Public housing became a critical part of American social infrastructure after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the first public housing units for Americans outside of the military. Prior to this expansion, public housing was only offered to members of the U.S. military. Economist and legal scholar Richard Rothstein wrote in his book “The Color of Law” about the pattern of systemic segregation in public housing since President Roosevelt started the program. The first Department of Housing and Urban Development authorities on public housing directly asserted segregationist policies when it came to who can rent public units. The Secretary of the Interior under President Roosevelt—Harold Ickes of the Chicago NAACP—pushed to create public housing units for people of color. However, these policies pushed African Americans together, which gave politicians the ability to directly impact majority-minority communities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination in the housing market and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 attempted to increase access to housing. Despite these laws, minority populations are continuously hurt when public housing is neglected. Even if one does not support public housing, it is undeniable that millions of Americans rely on the program, and vulnerable populations would be hurt the most if the program was gutted. The American government has significantly diminished the funding for public housing since it’s implementation in the early 20th century, and the pattern of neglect comes back to hurt disadvantaged populations.
History of Public Housing
Public Housing originated in 1937 and has faced opposition since. The Housing Act of 1937 authorized construction of the first public housing units and then the act was reauthorized in 1949. However, with conservative opposition to government assistance, President Nixon halted all public housing programs in 1974. In 1992, the HOPE VI program destroyed thousands of units and displaced or evicted all of those residents. The pattern of demolishing public housing units continues into the present day; according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 200,000 homes have been demolished since the 1990s. The Fair Cloth Amendment of 1998 set a limit on how many new public housing units could be created, a policy that the Biden Administration is looking to repeal. Currently, 950,000 Americans rely on public housing, and that number is increasing due to the strains of the COVID-19 pandemic as 915,000 families were served in 2019. One qualifies for public housing if they make less than 80% of their local median income. Of the residents who live in public housing, 47% are located in areas that are in high poverty areas; 56% are elderly or disabled; more females than males live in public housing by 30%; the largest age group in public housing is under 18; two-thirds of residents in public housing identify as either Black or Latino. Those living in public housing pay a base rent of $50, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has two funds to subsidize the difference between the rent payments and market price. The first is the Public Housing and Operating Fund, which covers the differences between rent and operating cost of the unit, and the second is the Public Housing Capitals Fund, which exists for covering renovations and development. However, the funding for both accounts has been decreasing throughout the past decade, and it means that renovations on the aforementioned tenants and placement of new ones are backlogged.
Diminished Funds
President Biden made the improvement of public housing a legislative goal for his administration but has already encountered difficulties. Through years of turning a blind eye to public housing, more resources are required to catch up to the damages previously ignored. President Biden proposed $40 billion in a new bill for public housing and an extra $300 billion for public housing in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. However, Republicans have cut that $300 billion to $100 billion already, and there are major drawbacks for municipal governments. For example, New York City only received $26 billion to improve their housing units, after requesting $32 billion. Therefore, the city was not able to complete all of the construction that the municipal government intended to.
For the 2021 fiscal year, HUD under President Trump and Dr. Ben Carson received a $2.8 billion budget for the department. The majority of the funds went to safety initiatives: $35 million to remove lead paint, $45 million for grants to improve unit safety, $5 million for radon tests, and $35 million for inputting new CO2 detectors. Additionally, the budget cut funds for both the Public Housing Operating Fund and the Public Housing Capitals fund by thousands of dollars but increased funding for self-sufficiency funds to $190 million. Money from the aforementioned housing funds was reallocated to “Move to Work Programs,” which test innovative housing policies but tend to leave behind the residents. Lawmakers prefer to subsidize housing, to extend choice but also decrease government involvement in public housing.
Primary Experiences in Public Housing Units
Narratives about creating self-sufficiency undermine the experiences of public housing tenants and put forward the implication that they do not work hard enough to warrant government aid. To combat this narrative, The Washington Post shared a moving story of a man who once worked as a flight attendant and musician, who suffered heart attacks and strokes and now lives in New York City public housing. His home has several large holes in the ceiling, and with the stormy weather of a coastal city, there is severe damage to the inside of his home. This man worked hard, and faces uncontrollable health battles, yet is neglected rather than assisted. Residents in public housing have spotted urine and feces spread throughout the hallways, they have difficulty securing new appliances, and children encounter violence daily. One resident discussed the difficulties to procure basic home maintenance in Narratively Studio’s article on life in New York City public housing. She had to call city hall to get the contact information for the unit’s maintenance service, and then call the maintenance office and schedule an appointment. Additionally, due to disorganization, the repairmen did not show up to the resident’s scheduled appointment, causing the tenant to argue with the municipal government. This is not an infrequent occurrence. Most who do not live in public housing simply fill out a form online, and could not imagine the bureaucratic barriers to simple maintenance requests. However, life in public housing is not all bad, and it perpetuates a harmful stereotype to believe that one cannot have a fulfilling and happy life in public housing. That stereotype is far from the truth. For example, some tenants discussed the sense of community that they felt within housing projects. Since those living in public housing faced similar economic setbacks, residents cited a great amount of empathy within their neighborhood. One resident stated, “The projects were more human. I saw humanity because everybody knew each other. They walked amongst each other and their kids played together. You didn’t know who had money and who did not have money.” On the other hand, a strong community can be fostered and nourished without people having to encounter so many malfunctions in the infrastructure of the home.
Housing Vouchers
Rather than choosing to fund public housing, legislators are moving towards supporting voucher programs such as Section 8 Housing. Section 8 Housing comes from a contract between HUD and a private property owner under the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program. Tenants pay up to 30% of their income in rent and a flat utility rate of $50. The gap between what the tenant pays and the cost of operation is covered by HUD. Section 8 housing vouchers can be a positive program for many since sometimes the public housing rent of $50 is more than 30% of the tenant’s income. However, landlords can find loopholes in their contacts and bump the tenant’s rent up to market price, leading to debt or eviction. Additionally, according to Richard Rothstein, Section 8 landlords are allowed to refuse certain government housing vouchers—leaving room for bias, indirect discrimination, and the abandonment of people experiencing the worst poverty. A total move to vouchers could leave behind those in public housing, who do not have the resources to find new locations or apply for vouchers. Additionally, vouchers can lead to more bureaucratic obstacles and backlog than already exist.
The Future of Public Housing
California Representative Maxine Waters is a strong champion for public housing and wants to see a shift from funding rental aid back to public housing. She requested $80 billion to repair one million homes, but only received $65 billion. Frustrated, Representative Waters stated “We cannot build back better without investing in our nation's crumbling housing infrastructure. Housing is not a miscellaneous afterthought, a nice-to-have, a ‘something that can wait until later.” Representative Waters stands with President Biden in an attempt to expand public housing with a whole new housing bill where “The newest version includes $15 billion for the national Housing Trust Fund, a program that supports the construction of deeply affordable housing, as well as $10 billion for the HOME Investment Partnerships program, the federal government’s largest block grant program for building and rehabbing affordable housing. Another $10 billion will go to down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers.” The administration’s main goal is to get Americans into secure and sustainable housing.
Concluding Remarks
The purpose of this piece is not to state that public housing is the best option to provide homes to those experiencing poverty. The goal is to present the data on who utilizes public housing and how the tenants who rely on the federal program are impacted by gutting funds. It is crucial that the millions of Americans who live in public housing projects can live in dignity even if public housing is not a political priority or policy preference.