Bill Overview
Title: Affordable Housing and Area Median Income Fairness Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2032 the Community Development Block Grant and other specified programs that support affordable housing. The bill also requires the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to assess alternative methods of calculating area median income (i.e., any metric used to refer to the median income level for a given area or jurisdiction for purposes of any program administered by HUD) and the use of alternative metrics in order to make housing more affordable for low-income families in urban areas.
Sponsors: Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in need of affordable housing worldwide
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill involves the Community Development Block Grant and other programs that support affordable housing, so it impacts those in need of affordable housing solutions.
- There is a focus on low-income families, primarily in urban areas, indicated by the need to assess alternative area median income calculations for these regions.
- Programs administered by HUD usually target people who fall under the national housing assistance programs, which include low-income and some middle-income families.
- There will be a direct impact on families who are seeking or utilizing subsidized housing and who are within the jurisdictions that use these median income calculations.
- Indirectly, housing policymakers and organizations involved in housing policy research will also be impacted by changes in funding and calculation metrics.
Reasoning
- The bill primarily focuses on low-income families and urban areas that require affordable housing solutions. Thus, the population affected will likely include individuals who are either currently on housing assistance or are on the waitlist for such assistance.
- Considering the budget of $10 billion in the first year, the impact will be substantial but limited to areas with pressing affordable housing needs, and funds are likely allocated where they can achieve significant improvements.
- A portion of this population will primarily see improvements in their social-economic status and housing conditions, as the bill directly impacts the affordability of living spaces in urban areas.
- While a significant portion of the American poor lives in rural areas, this bill targets urban populations due to the specific focus on recalculating AMI for urban standards.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (New York City, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I find it hard balancing my income with the high rent in NYC. Any improvement in the affordability of housing will be a huge relief for us.
- The current area median income calculations make it hard for me to qualify for many programs because they consider a broader suburban region where incomes are higher.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The housing costs are on par with my monthly expenses, making it difficult as I recently lost my job.
- I hope this policy can help revise income standards so that my family can qualify for better housing support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Despite earning a decent salary, the cost of living in San Francisco is overwhelming.
- It's hopeful to think that more affordable housing might become available, but I'm skeptical about the pace of change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been on the waitlist for housing assistance for years. I'd appreciate any change that could make me eligible faster or provide more affordable options.
- It's challenging to keep up with rising rents on a fixed income.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Construction Worker (Austin, TX)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy makes it cheaper to stay in a metroplex like Austin with the new calculation adjustments, that would be great.
- I worry that administrative delays could lessen the effectiveness of these changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Nurse (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Housing prices have squeezed us on an otherwise moderate income, so it would be great to see assistance geared towards cities like Seattle.
- We used to qualify for assistance but the median calculations made us ineligible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increase in affordable housing could mean the difference in being able to rent after graduation.
- Most of my peers struggle to find decent-looking places to stay on our minimal incomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Housing programs have been tough to access in main urban areas, so I hope they achieve what they propose.
- Many grandmothers like me with fixed incomes will benefit from re-evaluation of the AMI.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Freelance Artist (Houston, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I struggle with inconsistent income, and anything that can stabilize housing costs here would be helpful.
- I hope these new programs help artists and freelancers like me who usually don't have steady paychecks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Chef (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 9.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Living costs in LA are outrageous. If this policy can make living in CA more feasible, it will be a godsend.
- I worry that the real estate market might adjust in ways that offset these policies if not properly managed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000000 (Low: $9000000000, High: $11000000000)
Year 2: $10000000000 (Low: $9000000000, High: $11000000000)
Year 3: $10000000000 (Low: $9000000000, High: $11000000000)
Year 5: $10000000000 (Low: $9000000000, High: $11000000000)
Year 10: $10000000000 (Low: $9000000000, High: $11000000000)
Year 100: $10000000000 (Low: $9000000000, High: $11000000000)
Key Considerations
- The legislation is targeting urban areas where housing costs are significantly higher than rural or suburban areas, potentially skewing some cost-benefit analyses.
- Administrative changes in the calculation of area median income without careful planning could create disparities in housing assistance awardees.
- The reauthorization of existing programs suggests a commitment to maintaining current funding levels, adjusting only for inflation and other economic factors.
- Stakeholder feedback, particularly from urban housing policy advocates and municipalities heavily reliant on HUD allocations, could influence the detailed financial execution of this bill.