Affordable for whom? A look at the data behind the definitions
If there's one thing almost everyone in the City Different can agree on, it's that Santa Fe is badly in need of more affordable housing — but affordable for whom?
"That question comes up all the time," said Johanna Nelson, the city's interim affordable housing director.
The term can refer to single-family homes with prices set in a range considered reasonable for purchase by middle-income workers, lower-rent or subsidized apartment units, or "transitional housing," which is usually a temporary first step into housing, with support and services, for someone who has experienced homelessness.
While people might have different ideas of what "affordable" means to them, organizations that receive housing-related funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the state government must follow guidelines for rent and sales prices that qualify as affordable and household income levels at which residents are eligible for support.
A long-standing HUD metric is that renters are considered cost-burdened if they pay more than 30% of their gross income on housing, a figure that has risen to include nearly half of all U.S. renters, according to recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The efficacy of the 30% rule has been called into question in recent years, but no other major metric has been created to replace it.
Under HUD's Section 8 subsidy program, a housing aid voucher generally will cover rental costs that exceed 30% of a household's income — for instance, a renter in a $1,200-a-month apartment earning $30,000 a year, or $2,500 a month, would pay $750, and the voucher would cover $450. The agency uses the "area median income" to determine which households qualify for aid.
As of May, the AMI for the area designated by the U.S. Census Bureau as the Santa Fe Metropolitan Statistical Area (the city and county) was $64,050 for one person.
Someone living in the city or county in fiscal year 2024 would have been considered "extremely low income," at 30% of the AMI, with a salary of $19,250 a year; "very low-income," at 50% of the AMI, with a salary of $32,050; and "low-income," at 80% of the AMI, with a salary of up $51,250.
Often, however, discussions on the city's affordable housing crisis are centered on a need for more workforce housing, also known as "attainable housing" — homes offered at prices considered affordable for purchase by someone on a midlevel salary, such as a teacher, police officer or nurse.
Santa Fe Homes Program data
According to the Brookings Institute, the term is typically geared toward housing that is affordable for people making about 80% to 120% of the AMI — or $51,250 to $76,850 for a Santa Fean.
Under the city's Santa Fe Homes Program — which requires builders to either include a certain number of affordably priced homes or rentals in new developments, or pay a fee that will go toward the city's affordable housing initiatives — a rental unit for someone making 50% of the AMI would have to be offered at $801 to be considered affordable, while a one-bedroom home would be affordable at $141,250.
A three-bedroom home for a family earning 50% of the AMI would be affordable at $181,500 under the city program.
Such prices are far below Santa Fe's market rates.
The median home price in the city in 2024 was $582,000, according to a research firm's recent analysis of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development data.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
5 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Moe disappointed by Trump's tariffs but says Carney should remove countermeasures
SASKATOON - Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe says Prime Minister Mark Carney should start removing counter tariffs against the United States to get a deal done with President Donald Trump. U.S Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has asked Ottawa to do away with countermeasures, and Moe says Canada should heed the advice. 'If we're serious about achieving a renewed, revamped and enhanced trade environment or some type of a new and improved (Canada-United States-Mexico trade agreement), somebody's going to have to move in this space,' Moe said Friday at a news conference. 'We would suggest that it should be Canada.' Trump followed through late Thursday on his threat to hit Canada with 35 per cent tariffs — up from 25 per cent — on goods not compliant with the trade agreement, better known as CUSMA. Tariffs of 50 per cent remain in effect on steel and some copper products, and levies on Canadian automobiles and lumber are also in place. Carney has imposed 25 per cent tariffs on $30 billion in U.S. goods. Moe said he's heard from farmers dinged by Canadian levies on steel bins, as it's importers pay those tariff charges. 'The reason we will be urging for a reduction of counter tariffs is they hurt Saskatchewan and Canadians, our families, our businesses and our places of work,' he said. '(It's) in the same way that Donald Trump's tariffs are pushing up the cost of doing business in the U.S. and really pushing them into a situation where the last two months running, their job numbers have been much more dismal than the projection.' Moe also called the jump in Trump's tariffs disappointing. He said he gives credit to Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc for ensuring exports compliant with CUSMA are tariff-free. Under the agreement, 95 per cent of Saskatchewan exports move into the United States without duties, Moe added. 'That is incredibly important,' the premier said. '(It) allows us largely to have an opportunity to create North American energy security, food security and manufacturing security.' U.S. Census Bureau data shows nearly 60 per cent of Canadian goods that entered the country in May were compliant with the agreement. Moe and other premiers have also called on Ottawa to cut regulations to spur pipeline and rail development. He said he's hopeful Carney's latest law to streamline approvals for national infrastructure projects will do just that. Meanwhile, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said the vast majority of her province's products remain tariff-free, because they also fall under the trade agreement. Smith said in a social media post it's unfortunate non-compliant goods will be hit with the higher tariffs. 'These tariffs hurt both Canadian and American businesses and workers, and they weaken one of the most important trade and security alliances in the world,' she said. 'I remain convinced that the path to a positive resolution with our U.S. partners lies in strong, consistent diplomacy and a commitment to working in good faith toward shared priorities.' Smith said Carney should continue negotiating with Trump, while working toward diversifying the country's economy. Both Moe and Smith recently reallowed U.S. liquor to be sold in their provinces, after temporarily banning such sales when the tariff war started earlier this year. Moe has said the 'elbows-up' approach in dealing with Trump is nothing more than a slogan. 'This is a time for us ... to make fact-based decisions, not to make decisions that maybe make us feel good, that we think are going to be good slogans or things of that nature,' he said Friday. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 1, 2025. — By Jeremy Simes in Regina Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
