cost of living crisis – it’s a housing crisis, and it’s been building for years.  

Where did it go wrong?

Housebuilding has failed to keep pace with demand for years, with a sharp decline in social housing construction in the last decade. This is particularly acute in England, which underinvests in affordable housing compared with the rest of the UK. Scotland, for example, is building council houses at a pro rata rate which is far higher than England’s.  

In 2010, funding for affordable housing was cut by 63%, including all funding for social rented homes. This led to an 81% fall in the delivery of new social housing.  

Analysis by Heriot Watt University in 2018 identified a need for 340,000 homes each year in England to 2031, including 90,000 for social rent and 25,000 for shared ownership. In contrast around 233,000 new homes (not all new build) were supplied in 2021/22, of which only around 7,500 were social homes – and while in huge demand, these continue to be lost through Right to Buy.  

Much of what we’re seeing now is a direct result of the failure to build enough affordable homes. In England, the government switched much of its support to the private market, which currently receives over 50% of available government subsidy. This contrasts with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, whose governments devote at least 80% of funding towards their social housing sectors. 

What impact is this having?

There are half a million more families in need of social housing in England than are recorded on official housing waiting lists (National Housing Federation). This equates to 4.2 million people, including 1.3 million children. Overcrowding is the largest problem, affecting nearly 3.7 million people.   

With social housing failing to keep up with demand we’ve seen an expansion of the (more expensive, less secure) private rented sector which doubled in size between the early 2000s and 2013-14. Too many renters live in damp, dangerous, cold homes, powerless to put things right, and with the threat of sudden eviction hanging over them.  

Pressures on affordable housing fuel housing inflation and we see this in rising private rents which increased by 5.3% in the year to July. Latest (2021-22) data from the English Housing Survey shows that, on average, private renters spent a third of their income on rent . Evidence from Citizens Advice shows the situation for renters is worsening faster than official statistics can track. For the people they help with debt advice, average private rental costs have increased by 25% since 2019.  

The government is now set to spend five times more (£58.2 billion) on subsidising private landlords via housing support than on its entire affordable housebuilding programme (£11.5bn for the Affordable Homes Programme) over the next four years. Poor housing costs the NHS £1.4 billion each year.  

In summary, we have a ‘perfect storm’ resulting from a chronic housing shortage, soaring rents and the ongoing freeze on LHA rates. At the sharp end of this is a shocking increase in homelessness.  

Rising homelessness

The 2023 Homelessness Monitor finds 85% of councils across England are facing an increase in people experiencing homelessness, the highest since the survey began in 2012. Some 88% of councils report an increase in requests for support from those evicted from the private rented sector, while 93% anticipate a further increase over the coming year. 

The UK Housing Review shows that homelessness in England is consistently at higher levels than in Scotland or Wales. However, Northern Ireland has experienced a 3% rise in homelessness over the past 12 months. 

For those who become homeless, ‘temporary’ accommodation offered by councils is often in poor condition and without the facilities for families to wash their clothes and cook meals. Crisis estimate that the number of households living in unsuitable temporary accommodation has tripled over the past 10 years, warning that an estimated 49,500 households could be homeless and living in these conditions by 2041. The impact on people’s health and wellbeing of such insecure housing should not be underestimated.  

Added to this, there are pressures from the need to rehouse asylum seekers and Afghan refugees living in hotels and B&B accommodation, and Ukrainian refugees leaving the government hosting scheme, for whom government and local authorities now have to find temporary accommodation. To make matters even worse, the government has started to give people awarded refugee status only seven days’ notice of having to leave their accommodation.    

How can we put it right?

It doesn’t have to be like this, but we need political commitment to turn things around:

The Westminster government needs to invest in increasing the supply of truly affordable homes to rent and buy. 

It must follow through on the commitment to ending ‘no fault’  section 21 evictions through the Renters Reform Bill. 

The devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have ambitious, affordable housing programmes, and all three need to protect this investment in the face of threatened or actual cuts in budgets. 

