Analysis of Proposed Housing Bill and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Undermining SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities and SDG 1: No Poverty

Threats to Affordable Housing and Community Stability

The proposed House bill presents significant challenges to achieving key targets within the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those aimed at ensuring access to adequate housing and eradicating poverty. The following provisions directly threaten progress towards SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities):

• Elimination of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME): The bill proposes defunding the sole federal block grant dedicated to producing new affordable housing. This action directly contravenes SDG Target 11.1, which calls for ensuring access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable housing.
• Insufficient Funding for Existing Programs: The proposed budget fails to account for rising rent and housing production costs. This effective decrease in funding capacity risks a shortfall for existing housing initiatives, pushing more individuals and families into housing instability and poverty.
• Removal of Critical Eviction Protections: The bill eliminates the requirement for a 30-day notice for tenants in HUD-assisted housing who are at risk of eviction. This weakens tenant security and increases the likelihood of homelessness, directly undermining efforts to end poverty in all its forms.

Eroding SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities and SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Policies Exacerbating Inequality and Weakening Institutional Capacity

Several policy proposals within the bill would intensify existing inequalities and weaken the institutions designed to protect vulnerable populations, running counter to the principles of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

1. Drastic Funding Cuts to Fair Housing: The bill slashes funding for HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity by $58 million. This severely curtails the nation’s ability to combat housing discrimination, a direct assault on the goal of reducing inequality.
2. Weakening of Institutional Capacity: A proposed 26% cut to HUD staffing would cripple the department’s operational efficiency, delay the delivery of essential services, and impair its ability to respond to disasters, thereby weakening a key public institution (SDG 16).
3. Undermining Local Governance: The bill includes provisions to withhold funds from municipalities based on their compliance with federal immigration enforcement requests. This policy undermines local decision-making and targets immigrant communities, exacerbating inequality.
4. Defunding of HUD-VASH Program: The proposal to move the HUD-VASH voucher program for veterans to the Department of Veteran Affairs threatens a successful, established partnership and could disrupt housing stability for a particularly vulnerable group, contradicting goals related to health (SDG 3) and reduced inequalities (SDG 10).
5. Granting of Broad Waiver Authority: The bill allows the HUD Secretary to waive statutory requirements for rental assistance. This could lead to the implementation of punitive measures like work requirements or time limits, which disproportionately harm marginalized groups and undermine the principles of justice and equal opportunity.

Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • The article directly addresses homelessness, which is an extreme form of poverty. Policies that affect housing affordability and assistance, such as the proposed budget cuts for housing programs, the elimination of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and potential time limits on rental assistance, are central to the fight against poverty.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • The article highlights policies that could exacerbate inequality. Slashing funds for Fair Housing programs undermines efforts to combat housing discrimination. Withholding funds from “sanctuary cities” targets vulnerable immigrant populations. The proposal to move HUD-VASH vouchers for veterans could impact a specific vulnerable group. These measures risk deepening inequalities based on economic status, origin, and veteran status.

3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The core theme is the lack of affordable and adequate housing. The text discusses the elimination of programs for new affordable housing (HOME), insufficient funding for existing housing initiatives, and the removal of eviction protections, all of which are critical components for creating sustainable and inclusive cities.

What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.

   • The article’s focus on funding for housing programs, the production of new affordable housing through the HOME program, and rental assistance directly relates to this target. The proposed policy changes, such as eliminating HOME and providing insufficient funding, are presented as direct threats to achieving access to affordable housing for all.

2. Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all… and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.

   • Housing assistance, rental subsidies (like HUD-VASH), and eviction protections are forms of social protection systems. The article discusses threats to these systems, including budget cuts, program restructuring (HUD-VASH to BRAVE), and the removal of the 30-day eviction notice requirement, which would weaken the social safety net for the poor and vulnerable.

3. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…

   • This target is relevant due to the discussion on fair housing. The article states that the House bill “slashes funding for Fair Housing programs” and decreases funding for HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. This action directly undermines the capacity to ensure equal opportunity in housing and combat discriminatory practices.

Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Funding levels for housing and social protection programs.

   • The article explicitly uses funding as a key metric. It mentions cuts to HUD staff funding (by 26%), the complete defunding of the HOME program, insufficient or flat funding for most HUD accounts, and a $58 million decrease in funding for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. These funding levels serve as direct, quantifiable indicators of commitment and progress.

2. Production of new affordable housing units.

   • This is an implied indicator. The article states that the HOME program is “the only federal block grant dedicated exclusively to the production of new affordable housing.” Its elimination would directly impact the rate at which new affordable housing is created, making the number of units produced a critical indicator of progress towards Target 11.1.

3. Existence and enforcement of tenant protections.

   • The article points to a specific policy change: the removal of the “requirement that owners of HUD-assisted housing must provide tenants at risk of an eviction notice at least 30 days prior to taking action.” The existence or removal of such a rule is a clear, binary indicator of the strength of tenant protections, which are part of the social protection system under Target 1.3.

Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: endhomelessness.org