What is social housing?
Social housing is municipally owned, locally controlled housing that’s decommodified and removed from the speculative market.
It serves a diverse array of incomes—low-income, workforce, and market-rate households (for example, a 1/3–1/3–1/3 mix) —creating communities that are stable, inclusive, rooted and financially sustainable.
Because the land, air-rights and built housing is municipally-controlled, the generated revenue stays in public hands. Rents are reinvested into project maintenance, tenant services, and new social housing units nearby.
The benefits compound over time, especially since we hold onto the appreciating real estate asset, instead of the land and air rights value being extracted by private developers for their own discretionary purposes.
Moreover, the city can leverage our retained municipal land and newly constructed social housing buildings to access additional capital in times of emergency or for other social housing projects in the city.
Over time, there will be a network of social housing buildings citywide serving as an ecosystem of true affordability and sustainability as is now underway just up the Redline in Montgomery County — click here.
Social housing as a model isn’t new, but recently it is picking up steam and being rolled out by municipalities nationwide. See the Green New Deal coalition slideshow on Social Housing (c) 2025 below:
How social housing differs from traditional public housing
Just like traditional public housing, folks in social housing units pay no more than 30% of their income towards housing costs (including utilities). That is largely where the similarities end, except of course that they are both decommodified housing models.
Traditional public housing relies almost entirely on federal funding and is therefore vulnerable to political swings in Washington. When that funding is cut—as it has been repeatedly over the decades of different administrations—buildings deteriorate and residents pay the price with adverse life outcomes and health problems.
Chronic disinvestment in traditional public housing isn’t a failure of the residents; it’s a failure of the government. Thus traditional public housing certainly can be a successful in the hands of thoughtful and caring administrations.
In looking at some of the differences, social housing is not subject to the whims of the federal funding. Rather, it is municipally-controlled, at the local level. In some cases, the tenants themselves center the self-determination of the project making it accountable to the affected community rather than federal budget cycles.
Social housing is financially self-sustaining, with the project’s generated income coming in monthly and funding ongoing maintenance and long-term success,
Traditional public housing has also too often concentrated poverty, placing residents under intense strain without the resources needed to overcome structural barriers. Again, this is an implementation failure, not a failure of public housing residents.
Social housing is designed for collective success. It mixes incomes, household sizes, and unit types, centering tenant needs while building economically and socially resilient communities. That flexibility is a defining strength—and why social housing has been shown to deliver better outcomes.
Why social housing is better than DC’s status-quo land deals
DC’s current approach to public land largely privatizes public assets and diminishes the public good for private profit, a wild-west robbery of our own device.
That is, when the city gives up control—or ownership—of valuable land and air rights, developers capture the income generated by that site, while the public is left with limited tax revenue and long-term responsibility for affordable housing, libraries, community spaces, and other public goods.
Here’s just two examples by way of video explainer:
| The Wharf Deal | The West End Deal |
Social housing flips the status-quo giveaway equation that benefits private real estate interests. That is, the land and air rights stay under municipal-control and, in effect, we become the developer so the revenue created stays in our hands.
The income generated by social housing funds maintenance, tenant outcomes, and future social housing—while the city retains the public property and air rights as a valuable long term asset.
Fifteen years of DMPED land deals make the results clear. The track record is not equity. It is of privatization and corporate welfare, often branded as “affordable housing” while primarily serving higher-income renters. That narrative is unraveling.
There is a better path: use public land to build social housing—permanently public, permanently affordable, and accountable to the people it serves.
Read through the following posts to get familiar with the municipally-owned housing model known as Social Housing.
Posts from the Save DC Public Land website:
- [RFK Press / Public Update] Social Housing Stadium Tweak Could Provide Critical Revenue to Avoid Devastating DC Budget Cuts
- Adams Morgan, U Street, You’re Invited to a Major Community Update on 1617 U — This Saturday, Noon, July 12
- The RFK Response
- DC Budget 2026: DC Council Chair, Phil Mendelson Wants Budget Cuts, Not Revenue Solutions; It’s a “Trump-like Attack on DC’s Black & Brown Working-Class”
- Green New Deal for Housing Bill Re-Introduced!
- The Center for Social Housing & Public Investment Unveils Resource Site
- Making Social Housing a Reality in the District
- DC Residents LOVE “Social Housing” at 17th and U Street Site
- Strong Election Night tallies show Seattle set to approve new business tax for Social Housing
- Press Release: Residents Gather for Social Housing at 1617 U; Ward One Councilmember Brianne Nadeau Says Its ‘A Good Idea’
Also check out the Center for Social Housing Blog (click here)