The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: affordable housing
Biden 'Framework' Details Historic Investments In Climate, Child Care And Much More

Biden 'Framework' Details Historic Investments In Climate, Child Care And Much More

President Joe Biden announced a new framework for his Build Back Better jobs plan on Thursday. Though the $1.75 trillion package is not as large as he originally envisioned, it would still include historic investments to address climate change and caregiving infrastructure.

The largest item in the package would be $555 billion for clean energy and fighting climate change. The administration called it "the largest effort to combat climate change in American history" and "the largest single investment in our clean energy economy in history, across buildings, transportation, industry, electricity, agriculture, and climate-smart practices across lands and waters."

This comes after an August report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group dedicated to climate change science, which delivered a "code red" warning, stating that scientists have reached the conclusion that humans are driving global warming and that without immediate action, it will have "profound consequences for the world's social, economic and natural systems.

"With the $555 billion investment, the White House says the United States would be on track for its goal of a 50 percent --52 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

The funds would be an addition to the investment in clean energy grid and electric vehicle infrastructure contained in the bipartisan $550 billion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which previously passed the Senate and is awaiting action in the House. Climate advocates say that too will provide "really great first steps" and some "really great second steps" on the issue.

The revised $1.75 trillion Build Back Better plan also includes a $400 billion investment in affordable child care and two years of free pre-K education. According to the White House, this will "save most American families more than half of their spending on child care" and will "increase the likelihood that parents, especially mothers, are employed or enrolled in education and training beyond high school."

It would make permanent the expanded child tax credit for more than 35 million families. That credit of up to $300 a month per kid — enacted for 2021 as part of Biden's American Rescue Plan — has already lifted an estimated 3 million children out of poverty.

Other items included in the framework include $150 billion to increase affordable housing, $150 billion for home care, $130 billion to cover millions more uninsured Americans under the Affordable Care Act, and $35 billion to add hearing benefits to Medicare. It also includes immigration reform provisions, assuming they survive the Senate's arcane budget reconciliation rules.

Democrats say the plan will be fully paid for by establishing 15 percent minimum taxes for large corporations, a tax increase on the wealthiest 0.02 percent of Americans, a crackdown on rich tax evaders and loopholes used by millionaires to avoid taxes, and a few other offsets. It would not increase taxes on anyone earning under $400,000.

With Republicans in both chambers firmly opposed to Biden's popular original $3.5 trillion package and a handful of conservative Democrats unwilling to accept that price tag, the White House and the rest of the congressional Democrats were forced to scale back some priorities. Proposals to invest billions more in free community college and paid family and medical leave — and to reduce the costs of prescription drugs through price negotiations — will not be part of this package.

Despite claims that the plan will "add trillions of dollars to the debt," the new version will likely reduce the annual budget deficit. The White House estimates that the offsets could bring in nearly $2 trillion, potentially bringing down the deficit by $145 billion to $245 billion.

Because the package would be considered under budget reconciliation rules, which are not subject to a filibuster, Democrats can enact this framework without any Republican support.

Correction: A previous version of this article stated that the new climate investments add to the $550 billion for clean energy and electric vehicles in the separate infrastructure package. It has been corrected to note that the $550 billion is the full total of the entire infrastructure package, not the clean energy and electric vehicle funding.

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.

Hypocrisy On Housing Is A Bipartisan Scourge

Hypocrisy On Housing Is A Bipartisan Scourge

Right now, selling a home is akin to selling beer on a troopship: Buyers are so eager they'll pay almost any amount. The median home sales price in the United States was nearly 23 percent higher in June than a year earlier.

Surging demand is the immediate cause of the increase, and it will abate before long. But underlying it is a more durable factor: policies that choke off supply by making it harder and more expensive to build homes.

The claim that all politics is local has never been more true than in the realm of housing policy, which has a way of turning principles upside down. At the national level, Democrats favor affordable shelter for all and Republicans oppose burdensome regulation. But in their own neighborhoods, they give priority to high real estate values.

The 18th-century economist Adam Smith wrote: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." The same can be said of homeowners, who in many communities have harnessed the power of municipal government to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.

In a lot of appealing locales, housing is increasingly unaffordable. The pandemic has boosted prices in suburbs and small towns by allowing urban office workers to relocate while keeping their city jobs. But that development only deepens a chronic malady: too many people and not enough homes.

