Ben Carson Shows He’s Not Actually Interested in Making Cities Affordable

A proposed new rule effectively scraps his pledge to help loosen exclusionary zoning codes.

Jeff Malet/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Last summer, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson sparked a glimmer of hope among (still-skeptical) housing advocates when he spoke in support of creating federal incentives for local governments to loosen restrictive zoning codes that make housing less affordable.

On Friday, he extinguished it.

HUD is preparing to release a new rule that would further erode fair housing protections by weakening federal requirements for local governments to desegregate housing. Those requirements came from Obama-era regulations to enforce the 1968 Fair Housing Act and prevent discrimination in housing. But the proposed rule, which was leaked to the Washington Post and could be released later Friday, goes further: It basically throws in the towel on any effort from Carson and HUD to get cities to undo their exclusionary zoning policies.

The rule will reportedly tell local governments that they “are free to choose to undertake changes to zoning or land-use policies” but that they will not face any federal sanctions if “they don’t choose to undertake zoning changes.” That flies in the face of the whole point of federal (or state) efforts to override the neighborhood-level opposition to greater housing density that can make “upzoning,” as less restrictive zoning is known, politically impossible at the local level without significant incentives or pressure.

Based on what’s been reported, HUD is signaling a massive retreat from meaningful oversight and accountability with respect to its grantees’ activities,” says Thomas Silverstein, an attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law who focuses on enforcement of fair housing laws. “They can talk about zoning all they like,” but nothing will actually change in the absence of concrete steps to hold local governments accountable.

“In the past, Carson has suggested he would use the [fair housing] rule to loosen and lessen restrictive zoning that inhibits housing production, an important goal given the deep racial disparities created by some local zoning laws,” Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, says in a statement to Mother Jones. “Instead, he chooses to let localities off the hook by explicitly stating there will be no consequences if they keep their restrictive zoning laws. Some have previously suggested that Ben Carson had a dramatic reversal from being a long-time NIMBY to becoming a YIMBY. Clearly, he did not.”

The proposed rule would also reportedly assess communities’ eligibility for federal grants to create and preserve affordable housing on the basis of their existing housing costs, with low-cost areas getting priority. HUD claims this move would make affordable housing more available. But by definition, the cities with the greatest housing affordability crises are the ones with the biggest shortage of low-cost housing. By shifting funds away from high-cost cities on the coasts—which have the most homeless residents—the rule would likely only exacerbate the affordable housing crisis in these areas. 

Silverstein notes that big, expensive cities do have a greater ability than small, poor ones to raise funds on their own for affordable housing, for instance by issuing bonds. “But that misses a couple of things,” he says. “First, the level of need is tremendous. Yes, these jurisdictions should be doing more to raise local revenue for affordable housing, but that is more effective if it’s on top of HUD funding.” And second, some critical needs, like public housing, aren’t generally funded by local bonds, but rather by the federal government.

A funding formula designed to punish high-cost coastal cities would, of course, direct funds away from places like New York and California where President Donald Trump is unpopular and toward states that supported him. It wouldn’t be the first time the Trump administration has appeared to go out of its way to target deep-blue pockets of the country. But it’s also a pretty clear sign that any hopes that Carson would find common ground with progressive housing advocates were misplaced from the start.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate