Faith community responses to the problem of affordable housing are both needed and worthwhile. But they are often patches on problems that are produced by unwise or unjust public policies.

As in medicine, we should treat not only the immediate symptoms of a malady, but its root cause as well. In public life, that will involve advocacy, often for populations that have little voice in community debates. In matters of advocacy, however, it is important that churches not go it alone, but consult with all stakeholders and partner with informed and experienced leaders in the area of public policy. Here we list a few policy initiatives that promise to help alleviate the problem of homelessness and affordable housing. As with all matters of policy, they may be subject to political disagreement. Judge for yourself.

Public Transportation

Cities across North American are experiencing an affordable housing crisis. Many first-time home buyers are being priced out the housing market. Rents are going up as well, leading to involuntary displacement for many households and homelessness for others.

There are a number of measures that can be taken to reduce housing costs. Increasing the number and size of residential building types in a neighborhood is one of them (see “Missing Middle Housing”). But housing costs are just one of two major factors when it comes to affordability. The other is transportation. Housing costs are relatively easy to calculate. They typically come in one monthly lump sum, in rent or mortgage payments (plus insurance and property taxes). Transportation costs are parceled out between car payments, insurance, taxes, depreciation, registration fees, gas, oil, tires, maintenance, and repairs. But when you add them up, they constitute a considerable sum. The average American household spends about 19% of its income on transportation. In "location efficient" neighborhoods—walkable with public transit options—that portion goes down to just 9%. In auto-dependent suburbs, the number goes up to 25%. For very low-income families in auto-dependent suburbs, the figure balloons to 55% and above. 

In 15 of the 28 major metro areas studied by the Center of Housing Policy and the Center for Neighborhood Technology in 2005, working families with incomes between $20,000 and $50,000 a year spent as much or more on transportation than they do on housing. That's why the Center for Transit-Oriented Development has created an affordability index that combines both housing and transportation costs. In most cases, the greater the distance between the residential unit and public transit, the greater the transportation costs. The index shows that while some housing may be less expensive in outlying areas, the associated transportation costs are typically higher. So there is often no real gain in affordability by moving out to the edge. On the other hand, more expensive housing in a walkable neighborhood in town close to public transit may be more affordable. If a household can live with one less car, that fact alone, according to the American Automobile Association, represents an annual savings of $8,558, which can be used for housing and other expenses. 

​For the purposes of affordable housing, neighborhood stability, and social equity, mixed housing neighborhoods are good. But mixed housing in walkable neighborhoods close to a public transit corridor is even better. Members of faith communities can advance affordable housing by supporting—not opposing—the development of decent and robust public transit systems in their cities and towns.

​Zoning

Zoning regulates land use. More specifically, zoning ordinances grant municipal and county governments the authority to abridge the property rights of some in order to protect the health, wellbeing, and property values of others. Property owners can’t just do anything they like with their property; there are limitations. Functional zoning specifies those limitations in terms of land use: commercial, residential, industrial, civic, and the like. Typically, zoning limits a land use area to just one function: if residential, then no commercial activity is allowed; if zoned for civic, then no residential development is allowed.

Land use zoning was first invoked in the interest of public health to separate heavy industry from residential areas. That made good sense. Since then, however, almost all functions have been physically separated from each other—the corner grocery store is no longer allowed in a residential area; a diner cannot locate in a light industrial park.  Even within a single land use area, additional separations have been enforced: single-family detached homes are separated from townhomes; both, in turn, are separated from apartment buildings. Even single-family home areas are divided by lot sizes.

Functional zoning is largely responsible for a spread-out, low-density form of development in which walking—the most affordable and healthiest way to get around—is no longer a viable form of transit. Public transit does not fare well in low-density environments either; most residents must drive a car to get from point A to point B. But this imposes a special burden on the one-third of Americans who not drive because they are too old, too young, too poor, or too infirm.

The necessity of car ownership also places a disproportionate burden on low-income households. According to the American Automobile Association, it costs on average $8,558 a year to own a car. If three members of a household have to own a car to get to work, to school, to shopping centers, and to appointments, that household will pay $25,674 a year just for transportation. This is money that people could otherwise use for mortgage or rent. In many cases the extreme separation of land use has done more harm than good. Zoning that allows for mixed-use neighborhoods—where residential, retail, office, and school buildings can exist in proximity to each other—allows for more affordable transit in the form of walking, biking, bus, or light rail.

 In addition to promoting car dependence, functional zoning has often concentrated lower-income households in one area and excluded them from others. By mandating large lot and home sizes for privileged areas in what is known as “exclusionary zoning,” residential zoning codes have discouraged mixed-income neighborhoods, which have been shown to be healthier for low-income households than neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. Zoning that allows for a mix of housing types and lot sizes promotes a more equitable distribution of economic and education opportunities across an entire community. The city of Minneapolis, for example, has eliminated R1 zoning—residential areas that allow only single-family detached homes. There has also been a movement for residential zoning that allows for the incremental development of “missing middle” housing in existing neighborhoods, housing that fills in the gap between single-family detached homes and large apartment buildings. This would encourage infill development of townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and accessory dwelling units that accommodate households of different sizes, income levels, and stages of life in the same neighborhood. “Inclusionary zoning” also takes a step in the direction of affordable housing by requiring new residential developments over a certain size to offer a portion of the units (often 10%) at affordable rates (often at 80% of Area Median Income). 

Reforming zoning laws to allow for mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods helps promote equity and affordable housing. Advocating for such zoning changes is one way to fulfill the mandate of hospitality, of accommodating the stranger—with whom Christ identifies—not only in our homes but in our neighborhoods. (see Matthew 25: 31-46). Some states are now considering changes in zoning and regulations that will reduce church parking requirements and thus make it easier to build affordable housing on church property, See the recently released report from the Terner Center at UC Berkeley.

​With the spread of the Coronavirus across the globe, many have concluded that cities are not healthy places to live because of their density. Mary Bassett has argued, however, that we need to make a distinction between population density and household crowding. Household crowding is the chief health threat, not population density, and such crowding is often the result of a lack of affordable housing.