Latest news with #DepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Homeless services are at risk during Pierce County's legal battle with Trump
Pierce County was recently notified it would receive nearly $5 million of the federal grant funding it was promised by the previous administration. Much of the federal funding it was expecting to help address the region's homelessness crisis is tied up in a legal battle, making the future of services and programs unclear. On May 2, Pierce County joined a coalition of eight local governments, including King County, New York and San Francisco, in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other agencies. The suit alleged requirements tied to grant funding by Trump's executive orders regarding gender ideology, undocumented immigrants and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices were vague and directly contradicted federal and state laws. Days later, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction on the administration's grant-funding requirements. 'Defendants have put Plaintiffs in the position of having to choose between accepting conditions that they believe are unconstitutional, and risking the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grant funding, including funding that they have already budgeted and are committed to spending,' U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein wrote in her injunction decision. On July 3, Pierce County received a grant-agreement letter from HUD confirming it would receive the more than $4.9 million in housing and homeless funding it was awarded during the previous administration. The services and programs to be funded by the grants include rental assistance, supportive housing, rapid-rehousing and homeless data management support. The letter, signed by HUD official Margaret Keller, said the funding would be provided free from the requirements made by the Trump administration as a condition of the injunction. 'Please be advised that should the Preliminary Injunction Order in this matter be stayed, dissolved, or reversed, there will be no grant agreement in effect and HUD will reissue a new grant agreement,' the letter stated. Pierce County Human Service spokesperson Kari Moore told The News Tribune the county's legal team is 'hopeful' the county will be able to provide money to service providers soon. When asked if the legal challenge had caused a delay to the funding or services, Moore told The News Tribune the yearly funding package from HUD had been signed near the end of June the previous two years. This year, the grant agreement was received near July 7. Pierce County did not answer questions about specific HUD-funded contracts that were either being delayed or at-risk due to the legal challenge. 'Due to the volume of contracts we process and attorney-client privilege, we are limited in how much detail we can provide about numbers and rationale related to our decisions on federal contracts,' Moore told The News Tribune on July 9. Moore said the county was reviewing contracts that could be impacted by the Trump administration's requirements. 'We are examining all federal contracts as they come in and making determinations if we can sign them on a case-by-case basis,' she told The News Tribune on July 8. 'If we feel we cannot sign, we may need to seek protection from the courts.' Moore said some of the requirements were 'overly broad' and 'vaguely defined' putting the county at 'significant legal risk.' 'The vague new terms and conditions have unclear definitions for terms like 'DEI' or 'gender ideology,'' she said. 'One example required us to certify that Pierce County and award recipients do not promote DEI in a way that violates any federal anti-discrimination laws, but there is no detailed guidance from the federal government on what they consider a violation. Because of this, we cannot say with full certainty that we meet this condition even though we believe our programs comply fully with the law.' During a Tacoma Pierce County Coalition to End Homelessness meeting on June 27, Pierce County Human Services director Gary Gant said the county was conducting a risk-assessment analysis to understand how loss of federal funding could impact operations across all its agencies. Gant said the county receives about $100 million in federal funding annually, about 6% of its entire budget. 'Cancellation of the federal grants and programs combined with changing terms and conditions for federal contracts means that Pierce County is likely to lose most, if not all, of its federal funding,' he told the coalition. While Gant said the county is doing everything to review the terms of the contracts, he urged service-providing organizations that rely on federal grants to have contingency plans to continue providing services without such funding. He said the more than $4.9 million recently agreed to by HUD was for the highest-priority homeless and housing projects identified by the county for this fiscal year. Gant confirmed services and programs could lose funding at random based on their individuals contracts. 'This uncertainty is stressful and cruel, but we also know we will communicate as much information as we can and remain focused on serving those who will be most harmed by these federal actions,' he said.