A new study for the National Association of Realtors documents the fundamental cause. "While the total stock of U.S. housing grew at an average annual rate of 1.7 percent from 1968 through 2000, the U.S. housing stock grew by an annual average rate of 1 percent in the last two decades, and only 0.7 percent in the last decade," it noted. During this period, "every major region of the country heavily underbuilt housing."

It's true in Chicago. In Lincoln Park, one of the most desirable neighborhoods, loss of housing units has helped reduce the resident population by 40 percent. It's true in California. Since 2005, the state has added more than three times as many people as it has housing units.

In recent years, people have been leaving the Golden State for places like Austin, Texas, where rules have prevented the construction of multiunit buildings — helping to boost the median home sales price by 42 percent in the past year. In that respect, Austin resembles Los Angeles, where 75 percent of residential land is zoned for single-family homes and duplexes.

Democratic mayors can be faulted for making it difficult and expensive to enlarge the housing stock. Unfortunately, Republicans reject any attempt by the federal government to encourage more construction and density.

During the 2020 campaign, President Donald Trump alleged that Joe Biden would "eliminate single-family zoning, bringing who knows into your suburbs, so your communities will be unsafe and your housing values will go down." Biden's infrastructure package includes $5 billion in grants to local governments that ease zoning rules to allow more housing units.

You might think conservatives would want to scrap government regulations that abridge property rights and interfere with the free market. No such luck. Like Trump, many of them see exclusionary zoning as a way to shut out undesirables and keep home prices up. Self-interest triumphs over ideology.

Liberals are prone to their own hypocrisy. While cities like San Francisco, Denver, and Austin flaunt their progressive values, they have clung to housing rules that harm the people progressives are supposed to care about.

On the left, though, the consensus has cracked. Minneapolis and Seattle have "upzoned" to permit more multifamily units. In 2019, Oregon Democrats won passage of a measure largely forbidding single-family zoning. Last year, the Democratic California state Senate approved a bill to let local governments override such restrictions, and it's up for consideration again this year.

It's often said that the three most important factors in buying a home are location, location, and location. When it comes to housing affordability and access, the three most important factors are supply, supply, and supply. Anything that facilitates more housing units helps; anything that obstructs them does not.

Bipartisanship can be a way for people of differing views to find practical compromises that advance common goals. In the case of housing, though, it amounts to a cartel of the haves against the have-nots. And it's working exactly as designed.

Follow Steve Chapman on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

The Urgent National Crisis That Presidential Candidates Aren’t Talking About

The Urgent National Crisis That Presidential Candidates Aren’t Talking About

It’s visible on the streets of most major U.S. cities, has been for decades, and costs the government billions of dollars a year. But none of the people running for president seem to be speaking about it. Politicians and pundits don’t talk about homelessness like they talk about Donald Trump’s insults or Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The Obama administration prioritized veterans, one group within the U.S. homeless population, in its plan to end chronic homelessness nationally by 2017. In August, federal and Connecticut officials announced that the state had become the first to do so among U.S. veterans.

With 14 months to go until the 2016 presidential election, candidates are regularly referring to the United States’ dwindling middle class and income and wealth inequality, while others continue to rail against the financial elite and the 1 percent. But few are speaking explicitly on the campaign trail about perhaps the most jarring manifestation of poverty.

“A few candidates have talked about the distribution of wealth and the need to grow the middle class, but homelessness is as invisible in these discussions as it is visible on the streets,” Shahera Hyatt, director of the California Homeless Youth Project, told The National Memo.

Nearly 580,000 people experience homelessness in the United States on any given night, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness. But with only 18.3 per 10,000 Americans in the general population directly affected, the issue is off the radar for most people — including candidates.

Advocates said that they did not expect homelessness to become a major campaign issue in the 2016 presidential race, but they do see hope in the fact that some candidates are talking about economic inequality.

Part of the reason homelessness is absent from the national conversation is that many think of it as a local issue, one that mayors can campaign on, said Steve Berg, vice president for programs and policy at the National Alliance to End Homelessness. Americans, he added, don’t usually think of the president as the elected official responsible for getting people into housing.

Even so, advocates have suggested, the progress made in some U.S. cities and Connecticut on chronic veterans’ homelessness could be a politically viable way to present the issue to American voters.

As more cities report that they’ve ended that situation, Berg said it could get more public exposure as a social problem that can be solved. “Some candidate is going to figure out that this is an opportunity to get him or herself associated with something really good. Maybe,” he added.

William Burnett, a board member of the advocacy organization Picture the Homeless, and a formerly homeless veteran living in New York City, said he got housing in March due to his status as a veteran.

