What is the Faircloth Amendment?

The U.S. Government has been providing affordable, permanent housing for over 1.8 million families through public housing. Public housing serves a critical role in the nation’s rental market, providing stable, affordable homes for households with low incomes. The families who live in public housing include some of the nation’s most disadvantaged citizens, including older adults, people with disabilities, and working families with young children. 

Not to be confused with other housing subsidy programs, public housing is housing stock that is owned by HUD (U.S. Government) and administered by local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs). Public housing comes in all sizes and types, from scattered single-family houses to high rise apartments for elderly families. 

In 1998, through the Faircloth Amendment, the U.S. Government created an artificial barrier by limiting the number of public housing units that federal authorities could build and has resulted in many people being left without a home. This amendment prevents any net increase in public housing stock from the number of units as of October 1, 1999. Simply put, the Faircloth Amendment sets a cap on the number of units any public housing authority (PHA) could own and operate, effectively halting new construction of public housing. This prevents policymakers from using a vital tool, building more permanent affordable housing, to address our nation’s growing housing and homelessness crisis.

In the two decades since the Faircloth Amendment passed, rent costs have skyrocketed while average incomes have not. The median inflation-adjusted rent has increased 13.0 percent since 2001, while the median inflation-adjusted renter’s income has only increased 0.5 percent during that same period. This obstacle in creating more affordable housing that the amendment created, is happening while there is a $70 billion backlog in funding for maintenance and repairs to existing public housing stock.

Repeal the Faircloth Amendment Act

There are many pieces of legislation that would Repeal the Faircloth Amendment, overturning the 1998 law so there would no longer be a federal limit on creation of new public housing. These are bills currently introduced in Congress that would repeal Faircloth: H.R. 659, H.R. 7191, H.R. 5385, H.R. 2664, H.R. 4497, S. 1218, S. 2234.

Repealing the Faircloth Amendment would not only eliminate a physical ban, but also:

  • Repealing the Faircloth Amendment would not only eliminate a physical ban that has barred access to affordable housing for more than twenty years, but it would also allow for communities, tenants and PHAs to reimagine how building more public housing with permanent affordability could create opportunities for seniors to rest and families to thrive. 
  • Intentionally designing and planning to have public housing integrated in the community where residents thrive in their neighborhoods, where they have access to opportunity, where there’s jobs, resources and public parks can be accomplished, but first Faircloth must be repealed.
  • While few funds are currently dedicated toward new public housing construction, lifting the prohibition from the Faircloth Amendment lays the groundwork for a net increase in the supply of public housing, a crucial step in increased aggregate housing supply.
  • It is not an either fully fund current public housing OR repeal the Faircloth Amendment to create new public housing, it is an AND. Repeal the Faircloth Amendment to remove the barrier to create new public housing AND fully fund PHAs to properly maintain safe, decent, accessible, and affordable housing units that they currently hold.

Congress should uncuff itself from the restraints that the Faircloth Amendment has put on this country’s ability to create affordable housing. Public housing is critical to addressing the nation’s poverty crisis. As a long-term asset, public housing provides decent housing to the nation’s most vulnerable citizens, connects low-income workers to economic opportunities, and spurs regional job creation and economic growth.

by Kelvin Lassiter

As the country emerges from the shutdowns surrounding the pandemic, Americans have become inpatient. Promises made regarding voting rights, paid time off, and tax hikes on the wealthy to pay for much needed infrastructure have not come to pass. 

Now, after several months of negotiations, the president’s original $3.5 trillion-dollar spending measure for the infrastructure bill and the social spending package has now been reduced in price tag to $1.75 trillion dollars (read the text of the Build Back Better bill). Some of the highlights of the bill include:

  • 150 billion in housing investments
  • Extension of the Child Tax Credit for one year
  • 100 billion to reduce immigration backlogs
  • Expansion of health care coverage that will save nine million Americans $600 a year on their premiums

Things left out of the final framework:

  • Paid family leave
  • Clean Electricity Performance Program
  • Ability for the government to negotiate with drug companies for Medicare also won’t be allowed.

While the American people appreciate the efforts for the things that will remain in the bill, it is severely underfunded, and will affect our housing insecure population for generations. The cities of New York and Los Angeles combined need at least 150 billion alone to being their public housing infrastructure up to code. Also, eliminating the ability for the government to negotiate drug prices is damaging. Who wants to make the choice to pay for medicine, or pay to survive without medicine?