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Thousands of once-homeless Miamians could lose their housing. Here are 5 takeaways
The Trump administration's 2026 budget proposal threatens to drastically cut funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, endangering the stability of thousands of formerly homeless individuals with disabilities. The plan marks a significant shift in federal homelessness policy, moving away from the successful Housing First model to a more treatment-based approach that advocates fear could drive up already record-high homelessness numbers. FULL STORY: 'I would be homeless': 4,100+ disabled Miamians could lose housing under Trump budget Here are the highlights: The proposed budget cuts nearly $33 billion from HUD, eliminating the $3.7 billion Continuum of Care initiative, which funds local homelessness services. This shift could dismantle the Housing First model, which provides stable housing and support services without requiring individuals to resolve underlying issues First has been praised for its effectiveness in reducing homelessness. Critics argue that the new approach, requiring individuals to address personal issues before receiving long-term housing, could keep people on the streets for budget proposal transfers permanent supportive housing money to a short-term housing initiative, which does not subsidize indefinite lodging for formerly homeless people with disabilities. That change may leave many disabled individuals without the necessary time to achieve advocates warn that the financial burden of increased street homelessness will fall on local communities, with higher costs for emergency interventions. Miami-Dade County says it's currently unable to accommodate the population that would be displaced by the federal cuts. The potential loss of housing subsidies for more than 4,000 Miamians raises concerns about a surge in street homelessness. Local leaders express deep concern about the community's future if the proposed budget is enacted, leaving many vulnerable individuals at risk of returning to homelessness. The summary points above were compiled with the help of AI tools and edited by journalists in the Miami Herald newsroom. The full story in the link at top was reported, written and edited entirely by Miami Herald journalists.
Yahoo
04-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The 30% rule is now unrealistic. Here are 3 places you won't have to overextend your budget to afford a home right now.
The average American needs to spend 44.6% of their income to afford a median-priced home. Only three major metro areas are affordable for median earners without topping 30% of their income. As homebuying costs outpace salaries, Americans will have to stretch their pockets to buy a home. Buying a home this year? You'll be spending an even bigger chunk of your paycheck. Data from shows that the median-priced home in May was $440,000. To afford a home at that price, the company found the typical American household would need to spend 44.6% of its income, far above the 30% that experts generally recommend for housing costs. ( based its income calculation on a scenario in which a buyer purchases a median-priced home ($440,000 as of May) in the US with a 20% down payment, has a 6.82% mortgage rate, based on Freddie Mac's May 2025 average, and has an annual tax and insurance rate of 1.72%.) That 30% rule, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development suggested starting back in the 1980s, exists for a reason: It ensures households have enough room in their budgets for essential living expenses like groceries, utilities, childcare, and life's inevitable surprises, such as medical bills or car repairs. But with today's high housing costs and sluggish income growth, that benchmark is no longer a realistic expectation for many households. "Home prices have leveled off, but remain near historic peaks in much of the country," Hannah Jones, a senior economic research analyst with told Business Insider. "Mortgage rates have hovered between 6.5% and 7% since last fall. Altogether, this means that for many households, buying a home today would be a stretch financially." Especially since "home prices have accelerated faster than wages over the last 5-plus years," Jones added. In 2023, the most recent year with available US Census data, median household income rose to $80,610 — the first annual increase since 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Census data, the national median home price surged by 33% since the first quarter of 2019. While home prices have begun to fall in some US cities, many Americans still aren't convinced that buying a home is a smart decision. In June, Fannie Mae — which backs the majority of mortgages originated in the US — released its monthly housing survey, which polls 1,000 Americans, older than 18, each month on their views about renting, home buying, household finances, and the broader economy. May results showed that 74% said it was a bad time to buy. You may especially feel that way if you live in coastal cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Boston. These cities already have the reputation of being expensive, but if you're making the median salary or lower, buying a home there will deeply cut into your take-home pay, according to Data from the company shows that metro areas for those cities require a 104.5%, 66.9%, and 64.3% share of your income, respectively. As for cities where you can budget more effectively, they're all closer to the middle of the map. "The Midwest is the most affordable region in the country, and is the only region with large metros where the typical household can afford to buy the typical home," Jones said. Only three of the top 50 metros made the cut: In May, the St. Louis metropolitan area's median list price was $299,900, which required only a 30% share of income to afford; Detroit's metro required a share of 29.8%; Pittsburgh was the most affordable. It only required a 27.4% share of income. Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Insider
04-07-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
The 30% rule is now unrealistic. Here are 3 places you won't have to overextend your budget to afford a home right now.
