Guest Editorial: Solving Our Housing Crisis Will Take Federal Action

San Francisco's Western Addition. Will it take the feds to solve the Bay Area's housing woes? Image: Wikimedia Commons.
Will it take the feds to solve the Bay Area’s housing woes? Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance that, if affirmed by the voters, would allow them to increase affordable housing requirements. Meanwhile, in Sacramento, lawmakers want to spend $1.3 billion on low-income housing. Both will help with the Bay Area housing crisis and it’s great that San Francisco and California are working on the problem. But what about the Feds?

Without a large-scale financial commitment from the federal government, the issue of affordable housing will never be solved. Further, if we truly want to curb displacement of the most vulnerable households, this housing will also need to be publicly owned. States, regions and local jurisdictions simply can’t solve this problem on their own, and many of the strategies currently on the table–rent control, inclusionary housing, impact fees–are simply playing in the margins.

Market-based supply can play a significant role in addressing the housing affordability problem that is currently faced in communities like the Bay Area where housing costs have gotten so high, even high income households have difficulty obtaining new, market-rate housing. However, unfettered, market-based supply will not–and never could–fully address the affordable housing issue. This is where federal funding is critical.

With annual outlays nearing $4 trillion, where the federal government prioritizes–or retracts–its resources has significant effects that reverberate through our economy and society. Changes in federal policy can be so subtle and fundamental that it’s easy to mistake shifts in federal policy with the “the free market.” When we wonder why housing has become unaffordable for so many, we often lose sight that the problem largely emerged from changes in federal policy decades earlier.

Since 1981, we have seen public housing replaced, but nothing added to the stock of public housing. In fact, public housing has dwindled from a peak of 1.4 million units to a little over 1.1 million–roughly the same number in the mid-1970s. Meanwhile, the number of people in poverty increased by 17 million in that same time period–29.3 million in 1980 to 46.7 million in 2015. That’s not a problem the free market or cities can fix.

Current federal housing programs exacerbate the issue by further privatizing public housing, putting more people at risk for displacement. Voucher-based Section 8 is the largest federal housing assistance program, but it relies upon the cooperation of private landlords. In high rent areas where market rates far outpace HUDs “fair market rent (FMR)”, fewer and fewer landlords find Section 8 attractive–precisely the places such programs are needed most.

Nobody argues for a repeat of the racially and economically isolated public housing built between the 1950s through the 1970s. Say what you will about public housing, the neighborhoods that have fared best against displacement are those where it exists. While most associate public housing with the menacing images of Cabrini Green, there are many successful examples of public housing around the country. The failure of public housing was lack of funding, poor design and discriminatory housing policies. Blaming tenants for the deterioration of a building they did not own or have the responsibility of maintaining is like blaming drivers for potholes in the streets.

And this crisis exists in every county in the nation. The loss of affordable housing in cities has resulted in the spread of the population further into the peripheries. The outcome is congested freeways, longer commute times, and increased carbon emissions, all of which choke productivity nationwide. Moreover, it places an acute burden on those most at risk of displacement. A low-income household displaced from a city with mass transit now faces the new cost of purchasing and maintaining an automobile. Finally, regions don’t have the ability to shut their front doors and can’t be islands of respite. Denver solving the problem does nothing for the fireman traveling from Sacramento to Palo Alto, nor does it stop that fireman from relocating to Denver.

The withdrawal of federal involvement in the production of public housing created a “reality” where the largest historical source of funding for affordable housing is absent. As a result, the responsibility has fallen on state and local governments. To backfill the hole, they are left with few tools other than impact fees and inclusionary housing requirements. While one could argue developers should play a role in providing affordable housing, structuring housing policy that relies on a profit-based industry delivering housing that is by definition unprofitable is fundamentally flawed. The affordable housing crisis is a societal problem that can only be solved by society itself.

Of course it’s unrealistic to expect the current Congress to step in. Yet, while complex issues take decades to solve, Congress changes relatively quickly. It was not even a decade ago when Democrats swept in with supermajorities in both houses and the presidency. Times change, and we should prepare for when they change again. We should not limit our demands for the now, but work toward policies for the country we envision for the future. If we are truly going to solve the issue of affordable housing, we must understand what underlies our reality. The federal government isn’t the sole cause of this crisis, but its withdrawal was a key contributor. It should be held in account to play a key role in the resolution.

Jonathan Fearn is VP of Development for SummerHill Housing Group, a residential builder and developer. His is also a volunteer with “Connect Oakland.”

  • Charles Siegel

    I agree that federal action is needed – but I think the most important action is to encourage infill housing generally, not to build affordable housing,

    In the 1950s and 1960s, the Federal government encouraged housing construction by building freeways to open new land for development and by providing FHA mortgages for suburban housing. The result was to create lots of affordable housing – not in the new suburban developments but in the old urban neighborhoods that people left to move to these new suburbs. There was lots of affordable housing in North Beach, central Berkeley, and the Oakland flatlands as the middle-class left. The same happened all over the country, and in some places (notably the south Bronx) rents were so low that they could not cover maintenance, and whole neighborhoods were abandoned.

    Today, the federal government could do something similar by building transit and providing financial incentives to build housing around transit stops. The market will work now, just as it worked sixty years ago. If we increase supply enough, prices will go down.

    This would be much more effective than allowing gentrification of market rate housing to continue and mitigating it by building isolated patches of affordable public housing.

  • Vooch

    the solution Is

    1) encourage infill housing by eliminating all Parking requirements within City of SF for residential construction in Every area of City

    2) increase Zoning density for housing in Much of City

    3) Remove a couple of highways and sell Land for housing Development

    4) Protected bike Lanes everywhere to encourage more mobility options

  • Charles Siegel

    I agree with all of those things, but I would also like to see:
    — more federal investment in transit.
    — federal financing to encourage more housing development around transit – as the FHA encouraged suburban housing development during the 1950s and 1960s.

  • neroden

    A federal law banning certain abusive types of zoning would do the trick. Types of zoning which should be banned:

    (1) “Single family” restrictions and other “number of household” restrictions, which are an invasion of privacy anyway and are really unconstitutional; this is the #1 problem
    (2) General restrictions on commercial activity in residential areas, as opposed to restrictions on noise-generating or drunkenness-generating activities which are OK
    (3) General restrictions on residential activity in commercial areas
    (4) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limits, which have no rational justification ever
    (5) Height limits which are not related to sunlight access for neighboring properties
    (6) Rear setbacks
    (7) Side setbacks which are not related to sunlight access for neighboring properties
    (8) Front setbacks which are not reserved for sidewalks / light rail / utility lines / drainage
    (9) Parking minimums

  • There’s no need to even put Federal money into investing in housing around transit. Just take the Feds out of investing in the status quo and the market will naturally correct itself to offer most housing near transit.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

The Bay Area Needs More Walkable Housing, Not Google Bus Bashing

|
The anger of the protestors who blockaded a Google bus in the Mission on Monday was very real and understandable. San Francisco residents, living in a highly sought-after city with a limited housing supply, are coping with a crisis of skyrocketing rents and evictions. Meanwhile, Muni riders increasingly find their stops blocked by private shuttles that appear […]

Can In-Law Units Help Solve SF’s Housing Woes?

|
There seem to be two points of view on San Francisco’s frustrating housing situation: either the tech industry is to blame for increasing demand or it comes down to NIMBY homeowners hoarding housing stock and preventing new development. Or maybe it’s some combination of the two? Clearly, there’s a desire to keep San Francisco looking […]