← We The People Platform Download .docx

Pillar Ten: Architecture, Funding, Distribution, and Transition

v1.0 · Created May 7, 2026 for v3.4.0 (Pillar Ten added; second of four planned new pillars per v4.0.0 architecture proposal, sequenced one at a time per Jason's direction; follows Pillar Nine added in v3.3.0) · Jason Robertson · Ohio · 2026

Sources Baseline. Numerical claims in this document derive from the canonical sources cataloged in 05_Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx, including: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program data (Section 8 voucher counts, public housing inventory, project-based rental assistance, homeless management information system data); Census Bureau American Community Survey housing characteristics; National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) annual housing affordability reports (the Out of Reach series and the Gap series for supply-deficit estimates); Up For Growth and Joint Center for Housing Studies (Harvard) supply-shortage analyses (the 4 to 7 million unit national shortfall figure); Office of Management and Budget federal housing program budgets; CBO scoring of housing-related legislation; National Association of Realtors and Joint Center for Housing Studies homeownership and rental market data; international comparative material from Vienna's social housing system, Singapore's Housing Development Board, Helsinki's Housing First implementation, and Germany's housing finance system. Empirical claims requiring external credentialed review are tracked in the Open Issues Registry under future RESEARCH items as engagement targets are identified.

Note on the existing Section 8 Housing analysis. This document is the primary substantiation for Pillar Ten. The previously-existing 05_Section_8_Housing_And_Federal_Housing_Assistance.docx provides analysis of how the platform's existing pillars interact with current federal housing assistance under the previous platform architecture (where housing was not a pillar). With Pillar Ten established, the Section 8 analysis becomes background context rather than the primary housing reference; readers interested in Pillar Ten should treat this document as primary and the Section 8 analysis as supplementary historical analysis.

# Why Housing Is the Tenth Pillar

The platform's first nine pillars address retirement security, wage architecture, education access, healthcare, childcare, mental health, civic infrastructure, paid family time, and long-term care. Housing has been visibly absent. The previous Section 8 analysis acknowledged the absence and tracked housing as adjacent to the platform's architecture. v3.4.0 closes the gap by elevating federal housing investment to its own pillar.

The case for elevating housing is straightforward. The United States faces an estimated four to seven million unit shortage in housing supply, with the gap concentrated at the affordable-rental end of the market. The federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program serves approximately five million households but has waitlists of four to seven years in most major metropolitan areas; only roughly twenty-five percent of eligible households actually receive the assistance they qualify for. The gap between housing need and federal response is structurally similar to the gaps the platform addresses through Pillars Four (healthcare), Five (childcare), Six (mental health), and Eight (paid family leave): a population-scale need that current federal policy treats as a means-tested patchwork rather than a universal entitlement, producing predictable individual hardship and predictable aggregate inefficiency. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

Housing fits the platform's architectural pattern with one structural difference. The other adjacent pillars (Healthcare, Childcare, Mental Health, Paid Family Time, Long-Term Care) are funded by dedicated payroll contributions because the benefits are individual-level and the contribution base correlates with the population that uses the benefits. Housing does not fit that model cleanly: housing supply is largely state and local; rental assistance is geographically variable in cost; the federal role is more about funding and conditioning than direct provision. Pillar Ten therefore uses a different funding mechanism: federal general revenue drawn from the platform's high-earner architecture (graduated income surcharge, wealth surcharge, and wealth tax) and from existing federal housing program substitution as the platform displaces the current patchwork. This makes Pillar Ten parallel to Pillar One (Community Contribution Plan) in funding architecture rather than to Pillars Four through Six and Eight through Nine.

# The Pillar Ten Architecture

## Funding Source

Pillar Ten is not funded by a dedicated payroll contribution. Funding is drawn from federal general revenue, with the principal sources being: the platform's high-earner architecture (graduated income surcharge plus wealth surcharge above ten million plus wealth tax above fifty million; these mechanisms generate substantial revenue beyond what is needed for Pillars One and Three; a portion is allocated to Pillar Ten); existing federal housing program substitution (Section 8 voucher program at approximately thirty-two billion per year currently; project-based rental assistance at approximately fifteen billion per year; public housing operating and capital at approximately ten billion per year; LIHTC tax expenditure at approximately ten billion per year; combined approximately seventy billion per year currently flowing through the federal housing patchwork that Pillar Ten consolidates and expands); and incremental general revenue allocation to close the residual gap between current federal commitment and the Pillar Ten target. The specific allocation between high-earner architecture revenue and existing-program-substitution savings is determined in implementing legislation; the net new federal commitment is the difference between Pillar Ten's aggregate target and existing federal housing spending.

## Aggregate Commitment

Pillar Ten commits approximately fifty to one hundred billion dollars per year of federal investment beyond current federal housing spending. The lower bound assumes more aggressive use of conditional-grant leverage to drive state and local action without large direct federal expenditure increases. The upper bound assumes more direct federal financing of universal rental assistance and supply-side investment. The expected operating range at full implementation is approximately seventy-five billion per year of new federal commitment, on top of approximately seventy billion per year of existing federal housing commitment that the new architecture absorbs and rationalizes. Total federal housing commitment at full implementation: approximately one hundred forty-five billion per year, against current approximately seventy billion per year, an approximately doubling of federal housing investment over the multi-year transition.

## Distribution Mechanism: Federal-State Conditional Grants

The distribution mechanism is federal-state conditional grants. The federal government commits to grant flows that states (and tribal governments, and territories) can access by meeting specified conditions. The conditions are calibrated to the policy goal: where the goal is housing supply expansion, conditions tie grant access to zoning reform, by-right approval processes, density bonuses for affordable units, and other supply-side interventions; where the goal is rental assistance universalization, conditions tie grant access to administrative simplifications that reduce voucher unfunding rates and discriminatory denial; where the goal is supportive housing for special populations, conditions tie grant access to evidence-based program designs and outcome reporting. The conditional-grants approach uses federal funding as a lever for state and local action because zoning, land use, and most direct housing administration are state and local powers; the federal government cannot mandate zoning reform, but it can make federal funding contingent on it. The platform's State-Level Cooperation Requirements document provides the broader analytical framework for federal-state cooperation that Pillar Ten draws on.

# Pillar Ten Components

## Component One: Universal Rental Assistance

Pillar Ten universalizes rental assistance for households below approximately fifty percent of area median income. Currently, Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers reach approximately five million households; eligible-but-unserved households are approximately fifteen million. Universalization eliminates the waitlist and structural underprovision that produces years-long waits even for households with serious housing-cost burden. Estimated cost of universal rental assistance at full implementation: approximately seventy to one hundred billion per year (depending on benefit calibration and area-cost adjustments), funded by combination of substituted current Section 8 spending (approximately thirty-two billion) and incremental federal commitment (approximately forty to seventy billion). The benefit is portable across geographic areas (a household receiving rental assistance can move to a different metropolitan area without re-establishing eligibility). The benefit is calibrated against fair-market-rent standards by area and against household income; the benefit covers the gap between thirty percent of household income (the housing-cost-burden threshold) and the local fair-market rent for an appropriately-sized unit. Discrimination-protection provisions parallel current voucher protections but are strengthened with federal-level enforcement to address the substantial voucher-discrimination problem in current implementation. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

## Component Two: Federal-State Conditional Grants for Housing Supply

Pillar Ten establishes federal-state conditional grants tied to housing supply expansion. The federal government commits to grant flows that states can access by adopting supply-side reforms in their land-use and zoning frameworks. Specific conditions to be specified in implementing legislation but plausibly include: by-right approval for residential zoning that allows two-to-four units per parcel in most residential areas (the missing-middle housing category); density bonuses for projects including affordable units; reduced parking requirements for residential development near transit and walkable areas; transit-oriented development zoning; reduced minimum-lot-size requirements; and similar interventions that reduce regulatory barriers to housing supply. Estimated grant-flow size: approximately ten to twenty-five billion per year at full implementation. The grants are not the primary federal housing expenditure; they are a leverage mechanism to influence state and local zoning decisions that the federal government cannot mandate directly but that have substantial impact on housing supply outcomes.

## Component Three: Public Housing Investment

Pillar Ten commits to capital investment in public housing infrastructure. Existing public housing stock approximately one million units; current capital backlog estimated at approximately seventy billion in deferred maintenance and modernization; current annual capital appropriation approximately five billion. Pillar Ten increases public housing capital investment to approximately ten billion per year at full implementation, addressing the deferred maintenance backlog over a fifteen to twenty-year horizon and supporting modernization rather than disposition. Pillar Ten also reverses the multi-decade trend of public housing unit loss through demolition without replacement; new construction and modernization is calibrated to maintain at least the current public housing stock at minimum, with expansion possible where state and local jurisdictions support it. Public housing remains administered by Public Housing Authorities (the existing administrative infrastructure) with federal financing reform reducing the boom-and-bust capital funding cycle that has produced the current backlog.

## Component Four: Supportive Housing for Special Populations

Pillar Ten commits to expansion of supportive housing for populations with documented vulnerabilities including chronic homelessness, severe mental illness, substance use disorder in recovery, and aging out of foster care. Supportive housing combines housing subsidy with services (case management; mental health and substance use treatment; employment support; health care coordination) and is the evidence-based intervention for chronically-homeless populations and for populations who would otherwise cycle through emergency rooms, jails, and shelters at substantial public cost. Pillar Ten commits to approximately two hundred thousand new supportive housing units over the transition horizon, against the current Continuum of Care system's approximately three hundred thousand units, plus expanded operating subsidies for existing supportive housing facing funding instability. Supportive housing is integrated with Pillar Six (Universal Mental Health Access) for mental-health-component services and with Pillar Nine (Universal Long-Term Care) for individuals whose supportive housing needs include functional-limitation care. Estimated cost of supportive housing expansion: approximately five to ten billion per year at full implementation.

## Component Five: Homelessness Response (Housing First)

Pillar Ten commits federal resources to a Housing First approach to homelessness response. Housing First is the evidence-based framework that prioritizes immediate housing placement for homeless individuals and families, with services provided in the housing rather than as a precondition for housing. The Helsinki implementation of Housing First has produced substantial reductions in chronic homelessness; Utah's Housing First initiative produced similar results before recent funding reductions. Pillar Ten provides federal funding for state and local Housing First implementations, with conditional-grants language requiring use of evidence-based program designs and outcome reporting. Estimated cost: approximately three to five billion per year at full implementation. Components Four (supportive housing) and Five (Housing First) overlap; the distinction is that Component Four addresses persistent supportive-housing needs while Component Five addresses acute homelessness response.

# Transition Mechanics

The transition from current state to full Pillar Ten implementation occurs over approximately a fifteen to twenty-year horizon, somewhat longer than payroll-funded pillars because housing supply expansion is constrained by construction cycles, zoning reform timelines, and workforce capacity. Year one through year three: legislative authority established; federal program structure created (consolidating current HUD voucher program, project-based rental assistance, public housing, and homelessness response into the unified Pillar Ten framework); federal-state conditional grants framework negotiated; first round of zoning-reform-conditional grants offered to states. Year three through year ten: phased universal rental assistance rollout (priority on highest-cost-burdened populations first; geographic phasing as administrative capacity scales); supply-side conditional grants reach steady state with multi-year state plans approved; supportive housing expansion construction underway; Housing First implementations supported in major metropolitan areas. Year ten through year twenty: full benefit availability across rental assistance; supply-side reforms in adopting states reach steady state; public housing capital backlog substantially addressed; supportive housing target reached; cross-state portability functional.

During transition, current HUD programs continue to operate for households not yet covered by full Pillar Ten benefits; as Pillar Ten rolls out, current Section 8 voucher holders, project-based rental assistance recipients, and public housing residents transition to the unified architecture without losing existing benefits. Transition rules to be specified in implementing legislation address pre-existing vouchers, tenant-based versus project-based balance, and continuity of administration during program consolidation.

# Federal-State Coordination Specifics

Federal-state coordination is more central to Pillar Ten than to most other platform pillars because housing administration is substantially state and local. The conditional-grants approach is the principal coordination mechanism, but it operates within a broader framework of federal-state cooperation.

Conditional-grants design principles. Conditions are tied to outcome measures rather than process measures where possible (e.g., units permitted per capita rather than specific zoning code language) so that states retain implementation flexibility. Conditions are graduated rather than binary (states can earn partial grant access for partial compliance, with full grant access requiring full compliance). Conditions are calibrated to current state baseline (states with low housing supply per capita have lower bars to cross than states with high supply per capita; this respects the fact that some states already have supply-supportive zoning while others do not). Conditions include accountability mechanisms (states reporting progress; federal verification; consequences for non-compliance with conditions after grant acceptance).

Tribal nation coordination. Pillar Ten extends federal-state coordination to federally-recognized tribal nations through government-to-government consultation per the platform's Tribal Consultation Framework. Housing on tribal lands has specific characteristics including trust-land legal status, federal trust responsibility, and existing HUD programs (Indian Housing Block Grant, Section 184 mortgage program). Pillar Ten engages tribal nations through consultation about how the new framework integrates with or reforms existing tribal-specific programs.

Territorial coordination. Pillar Ten extends to U.S. territories per the platform's existing Territories analysis. Territorial housing markets have specific characteristics that require calibration of grant amounts, fair-market-rent calculations, and program design.