Buying a home this year? You'll be spending an even bigger chunk of your paycheck. Data from shows that the median-priced home in May was $440,000. To afford a home at that price, the company found the typical American household would need to spend 44.6% of its income, far above the 30% that experts generally recommend for housing costs. ( based its income calculation on a scenario in which a buyer purchases a median-priced home ($440,000 as of May) in the US with a 20% down payment, has a 6.82% mortgage rate, based on Freddie Mac's May 2025 average, and has an annual tax and insurance rate of 1.72%.) That 30% rule, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development suggested starting back in the 1980s, exists for a reason: It ensures households have enough room in their budgets for essential living expenses like groceries, utilities, childcare, and life's inevitable surprises, such as medical bills or car repairs. But with today's high housing costs and sluggish income growth, that benchmark is no longer a realistic expectation for many households. "Home prices have leveled off, but remain near historic peaks in much of the country," Hannah Jones, a senior economic research analyst with told Business Insider. "Mortgage rates have hovered between 6.5% and 7% since last fall. Altogether, this means that for many households, buying a home today would be a stretch financially." Especially since "home prices have accelerated faster than wages over the last 5-plus years," Jones added. Many Americans aren't convinced that buying a home is smart In 2023, the most recent year with available US Census data, median household income rose to $80,610 — the first annual increase since 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Census data, the national median home price surged by 33% since the first quarter of 2019. While home prices have begun to fall in some US cities, many Americans still aren't convinced that buying a home is a smart decision. In June, Fannie Mae — which backs the majority of mortgages originated in the US — released its monthly housing survey, which polls 1,000 Americans, older than 18, each month on their views about renting, home buying, household finances, and the broader economy. May results showed that 74% said it was a bad time to buy. You may especially feel that way if you live in coastal cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Boston. These cities already have the reputation of being expensive, but if you're making the median salary or lower, buying a home there will deeply cut into your take-home pay, according to Data from the company shows that metro areas for those cities require a 104.5%, 66.9%, and 64.3% share of your income, respectively. As for cities where you can budget more effectively, they're all closer to the middle of the map. "The Midwest is the most affordable region in the country, and is the only region with large metros where the typical household can afford to buy the typical home," Jones said. Only three of the top 50 metros made the cut: In May, the St. Louis metropolitan area's median list price was $299,900, which required only a 30% share of income to afford; Detroit's metro required a share of 29.8%;
Miami Herald
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
‘I would be homeless': 4,100+ disabled Miamians could lose housing under Trump budget
Blessed. That's how David Murray described himself as he hobbled around his crowded living room, jabbing his cane at the healthy collections of stuffed animals and constructed Lego figurines he keeps around for his dozen-plus grandkids. Their pictures — some framed, others taped bare — adorn the walls of his rent-subsidized apartment in Miami. It's one of Miami-Dade County's more than 4,100 units of permanent supportive housing — mostly federally funded dwellings that provide rental assistance and support services to once-homeless people with disabilities. Thousands of Miamians live in such housing. Without it, many of them would be homeless again. And they might soon be without it. Per the Trump administration's 2026 budget blueprint, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which funds many of the country's homelessness service providers, could see its budget nearly halved at a time when homelessness in America is at a record high. The proposal represents a stark departure from decades of federal housing and homelessness policy, advocates say. It plans to defund permanent supportive housing, the keystone of a widely held and data-supported theory that argues the best way to keep people out of homelessness is to quickly place them in stable housing and give them access to support services. More than 300,000 people live in permanent supportive housing across the U.S. All of them are disabled and had been chronically homeless. That theory, called Housing First, offers services to people with substance abuse or mental health issues but doesn't require