Congress Can Help Make Housing Affordable—It Just Has to Act
from Renewing America and Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies
from Renewing America and Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies

Congress Can Help Make Housing Affordable—It Just Has to Act

Home sale signs are posted along Topanga Canyon road in Los Angeles on Oct. 19, 2023.
Home sale signs are posted along Topanga Canyon road in Los Angeles on Oct. 19, 2023. Richard Vogel/Associated Press

Originally published at The Hill

December 4, 2023 9:00 am (EST)

Home sale signs are posted along Topanga Canyon road in Los Angeles on Oct. 19, 2023.
Home sale signs are posted along Topanga Canyon road in Los Angeles on Oct. 19, 2023. Richard Vogel/Associated Press
Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

The Barrister Apartments in downtown Cincinnati, slated to open early next year, are a housing policy success story. Financed with federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, it is the first investment in affordable housing in the city’s central business district in more than two decades.  

More From Our Experts

The project involves rehabilitating two vacant office buildings into rental apartments for service workers making no more than 60 percent of the area median income. Not only will residents have shorter commutes to work — saving time and transportation costs and cutting down on emissions — they’ll also save on rent, freeing up money for other important priorities, such as food, education or a down payment on a home. 

More on:

United States

U.S. Congress

As important as the Barrister Apartments will be for downtown Cincinnati and the families who will live there, it unfortunately accounts for only a tiny portion of the estimated 270,000 affordable apartments needed to serve Ohio’s most vulnerable families. 

Ohio, like the rest of the nation, is facing an affordable housing crisis. It is estimated that there is a housing production gap of 3.8 million units nationwide and that nearly half of all renter households are considered “cost burdened,” meaning they spend more than 30 percent of income on rent. The production of new housing is on the decline, with inflation, rising interest rates, supply chain difficulties and elevated construction costs among the factors slowing down the construction of badly needed housing. The lack of housing construction is impacting not just renters who are paying more and more for fewer and fewer available units, but also first-time homebuyers seeking to find a foothold in the real estate market. 

The country needs a thoughtful, persistent and renewed commitment to affordable housing production programs. The good news is that there is considerable bipartisan support in Congress to act.  

More From Our Experts

The first step should be to expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Since its creation in 1986, the housing credit has financed nearly all affordable rental housing built in this country —3.7 million units of affordable housing, serving more than 8 million low-income households. Homes financed with housing credits, like Cincinnati’s Barrister Apartments, are generally required to be affordable to families earning less than 60 percent of the area median family income; in reality, they often serve Americans who are even less well-off. And the tax credit requires these properties stay affordable to low-income families for at least 30 years. 

In early May, a bipartisan coalition of senators and representatives introduced the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act, with more than two dozen provisions to enhance and improve the housing credit. The bill would help to finance nearly 2 million additional affordable homes over the next decade, principally through provisions that would increase the supply of the credits while also making the credits easier to use alongside tax exempt bonds issued by states and municipalities. Congress temporarily increased the supply of the credits in 2018, but that legislative increase expired at the end of 2021. Without any action from Congress, much-needed affordable housing units that would have been built will not be, worsening the existing crisis.  

More on:

United States

U.S. Congress

Second, Congress should enact the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, which would support the development and rehabilitation of single-family homes for homeownership in distressed urban and rural communities with low home values. In these communities, construction costs for new homes exceed the price at which the home can be sold, and existing homeowners struggle to find financing for home repairs. The proposed tax credit would mobilize private investment to fill the gap between development or rehabilitation costs and the value of the home.  

This bill also has strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. It holds promise for first-time homebuyers and community revitalization. This legislation is estimated to produce some 500,000 new homes over the next decade while simultaneously restoring vacant land to productive use, creating thousands of construction jobs, lifting the assets of all homeowners in the community and expanding the tax base for local governments. 

Fixing the chronic shortage of affordable and available housing for low-income renters and first-time homebuyers requires immediate intervention and long-term commitment. If we fail to act, thousands more families, seniors, people with disabilities, formerly homeless veterans and low-wage workers across America will struggle to find a safe place to sleep at night. And countless families will be denied the opportunity to build wealth through homeownership.  

Let’s work together as Republicans and Democrats to help build desperately needed housing across this country, so that families can attain an affordable home and build a pathway toward a more prosperous future.  

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Trade

President Trump doubled almost all aluminum and steel import tariffs, seeking to curb China’s growing dominance in global trade. These six charts show the tariffs’ potential economic effects.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.