Higher Rents for Poorest Housing Recipients a Bad Idea

February 22, 2012 at 4:51 pm

A New York Times editorial today warns that raising rents on the poorest recipients of federal housing assistance, as both a House proposal and the President’s new budget would do, could impose unaffordable burdens on these households, all of whom have incomes below $3,000.

We share that concern and believe that policymakers should reject a rent increase.

The House proposal would require housing agencies and owners to charge families with little or no income $69.45 a month in rent (and more in future years based on inflation), up from the current maximum of $50.  Our analysis finds that this increase in the minimum rent could expose 491,000 households to serious added hardship and even homelessness.

These nearly half-million households include nearly 700,000 minor children, and 40,000 of the households include people who are elderly or disabled.

The President’s budget would raise minimum rents even higher than the House proposal — to $75 — so it would affect even more extremely poor families (about 15,000 more).

As the Times notes, if policymakers raise rents on the poorest housing recipients, they should at least continue to allow local agencies to make the rent increases optional.  Local agencies best know the households that they serve and should retain the flexibility to set the most appropriate policies for them.

Also, while agencies are required to provide hardship exemptions from minimum rents in certain situations, a HUD-sponsored study in 2010 found that these exemptions were very rare.  Policymakers should couple any rent increase with the changes needed to ensure that the hardship exemption accomplishes its intended goal of keeping minimum rents from pushing families out of their homes.

Print Friendly

More About Barbara Sard

Barbara Sard

Sard rejoined the Center as Vice President for Housing Policy in 2011 after 18 months as Senior Advisor on Rental Assistance to HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at CBPP.org

1 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. 1

    It seems unrealistic to expect public housing to maintain a $50 minimum rent because we must pay the full cost of all utilities. Our utility cost is $135 per unit, per month. A $75 minimum rent with the current “Hardship Exemption” is more than reasonable. I think Congress should take the utilities out of the rent calculation and let the residents pay all of their own utilities OR allow us to increase the minimum rent. Congress cannot keep increasing our Operating Subisdy. We need to maintain this valuable government owned asset for the future. Some of our residents pay more for cable than rent, and the rent includes their utilities.

Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact communications@cbpp.org.

seven × 2 =

 characters available