Yves here. Trump’s success in creating the appearance that he will break a lot of china means there’s a lot of alarm about high profile threatened changes, from ones that have some odds of happening (the appointment of Pete Hegseth as Defense Secretary) to one that are much less probable (a purchase or annexation of Greenland, a peace deal for Ukraine with Russia). All the furor has resulted in a lot of important Trump plans getting less attention than they warrant. One, as the piece below explains, is housing policy.
Here, Trump seems likely to preserve a lot of the status quo….not surprisingly, the worst elements from an income-inequality perspective.
By Fran Quigley, who directs the Health and Human Rights Clinic at Indiana University McKinney School of Law. Originally published at Common Dreams
Donald Trump has nominated former Texas state representative Scott Turner as his secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the $70 billion federal agency that administers rental assistance and public housing programs, enforces fair housing laws, and provides community development grants to local communities.
Other Trump cabinet nominees, like potential Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have attracted attention for the ways they may shift the traditional priorities of the agencies they would lead. Turner has flown under the radar.
Perhaps that is because dramatic changes to HUD would need congressional approval, which was denied when Trump tried to slash the department during his first administration. Or maybe it is because, in many respects, Turner does not seem inclined to significantly alter U.S. housing policies.
That is not a good thing.
A Trump-Turner housing agenda appears destined to continue the worst aspects of our nation’s approach to affordable housing: a relentless diversion to the already-wealthy of resources supposedly designated for the housing needs of the poor.
This reverse Robin Hood approach to U.S. housing began in the 1970’s, when the Nixon administration and Congress began switching our affordable housing investment away from public housing to subsidizing for-profit landlords. Now, we fund wealthy landlords, often corporate landlords, via direct payments such as the Housing Choice Voucher program and Project-Based Section 8 program, in return for the for-profit landlords temporarily housing low-income tenants. 558F Low-Income Housing Tax Credits are designed to provide a tax shelter for wealthy investors.
This profit-soaked combination costs taxpayers six times more each year than public housing does. But public housing is far more efficient, for the simple reason that it bypasses private profits. Public housing is also hugely successful in providing high-quality, low-cost housing when there is adequate investment in maintenance and upkeep.
That is why other nations, who have far less homelessness, evictions, and housing-insecure people than we do, prioritize public housing. They divert little if any government support to for-profit landlords. And it is why U.S. for-profit landlords have been pushing for generations to block U.S. public housing from the funds it needs to ensure safety and keep up maintenance. The resulting deterioration of U.S. public housing undercuts competition for private landlords and creates a narrative justifying the delivery of housing dollars to the private sector.
A Subsidy for Gentrification
But those privatized programs are deeply flawed. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit often leads to rents higher than poor families can afford. The program known as LIHTC has been characterized by housing researchers as “a better-than-nothing gimmick that helps the poor by rewarding the rich.” Even that characterization is too generous for some legislators, who call LIHTC “legalized theft of government assets.”
Similarly, project-based Section 8 housing directs government dollars to for-profit landlords as payment for low-income tenants’ rent. But, like LIHTC, the program allows those landlords to convert their buildings to market-rate rentals after they use the government subsidies to pay off their debt on the properties. By contrast, public housing provides affordable housing in perpetuity.
There is even less lasting impact coming from the largest low-income housing program in the country, Housing Choice Vouchers. We provide a full $30 billion per year in voucher payments to landlords, often large corporate landlords, but those landlords can end their involvement at the end of each tenant’s lease, leaving the low-income renter without housing. It is another low-risk high-yield arrangement for the wealthy and raw deal for the poor: little wonder that theProject 2025 blueprint drafted by Trump supporters champions vouchers even as it slams other HUD programs.
As for likely HUD Secretary Turner, he is most associated with yet another housing giveaway to the rich. During Trump’s first administration, Turner served as executive director of the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council, which focused on promoting opportunity zones, a program created by Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
The program rewards the wealthy’s investment in economically distressed areas—opportunity zones—with huge tax breaks. But investigations by ProPublica and Congress show that the definition of what areas count as opportunity zones is far too broad, and the guidelines for who benefits from the investments are far too loose. As a result, money invested in expensive hotels, high-rent apartment buildings, and even luxury condominiums as a superyacht marina escapes taxation. Politically connected billionaires lobby for the land where they develop to be designated an opportunity zone, then rake in the benefits.
