Vincent Reina on Shaping Housing Policy

PENN IUR: Please tell us about your role in the current administration's housing policy. 

VINCENT REINA: I had the great privilege of serving as the Senior Advisor for Housing and Urban Policy at the White House Domestic Policy Council, which was Directed by two tremendous leaders during my time there, Ambassador Susan Rice and then Neera Tanden. The council is charged with advancing and developing various policies and advising the president and senior advisors. This is really one of the first administrations to have housing policy as a thing in and of itself so directly situated at the White House level.

The fact that President Biden and Vice President Harris had a housing agenda and, from day one, identified housing as a real key policy priority area is particularly unique. Given that context, over my time at the White House, I had the chance to work with several colleagues between the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council, like Erika Poethig, Daniel Hornung, Chad Maisel, Laurie Schoeman, and Theresa Joseph.  Together, we worked with agencies across the administration to think through the broad set of policy actions that could be developed and advanced.

Secretary Fudge and now Acting Secretary Todman at HUD [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development] are remarkable visionaries in crafting the Biden-Harris administration’s approach to housing and are effective at translating it into action. And there is inspiring leadership throughout the building at HUD.  A lot of housing policy also sits outside of HUD, and coordinating across cabinet and independent agencies on policy development and implementation is a task in itself.

For example, the largest housing production program in the country is the low-income housing tax credit program, which is at the Treasury. A lot of critical financing for both single-family and multifamily housing happens at the federal housing finance agencies and the GSEs [Government-Sponsored Enterprises]. There are important connections between housing and transit, and actions taken by DOT [Department of Transportation], have been a trademark of this administration.

By virtue of sitting at the White House, one of the biggest value-adds we had was the ability to coordinate across agencies in an “all-of-government approach” towards housing focused on specific policy topics. We had one on housing supply, which resulted in the first-ever White House Housing Supply Action Plan.

We had one on renter protections, which resulted in the first-ever White House Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights. We had various ones supporting the US Interagency Council on Homelessness plans on homelessness, and also worked hand-in-hand with them to develop a whole new initiative called All INside, a first-of-its-kind initiative to address unsheltered homelessness across the country. We also worked closely within the other components of the White House and agencies that were leading the Administration’s thinking and implementation on IRA [Inflation Reduction Act], which has a lot of important connections to housing and utility costs.

If we're going to address housing policy, we can't just do it through one policy, one program, or even one agency. We really need to be looking across agencies, across policies, across programs to ensure these things work together and complement each other to fill the gaps and represent the most broad and comprehensive view of what we can do around housing, and that is the approach we were taking.

Penn IUR: What key actions did the administration ultimately propose to address housing? 

VINCENT REINA: There were several key actions, some of which were proposals, some of which were actual policies and programs. Early on, President Biden and Vice President Harris put together broad and comprehensive budget proposals that increased housing resources. This initially happened through Build Back Better, which is before my time. Then we got to work with developing the president's housing budget with my colleagues at the White House, HUD, and other federal agencies, where you saw a concerted effort from the President and Vice President to get the resources needed to address housing needs in our country.

The budget proposed increases in funding for housing supply, including an innovation fund to incentivize jurisdictions to recue barriers to developing housing, as well as new tools to increase the production of affordable housing units. It also proposed some important policy to increase access to homeownership.  And the budget proposed the first-ever proposal for guaranteed rental assistance for extremely low-income veterans and youth aging out of foster care in the context of also looking at the expansion of the voucher program—the biggest in decades.

The administration also put forward some big and bold ideas that say, look, if we fund housing, we can actually solve housing supply and affordability—and homelessness. While Congressional action is essential for some of the biggest funding and reform ideas, we knew that with administrative authority, you can do a lot of important work. One of the trademarks of this administration has been a lot of folks who really care about policy, who enjoy rolling up their sleeves and getting in the nitty-gritty of making programs and policies work better.

A key action was the first-ever White House Housing Supply Action Plan. A whole bunch of policy work has advanced that plan, including HUD's new CDBG Pro-Housing Program—a first-of-its-kind grant program that is incentivizing localities to reduce barriers to increasing housing supply in their jurisdictions.

One opportunity was through the bipartisan infrastructure law, where we saw significant investments in infrastructure across the country. We created incentives for applicants to address challenges around housing and affordability in well over $5 billion of competitive funds because housing is infrastructure as well, right?

We did a whole initiative around commercial to residential conversions, knowing that it was not on its own going to solve our housing affordability challenges but was one of the many pieces in this broad constellation of approaches. Using some of the lending authority from DOT, we could also finance housing associated with infrastructure investments, modifying some of the authority for transit authorities to dispose of land, for low cost or free, if it's going to be advancing housing supply.

And there was so much more, including restarting the federal risk-sharing program, which has already led to the production and preservation of thousands of units. We even looked at opportunities for the disposition of land, developing a pilot repurposing some surplus USPS properties for housing, and making it easier for transit authorities to dispose of land at little or no cost if housing—and particularly affordable housing—is being produced on it.

What is important to know though, is plans like the one on housing supply are also living documents, meaning there are ongoing policy committees being led by the White House that engage leaders from across all agencies to keep identifying opportunities to address the nation’s housing needs.

Penn IUR: How has the pandemic highlighted and influenced some of these strategies? 

Our current housing affordability challenges were decades in the making. There was a big gap between housing demand and housing supply, particularly between 2010 and 2020.