In his latest remarks, President Biden reminded the country that this bill is historic, and an investment in the American people. Not everybody got everything they wanted including me, but that’s what compromise, and democracy is. While his remarks are true, the American people counted on lower drug prices, lower housing costs, clean air, and paid family leave to survive. Are the American people getting what they voted for? It remains to be seen, stay tuned.

Bring America Home Now Campaign Supports the Build Back Better Act

Bring America Home Now: A Comprehensive Grassroots Campaign to End Homelessness in the U.S. is led by people who have themselves experienced homelessness and is focused on the passage of federal legislation aimed at addressing the interconnected solutions to the decades-long epidemic of homelessness in the United States. 

Bring America Home is focused on six key policy areas: 

  • Housing
  • Health
  • Livable incomes 
  • Education/Training 
  • Civil Rights 
  • Racial Equity

Bring America Home, therefore, supports Build Back Better as it includes important provisions within many of the Campaign’s core elements. Specifically, if passed, the Build Back Better Act would help move us toward the goal of preventing and ending homelessness by making significant investments in Housing Choice Vouchers, the Housing Trust Fund, rural rental housing, HOME, and CDBG programs. Additionally, the Act contains important provisions around zoning, fair housing protections, and addressing homeownership disparities through a down payment fund. Beyond housing, Bring Back Better further seeks to secure broader economic security, as envisioned by the Campaign, through job training and workforce investments, an expansion of the child tax credit, extending family leave, and increasing childcare options. 

It is urgent to act. To ensure the inclusion of these critical investments in Build Back Better, it is necessary your Senator and Representative hear from you immediately. Call Now and express your support for these provisions within the Bring Back Better Act. To find your representative and Senators, click here: GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress or call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121

For more information on Bring America Home Now

National Coalition for the Homeless Bring America Home NOW! – National Coalition for the Homeless (nationalhomeless.org)

Bring America Home NOW logo
The picture is of a dumpster corral in Des Moines Iowa near one of the universities in a suburban community and the home to a gentleman who could not find housing.  Not the kind of neighborhood most people would think of a man experiencing homeless squatting in a dumpster corral.  Homeless outreach has already been out and the individual is a veteran, but resistant to services.  There are mental health issues, and he does not want to leave. 

Working to reduce poverty is one of the hardest jobs in the United States, and in communities that add politics and culture war obstacles to the mix makes the job nearly impossible. That is the best summary of doing social justice work to eliminate poverty in Iowa.  A community organizer (or the less political charged word of advocate) has to overcome the difficulties of working to build a community that are all heading in the same direction, but then there are these unbelievably backward state government in Des Moines who only seem to add roadblocks.  Two recent example of unnecessary roadblocks and frankly just stupidity is the signing into law a bill that ended the ability for a local community to pass laws preventing discriminatory advertising and the cancellation of extended unemployment while we are still suffering the effects of a pandemic.  

Three larger communities passed laws consistent with the Fair Housing Act that prevented landlords from using the phrase “No Section 8” or more accurately “No Housing Choice Voucher holders accepted” in their advertising for potential renters. It is an attack on home rule in the three communities who had previously passed a ban on landlords using the racist “No Section 8” language in their advertising.  The law is racist because it stigmatizes those with low incomes from certain housing, and minority populations are disproportionately low income when measured against the total population.  The other extremely harmful government action is the cancelling of federal extended unemployment early as passed by the American Rescue Act in March 2021. Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds has decided, without any factual data, that generous unemployment benefits are keeping her constituents from seeking gainful employment.  She has cut off the federal additional unemployment compensation in June while half of the surrounding states will receive those funds through September.  The New York Times reviewed data from Missouri and found that ending unemployment early does not lead to large scale returns to low wage jobs.

There are so many strategies to reduce poverty including expanding public benefits or providing a universal basic wage or a negative earned income tax credit or adding entitlements, and it takes all ones energy to get community leaders and those living in poverty to focus on any strategy.  Then to have government show up and additional barriers to the struggle like racist policies or fact-free policy decision or government acting as unforgiving punisher for bad behavior just makes the job of working on solutions that much more difficult.   It is taxing to have to fight for justice against what seems like the whole world.  It is tough to organize people who are struggling with basic life sustaining functions like housing, food and sleep while the government is passing laws or changing policy that harms low income people. Then getting everyone on the same page for a goal, only to find out that there is an even bigger struggle against government officials operating in an unscientific and damaging manner can seem like the advocates are taking fire from all sides.  These are intelligent well educated people who are acting purely out of self-interest to reinforce and amplify fears that exist in society.  The only reason for acting against the interest of your own citizens is to appeal to a fringe element of the voters who come out for a primary.  They seem to have no concern for the good of the community or the majority of the population who either do not vote or voted for the other side.  Every day is trench warfare sticking it to the other side when it is often hard to figure out friend or foe. 

