Housing vouchers a gainful alternative to social housing in San Jose?
New bill (AB 309) backed by several SJ pols states that social housing—taxpayer backed mixed-income developments—will keep housing affordable for families across CA. Jenny Schuetz at Brookings counters that, given the exorbitant costs of building “affordable” units, local gov'ts could instead focus on other subsidies like housing vouchers.
For low-income families, the struggle to afford decent-quality, stable housing was an urgent problem long before the COVID-19 pandemic. Providing more housing support should be a priority for the incoming administration.
However, expecting local housing authorities to develop large public housing portfolios is not an effective solution....
Other types of housing subsidy give taxpayers more bang for their buck
Constructing new housing is expensive, especially in coastal metro areas where affordability problems are most acute. Developing subsidized housing is—paradoxically— more expensive than market rate housing, because of the complexity of assembling financing. New construction is also slow: It can take a decade or longer to complete subsidized apartments in tightly regulated markets.
If the goal of federal policymakers is to help as many low-income households as possible, then a strategy of newly constructed public housing is perhaps the least effective path. Increasing funds for housing vouchers or for the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing apartments through the National Housing Trust Fund would stretch subsidy dollars to cover many more households more quickly, and often in higher-opportunity neighborhoods. Shoring up the long-term physical and financial viability of existing subsidized properties—such as through HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program—would also be more cost effective than new construction.
This article originally appeared in Brookings. Read the whole thing here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity