Abstract

Excerpted From: Miranda Guedes, The Ghost of Jim Crow: The Human Right to Housing, Generational Wealth, the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, and the American Legal System, 14 University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review 165 (Spring, 2024) (206 Footnotes) (Full Document)

The U.N. Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights provides the following framework when defining the human right to housing: (1) security of tenure; (2) availability of services; (3) affordability; (4) habitability; (5) accessibility; (6) location; and (7) cultural adequacy. Human Rights standards require that countries take progressive steps to “respect, protect, and fulfill” the right to housing, to the maximum extent of the country's available resources, in a non-discriminatory manner. The government can use a wide variety of measures, from market regulation to public-private partnerships to tax policy, to help ensure the right to housing. Implementing this human right does not force the government to build a home for each person or provide housing free of charge. However, it does require affirmative steps to be taken to ensure people have fully adequate housing.

The United States continues to face a crisis of homelessness, exacerbated by the severe shortage of affordable homes. Even before the foreclosure crisis and economic recession starting in 2007, “an estimated 2.5. to 3.5 million men, women, and children were experiencing homelessness annually, including at least 1.35 million children, [with] over a million people working full- or part- time but unable to pay for housing.” Despite the recession coming to an end, the affordability crisis remains prevalent and demoralizing, with every state and community in America impacted, leaving families with no affordable options.

In the 1940s, the maximum affordable rent for subsidized housing was set at 20% of income. In 1969, this percentage rose to 25% of income and 30% of income in 1989. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 30% threshold “remains the indicator of affordability for housing in the United States.” Thus, households that spend more than 30% of income on housing costs are considered “cost burdened.” As of 2023, there is no state or county where a renter, working full-time at minimum wage job, can afford a two-bedroom apartment. This leaves 70% of all low-income families severely cost-burdened, with renters paying more than half of their income on rent.

To help increase the development of affordable homes, the Neighborhood Homes Coalition developed the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act. This Act calls for the creation of a new federal tax credit that will produce equity investment dollars for the development and renovation of I-4 family housing in distressed urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods.

This note seeks to address how affirmative steps, like the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, can help tackle the housing crisis plaguing the United States. Part II of this note examines the human right to adequate housing, emphasizing how adequate housing is necessary to fulfill fundamental elements of life. Part III illustrates how generational wealth, and its origins, are pivotal in the unequal distribution of wealth, leaving Black and Hispanic Americans more economically insecure, with fewer opportunities for economic mobility. Part IV examines the historical use of tax credits, the emergence of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and how the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act can combat the shortage of affordable housing. Part V scrutinizes the American legal system and how the lack of access to counsel in tandem with systemic barriers aggravates the issue of affordable housing.

[. . .]

“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity. To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them. But to deny them their right to adequate housing is to create the conditions for a multitude of other human rights violations. It is to perpetuate poverty and inequality, and to undermine the very foundation of human development.” -Nelson Mandela

The Neighborhood Homes Investment Act is offered as an effective solution for addressing the issue of affordable housing. The Neighborhood Investment Act will break the stalemate between “neighborhoods [unable] to retain or attract working families, [and] property values [being] too low to support the cost of building or substantially rehabilitating quality homes.” However, this tax incentive is only one piece of a broader solution, requiring a multifaceted approach to ensure that everyone has access to safe and affordable housing.

Affordable housing is a complex issue, requiring local governments to address factors such as income inequality, zoning regulations, minority communities' lack of access to vital resources, and the availability of affordable financing. Thus, while the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act may help increase the availability of affordable housing in certain distressed neighborhoods, other factors contribute to the lack of affordable housing, including rising housing costs, limited funding, and lack of political will. The Neighborhood Homes Investment Act represents progress toward addressing the issue of affordable housing. The Act alone is not a comprehensive solution. Additional efforts and policies are necessary to fully tackle the affordable housing crisis. The passing of the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act would be one policy that could not only address the affordable housing crisis head on but defeat it.