The Brookings Institution says opportunity zones operate as a subsidy for gentrification. “The direct tax benefits of opportunity zones will flow overwhelmingly to wealthy investors,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says. “But the tax break might not do much to help low-income communities, and it could even harm some current residents of such communities.” < So, despite the relative quiet around Scott Turner’s nomination, we know some important things about him. We know that he champions opportunity zones as an addition to the already abundant tax benefits the U.S. showers on landlords and real estate investors. And we know that he is a fierce critic of anti-poverty programs, as he has made multiple public statements about government assistance being harmful and even disastrous.
But we also know that the likely next HUD secretary is concerned about that alleged harm only when assistance is provided to the poor. The wealthy can count on Trump and Turner to keep the pipeline of government housing money wide open and flowing their way.
23 comments
Comments are closed.
This is the System and has been so for some time and I see no way it can change as long as money runs the political system. Conservatives argue that we need to eliminate programs that benefit the poor in order to motivate them to find a way to make money (legally or illegally) or, if intrusive laws can be wound down, provide new creative living opportunities for the poor like sharing housing space in intentional communities or whatever. The point they make is that solutions to problems when those solutions emerge from bottom to top rather than, as in government programs which I have seen directly lead inevitably to corruption as sure as night follows day (at least in the US, Europe and other developed countries the social situation is very different).
Social democracy is just not going to re-emerge because society has fragmented even more than it was a few generations back and thus collective desire to help others has, naturally, decreased. Our only possible future that is not a complete dystopia is a libertarian and emergent feudal system that would result, i.e., birds of a feather would come together in mutual aid. If society had common values that valued compassion, honesty, virtue, above the god of money then the social-democratic program might work. But we are not there, and we aren’t going to make it work as many programs to help the homeless have not worked very well because they have not been holistic and, as in CA in particular, have just led to more corruption.
Even if you can argue that helping the poor would benefit the country as a whole, good luck convincing both the public (who aren’t considered anyways, and the elites to make efforts to actually be compassionate towards the poor. I admit that, currently, the housing policies are cruel and not just corrupt.
Given that medieval peasants worked far less than we do, and the local lord was obligated to fund several festivals per year that invovlved feasting and debauchery, I am seriously considering a return to feudalism as a favorable option.
Well, I don’t disagree. Our choice, I’ve said for some time now is between MAGA and eventual feudalism or the Blues (and eventual totalitarianism if you take the logical result of their state policy positions. The Constitutional republic with democratic institutions is fading away not because bad oligarchs are in charge but because the people are unable to handle the responsibilities of citizenship and engagement in real (not virtual) communities.
What, or who, are these “Blues?” And briefly explain their policies that will give us totalitarianism. And, it’s always funny to hear someone trying to let the oligarchs off the hook.
When I was in a homeless crisis last year, I looked to the Society of Friends (Quakers) for help. There are Quaker housing communities around the country but I quickly found out these communities are only for the wealthy who can enjoy the peacefulness that such “Quakerly” communities provide if they have the money to buy that peace. There was absolutely nothing for the poor like me.
I come from a long line of Quakers going back to Colonial times. I can’t tell you how heartbreaking it was to me to find out that even the Friends don’t care about the poor. Not only did they not help me, they were rude and unkind. Shame on them. They are not the Quakers of times past and do not deserve to be called “Friends”.
Perhaps the Quakers are a bit overwhelmed at this point.
Quaker-run housing isn’t overwhelmed by affordable housing applications because they offer no affordable housing. None, ever. Their housing facilities are very expensive and they have no low income options. It’s designed that way. No poor people need apply.
Thanks for the report. I had an uncle who was a bit of a tycoon. He started out with a small factory making furniture but eventually switched to real estate–no doubt realizing that’s where the real money is.
As I’ve said, we used to have low income housing projects even in this small city but they seem to have disappeared in favor of the above. Even the new warehouses and factories that the county courts seem to almost be an excuse for the housing boom that is our real economic driver. Public/private is now the Republican business mantra.
This entire piece annoys me. I’m a housing attorney at a legal aid organization, and deal with all of this on a regular basis. Here are some observations from my experience on the ground working in (pre Katrina) New Orleans, Manhattan, Worcester, MA, Washington DC, Binghamton, NY and Ithaca, NY.
(1) Public housing mostly sucks. It almost always turns into a place where poor people are abandoned. If the New York CIty Housing Authority were a private landlord, they would be in jail. There ar good reasons why large scale public housing projects are out of fashion.
(2) Section 8 vouchers are on the right track. Let people choose where they live instead of sending them all to the same hell hole projects. Unfortunately, outside of a few states, landlord can turn section 8 vouchers down. This is an easy process to stop – make it illegal to do so. The other problem is the section 8 vouchers have too small of a cap on rent for most markets (see esp. Ithaca, NY), I doubt raising those caps would do much good on its own though.
You want housing solutions that work? Here’s my opinion on whay would work:
(1) Low rent municipal housing open to all. That’s right, municipalities can create quality housing (run it through a separate corporate entity), keep the rent low and rent to all comers first come first serve. No means testing. Elon Musk wants to live there, more power to him because that’s the point. Instead of creating poverty ghettos, make it attractive for all comers through the upper middle class to the working poor, to the destitute with a section 8 voucher. Yes it is going to fill up, so build more. Yes private landords are going to complain because it will undercut their needlessly high rents. Family blog them; that’s the whole point.
(2) Institute a vacancy tax on unrented units. In Ithaca we have a few newer buildings that are charging $2K for a studio apartment. There is a high vacacy rate for those things because nobody in their right mind would pay that. However, enough of them do rent to justify keeping the prices too high and it allows other landlords to keep their prices high. Put a tax on those vacant untis and you will see the rent prices come down. And if a private landlord wants to leave the market? Family blog them! The municipal housing corporation can buy out or foreclose on the building and turn it into more low income housing for all.
There is your solution, and there is absolutely no political will to carry it out. But please, no one wants a return to the public housing of the past, especially the people who would have to live there.
So your solution boils down to “no political will.” The housing projects may have ghetto-ized the poor but that beats homelessness as is rampant in California. Maybe the projects were the limit of our “political will” here in this capitalist paradise.
No, my point is that there is no political will to affect what is in my informed opinion the best solution. That does not mean we do not work towards it. Over the past 20 years I have noticed that section 8 works much better than old school public housing. Most people in public housing can’t wait to get section 8 approval to get out of public housing. I think we should listen to the people affected by public housing beforre we do more of the same..
In the short term, the best bet is to raise section 8 voucher caps, approve more vouchers and approve them quickly, and ban discrimination based on source of payment. Even tax incentives to make 10% of a building manditory section 8 housing is not a terrible idea and I have seen it work in practice. Nonetheless, it is a bribe to be very people and entities who make a vacancy tax politically difficult.
I’ll also say this about public housing. The kind that is doable tends to be located in neighborhoods that are mixed income but close to serivces and employment. These projects tend to be on the smallish end, with a few high quality units. There are two in my general neighborhood (one is even on my block) and you can’t tell the difference between them and any other apartment building.
Thanks for this. It’s been more than 30 years since I ran up against this set of issues and questions (housing legal assistance clinic, pickup games at S.F.’s Pink Palace, friends on Section 8, planning commission), so a.contemporary analysis from the front helps a lot to orient my reaction(s).
Thank you, Christopher. You obviously understand the realities of affordable housing well. Public housing does mostly suck. I applaud your suggested solutions.
– this would also help with commercial real estate
– I haven’t been there, but videos of Soviet housing make those things look live-able, if soul-crushing.
– “Vouchers” seems like a buzzword the incoming politicians should embrace?
At this exact moment, with the incoming politicians, getting a government funded and/or regulated improvement to Housing would seem a long shot.
Sounds good.
Your point 1 is what I would describe as public housing, as opposed to holding areas for the poor (which seems to be the US implementation).
Public housing shouldn’t be a holding pen or deliberately constructed to be undesirable. It should be nice. It doesn’t have to be lavish, but it should be warm, dry, functional, clean etc. Landlords will complain that it distorts the market and reduces profitability, but that’s the whole point.
Making it available to everyone would help address the perception of rewarding the undeserving, but you’d need massive supply if you weren’t to run into demand problems, possibly to the point where the majority of housing would end up public. That might not be a bad thing if done right, but it’s probably more than voters would accept.
I have read that some public housing authorities allow voucher holders to use the voucher to pay a mortgage. Of the few PHAs I called however, none even knew this possibility existed. Perhaps it is one of those “we shouldn’t be rewarding people for being lazy” things, I don’t know.
But at the very least I would think this should be available as an option to disabled people. And certainly to the working poor. I think many people with vouchers would prefer to own their own tiny home, or tiny condo, than rent. And a community where folks own homes is a healthier community in so many ways. It just seems like everyone but the slumlords would win…
Of course someone would need to risk giving loans for these homes. Private lenders may not want to, given uncertainties with voucher funding 1-30 years from now. But the government could offer, since if someone stopped paying their mortgage it would by definition be because the government decided to stop funding the program.
re: Public housing mostly sucks.
Agreed. Except when it doesn’t.
Lockfield Gardens in Indianapolis was a model of great design with amenities that made it popular with residents – especially families. Of course, a big chunk of it had to be torn down in 1983 despite vocal opposition. Grifters gotta grift.
While I’m wary of bringing up public housing in France, a 2018 PBS show highlighted the work of husband-wife team Marc & Nadia Breitman. Their aim: make public/affordable housing indistinguishable from market rate housing, create mixed income housing districts, and make them beautiful. The show highlights their successes.
I like your 2 suggestions, CS. Political will be required to consider housing a human right. Until then, the neoliberal for-profit model will continue to dominate; meaning investors will keep snapping up properties, converting from owner occupied to tenant occupied, and colluding with other investors to keep prices high.
I agree with Christopher’s two solutions. But argue with the wash of all public housing. The rebuilt ‘projects’ in San Francisco (not talking Potrero hill!!) under title 4 or whatever it was called, though did displace people, they are livable and mostly safe…as are at least 3 others. Check out the complex at Folsom and Chavez. But if you’re talking about those horrible concrete towers, Cabrini in Chicago for example, the complete isolation and hand over to private contractors of the Potrero one…I agree with you there.
BTW this is an excellent article to post. If you look at CA’s massive ‘homeless housing budget’, the vast majority of it is subsidies to speculators and landlords etc as described herein….NOT building municipal off market housing. Democrats in CA do not go against the real estate industry, except, our lefties sometimes local.
I have looked into section 8 in Marin County. Its waitlist has been closed since 2008, which means you can’t even get onto the list itself for the past 17 years. While Marin is an extreme example, years long waits are common elsewhere in the Bay Area. Not surprising when you realize that only a fourth of eligible Americans have it.
Public housing, which is geared towards the poor, leaves its inhabitants to being politically abandoned and economically exploited, should be replaced with social housing. That is housing geared towards the entire population, excepting the very wealthy, which creates high quality housing with inhabitants unlikely to be politically abandoned and economically exploited.
If we can get past the obstacle that is our massive, endemic corruption in the United States, I would look at Vienna’s social housing as an example of what could and should be done.
prefferential treatment of those with means a foregone conclusion of the US Constitution. The fabrication of the laws overseeing private property were subsumed along with the English language. The principle of inclusion was sold to a burgeoning middle class that could attain a mortgage.
The system still thrives…and arrives at novel solutions to perpetuate the means of its entrenched ends.
I worked for the Clarke family in Des Moines when I was a teenager in the early 80s. They built federally subsidized housing, shoddy cookie-cutter duplexes, and cheap as hell, all over the East Side. My guess is it’s all rentals now and falling apart.
They were in their 60s and had a 20-bedroom McMansion on about 5 acres in West Des Moines, with a pond. I had to clean the place and do landscaping with The Lady one summer. There were pictures of them with Nixon on the basement walls, so it was clearly a racket and I knew it even then.
I quit later that summer when they had me clearing brush from the rocks of another family member’s pond, and found about 10 ticks on my neck and head. Good people!
My older brother also worked for them, and he was mad at me for walking away. My mom, god bless her, said “Oh, he doesn’t want to work for those rich people!”
I once worked with a lady who did part time work as a book keeper / rental agent for one of the large local apartment “Oligarchs”. She said the Section 8 checks were the most dependable checks she collected.
Small scattered apartment buildings and section 8 vouchers are the right way to go. Let the poor decide where they want to live. And tax vacant apartments (and 2nd homes) to the max to help pay for it. Family Blog the oligarchs.