them to resolve those problems before receiving permanent housing. The White House considers that model enabling. Instead, the Trump administration wants to fund short-term, time-bound housing solutions, like shelters, where people experiencing homelessness must first deal with whatever underlying issues they face before being eligible for long-term housing support. While the White House purports that its plan is best poised to 'eliminate street homelessness,' advocates are sounding the alarm. Just under 900 people sleep on Miami-Dade's streets, according to the county government. But if the federal budget is implemented on Oct. 1 as it's currently written, the thousands of people with disabilities living in permanent supportive housing — many of whom are seniors or veterans or, like Murray, both — could lose their homes and fall back into homelessness, threatening an explosion in the number of people sleeping on the county's streets. If he loses his apartment, Murray, 67, fears he could be one of them. At one point, he was. It was the late 1990s, and Murray, a welder, tore his meniscus. He blamed the injury on lingering knee damage sustained during Air Force basic training that never quite healed and on his physically taxing job. Unable to walk properly, Murray was fired. 'I lost my career,' he recalled. In its definition of 'homeless,' Congress includes those who sleep in places 'not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.' That includes places like the unventilated garage that Murray moved into with his oldest son. They shared it, through sweltering heat waves and punishing hurricanes, for more than a decade as Murray, unable to work, grappled with chronic pain and depression. 'I got so frustrated. I couldn't pay for anything,' he said, squeezing his cane. 'I couldn't take my kids out on the weekend. We couldn't do anything.' It was only 12 years ago that Murray again had his own place — a two-bedroom apartment in Little Haiti that he shares with his wife and one of his sons and for which he pays $618 a month. Murray's apartment is subsidized by permanent supportive housing dollars. 'I'm so grateful, so thankful to be in this building,' he said, admiring through the living room window the treetops that shade Little Haiti. 'I love it here, my family loves it here.' The barebones budget In his 2026 federal budget request, Trump proposed nearly $33 billion in cuts to the Department of Housing and Urban Development — roughly 45% of the agency's resources. As part of that reduction, it seeks to eliminate the $3.7 billion 'Continuum of Care' initiative that funds local service provider networks — in Miami-Dade's case, the Homeless Trust. Those continuums often include some combination of local government, businesses, nonprofit service providers like shelters, and even religious organizations. The idea was that diverse groups of stakeholders could better account for a community's homelessness needs than, say, state or local governments alone. Per the budget proposal, the Continuum program's funding will merge with that of a program providing housing for people with AIDS and be rolled under the umbrella of a short- to medium-term housing initiative known as the Emergency Solutions Grant. That pays for crisis interventions — taking people off the streets and putting them in shelters, funding those shelters and placing homeless people in temporary housing that's capped at two years. What the Emergency Solutions Grant explicitly does not fund: permanent supportive housing. Those changes might seem largely administrative, but they're representative of a major shift in homelessness policy, said Ned Murray (no relation to David Murray), who focuses on affordable housing in South Florida as associate director of Florida International University's Metropolitan Institute. Housing First vs. treatment first Homeless services providers have long held to Housing First as the most effective method for keeping people off the streets. 'The evidence is overwhelming' that the model is successful, said Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. Such housing programs, Oliva said, have never received sufficient funding to end homelessness in America, which is at an all-time high. So scrapping Housing First on the argument that it's ineffective 'is very much like saying people keep getting sick, so the emergency room doesn't work,' she quipped. The Trump administration has instead adopted an approach that requires homeless people to deal with whatever substance or mental health issues they may be facing before entering stable, long-term housing. Vicki Mallette, executive director of Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust, is skeptical of such a policy's efficacy. 'If we wait for people [sleeping] on bus stops and street corners to solve problems that may have lasted decades, we're not going to reduce' homelessness, she said at a recent Trust board meeting. 