Everyone knows that landlords use the “No Section 8” phrase to discriminate against potential tenants. Source of income discrimination strikes at the heart of the Fair Housing Act, and will surely draw lawsuits from the fair housing community and hopefully from the federal government.  What possible justification can someone have for rejecting a federal housing program? In fact, many landlords are thanking their stars that they have a tenant with a guaranteed source of rent during a pandemic.  There are so many who lost their jobs and cannot afford the rent. They cannot be evicted due to CDC guidance and common sense.  The Section 8 landlords receives the federal portion of the rent like clockwork at the beginning of every month no matter what the state of the economy, and if the tenant loses their job the landlord gets more of the rent from the feds.

The extended unemployment is entirely paid by the American Rescue Act out of federal coffers so why is Iowa and 24 other state officials rejecting these funds? How are Iowans going to feel when their neighbors in surrounding states will still be eligible for extended unemployment but because of a decision by a group of vindictive governors they will not get those added benefits?  How will the worker who specialized in event planning or a travel related business and saw their business disappear last year feel when their governor decided that they do not deserve extended federal unemployment because they have not found a job yet? The pandemic is not over and only 43.7% of the residents of Iowa are fully vaccinated causing many to fear for their safety if they return to work, which dropped 32% over the last few weeks. It does not help the 30,000 Iowans currently unemployed and the thousands of others who have given up finding work to say that unemployment is “low.” Studies have shown that being on unemployment assistance does not discourage work and even encourages people to take jobs that pay less than they received in the past.  

Other stupid examples of government acting against its own taxpayers in Iowa include the new voting restrictions signed into law by Governor Kim Reynolds which shortens the early voting period for Iowa and the sudden dropping of COVID restrictions in early February well before the rests of the country.  Reynolds never acted in a leadership capacity against COVID which placed Iowa regularly in the top 20 states with regard to cases and deaths when adjusted for population.  This February the dropping of all COVID restrictions took everyone by surprise especially those serving the elderly and fragile populations like homeless people because it came without much guidance or planning. Early February was well before most of the population even the frail were even offered a vaccine.  The state also adopted something called “Constitutional carry” which eliminated most restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon. This of course is exactly what we need in the middle of a pandemic, while there is a near total shut down of the mental health system and the economy teetering is the best time ever to allow concealed firearms. Iowa elected officials decided this was the perfect time to allow a bunch of masked people suffering PTSD from the horrific last year to freely carry weapons in their coats with bank tellers and 7-Eleven clerks worried what they will face at work everyday.

So maybe they have run out of things to govern because Iowa is a hidden oasis of rainbows and peaceful co-existence. It might be exactly like the Field of Dreams and people are flocking there from miles around because they “built it” (whatever that means). Well, 11.2% of the population lives below the poverty level and none of the bills passed or restrictions removed are going to help the impoverished. There are still people sleeping rough in tents in the larger metropolitan areas and they are not doing that willingly in order to be first in line for the limited seating ball park to watch the ghosts playing baseball.  Iowa has a relatively low unemployment rate, but the pandemic did expose the horrible working conditions in Iowa for the meat processing plant workers.  Still no legislation improving the working conditions in one of Iowa’s largest industries. There are still around 150,000 Iowans without health insurance or about 4.7% of the population, and one in four women in Iowa are previous victim of domestic violence.  So it seems like there are plenty of problems to address while the legislature and executive branch are distracted with solving problems that do not exist.  

There Are Some Good Ideas Coming Out of Iowa

One of the advancements in Iowa that could be replicated throughout the United States is their policies and practices in Des Moines around getting the long term homeless into housing and keeping them there.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development has over the last 12 years forced the local communities to go to a Central Intake model and prioritize those who have many barriers to housing.  They have focused resources on Permanent Supportive Housing which in many communities is neither permanent nor in many communities is it supportive.  There is very little guidance on how to make these programs successful and not turn into a revolving door for the most difficult to serve.  Some communities have constructed housing blacklists of people who they evicted and have no possibility of returning to supportive housing or they make the screening criteria so difficult that Dick Van Dyke and Michelle Obama are pretty much the only people who qualify.  Des Moines has completely revamped its system to strip away all barriers to entry into their housing with services programs.   Any program that wants public, and some private, funding must agree to accept clients only through the centralized intake.