“It’s easier to sell the political will to address veteran homelessness than it is to address the homelessness of other people,” Burnett told The National Memo. He said he appreciated the fact that he was able to get housing, but said people who hadn’t served in the military also need help.

“I would like to see some of these candidates addressing [homelessness] during the campaign process,” added Burnett, who volunteered for Howard Dean’s campaign in 2003. Policy makers and candidates, Burnett said, should listen to those with the most expertise on homelessness — currently and formerly homeless people — in order to come up with creative solutions to get people housed.

Homelessness is “a national nexus for so many other issues that candidates talk about,” said Jake Maguire, a spokesperson at Community Solutions, a national nonprofit organization that helps communities address homelessness. He cited income inequality, jobs, and affordable housing, among other social and economic issues related to homelessness.

The Obama administration put a spotlight on the issue of veteran homelessness, Maguire said. Now, it can be “an entry point” to politicians speaking about addressing homelessness more broadly.

National Problem, Local Success

In New Orleans to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, on August 27, President Obama touted the progress the city has made in “fighting poverty” and “supporting our homeless veterans.”

“New Orleans has become a model for the nation as … the first major city to end veterans’ homelessness, which is a remarkable achievement,” the president said.

In addition to Connecticut and New Orleans, cities including Phoenix and Salt Lake City announced that they have eliminated chronic homelessness among veterans, and Houston reported in June that the city has effectively housed all of its homeless vets.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development defines chronic homelessness “as an individual or family with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a year or more or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years.”

Even though a small minority of Americans experiences homelessness firsthand, advocates say it’s a social issue voters should care about because their tax dollars fund the government programs aimed at addressing homelessness, whether they’re effective or not.

Between shelter costs, emergency room visits, mental health services, drug treatment, Medicaid, food stamps, and other benefits, it costs the government between $35,000 and $150,000 per year for one person living on the streets. And ultimately, the people receiving these benefits do not get the one they really need: a place to live.

“We as taxpayers spend [on average] 40 percent more to keep people homeless than to house them,” Maguire said. Annual per-person savings for cities that choose to offer homeless people housing vary by location, from $54,086 in Jacksonville, Florida, to $46,900 in Los Angeles, to $15,772 in Denver.

Burnett also said it costs more to keep a homeless person on the streets, than to pay for their housing. “If you want to bring the budget down, let’s find a cheaper way.”

Some cities, including Salt Lake City, have found so-called “housing first” strategies to be both ethical and cost-effective in transitioning people from shelters or the streets to their own housing.

While some taxpayers may question why they should pay for someone else’s housing, and argue that homeless people are without shelter because of drug or alcohol abuse, not wanting to work or some other personal choice, the reality is that many people are homeless due to a lack of affordable housing and poverty.

In addition, Maguire said, “housing is actually the platform of stability” from which people can gain access to drug treatment programs, job training, and mental health care.

Other advocates agreed: It’s hard to maintain a job when you are sleeping on the streets.

On The Streets, Off The Campaign Trail

As far as political constituencies go, homeless people don’t have the loudest voice. Most people without shelter are likely not donating to any candidates’ campaigns, and certainly not to Super PACs. Furthermore, the homeless experience unique barriers to exercising their right to vote. Without a mailing address, it may be difficult to receive your voter registration card or information about your polling site.

So while 2016 candidates are talking about income and wealth inequality, creating jobs, raising the minimum wage, developing more affordable housing, and providing greater access to health care, they have only discussed homelessness indirectly or in passing, if at all.

The advocates interviewed for this piece mentioned Bernie Sanders as the candidate most likely to speak about homelessness on the campaign trail.

Back in March, on a visit to San Francisco before he had declared his candidacy, Sanders said the city deserved credit for “consistently being one of the most progressive cities in the United States.” But the Vermont senator said the homelessness that is evident on the streets of San Francisco was emblematic of “a systemic failure being ignored by both political leadership and media,” according to The San Francisco Chronicle.

“I know this has been a long-term problem in this great city, but what is hard for many Americans to deal with is the fact that we were led to believe we were a vibrant democracy — but in many ways we are moving to an oligarchic society,” Sanders said. “Ninety-nine percent of all new income today generated is going to the top 1 percent. Does that sound anything vaguely resembling the kind of society we want to be living in?”

