Gridlocked Out: The public policy of evictions
A family’s life is summarized on the curb of a driveway, at the end of which is a house’s front door, plastered with a piece paper. Sometimes the notice is pink, other times white or yellow, every time with a severe effect. With approximately 2.3 million people involved in cases in 2016 as noted by Harvard Sociologist Matt Desmond, evictions are rampant in the United States, and their impacts are grave (Desmond). And as with many disruptive social mechanisms, marginalized groups fair far worse than others in eviction situations. With poverty policy at the front of national debates, it is crucial to recognize that firstly, evictions critically matter, and effective legislation has the power to limit them.
Affordable housing has been at the top of policy questions since well before the crises of the early 2000s. According to the Eviction Lab, not only are many families considered “rent burdened,” spending over 30% of income on housing, but 1 in 4 poor renting families spend 70% on housing related costs including rent and utilities (Desmond). A study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition discovered the limitations for extremely low income (ELI) families stating, “The U.S. has a shortage of 7.4 million affordable and available rental homes for ELI renter households, resulting in 35 affordable and available units for every 100 ELI renter households” (Aurand, et al). The picturesque “American Dream” of the typical white picket fence is unfeasible when basic necessities are in question.
Public policy is trying to reshape this painful reality. Senator’s Kamala Harris (California, D) and Corey Booker (New Jersey, D) in particular have introduced the Livable Incomes for Families Today (LIFT) Act, to combat rent in the United States’ increasing burdens. The tax credit could potentially provide an extra $500 a month for working class, renting families in order to address the rise of living expenses’ costs (Matthews). An option for the credit to be reaped either in total annually or monthly creates sustainable options for families to best address their specific housing needs. The bill has received many questions about affordability.
But while effective policy changes culture, as partisan discrepancies are debated upon, evictions continue to occur. Desmond estimates that 6,300 people, children included, are evicted every day, and as policy decisions remain stagnant, the numbers continue to grow (Brancaccio and Long). While Harris, Booker, and many other legislative democrats have supported policies related to housing costs, two main concerns arise. Firstly, while EITC expansion policies have positive effects on the working poor, deep poverty is barely touched. Americans living on $2 a day or less receive zero benefits as they are simply not in a tax bracket entirely. And as Vox media’s Dylan Mathews notes, it continues the stigmatization of the non-working poor, and while effective for only some groups, other cultural narratives would remain unchanged.
Additionally, failure to pay rent is not always the direct cause of evictions. As detailed in Desmond’s “Evicted,” families were able to fall slightly behind in payments and remain unscathed. Certain events, however arbitrary, yielded cases including ambulance visits and minor day to day housing structural failures (Desmond). Nevertheless, where the LIFT Act shines is in its specificity; It uniquely targets rent. As it it a crucial issue, I do not find that enough measures are taken in both Congress and local governments outside of general anti-poverty policy to combat affordable housing’s challenges. Countries and governments make choices about how to treat families and the lack of regard for proper affordable housing is another one of these grave decisions. As Danziger and Wimer note, the core reason poverty increases and continues to remain high over time is due to the fact that the economy has simply failed the poor. Safety net policies, while important contributions, need to be expanded upon in order to fit the needs of a rapidly expanding society (Danziger and Wimer).
What would best suit renters and Americans aggregately would be comprehensive poverty policy that attacks the sources of instability and daily economic stress. Americans need better welfare policy, better healthcare policy, better childcare policy. But without a secure, reliable place to come home to and a cycle of their life piled on the street, the American Dream is deferred.
