Residents of Vancouver have come to a consensus regarding the city’s critical housing crisis.
With vacancy rates at an alarming low and affordability issues gripping public discourse, homelessness has become a persistent problem despite the city’s strenuous efforts to address it.
While there is general agreement on the existence of the crisis, discussions around solutions often break down along political lines.
Conservative voices attribute the rising numbers of homelessness, drug use, and mental illness to progressive policies that enable these issues.
In contrast, progressives argue that the real problem lies in insufficient government intervention and support.
However, a pivotal aspect of this crisis remains overlooked: the role of federal policy over the years.
In 1977, President Gerald Ford’s budget proposal called for the construction of more than 506,000 low-income housing units across the nation.
Fast forward to 1996, and under the Clinton administration, federal funding facilitated the construction of fewer than 9,000 new housing units — accounting for less than 2 percent of the number built two decades prior.
Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency began in 1980, federal funding for low-income housing and public housing maintenance has been steadily reduced.
This decline has significantly hampered efforts to support low-income residents and has drastically limited housing development.
The notion of federal support for housing may be met with skepticism by those advocating for reduced government spending, a tenet that characterizes President Donald Trump’s second term.
This issue has gained renewed attention following insights presented by Eran Ben-Joseph from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In a recent article, Ben-Joseph reflects on a time when the U.S. government took the initiative to build housing for workers during World War I.
The United States Housing Corporation emerged as the largest housing developer, realizing the necessity for workers to reside close to crucial manufacturing sites.
Rather than constructing temporary barracks or uniform housing, Ben-Joseph notes that these developments were artistically planned neighborhoods, complete with essential amenities like parks, schools, and sewer systems.
Between 1918 and 1920, the agency created over 80 communities in 26 states, providing homes for more than 100,000 individuals.
This proactive approach was mirrored during World War II, as the Vancouver Housing Authority facilitated the construction of various neighborhoods, including Fruit Valley and Fourth Plain Village, to accommodate shipyard workers.
Many homes from this era still stand, illustrating a commitment to community-centric housing solutions, unlike the more substantial apartment complexes often associated with public projects.
Ben-Joseph emphasizes that the focus during this period was on developing single-family and small multifamily units that families could eventually own, promoting community responsibility and social stability.
This historical perspective raises important questions for present-day discussions about housing in Vancouver and the potential for federal reinvestment in low-income housing as a means to alleviate the ongoing crisis.
By looking back at successful initiatives from the past, there may be valuable lessons to help address the pressing housing challenges faced by many in the city today.
image source from：columbian
