It would be nice if affordable housing pieces looked at the average civic cost per unit. By this standard, no organization will be more productive than Habitat for Humanity.

$682,000 / 26 = $26,230 per. Habitat leverages their network of funders and volunteers for the remainder. Compare this to the astronomical costs per unit for projects such as Rolling Hills. Depending on how much you sweep under the rug, I’ve heard numbers between $250,000-450,000 per unit.

Further, not all affordable units are equal. Homeownership is vastly superior to renting, both for the occupant and society as a whole. Affordable rentals, notorious for awful design, have a very sad history, many lasting 30 years before being abandoned to the wrecking ball. Hardly sustainable or beneficial.

Homeownership is the primary vessel for household wealth in America. This is not debatable. Families that own homes become self-sustaining, and create nest eggs for retirement. Families that rent, do not.

Coupled with the run up in housing prices, homeownership is the dominant criteria in rising inequality. As The Economist summarizes “surging house prices are almost entirely responsible for growing returns on capital,” which means that “rising house prices may be chiefly responsible for rising inequality.”

Habitat takes families who have never owned a home, and gives them a home. Unlike sub-prime lenders of 10 years ago, they train families on financial responsibility and home maintenance. And they require the homeowner to put their own sweat into constructing their home, so there is an emotional stake. Habitat sees remarkably low default rates.

Durham Habitat does about 20+ homes a year. From what I understand they have about 500 applicants, 100 pre-approved. Council should ask themselves “If Habitat can create homeowners for $25,000, how do we help Habitat do 50 homes a year, or 75?”. If housing advocates are serious about helping the MOST people, and helping people in truly transformative ways, I challenges anyone to come up with a more productive place to put Durham’s dollars than Durham’s Habitat for Humanity.

@ Rob G. You ask some interesting and excellent questions:

1) What has Durham HfH's long-term success rate with home ownership? Most HfH buyers are the first in their family to own a home. So HfH creates homeowners a markets where none exist. IMHO, they do it better than any other organization. Habitat could comment on how many clients are in their home long term. I do know the process is life changing for many, if not most. It’s really none of our business if they sell the home in 2, 5 or 20 years. They have the right move as they please, and they have the right to profit from their investments, just like you and me. These homes are not appreciation restricted, meaning the Habitat owner captures upside that a Land Trust owner does not. Either model can work, but appreciation is a benefit pretty much all the commenters on this blog get, and I object to those who say lower income families shouldn’t capture the same benefit. Good for those homeowners.

2) Do they create a nest egg? If HfH homeowners stay in their home, the answer is Yes. It’s really no different than unsubsidized housing. Pay the mortgage for 15-20 years, at the end of it you have a $150,000 asset (today’s money), with no debt, which you can use as you please. For a huge amount of Americans, this is how they retire. It’s no different for Habitat owners. Thus, a HfH can be (and is) the difference between being able to retire or not. A shocking amount of American’s net worth is in housing. For those over 35 years old, more than half of median net worth is in housing. So homeownership can be life-changing, especially for families in lower income brackets.

3) Owning a home is not for everyone, I agree. Some cannot hold jobs, some cannot pay bills, some cannot defer gratification, some do not have enough in savings to make the risk worthwhile. Some move too often, some fear commitment, some have higher priorities. And on and on.

4) I’d hate to conclude that an investment in Habitat comes at the expense of quality rentals. This shouldn’t be an either|or. When it comes to the focus of affordable housing advocates, to me it appears disproportionally geared to renters, and disproportionality to multifamily. Sadly, I expect we’ll end up subsidizing early-career childless hipsters at the expense of working class families. Call me biased, but given our limited funds I want affordable housing funds targeted to low-income working families with children. Creative people like to reinvent wheels, but if Habitat has proven successful at providing affordable housing, then part of our focus should be on growing models that are already proven to work.