Homelessness and Housing

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration of the 47th president, Julio López Varona saw fear and uncertainty ripple through the immigrant communities he works with. It was similar to eight years ago—though this time mixed with a sense of weariness. As the 2025 inauguration approached, López Varona, co-chair of campaigns at the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), a national network of progressive civil rights organizations, says the “chilling effect” of the returning president’s oft-repeated mass deportation threats was palpable among his friends and constituents.
“People don’t want to talk to each other—people want to, to a certain extent, hide,” he says. “People feel cornered, because in many cases, the people that are living in the U.S. are trying to find a way to become citizens or residents and haven’t been able to do that for a long time, are in this weird limbo.”
In fact, much of the nation was in a “weird limbo” as President Donald Trump’s second term approached. He repeatedly promised (threatened?) day-one policy changes so dramatic “your head will spin,” including astronomical tariffs on imported goods and mass deportations. And he didn’t appear to be bluffing: On his inauguration day, Trump signed dozens of executive orders, among other things mounting what’s been called a shock-and-awe campaign on border security and immigration. While he did not announce any tariffs immediately, he did sign an executive order creating an “External Revenue Service” and said that he was still looking at imposing a 25 percent tariff on Canada and Mexico by Feb. 1. He had earlier denied reports that he’d accept a “pared back” tariff schedule.
While Trump’s threats and initial actions have created uncertainty within several U.S. industries, the construction industry—which relies heavily on both immigrant labor and imported materials—could be doubly hard-hit. Several industry outlets…

What does it mean to say housing is “affordable”? Let’s begin at the beginning.
PHILOSOPHICALLY
At the most basic level, housing is “affordable” if, after you pay for it, you still have enough left over to cover the rest of your basic expenses. Of course this is finicky to measure, because what constitutes “enough for basic expenses” can be a matter of opinion. Also, different households have different kinds of expenses (for example, medical expenses, larger families, or transportation costs based on location).
THE 30 PERCENT RULE
Because the meaning of “enough” varies so much, we have established a proxy—we consider housing to be affordable to the people living there if that household spends no more than 30 percent of its income on it. This rule is not relevant at income extremes—the very rich could obviously spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing and still have plenty left over, while below a certain income threshold no housing expense will leave enough to meet basic necessities. However, though it is arbitrary and doesn’t always tell the whole story, for a fairly wide income band the 30 percent rule lines up decently well.
The rule explains whether a given home is affordable to a given household. But it still doesn’t tell us what is meant when someone says they are “building affordable housing” somewhere (or preserving it, or creating it in existing buildings). In that case, the first question to ask is “affordable to whom?” The next questions are “available to whom?”, “made affordable how?” and “affordable for how long?”
AFFORDABLE TO WHOM?
With no other qualifications, “affordable housing” in the United States typically refers to housing whose cost is affordable to households that make somewhere between 40 and 80 percent of the area median income.
Below 80 percent…

Criminalization and Its Devastating Impact
The data also highlights the devastating impact that criminalizing homelessness has had on the population.
Since the Supreme Court decided the Johnson v. Grants Pass case over the summer, more than 100 cities have passed new laws criminalizing homelessness. These laws include prohibitions on public camping and crackdowns on activities associated with homelessness, such as sitting, eating, or lying down in public.
Nearly every city in the country has similar laws on their books, according to the National Homelessness Law Center. These laws have been passed with increasing frequency since 2006.
Meanwhile, investments in affordable housing have lagged, contributing to the growth of homelessness. According to the latest data, the number of shelter beds increased by 13% year-over-year, driven by investments in emergency shelters. These beds offer temporary respite for homeless folks but do little to help individuals find permanent, stable housing.
Cities also invested in other temporary solutions, such as rapid rehousing and community-based housing solutions. According to HUD data, these temporary solutions account for 57% of the total housing inventory.
“What’s most devastating about this latest data is that we know how to end homelessness: quick connections to permanent housing and the range of supportive services people need and want to prevent homelessness in the first place,” Enterprise Community Partners CEO Shaun Donovan said in a statement.
Accountability Among Elected Officials
Other experts, like Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, say that elected officials are to blame for this issue. Evictions are on the rise, and the number of affordable housing units is scarce. These are issues that elected officials can address through thoughtful policies and regulations, but many don’t seem willing to try.
“Our elected officials also deserve blame,” Whitehead said. “They have failed to increase housing…