I really enjoyed reading through Evicted as a way to frame our understanding of the subject for the rest of the semester and jumpstart some thoughts on future design problems. As we discussed in class, the combination of intensely personal narrative and more macro statistical information was very strong. It painted a seemingly complete picture of the housing problems in Milwaukee and, I am convinced, the country at large.
I wanted to use this blog post to discuss Desmond's proposed solution, presented in the epilogue: a universal housing voucher. On the surface, the proposal is simple. Every family below a certain income level, no matter what, would receive a voucher to cover their housing costs above 30% of their income. The overall rent per month would have a maximum based on location and the size of the family. Landlords would still be able to achieve reasonable profits, and tenants would have the freedom to move to neighborhoods best suited to their needs.
There is a lot of value in this proposal. The common argument against it is that it costs too much and incentivizes unemployment. In terms of cost, Desmond lays out the multitude of ways that governments at all levels pays to support people due to a lack of steady housing. Eviction, court costs, police costs, rental assistance, food stamps, emergency room visits, the list goes on and on. So cost seems like a red herring argument. In terms of employment, there is no way the system could make it any harder to maintain a job. Stable housing, at a cost that allows people to save some money and afford all their expenses, will create an environment that encourages keeping a job.
The main issue I see with the proposal is that it does not address larger problems of rental supply. In cities across the country, the median price of housing has skyrocketed as developers build luxury towers and neglect working class families. Although Desmond says that it would be illegal to deny families on the basis of housing vouchers, history has proven time and time again that those who seek to exclude will find a way. Without a larger supply of good, well-located, and open-minded buildings and units, this proposal will fall short.
I wanted to use this blog post to discuss Desmond's proposed solution, presented in the epilogue: a universal housing voucher. On the surface, the proposal is simple. Every family below a certain income level, no matter what, would receive a voucher to cover their housing costs above 30% of their income. The overall rent per month would have a maximum based on location and the size of the family. Landlords would still be able to achieve reasonable profits, and tenants would have the freedom to move to neighborhoods best suited to their needs.
There is a lot of value in this proposal. The common argument against it is that it costs too much and incentivizes unemployment. In terms of cost, Desmond lays out the multitude of ways that governments at all levels pays to support people due to a lack of steady housing. Eviction, court costs, police costs, rental assistance, food stamps, emergency room visits, the list goes on and on. So cost seems like a red herring argument. In terms of employment, there is no way the system could make it any harder to maintain a job. Stable housing, at a cost that allows people to save some money and afford all their expenses, will create an environment that encourages keeping a job.
The main issue I see with the proposal is that it does not address larger problems of rental supply. In cities across the country, the median price of housing has skyrocketed as developers build luxury towers and neglect working class families. Although Desmond says that it would be illegal to deny families on the basis of housing vouchers, history has proven time and time again that those who seek to exclude will find a way. Without a larger supply of good, well-located, and open-minded buildings and units, this proposal will fall short.