The UK government should unfreeze local housing allowance rates. It must also ensure that the basic rate of benefits is enough to cover life’s essentials and never falls below. 

The Westminster government should develop a cross-departmental prevention strategy which addresses the causes of homelessness and seriously tackles rough sleeping . 

Finally, it could also follow the lead of Scotland and Wales in ending the right to buy, at least while the present crisis persists. 

The current situation is extremely challenging but we should not lose hope. Housing is rising up the political agenda and both main parties have committed to increasing social housing. The forthcoming general election provides an opportunity for parties of all colours to put housing at the heart of the UK’s economic and social recovery.  

Rachael Williamson is Head of Policy and External Affairs at The Chartered Institute of Housing. John Perry is Senior Policy Adviser at The Chartered Institute of Housing .

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? We want to hear from you. Get in touch and tell us more .

This article is taken from The Big Issue magazine, which exists to give homeless, long-term unemployed and marginalised people the opportunity to earn an income. To support our work buy a copy!

If you cannot reach  your local vendor , you can still click  HERE  to subscribe to The Big Issue today.  O r give a gift  subscription  to a friend or family member. You can also purchase one-off issues from  The Big Issue Shop  or The Big Issue app, available now from the  App Store  or  Google Play .

• Affordable Housing
• From the magazine
• homelessnes
• Rough Sleepers

Subscribe to your local Big Issue vendor

Recommended for you

There could be more than 5,000 women sleeping rough in England. We must find them

We need urgent action to protect next generation from 'inescapable' gambling – now

The tinderbox of poverty continues to spark social unrest

We all need a little darkness in our lives. Here's why

Most popular.

Renters pay their landlords' buy-to-let mortgages, so they should get a share of the profits

Exclusive: Disabled people are 'set up to fail' by the DWP in target-driven disability benefits system, whistleblowers reveal

Cost of living payment 2024: Where to get help now the scheme is over

Strike dates 2023: From train drivers to NHS doctors, here are the dates to know

• News & Politics
• Science & Health
• Life Stories
• The New Sober Boom
• Getting Hooked on Quitting
• Liberal Arts Cuts Are Dangerous
• Is College Necessary?
• Dying Parents Costing Millennials Dear
• Gen Z Investing In Le Creuset
• Bitcoin Gambling
• Bitcoin Casinos
• Bitcoin Sports Betting
• SEC vs Celebrity Crypto Promoters
• 'Dark' Personalities Drawn to BTC

Experts: Housing crisis is increasing generational wealth gap — Harris' plan could have a big impact

With homeownership increasingly out of reach, the stakes for fixing the nation's broken "wealth escalator" grow, by daria solovieva.

Vice President Kamala Harris last month announced an ambitious plan to construct 3 million new housing units over the next four years. The proposal, which she made one of the key issues of her presidential campaign, aims to address the severe housing shortage that has pushed homeownership out of reach for millions of Americans and exacerbated the generational wealth gap.

Harris' plan, announced on August 16 , includes the first-ever tax incentive for building starter homes, an expansion of tax incentives for affordable rental housing construction and a $40 billion innovation fund to empower local governments. The cornerstone of the proposal is a $25,000 down-payment assistance program for first-time homebuyers, expanding on the Biden administration's earlier initiatives.

"I know what homeownership means. It's more than a financial transaction; it's so much more than that — it's more than a house," Harris said during a campaign speech in Raleigh, North Carolina, cited by MarketWatch . "Homeownership and what that means, it's a symbol of the pride that comes with hard work, it's financial security, it represents what you will be able to do for your children."

The plan comes at a critical juncture, with both major party candidates addressing housing as a key campaign issue for the first time in decades. 

“Both presidential candidates are talking about housing, and not just housing, they're talking about adding housing supply,”  Jim Tobin , CEO of the National Association of Home Builders, told Salon. “I've been in Washington, D.C. for 30 years now, and this is the first time in my career that I can remember housing being a major presidential campaign issue.”

