US Federal housing expenditures: Difference between revisions

Summary:<br/> thereUS hasFederal been aexpenditures&nbsp;'''108%on increase,low-income fromhousing 1980-2018'''have increased substantially, in USabsolute Federalterms,&nbsp;from the 1970s to present, both in&nbsp;''direct expenditures&nbsp;''(spending, expendituresmostly on affordablethrough housing programs (mainly [[United_States_Department_of_Housing_and_Urban_Development_(HUD)|HUD]]), inand inflationby adjusted,''tax absolute dollar terms [Congressional Research Service, 2019].expenditures&nbsp; In addition,''with the [[Low-Income_Housing_Tax_Credit|Low Income Housing Tax Credit]]&nbsp;''tax(LIHTC) expenditureprogram since&nbsp;1986.&nbsp;''program wasHowever, createdexpenditures inhave 1986mostly shifted away from creating publicly-owned housing, andthe numbers of which have decreased since thenthe has1990s, beenand howhave mostshifted Federallytowards tenant vouchers (Housing Choice Vouchers) mostly&nbsp;used&nbsp;in private housing, and privately-developed, dedicated affordable housing supported by LIHTC.&nbsp;LIHTC has subsidized most of the new dedicated affordable housing isbuilt subsidized''in the US since 1986, ''creatingaround 2.4M+ new homes, sincebut 2016unlike older public housing and vouchers, it typically does not provide "deep affordability" i.e. for the poorest households, but rather serves households up to 60% MFI (Median Family Income).&nbsp;

TheIt is often-stated claimssaid ofthat Federal funding beingof affordable housing has been sharply cut since 1980 -- to only&nbsp;1/3 of pre-1980 levels, or being &nbsp;cut 75% or 80%. However, upon inspection, these claims usually appear to comerefer fromto referencesone toof several views:&nbsp;<br/> <br/> a) cuts in HUD Budget Authority, which is the sum of all future contracted spending. This dropped sharply afterat theseveral 1970spoints duestarting in&nbsp;early 1980s, as Reagan and other administrations sought to scale back HUD movingexpansion. fromThis verymeant long-termthat, or was handled by, slowing the rate of issuance of new housing vouchers (which automatically renew so require large future budget authority), and by steadily reducing the lengths of HUD contracts. towardsActual short-term;spending outlays, however, on average have continued to rise. seeSee&nbsp;[https://www.yimby.wiki/wiki/US_Federal_housing_expenditures#HUD_Budget_Outlays_vs_Budget_Authority HUD Budget Outlays vs Budget Authority] section below for further discussion.&nbsp;<br/> <br/> b) reductions in spending specifically on public housing, and in the total remaining number of public housing units.&nbsp;

Anotherc) point ofa view is that the Federal government has effectively withdrawn or disinvested from regulated-affordable housing because a) it has not nearly met the much-increased need, which it pledged to do for example with&nbsp;the [https://www.yimby.wiki/wiki/Right_to_housing#Preamble_to_the_1949_Housing_Act.C2.A0 1949 Housing Act]; or b) it has cut back substantially on rate of creating new housing, compared to the 1968-78 period; c) much public housing has been lost by disrepair or conversion;.&nbsp;and<br/> d) increasingly expenditure is consumed by maintenance rather than new housing.&nbsp;<br/> &nbsp;

A key proponent of the argument that US post-1980s homelessness is caused by reduced Federal spending has been WRAP.&nbsp;<br/> <br/> "In 2006, WRAP published a Without Housing report that clearly showed the world why America’s 'approach'&nbsp;to ending homelessness has been overwhelmingly ineffective. In 2010, we updated the report, now available in both English and Spanish.