Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Innovative Local Solutions Can Ease America’s Housing Crisis

Opinion

Innovative Local Solutions Can Ease America’s Housing Crisis
aerial photography of rural
Photo by Breno Assis on Unsplash

Across the country, families are prevented from accessing safe, stable, affordable housing—not by accident, but by design. Decades of exclusionary zoning, racial discrimination, and disinvestment have created a housing system that works well for the wealthy but leaves others behind. Even as federal cuts to public housing programs continue nationwide, powerful, community-rooted efforts are pushing back and offering real, equity-driven solutions led by local voices.

Historically, states like New Jersey show what’s possible when legal advocacy and grassroots organizing come together. In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Mount Laurel ruling established that every municipality in the state has a constitutional obligation to provide its fair share of affordable housing. This landmark legal ruling reshaped housing policy and set a national precedent. Today, organizations like Fair Share Housing Center continue to defend and expand this right, ensuring that local governments are prohibited from using zoning laws to exclude working-class families or people of color.


Nationally, organizations like the Grounded Solutions Network are also leading the housing justice fight through community land trusts (CLTs), which help keep homes affordable by removing them from the for-profit housing market. In a CLT, a non-profit organization owns the land and the homeowner owns the building, ensuring that the home remains affordable for future generations, even as neighborhood prices increase.

Community development financial institutions (CDFIs)—like the Four Bands Community Fund —are expanding access to homeownership in reservation land and Indigenous communities that have been long excluded from conventional financial systems. CDFIs operate in urban, rural, and tribal communities nationwide. They are mission-driven lenders that provide loans, financial services, and support to individuals who are often overlooked by big banks. They invest in communities based on relationships and people, not just credit scores.

These are not one-size-fits-all solutions, but they are grounded in a shared belief: that housing is not a privilege. It is a human right, and essential for a healthy, equitable future.

We know the impact of these resources firsthand because they helped us secure the futures of our families.

Fair Share Housing Center, Grounded Solutions Network, and Four Bands Community Fund helped us secure not just physical shelter, but emotional security. They allowed us to provide a sanctuary where our children could heal, grow and feel safe, and they enabled us to achieve our dreams of homeownership.

Through these experiences of loss and recovery, we understand that stable housing is foundational to everything else. Home is the space where memories are built and family traditions are created. Housing enables individuals to maintain steady employment, access healthy food, and lay the groundwork for building generational wealth. Above all, housing is health.

The connection between housing and health is not abstract. People living in overcrowded or unstable housing are more likely to experience asthma, chronic illness, and poor mental health. Children who move frequently or live in unsafe conditions are at higher risk for developmental delays and emotional stress. Pregnant women who face housing insecurity have worse birth outcomes. When housing falls apart, so does public health.

Stories of housing security achieved through local solutions despite systemic challenges are being written all the time. Across the country, families are building stability through grassroots programs that work. But instead of supporting these models, the federal government is walking away from its responsibility to ensure that housing is accessible to all.

Federal funding for housing programs is being slashed at a time when more families than ever are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. Recent cuts to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are projected to result in the elimination of tens of thousands of rental assistance vouchers and significant reductions in homelessness prevention programs. These choices aren’t just bad policies, they are a direct attack on the people who need support the most.

Community-centered housing justice groups like Fair Share Housing Center, Grounded Solutions, and Four Bands need investment. Community-based housing initiatives are often underfunded, overlooked, or burdened by red tape, even though they deliver real, measurable results. Meanwhile, billions of dollars are funneled into programs that benefit private developers or maintain the status quo. If policymakers are truly committed to solving the housing crisis, then it is time to fully invest in what’s working and trust the communities doing the work.

Our journeys are featured in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Housing Justice docuseries, “ From Hope To Home.” Through these three short films, we share our own stories, and the stories of others like us, to lift up the real people behind the housing crisis and the grassroots solutions making a difference. These films aim to inspire viewers—not just to be moved, but to be motivated.

Access to housing should never be up for debate. It’s health care. It’s safety. It’s education. It’s the foundation for good jobs, stable families, and thriving communities. It’s time the policies reflected that truth. Let’s get to work.


Read More

US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less