7 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Premiers Smith, Moe disappointed by Trump's tariffs but most exports remain duty-free
REGINA - The premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan say they're disappointed by higher tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump but pleased the majority of their exports won't face duties. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe says the Canada-United States-Mexico trade agreement remains in place, allowing 95 per cent of his province's exports to move into the United States tariff-free. He says the agreement staying in effect is very significant and provides Canada with an advantage over other countries facing steeper levies. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says the vast majority of her province's products also remain tariff-free, because they also fall under the agreement. Trump followed through late Thursday on his threat to hit Canada with 35 per cent tariffs — up from 25 per cent — on goods not compliant with the trade agreement. Tariffs of 50 per cent remain in effect on steel and some copper products, and levies on Canadian automobiles and lumber are also in place. U.S. Census Bureau data shows nearly 60 per cent of Canadian goods that entered the country in May were complaint with the agreement. Smith says it's unfortunate non-compliant goods will be hit with the higher tariffs. 'These tariffs hurt both Canadian and American businesses and workers, and they weaken one of the most important trade and security alliances in the world,' she said in a social media post Friday. 'I remain convinced that the path to a positive resolution with our U.S. partners lies in strong, consistent diplomacy and a commitment to working in good faith toward shared priorities.' Prime Minister Mark Carney's countermeasures of 25 per cent tariffs on $30 billion in U.S. goods remain in effect. Moe said Carney should refrain from imposing additional retaliatory measures. He also said Ottawa needs to cut regulations to spur pipeline and rail development. 'There is much more that Canada can do to control our own economic destiny, but the federal government must remove barriers to growth in order to make that happen,' Moe said in a statement. Smith said Carney should continue negotiating with Trump, while working toward diversifying the country's economy. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 1, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
The Hill
8 hours ago
- The Hill
Congress must hold cities accountable for holding back first-time home buyers
The market for first-time home buyers in America is dismal. Since 2021, the annual income needed to qualify for a mortgage has increased by 60 percent, driving the median age of a first-time home buyer to 38 years old — a record high. One reason young Americans are struggling to buy their first homes is that we aren't building enough of them. In May, new home construction rates in the U.S. fell to their lowest level since the pandemic. On an annual basis, new home construction is down nearly 5 percent. The U.S. needs to increase its housing supply to put the American dream of homeownership back in reach for average families. Congress, however, has a knack for taking complex problems and making them worse by forcing a one-size-fits-all solution on communities that we haven't set foot in. The housing problem must be solved at the local level, and this starts by removing nonsensical regulations. Today, costs associated with homebuilding regulations make up 25 percent of the sticker price for a new single-family home and 40 percent of the cost of a new apartment complex. These regulations also prolong the building process. Nowhere is this problem clearer than in Los Angeles. When wildfires ripped through Los Angeles in January, officials estimated that it would take upwards of 18 months to clean up the 2.5 million tons of debris left behind. The Trump however, worked with state and local officials to complete the clean-up in just six months — a tremendous accomplishment. During those same six months, however, Los Angeles County officials approved only 90 of the more than 1,200 building permit applications it received in the wake of the fires. In other words, it's easier to clean up 2.5 million tons of wildfire wreckage than it is to clear Los Angeles' building-permit red tape. And Los Angeles wonders why families are fleeing. Congress shouldn't force one-size-fits-all building codes on every community, but the federal government has an obligation to avoid wasting taxpayer dollars on cities that sacrifice the American Dream at the altar of overregulation. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and I introduced the Build Now Act to incentivize new home construction by tying each city's funding through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant Program to their rate of homebuilding. Here's how it will work: Cities that fail to increase their rate of homebuilding faster than the national median rate would lose 10 percent of their Community Development Block Grant funding. HUD would then reallocate those funds to cities that exceeded the national median rate of home building. Cities with the most growth will receive the biggest pieces of that pie. America's metropolitan areas will have two years to start building homes before HUD crunches the numbers to determine whether they will receive the carrot or the stick from the Community Development Block Grant Program. Cities that have homeownership costs under control, such as those where the median home price is below the national median, won't see any changes to their Community Development Block Grant funding. Nor would any city that issued an emergency disaster declaration in the last year. The rest of our major cities, however, will need to start allowing builders to build. The solution to America's housing crisis isn't going to come out of Washington. A strategy that works in Baton Rouge may not work in Boston. But too many cities are regulating away the possibility of homeownership, and Congress is done throwing good money after bad policies. The U.S. is the freest, most prosperous nation in the world. Buying your first home shouldn't feel like a pipe dream. It's time to start rewarding the cities that are working hard to make homeownership a reality for American families — and stripping funding from those that don't.