The most important innovation is the desire to keep people in the housing so they do not show back up in the system a couple of months down the line.  The Continuum of Care wants to significantly reduce evictions and the quiet eviction of just forcing residents to leave these programs.  They have worked with all the groups to go through a restorative justice type approach to infractions of the rules.  Instead of using the codes of conduct included in leases as a way to discharge someone from housing, they work with the individual to show them the consequences of their actions. Programs are required to have operating policies that recognize relapse is part of recovery and cannot make the punishment for working through the behavioral health issues associated with addiction being forced to live on the streets for a time. Des Moines continuum has put in place a policy that requires providers to allow a household facing expulsion from the housing program to appeal the decision to someone other than their case manager.  It is meant to be such a high bar that very few providers will option for that course of action, and it has been remarkably successful. Anawim Housing, the continuum’s permanent supportive housing provider, incorporates into their appeal process a volunteer moderator from outside the agency.  They use the appeal process as an opportunity to “reset” not to evict. They also bring together on a weekly basis, the program residents to learn from each other.  For example, they show that having a guest over has an impact with noise and other problems for their immediate next door neighbor. They are one of the few communities to dramatically reduce the recidivism rate among those who have long histories of homelessness.  

It takes a toll on an advocate’s mental well-being when they work every day to try to provide a hand up to those struggling in a conservative state and there is someone from government working to beat people with a stick.  At the end of the day, this only creates new avenues for people to fall further away from the American dream. It is tough going to into the ornate state capitals to talk about solutions to poverty and all the person across the table wants to talk about is punishing people for bad behavior.   When did solving problems drop out of the description of any legislator and instead they are solely focused on raising campaign dollars? What are they campaigning for except to keep a job?  It is sad when an advocate puts in long hours getting proof of housing to funders and they meet with an elected official who have these glazed look in their eyes when as the advocates begin talking about housing or poverty.  They seem to be responsive to those who can deliver campaign cash and everyone else is just there for the show. It just makes the advocate feel like they are taking fire from all sides and have a mountain to overcome. 

The National Coalition for the Homeless released its annual report on bias-motivated violence against people experiencing homelessness on December 21, 20 Years of Hate, outlines the 39 lethal attacks and the 44 non-lethal attacks that occurred in 2018 and 2019 throughout the United States. December 21st also marks 30 years of remembering the deaths of people experiencing homelessness through Homeless Persons’ Memorial Day.  

The report discusses the structural violence that has created endemic poverty, and proposes legislative solutions to lawmakers and advocates working to protect people experiencing homelessness from violence. Combining statistics and narratives, 20 Years of Hate provides an in-depth look at the types of crimes homeless individuals experienced in 2018 and 2019, from police brutality to stabbings. The report breaks down lethal and non-lethal crimes by state, and each crime is documented by city, date, and description. 

The report will be released on December 21, 2020, which commemorates the 30th Annual National Homeless Persons’ Memorial Day, a remembrance of those who have passed away during the year while unhoused. Events will be held nationwide to remember thousands who may not have had memorial services. A growing number of cities have been releasing annual reports on the number of community members who have died while homeless. 20 years of Hate only documents a fraction of these deaths. As the National Health Care for the Homeless Council points out, life expectancy for someone who is homeless can be 20-30 years younger than the general population. The National Coalition for the Homeless has estimated that annually, there are 13,000 individuals who die on our streets. The National Healthcare for the Homeless Council have partnered with groups around the country to create a Mortality Toolkit now available to help give a more accurate count of those who have perished on the streets of America.

This year’s 20 Years of Hate report marks the 20th year the National Coalition for the Homeless has analyzed bias-motivated violence that leads to many deaths among the homeless community. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has documented increases in reported Hate Crimes against federally protected classes since the 2016 elections. The numbers of attacks reported against people experiencing homelessness have decreased during this time. It is likely that as political views have bifurcated, bias against federally-protected classes has become more accepted or promoted in the mainstream culture. Still, the data collected by the National Coalition for the Homeless demonstrates that bias-motivated violence against homeless persons continues to be highly prevalent in our communities. 