It also highlights the growing concern over what housing experts call America's broken "wealth escalator" — the traditional path to building generational wealth through homeownership that has become increasingly inaccessible to younger generations.

“It's not working for more and more people, and we just don't have great wealth building solutions for people living in multi-generational households, for example,” said Katherine McKay, an associate director at the Aspen Institute Financial Security Program.

A Crisis of Affordability 

The urgency of the housing crisis is underscored by recent data. 

According to a recent study by CardRates , over 76% of Americans are spending more than 31% of their gross monthly income on housing, with many spending even more. This financial strain is compounded by record home prices and historically low sales volumes over the past three years.

A key measure of U.S. home values, the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller national home price index, reached another record high  — showing a 5.4% year-over-year increase in June, as reported in Tuesday's data release.

"We've seen first-time homebuyers getting older. They're bringing smaller down payments to the table, and what that means is that they have fewer years to build that equity in their house during their adult lives, and they're starting out with less equity in it because of lower down payments," says McKay. "So that does have really big implications for generational wealth building."

The impact on younger generations is particularly stark. 

"The reason Harris' policies are so impactful is she wants to actually help first-time homebuyers in a world where even a starter home is out of reach for Gen Z, facing a different reality than our parents and grandparents,” says Meagan Loyst, founder and CEO of Gen Z VCs. 

We need your help to stay independent

A Bipartisan Recognition of the Problem

The prominence of the housing issue in the presidential campaign signifies a shift in political priorities. 

While both major candidates are addressing the issue, their approaches differ significantly. Harris' plan focuses on increasing supply and providing direct assistance to buyers, while expectations for a potential second term for former President Donald Trump lean towards deregulation.

The Trump campaign's housing plans, if Project 2025 is any indication, would focus heavily on deregulation and limiting federal involvement in housing issues. Key proposals include eliminating the new Housing Supply Fund and restricting access to federally assisted housing for non-citizens, including mixed-status families. The plan emphasizes local control over housing policies, opposing federal efforts to weaken single-family zoning and advocating for maximal flexibility in local land use and zoning decisions.

“I expect a second Trump term will see that deregulation, that would be a good thing," says Tobin. He notes that the Harris plan lacks mention of federal deregulation, which he considers a "big miss."

While Harris’ proposal does include “cutting red tape and needless bureaucracy,” it offers few details. The Harris campaign declined to elaborate further.

Despite the broad, ambitious nature of Harris' proposal and housing targets, experts point out potential challenges and shortcomings. 

Tobin questions the need for more demand-side incentives, suggesting that when interest rates fall, demand will naturally increase. 

"Finding incentives to build more housing is what we need," he argues.

The scale of the proposed construction boom also raises questions. Tobin estimates that under Harris' goal, an additional 750,000 homes would need to be built annually on top of the 1.1 million they are projecting in new single-family homes for the coming year. Achieving this would require overcoming significant hurdles in land availability, local government cooperation and labor shortages.

"We're about 400,000 workers short in construction," Tobin points out, highlighting a persistent issue in the industry.

The Path Forward

Experts agree that increasing supply is crucial to solving the housing crisis. 

For Harris' plan to succeed, it will need to address these supply-side challenges while also addressing local zoning laws and regulations. 

A potentially divided Congress will also be a major hurdle and will not make implementing these proposals any easier, no matter who wins the election.

Meanwhile, financial analysts project that the expected interest rate hike in September will take time to have an impact on the market. 

The financial hardships and economic environment of the last few years took a toll on the financial health and wealth of millions of Americans, especially younger generations and will take years to remedy.

“We did a lot of research showing that if you buy a home earlier in life, you have significantly higher housing wealth at an age during retirement,” says Jung Choi of the Urban Institute. “We do think this has long-term implications on a lot of younger adults in the country and intergenerational wealth transfer impact.”

about money

• Curious about adding solar power to your home? Watch out for scams
• Hack-proof your finances: How to protect your personal data like a cybersecurity expert
• Prenup panic: J.Lo and Ben Affleck's split highlights the cost of skipping legal prep

Daria Solovieva is a veteran business journalist with 15 years of experience writing for leading financial newsrooms globally, including the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and Fortune magazine. Her work spans a wide range of topics, including personal finance, economic empowerment, structural inequalities, financial literacy, and the intersection of money and mindfulness. Her upcoming book explores the feminist history of finance.

