Shelterforce is an American publication promoting community activism in a number of areas, particularly housing. In a recent article, it poses the “what if” question framed in the headline of this post.
The “what if” reflects the constraints of a government controlled housing form that is based pretty much exclusively on rental housing. Public housing is designed to gear rent to income. Little income, little rent. To a considerable extent it protects public housing tenants from the investor speculation that fuels the ever-rising costs of affording a home. Could this kind of housing security succeed based on ownership, not rental?
It comes is a surprise to many, no doubt, as Shelterforce promptly explains that such a program already exists in the U.S. In fact, it’s been around for quite some time, targeting the rural poor, and hidden away in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).1
Read more about the history and future potential of this project in Shelterforce: A ‘Public Option’ for Low-Income Homeownership?
Clearly, the concept of home ownership-based public housing can work. But can it be scaled up to address a growing nationwide city and rural housing crisis, as rising rents drive more and more of America’s most vulnerable citizens towards homelessness?
Searching elsewhere for evidence, it’s almost impossible to miss the remarkable success story of Singapore’s public housing. From fundamental social ambitions to provide a roof overhead for all citizens, its initial rental program has branched out into home ownership of public housing. For a detailed accounting of Singapore’s public housing ownership success, courtesy of the United Nations, try: How Singapore Got Public Housing Right
Also, for a hint of clouds on Singapore’s horizon as it attempts to integrate its expensive owned public housing with the free market, try: Can You Have A Million Dollar Public Housing Cake And Eat it Too? Singapore Wonders
Footnotes
- For an example, try: Stubborn Persistence Wins Support For Self-Help Housing In California
