AT Affordable Housing CP - Michigan 7 2023 BFHGR

AFF
2AC – Aff Solves
Aff solves the da, progressive tax is key to solve housing crisis
Innis 23 (Tyler Mac Innis is a Policy Analyst at the Oregon Center for Public Policy. He Conducted research and analysis on Oregon tax, budget, and economic issues and advocated for public policies that advanced economic and social opportunities for all Oregonians. He also successfully helped increase Oregon's minimum wage and improved tax credits for working families, 1/20/23 “Confronting inequality is key to ending our housing crisis”, https://www.ocpp.org/2023/01/20/inequality-housing-crisis/)//rrm
When then-Portland Mayor Charlie Hales declared a housing state of emergency in 2015, many knew the housing crisis had been brewing for decades. The evidence was visible on our streets. Disinvestment in public housing and support services, a deficit of new construction, insufficient tenant protections and a shortage in rent assistance left thousands of Oregonians houseless or in precarious situations. Since then, matters have only gotten worse. The suffering of individuals and families struggling to pay the rent or find shelter increased. Beneath the housing crisis lays another disaster that’s been aggravating our housing woes. For decades, economic inequality has been rising as the rich have captured an ever-larger share of the fruits of the economy. It’s time for policymakers to recognize that confronting the housing crisis requires, in part, meeting economic inequality head-on. Recent analysis by the Oregon Center for Public Policy shows the stunning levels of economic inequality afflicting our state. In 2020, the average income of a member of the top 0.1% of Oregonians — the richest one in every thousand Oregonians — reached a new high: $5.6 million. That record-setting feat came in a year when COVID-19 shuttered large swaths of the economy, nearly quadrupling the state unemployment rate. That same year, tens of thousands of Oregonians across the state experienced houselessness at some point during the year. Many thousands more lived life on the brink, hoping for extensions of the state’s eviction moratorium, which often came at the last minute. As Oregon’s ultra-rich enjoyed record-setting highs in their bank accounts, things remained stagnant at best for the Oregonian in the middle. The median Oregonian took home about $39,000 in 2020, a mere 7.5% increase from what they earned in 1980 and less than they took home 20 years ago, after accounting for inflation. If we consider not just income but also wealth, the picture becomes even more extreme. Wealth refers to the sum of all the assets a person owns minus all of their debts. Assets can take many forms, including real estate, stocks and other financial instruments, and ownership of businesses. Just three individuals in Oregon – the state’s three billionaires – together have more than twice the wealth of the bottom 50% of Oregonians. Nike co-founder Phil Knight alone owns more than the bottom half of Oregonians combined. Like a house built atop a faulty foundation, a housing market operating in a society marked by extreme economic inequality seems bound to run into trouble. And indeed, research indicates that rising inequality is helping fuel the housing crisis. A 2017 study examined the link between inequality and the struggle facing renters in the country’s 100 largest metro areas. It determined that as inequality rises, so does the rent burden — the share of the family budget going to cover the rent. This was particularly so for low-income households. Another study found a link between income inequality and homelessness. As housing prices rise in areas where income gains are flowing mainly to the well-off, low- and middle-income residents see their housing costs rise. Some shoulder this burden by paying a greater share of their income toward housing. Others simply cannot keep up and are left homeless. During the depths of the pandemic, the state’s eviction moratorium kept people housed at a time when many had lost their incomes and could not afford rent. Hundreds of millions of dollars in state and federal funds were rightfully deployed to help Oregonians pay their rent and stay in their homes. Today, those protections have expired, and emergency funding has dried up. Monthly eviction court cases exceed pre-pandemic levels in parts of the state. Of all eviction cases filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court in October 2022, 92% were for nonpayment of rent. In some cases, landlords have refused to accept state rent assistance altogether, opting to instead pursue eviction in order to rent a unit to a new tenant at a higher price. Perhaps they will find a new tenant willing to spend a greater share of their income in order to keep a roof over their heads. For the evicted tenant, they are left to compete for the dwindling list of homes they can afford. There is no quick fix for our state’s housing crisis. Additional housing construction, stronger investments in rent assistance, and more wraparound services are all crucial. But those investments must be paired with policies that rein in Oregon’s runaway inequality. Progressive tax policy is one of the most important tools in the toolkit for reducing economic inequality. Not only do we reduce inequality by raising taxes on the highest-earning Oregonians, eliminating tax breaks for the rich, and taxing wealth, but these policies also generate revenue that Oregon can use to address the housing crisis. At the top of the list of ways to use that revenue would be creating a guaranteed income program, providing Oregonians with little or no income a source of flexible cash resources to help them afford their basic needs.
