For too many Americans, the default position is that government is inefficient, ineffective and wasteful.
While scrutiny of governmental operations is necessary, such oversight should be thoughtful and realistic rather than fueled by demagoguery. Such is the case with Vancouver’s voter-approved Affordable Housing Fund.
In 2016, 58 percent of Vancouver voters approved a property tax levy of $6 million a year to construct and preserve affordable housing, and to provide rental assistance. In 2023, 54 percent of voters agreed to renew the expiring levy, increasing it to $10 million a year for 10 years.
Critics reflexively look at the region’s continuing homeless crisis and suggest that the additional tax has been a failure. And that is where the need for thoughtful review comes in.
As detailed in a recent article by Columbian reporter Mia Ryder-Marks, the city of Vancouver has awarded $51.7 million to more than 60 projects under the Affordable Housing Fund. That has created approximately 1,450 affordable housing units and has assisted more than 1,900 households with rental support.
“This public funding went to good use,” one beneficiary told The Columbian. “This was my path to stable housing, and the community did not let me down getting me here.”
A dashboard on the city’s website provides information about where money from the fund has gone, including details about each project. For example, Mercy PeaceHealth Family Housing was awarded $560,000 toward a total project cost of $21.4 million. It created 69 units targeting families facing insecure housing. For another example, Central Park Rehab Housing was awarded $1.25 million toward a $20.6 million project for unhoused people.
Those are relatively minor examples out of dozens of projects supported by the Affordable Housing Fund. But having a full view of the spending and the projects involved is essential for accurately assessing the fund’s effectiveness. It also is essential for assessing and developing future efforts to reduce homelessness.
The debate has become frustratingly politicized. Conservatives blame the policies of Democrats who typically run large cities where homelessness is most prevalent, saying the focus should be on treatment for mental health and substance abuse. Progressives blame Republican policies that have contributed to wealth inequality and have priced low-income residents out of the housing market.
While those issues require attention, the role of the federal government is too often overlooked. As The Columbian has pointed out editorially, a 1977 budget proposal from outgoing President Gerald Ford called for Congress to fund construction of 506,000 low-income housing units. Instead, the federal government began slashing its investment and by 1996, under the Clinton administration, federal funding supported construction of fewer than 9,000 new housing units. Along the way, additional aspects of the social safety net have been shredded.
The result is a crisis that has been 50 years in the making. It is a crisis driven by a philosophy that state and municipal governments should take a more direct role in dealing with local problems.
That is what the people of Vancouver have done with the Affordable Housing Fund. While it is tempting to view encampments along roadways and offramps and suggest that the program is not working, that represents backward thinking. The question, instead, should be how many more unhoused people would Vancouver have without strong public assistance?