Airbnb’s Lessons For Affordable Housing

One professor’s idea to provide housing subsidies to more low-income families.

This illustration can only be used with the Sarah Smith story that originally ran in the 10/233/2015 issue of National Journal magazine. 
Neil Webb
Oct. 23, 2015, 5 a.m.

New York Uni­versity Pro­fess­or In­grid Gould El­len has an idea she thinks could help get more low-in­come fam­il­ies money for hous­ing sub­sidies: Take les­sons from shar­ing-eco­nomy suc­cess stor­ies like Airb­nb and ap­ply them to the world of af­ford­able hous­ing. I re­cently spoke to El­len about her idea. Our ex­change has been ed­ited and con­densed.

What prob­lem would this idea ad­dress? How is this dif­fer­ent from what’s already in place un­der Sec­tion 8?

We live in a world where three-fourths of eli­gible house­holds in the U.S. don’t re­ceive any hous­ing sub­sidies due to lack of re­sources. The idea is to make sub­sidy dol­lars stretch fur­ther with shar­ing. We’d have policies that make shar­ing homes easi­er, or shar­ing sub­sidies pos­sible, and we’d re­lax build­ing reg­u­la­tions. Hous­ing au­thor­it­ies cur­rently can al­low Sec­tion 8 vouch­er-hold­ers to live in shared liv­ing ar­range­ments, and to pay a pro­rated share of the rent, but many hous­ing au­thor­it­ies avoid of­fer­ing this op­tion be­cause of wor­ries about li­ab­il­ity and a lack of con­trol—what if oth­er mem­bers stop pay­ing their share of rent? Shar­ing could be messy, but we have little ex­per­i­ence with it. The idea is to en­cour­age more hous­ing au­thor­it­ies to em­brace shar­ing.

What kinds of shar­ing would make sense with hous­ing sub­sidies?

One is learn­ing from the Airb­nb mod­el, which sug­gests there’s some ex­cess ca­pa­city in our hous­ing stock, and people are will­ing to take in boarders on a tem­por­ary basis, as it gives them ad­di­tion­al in­come. Es­pe­cially in high­er-cost cit­ies. I think it’s an in­ter­est­ing ques­tion: Would people be will­ing to take on boarders on a more per­man­ent basis, rather than vis­it­ors? There’s also a com­mun­al mod­el—smal­ler apart­ments with a shared com­mun­al space. You could think about shar­ing sub­sidies them­selves. Be­cause you’re only rent­ing a room, say, in a house, it would re­quire less sub­sidy, and we could the­or­et­ic­ally make the dol­lars stretch to more fam­il­ies.

How would people get matched for this shar­ing pro­gram?

It could be a plat­form not un­like Airb­nb’s plat­form—New York City used that kind of plat­form to match people after Su­per­storm Sandy. Or it could be a Craigslist kind of format. For ex­ample, many older adults live in homes with ex­tra space. They could of­ten be­ne­fit from the ad­di­tion­al in­come they could earn from rent­ing out those spaces and the com­pan­ion­ship—and per­haps mod­est as­sist­ance—that new res­id­ents would of­fer. Yet en­ter­ing in­to such ar­range­ments with strangers might be daunt­ing and even fright­en­ing. So there may be room for or­gan­iz­a­tions to help match older adults with ex­tra space with re­spons­ible young fam­il­ies and adults strug­gling to make ends meet in high-cost cit­ies.

Would this def­in­itely be bet­ter for the fam­il­ies in need of hous­ing sub­sidies?

I think we don’t know—it re­quires re­search. It de­pends on what the ef­fects are for those fam­il­ies who are ba­sic­ally doubled-up. How much bet­ter is that than not hav­ing any as­sist­ance at all? What we don’t know is what the long-term ef­fects of doub­ling-up are on chil­dren. That’s a crit­ic­al ques­tion we need to learn more about.

What would it take to make this hap­pen?

It would take some ad­just­ments to hous­ing-qual­ity stand­ards—like lim­its on how many people can live in an apart­ment based on the num­ber of bed­rooms. I think we should think about re­lax­ing some of those rules—but with cau­tion so we can mon­it­or the im­pact. Then there are rules to the sub­sidy pro­grams them­selves that we might want to be more flex­ible about. It could be that we make it easi­er for house­holds to use their vouch­ers in home-shar­ing situ­ations. It’s tech­nic­ally al­lowed by the pro­gram, but many loc­al au­thor­it­ies choose not to al­low it.

What We're Following See More »
8 SCHOOLS INCLUDING YALE, STANFORD, GEORGETOWN
Dept. of Education Opens Probe into College Admissions Scandal
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
HAD BEEN SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY
House Intel Postpones Testimony by Felix Sater
12 hours ago
THE LATEST
PASSED 420-0 IN THE HOUSE
McConnell Blocks Vote on Making Mueller Report Public
12 hours ago
THE LATEST
CITES "VERY CONCERNING DISCREPANCIES"
Nadler Intends to Call Barr to Testify
20 hours ago
THE LATEST
PICTURE IS CLOUDIER ON OBSTRUCTION
Mueller: No Evidence of Collusion
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr. The summary also said that the special counsel’s team lacked sufficient evidence to establish that President Trump illegally obstructed justice, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump." Read Barr's summary here.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login