Photo by flickr user duncan c., CC BY-NC 2.0
The COVID-19 outbreak threatens the lives of many Americans and the livelihoods of many more. It is an urgent public health crisis of unprecedented scale, and one likely to disproportionately affect those with the least. Doctors, scientists, front-line service workers, and local government officials are making heroic efforts to flatten the curve. And nearly everyone is making sacrifices to try to curb the spread of the disease. Still, the number of cases will clearly grow, and the evidence from other countries suggests that those with lower incomes are more likely to catch the virus and to die from it. Our housing policies must adapt to address this reality.
The Equity Dimension
In the first stage of this pandemic, the people in the United States most at risk were those with the resources to take cruises and otherwise travel abroad. But as the COVID-19 crisis unfolds, it will likely have disparate impacts on low-income households, low-wage workers, and those who are housing insecure. Consider that experts advise that the best strategies to protect oneself from COVID-19 are washing hands frequently, avoiding close contact with other people, and sheltering in place. For those fortunate enough to live in comfortable and safe housing, such sheltering is relatively easy. It may be inconvenient, but people with comfortable homes and adequate space in which to work and live can indeed largely minimize their risks, and conduct their day-to-day lives, by staying inside.
People living in crowded homes, however, may find it more difficult to work and learn remotely. Older adults in congregate living situations may be less able to distance themselves from others to minimize the odds of getting sick. People with front-line service jobs or lacking broadband internet access are unable to work remotely, putting both workers and their neighbors at greater risk of contracting the virus. The concentration of particular occupations in low- and moderate-income areas thus creates community risks.
To the extent that people living in poor-quality housing are able to protect themselves from the virus by staying indoors, they risk exacerbating other health conditions like asthma due to poor ventilation, erratic heating, or the presence of lead paint, mold, or vermin.
And most troubling, many people without homes cannot shelter in place at all. Returning citizens who are currently incarcerated face complex challenges in securing housing and employment even during times of prosperity, conditions that will be exacerbated in the months to come. San Francisco’s homeless individuals are exempt from the city’s recent shelter-in-place order, though public officials are encouraging them to seek shelter or other spaces, like churches and closed school campuses, where they can safely stay indoors. And New York City’s shelter providers are struggling to find ways to separate the many homeless individuals sleeping in dormitory-style shelters.
Housing Policy Is Health Policy
The epidemic also reinforces the critical role that housing plays in protecting our health, safety, and well-being. Major housing policy reforms have historically grown out of health crises. Progressive reformers successfully pushed for regulations to improve the sanitation and ventilation of crowded tenements at the end of the 19th century after two major cholera outbreaks and concerns about high rates of other contagious diseases like tuberculosis in U.S. cities. During the 1930s, members of Congress highlighted public health as a central justification for the federal public housing program. This epidemic will offer its own lessons that could spur a new wave of thinking and a set of policies to advance housing security and equity.
Unfortunately, in the near-term this epidemic will compound the pre-existing economic pressures households face, and may create a renewed housing crisis. As more people are laid off or see reduced hours, they will face difficulty making their monthly rent or mortgage payments and, consequently, may worry about their ability to stay in their homes. Most people, hopefully, will only face temporary job disruption and proposed federal aid may help to mitigate the financial distress. But it is unclear how expansive that aid will be, and those working in industries that will be hit hardest by the economic fallout from the virus, such as food and hospitality, tourism, and entertainment, are likely to suffer longer-term income reductions.
Housing providers may, in turn, struggle to keep their properties safe, clean, and well-maintained while their tenants are unable to make rental payments. Reductions in revenue are likely to be compounded by increased operating costs: as people spend more time at home, they cause more wear and tear in their living spaces and rack up higher utility bills. It will take more work to protect building staff and keep common areas clean at the same time that more staff will be forced to stay home to recuperate from illness or to take care of sick relatives or children home from school. Meanwhile, any needed capital repairs are likely to be deferred, which can both increase short-run operating costs and also put properties at longer-term risk. Nonprofits may face particular risk, but smaller for-profit operators are also unlikely to have ample reserves. Those managing housing for low-income seniors and people with disabilities face even greater challenges.
Current policy discussions center, appropriately, on the unprecedented steps taken now to prevent the worst-case scenarios of the COVID-19 crisis. But we should not lose sight of the need for housing-related measures that could mitigate the severity of the epidemic’s effects. On the heels of what is hopefully a short-lived health crisis may come a wave of evictions and foreclosures that undermine the physical and economic recovery of our nation. The nation’s housing system has never before faced these extraordinary conditions—being pressed into intense service even as economic conditions collapse. It will take creative thinking and decisive action now to prevent the additional, avoidable damage a renewed housing crisis could bring.
How Housing Policy Must Change
There are several critical actions to take immediately to prevent the additional, avoidable damage a renewed housing crisis could bring.
