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: Sen. Warnock, Raphael G. [D-GA]
Target Audience
Population: Members of the Armed Forces, their dependents, and low-income individuals and families who need housing.
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill specifically targets members of the Armed Forces and their dependents.
- The global Armed Forces personnel count includes approximately 20 million personnel, considering active, reserve, and paramilitary forces.
- The bill also impacts low-income individuals and families by including them in housing initiatives, expanding the target group beyond military personnel and their families.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a relatively small but significant subset of the U.S. population, specifically military personnel and low-income families who require housing. This group is estimated to be around 10 million, focusing the policy's impact mainly on those directly involved with the military community or those struggling economically.
- Given the budget constraints, resources will likely be allocated strategically to areas with the most significant housing shortages or needs, such as near military bases or urban areas with high costs of living.
- The policy's impact will vary based on individual circumstances, including whether individuals are directly receiving new housing or improved conditions, or if they are part of the broader community benefiting indirectly through economic growth from construction projects.
- The policy includes coordination between the Department of Defense and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, suggesting a multifaceted approach that could lead to improvements in infrastructure as well as direct benefits to servicemembers and low-income individuals.
- Wellbeing impacts are likely more pronounced for those directly affected by the housing improvements, either through increased housing availability or improved living standards.
Simulated Interviews
Active Duty Navy (San Diego, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time the housing standards are improved.
- Frequent relocations make it hard to settle down, more housing options might help.
- High-quality housing is crucial for family wellbeing.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Army Wife, Unemployed (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More housing would be great, current situation is cramped and outdated.
- Improvements in housing quality would ease stress during deployments.
- Unsure about potential increase in rent costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Civilian Employee on Military Base (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this will improve conditions for military families I support.
- There are too many stories of poor housing conditions.
- This policy is a step in the right direction to support our troops.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Air Force, Low-Income Veteran (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With my fixed income, having more affordable options would be a blessing.
- I hope they don't forget about veterans after service.
- Seeing my fellow servicemembers struggle is hard.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 1 |
Construction Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New construction projects can mean more stable work for me.
- Hope they hire locally to boost employment.
- Policies like these can help us keep the rent affordable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Low-Income Single Mother (Austin, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support anything that improves affordable housing availability.
- Safety and neighborhood quality is very important for my kids.
- Hope policy leads to community development.
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 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Real Estate Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could open new opportunities for affordable housing projects.
- Partnerships with government can stabilize market conditions.
- I hope it doesn't overly strain local resources.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Army Reservist (El Paso, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More housing choices would definitely help me during deployment.
- Family stability depends heavily on housing stability.
- I hope the policy aids reservists as well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Social Worker in Veteran Affairs (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could directly improve my clients' wellbeing.
- I see this as a strong long-term investment in veteran welfare.
- There needs to be sufficient follow-through to see impacts.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired Army, Community Advocate (Fairbanks, AK)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring housing for current servicemembers helps veterans like myself too.
- Timing and effective implementation will show real results.
- Alaskan conditions can make housing development challenging. This policy must adapt.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 2: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 3: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 5: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 10: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 100: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Key Considerations
- The cost estimates take into account both new construction and the refurbishment of existing facilities, with varying costs depending on location and existing infrastructure.
- The success of the program is heavily reliant on effective coordination between the Department of Defense and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
- Challenges in scaling pilot programs nationwide might require different policy mechanisms depending on local real estate markets and housing demands.