California saw the most crimes against people experiencing homelessness in 2018 and 2019. Often considered ground zero for homelessness, Los Angeles, in particular, saw almost 10% of overall incidents recorded, from acid attacks and video-taped stabbings to police officers murdering a homeless man after a noise complaint. There is a clear correlation between the growing visible presence of homelessness, as occurs in Los Angeles, and the number and severity of attacks from housed persons.

Federal and local legislation could help to prevent bias-motivated violence against people experiencing homelessness, adding housing status as a protected class under hate crimes statutes or vulnerable victims sentencing guidelines. However, as evident from the crimes outlined in 20 Years of Hate, a cultural shift is needed to change how US society treats and values our homeless population, in order to prevent hate crimes and to build healthy and compassionate communities. 

By Kelvin Lassiter – Policy Analyst

There’s a huge divide in America. Most believe that divide is either racial, economic, political or a combination of all three. They would be right. What about affordable housing? The heart of the matter lies in who is dominating the conversation regarding what’s affordable. The divide in the affordable housing conversation is racial, economical, and political. Let’s tackle income inequality, for starters, the federal minimum wage. Some would say our nation should explore provide universal basic income. Already underway and is a plus. See the pattern here? The individual, organization, or government entity directing the narrative determines what’s affordable and what’s not affordable. What income level is suitable and what is not. It was refreshing for a change to see the people determine what’s suitable regarding the recent events in Philadelphia, PA. 

For years, the Philadelphia Housing Authority has ignored its most vulnerable citizens. Eligible housing units that the poor can qualify to live in sits empty. This is by design. Developers and housing investors stalk their prey with lobbying efforts to develop something called mixed income communities. America, that’s just a fancy way to disguise “gentrification”. On average, a larger number of poor people that leave their neighborhoods behind never return. Philadelphia is no different. Empty housing just occupies city space while over 40,000 people sit on a waiting list for public housing. This is a normal practice in America. Make the poor sit and wait. Developers, house flippers, and city governments leave out the people that need it most, well, not this time. 

Lawyers, activists, and the unhoused seized on the opportunity to grab the attention of America with advocates that know something about grabbing attention; Black Lives Matter. It’s a marriage that ties housing and justice together. The people taking matters into their own hands may repair fractured relationships between housing authorities and the citizens they are supposed to serve. The journey started out with a simple demand; provide housing or we will take to next steps to provide housing for ourselves.

Well, of course, city hall did not listen, setting the stage for what would happen next. Close to 200 of Philadelphia’s most vulnerable people took over a park at 22nd and Ben Franklin Parkway in a neighborhood known for the lifestyle of the rich and famous. In this same time period, fifteen unoccupied housing authority homes became property of the people. The conditions may not have been ideal; however, it forced the housing authority to look at a much greater problem, humanity. Encampments were strategically set up in various parts of the city to force action. 

After months of political posture, an agreement was reached. The city agreed to turn over 50 public housing units including the fifteen occupied during a citizen take over.  These homes will be in a land trust meaning housing will be affordable for the poor and operated by the people. One of our sources who participated in the negotiations shared the following, something you may not hear with the national media:

Jobs are available through the trade union. Houses are being fixed up in North and West Philadelphia, and the formerly unhoused are welcome and will contribute to keeping the character of the neighborhood. While this is a landmark deal that will have implications nationwide, it comes with a set of challenges as well. The city council still continues the practice of political gamesmanship and owns a graveyard set up for housing policy. While it is much appreciated for the Philadelphia Housing Authority to grant 50 houses, it is still not enough for the estimated 6,000 plus unhoused people that remain in Philadelphia. Finally, the practice of encampment sweeps will continue in the midst of a global pandemic.

The fight for housing, which is a “human right”, has remained an issue since the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Discrimination has reached an all time high in punishing the poor just because they are poor. Will other housing authorities nationwide join Oakland, and Philadelphia using land trust models? Will the people have to take matters into their own hands or can we depend on housing authorities to do the right thing? Have we, or will we finally reach a moment of reconciliation in America? The jury is still out and has not yet reached a verdict. 

by Kelvin Lassiter

Evictions are more complicated than just the actual meaning. At its root cause, we may be able to list job loss, medical issues, and loss of spouse/domestic violence as examples that are at the surface. It’s bigger than someone failing to fulfill their obligation in exchange for not being on the street.

Estimated numbers of people at risk of eviction are staggering; 30 to 40 million in the next several months are at risk for becoming housing insecure according to the Aspen Institute. 