Related Topics ------------------------------------------

Related articles.

• Data tracker

Government urged to double social and cost-rental housing stock

National housing charity Threshold said it identifies the need for Ireland to double its current social and cost-rental housing stock if the country is to bring a permanent end to the housing crisis.

The call came as they held their conference titled 'Changing Our Housing System', held at the Richmond Education and Event Centre in Dublin.

It was launched by Minister for Housing, Darragh O’Brien. Other attendees and speakers included Dr. Richard Waldron, Senior Lecturer at the School of Natural and Built Environment, Queen’s University Belfast; political representatives from Fianna Fáil, Green Party, Sinn Féin, People Before Profit, Social Democrats, and the Labour Party.

Ann-Marie O’Reilly, Threshold’s national advocacy manager, said that, given Ireland’s housing system is not meeting everyone’s needs, other models need to be considered. In particular, she highlighted the unitary housing system - currently a feature in several other European countries:

“Insecurity of tenure and unaffordable rents continue to be among the top issues Threshold deals with, from clients.

"While some headway is being made, a longer-term blueprint – with the commitment of successive governments - for a new housing system is needed to tackle these challenges and provide long-lasting solutions.

“Earlier this year, the Housing Commission recommended that the Government ‘increase the proportion of social and cost-rental housing to 20 per cent of the national stock.’ By reaching this 20 per cent target, competition would be created for the private rental sector.

“Currently, social and cost-rental housing accounts for approximately 9 per cent of the total housing stock, or around 182,000 residential units. To reach the 20 per cent target, this would need to more than double to over 360,000 units.

"This would result in a different housing system, known as a Unitary Housing System, or an integrated market.

"This type of housing system has the potential to improve access, affordability and security across all tenures. Many of us have heard of the Vienna Model, which is a unitary system. But it’s not just Vienna. Countries such as Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands operate unitary housing systems.”

Keynote speaker Dr. Richard Waldron concurred that a major expansion of cost-rental housing would alleviate the current supply pressure significantly. He told the audience that scale of output needs to be significantly increased:

“Housing for All targets 18,000 units by 2030. If we wanted to scale up cost-rental to even 20 per cent of the private rental market, that number would need to be tripled.

"This would require significant further capital investment. Right now, cost rental delivery seems to be primarily led by the LDA (Land Development Authority) and AHBs.

"This is welcome, but I do wonder why more is not being made of local authority-led cost-rental schemes. Local authorities backed by multi-year and targeted budgets; adequate resourcing; shared services and expertise; and economic rents, would surely be a key instrument in delivering cost rental housing at scale.”

The introduction of the Residential Zoned Land Tax (RZLT) is an important lever for house-building.

Plans to defer the Residential Zoned Land Tax (RZLT) have proven to be controversial in recent weeks.

Threshold said this measure could play an important role in the delivery of social and cost-rental homes once introduced, given that land accounts for up to 15 per cent of the cost of delivering houses and up to 11 per cent of delivering apartments.

• threshold ,
• social housing ,
• housing charity

What the papers say: Friday's front pages

Anglo-Irish conference will discuss legacy and Stormont return – Martin

Government will complete full term before election, Simon Harris says

Stormont ministers finally agree draft programme for government

Message submitting... Thank you for waiting.

Want us to email you top stories each lunch time?

Housing crisis creating problems in Quincy

QUINCY (WGEM) - A committee within the Quincy Housing Authority attempts to curve the decline in vacancies.

Housing in Quincy has continued to be a concern among the Quincy Housing Authority. A 2023 study last year by GREDF found that market rate unit vacancies in Adams County were just 0.7%.

“The problem that we are seeing in Quincy and in Adams County as a whole,” Quincy Housing Authority Executive Director Jerry Gelle explained.

The committee, created by Gelle and other members of the community, is looking to purchase land and properties to turn into affordable housing complexes.

The issue that the committee is facing is that property is hard to come by in Quincy. On top of that, potential property that the committee can buy is owned by developers who don’t want to sell it to them.

“This is not just a problem that exists in Adams County or Quincy. It’s nationwide,” Gelle added.

While a timetable to more affordable housing has yet to be announced, Gelle and the committee are hopeful that their projects will get off the ground.

Copyright 2024 WGEM. All rights reserved.

Human remains found near missing Warsaw man’s car

Officers recovering at home following Macomb shooting; suspect remains barricaded

Man suspected of shooting 2 Macomb police officers taken into custody

Quincy man arrested after shots fired on 26th and Locust

WIU campus closed due to standoff following police shooting

Middle school student taken into custody after taking BB gun to Hannibal Public Schools

Quincy Public School Foundation holds “Dream Big” fundraiser

Dream Big celebration to relive 1981 QHS state championship season

Latest news.

Mental health during pregnancy among top concerns for Missouri maternal health

QHS vs Rock Island Volleyball Highlights

Lady Suns Classic Day 3 Highlights

Illinois Flag Commission accepting submissions for new state flag

Dan Brink announces run for Quincy mayor

Budweiser Clydesdales appear at Tri-State Rodeo

The Problem With Saying Suicide Is Preventable

W hen I left my father’s condo for the airport on a sunny March day in 2018, I did not once think that he might kill himself. Yes, his depression had returned, dense and unsteadying. But he had just come home from a week of voluntary inpatient care at the psychiatric hospital. He had a psychiatrist, an acupuncturist, and a sunlamp. During my visit, I drove him to his outpatient group therapy. We played Scrabble and listened to 80s dance hits.

What I saw when I spent that week with my father was a man doing everything he could to shrug the mantle of depression from his shoulders. But within 48 hours of me leaving, my father ended his life.

He was one of more than 48,000 Americans who died by suicide in 2018, a then-record that has since been surpassed by steadily rising suicide rates in the midst of a mental health crisis the surgeon general called “ the defining public health crisis of our time .”

As this crisis rages on, we have made strides in fighting suicide, like the 988 lifeline and increased barriers on bridges and high structures throughout the United States. This spring, the Biden administration released a new 10-year strategy for suicide prevention . These improvements bolster the declaration that now feels ubiquitous in mental health messaging: suicide is preventable . But that phrase masks a nuanced, persistent reality of suicide that we must acknowledge.

Read More: America Has Reached Peak Therapy. Why Is Our Mental Health Getting Worse?

Though well-intentioned, the truth is that not all suicides can be stopped, even with the best efforts. But right after my father’s death, everywhere I looked I read that suicide is preventable. This instilled an immediate, unconscious conviction in me of a double failure: my father, who had not done enough to save himself, and those of us who loved him most, who had not done enough, either. Collectively we could have deterred his death. But we did not.

In the months following my father’s death, I channeled my guilt into an obsessive energy toward understanding and advocating for suicide prevention. I fundraised for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention , lobbied for policy change in Tennessee, and charted my father’s risk factors against his protective factors , certain I would find the tipping point where he should have gone left instead of right—where I should have stayed, instead of left him.

Alongside the insistence that suicide can be stopped lie reminders for survivors not to feel guilty or blame themselves, a request that feels impossible, as you’re handed checklists of preventative measures. But it is not only for the sake of those left behind that we should add nuance to what we mean when we say suicide is preventable.

The crux of the issue with blanketing suicide as something that can be stopped is that it flattens one of the most confounding psychological, medical, and philosophical questions of being human into something simpler than its reality. Perhaps one day we will be able to say that, with the right blueprint, suicide is preventable. But we do not have the knowledge, let alone the resources, to make that true now.

