Rebuttal to Department of Housing and Urban Development
by: Benjamin S. Carson, Sr. MD
Rebuttal to Project 2025: Department of Housing and Urban Development by Benjamin S. Carson, Sr. MD
Benjamin S. Carson’s vision for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in Project 2025 emphasizes a significant reduction in the federal government’s role in housing policy, advocating for the deregulation of housing markets and a diminished focus on affordable housing programs. While Carson frames this as a way to foster self-sufficiency, reduce government spending, and empower local communities, his vision risks deepening the housing crisis in the United States, exacerbating homelessness, and increasing housing inequality.
By scaling back critical federal programs that provide affordable housing to low-income Americans, Carson’s proposals threaten to worsen the already dire housing affordability challenges facing millions of people across the country. Furthermore, his focus on deregulation and market-based solutions ignores the structural inequalities in housing markets and the need for robust federal intervention to ensure that all Americans have access to safe, affordable housing.
Undermining Affordable Housing Programs
One of the central elements of Carson’s Project 2025 vision is the scaling back of federal involvement in affordable housing programs, such as public housing, the Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8), and community development initiatives aimed at supporting low-income communities. These programs are essential in helping millions of Americans afford stable housing, particularly in an environment where rents are rising faster than wages and housing shortages persist in many parts of the country.
Public housing and Section 8 vouchers provide vital assistance to low-income families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities who would otherwise struggle to find affordable housing in the private market. By proposing cuts or reductions in funding for these programs, Carson’s vision risks displacing many of these vulnerable populations, pushing them into precarious housing situations or outright homelessness.
Housing affordability is a major crisis in the United States. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there is a shortage of nearly 7 million affordable and available rental homes for extremely low-income renters. Carson’s vision for scaling back federal support for affordable housing would only widen this gap, making it even harder for low-income families to secure stable housing. Without sufficient federal investment in affordable housing, the private market alone cannot meet the needs of low-income renters, who are often priced out of rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods and left with limited housing options.
Exacerbating Homelessness
Carson’s proposal to reduce federal intervention in housing would likely worsen the homelessness crisis in the U.S. Homelessness is already a growing problem in many urban and rural areas, fueled by rising rents, stagnant wages, and a lack of affordable housing. Cutting funding for federal housing programs, as Carson suggests, would make it harder for communities to provide the necessary housing and services to prevent and address homelessness.
Federal programs like HUD’s Continuum of Care and Emergency Solutions Grants provide critical funding to local governments and nonprofit organizations to help prevent homelessness, provide shelter and supportive services, and assist individuals in securing permanent housing. Without these federal funds, many local governments would be unable to address the needs of homeless populations effectively, leading to increased street homelessness, greater strain on local shelters, and a rise in public health and safety issues.
Moreover, Carson’s vision for increased reliance on market-driven solutions does not adequately address the needs of people experiencing homelessness, many of whom require supportive services in addition to housing. People experiencing homelessness often face barriers such as mental illness, substance abuse, and lack of access to healthcare, which cannot be solved by market-based approaches alone. Federal programs that provide housing in combination with supportive services are essential for addressing the root causes of homelessness, and cutting these programs would only leave more individuals on the streets without the help they need.
Ignoring the Housing Needs of Vulnerable Populations
Carson’s vision fails to adequately address the specific housing needs of vulnerable populations, including seniors, people with disabilities, low-income families, and communities of color. These groups disproportionately rely on federal housing programs to secure affordable, safe, and stable housing. Reducing federal support for these programs would leave these populations at greater risk of housing instability, eviction, and homelessness.
Seniors, in particular, are facing a growing housing crisis. As the population ages, the demand for affordable housing with access to healthcare and supportive services is increasing. Federal programs like HUD’s Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly provide critical assistance to help seniors live independently in affordable housing with access to services. Scaling back these programs would leave many seniors unable to afford the housing and care they need, forcing them into institutional settings or unsafe living conditions.
Similarly, people with disabilities often face significant barriers to finding affordable, accessible housing in the private market. Programs like Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities provide housing options that are specifically designed to meet the needs of people with disabilities, including accessible units and supportive services. Reducing federal investment in these programs would severely limit housing options for people with disabilities, forcing them into unsuitable or unsafe living situations.
Carson’s vision also overlooks the racial disparities in housing access and affordability. Communities of color, particularly Black and Latino households, are more likely to experience housing cost burdens, eviction, and homelessness. These disparities are rooted in a long history of discriminatory housing policies, including redlining, segregation, and exclusion from federal housing programs. Without robust federal intervention to address these inequalities, Carson’s market-driven approach would perpetuate and even worsen racial disparities in housing.
Overreliance on Market-Based Solutions
Carson’s Project 2025 vision emphasizes deregulation and market-driven solutions to address housing challenges, arguing that reducing federal involvement and empowering the private sector will lead to increased housing supply and affordability. However, this overreliance on the private market ignores the fact that the market alone has consistently failed to provide affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households.
The private housing market is driven by profit, and developers tend to prioritize building high-end, luxury housing that generates the highest returns. This has contributed to a glut of luxury apartments in many cities, while the supply of affordable housing remains insufficient. Without federal subsidies and incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing, the private market will not meet the needs of low-income renters, who are often priced out of desirable neighborhoods and forced to live in substandard or overcrowded housing.
Furthermore, deregulation of housing markets, as Carson advocates, does not automatically lead to affordability. In many cases, reducing zoning regulations and building restrictions simply results in more high-end developments, rather than affordable housing. Market forces alone cannot solve the housing crisis, especially in areas where land costs are high and demand for housing far outpaces supply. Federal intervention is necessary to ensure that affordable housing is built and that low-income renters are not left behind in the push for housing development.
Neglecting Community Development and Investment
Carson’s focus on reducing federal involvement in housing also threatens important community development programs that support economic growth and improve living conditions in low-income neighborhoods. Programs like the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program provide critical funding to local governments to invest in affordable housing, infrastructure, and community services.
CDBG funds are used to revitalize distressed communities by improving infrastructure, building affordable housing, and supporting local businesses. HOME funds help create affordable housing for low-income families through grants to states and local governments. These programs are essential for improving the quality of life in underserved communities and ensuring that all Americans have access to safe, stable, and affordable housing.
Reducing or eliminating these programs, as Carson’s vision suggests, would undermine efforts to address poverty, improve living conditions in struggling neighborhoods, and create economic opportunities for low-income residents. Without federal investment in community development, many cities and towns would struggle to address the root causes of poverty and housing instability.
Conclusion: A Vision That Risks Worsening the Housing Crisis
Benjamin S. Carson’s Project 2025 vision for the Department of Housing and Urban Development represents a significant retreat from the federal government’s responsibility to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable, safe, and stable housing. By scaling back critical affordable housing programs, reducing federal intervention in housing markets, and over-relying on market-based solutions, Carson’s proposals threaten to exacerbate the housing crisis, deepen homelessness, and increase housing inequality.
Affordable housing is a fundamental need, and the federal government plays a vital role in ensuring that low-income and vulnerable populations have access to it. Carson’s vision would reduce the availability of affordable housing, displace families and individuals who rely on federal housing programs, and neglect the housing needs of seniors, people with disabilities, and communities of color.
Rather than scaling back federal housing programs, the U.S. should be expanding its commitment to affordable housing, investing in community development, and addressing the structural inequalities that prevent millions of Americans from securing stable housing. Carson’s Project 2025 proposals should be rejected in favor of policies that prioritize housing equity, protect vulnerable populations, and ensure that all Americans have access to safe, affordable housing.