There are 3 things currently standing in the way of mass displacement due to eviction:

  • CDC moratorium
  • Local moratorium
  • Legal Aid and rental assistance 

On September 2, 2020, The Center for Disease Control Director Dr. Robert Redfield signed a declaration determining that the evictions of tenants could be detrimental to public health. This action was instrumental since the CARES Act moratorium expired in late July.

Some city and state governments issued eviction prevention moratoriums at the beginning of the public health emergency which have since expired.

Three main reasons why tenants are still being evicted from their homes:

  • Landlord intimidation of tenants
  • Tenants not aware of their rights as renters
  • Lack of legal representation in court 

Landlords have taken measures into their own hands during this public health crisis. While they depend on payments for survival, boarding up doors, shutting of utilities, and filing for eviction with the courts does not make a tenant speed up their ability to pay rent. The fine print on a lease may become a challenge to understand and it’s a tool used by management companies to evict.

What can be done to protect the American People?

A fifth coronavirus package to protect the American people, extending the CDC moratorium beyond December is pivotal in blocking the wave of evictions. An executive order by local, and state governments can potentially protect certain groups of Americans from evictions such as the elderly, and domestic violence survivors.

There are benefits for families to stay in their homes. Kids are able to focus in school and decrease the chance of suffering from lack of rest and food insecurity. Prevention of long term mental instability is also a plus.

Should we have hope in that a piece meal approach that has slowed down what’s inevitable? Or will people remain hopeless in the lack of assistance to help Americans sustain their quality of life?

Make no mistake, the United States will face a housing crisis not seen since the great depression regarding housing insecurity. Most moratoriums put in place at the beginning of the pandemic have expired causing massive amounts of eviction filings by landlords.

What will happen if the CDC moratorium on evictions is not extended past December 2020? The jury is still out on that answer, however, the American people must have a say, and challenge our elected officials to do what they were elected to do, legislate. 

Available resources:

The National Coalition for the Homeless applauds all the communities that are rushing to provide desperately needed housing for people who are unhoused, and especially vulnerable to contracting and succumbing to COVID-19. 

However, we are, quite frankly, disturbed that so many are still relying on congregate settings: big tents and open floor warehousing of people, in what is clearly a dire public health emergency for the entire country. In the hopes of relieving the strain on other overcrowded shelters, the San Diego government decided to open the convention center to the homeless population. They are expecting to house over 1,500 people during this crisis. San Francisco ignored early warnings from advocates and requests to place vulnerable folks in empty hotel rooms, and now residents and staff of shelters are falling ill. This is unacceptable. We are clearly failing to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in both sheltered, and unsheltered, populations, and in direct opposition to clear guidelines given by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 

Researchers who have long studied homelessness have projected that homeless individuals infected by COVID-19 would be twice as likely to be hospitalized, two to four times as likely to require critical care, and two to three times as likely to die than the general population. (Read the full report)

This crisis continues to highlight the structural inequities that have plagued us for decades, causing mass homelessness since the defunding of Federal affordable housing programs starting in the 1970’s. 

We call on Congress to respond swiftly with the following: 

  • 11.5 billion for ESG (15 bil based on this study, minus the $4bil in the CARES Act) 
  • 4 billion for fair elections (based on this information
  • Emergency rental assistance for all tenants, including rural renters
  • Extend moratoria on evictions to all renters, extend sunset date to 3 months after stay-at-home orders are lifted, and do not require all back rent paid when moratorium lifts 
  • Extend health care for uninsured/underinsured 
  • Extend funding for hotel/motel space for people who do not have a permanent home
  • Facilitate transfer of unused/vacant housing to families who are unhoused 
  • Increase food assistance through the SNAP program

Further, we call on HUD either to automatically renew all FY 19 funded COC projects, or greatly simplify the renewal process. Our service providers are using all their capacity to ensure their unhoused community members are safe, we don’t need a lengthy application process during this public health crisis!

But again, let’s be clear, homelessness has been a public health emergency for over 4 decades!!

We stand in solidarity with our neighbors who are calling to #CancelTheRent. They know so well that the over 22 million Americans who have filed for unemployment, plus the up to 140 million Americans who were already on the edge before the coronavirus appeared, are in danger of becoming homeless. 

