But
at
the
same
time,
the

House
has
proposed
the
elimination
of
funding
for
the

HOME
Investment
Partnerships
Program
in
fiscal
year
2026.
HOME,
which
many
local
governments
rely
on
to
build
and
fix
up
affordable
homes,
also
helps
people
buy
their
first
homes
and
provides
rental
assistance.

Housing
and
job
generator

The
brief,
authored
by

NHC
president
and
CEO

David
Dworkin,
said
the
cut
would
undo
much
of
the
good
that’s
supposed
to
come
from
the
Big
Beautiful
Bill.
HOME
often
fills
financial
gaps
in
housing
projects
and
is
the
only
flexible
federal
program
that
lets
cities
and
states
decide
how
to
meet
their
local
housing
needs.
It
also
helps
generate
other
funding
from
private
and
public
sources.

“Since
the
program’s
inception
in
1992,
HOME
funds
have
been
used
to
build
or
preserve
more
than
1.35
million
affordable
homes,
provide
direct
rental
assistance
to
430,000
households,
and
help
countless
working
families
buy
their
first
home,”
according
to
the
brief,
citing
a

document
published
early
this
year
by
the

U.S.
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development
(HUD).

According
to
the
latest

HOME
Coalition
analysis,
the
program
has
generated
more
than
$140
billion
in
local
income
and
created
upward
of
2
million
jobs.

At
the
state
level,
HOME
has
allowed

Mississippi
to
build
or
preserve
more
than
11,000
homes,
support
some
18,500
local
jobs
and
generate
$1.2
billion
in
income.
In

Arkansas,
NHC
said
that
more
than
15,000
homes
have
been
built
or
preserved
as
a
result
of
HOME.

Some
lawmakers
in
the
House
Committee
on
Appropriations
claim
a
temporary
COVID-era
program
called

HOME-ARP
can
replace
the
funds
allocated
to
HOME.
But
Dworkin
argues
that’s
not
true
—
HOME-ARP
is
limited,
temporary
and
can’t
be
used
for
many
of
the
same
purposes.

The
brief
urges
Congress
to
restore
at
least
$1.5
billion
for
the
HOME
program
in
the
next
federal
budget.
Without
it,
NHC
warns,
many

affordable
housing
projects
will
stall,
costs
will
rise
and
the
housing
crisis
will
get
worse
—
especially
for
renters,
seniors
and

first-time
homebuyers.

In
an
interview
with

HousingWire,
Dworkin
emphasized
bipartisan
support
for
affordable
housing
and
criticized

Trump‘s
budget
for
zeroing
out
the
program,
arguing
that
the
cuts
will
exacerbate
homelessness.

“if
you
believe
that
the
government
shouldn’t
be
making
any
investment
in
housing
…
you’re
going
to
end
up
with
a
lot
less
affordable
housing
and
more
homeless
people
as
a
result,
because
the
market
is
incapable
of
doing
what
the
HOME
program
does,
and
what
the
HOME
program,
in
fact,
has
been
very
effective
at
doing,”
Dworkin
said.

Too
costly
and
political

Naysayers
argue
that
HOME
and
other
housing
programs
aren’t
as
effective
as
they
claim
to
be.

Edward
Pinto,
a
senior
fellow
and
co-director
of
the

American
Enterprise
Institute
(AEI)
Housing
Center,
argues
that
HOME
is
too
costly
and
is
a
“negative
burden”
on
the
housing
market.

“They’re
just
sources
of
money
for
lobbyists
to
organize
themselves
as
a
cartel.
If
you
look
at
the
groups
of
developers
and
nonprofits
that
are
involved
in
this
financially,
it’s
a
very
small
group
versus
the
total
group
of
developers,”
Pinto
told
HousingWire.

“There
are
thousands
and
thousands
of
builders
and
developers,
[but]
a
small
fraction
get
involved
in
these
programs.
Why?
Because
of
the
complexity
and
the
cost
and
all
the
other
things.
They
also
tend
to
be
corrupt,”
Pinto
said.

He
went
on
to
argue
that
private
developers
are
often
“crowded
out”
by
subsidized
housing
projects,
which
take
up
available
land.
AEI
research,
he
added,
“shows
that
top-down
programs,
centralized
programs,
haven’t
worked
in
the
United
States.”

Pinto
argues
that
a
top-down
approach
to
housing
issues
puts

politicians
in
the
driver’s
seat
of
deciding
which
areas
have
the
greatest
level
of
needs,
rather
than
boots-on-the-ground
business
leaders.
Lawmakers,
he
said,
tend
to
pick
areas
based
on
personal
interests.

“The
only
thing
worse
than
subsidized
housing
is
having
the
winners
and
losers
picked
by
politicians,”
he
said.

Pinto’s
solution
is
this:
“You
need
to
allow
smaller
lots
—
both
for
new
residential
subdivisions
and
in
the
reuse
of
existing
lots
that
already
have
a
structure
on
them.
Allow
that
structure
to
be
torn
down,
replaced
by
three
or
four
townhomes
or
whatever
sits
on
the
lot,
and
you
will
both
get
a
lot
more
housing.
That
housing
will
sell
for
a
lot
lower
price
than
other
new
housing
that’s
built
on
a
larger
lot.”

Dworkin
believes
it’s
not
worth
throwing
away
the
HOME
program,
but
reform
is
needed
within
the
program
itself.
Democrats
and
Republicans
need
to
be
on
the
same
page
about
housing
policy
to
accomplish
this,
he
said.

“The
committees
need
to
be
more
aligned.
…
We
have
bipartisan
support
for
these
programs
because
we’ve
seen
a
lack
of
affordable
housing
throughout
the
entire
country,

in
red
states
as
well
as
blue
ones,”
he
said.
“[HOME]
can
absolutely
be
more
effective.
There’s
no
question
that
there
is
bureaucracy
associated
with
HOME
that
needs
to
be
improved.

“There
are
needs
that
a
healthy
market
is
not
going
to
meet,
and
that’s
where
government
steps
in
to
close
that
gap.”