# Comparison with Existing Programs and Approaches

## Comparison with Section 8 Status Quo

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program currently serves approximately five million households with annual federal cost approximately thirty-two billion. Pillar Ten universalizes the architecture: same voucher mechanism for households (so administrative continuity and tenant familiarity are preserved), but expanded to reach all eligible households without waitlist; expanded with stronger anti-discrimination enforcement; integrated with conditional-grants for supply expansion to address the persistent voucher-not-finding-unit problem in tight rental markets; integrated with project-based rental assistance to provide a balanced tenant-based and project-based portfolio. The structural change is the elimination of the waitlist as a feature of the program; the conceptual change is the recognition that housing assistance should be a universal entitlement for income-eligible households rather than a means-tested-and-rationed scarce resource.

## Comparison with LIHTC

The Low Income Housing Tax Credit program is the principal current federal mechanism for affordable housing supply expansion. Annual tax expenditure approximately ten billion. Pillar Ten retains LIHTC as a complement to its conditional-grants approach (LIHTC works through the tax code; conditional grants work through state appropriations process; the two are operationally distinct and address somewhat different supply-side dynamics). Pillar Ten does not propose major LIHTC reform but encourages alignment of LIHTC project siting with the broader supply-side framework (transit-oriented development priority; missing-middle housing where appropriate; deeper affordability targeting where state plans support it).

## Comparison with International Housing Approaches

Vienna's social housing system, in operation for over a century, provides housing for approximately sixty percent of the city's population through a combination of municipally-owned housing and limited-profit cooperatives. Per-unit cost is substantially below market; housing security is high. The Vienna model is not directly transferable to U.S. federal context (Vienna operates at municipal scale with strong municipal authority; U.S. federal government does not own or develop housing at this scale and is unlikely to). However, the Vienna experience is instructive for understanding what is possible when public commitment to housing is sustained over multiple decades. Singapore's Housing Development Board developed and owns approximately eighty percent of Singapore's housing stock; HDB units are sold to residents on long leasehold terms with substantial subsidies; housing security and ownership rates are very high. The Singapore model is similarly not directly transferable but demonstrates the feasibility of public housing at very large scale. Helsinki's Housing First implementation has produced substantial reductions in chronic homelessness; the model is directly transferable to U.S. context and is the basis for Pillar Ten's Component Five. Germany's housing finance system uses a building-society (Bausparkasse) model that promotes long-term saving for home purchase; the model is partly transferable for homeownership-oriented policy but is not the primary focus of Pillar Ten's rental-assistance-focused architecture.

## Comparison with the YIMBY Supply Movement

The YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) movement has emerged over the past decade as a coalition advocating for housing supply expansion through zoning reform and reduced regulatory barriers. The movement's analytical framing — that housing affordability problems in high-cost metropolitan areas are substantially driven by supply restrictions imposed through zoning and land-use regulations — is broadly consistent with Pillar Ten's Component Two (federal-state conditional grants for supply expansion). The platform's framing differs from the most-supply-side YIMBY framing in two ways: first, the platform pairs supply expansion with universal rental assistance rather than relying on supply expansion alone to deliver affordability; second, the platform explicitly addresses populations whose housing needs are not addressed by market supply (chronically homeless individuals; supportive housing populations) through Components Four and Five. The platform is sympathetic to the supply-side critique while not adopting the most extreme version of it.

# Workforce Considerations

Housing supply expansion is constrained by construction workforce capacity in addition to zoning. The construction trades currently have substantial workforce shortages, particularly in trades essential to residential construction (carpentry, plumbing, electrical, HVAC). Pillar Ten's full implementation requires workforce expansion to deliver the supply-side investment without inflationary cost effects.

Workforce strategy includes: pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship pathway funding (federal Department of Labor Apprenticeship programs already exist; expanded funding tied to Pillar Ten's construction-investment-supporting demand); compensation calibration above platform-canonical Pillar Two wage floors for trade occupations (forty-two thousand minimum, which translates to approximately twenty dollars per hour at full-time; construction-trade wages already exceed this floor in most markets but apprentice wages and rural-market wages may need calibration); worker protection frameworks for the construction-trade workforce; immigration policy interaction (the construction trades workforce is substantially foreign-born; immigration policy directly affects supply-expansion capacity); and integration with construction-related public-sector unions that have specific concerns about prevailing-wage policy on federally-funded construction (the Davis-Bacon Act applies to federal construction; Pillar Ten's federally-funded supply-side investments retain Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements).

