Ocasio-Cortez’s bill would repeal the Faircloth Amendment, a 1998 law setting limits on public housing construction
Is the bill “fair,” or should it be cut from a different “cloth”?
Context
In 1998, when public housing’s reputation was low, Congress passed the Faircloth Amendment to prevent any net increase in public housing. Since then, public housing has still been created but other public housing units were torn down as a result, since there couldn’t be a net increase.
With the late-’90s providing one of the best economies in U.S. history, public housing was increasingly considered an expensive waste as most Americans were increasingly able to afford their own housing anyway. Named for Sen. Lauch Faircloth (R-NC), the amendment — an alteration to the Housing Act of 1937 — was hardly considered controversial at the time, passing as part of a larger appropriations bill by 409–19 in the House and 96–1 in the Senate.
In the two decades since then, though, rent costs have skyrocketed while average incomes have not. The median inflation-adjusted rent has increased 13.0 percent since 2001, while the median inflation-adjusted renter’s income has only increased 0.5 percent during that same period. Many, especially on the left, see a revival of public housing as a solution.
What the bill does
The Repeal the Faircloth Amendment Act would overturn the 1998 law, so there would no longer be a federal limit on public housing.
It was introduced in the House on February 1 as H.R. 659, by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY14).
What supporters say
Supporters argue that the bill would help ameliorate the issue of residential affordability, particularly in cities or urban areas.
“Though technocratic-minded politicians believed offering families housing vouchers instead of apartments in decaying developments would give them better choices, all it really created was more precarity and instability, more ways to be priced out in a fevered housing market,” The Guardian and Jacobin Magazine columnist Ross Barkan wrote in a New York Times op-ed.
“In the 2010s, rent skyrocketed in many American cities with wealthy newcomers swarming once overlooked neighborhoods, cities blocking affordable housing proposals and real estate developers filling skylines with pricey condominiums,” Barkan continued. “There is another way. As the pandemic accelerates displacement, Congress can repeal Faircloth, clearing the way for a new era of housing investment, building hundreds of thousands of new units in towns and cities across America.”
What opponents say
Opponents counter that while the goal of more affordable housing is laudable, more federally-subsidized public housing is not the best approach. Jenny Schuetz, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program, opined why in her piece “Four reasons why more public housing isn’t the solution to affordability concerns.” Her four reasons:
- “Land availability and local zoning are… obstacles to subsidized housing.” Schuetz notes that the majority of U.S. land falls under either local or state zoning laws that would make it difficult to greenlight such projects.
- “Public agencies aren’t designed to be real estate developers.”
- “High-quality subsidized housing needs a long-term commitment, not a brief flirtation.” Schuetz says that while the government may create the housing, maintenance costs and other expenses still tend to fall to the actual occupants.
- “Other types of housing subsidy give taxpayers more bang for their buck.” Schuetz suggests more funds for housing vouchers and doubling down on the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program.
Odds of passage
In July 2020, the Democratic-controlled House passed the provision as part of the larger $1.5 trillion infrastructure legislation called the INVEST in America Act. The vote on the full legislation was 233–188, with Democrats almost entirely supporting 230–2 and Republicans almost entirely opposed 3–185. It never received a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.
In 2021, the Senate is now controlled by Democrats. However, the House legislation has not yet attracted any cosponsors — not even any of the other three members of the four-person “Squad” of progressive women House members including Rep. Ocasio-Cortez who regularly co-sponsor her bills.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.
Want more? Follow GovTrack by email, on Twitter, and for our “A Bill a Minute” video series — on Instagram, or on YouTube.
Like our analyses? Support our work on Patreon.
