How States Can Transform Housing Laws For Tenants

Housing laws vary from state to state, and while public housing is exclusively funded by Congressional appropriations, states have the power to change their public housing laws. For example, California has passed laws that lower procedural hurdles for achieving the state's long-standing housing production targets, while Massachusetts has passed the Affordable Homes Act, which will support the production, preservation, and rehabilitation of more than 65,000 homes statewide over the next five years.

Public housing is funded by state or federal governments

Public housing in the United States is funded by the federal government and, to a lesser extent, state governments. The federal government provides funding for public housing from two main sources: the Capital Fund and the Operating Fund. The Capital Fund subsidizes housing authorities to renovate and refurbish public housing developments, while the Operating Fund assists in covering maintenance and operating costs.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers these funds to approximately 3,300 public housing agencies (PHAs) to house eligible low-income tenants. PHAs have discretion to adopt local policies and procedures that do not conflict with federal laws and regulations. They are overseen by a locally appointed board of commissioners and are required to develop Five-Year and Annual Plans in consultation with a Resident Advisory Board (RAB).

The United States Housing Act of 1937 established the public housing program, which initially produced nearly 1.4 million units nationwide. The program is governed by provisions in the United States Housing Act and administered by HUD, which has oversight over the program and provides funds to local PHAs.

While the federal government plays a significant role in funding public housing, state governments also contribute financially. For example, state governments may attach conditions to their financial aid for public housing projects, such as requiring compliance with minimum wage and maximum working hour regulations. Additionally, states may have their own public housing laws and policies that complement or build upon federal regulations.

It is worth noting that public housing has faced challenges due to chronic underfunding, with Congress not providing adequate funds for repairs or the construction of new units since the mid-1990s. This has resulted in a decline in the number of public housing units available and has shifted the focus towards preserving and rehabilitating existing units.

The US Housing Act of 1937 established the public housing program

The US Housing Act of 1937, also known as the Wagner-Steagall Act, established the public housing program in the United States. The Act provided federal subsidies to local public housing agencies (PHAs) to improve living conditions for low-income families. It outlined four main goals: providing housing, renewing existing living areas, decreasing density, and constructing sustainable communities. This legislation aimed to address the housing crisis that had emerged during the Great Depression, building on the National Housing Act of 1934, which created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

The 1937 Act shifted the federal government's role from direct involvement in construction projects to providing loans and support to local housing authorities and state governments. It recognised the need to promote the general welfare of the nation and address unsafe and unsanitary housing conditions, particularly in slum areas. The Act also acknowledged the importance of providing decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for low-income families.

While the Housing Act of 1937 set out to address pressing housing issues, it faced challenges and criticisms over time. One significant issue was the power it granted to local governments and voters to decide on the allocation of federal funding. This led to the continuation of segregationist housing policies and the neglect of many public housing locations. Additionally, the Act imposed restrictions on eligible income levels and construction costs, limiting the impact of the legislation.

Over the years, the public housing program has undergone changes and amendments. In 1949, the Housing Act enacted during the Harry Truman administration set new postwar national goals for decent living environments, funding "slum clearance" and urban renewal projects, and creating additional national public housing programs. The Public Housing Administration, the U.S. Housing Authority, and the House and Home Financing Agency were consolidated into the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1965.

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 amended the 1937 Act to create Section 8 housing, providing federal vouchers for low-income households to rent from private landlords. However, the lack of adequate funding for public housing repairs and the construction of new units has been a persistent issue. Congress has not provided funds for new public housing units since the mid-1990s, emphasising the need to preserve and rehabilitate existing units.

Public housing is limited to low-income families and individuals

Public housing in the United States is limited to low-income families and individuals. The United States Housing Act of 1937 established the public housing program, which has produced nearly 1.4 million units nationwide. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers operating funds and capital funds provided by Congress to approximately 3,300 public housing agencies (PHAs) to house eligible low-income tenants.

