Introduction
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the United States government involvement in housing for the poor became more pronounced, especially in the area of building code enforcement, which required buildings to meet certain standards for decent livability. These standards required landlords to make some modifications to their existing building blocks. The media that time brought considerable attention to the conditions of the slums in the New York City, which sparked the new attention for the improvement housing conditions in the country.
Early tenement reform were models which tried to use architectural and management techniques which addressed the physical and social problems of the slums. The codes were only limited to the available resources, the early efforts were directed to building the code reforms. The New York Tenement Act that was enacted in 1895, and the Tenement Law of 1901 were the early attempts to address the buiding codes in the New York City, which were later applied in other cities.
In 1910, the National Housing Association was created to push for the improvement of housing in the urban and suburban neighborhood through the enactment of better regulations and improving awareness. The United States Public housing is administered by the federal, state and local agencies which provide subsidized assistance for the low income citizens. Now, it has provided a variety of setting and formats, and originally the public housing in the United States consisted primarily one or more concentrated blocks of low-rise and high-rise apartment buildings. These complexes are currently run by the state and local housing authorities that are funded by the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Policy objectives
There are several Acts and policies that have been set in the interests of both the tenants and the landlords. Discussed below are those that have had significant effects on the public housing:
The Experimental Housing Allowance Program
The Housing Act of 1970 established the EHAP after a lengthy investigation in the potential market effects of housing vouchers. The vouchers that were initially introduced in 1965, were an attempt to sudsidize the demand side of the housingmarkets rather than the supply side. This suplimented the household rent allowance until they were able to meet the market rates. Experimental Housing Allowance Program was designed to test three aspects of the vouchers’ impacts like;
i) Demand: it investigated user dynamics which included mobility, participation rates, housing standards and rent rates
ii) Supply: It monitored the market response to subsidy, whether it changed the construction or rates for the community
iii) Administration: the administration examined several different approaches to structuring and managing the programs.
The new legislation on housing vouchers had minimal impact on the surrounding rents, but had a potential to tighten the market for low-income housing. The people therefore, argued that public housing was the appropriate model for cost and supply chain reasons.
Interest groups are among the most important mechanism through which the citizen of US make their ideas, views, needs known to elected officials. Both the formal and informal tradition of American politics provides a basis for interest groups. These groups include businesses, labor unions and professional associations who can team. They can also be organizations and commissions like;
• ABA Commission on Homeless and Poverty
• Affordable Housing Industry Information
• American Institute of Architects
• American Legislative Exchange Council
• American Land Title Association
• Community Development Bank
• Real Estate Services Providers Council, among others
The policy targets
The target of the policies and those of the interest groups are set on same ideologies. The professional associations like those of architects aim to have public housing designed and constructed in an orderly manner. More so, these associations ensures that these residential houses are put up in a safe way; buildings that cannot collapse putting people’s lives in danger. Those of other associations push for the cheap and affordable rent for the poor and homeless individuals. In addition, some of the interest groups fight for the welfare of the tenants when they are in the premises of the landlords. Some of this welfare include the deadline for payment of rents, relationships between the owner of the premises and that of the tenants, and the safety measures set for emergencies.
All these stakeholders play important role of airing their views and pressurizing the political leader to discuss about it in the congress or in the House. When these interest groups’ needs and wants are heard, the bill is put into law for the people’s interests.
Review and evaluation of public housing in the United States
Policy targets
Because housing is related with many risks, failure and misery then policy target is reflected the best in achieving the milestones. The policy target of the public housing is to construct more public housing. Cities do require more public housing because they are growing. Most emphatically it is not considered in the United States. They are constructed as a part of destruction and renovation projects. Else there is less capital required for growth of public housing. Like Clinton organization’s HOPE VI program, most old project-based community housing units were destroyed and replaced with mixed-income growths that house less people and place harsh limitations on low-income inhabitants who can fine cubes. During this procedure there was no one-for-one auxiliary necessities, hence, the America has been losing many units per year. Notwithstanding sufficient sign from overseas, the shadows of Pruitt Igloo legend still dangle over American housing policy. (It should be noted that even in the peak of high-rise growths. The sources of the public housing are the political-economic less funding and extreme local control, institutionalized racism. They bothered history in America is seen in global context, it is evidently is not inevitable failure.
