Can Liberals Build Adequate Housing?

By Alec Pruchnicki

No. As a confirmed liberal myself, I find this painful to admit, but there is plenty of evidence it’s true. In California, as liberal a state as exists in the U.S., the share of national population is about 12 percent, but it has about 24 percent of the nation’s homeless population and about 50 percent of the nation’s unsheltered people. New York City and New York State have seen steadily increasing homelessness since the 1980s when the federal government under President Reagan began cutting support for housing and the city and state were unable to replace the deficits. Although some liberal states like Illinois and Massachusetts have done well with housing, the average for progressive states is still poor.

One theory for the rising cost of housing, and the resulting homelessness, is the need for expensive mental health services for the homeless. But it is clear locally and nationally that most homeless people have no significant illnesses and just can’t find affordable housing. The overall income of liberal states is significantly higher than in conservative states, especially those in the deep South, but this doesn’t help those on the lower income level.

Another theory is that liberals have attempted to do too much with housing and the high quality “perfect” has become enemy of the “good.” In New York City various laws, proposals, and ULURP guidelines seem endless. Multiple contractors with control over various aspects of each large project are often needed. Environmental concerns advocate for carbon neutrality possibly banning new gas line hookups soon. Public hearings occur at various levels. Environmental impact statements can be expensive and time consuming. Each one of these proposals or rules is beneficial and gains significant public support, along with many other complications, but there are just too many. Each adds to cost and time, and some try and address concerns, like global warming, which go beyond immediate housing needs.

Another problem is that the same provisions that improve housing can be used by NIMBY opponents. Public hearings take time and can be packed by opponents who have special concerns like gentrification or new housing lowering real estate values. Environmental impact statements also take time. When supporters of the Elizabeth Street Garden opposed construction of Haven Green housing and demanded an EIS, it managed to delay building until Mayor Adams, facing a tight re-election, changed his mind with the backing of Randy Mastro and abandoned his previous housing support.

Can anyplace in the U.S. build adequate housing? There is some evidence that the South, especially states of the Old Confederacy, have lower housing costs and less homelessness than the national average. This is often accomplished by having minimal housing and zoning regulations which make construction time and cost significantly lower. Cities like Austin have recently had lower housing costs when the local real estate developers over-built and had to lower rents to fill their new developments. This might appear to be a good solution to the housing crises until you look at the cost these loose regulations incur.

In 1992, category 5 Hurricane Andrew hit Florida resulting in over 60,000 homes being destroyed, almost $30 billion in costs, and up to 65 deaths. But Habitat for Humanity built homes in that area too, and they reported that all 27 survived the hurricane. So, hurricane-proof buildings can succeed when construction is high quality and built to last. As for inadequate zoning, the loss of at least 137 lives in recent flooding in Texas showed the price for lenient regulations. It also seems that every flood or tornado that hits the South goes straight to a local trailer park and wipes out whole communities. Taken all together, this appears to show that if you build homes cheaply with minimal regulations you can get adequate housing that is available in the short run but is expensive and even deadly in the long run.

Are we stuck having to decide between expensive housing with high homelessness and cheap housing with less homelessness but periodic catastrophic disasters? It should be clear that the 40-year decline in federal support for housing is unlikely to be reversed under Trump and it is unlikely the states will be able to cover the shortfall. New approaches, rather than new funding, will be needed.

The simplest solution is to coordinate and streamline excessive bureaucratic paperwork. Small increases in the staffing agencies that regulate building permits and zoning certifications can save time and money. Numerous contractors working on the same project can be encouraged to work together from the onset rather than independently or sequentially. It might be expensive to hire new staff to expand agencies, but the faster buildings can be constructed the faster they will be paying real estate taxes, which currently account for about 50 percent of NYC revenues.

It might also be necessary to decrease some of the countless regulations that increase costs of new construction. This needs to be done carefully with public support and with acknowledgement that not all rules are essential. Also, if the crises of homelessness and excessive housing costs in NYC can be reversed, relaxation of these rules need not be permanent. Once the quantity of housing is sufficient, regulations and zoning can be reinstituted to improve the quality.

The newest proposal to expedite housing is the NYC Charter Commission suggestion that the local NIMBY opposition by city council members be over-ridden by a three-panel committee of the mayor, borough president, and city council speaker. That is a conversation for another day.