2AC – Inflation
Housing vouchers fails – landlords refuse to accept them
Wykstra 19 (Stephanie Wykstra is a freelance writer and researcher based in New York. She has written about criminal justice reform, anti-poverty programs, and tech ethics for places like Vox, Slate, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Aeon, The Nation, Inside Higher Ed, Undark Magazine, and others. She previously worked for research non-profits including Innovations for Poverty Action and GiveWell, and she also taught philosophy as an assistant professor for several years, 10/10/19, “Vouchers can help the poor find homes. But landlords often won’t accept them.”, https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/12/10/21001692/housing-vouchers-discrimination-racism-landlords)
Guthrie’s experience is all too common. Federally funded vouchers like hers (called housing choice vouchers) provided more than 2.2 million households and 5 million people with rental assistance in 2018. The vouchers help make housing affordable for low-income individuals: Voucher holders pay 30 percent of their income toward rent and utilities, while the government pays the remainder (up to the maximum allowable amount). Yet in major cities from Los Angeles to New York City to Philadelphia to Chicago — and in many smaller ones, too — voucher holders often encounter landlords who refuse to take them or find other ways to avoid renting to them, including falsely claiming that they have no available apartments. In response, states and cities have passed legislation known as “source-of-income laws,” which ban landlords from discriminating against people just because they’re using a voucher. Last year, Guthrie joined advocacy groups pushing for a source-of-income law in Baltimore, testifying about her experience and writing an op-ed. In 2019, the city passed such a law, albeit with a limitation that advocates opposed. At the same time, it’s become clear that these laws are not enough. In some places, discrimination against voucher holders remains common, even with source-of-income laws on the books. Advocates argue that greater enforcement is needed, along with further adjustments to put voucher amounts more in line with fair market rents. And in cities with tight rental markets, they are pushing for increased construction of affordable housing. A strong body of research shows that housing vouchers help prevent homelessness, as well as increase long-term health and economic outcomes of children in low-income families. Vouchers are of huge importance to millions of people, but discrimination against people who use them threatens to thwart the progress that’s been made in housing the most vulnerable among us. Federally supported vouchers were introduced with the Section 8 program in 1974. By the late ‘90s, housing vouchers comprised the largest low-income housing assistance program. In 2018, 1.2 million households used Section 8 project-based vouchers (used in specific housing developments), and 2.2 million households used housing choice vouchers (“portable” vouchers that can be used for renting apartments in the private market). Other types of rental assistance support specific demographic groups: For example, the HUD-VASH program was created in the early 1990s to subsidize housing for homeless veterans. Many cities and states also fund their own subsidized housing programs. To determine eligibility for federally funded vouchers, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets income limits, which are based on estimates of median incomes and fair market rents in the area. For housing choice vouchers, 75 percent of recipients must be “extremely low-income,” which means their earnings do not exceed 30 percent of the area’s median income or the federal poverty line, whichever is higher. Unlike other federal poverty-alleviation efforts — like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, known informally as food stamps) — housing vouchers are not considered an entitlement, and only a quarter of eligible households end up receiving federal rental assistance. When someone receives a housing choice voucher, they have limited time (usually between 60 and 120 days, though extensions are sometimes possible) to find an apartment, after which they pay 30 percent of their income toward the rent (or a maximum amount of $50 per month, if they do not have any income). Local public-housing agencies administer the voucher programs, inspect apartments to make sure they meet minimum standards, and pay rent directly to landlords. Multiple randomized trials have shown that housing voucher programs really do benefit the people who use them. For example, a HUD-funded study dubbed “Family Options,” by researchers at Abt Associates in partnership with Vanderbilt University, found that vouchers reduced the rate of homelessness or “doubling up” with other households by 18 percent, compared with a rate of 35 percent for the control group. A separate HUD-funded study, called the “Moving to Opportunity” project, found significant benefits for families that relocated to