NYC’s perverse housing ‘help’ makes the city’s poor worse off

 New York City’s new budget includes thousands of new rental-housing vouchers, billed as a means of helping low-income citizens remain in an increasingly unaffordable city.  

But this misguided compassion actually encourages poverty — by incentivizing low-income households to form in the first place, and to remain low-income for years on end.

That’s largely because, unlike cash welfare, Gotham’s housing handouts come with neither a work requirement nor a time limit.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani acceded to Council Speaker Julie Menin’s push to expand a city-funded housing voucher that pays 70% of rent for those eligible. 

The new $175 million program will subsidize some 8,000 households, per the mayor’s office.

Yet debate over the program’s cost ignores an inconvenient fact: The city already provides more housing vouchers than anywhere else in the US.

The expanded voucher program was breathlessly deemed urgent by the supposedly moderate Menin. 

“Every New Yorker deserves a safe, affordable home,” she declared, “and this agreement will help more families avoid eviction and homelessness.”

But her enthusiasm overlooks the fact that the housing crisis she seeks to address has not been eased by the 119,000 federal housing vouchers the city’s Housing Authority already distributes. 

Nor have the 39,000 vouchers given out by the city’s Housing Preservation and Development agency, which will administer the added program, made a dent. 

Add in the city’s 177,000 public housing units, and some 335,000 NYC households get housing help to pay just 30% of their income in rent.

That’s a substantial 14.5% of all rental housing of any kind in the city.

And under the perverse incentives of voucher housing, the city’s rules are actually worsening poverty — by encouraging the formation of more poor single-parent households.

The Housing Authority operates a complex ranking system to qualify New Yorkers for either public housing or a voucher — a system it calls priority tiers.

The disabled and the elderly poor can go to the head of the line, as can households with extremely low incomes, from no income at all to 30% of the area’s median.

Those households are almost invariably headed by single parents, according to groups like the Robin Hood Foundation.

The city’s voucher programs send a message: Single parents will get support.

And because households headed by those as young as 18 can qualify for a voucher, those making life choices at a young age are getting that message loud and clear.

These endlessly generous vouchers are pulling the plug on what’s widely known as the success sequence: finishing school, getting a job and then postponing childbearing until after marriage.

Other than the elderly, single adults with children are the largest group of voucher households — both in New York City and nationwide.

Virtually all report “extremely low income” and have every incentive to continue in that category.

The more they earn the more they pay in rent, because their rent is set at 30% of any income they make.  

And once in the system, they stay: The average voucher household has been subsidized for 14 years.

These are the same types of households living in the city’s sprawling family-shelter system — who will get priority under the new council-backed voucher program.

They are “homeless” not because they live on the street — street homeless tend to be single men — but because they’d otherwise be doubling up with their families.

The city, in other words, encourages the formation of independent but very low-income households: One can have a child at 16, move into a “youth crisis” shelter and go to the head of the line for a permanent voucher at age 18.

That puts a hard stop to upward economic mobility.

Yet nationwide the Department of Housing and Urban Development is taking the opposite tack, encouraging cities to adopt work requirements and time limits for voucher households.

That’s because the idea is already proven to work.

In affordability-challenged California, for example, the San Bernardino Housing Authority adopted a five-year time limit on housing assistance in 2012.

The results have been striking: Income “at exit” has gone up 126%, those on public assistance declined from 343 to just six, and 18 former voucher families became homeowners.

New York’s many housing subsidy programs — including this latest one — instead help the poor stay stuck in poverty.

What’s more, additional vouchers in a city with limited amounts of new housing will mean more demand chasing an ever-tighter supply. 

That’s a recipe for a worsening affordability crunch, not a solution to it.

Sorry, Speaker Menin: Your voucher program may seem compassionate, but it’s actually blighting the life chances of those it seeks to help.

Howard Husock is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “The Projects: A New History of Public Housing.”

https://nypost.com/2026/07/07/opinion/nycs-perverse-housing-help-makes-the-citys-poor-worse-off/