Bill Overview
Title: Building More Housing for Servicemembers Act
Description: This bill addresses the availability and quality of housing for members of the Armed Forces. First, the bill requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to report to Congress on the housing shortage for members of the Armed Forces. DOD must prescribe guidance for eligible entities and landlords regarding acceptable housing standards for privatized military housing. Under the bill, an eligible entity is any private person, corporation, firm, partnership, company, or state or local government that is prepared to enter into a contract for the construction of housing units and ancillary supporting facilities. DOD must establish a five-year pilot program to assess the feasibility of using the rental partnership programs of the Armed Forces to assure tenants for eligible entities to secure financing to construct privatized military housing. Additionally, DOD must coordinate with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to develop a five-year pilot program to provide financial incentives to eligible entities to build privatized military housing, or to purchase or lease existing facilities, to house members of the Armed Forces and their dependents and low-income individuals and families. Finally, DOD and HUD may jointly operate a grant program through the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation within DOD to build housing for members of the Armed Forces and their dependents, and low-income individuals and families. Household income limits for eligible entities to receive a grant must not differ based on whether a household includes a member of the Armed Forces.
Sponsors: Rep. Strickland, Marilyn [D-WA-10]
Target Audience
Population: Members of the Armed Forces, their dependents, and low-income individuals
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The global military population is estimated to be several million people, including active duty personnel, reservists, and their families.
- About 27 million are military personnel worldwide, including around 1.3 million in the U.S. Armed Forces. A significant portion of these, along with their families, could be impacted by improved housing options.
- Considering family members, the global population benefiting could include dependents, typically doubling the number of directly impacted service members.
- In addition to servicemembers and their families, low-income individuals may be impacted by the housing initiatives, particularly in areas surrounding military installations worldwide.
Reasoning
- The population distribution suggests a large number of service members and their families, as well as low-income individuals near military installations, will be affected by the policy. It is essential to capture a range of perspectives, from directly impacted military families to landlords and non-impacted low-income individuals.
- The budget limits will primarily affect the scope and geographical reach of new housing developments or enhancements, which may restrict the full spectrum of hoped-for outcomes.
- Some individuals may not be immediately affected due to geographical or financial constraints, while others could see significant improvement in living conditions, impacting their overall well-being.
Simulated Interviews
Military spouse (San Diego, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could make a significant difference for our family, especially with how expensive housing is here. We often struggle to find suitable accommodation within our budget.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Army sergeant (Killeen, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More housing options would provide peace of mind and could help me save more money for the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Civilian nurse (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might ease housing pressure in this area, making it a bit more affordable for us civilians too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Junior enlisted personnel (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Housing isn't a major issue for me. My focus is on career development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired military (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect this policy to affect us directly, but it might alleviate community housing pressures, which could indirectly benefit us over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Landlord (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could help backfill risks in my business plan by ensuring consistent tenancy from military personnel.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Small business owner (Columbus, GA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An influx of housing could boost the local economy, potentially increasing my customer base.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Low-income resident (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy could bring more affordable housing to our area, but I'm uncertain if it will actually reach people like us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
School teacher (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved housing could positively impact my students’ well-being and performance, benefiting the whole community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Policy analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy targets critical deficiencies in military housing. However, the success heavily relies on effective implementation and partnership with private sectors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $750000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $850000000)
Year 3: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 5: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 10: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- Administrative and coordination tasks may face delays, affecting cost schedules.
- The effectiveness of pilot programs will depend on successful collaboration between DOD and HUD.
- Private sector engagement is essential for effective project development and may present risks of dependency or leverage issues.
- Potential variations in local and state regulations could affect housing construction and financing feasibility.
- Demographic changes within military personnel and surrounding low-income communities may alter demand and program applicability.