Trump Administration War on Housing

And something I tried to do about it

From Don Moynihan’s Substack, urging folks to submit official comments to the Federal Register on the proposed work requirements rule for federal housing rental assistance by midnight tonight if they want it to be counted, here (I’d advise reading Herd’s and Moynihan’s post, as I did, before preparing your own—it’s full of valuable facts and links). Don’t think I’ve made such a formal move before, and I feel pretty good about it. I’m failing to do much for today’s May Day General Strike, though my shopping will be very limited, but I’m happy to have added to the numbers on this one.

I’m writing to express concern about the HUD’s proposed rule for imposing “work requirements” as they are called on beneficiaries of housing rental assistance, that their effect will be to make the ongoing housing crisis even worse than it already is. There seems to be a perception at HUD that there is a large segment of the population that needs rental assistance because they are too lazy to work, but nothing could be further from the truth: better than half are elderly and/or disabled adults, and most of the rest are adults with children who can only work if they have expensive and hard-to-find childcare. Most of these do in fact work, but have difficulty nevertheless, because the real problem is that their wages are too low and their rents are too high to allow them to find a place that won’t cost them more than 30% of their monthly income (which is what the existing program asks them to pay, subsidizing the rest--it’s not giving them apartments for free, it’s making them affordable).

The requirements that already exist in filling out paperwork for the program--proving your age, your income, your ability or inability to work, the ability or inability to take care of your children, etc.--is already so burdensome that three out of four people qualified for the benefit don’t get it. Moreover, the authorities are badly understaffed and the wait times for receiving benefits stretch out for years in many states, and many landlords refuse to accept the terms of the program, and the program thus fails a large majority of those citizens who need it most. Adding a “work requirement” will only make that failure worse, as so many of those have multiple irregular or “gig economy” jobs that are unpredictable and sometimes very difficult to document.

This is exactly what happened when Arkansas adopted work requirements in its Medicaid program: 95 percent of those targeted by the program were already employed or should have been exempted due to disability, but the work requirements in the state reduced Medicaid enrollment by 12 percentage points and at the same time failed to increase labor force participation, and majorities of Arkansans who lost their Medicaid coverage ended up facing serious medical debt, delaying care, or skipping medications, because they couldn’t afford healthcare. A rule like the proposed, expanded to all 50 states, will only increase homelessness and probably joblessness as well (it’s a lot harder to hold a job when you’re living on the street). Children, who have nothing to do with the problem, will suffer the most.