Let's Recognize the Real Reasons "Affordable Housing" is a Contentious Issue
Proponents of Affordable Housing advocate shifting to a significant degree the financial, emotional and fairness burdens of these units (rental and ownership) from those who will live in the units to others in society. Further, rather than all families having equal opportunities to obtain housing that satisfies at least their minimum basic housing needs, the advocates of Affordable Housing programs seek to provide beneficiaries of these programs housing that satisfies their housing wants. These programs create unfair outcomes and until issues like those that follow are addressed honestly and candidly, the Affordable Housing topic will remain contentious and divisive in America. Here's why Affordable Housing is an issue...
1. Those unable to afford housing in markets they desire really should move to areas they can afford. But generally they don't. Or they should save more, invest in education and training so they can earn more, or spend less on non-housing-related priorities, thereby generating more funds available for housing-related expenses. But generally they don't.
2. Funds available for obtaining desirable housing vary from family to family because even with identical incomes, families have differing debt burdens and spending priorities. Families who manage debts and spending carefully with the goal of having more money available for market-rate housing should not have to bear any of the burdens of housing-related costs of those who choose not to manage their debts and spending in a similar fashion.
3. Affordable Housing programs often seek to impose their below-market housing units on neighborhoods of existing market-rate housing. Families who saved, invested in education and training, and managed spending carefully, for as long as it took for them to obtain market-priced housing in desirable markets generally had no way of knowing that after they had purchased their homes, "affordable units" would be inserted into their neighborhoods, potentially driving down the value of market-priced housing.
4. Monies spent by government entities and not-for-profit organizations on Affordable Housing benefit the narrow group of families who buy/rent the below-market units. The few, the beneficiaries of the programs, effectively are subsidized by the many--taxpayers and builders, among others--and monies spent of Affordable Housing are no longer available to address other socio-economic issues whose advocates are not as strong or as vocal as are the advocates of affordable housing. We need to have more discussions of competing priorities between affordable housing and issues like public transportation, road repairs, homelessness and the like.
5. The Affordable Housing issue plays well for politicians, who therefore elevate it as a high priority for voters even though it's really a high priority item for those seeking election or re-election and those who will benefit directly from obtaining the affordable units.
6. Homebuilders often are forced to build affordable units as a condition of being approved to build market-rate units, or are required to subsidize affordable units elsewhere (an option rapidly disappearing). Even though overall construction costs may be higher due to these requirements, politicians don't care because they can claim the number of new "affordable" units they were responsible for getting built.
7. Affordable Housing programs often are premised to a larger extent than necessary on the wants rather than the basic housing needs of those obtaining those units. If I were one of those obtaining an affordable unit, of course I would advocate for a swimming pool for my apartment complex because, after all, we do not want our affordable units to take away from the value of our market-priced neighbors. The amenities of our affordable units, therefore, should be similar to those of the market-rate units. Do I need a pool? No, I just want it. To which the correct response is, "No".
8. Politicians generally try to diffuse community opposition by spreading the location of Affordable Housing units across all political jurisdictions within the city/county/state, whether or not such an approach eliminates the economies of scale achievable if the units were congregated in one area. That way no one politician will suffer widespread antagonism from his/her voters. In San Diego, for example, the city recently rejected a proposal to build one high rise consisting of market rate units adjoining another high rise with fewer stories, one dedicated entirely to affordable housing units. Economies of scale could have been achieved to reduce construction costs. The nonsensical reason cited for rejecting the proposed structures was that the affordable units should not be segregated from the market-rate units. At least those paying for the market-rate units would have been entering contracts with their eyes wide open, not surprised later on, about the affordable units being built in their "neighborhood"! What did the city want, every other unit on each floor of both high rises to be affordable? Long ago a Washington D.C. lobbyist cautioned me with great advice: "Never let logic cloud your vision when working with politicians."
Not everyone will agree with my reasoning. That's OK. I want to be thought-provoking. Feel free to respond with your comments and to pass this along to others.
1. Those unable to afford housing in markets they desire really should move to areas they can afford. But generally they don't. Or they should save more, invest in education and training so they can earn more, or spend less on non-housing-related priorities, thereby generating more funds available for housing-related expenses. But generally they don't.
2. Funds available for obtaining desirable housing vary from family to family because even with identical incomes, families have differing debt burdens and spending priorities. Families who manage debts and spending carefully with the goal of having more money available for market-rate housing should not have to bear any of the burdens of housing-related costs of those who choose not to manage their debts and spending in a similar fashion.
3. Affordable Housing programs often seek to impose their below-market housing units on neighborhoods of existing market-rate housing. Families who saved, invested in education and training, and managed spending carefully, for as long as it took for them to obtain market-priced housing in desirable markets generally had no way of knowing that after they had purchased their homes, "affordable units" would be inserted into their neighborhoods, potentially driving down the value of market-priced housing.
4. Monies spent by government entities and not-for-profit organizations on Affordable Housing benefit the narrow group of families who buy/rent the below-market units. The few, the beneficiaries of the programs, effectively are subsidized by the many--taxpayers and builders, among others--and monies spent of Affordable Housing are no longer available to address other socio-economic issues whose advocates are not as strong or as vocal as are the advocates of affordable housing. We need to have more discussions of competing priorities between affordable housing and issues like public transportation, road repairs, homelessness and the like.
5. The Affordable Housing issue plays well for politicians, who therefore elevate it as a high priority for voters even though it's really a high priority item for those seeking election or re-election and those who will benefit directly from obtaining the affordable units.
6. Homebuilders often are forced to build affordable units as a condition of being approved to build market-rate units, or are required to subsidize affordable units elsewhere (an option rapidly disappearing). Even though overall construction costs may be higher due to these requirements, politicians don't care because they can claim the number of new "affordable" units they were responsible for getting built.
7. Affordable Housing programs often are premised to a larger extent than necessary on the wants rather than the basic housing needs of those obtaining those units. If I were one of those obtaining an affordable unit, of course I would advocate for a swimming pool for my apartment complex because, after all, we do not want our affordable units to take away from the value of our market-priced neighbors. The amenities of our affordable units, therefore, should be similar to those of the market-rate units. Do I need a pool? No, I just want it. To which the correct response is, "No".
8. Politicians generally try to diffuse community opposition by spreading the location of Affordable Housing units across all political jurisdictions within the city/county/state, whether or not such an approach eliminates the economies of scale achievable if the units were congregated in one area. That way no one politician will suffer widespread antagonism from his/her voters. In San Diego, for example, the city recently rejected a proposal to build one high rise consisting of market rate units adjoining another high rise with fewer stories, one dedicated entirely to affordable housing units. Economies of scale could have been achieved to reduce construction costs. The nonsensical reason cited for rejecting the proposed structures was that the affordable units should not be segregated from the market-rate units. At least those paying for the market-rate units would have been entering contracts with their eyes wide open, not surprised later on, about the affordable units being built in their "neighborhood"! What did the city want, every other unit on each floor of both high rises to be affordable? Long ago a Washington D.C. lobbyist cautioned me with great advice: "Never let logic cloud your vision when working with politicians."
Not everyone will agree with my reasoning. That's OK. I want to be thought-provoking. Feel free to respond with your comments and to pass this along to others.
Very good, now talk about college education - how do we make it more affordable
ReplyDelete