Albany’s $50 Million Housing Vouchers Fall Short as Evictions Surge Across Five Boroughs

Policymakers’ tepid response to New York’s ballooning housing crisis risks condemning tens of thousands to continued precarity—while a more robust voucher program beckons as the obvious, if politically fraught, lifeline.

It is a forbidding number that looms over New York City like a cloud: 111,000 of its residents now sleep in shelters, while some 82,000 children squeeze into doubled-up flats with relatives or friends, according to recent tallies. This gargantuan population—greater than the entire city of Albany—reflects an affordability crisis that is now both chronic and acute, as rents climb and the social safety net sags beneath the weight of need.

In April, Governor Kathy Hochul and the state legislature took a tentative step towards remedy, enacting a pilot Housing Access Voucher Program (HAVP) as part of the Fiscal Year 2026 budget. The new voucher offers lifelines to those facing homelessness or eviction, subsidizing the yawning gap between their rent and 30% of household income. Yet, in a gesture as stingy as it is symbolic, lawmakers funded the measure with a mere $50m statewide—a drop in the Hudson considering the dimensions of the crisis.

For New York City, this parsimonious allocation translates into just 900 to 1,100 vouchers, says the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development. That is less than 1% of the shelter population alone, to say nothing of the rent-burdened and precariously housed—those paying more than a third of their income to keep a roof overhead. It is hard to square the magnitude of the problem with the fitful nature of the solution.

These numbers are not outliers, but symptoms of a slow-moving disaster. Since 2022, at least 190,000 eviction cases have clogged state courts each year; New York City accounts for the lion’s share. Some 80% stem from the simple inability to pay the rent demanded. The city’s private rental market, long tight and now even more so, continues to lift rents above the reach of low-income families.

The existing patchwork of rental supports—federal Section 8, and New York City-specific programs like CityFHEPS and FHEPS—remains threadbare. Each carves out narrow eligibility: CityFHEPS covers a subset of the previously homeless, rent-regulated tenants, and a handful of others; FHEPS restricts itself to families with children and on public assistance. If you are a single adult without a disability or do not happen to fit one of these technical categories, tough luck.

A more capacious HAVP, by contrast, would be open to all residents at risk of homelessness—expanding eligibility beyond the Kafkaesque labyrinth that keeps many needy New Yorkers from receiving help. Research cited by advocates suggests the scale of want is, indeed, titanic: 86% of city renters making under 30% of area median income (less than $43,740 a year for a small family) shell out over a third of income for rent; for those between 30% and 50% of AMI, the figure is 74%.

The pent-up demand for rental subsidies is palpable. When the city opened its Section 8 voucher waiting list in 2024—for the first time in 15 years—a staggering 634,000 households signed up, vying for 200,000 slots. Here is a city of aspiration, but also of intractable struggle, in which the safety net more closely resembles a raffle than a right.

An expanded HAVP would also portend quiescence for the shelter system, whose costs have ballooned in step with the population it houses. Annual outlays for the Department of Homeless Services now exceed $3bn, eating fiscal space that could be used for schools, transit, or policing. To critics who grumble about the cost of vouchers, we counter: the subsidy is puny compared to the status quo.

A city’s future, rented monthly

The wrangling in Albany about appropriations—housing advocates want $250m for the coming fiscal year—bears a tinge of routine penny-pinching rather than active governance. At present levels, HAVP is best described as a pilot in search of a plane. With $250m, the program could offer assistance to approximately 4,500 households, still modest but at least commensurate with a city of 8.5m.

Viewed nationally, New York’s hesitation is not unique, but it is perplexing in context. Other big American cities—Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston—grapple with homelessness, yet the scale in Gotham is prodigious, and its supply constraints more acute. Federal rental assistance is perpetually oversubscribed; public housing continues its slow attrition. Some European peers—Stockholm, Vienna—avoid these extremes through more muscular public housing and universal vouchers, though not without their own distortions.

Politics, as ever, dawdles. The governor’s office, balancing suburban unease with urban crisis, is loath to open the fiscal tap. But underinvestment today risks larger bills tomorrow, and more lost human capital: families shuffled among shelters, children struggling in school, adults staying home from work to chase elusive housing paperwork. The city’s fabled dynamism cannot rest on this rickety foundation.

A broader, better-funded HAVP would not solve every ill—New York must also build more housing, and reform zoning codes that throttle private development. But vouchers would start to make the numbers align with moral and economic reality, easing the passage from crisis to stability for the city’s most fragile residents. In their absence, “pilot” risks becoming another word for policy slumber.

Equity, yes, but also efficiency: money spent on rent subsidies flows back swiftly through landlords, local businesses, and tax coffers. Housing is not merely social policy—it is economic infrastructure. For decades, New York’s political class has treated the city’s swelling shelter rolls as a regrettable fact of life. Voters, and some in Albany, at last seem to recognize that tinkering at the margins will not suffice.

By the time the next budget arrives, thousands more may have cycled through shelters, or lost their homes altogether. To respond to this with only pilot sums and pilot ambitions is to mistake motion for action. The city that prides itself on never sleeping should not nod off while so many are left without a bed.

■