Affordable Housing vs Housing Affordability

At first glance, the terms “housing affordability” and “affordable housing” might seem interchangeable. After all, both deal with the cost of housing. However, these are distinct housing policy concepts and deserve individual inspection.

Housing Affordability

Housing affordability refers to the general ability of households to pay for housing in a given market. For example, a state or city may experience housing affordability issues when the demand for homes surpasses the pace of new construction. Zoning often plays a crucial role in housing affordability, as various regulations cap how many homes can be constructed in a given area. In such a scenario, home prices increase to a point where even middle-income families struggle to qualify for home loans or keep up with rising rents.

Housing affordability, in other words, has to do with market conditions and the ability for people to pay for housing. The classic standard is that housing should cost no more than 30% of a household’s income. When that standard becomes unattainable for most people, the area can be viewed as having a housing affordability crisis.

Affordable Housing

On the other hand, affordable housing specifically refers to housing that is made affordable, often by the government, to households at specific income levels. Such housing is often paid for by the taxpayers and typically manifests in the form of public housing, housing vouchers, and tax credits for developers who build or rehabilitate housing. In other words, affordable housing is targeted assistance designed to help individuals pay for housing. 

Why the Distinction Matters

For those of us who care about free markets and fiscal responsibility and who want to find effective solutions to the housing crisis, the distinction between housing affordability and affordable housing is crucial. If our response to high housing prices is affordable housing where we give taxpayer dollars to everyone who can’t afford a home, we risk unsustainable tax burdens and market distortions. However, by addressing housing affordability—particularly by examining how zoning mandates may be suppressing home construction—we can explore free-market solutions that ease the housing crisis without resorting to heavy-handed government intervention.

 

About the author

Lee Sands

Lee is the Local Government Policy Analyst at Libertas Institute. He has had a lifelong passion for research, writing, entrepreneurship, local government, and building relationships with people from all walks of life. Before joining Libertas, Lee worked as a technical writer, covered tech and local events as a journalist, developed websites, launched a Kickstarter campaign, and helped businesses create budgets and integrate accounting and other systems. A native of rural northeast Florida, Lee moved to Provo, Utah in 2004. Since graduating from BYU and attending the Vermont College of Fine Arts, Lee has started a family, become increasingly active in local politics as a volunteer, and now joins Libertas to be a resource for elected officials and the general public. Lee enjoys camping, fishing, Jeeping, history, and all things creative and analytical.

Share Post:

Fighting for a Future Where Individuals Are Fully Liberated to Pursue Their Dreams, Free from Coercion and Control.

You Might Also Like

Utah families aren’t just having fewer kids — they’re actively choosing different ways to educate them.
SB 165 is a significant step toward ensuring that municipal broadband projects are financially sound and transparent.
A recent court decision has shaken things up in Utah’s education landscape: a judge ruled that the Utah Fits All Scholarship program is unconstitutional.

Help us Nail and Scale Policies to Reduce Government Control

Your tax-deductible contributions to Libertas Institute increase freedom across the country.