Posted by
Playful Walrus on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:55:21 PM
We hear the buzzwords “affordable housing” a lot these days, and
recent events in Anaheim have had me commenting a lot on the issue, but I wanted blog some thoughts that focus on the topic as a concept.
When politicians and “community activists” talk about a need for affordable housing, they are almost always saying that
some people should get to live in housing that costs too much for them, and thus
other people they don’t even know should have to pay more to enable this.
This is inescapable, because housing is not affordable to the less wealthy among us unless it is low-cost housing. What makes housing
low cost? 1) It was built with labor and materials that are relatively inexpensive or with less material and labor (smaller). 2) It is in a location that is less desirable than other housing locations. 3) The supply of housing exceeds the demand for housing.
If #3 is true to an extreme extent, developers or others who own multiple homes
might eat some of their costs to sell or rent housing, but that doesn’t mean that moderate-cost housing becomes low-cost, even if it becomes affordable to more people. It just means that the developers or landlords are willing to lose some money rather than do without any money. However, without the financial incentive to build more housing, developers will stop or slow down developing until the supply is less in comparison to demand. (Conversely, developers will build more housing, if allowed by governments, if housing prices are higher because they can make more money.)
The truth is, any housing that sells or rents is
affordable to somebody, so “affordable” housing is usually an imprecise, Orwellian phrase.
People who say they need “affordable” housing often mean they want to be able to live in a desirable location, in a larger home, surrounded by people who earn more than they do,
and have other people pay for it. They want expensive or moderate-cost housing without paying more than low-cost rates for it. When you get down to it, these people are selfish. They are not offering goods and services to the rest of the world that are valuable enough to bring them the income they want, but they want the nicer lifestyle as if they had the larger income anyway, and they want it
at someone else’s expense.
Sometimes, it is the taxpayers who pay extra. Sometimes, it is the other buyers/renters who pay extra.
Now, if a developer or a landlord VOLUNTEERS to sell or charge less to someone and passes on the costs to their other buyers or renters, it is the choice of those buyers and renters if they are willing to go along with that. If a church or charity chooses to pay the housing costs of these people, that is something for the donors to decide to either support or not. It is problematic to me when
the government requires it, or when the
government uses my tax money to house private citizens. That is not low-cost housing.
That is housing that costs ME more.People should not be able to eat at an expensive restaurant and pay fast-food prices thanks to someone else’s dime without their permission.
Someone should not be able to buy or rent a luxury vehicle and pay “economy” vehicle prices thanks to someone else’s dime without their permission.
Someone should be able to buy or rent expensive clothing and pay discount clothier prices thanks to someone else’s dime without their permission.
Why should housing be any different?