We stand in solidarity with all those who have been left out of the Federal relief responses thus far, our poorest and most vulnerable neighbors. As Rev. Dr. William Barber puts it, “The virus is teaching us that from now on, living wages, guaranteed health care for all,unemployment and labor rights are not far left issues, but issues of right vs wrong, life vs death.”

We must work to correct the long-standing and systemic causes of housing, income, health and further racial inequities. When the emergency of Coronavirus infection has passed, we do not want to return to normal. We should all hope to see a new normal emerging where we and all of our neighbors have safe, affordable and accessible housing; adequate wages to cover our living expenses, adequate and affordable health care, and where our civil and human rights are equally defended and protected.

In what appears to be an escalation on the White House’s war on the homeless, rather than a righteous war on homelessness, the White House Council of Economic Advisers released an unsigned report this week on “The State of Homelessness in America” that is on its face absurd, and uses faulty logic, statistics and policy prescriptions to give cover to the President’s recently stated desire to crack down on the homeless by criminalizing and warehousing people experiencing homelessness – not to help end their misery, but to alleviate the impact of street homelessness on real estate investors and businesses.

The report claims that homelessness is caused by 1) the higher costs of housing due to overregulation of housing markets, 2) permissive policies increasing the “tolerability of sleeping on the streets”, 3) the supply of homeless shelters, and 4) the ineffectiveness of previous federal policies in reducing homelessness.  Finally, in heralds the Trump Administration’s actions to reduce Homelessness without offering any evidence to support the impact of such actions on the reductions of homelessness.

“This report seemingly attempts to give cover to the President’s recent attacks on cities experiencing the crisis of increased homelessness without taking responsibility for the Administration’s own actions which undercut state and local efforts to end homelessness through a combination of housing and health care”, said John Parvensky, Executive Director of the National Coalition for the Homeless.  “The report purports to be an economic analysis of homeless, but instead uses misleading statistics, faulty analysis and spurious conclusions to blame homelessness on those experiencing it, rather than on failure of the housing market and government policy to provide real solutions at the scale necessary to truly end homelessness.”

The report’s simplistic analysis of the effect of regulations on the cost of housing ends with the startling conclusion that a “1 percent reduction rental home prices reduces the rate of homelessness by 1%.”  While the regulatory environment may have a marginal impact of the cost of building housing, the actual cost of rental housing is dictated by the laws of supply and demand (something you would think a council of economic advisors would understand).  The cities with the highest rates of homelessness also have the greatest shortage of affordable housing with rents low enough for those experiencing homelessness to afford. 

When there is a shortage of housing units, owners will set the rents as high as the market will allow, which puts the cost far above what people experiencing homelessness can afford.  The report itself acknowledges that the mean incomes of people experiencing homelessness is about one-half of the poverty level – which equates to $6,445 for a single individual and $12,375 for a family of four.  Yet the 2019 fair market rent in Los Angeles is $1,158 for an efficiency apartment and $2,401 for a three bedroom apartment.  Thus, the average homeless persons in Los Angeles would need spend twice their income to rent an average apartment.  A 1% reduction in rent prices would have no impact on reducing homelessness.  Even a 50% reduction in rent due to deregulation (which even the report’s authors don’t suggest is possible) would mean that the average homeless person would still need to spend all of their income for an apartment.   The solution to high rents is not deregulation, but increased governmental subsidies to bring those rents within the reach of all Americans.

The report’s contention that tolerating people living on the streets increases homelessness is equally absurd.  Talk to any person living on the streets of Skid Row or in any city and you will discover that it is the lack of available, accessible and affordable alternatives that drive people to find refuge on the streets, not tolerance of such refuge.  Alternatively, criminalizing homelessness through camping bans, sweeps, and other means does not reduce homelessness – it only moves people from one place to another and makes it more difficult for outreach workers to engage and connect these people to the limited housing options that may be available to them.

Similarly, the report’s claim that the supply of shelter increases homelessness is laughable.  Building shelters, which are in already in short supply in most communities, no more increases homelessness than building hospitals increases those who are sick.  While building quality shelter may be one effective strategy of reducing street homelessness by providing realistic alternatives to those sleeping on the streets, few people would choose shelter over safe and affordable housing.

Fourth, the report’s critique of previous federal policies does raise serious questions about whether HUD’s contention that homelessness is actually declining in most communities is accurate due to methodological problems and changes in definitions.  However, it’s contention that evidence-based practices of “housing first” and permanent supportive housing are ineffective in reducing homeless is flawed.  Those interventions are designed to end the homelessness of those who have access to such housing, and numerous studies have documented that these approaches do in fact end homeless for 90% of those housed through these approaches.  The problem isn’t the policy intervention.  The problem is that the Federal government has never funded these interventions to the level needed to dramatically reduce homelessness nationwide.

