Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The availability of decent affordable housing is essential to the well-being of individuals, families, and communities. The benefits that affordable housing brings to a community range from facilitating economic growth to preventing homelessness. Affordable housing enhances employers' ability to attract and retain qualified workers, while contributing to local revenue by generating additional property taxes. Affordable housing creates community stability, providing a local customer base for retailers and small businesses. Affordable housing promotes quality of living by providing safe, decent places for children to grow up, for couples to share their lives, and for elders to age gracefully.

Across the United States, economic restructuring has led to lower incomes and less secure employment for many workers and their families. With increasing global competition, employers are facing tight profit margins and pressures to seek lower production costs. These external factors contribute to the economic squeeze and financial uncertainty for families. Yet, regardless of wage levels or income stability, a basic need among all households is obtaining a decent, affordable place to live. The obstacles to achieving this goal are numerous. Lower-income renter households are burdened with high housing costs. Potential first-time homeowners are struggling to save for mortgage down payments and closing costs, along with ongoing mortgage payments. Households overall are finding that the increasing cost of utilities and home maintenance contributes to rising housing expenses. As a result, obtaining affordable housing is a growing problem across the country.

Guidelines

For individual households, affordable housing is determined by a ratio of housing costs to household income. Thus, affordability is dependent on both the income adequacy and the consumer price of housing including basic utilities plus rent or mortgage payments. The current standard used to determine affordability is based on federal policy guidelines that identify households spending more than 30 percent of their gross income on shelter costs as “housing-cost burdened.” Although the standard has been criticized by a number of academic researchers for failing to consider household size, regional housing cost differential, and consequences at various income levels, this guideline continues to be applied in policy decisions and program implementation due to the straightforward calculation and interpretation it affords. Another criticism of the 30 percent guideline is that it is an arbitrary standard. For example, a change in the ratio to a higher percentage results in fewer households being identified as housing-cost burdened. At the same time, very low-income households routinely pay higher proportions of their incomes for housing, as much as 60 to 80 percent.

Historically, the amount of income households are expected to spend on housing has increased. In the 1880s, the practical guideline used was “one week's wage for one month's rent” or approximately 25 percent of income for housing. This standard was applied by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in administering tenant housing assistance programs until the mid-1970s. Under federal budget constraints, the policy then shifted to require renters to pay at least 30 percent of their incomes toward their housing in assisted units. In determining eligibility for mortgage applicants, lenders use similar qualifying ratios as a means of investment risk management.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading