Newspapers report daily on the frantic efforts by elected officials to address America’s housing affordability crisis, including a recent story that President Donald Trump called Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, to discuss the issue. Trump seems worried about how a lack of progress could be politically damaging. He should be.
A 2024 report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies found that about half of renters experience cost burdens, defined as paying more than 30 percent of their monthly income for rent. An astonishing 70 percent of renters with incomes under $45,000 are cost-burdened.
Meanwhile, the share of first time homebuyers dropped to 21 percent and the median age of a homebuyer is forty, the highest ever.
During my thirty-year career as a senior policy analyst at the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, an association of 700 community organizations, I have witnessed relatively few moments when the national dialogue has fixated as it has now on housing affordability.
A conversation also has commenced on zoning reform, with jurisdictions including Minneapolis and California reducing impediments to adding housing—like, for instance, single-family home requirements that prevent even small multi-family units from being built in suburban areas. A Pew article reported regarding Minnesota’s enlightened policy, “Research shows that communities with strict zoning requirements tend to have higher home prices, rent growth, and levels of homelessness than those with more permissive zoning laws.”
On the federal level, Warren has collaborated with Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina, to pass a bill in the Senate that would encourage innovations such as zoning reform and provide additional funding for home repairs and construction.
The Trump Administration, however, has erected a roadblock to financing the building of housing by proposing to weaken the implementation of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a law that combats redlining or discrimination against communities of color and moderate income communities. CRA requires banks to serve all communities, especially low and moderate-income neighborhoods.
Every two or three years, federal bank agencies grade a bank’s record regarding loans, investments, and bank services to low and moderate-income neighborhoods. Community organizations and members of the public can comment on CRA exams and offer input into whether bank merger applications should be approved or rejected. These avenues for public input and accountability have increased lending and investing in economically vulnerable communities.
Some banks seek to bolster their reputations and increase the chances of their mergers being approved by negotiating community benefit agreements with community organizations. Research has shown that these agreements have resulted in increased financing for affordable housing.
As I describe in Ending Redlining, my new book on the CRA, progress toward affordable housing would be boosted under regulatory reforms proposed by the Biden Administration. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is in the process of rescinding the Biden-era update to the CRA regulations and exams. The bank agencies plan to lessen their review of merger applications, reducing opportunities for banks and community organizations to strike mutually beneficial agreements.
Members of the public can express their opposition to these proposed rules and should also express their views to their elected members of Congress. Community-based organizations, including housing developers and counseling agencies, can seek out partnerships with banks for financing affordable housing and providing counseling. They can also comment on CRA exams and merger applications. Together, let’s preserve and use this vital tool for affordable housing.
This column was produced for Progressive Perspectives, a project of The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service.