Moving the Housing Agenda
As a member of the Millennial Housing Commission (MHC), I would like to provide a somewhat different perspective on the report than Chester Hartman’s review (Shelterforce #124). My concern is not that Chester is off-base in his critique, but rather that damning the report with criticisms – however accurate – will not move us toward the goals we all share.

It’s understandable to lament what the report does NOT say. But it’s also vital to build on what it DOES say – to use it where we can in advocacy efforts, particularly as we express our views to members of Congress.

The MHC goes further than the trust fund campaign in describing the level of effort needed to adequately address extremely low-income housing production needs: “The addition of 150,000 units annually would make substantial progress toward meeting the housing needs of ELI households, but it would take annual production of more than 250,000 units for more than 20 years to close the gap” (MHC report, p. 18). Moreover, although the MHC did not explicitly endorse a trust fund, neither did it recommend against it. That’s not much worse than a statement that a program at the level of 150,000 units or more annually could be funded either by appropriations or by a trust fund – the conclusion reached by the Commission’s production working group. Thus, even without a specific endorsement, both the MHC’s analysis of need and its proposal can accurately be cited in support of the goals of the trust fund campaign. Rather than bemoan the absence of a stronger statement, I urge that we use the one we do have as effectively as we can.

Without setting numerical goals, the report makes it very clear that we cannot address our housing needs without substantial increases in funding. Explicitly, it calls for significant expansion and improvement of the Housing Choice Voucher program and expanded use of project-based vouchers; substantially increased funding for HOME; exit tax relief and support of preservation entities to preserve both subsidized and unsubsidized units affordable to very-low-income families; a level of supportive housing sufficient to end chronic homelessness within 10 years and significant expansion of funding for both rural and Native American housing programs. These, I submit, are worthy of support from low-income housing advocates – and they will not happen without such support.

Also worth noting is that the Commission does not “endorse the more punitive aspects of welfare reform” but, instead, both states that “working-age families living in assisted housing, like other able-bodied people, have an obligation to contribute to society as well as accept its help” (italics mine) and calls for work requirements only after provision of the necessary services and supports to achieve self-sufficiency. It is at least as much of a prod to housing providers and those who deal with the location of low-income housing to see that access to jobs is available as a requirement that residents work. But again, like the other recommendations of the Commission, what happens will depend on whether the voices of advocates are raised to point out the necessity of such services as well as addressing the NIMBY issues that prevent locating subsidized housing near jobs.

Without exception, I found Commission members and staff listened to what I had to say and considered its substance. Had they not cared about addressing low-income housing issues, the provisions of the report for which Chester gives me more credit than I deserve would not have been there. Given our diversity and the range of housing issues beyond the low-income and equal opportunity questions that are my major concern, I think we did our task well.

We need to maintain room in the housing world both for idealists and incrementalists. To me, this is not an either/or question, but a both/and. I do not find my commitment to decent, affordable housing for everyone in the U.S. is diluted by taking advantage of regrettably small steps toward that goal as well as continuing to seek its fulfillment.

— Cushing N. Dolbeare
Washington, DC

Pester Away

I attended a conference in August when the National Association of Realtors was presented with the findings of the MHC report. I have not yet read the entire document; however I am glad that you have taken the time to report how much was missing (Shelterforce #124). I live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and if anyone thinks there is a crisis in our country, don’t even look here. Our housing prices are now far beyond the means of our working class, to say nothing of immigrants or minorities. The one issue that keeps getting missed here is the adversarial position of our local and state government. Our local communities have so much power in terms of growth and development that it is nearly impossible to build affordable housing. We are encumbered by “NIMBYs” and “snob zoning.” We have some of the most antiquated zoning laws in the country. Why is it that those who have housing think they can control those who do not and actually keep them out? I have made it my goal to pester our lawmakers until they wake up.

Good job on your article.

— Jackie Gaskin, Broker Associate
Gateway Realty

What Only Social Movements Can Do

Thanks for your article on direct action and housing issues (Shelterforce #124). As usual, Ms. Axel-Lute did a thorough job of reporting the current state of play. The struggles reported on in the article are exciting and hopeful signs.

However, the article did not reflect the historic central role of direct action in U.S. housing policy since the New Deal, probably because few of the housing activists interviewed were fully aware of it, or often think of it. Today lobbying is seen as the main avenue for change in housing policy, while direct action is seen as a side activity for the young and the restless, to be “coordinated” with lobbying when appropriate.

Most of the current generation of housing leaders became active in the 1970s or later, a period dominated by this “inside baseball” approach to changing housing policy. Over 15 years of state and federal housing advocacy, I certainly saw this approach meet real needs and head off real losses. But no one can realistically say that these efforts have brought us closer to, say, the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s longtime goal of housing as a human right. Most housing activists would agree that we have seen a substantial decline in the federal commitment to housing since at least 1980, and that the increase in state and local resources, while impressive, has not come near filling the gap left by the federal retreat.

Realistically, lobbying cannot be expected to lead to major improvements in policy or programs. Only social movements can do that. The major low income housing programs – public housing, Section 8 and CDBG – came about because mass movements created the conditions for them – largely through direct action, like the mass anti-eviction movement during the Depression, or the urban rebellions of the 1960s. Once those mass movements created the necessary conditions for real change, of course, intelligent and creative lobbyists and policy “players” used those conditions to craft programs.

Today, as in 1932, the most effective steps we can take to meet housing needs are those that build a fearless and strategically effective multi-issue progressive movement.

Yesterday’s lobbyists will be remembered gratefully for what they did to limit harm during a period of reduced mass activism. But tomorrow’s leaders of mass direct action will be the ones who make possible substantial and more inclusive new housing programs, and who will someday complete the long effort to make housing a human right in this nation.

For those who would like to learn more about the role of organizing and direct action in the development of housing programs over the last 70 years, I will immodestly recommend a chapter I have written for a book edited by Chester Hartman, Michael Stone and Rachel Bratt, tentatively titled Housing: Foundation of a New Social Agenda. While awaiting publication, the chapter is available at: http://comm-org.utoledo.edu/papers2002/yates/home.htm.

— Larry Yates
Arlington, VA

Still Flipping

This morning, I came across an article in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution that warned of an increase in mortgage flipping in the area. It set off some alarms for me since I’ve been watching some unorthodox happenings in the home next door to mine, which was bought by a real estate broker who put it back on the market a few months later. The AJC article raised more questions than it answered, and while searching for more information I discovered your site and the article written by Ada Focer in 2000 on the subject (Shelterforce #113). It was the best coverage I found anywhere – I’m forwarding it to the Homeowners Association board in my subdivision. Thank you for posting it, and please pass on my appreciation to Ms. Focer.

— Joanne Kaczowka
Alpharetta, GA

[Editor’s note: We welcome your comments. You can send letters to the editor using the email link below.]

Copyright 2002