Today I imagine my father on a precipice, teetering between life and death. I will never know exactly why he fell one way and not the other, in the same way we do not know what causes one person to take their life and another to not. We do not know whether the seeds of suicidality are planted moments before a person decides to die, or decades. For each individual, it is different. But it is not something we can cut open on the autopsy table, tracing its progression and tearing it out at the root.

This does not mean suicide prevention efforts are futile. One of the few, but most encouraging, empirically backed strategies to reduce suicide deaths is limiting access to lethal means —hence the importance of bridge barriers, firearms safety, and safe medication storage. But as my therapist reminded me after my father’s death, people have still found ways to end their lives while in the middle of inpatient mental health treatment. There were no guarantees that anything I might have done would have stopped my father’s death. 

At first, I interpreted his reminder as bleak. But over time, I started to see the way that my obsession with what could have gone differently dehumanized my father. It was both more painful and more honest when I began to accept that my father’s reality was different from my own. I would have given anything for him to still be alive, but I also did not want to deny what life was like for him. In a world still riddled with stigma against mental illness, those who die by and attempt suicide deserve the dignity of us acknowledging their pain as real.

This is a scary thing to admit, to both validate the severity of psychological crisis without dismissing suicide deaths as inevitable. And though I want us to add nuance to our language around suicide prevention, I do not believe the suicide epidemic is unstoppable. But we need more than better quality and access to mental health care (which, we do need)—we also must frame mental health as something inclusive of trauma, poverty, substance abuse, and economic, food, and housing insecurity. We need to intercept suicide far before the crisis moment.

Take, for instance, Italy’s community-centered Trieste model , where people in mental health crisis are directed to short-term stays in peer-managed housing that is more similar to a home than a hospital. The Trieste model also focuses on meeting patients’ basic needs, like food, clothing, housing, and jobs. In the U.S., California awarded $116 million to launch a pilot program replicating the Trieste model in Los Angeles. But the program has been stalled since it received funding in 2019, and remains under revision. More concentrated efforts, like free school lunch programs that have been shown to improve student mental health, can help address some destabilizing factors with more immediacy as larger systemic changes take hold.

We can also expand therapeutic interventions in a system that does not have enough clinicians to meet the needs of a worsening mental illness epidemic. Earlier in 2024, Alaska passed a law requiring mental health curricula in public schools, following in the wake of states like New York and Virginia. Alabama high-schoolers have been testing a self-guided pilot program to improve mental health literacy before crisis, which research has shown works .  These kinds of approaches contribute to a broader ecosystem of knowledge and resources that help reduce how many people reach a crisis point to begin with.

Acknowledging that, currently, suicide is not always preventable alleviates the burden for survivors wondering what we did wrong. It also honors that what the world is like for those who die by suicide is real to them, rather than implying that they failed in not doing more to help themselves. And it allows us to admit how much we still don’t know, giving us space to create more holistic, expansive solutions for all that mental health care can be.

When I stopped focusing over what might have prevented my father’s suicide, my perception of his life burst open into so much more than how he died. His death had made me question whether any of the joy and laughter and car sing-a-longs I’d shared with him in the days before were real. But once I accepted that his suicide was both his choice to make, and just one part of his story, I recognized that his depression did not invalidate all the other things that drove him. Like showing up for the people he loved, solving problems, and creating beauty around him. The way he died does not diminish how dedicated he was to growth and evolution, and it does not invalidate the countless ways he chose to live.

I have hope that, with continued research, interventions, and destigmatization, suicide deaths will decline. But I also have peace knowing that my father’s death is not defined by what he or I did wrong, but instead is one of the many continuing unknowns we must make space for in how we speak about mental health.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• The 100 Most Influential People in AI 2024
• Inside the Rise of Bitcoin-Powered Pools and Bathhouses
• How Nayib Bukele’s ‘Iron Fist’ Has Transformed El Salvador
• What Makes a Friendship Last Forever?
• Long COVID Looks Different in Kids
• Your Questions About Early Voting , Answered
• Column: Your Cynicism Isn’t Helping Anybody
• The 32 Most Anticipated Books of Fall 2024

Contact us at [email protected]