HUD sets the lower-income limits at 80% and very low-income limits at 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which applicants choose to live. Income limits vary from area to area, so a family may be eligible at one housing agency (HA) but not another. HAs are responsible for the management and operation of their local public housing programs and determine eligibility based on annual gross income, whether applicants qualify as elderly, have a disability, or are a family, and U.S. citizenship or eligible immigration status.

PHAs have discretion to adopt local policies and procedures that do not conflict with federal laws and regulations. They are required to develop Five-Year and Annual Plans in which they set forth their local rules. Public housing is exclusively funded by Congressional appropriations, and Congress has not provided any funds to build new public housing units since the mid-1990s. This lack of funding for new and existing public housing units makes it critical to ensure the preservation and rehabilitation of existing public housing units.

Local policies and procedures must not conflict with federal laws and regulations

In the United States, public housing is a federal program established by the Housing Act of 1937. The program is administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which operates from its headquarters in Washington, D.C., 10 regional offices, and numerous local offices. The HUD is responsible for enforcing federal housing laws, along with other agencies like the Department of Justice.

Congress and the HUD establish the federal rules for the public housing program that Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) must follow. PHAs are overseen by a locally appointed board of commissioners and have the discretion to adopt local policies and procedures that do not conflict with federal laws and regulations. This includes selection preferences, which are implemented via an Admission and Continued Occupancy Plan (ACOP). PHAs are also required to develop Five-Year and Annual Plans in consultation with a Resident Advisory Board (RAB), where they outline their local rules.

Public housing is exclusively funded by Congressional appropriations, and these funds are administered by the HUD. As such, PHAs are subject to Section 3, which aims to provide economic and employment opportunities for low- and very low-income residents, including public housing residents. Public housing is limited to low-income families and individuals, with residents' incomes needing to be below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI).

While federal housing laws are created by Congress, state and local housing laws are established by their respective governmental bodies. In the event of a conflict, federal housing laws take precedence over state and local laws. To avoid such conflicts, local agencies can include a statement in their zoning code indicating that they will administer the State Density Bonus Law directly from the statute. This eliminates the need for the local agency to periodically update its local density bonus ordinance as the law is amended by the state.

California's housing laws are facing resistance from local governments

California has been facing a housing affordability and availability crisis, prompting state lawmakers to pass over 100 pieces of legislation to address the issue. These laws are intended to hold localities accountable for their efforts to produce more diverse housing options. However, implementing these new state laws has faced resistance from local governments, which have some discretion in how to adopt them into their local zoning and building codes.

One example of this resistance is the legalization of building accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and duplexes in all residential areas, including previously single-family-only neighborhoods. While the state laws set broad standards for ADUs, local governments have added design and procedural requirements that make ADUs infeasible to build. This resistance to change is not unique to California's housing laws, as local governments across the state must revise their zoning and land-use regulations, which can be a slow and contentious process.

The state's attempt to streamline the permitting process for ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) in the coastal zone through SB 1077 is another instance of resistance from local governments. The California Coastal Commission is now required to coordinate with the HCD to develop guidance for local governments to facilitate the preparation of amendments to local coastal programs. However, several other bills that aimed to streamline housing approvals within the coastal zone faltered, indicating continued opposition to state housing initiatives.

Another law, AB 1886, addresses the "self-certification" of housing elements by local governments. It clarifies that a housing element is "substantially compliant" when the HCD or a court finds it to be so. This law also explicitly states that the submission of an SB 330 application before housing element certification "vests" the project's entitlement to use the Builder's Remedy, even after certification. This law defeated arguments made by some local governments that they were not obligated to process Builder's Remedy projects after their housing elements were certified by the HCD.

The resistance from local governments in California highlights the challenges faced when implementing state-level housing reforms. It underscores the need for collaboration and alignment between state and local governments to address the housing crisis effectively.

Frequently asked questions