The growth of mass homelessness in our cities did not occur overnight.  It is the result of nearly four decades of federal budget cuts to affordable and public housing programs under both Republican and Democratic administrations beginning in the 1980s.  Indeed, the Administration’s recent budget proposals have called for reductions in funding for strategies that work, not increasing funding to the level needed to truly end homelessness.

This year, HUD provided only $415 million in homeless assistance grants to California, a paltry sum compared to the number of people experiencing homelessness in that state.  Furthermore, only 4.5% of this funding was available to fund new projects to house those currently on the streets or in shelters – the remaining funding was needed just to keep those individuals previously housed through federal support from losing their housing.

Meanwhile, California has recently committed $1 billion of new state funding, and Los Angeles voters approved two $2 billion bonds to address homelessness.

If the Trump administration was serious about ending homelessness in California and across our nation, it would call for a massive new investment of funding for homeless assistance and affordable housing – not increased efforts to criminalize homelessness or warehouse those currently on the streets.

We need to demand that the President and Congress significantly increase its funding for homeless assistance programs — to not only continue to house those previously housed who need continued assistance to remain housed, but also to provide new housing those currently living on the streets.  Incremental increases are not sufficient.  

They must also restore affordable housing funding across the board to the levels necessary so that those experiencing homelessness are not continually competing for limited housing with those living at risk of homelessness, on fixed incomes, or working at minimum wage jobs. 

We know how to end homelessness through a combination of affordable housing, health care, and social supports.  Criminalization and warehousing of the homeless are not the answers.

 

In an act of hypocrisy that is extreme, even when compared to the serial outrageousness we have come to expect from Washington in recent years, the Trump Administration has taken initial action seeking to criminalize homelessness by relocating people experiencing homelessness from the streets of Los Angeles and other California cities to federal facilities.  While appropriate federal investment is desperately needed to address the growing crisis of homelessness in cities across the nation, federal efforts to criminalize homelessness, or to create warehouses to move the homeless out of sight and out of mind are clearly not the answer.

The Trump Administration is complicit in the continuing growth of homelessness.  While it did not start under its watch, the administration has offered no positive proposals to address homelessness nor its main underlying cause — the lack of affordable housing.  Rather, the administration has proposed significant budget cuts to HUD’s affordable housing and homeless funding every year.   Other actions, such as repeated attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, cuts to SNAP benefits, and cuts to housing assistance for undocumented individuals in public housing, all undercut state and local efforts to end homelessness.

The growth of mass homelessness beginning in the 1980’s began with massive cuts to federal housing assistance for public housing and the Section 8 program.  Federal funding to specifically address homelessness has never been at a level commensurate with the need nor adequate to end homelessness.

Currently, HUD holds a yearly national competition for funding to award its Homeless Assistance grants to local communities.  In January, HUD announced the distribution of $2.2 Billion in such grants.  However, the vast majority of HUD funding was needed just to renew existing projects housing formerly homeless persons.  Nationwide, 91.3% of projects funded were renewal projects, with only 5.8% ($126 million) being new housing or service projects.  Of these 71% of renewals (totaling $2 billion) were for permanent supportive housing – applications to keep those who were housed through those projects remain housed.

In California, only 4.5% of the $415 million of HUD grants funded new projects to house those currently on the streets or in shelters – the remaining funding was needed just to keep those previously housed from losing their housing. 

Meanwhile, California has committed $1 billion of state funding, and Los Angeles voters approved two $2 billion bonds to address homelessness.

If the Trump administration was serious about ending homelessness in California and across our nation, it would call for a massive new investment of funding for homeless assistance and affordable housing.

We need to demand that the President and Congress significantly increase its funding for homeless assistance programs — to not only continue to house those previously housed who need continued assistance to remain housed, but also to provide new housing those currently living on the streets.  Incremental increases are not sufficient.  

They must also restore affordable housing funding across the board to the levels necessary so that those experiencing homelessness are not continually competing for limited housing with those living at risk of homelessness, on fixed incomes, or working at minimum wage jobs. 

We know how to end homelessness through a combination of affordable housing, health care, and social supports.  Criminalization and warehousing of the homeless are not the answers.