Do’s And Don’ts For State And Local Governments On Housing

What is the problem with housing and how do we solve it? Fortunately, the answer is simple: lack of supply in the face of rising demand. Noted economist Milton Friedman often said that inflation is “always and everywhere” the result of too much money. That is, as employers higher more people and population grows, demand for housing grows with it. If housing is scarce, then its price begins to rise, and this means people with less money can’t compete and get priced out of the market. The immutable law of supply and demand applies to housing just as it does to any other consumer product.

The answer to housing price increases is either to reduce jobs and population growth or to increase production. The answer is definitely not more money, yet this is at the core of almost every housing proposal offered at the federal, state, and local levels. The argument is, “we need more affordable housing” when it should be “we don’t need more affordable (subsidized) housing, we need more housing so that it is affordable.” The way to accomplish this from a state and local policy level falls into two categories: 1) things not to do and 2) things to do.

ADVERTISEMENT

In this post I’m going to focus on two examples from each category, Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (things not to do), and cash for rent (things to do).

Don’t Do: Inclusionary Zoning

That taxing something will discourage its production and use is a common-sense notion. A mandate for housing providers to include rent-restricted units in rental housing projects or pay a fee in lieu is essentially a tax on new housing production, thus discouraging that production. Worse, when rents can support the fees, the residents ultimately pay the fees through higher rents, resulting in local renters adding local dollars to federally funded projects. Cities like Cincinnati have been flirting with inclusionary zoning as it gains popularity. And cities that do have the measure in place, like Seattle and San Diego are still in the middle of what they themselves describe as a “housing crisis.”

What’s behind this movement to tax new housing to pay for subsidized housing? It’s basic human confusion. I recently heard a local city councilmember praise what she called “luxury housing” because she understood that more new housing takes the price pressures off existing housing. “Wow,” I thought, “She gets supply and demand.” Even though that new apartment building has higher rents than an older building around the corner, people with more dollars to spend will go to the new building, and existing units won’t see rises in rent when new vacancies open.

ADVERTISEMENT

But less than an hour later, after she and her colleagues voted for significant supply side land use reforms, she said, “Make no mistake, these measures aren’t about affordable housing. There is no affordable housing here.” I’m paraphrasing, but what she meant is that in her mind the words “affordable housing” means either money for subsidized housing or price controls. It’s a psychological problem that is shared by almost all human beings, left or right, north or south: the “market” alone can’t solve the problem of high housing problems, we need to add more money. See above my quote from Milton Friedman.

Solution: State governments can preempt local cities from imposing inclusionary requirements (Tennessee has done this). When people think more money is the answer, the allure of a tax on every square foot of new housing is intense. Politicians can raise the costs and barriers of new housing which mean higher prices because almost all their constituents think “more affordable housing” means “more money.” It satisfies the urge to do something by apparently penalizing developers and skimming off some of their profits to pay for cheaper housing. Of course, this doesn’t work. Housing prices continue rise to absorb fees and

Read More: “It Is Not Too Late For Cincinnati To Adopt Housing Density Measures,” Forbes.com, April 6, 2022, and ““Esta Es La Mordida;” Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning Is Bribery,” Forbes.com, October 2, 2019.

ADVERTISEMENT

Do: Cash for Rent, Make Vouchers Like Cash

Most households that qualify for a Section 8 voucher are living and paying rent somewhere; they’re just paying too much because their current unit does not qualify for a voucher. Current federal and state rules require that those households hunt for a unit that qualifies. This should end. Instead, when a household qualifies for a voucher, they should be able to apply it to pay the rent where they currently live. I’ve suggested that the Hamilton County Housing Authority and the City of Cincinnati use their Housing Trust Fund to pilot this kind of program. Vouchers should be treated more like cash and have fewer restrictions for both housing providers and residents. HUD’s Moving to Work program allows such flexibility.

The push back to this is most often something like, “But we can’t have people living in housing that isn’t inspected; that’s substandard housing.” What that really means is, “We should require that people live in substandard housing paying more than 30% of their income on it while they wait to find a better unit.” People working at housing authorities are good people and truly want the best for residents. However, the excuses for not trying straight cash payments for rent without strings just don’t hold up.

Solution: Use state and local funds to match vouchers for a pilot program. We need local jurisdictions to try this approach and rigorously evaluate it, side by side with conventional voucher use. I’m pretty confident that at the end of the evaluation period, more people with cash paying their rent in their current unit will be better off than those forced to go out and hunt for a unit that matches requirements. People usually don’t want to move; they just need help paying the rent. And if they do decide to move, empowering them with cash means they can move closer to work, family or both.

ADVERTISEMENT

Read More: “Making Housing Vouchers Easier and Faster for Tenants and Landlords,” FREOPP.org, April 3, 2020.

Overall, when it comes to housing, state and local governments can best address housing issues using the eraser end of their pencils rather than the led side; erasing complicated rules and regulations to allow more production means housing developers and providers competing with each other for customers rather than people looking for housing competing with each other for scarce rental housing or for purchase. Most of all, reform means challenging widely held notions about how housing economics work and relying instead on the basics; we don’t need more affordable housing, we need more housing so that it is affordable.