Heather Colley, a 45-year-old single mother and manicurist in eastern Tennessee, faced significant challenges related to housing affordability, moving four times over the course of five years due to soaring rents. A gift of a small plot of land in 2021 provided a glimmer of hope for homeownership, but the prospect of building a home remained out of reach until Colley qualified for $272,000 from a nonprofit. This funding came from the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a grant initiative that has been instrumental in making affordable housing possible in rural areas for over three decades. In June 2023, Colley finally moved into her new three-bedroom home, expressing her disbelief and joy at achieving this milestone.
Currently, the future of the HOME program is uncertain as President Donald Trump has proposed its elimination. The House Republicans have also not included funding for the HOME program in their budget proposal. Experts warn that cutting this grant would hinder the development of affordable housing nationwide, particularly impacting rural Appalachian communities that already experience limited government assistance and insufficient investor interest. The HOME program has successfully helped construct or repair over 1.3 million affordable homes since its inception, with at least 540,000 homes located in rural congressional districts, many of which supported Trump in the recent election.
Colley, who cast her vote for Trump in 2024, reflects on the potential implications of these budget cuts: “I understand we don’t want excessive spending and wasting taxpayer dollars, but these proposed budget cuts across the board make me rethink the next time I go to the polls.” The HOME program has been underfunded over the years, struggling to keep pace with rising construction costs, which has led to fewer affordable housing units being developed.
The HOME program, initiated under President George H. W. Bush in the 1990s, has seen more than $38 billion allocated nationwide. It fills critical funding gaps for projects that focus on building, acquiring, and repairing affordable homes, as well as providing rental assistance. Despite these successes, House Republicans are contemplating utilizing approximate $5 billion from a related pandemic-era fund to cover the funding shortfall left by budget cuts. However, this may not be sufficient as many ongoing projects have not yet been reported to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
While Senate Republicans have included funding for HOME in their budget draft, a resolution remains uncertain. Negotiations could lead to a compromise where funding for HOME is reduced but not entirely cut. A HUD spokesperson has indicated that they believe there are more effective programs for funding than HOME, which has led to a bipartisan effort among House lawmakers to work on reducing the red tape associated with the program.
Rural communities, like Owsley County in Kentucky, greatly depend on the HOME program due to the economic struggles stemming from coal mine closures and the decline of agricultural revenue. Cassie Hudson, who manages Partnership Housing in Owsley, noted that their construction capacity has dropped significantly due to inadequate funding, limiting their ability to meet affordable housing needs. Joshua Stewart from Fahe, a coalition of Appalachian nonprofits, emphasized that local housing developers are crucial for building affordable homes in such areas, particularly when construction costs exceed sale prices.
For individuals like Tiffany Mullins, a single mother of four who works at Walmart, the HOME program has made a significant difference in their lives, allowing her to own a home in Hazard, Kentucky. Mullins expressed that the program helps preserve a rural lifestyle that was once common in the community.
The potential cuts to the HOME program could have long-term effects, as any reductions would mean fewer new affordable housing units being developed. Tess Hembree, the executive director of the Council of State Community Development Agencies, highlighted that reductions to HOME funding will have repercussions in the future not just for rural areas but also for cities, where affordable rentals are often funded through related programs. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), which funds a significant number of affordable housing units, relies on HOME grants as part of its financing structure. Experts warn that cutting HOME could diminish the effectiveness of the LIHTC, which has become essential in addressing housing needs across the country.
In conclusion, the uncertainties surrounding HOME funding reflect a broader challenge faced by rural communities seeking affordable housing solutions in the face of political negotiations and budget considerations.
