Issues Edition

       

     Let’s start with broadband. Today’s Politico story, Why billions in broadband money may go to the wrong places, by John Hendel, explores the challenges in identifying areas of need where Americans lack fast internet services. States and cities are already allocating more than $10 billion in federal pandemic relief to get broadband into underserved communities—the largest government investment toward increasing internet connectivity. Another $42 billion in broadband expansion funds will come from the bipartisan infrastructure bill signed by the President this month, but those funds will go out in the next year. Many states do not know where to put the first round of cash. They have only a murky picture of where their internet dead spots are, thanks to federal government reliance on broadband mapping methods that dramatically overstate existing coverage. The Federal Communications Commission’s maps, based on data from telecom providers, have fueled years of complaints from local government leaders and members of Congress.

     For Virginia, the FCC estimates that 8.3% of the population is without broadband internet; Broadband Now which provides independent research and data on high-speed internet estimates that 16.6% of the population is without broadband internet. That is a difference of 710,000 people in Virginia.

     Virginia has already created a $700 million broadband plan. The FCC finally got funding in December 2020 to collect more accurate data but the slow procurement process probably means that there will not be authoritative maps until well into 2022. We can hope that the federal government will tackle one of the biggest obstacles to closing the digital divide—identifying the broadband dead zones where there is no fast internet service.

      Mr. Heller says that the federal government made more than $75 billion to assist at-risk renters and homeowners and additional flexible relief funds that were used for housing assistance. In addition to the size of these federal funds, they were different from typical housing aid in an important way that deserves attention: They were framed as disaster relief and deployed rapidly as a disaster response.

     This is a stark divergence from traditional, decades-old housing approaches, and brought together housing and disaster recovery experts to build and sustain them. Mr. Heller says, “We cannot go back to the way we funded housing before; otherwise, we’ll simply return to the pre-pandemic status quo. Before COVID, America already had a shortage of nearly seven million affordable homes.” There was not a single state or county where someone working full-time at a minimum-wage job could afford a two-bedroom apartment. Only one in four households eligible for housing vouchers were able to get them, due to insufficient federal funding. That left an estimated nine and a half million families on years-long voucher waitlists.

     Last year’s CARES Act and Appropriations Act and this year’s American Rescue Plan made unprecedented amounts of funding available to help at-risk renters and homeowners. Policies were relaxed and new rules allowed for more flexible approaches, such as alternative ways of qualifying recipients through self-attestation instead of requiring complex paperwork. These housing funds required massive program infrastructure to be built—new data systems, trained staff and new processes. That means that there is a powerful new network of housing-aid delivery systems that has been standard practice for disaster recovery, but was adapted to the unique challenging of distributing housing assistance. Mr. Heller concludes: 

        Another story in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on November 26 gives the local angle on the issue of tenants and eviction. New RVA Eviction Lab report shows how presence of legal counsel affects outcomes for tenants facing eviction by Mark Robinson lays out the conclusions from a new report by the RVA Eviction Lab at the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University. This report observed that about one in ten renters facing eviction in the Richmond region had legal representation at court last year. The average eviction hearing lasted less than three minutes. Two out of five cases took fewer than 60 seconds for a judge to decide. The report’s conclusion was that tenants were at a disadvantage when they don’t have someone in their corner familiar with their rights under the law, and that all but guarantees a favorable outcome for a landlord.

     In 2018, an Eviction Lab at Princeton University found Richmond had the second-highest eviction rate of any large city in the country, and five of the ten cities with the highest eviction rates in the country were in Virginia. Philanthropic and governmental funds for tenant legal representation in the past year has moved the needle somewhat—between 2015 and 2019, fewer than 1% of tenants who appeared in court had a lawyer, and the figure climbed to 11% in 2020. At the same time, virtually all landlords who brought cases had legal counsel. In 2020, 30% fewer cases resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff landlord when renters appeared in court with a lawyer. In addition, hearings with a lawyer present ran twice as long on average. The report observed, “the time that tenants have to find additional financial resources, search for new housing or negotiate payment plans can mean the difference between moving in crisis and remaining in stable housing.” The RVA Eviction Lab recommend community-based tenant counseling and that expansion of rental assistance for households earning 50% or less of the region’s median income could reduce the likelihood of housing instability. At this time, Virginia is not considering a right to civil counsel—Newark, New Jersey; Philadelphia, San Francisco, and New York have the right to civic counsel and have seen shifts in outcomes for eviction cases. Marty Wegbreit, director of litigation for Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, said, “A report like this demonstrates very clearly the need to balance the scales of justice, because right now, they’re tilted very much in favor of one party, the landlord, and against the other party, the tenant. I could see policymakers looking at this and saying ‘This is not what America is all about. This is not equal justice.’”

     Finally, an opinion column by Paul Waldman on November 24 in The Washington Post said, The job market is humming. But Biden faces a larger economic task. Waldman observes that the economy is recovering from the pandemic-induced recession at a “furious pace”. But when this presidency is over, the more important measure of success will be whether Joe Biden succeeded in one of his central goals: To transform the lives of American workers. Congress sent gigantic waves of financial assistance to help Americans through this crisis, more than any other country did. We didn’t expect that this would set off a Great Resignation as people felt empowered to quit their jobs and look for something where they could be paid more and treated better. We don’t yet know whether people’s expectations were permanently recalibrated so that even when unemployment is higher, they still won’t be willing to put up with low wages, cruel bosses and surly customers.

     This is where the other legislation on the Democratic agenda comes in. Waldman says, “If Biden could put into law every element of the economic agenda he ran on, things would be profoundly different. The minimum wage would be $15 an hour, not $7.25 an hour as it is now. We’d have universal and affordable pre-K and child care, so people would go to work knowing that kids are cared for. Everyone would have guaranteed health coverage, so no one would fear leaving their job because they couldn’t give up their insurance—or struggle to afford the insurance they have. There would be paid leave, so people could take time off to have children, care for a sick parent, or get through their own illness and not be bankrupted in the process. Housing would be more affordable. People could go to community college free of charge. Workers would be able to easily organize into unions, and get better wages and a measure of security. All that would not be a “safety net” but a foundation that allows you to be not only productive but—and I almost hesitate to use this word—happy. In a just society, there’s no reason why everyone—even a fast-food worker or a home health aide or a janitor—shouldn’t be able to live a satisfying life free of the grip of constant anxiety.”

     Waldman concludes, “One presidency may not be able to completely transform that situation. But the infrastructure and Build Back Better bills are a start (as Ron Brownstein notes, both bills are geared in large part toward creating jobs and improving conditions for people who don’t have college degrees. And if Democrats can keep their focus wide enough to encompass not only job creation, but also the conditions of people’s lives, this presidency could be a lasting success.”

     Some things to think about, as we move from our time of Thanksgiving to the Christmas season… I hope you found something of interest in the Reader.

Jim Schuyler VACAP