First, government must act soon to ensure that families and individuals can get access to housing if they are not already housed and stay in their homes in the event of illness and/or economic hardship. Much has been done already. For example, the Federal Housing Finance Agency recently announced that it would suspend foreclosures and foreclosure-related evictions on homes with mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for at least two months, a step that will temporarily protect 8.1 million homeowners. It also required that multifamily owners seeking mortgage forbearance must agree not to evict tenants for the length of the forbearance. Meanwhile, local governments across the country are instituting eviction moratoriums to keep renters in their homes. But more assistance will be needed.
Second, we need to provide property managers with the tools and information they need to keep their residents healthy, and to act quickly and efficiently to confirm and contain outbreaks that do occur. This is particularly essential for those managing developments with large numbers of vulnerable seniors.
Third, we need to address our existing homelessness crisis with renewed urgency, recognizing that street homelessness and poor shelter conditions now represent an enormous risk to both individual and public health. Resources to conduct homeless outreach and offer safe, clean temporary housing, possibly in now-empty hotels, schools, and college gyms and dormitories, could make a substantial difference both in flattening the curve and in minimizing economic damage.
This crisis shows the need to think about housing as a strategy to prevent or abate future pandemics by alleviating overcrowding, reducing homelessness, and addressing unsafe conditions. Policymakers should consider fully funding housing choice vouchers for all eligible families, a universal renter tax credit, or alternatives that place housing assistance in the same category as health care and nutrition: a fundamental tenet of our social safety net.
We should also be actively drawing lessons from current public and private efforts about how housing policies and programs—including rapid, short-term housing assistance, rent forbearance, and other protections against income and expense volatility—can do more to help people navigate short-term emergencies.
Transformational thinking is necessary to help our housing system to mitigate, rather than magnify, the harms of intense economic disruption, and keep vulnerable populations—and all Americans—healthy and safe.
Want to read more about housing policy and practice as it relates to the COVID-19 pandemic? Check out our COVID-19 page, and sign up for Shelterforce Weekly so you don’t miss the latest.
About the Author
Tags
Comments
6 thoughts on “Housing Policy Must Change in Wake of COVID-19”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
If you want transformational thinking about housing here it is: As long as we have unlimited, feudalistic property laws in place, as well as a hyper-inflationary mortgage system, housing will continue to be unaffordable across the board.
The Affordable Housing Forever Act is the only housing plan out there that will transform our feudalistic, dysfunctional housing system by effectively addressing its deepest roots.
https://www.dougthedrummer.com/?page_id=774
How about law enforcement going g in for a parole violation, arresting suspect and then trashing the other renters rooms and condeming the property. 6-8 people 2 at high risk of covid19, are now homeless. It was unessessary , what is protocol for law enforcement during a pandemic.
Anyone writing about these policies should apply for these programs themselves or follow a person or family who actually has to apply for these programs. If you did, you would see how infuriating it is to live as a second class citizen. Stop carpeting the world. We need basic income.
That’s a whole lot of words that don’t mean anything to me. Bottom line ????
What does it all mean ????
It’s nice that you recognized “housing providers” (landlords) are not always among the “rich” and have financial limitations too. So often people on the left don’t recognize or care about that.
I can think of 3=changes to existing housing policy, in regards to what is known as Section 8, that would enable more people to pursue rentals that are otherwise cut off within the current system. The 1st is extremely important. Do not split the payment for the rental. In the current system HUD pays 70% of the rent to the landlord and the tenant pays the rest. This automatically stigmatizes the person seeking the rent as low income and sets them up for discrimination. So long as they can legally come up with the rent, it’s none of the owners business where it comes from. I can’t begin to describe how many times I have seen and heard potential landlords shut down at the mere mention of HUD and Section 8. Instead of splitting the rent 70%-30%, give that 70% directly to the beneficiary and let them seek out whatever rental they can get. There is more then enough tracking software to make sure that the money is being spent on the rent. Whether we want to admit it or not, income inequality and discrimination of the poor is real. We stigmatize those needing assistance in the current system. That needs to change. The 2nd is to get rid of the “required inspections” of the property. Landlords don’t like them. They don’t want to be forced to change something that is potentially costly and unnecessary as a condition of rental. If the property is in reasonable condition and the tenant is ok with it, that should be good enough. If potential landlords know that there are no inspections and that they don’t have to accommodate split payments, they would be more willing to rent to those in need. These 2 changes would mean a world of difference to those seeking affordable housing.Instead of being limited to the infinitesimal rental properties that have been pre arranged and contracted to HUD within a given area, the potential of being able to find a descent rent increases exponentially. Lastly, HUD needs to be realistic about the actual cost of rental properties. They need to be comparable with existing rents in a given area. I don’t know where they get the idea that rents should be based on a national average when that is clearly not the case. These things are simple changes that could make a huge dent in the homeless population by giving them options that are currently cut off.