# Fiscal Analysis

Pillar Ten's aggregate fiscal commitment at full implementation is approximately one hundred forty-five billion per year (the existing approximately seventy billion of federal housing commitment plus the approximately seventy-five billion incremental commitment under Pillar Ten's expected operating range). Net new federal expenditure is approximately seventy-five billion per year at full implementation.

Funding mechanism allocation: approximately seventy billion per year from existing federal housing program substitution (Section 8 voucher program; project-based rental assistance; public housing operating; LIHTC tax expenditure remains in place but is part of the consolidated commitment); approximately seventy-five billion per year from net new federal commitment funded by allocation of high-earner architecture revenue and federal general revenue. The high-earner architecture (graduated income surcharge plus wealth surcharge above ten million plus wealth tax above fifty million) generates approximately seven hundred billion to one trillion per year at maturity per the Combined Reform Model; allocating approximately seventy-five billion of that to Pillar Ten leaves substantial residual revenue for the platform's other commitments. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

Sensitivity analysis. The fiscal commitment depends on three primary parameters: rental assistance benefit calibration (current Section 8 voucher value averages approximately seven thousand per household per year; universal rental assistance averages plausibly seven to nine thousand depending on geographic-cost adjustments and benefit-formula calibration); supply-side conditional grants size (proposed range ten to twenty-five billion; lower bound assumes more leverage with smaller grants, upper bound assumes higher direct federal financing); and supportive housing and Housing First component sizing (proposed range eight to fifteen billion combined; sensitive to per-unit cost assumptions and adoption pace). Plausible range of full-implementation cost: ninety-five billion at the lower bound (tight benefit calibration, small grants, modest supportive housing expansion) to one hundred ninety billion at the upper bound (generous benefit calibration, substantial grants, aggressive supportive housing expansion). The expected operating range of one hundred forty-five billion is in the middle of this range. Pillar Ten's fiscal review (a future RESEARCH item to be added to the Open Issues Registry) is the credentialed-external work needed to refine these parameters.

# Open Issues and Limits

Pillar Ten has the same kinds of open issues as the platform's other adjacent pillars plus several specific to the housing context: fiscal validation of total commitment range; institutional design for federal-state conditional grants framework; benefit-calibration design for universal rental assistance; supply-side conditional grants conditions and accountability mechanisms; supportive housing and Housing First program design specifics; tribal nation and territorial coordination details.

Specific items requiring credentialed external review, to be added to the Open Issues Registry as engagement targets are identified. First: housing economics review of the supply-side framework's likely impact (does federal conditional-grants leverage actually drive state and local zoning reform at scale; what supply elasticity assumptions are reasonable; how does universal rental assistance interact with rental market prices). Second: institutional design review of the federal-state conditional-grants framework (which existing federal-state grant frameworks provide useful precedent; what accountability mechanisms have worked or failed in similar arrangements). Third: legal review of conditional-grants framework (the constitutional limits on conditional grants under South Dakota v. Dole and subsequent doctrine; the specific interaction with state housing-finance authorities). Fourth: housing-administration review of universal rental assistance implementation (administrative-capacity requirements at HUD and at state-level; voucher-acceptance enforcement mechanisms; tenant-protection-from-discrimination in implementation). Fifth: supportive-housing program design review (the evidence base for specific Housing First program designs; the integration with mental health and substance use treatment systems). Sixth: construction-workforce-capacity review (whether the construction-trades workforce can actually deliver the supply-side investment without unacceptable cost inflation).

# Cross-References

This document is the primary substantiation document for Pillar Ten (Federal Housing Investment). It is referenced from the master We The People Platform document's Pillar Ten section (added in v3.4.0). The pillar's adoption guidance for advocacy organizations is documented in 05_Pillars_Borrow_Independently.docx (updated in v3.4.0 to include Pillar Ten). The pillar's fiscal stream is documented in 05_Federal_Fiscal_Impact_Analysis.docx (updated in v3.4.0). The previously-existing Section 8 Housing analysis (05_Section_8_Housing_And_Federal_Housing_Assistance.docx) provides background on how the platform's prior architecture interacted with current federal housing assistance; with Pillar Ten established, that document becomes supplementary historical context. The State-Level Cooperation Requirements document (item 47 in analytical framing) provides the broader framework for federal-state cooperation that Pillar Ten draws on for its conditional-grants approach. The Tribal Consultation Framework (created in v3.2.2) and Tribal Consultation Briefing (created in v3.2.3) provide the framework for tribal-nation engagement on the tribal-lands aspects of Pillar Ten.