Boost diverse class occupancy like Public housing in Vienna which was not limited to low-income inhabitants. The city did not encourage low-income people. But if a family initiates building more money they are not barred. It means there are a substantial number of middle-income inhabitants in city-owned housing, which is accurately the point as per governing reports. It avoids buildings not to look like ghettos. The cross-class basis of the occupant people is uncertain as adding factor to the substantial capital. There is much political funds and support when public housing does not cover poor people. There are similarly inclusive bases of nourishment in, like where less of the population lives in municipally possessed housing. Vienna also safeguards that middle-income occupants have places to live over a systematic planning of land sales, loans and low-cost progresses.
The policy of Keeping Funding Flowing since well-run housing consultant desires to be well-funded. New York City’s Housing Authority (NYCHA) long deliberated one of the supreme in the nation is pugnacious to keep services in the background of after recession budget decrease. They get almost half of its backing from the feds like most American housing experts are mainly funded by the government. Like NYCHA gets half of its funds from tenant rent. Unluckily, D.C. is not a dependable basis of funds especially the Philadelphia area. Comparing it with Vienna, the city’s post-WWI Communist government constructed a huge system of public housing that developed the norm.
Getting patronage from housing authority Staffing since congress provided wide flexible power to locals, political machines organized the staffing of the housing consultants. Thus staff and management spots were changed into so many support actions. This became an even greater problem when more housing consultants decided to completely aid intensely disadvantaged and idle populations. It is problematic even for dedicated public servants of a rich government
Interest group conflicts
They play important role in conflict over public housing in the USA. Recently the Berkeley’s public housing inhabitants have been conflicting with their scheme. Their main area of concern is they want the privatization sector to take place. They appeared before the City Council to approve their grievance. They also wanted the registration of the scheme as demanded by them.
The hotline grievance and extra work by Office of Legal Counsel and the Financial Audit Division, its studied that there is a fight of consideration existent in the housing urban development (HUD) and U.S. Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH). Indeed, anterior PIH Assistant Secretary Sandra B. Henrique chose Debra Gross, a former campaigner and the deputy director of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA), a housing industry group, to be accountable for PIH’s Office of Policy, Program and Lawmaking Creativities
Effectiveness of the housing policy
The housing policy is successful and has assisted in solving the housing problem that had been rampant in the U.S. The success and effectiveness of the system are attributed to several factors. The massive legislations and laws that are passed by the Congress support the housing policy. When the housing policy is supported by various laws, it becomes active. The housing is seen as an important milestone in solving the housing problems that have been witnessed in the past. The policy has depended majorly on the congressional actions. The Congress has been fighting entirely to ensure that the housing policy is supported by all the departments of the government.
Another reason that has ensured the effectiveness of the housing policy is the massive budget from the Congress. The Congress has mobilized the government to allocate more resources to the housing department. These funds have assisted in improving the housing policy. The resources that have been allocated to the housing department is used to enforce the housing policy and provision of services that ensures the success of the house. The government in the year 1995 mobilized the private housing organizations to come together to the public housing department to make housing policy firm and efficient.
Another element that has made the housing policy effective was the effectiveness of President Clinton's economic policies that had eight years of economic growth, rising wealth, increasing income and historic low-interest rates in the mortgage loan. These factors have been driving the housing policy and have made it useful.
Conclusion
The U.S housing policy is a strategy that has been used by the U.S government to improve the public housing. The Congress has been making policies that improve the housing status in the U.S. The policies ensure that the citizens enjoy affordable public housing that is well equipped. The housing is made effective through coming up with legislations that emphasize on the effective and affordable housing. This has been a support from the Congress. Furthermore, budgeting has been focusing on the housing, and more resources have been mobilized to the public housing that in turn has improved the public housing. The process of making housing policies is made easy to ensure that law pass creates effective housing policies.
Works Cited
Grall, Timothy S. Current Housing Reports: H121/92-2. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, 1992. Print.
Green, Richard K, and Stephen Malpezzi. A Primer on U.s. Housing Markets and Housing Policy. Washington: Urban Institute Press, 2003. Print
Hassell, Scott. Building Better Homes: Government Strategies for Promoting Innovation in Housing. Santa Monica: RAND, 2003.
