Well vouched for: The good idea Win and REBNY agree on

You wouldn’t necessarily think of the homeless services nonprofit Win and the Real Estate Board of New York as natural allies; the latter organization tends to take a dim view of policies forcefully protecting tenants, while the former has supported things like the eviction moratorium. So their alliance on a report and issuance of joint recommendations on the city’s housing voucher system is a pretty good sign that there is some there there.

The 30-page report is rooted in what is ultimately a pretty simple premise: the city has dual interests in both creating long-term stability for low-income, disabled and elderly adults and families, and saving money.

Oftentimes, government objectives can clash, but in this case, a robust and well-managed system of both federally-funded, locally managed Section 8 and locally-created CityFHEPS vouchers can advance both interests. Shelter and ancillary costs are sharply higher than vouchers, not to mention the more diffuse social and economic consequences of housing instability.

What brings the pro-tenant and pro-landlord groups together here is the recognition that a clunky and inefficient voucher system harms their respective constituencies. For example, if a landlord accepts the application of a voucher holder — which everyone agrees is a good thing — but then the inspection, pre-clearance, application, payment processing and all else takes four or five months, it deprives the landlord the income that they could have been getting and it deprives the would-be tenant from a place to live.

The match could fall apart if the landlord gets understandably tired of waiting. No one wins, including the city itself, which is sinking resources into a needlessly convoluted process.

Some of the recommendations, like simply putting more of the necessary resources online, would probably be accomplished by one dedicated staffer with an internet connection and an afternoon set aside. Others, including a full mapping of the voucher process from start to finish to identify sticking points and hiring additional staff to shepherd the applications along more quickly, are going to take some more doing and will take a while longer to show results.

Some would require legislation, like permitting some inspections to be done virtually and allowing certain violations to be corrected before they result in failure. All are generally well-reasoned and well-targeted.

We’ll reiterate our position here that, in the end, vouchers aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on in the absence of a sufficiently robust market to accommodate them.

The City Council demanding a million new vouchers won’t generate a million new units of affordable housing that the vouchers can go towards. On that front, there are some good signs, with a housing plan actually making its way into the state budget this year as opposed to last year’s fiasco, with results to be determined.

Mayor Adams’ housing plan is finally headed to the gauntlet of community boards and borough presidents, and we’re confident it will survive and head to a City Council approval.

In the meantime, it’s not a bad idea to make the existing voucher systems less convoluted, better staffed and more responsive to current needs. Landlords will be happy, tenants will have a place to live, the shelters will be less crowded and the city will save some cash in the process. Sign us up.