I work on HUD Grants. Here’s What the Trump Budget Gets Wrong.
The budget singles out Greenwich, CT to justify eliminating the CDBG program. The data does not match the narrative of frivolous waste.
“Why is the federal government giving millions to a town like Greenwich, Connecticut?”
That’s the question the Trump budget uses to justify eliminating the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. On the surface, it sounds reasonable—Greenwich is famously wealthy. But I work with these grants, and I’ve looked at the data. I want to walk you through what that money actually does—and who it helps.
On Friday, May 2nd, President Trump released his proposed budget. It cuts discretionary spending on social safety net programs to the bone. Surprisingly (to me), one of the agencies hardest hit was HUD—specifically programs designed to address the housing crisis.
We can talk about why I found that surprising in another post, but today I want to focus on what was cut and the stated reasoning behind it.
In addition to the widely publicized gutting of rental vouchers (Section 8), the proposed budget eliminates two important programs most people have never heard of: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME).
CDBG funds are used for a wide range of local needs: constructing affordable housing, rehabilitating existing housing, providing public services, and improving infrastructure and facilities in low- and moderate-income (LMI) areas. HOME funds are more narrowly focused on affordable housing.
I work with these programs as part of my day job—helping cities and states plan, report, and prioritize how they use federal housing funds. While I didn’t work on Greenwich’s plan, I did help write the most recent State of Connecticut Consolidated Plan, so I’m very familiar with the data, regulations, and real-world impact of these grants.
To justify cutting CDBG, the budget offers this:
“This type of a program is better funded and administered at the State and local level. For example, the Town of Greenwich in Connecticut’s famously affluent ‘Gold Coast’ does not need Federal grants, yet it received nearly $4 million in CDBG funding in the last five years and spent it on wasteful projects like theater arts programming for students and public swimming pool renovations.”
There’s a lot to unpack in that paragraph, but I want to focus on two key implications:
That Greenwich is too wealthy to need affordable housing programs, and
That the CDBG-funded projects in Greenwich were frivolous or unrelated to the purpose of the grant.
Who in Greenwich Needs Help?
Let’s take the first claim: that Greenwich is too wealthy to need federal housing support.
It’s true that the roughly two-thirds of residents who own homes in Greenwich are doing quite well—homeowners in the town tend to have high incomes and affordable housing costs. But for the one-third of households that are renters, it’s a different story.
According to the most recent CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data from HUD and the U.S. Census (2017–2021):
46.2% of renters in Greenwich are low- or moderate-income, defined as earning less than 80% of the area median family income.
41.4% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing.
Nearly a quarter are severely cost-burdened, spending over 50% of their income on rent.
These aren’t outliers—they’re part of a growing national pattern. Many people assume affordable housing is for part-time or minimum-wage workers. But in the communities we work with, it’s teachers, nurses, EMTs, city employees—the people who make towns function—who can’t afford to live where they work. They aren’t failing to "buckle down" or “find better jobs.” They’re full-time workers being priced out.
And remember: the most recent CHAS data is from 2021 and doesn’t reflect the post-COVID spike in housing costs. It’s likely the current numbers are even worse.
Were the Projects Really Frivolous?
Now let’s look at the second claim: that Greenwich wasted its CDBG funds on luxuries.
The "public swimming pool renovations" mentioned in the Trump budget refers to $22,500 allocated to the Boys and Girls Club of Greenwich—an organization that primarily serves low-income youth and families. That’s less than 0.5% of the $4.3 million in five-year CDBG funding. The project included replacing an ADA chair lift to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities. That is not waste—that’s what the CDBG program is designed for.
The theater program? That’s likely $5,000 allocated in the 2024 Annual Action Plan to the Greenwich Alliance for Education – New Lebanon School Theater Arts Enrichment Program. The school’s student population is 61.6% low-income (qualifying for free or reduced lunch) and 19.5% students with disabilities. Again, exactly the kind of programming CDBG is meant to support.
It’s also important context that federal regulations limit spending on public services to just 15% of a jurisdiction’s annual CDBG award. In 2024, Greenwich spent just 0.06% of its allocation on that theater program. That’s a rounding error.
My firm surveys residents when helping communities develop their HUD Consolidated Plans. Since we began asking about “Afterschool activities and recreation for youth and teens,” 89% of respondents on average have rated it a medium or high need. It regularly ranks alongside priorities like sidewalk repairs, sewer upgrades, affordable rental housing, and first-time homebuyer assistance.
If the Trump administration thinks $5,000 for arts programming in a low-income elementary school is wasteful, the voters strongly disagree.
What They Didn’t Tell You
More important than what was cherry-picked is what was left out. Here’s a sample of how Greenwich allocated CDBG funds:
$10,000 for domestic violence and sexual assault services
$21,000 for homelessness prevention
$32,000 for Meals on Wheels and food banks
$91,000 for public housing maintenance
$186,000 for services and improvements for seniors and people with disabilities—things like ADA accessibility, dental care, and dial-a-ride transportation
That’s not waste. That’s infrastructure for people.
You can verify all of this yourself in the Town of Greenwich’s 2024 Draft Annual Action Plan.
Data Nerd Note: If you look at the 2024 Action Plan yourself, you may categorize specific activities slightly differently than I did, which might shift the totals by a few thousand dollars one way or another. That’s normal—these plans contain many overlapping goals, and reasonable people can group things differently. I’ve tried to present a clear, good-faith summary of what the funds supported.
The Bigger Picture
The truth is, Greenwich isn’t the exception—it’s a good example of how easy it is to overlook the people in need when we only focus on stereotypes. CDBG and HOME funds go to states and over a thousand cities and counties across the country. In many of those places, they quietly support renters, seniors, the disabled, and working families—often with modest, carefully targeted investments that fill critical gaps. If this budget passes, those supports disappear.
I know this kind of post isn’t clickbait. It’s not meant to be. But if you made it this far and want to better understand how housing policy affects real people, I’ll keep writing when I have something worth saying. If you found this informative I’d love it if you shared it!
You can also subscribe if you’d like. It’ll always be free, and fairly intermittent. I have no desire to be an influencer or whatever they are called these days. I just need a place to write about data. I’ll probably write some more about HOME grants and the overall budget in the next few days.