Free Market Solutions to the Housing Crisis: Protecting Freedom of Choice

Housing vouchers are a subsidy provided by the federal government and administered by local government housing officials. Vouchers allow low-income families to obtain better rental housing than they could otherwise afford. However, many landlords do not accept vouchers. Housing advocates say that “source of income” discrimination should be outlawed and landlords should be required to accept vouchers.

Requiring landlords, the advocates argue, will give voucher uses more housing choices. But this argument is founded on the wrong standard of value and it drops context.

The movement to outlaw “source of income” discrimination holds that the interests of a group—voucher users—supersede the interests of individual landlords. The movement wants to force landlords to subordinate their interests to those of voucher users.

In claiming that they are trying to give voucher users more choices, housing advocates ignore the fact that they are seeking to deny choices to landlords. They are claiming that tenants should have the freedom to choose, but landlords should not enjoy that same freedom. This type of contradiction is what results when one starts with the wrong standard of value and then drops context.

If freedom of choice applies only to the members of the favored group, then the members of that group can lose their freedom to choose when another group attains favored status. The result is a perpetual battle to attain that favored status. Instead of promoting the idea that freedom of choice only applies to the members of a particular group, we must protect and defend the freedom of choice of all individuals, tenants and landlords alike.

In practice, this means that each individual is free to act as he thinks best, so long as he respects the freedom of others to do the same. Morally, if an individual wishes to trade or interact with others, he must obtain their voluntary consent. Morally, he cannot force them to act contrary to their own judgment. To do so is to violate their freedom to choose.

If housing advocates want more landlords to accept housing vouchers, then they should seek to persuade rather than coerce. They should advocate policies that protect the freedom of choice of all individuals, including tenants and landlords. And they should advocate for government policies that would encourage landlords to accept vouchers.

As one example, a property must be subjected to periodic inspections in order to be accepted for a voucher program. Many landlords find the inspection process and the paperwork involved to be more hassle than it is worth. If housing advocates want more landlords to accept vouchers, then they should seek simplify the process and make it easier and more enticing to property owners.

Similarly, tax credits or tax exemptions for properties that accept vouchers would also provide a motivation to landlords. If a property owner can save a substantial amount on his taxes by accepting vouchers, he will be more inclined to do so. But each landlord would be free to choose and act as he thinks best.

This is a market-oriented solution to the use of vouchers, in that it protects the freedom of choice of landlords and tenants alike. It encourages acceptance of vouchers without mandating it.