lower-poverty neighborhoods with the help of vouchers, including better health, higher incomes, and increased rates of college attendance for children whose families moved before they were 13. Despite their effectiveness at preventing homelessness and increasing housing stability, voucher programs are falling short of their promise. Though originally conceived as a way to help low-income households (disproportionately comprised of people of color) access higher-opportunity neighborhoods, that has proven to be the exception rather than the rule. Families that use housing choice vouchers are often concentrated in poor neighborhoods. For example, a recent study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that just 14 percent of metro-area families with children living in low-poverty neighborhoods used housing choice vouchers. Another problem is that many voucher holders struggle to find a landlord willing to accept them. A HUD study published in 2001, for example, found that roughly 70 percent of voucher holders had succeeded in renting an apartment, though the average was closer to 50 percent in cities like New York and Los Angeles. More recent studies have found comparably low success rates of 50 to 60 percent. Though it’s likely not the sole cause, there’s strong evidence indicating that landlord discrimination contributes to both problems. Firsthand accounts from many voucher holders illustrate the hurdles they face when searching for an apartment. In New York City, I spoke with half a dozen voucher holders who have either been unable to find an apartment after an extensive search, or who did so only after many months (in some cases, years) of looking. Forty-five-year-old Sofia (who asked to be identified by her first name only) lives with two of her children in a shelter. Sofia, who is unable to work due to recent debilitating health problems and surgeries, received a city-funded voucher in early June. But after inquiring about dozens of apartments she found online, she said brokers and landlords repeatedly told her they didn’t have any apartments available, or that they’d get back to her later. Sofia never heard from them again. After five years of unstable housing, during which she and her children stayed with family or in shelters, Sofia said she was hopeful the voucher would help them move into their own place. But after months of searching, she told me, “It’s been really, really hard and so stressful, calling all these brokers and landlords, and it was a big load on me, on top of the load that I’m already dragging.” Hers isn’t the only such story I heard. Systematic research corroborates these firsthand accounts. In 2018, the Urban Institute conducted tests by calling thousands of landlords in five cities who were listing voucher-affordable apartments. In three of the cities — Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Fort Worth, Texas — over two-thirds of landlords said they would refuse to accept vouchers. (In New York City, though it’s clear discrimination is present, there’s little recent data available on the frequency of landlord refusal or the success rates of finding housing using vouchers.) In response to the problem, 13 states (plus Washington, DC) and more than 50 cities and counties throughout the US have passed source-of-income laws requiring landlords to treat voucher holders the same as they would other applicants. Landlords are also prohibited from turning down voucher holders based on their source of payment. However, there are still many areas that haven’t passed such laws. The Poverty and Race Research Action Council estimates that as of November 2019, only about half of voucher holders are covered by source-of-income laws. Meanwhile, both Texas and Indiana have passed legislation to prevent jurisdictions in their states from creating their own source-of-income laws. At the federal level, several bills banning voucher discrimination have been introduced, but none have passed. There is evidence that source-of-income laws help voucher holders find apartments: A study comparing rates before and after a source-of-income law went into effect found significant increases in voucher use, ranging between 4 and 11 percentage points. Yet advocates argue that more is needed. Research suggests source-of-income laws have only a modest impact on moving households to low-poverty areas. And in some areas, particularly low-poverty neighborhoods, landlords often continue to refuse vouchers despite the presence of such laws. For example, in Philadelphia, the Urban Institute’s study found that 67 percent of landlords with eligible apartments refused to rent to voucher holders, regardless of legal protections in place. The rate was even higher in low-poverty neighborhoods. There’s evidence that voucher discrimination is exacerbated by racial discrimination, too: In a recent study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 80 percent of black voucher holders reported that landlords in low-poverty areas would not accept vouchers, compared with 57 percent of voucher holders from other racial groups.
