Idea: Green Collar Jobs and Affordable Housing

(I'm assuming you're not addressing the issue of global climate change or the need for new jobs). Yes, housing prices will fall drastically but that doesn't mean all of a sudden housing will become affordable. Jobs are being lost, wages are stagnate, people are in major debt, even filing for bankruptcy, and there's a slew of homes no longer worth the mortgage, with more and more families facing foreclosure--and that's just the middle class. Why would you think this somehow helps those at or below poverty afford housing? They're facing an even more severe financial crisis.

People assume that if low-income families can no longer afford their homes that they can just rent and everything will be fine, but you're right, it just makes renting more expensive for everyone, especially since the Bush administration has been hacking away at government assistance for some time now (in fact, there's been no increase in federal aid since 1995), there's simply aren't enough affordable rental units to meet demand (yet another reason why we must build new homes), and there's always the threat of unemployment, stagnant or lower wages, ever-increasing utility and food expenses, or a health care emergency. Also, many landlords don't want to rent to low-income families and many communities don't want affordable housing in their neighborhoods.

Besides, renting is just a temporary band-aid solution that doesn't address the underlying problems of poverty and affordable housing. Simply: housing can and must help families finally escape the clutches of poverty by freeing them from being forced to choose between basic necessities and allowing them to build wealth to get ahead. When the working poor spend half or more of their income on rent alone,you know there's a tremendous problem (From 2007 article):

A new report by the Department of Housing and Urban Development describes the startling growth of the problem since 2003. It found that 6 million impoverished households used most of their monthly earnings for housing or lived in substandard conditions in 2005. That’s an increase of 16 percent, or 817,000 families, since 2003.

The number of rural families facing this dilemma grew by 51 percent to nearly 1 million households over the same two-year span.

At the same time, these struggling households saw their average monthly incomes decline while their average rent payments increased.

The fact there is such a thing as the working poor should be disturbing enough:

As home energy and gasoline prices increase, low-income households—defined as families of four with a yearly income below $32,604—are having to make serious cutbacks on basic necessities in order to make ends meet:

* 31 percent of low-income households report maintaining unsafe or unhealthy home temperatures in order to lower energy bills.
* 29 percent risked loss of home energy service due to skipped or partial payments.
* 31 percent have reduced spending on medicine.
* 70 percent have reduced spending on food.
* 65 percent have lowered their purchases of other basic household necessities.

These cutbacks on necessities are not simple inconveniences. They are detrimental to the health and well-being of vulnerable populations, particularly the elderly, disabled, and children.

I have always thought the phrase "affordable housing" to be interchangeable with "low-income housing" but preferred simply because the latter is seen as having bad associations attached to it, like, "welfare." According to the HUD, which uses income eligibility as its basis in granting aid, it seems that the accepted definition is:

The generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care.

It also goes on to state:

An estimated 12 million renter and homeowner households now pay more then 50 percent of their annual incomes for housing, and a family with one full-time worker earning the minimum wage cannot afford the local fair-market rent for a two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the United States. The lack of affordable housing is a significant hardship for low-income households preventing them from meeting their other basic needs, such as nutrition and healthcare, or saving for their future and that of their families.

Overwhelmingly, the focus and context of HUD and the Center for American Progress when discussing "affordable housing" is low-income families, those at or below poverty (e.g., both focus on policies like HOME, which deals solely with low-income or impoverished families; see CAP "Green Recovery" policy site discuss "Green affordable housing HOME block grants"), however, the accepted 30% definition, I believe, allows them to also include even middle-income families who are wiped out financially by some tremendous financial burden like health care costs.

Tons of people are struggling with rising housing costs as wages are stagnating (My cousin, who just got married a few years back, is now stuck with a house that's worth less than his mortgage; he's scared shitless and he's only 30).

I've been checking out the HUD site and since the HOME grants are only available for low-income families, it wouldn't help out the many middle-income families who are struggling mightily with housing, but at least that 30% definition allows HUD and CAP to include such people in their policy discussions to address their needs as well. It's truly a sad state that even middle-income families can be wiped out by a health care emergency or disability to the point that they can't even afford adequate housing, but that is America today. Not just "low-income" people are in trouble. Increasingly, most of us are or will be.

If the city requires a certain amount of "affordable housing" and federal funds are used, isn't everyone involved required to use the HUD definition?

I wish I knew more about this.