After electing Joe Biden as the President of the United States, various things are left unsolved across many issues and policy arenas.
Housing is the primary one. A recent idea that is capturing the attention of legislators and housing activists is to repeal the Faircloth Amendment, which bans the construction process of new public housing. For very low and low-income households, the incapability to afford stable and decent housing was one of the most urgent concerns even before the introduction of the coronavirus pandemic. The new administration should prioritize the delivery or manufacturing of more affordable housing support.
However, the government should not expect the local housing authorities to create more public housing as an effective solution to the affordable housing crisis. And the Faircloth Amendment is a political distraction that causes more obstacles to affordable housing. Here are the three reasons why building more affordable housing cannot solve the housing crisis in the United States.
Local Zoning and Land Availability Are the Primary Obstacles to Subsidized Housing – Maxwell Drever
Building market-rate rental housing or subsidized housing is banned by the government in most cities of America. This is because the zoning laws strictly prohibit the development of structures other than single-family detached homes across the suburbs and cities.
Repealing the Faircloth Amendment won’t solve this problem. As this is not a new issue, the government needs to think outside the box. Where people live and the children grow up will have a significant impact on their lifestyle. These will also control life expectancy, income, and wellness, mental and physical health. Not developing any plan of action to legalize apartments in high-community areas will only cause racial problems amongst low and middle-income families.
Public Agencies Cannot Comprehend the Role of Real Estate Developers
Proposals for the United States government to develop more public housing are often disturbed about which department or agency they mean. While funding for public housing is more dependent on the federal level, most properties are operated by the local housing authorities across the different cities of the country. Additionally, most of them don’t have proper construction experiences, says Maxwell Drever. Therefore, they will make the process risky, complicated, and long under different circumstances. Public agencies complete their operations under more robust processes and rules than private sector companies. For example, the labor and procurement requirements make the construction process more expensive and difficult.
Nowadays, most subsidized housing is managed and built by specialized for-profit and non-profit developers. Therefore, despite asking the government to build more affordable housing, many housing authorities doesn’t have the motivation or capacity to start new construction projects.
High-Quality Subsidized Housing Requires Long-Term Commitment
Proper maintenance of the home is extremely important. However, to keep the home in superior condition requires money and time. In that sense most of the public housing in the United States has been deteriorating slowly for the past couple of decades, damaged by water, vermin, mold, sun, snow, UV rays, etc. Apart from that, the electronic systems of such housing such as elevators are also malfunctioning. Keeping that in mind, the housing authorities should maintain the existing buildings instead of developing new ones.
Conclusion
These are the three reasons why building more homes won’t solve the affordable housing crisis problem in the United States. If you have any other questions, make sure you comment below.