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley’s campaign told The National Memo he has addressed homelessness on the campaign trail, and while he served as governor of Maryland and mayor of Baltimore. While campaigning in Iowa on July 4, candidates were asked by The Des Moines Register how they best demonstrated patriotism in their lives. O’Malley said his patriotism was shown in “the form of service to others — especially the most vulnerable and voiceless among us: the poor, the sick, the homeless, the hungry and the imprisoned.”

In June, O’Malley discussed the need for a more coordinated strategy to promote affordable housing, mental and physical health care, addiction treatment, and “putting housing first” in order to address homelessness, according to O’Malley’s campaign.

The campaigns of Republican presidential candidates Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson did not respond to an email asking whether they planned to discuss homelessness, or had a policy plan to address homelessness nationally. The campaigns of Democratic front-runners Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders also did not respond to requests for comment.

One reason candidates rarely talk about poverty and homelessness specifically, the California Homeless Youth Project’s Hyatt said, is simple: Financial struggles are often foreign to them.

“Unfortunately, people who tend to run for public office have grown up middle class or better, and are therefore out of touch with the urgent crisis of homelessness in our country.”

Photo: Homeless people sleeping in Washington Square Park in New York City, (Kevin Christopher Burke via Flickr)

High Tech, High Rises: More Is Not Merrier In Our Congested Cities

High Tech, High Rises: More Is Not Merrier In Our Congested Cities

New York and San Francisco are expensive places to live. That’s a big problem for the nation because these cities are centers for the booming knowledge economy. High housing costs discourage this growth.

So sayeth The Economist, its trademark voice of reason spiked with charges of greed against those who would resist the god of gross domestic product. The venerable British magazine has a prescription, unfortunately: Make housing cheaper by building higher and denser and degrading the local zoning laws.

Plopped where a bungalow used to be is a skyscraper of conclusions built on a plywood foundation. Let us dismantle the top hundred floors.

Because of building restrictions, The Economist says, “American GDP in 2009 was as much as 13.5 percent lower than it otherwise could have been.”

New Yorkers trying to squeeze into Grand Central Terminal at 4:30 on a working afternoon are not so much worried about GDP as finding a free square foot on the crowded sidewalk; not that their opinions matter. The questionable assumption is that there’s no level of discomfort they won’t put up with.

In reference to San Francisco, The Economist writes, “Many workers will take lower-paying jobs elsewhere because the income left over after paying for cheaper housing is more attractive.”

What’s wrong with that? The American heartland is home to superb cities with far lower costs of living, to name four, Omaha, Columbus, Nashville, and Kansas City. Texas has built much of its urban growth on low housing prices. And the tech powerhouses of Seattle and Denver, though hardly cheap to live in, are still easier to swing than San Francisco.

The Economist seems shocked that residents of Mountain View, in rapidly populating Silicon Valley, have been resisting Google’s plan to build housing on its campus there. “The population density is just over 2,300 per square kilometre, three times lower than in none-too-densely populated San Francisco,” it notes as though that were an argument.

Houston is about half as dense as Mountain View. Its economy has been doing just fine.

And Frisco is “none-too-densely populated”? Who sez? Not the scientists noting that the San Andreas fault runs right through its geologically unstable heart.

“Home ownership is not especially egalitarian,” The Economist states, adding, “It is no coincidence that the home-ownership rate in the metropolitan area of downtrodden Detroit, at 71 percent, is well above the 55 percent in booming San Francisco.”

Perhaps the young tech workers piling into Frisco are more mobile than the struggling folks of Detroit and don’t seek to own homes. Lots of good Americans rent.

So, what can you do if the people like their land use laws? The Economist has an answer: Policymakers “should ensure that city-planning decisions are made from the top down. When decisions are taken at the local level, land-use rules tend to be stricter.”

The lower-downers seem to be under the impression that voters get to determine their community’s future development. Back on the hamster wheel, you peasants! Your quality of life pales in importance next to the higher value of economic growth.

The mother of all lousy assumptions could be encapsulated in this line: “As the return to knowledge-intensive activities exploded, so did the economic fortunes of idea-producing places.”

Of course, places don’t produce ideas. The places that attract the idea people tend to be urban scapes offering cafes, culture, and the hipster vibe found in old, low-lying neighborhoods. Level the tenements, raze those vintage warehouses, and erect forests of glass towers in their place and bye-bye, creative class.

No one can move more easily than these people. As noted, many are renting.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

Photo: New housing highrises on the waterfront, Williamsburg, Brooklyn. (Juha Uitto/Flickr)