A home in the White House

Joining the Democrats’ campaign trail in the US presidential elections is a sobering experience. Social housing barely appeared on the radar – it was completely absent from the speeches for an election dominated by war and national security.

By the time this article appears, the result should be in. Whoever has won, the contrasting policies of the parties will have dramatic consequences for the poorest Americans.

I spent some of the run-up to polling day in Detroit, Michigan, and I was struck by the state of the housing in the city. Many residential areas need refurbishment. In some respects, it resembles Liverpool or Manchester 10 years ago, with large areas of brownfield land and boarded-up homes and warehouses.

Some regeneration has taken place in the commercial districts and in warehouse conversions overlooking the Detroit River. There’s also been something of a doughnut effect, with the more mobile white population deserting the centre for the suburbs.

The black community represents 80% of the city’s population. For this group, social housing is crucial and there is a feeling of alienation from Republican policies.

In the USA, subsidised low-income housing is made available at local level by municipal authorities, principally through federal or government grants. In addition, there is a “Section 8” system of portable housing benefit for use in the private rented sector.

There are a number of faith-based housing organisations but no large housing association movement, little regulation and considerable assistance towards homeownership. The private sector is a significant provider of homes for social and market rent.

George W Bush’s housing policies are restricted to plans for encouraging homeownership and proposals to cut the Section 8 budget. The Republicans want to simplify the home-buying process and make it more affordable.

Bush said in a recent speech: “It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country.” The measures to reduce Section 8, meanwhile, are likely to affect the standard of living of those families receiving assistance.

If Republican policies were translated to the UK, it would be the equivalent of cutting housing benefit and the Housing Corporation’s funding when it is needed most.

While Bush’s speeches have only referred to assistance for the homeless, John Kerry’s policies have been more detailed. They seem carefully thought out and more closely resemble British practices.

Kerry has indicated that he would support affordable housing and increasing homeownership. He would also “bring capital, entrepreneurial opportunity and good jobs to communities” – a policy that has echoes of the National Housing Federation’s In Business for Neighbourhoods.

The Democrat candidate has also supported proposals to give “local public housing authorities more flexibility to manage public housing and create more economically integrated housing”. Unlike Bush, Kerry makes the connection between housing and health, education and crime.

Whichever of them has won, this election will have enormous consequences for the social fabric of the USA.