2AC – Status Quo Solves
Government moving to support affordable housing now
Tilman 23 (Gracie is the Advocacy Partnerships Associate on USGBC's Advocacy & Policy team. Prior to her current role, she was an Associate on USGBC's Global Market Development team, where she worked closely with members in the consulting, education, and government sectors. Gracie began her time at USGBC as an intern on the Advocacy & Policy and Global Market Development teams. She shares USGBC's mission of creating a more sustainable, healthy, equitable, and resilient built environment and wants to continue pursuing that mission throughout her career, 5/30/23, “Federal funding available for affordable housing projects pursuing LEED”, https://www.usgbc.org/articles/federal-funding-available-affordable-housing-projects-pursuing-leed)//rrm
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has opened $837.5 million in funding and up to $4 billion in loan authority through the Green and Resilient Retrofit Program (GRRP). Created under the Inflation Reduction Act, GRRP is a grant and loan program for HUD-assisted multifamily properties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy and water efficiency, and strengthen climate resilience. With the understanding that low-income households face a disproportionately high energy burden and are most vulnerable to climate change impacts, GRRP is designed to make HUD-assisted affordable housing properties more sustainable and resilient, helping residents save money on utility bills and enjoy healthier spaces with better air quality. Properties already receiving HUD multifamily assistance under Section 8 project-based rental assistance, Section 202, Section 811 or specified other small programs are eligible for GRRP funding through one of three cohorts, with options for grants or low-cost loans: Elements: Up to $750,000 per property or $40,000 per unit for specific resilience or efficiency strategies, such as installing heat pumps, with $140 million in total cohort funding. Leading Edge: Up to $10 million per property or $60,000 per unit for completing a multifaceted renovation that earns an ambitious green building certification such as LEED Zero, with $400 million in total cohort funding. Comprehensive: Up to $20 million per property or $80,000 per unit for deep utility retrofits and climate resilience upgrades, with $1.47 billion in total cohort funding. LEED has long been used as a tool to achieve green affordable housing (such as through Qualified Allocation Plans), and USGBC is pleased to see the rating system as an eligible certification under the Leading E dge cohort. To qualify for Leading Edge funding, projects can pursue certification under LEED v4 for the Gold level or higher (with LEED Zero Carbon or LEED Zero Energy), or LEED v4.1 for Multifamily or Multifamily Core and Shell at the Silver level or higher (with LEED Zero Energy or LEED Zero Carbon). LEED Zero verifies that a project has achieved net zero goals over a period of 12 months and is complementary to LEED certification. Each cohort accepts applications quarterly over the course of a year, beginning with Elements in June and continuing with Leading Edge in July and Comprehensive in August, ultimately closing applications in May 2024. In addition to performance criteria, these grants and loans have other requirements, including commitments to maintaining affordability for a period of years and, in some cases, wage and labor provisions. USGBC encourages any HUD-assisted multifamily property owners to apply for GRRP funding and help make affordable housing across the nation more sustainable, healthy and resilient.
2AC – AT: Politics (No Link)
Executive action magnifies the link
Christenson 15, Associate Professor of Political Science and the Director of Advanced Programs @ Boston U (Dino, “Political Constraints on Unilateral Executive Action,” Case Western Law Review, 65.4)//BB
Moreover, other institutions, particularly Congress, may play an important role—even when presidents know that efforts to overturn an∂ executive action will fail—by engaging in th

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.