'We're going to be trying to make perfect people,' she added, and working against 'what it is we really want: fewer people experiencing homelessness.' Homeless Trust Chairman Ron Book put it more bluntly: 'Doing away with Housing First is ridiculous. It's a terrible idea.' The Homeless Trust reports that between 97% and 99% of people it places in permanent supportive housing remain there stably for at least two years. Under the proposed budget, those who do enter medium-term housing will have no more than two years to figure out a more permanent living situation for themselves. But for someone coming out of chronic homelessness, especially someone who's disabled, that's often not enough time to become self-sufficient, said Stephanie Berman-Eisenberg, president of Carrfour Supportive Housing, which develops and manages permanent supportive housing projects in Miami-Dade, including the one Kim Miller lives in. Miller, 68, left her 30-year career as a pharmacy tech to care for her mother, who was succumbing to dementia. That was 13 years ago. Since then, Miller emptied her retirement savings to cover her late mother's medical costs and moved out of her house into a shared apartment — which she and her roommate had to leave after they couldn't keep up with rising rent. But Miller got lucky. Before ending up on the streets, she was placed in a Carrfour-operated building for permanent supportive housing, where she pays $500 a month in rent. 'I think it's the best thing in the world that happened to me,' she reflected. The building's coordinator, Kenneshia Sparks, thinks many of her residents would 'absolutely' fall back into homelessness if their stays were limited to two years. 'We can't put a timing on mental health,' she said, noting that some people require years of assistance to reach stability. But under the Trump administration's budget proposal, those who can't hold down a steady job and live without support services after that two-year cap could be on their own — potentially back out on the streets, said Berman-Eisenberg. And that's expensive. Financing the repeated, short-term interventions that accompany higher levels of street homelessness is far more costly than simply getting people into stable housing and caring for them there, said Leeanne Sacino, executive director of the Florida Coalition to End Homelessness. And while Housing First programs benefit from the federal government's purchasing power, the relatively high cost of short-term interventions falls squarely on local communities, whose hospital and criminal justice systems will shoulder much of the burden at local taxpayers' expense. To keep someone jailed in Miami-Dade runs the county about $300 per inmate per day — nearly $105,000 per year. For them to stay overnight in the hospital costs even more — at least $2,200 per day, the Homeless Trust estimates. And, upon leaving either, 'they're still homeless,' Sacino pointed out, 'so I really don't get it.' By contrast, the Homeless Trust reports that it spends roughly $80 a day per permanent supportive housing unit, many of which house multiple people, including the 14% of units that lodge families with children. But it's a hard financial — and political — lift for the local government to fill the $50 million federal funding gap for permanent supportive housing. 'For so long, the federal government has been the main source of support,' said U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson, a Democrat who represents the northern parts of Miami-Dade County. 'With that funding disappearing and no one stepping in to fill the gap, I fear we're headed for a real crisis.' None of the county's Republican representatives in the U.S. House responded to the Herald's multiple requests for comment. Should the Miamians in the 4,000-plus federally funded homes lose their housing subsidies, it's unclear where they'll go. 'I'm on overload,' said Book. 'My shelters are full.' Though the Homeless Trust is working to stand up additional emergency beds and housing units, they won't be enough to accommodate all those in permanent supportive housing. Asked if he thought the number of people sleeping on Miami-Dade's streets would increase if this version of the budget is implemented, Book answered: 'I would be extremely concerned about what our community will look like should things get adopted as proposed.' That concern is all too real for Murray, Miller and the thousands of other disabled Miamians who might be returned to homelessness. 'What would I do if [housing provider Carrfour] didn't help me? Where would I go?' Murray wondered aloud. 'I would be homeless again,' he figured, his eyes settling on something in the middle distance. 'I would be homeless again.' This story was produced with financial support from supporters including The Green Family Foundation Trust and Ken O'Keefe, in partnership with Journalism Funding Partners. The Miami Herald maintains full editorial control of this work.