The pandemic was an unprecedented economic shock. We saw real, innovative, broad housing policies meant to help stabilize households and keep people in their homes. This work was really spearheaded by colleagues before I entered the White House, although I was working on the outside with the City of Philadelphia, the State of California, the City of Los Angeles, and other places on these policies.

Housing affordability challenges only got worse during the pandemic. It also exposed longstanding inequities in our housing markets that had not been addressed. We had never seen such a large-scale and systemic federal approach to addressing evictions until this administration with the CDC eviction moratoria and emergency rental assistance programs.

One thing that is clear though, is that we need markets to be fair. We need them to be efficient. This is why we released a Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights, which included over 24 federal agency actions to advance renter protections. It set forward a broad view of what a fair rental market should look like.

Ultimately, we need Congress to pass a comprehensive bill along those lines. That's not something within the president's authority. But what we could do is advance renter protections broadly, and ensure it complemented our goals of increasing housing supply and affordability, and that's what we did. There were policies and programs that have supported tenant organizing and increased protections in a whole host of federal programs, including mandating 30-day notices to evict a household in several HUD and USDA programs.

This is an ongoing effort—and, as already mentioned, something that needs to be working in conjunction with our housing supply goals. People often pit all these things against each other: “We can't advance renter protections because it'll come at the cost of increasing housing supply.” But we actually can do both of those things thoughtfully. And having a team at the White House thinking through these connections across agencies creates a lot more opportunity to ensure policies do that.

Penn IUR: Could you speak to your experience in Philadelphia and other cities that have innovative models we could be implementing?

VINCENT REINA: I had the privilege of working with a local organization called LISC [Local Initiatives Support Corporation] to write the City of Philadelphia's first-ever ten-year housing plan that resulted in a whole host of actions across housing in a really exciting way. It also increased the local funding for housing because it was a plan for what they would do and how they would do it.

This kind of comprehensive view of housing as a thing in and of itself is a relatively new endeavor. Housing planning traditionally sat within a broader administrative exercise around planning on how to use federal community development dollars rather than kind of a broad view of the challenges at the local level, what solutions are needed, and what federal, state, and local funds can support those efforts.  While seemingly wonky, the idea of developing housing plans and ones that are actionable is new and innovative.

Since working with Philadelphia, HIP has partnered with the City of Cleveland, the Housing Our Futures Committee in Cincinnati and Hamilton County, and now the City of Baltimore to develop housing plans.

In a city like Philadelphia, housing repair and housing quality are significant challenges and if those units don't get invested in, they exit the housing stock. This ultimately further exacerbates our housing affordability challenges but also really squeezes lower-income households. Given that reality, the city is testing new programs that fill market gaps in financing for small multifamily properties to meet repair needs and lock in affordability.

The Pennsylvania state government leveraged state and local fiscal recovery funds from the federal government to develop its whole home repair program, which offers grants and loans for home repairs to homeowners and small multifamily properties.

One of the other things we've done is work with the City of Philadelphia to develop a direct-to-tenant rental assistance program called PHL Housing+. I co-designed this program with the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, which calculates a rental assistance payment the same way as a Section 8 voucher but offers the assistance directly to tenants.  Along with Professor Sarah Jaffee, we are studying the impact of this direct assistance on tenant outcomes through a randomized control trial. We're about a year and a half into that pilot. That program is meant to complement the existing voucher program, knowing that there are so many challenges that households face when using a voucher, but vouchers have been shown to improve household outcomes and are a critical part of our broader set of rental assistance tools that we need.

In 2019, when we first created PHL Housing+, there was a lot of resistance to testing a direct rental assistance model. This changed during the pandemic when jurisdictions had difficulty dispersing much-needed emergency rental assistance funds. The City of Philadelphia was one of the first to offer emergency rental assistance directly to tenants, and subsequently, many other places did the same, and Treasury issued guidance promoting the use of this option. Now, with emergency rental assistance funds being fully dispersed and a year and a half into PHL Housing+, HUD recently released guidance to public housing authorities in its moving-to-work program that gives them the flexibility to pilot direct rental assistance. To be the first local program to develop this model, which now has national traction, is a great example of innovation in Philadelphia.

Penn IUR: What are your thoughts about the proposed housing policies currently being touted during this election campaign? 

It is exciting to see housing being a top policy area of discussion, though not surprising given the national housing affordability challenges. Vice President Harris announced a pretty broad and comprehensive set of actions on housing. The plan places a clear focus on increasing housing supply by 3 million new homes, with a Housing Innovation Fund aimed at reducing barriers to development and fostering innovation in housing production, along with a host of credits to support building and builders. The focus on supply is important for addressing access to homeownership and increasing housing affordability. There are some longstanding challenges that people face when trying to access homeownership, so the plan proposes down payment assistance as well. Given their call to increase the supply of starter homes, the plan does seem to acknowledge that we need more supply for the downpayment assistance to really have its intended impact.

There is a lot more in the plan, with a reference to the existing detailed proposals put forward by the Biden-Harris admiration, including expanding rental assistance, including for veterans, disposing federal land for housing development, and cracking down on rent collusion.

A lot of these actions require Congressional action, but putting those on the table is important, and the Harris campaign is showing real awareness that there are things the president can do through administrative authority, and they are putting those on the table.

The Trump campaign has signaled a desire to promote homeownership through tax incentives and made references to increasing housing supply through land disposition as well, which are both important, but I have not seen additional details on how they would approach both goals, so it is difficult to fully opine on them.

That said, it is truly great to see housing being a topic of discussion here.