By popular demand I will address affordable housing.
There are those in the local government that feel that it is their responsibility to ensure that there is affordable housing in our community. There are several inherent problems with this.
A. What is the definition of affordable and what standard do we use to figure this out? Clearly Duvall has a higher median income than many cities in our area so affordable housing here may include homes in the $300K and up range. But in Olympia affordable housing may be homes in the $100K range. Either way can someone making $30,000 a year afford a home in Duvall? Not usually.
B. If they can not afford to live in this area, is it the government's job to make sure they have affordable housing through tax breaks, regulation and oversight?
C. If there are not sufficient jobs that pay a high enough wage to allow workers to live in Duvall, what are the businesses to do? Do they leave those positions open or do they raise the pay rates for these positions to draw workers from other areas?
D. At what point does government involvement become market manipulation? Does the government have any place in ensuring "affordable housing" in a community?
I'll bring my last post over here.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think it's government's responsibility to ensure affordable housing in every community. I live based on where I can afford, and if I want to live someplace else I use it as a motivator to increase my income.
For example, I used to live in Kent because that was all I could afford. Crime was high and I was afraid to go out by myself at night. I lived there only until I had worked my way up in my company to be able to afford something nicer. I chose to live in Duvall because the neighborhoods are really nice, clean and there is little crime. However, I am still motivated to keep moving up in my company until I can afford something like Medina. And I like that this motivates me. I would be disappointed if Medina's city council starting forcing $300K houses in that area.
Jill
I googled "affordable housing" on the washington state website and here's the definition:
ReplyDeleteThe generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care.
That's a reasonable definition, but it's not reasonable to assume government should provide affordable housing. If payments on a million dollar house exceeds 30% of my annual income, I'm probably not going to by a million dollar house. That's my responsibility. And if there are only million dollar houses in Clyde Hill, I'm probably not going to live in Clyde Hill. It's my responsibility to choose where I can afford.
Bro
I'm kind of torn on this topic. I do not believe that the government should be forcing / regulating development at this level, and yet I am not in favor of huge price tags on a home just because some developer thinks the market will bear the price tag. My family has always lived in homes which we could afford, and this usually means something less than 100K. It's not a house I would want to retire in, but it is adequate for our current needs and fits in our budget.
ReplyDeleteI'm also opposed to the idea of a '50+' community, or a 'family community' because by definition they exclude citizens based on minute criteria. I see this type of housing as just another instance of the 'whites only' or 'blacks only' of many years ago but based on age or how many children someone has instead of skin color. If one was wrong, so is the other.
I suspect that the root of the issue around affordable housing is an attempt to control crime based on a perception that lower income housing is higher crime by definition. I would argue that while there may be a relationship between them, it is not as simple as cause and effect. There are many occupants of low income housing who are good citizens and who work hard to make ends meet and get / stay off of welfare. Due to medical issues, family circumstances, lack of education or other reasons they may not be able to or desire to work up into a 'better' neighborhood.
Encouraging development of 300K+ houses to exclude these citizens would be wrong in my mind because it sends a message that these people are not welcome in our community because we think they have committed some crimes or are likely to commit one.
I think if the government were to be removed entirely from the process, we would see market pressures force more affordable housing to be developed along with the more expensive homes. At most I think the government should be limited to quality control of development and renovations and population growth management.
I love everything about your last paragraph, Bart. It's not up to government to control prices up or down, it's for the market to decide. Government should be limited to regulating quality standards.
ReplyDeleteJill
Within Duvall we already have an affordable housing area - it's called old town. I don't know if that area has higher crime (per Bart's observation), but I do know it has a higher rate of people parking cars on their lawn. I'm willing to work harder to live in an area that doesn't have cars on the lawns.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point, but it's not just cars in the lawn. Please tell me why the yards in Taylor's Ridge look so much better than the yards in Old Town? It's not the expensive landscaping, it's the lack of garbage in the Taylor's Ridge yards. Why do lower income people leave crap outside?
ReplyDeleteI just got a visual of everyone in Taylor's Ridge parking broken down cars on their lawn. LOL - seriously, why does one expect to see broken down cars on lawns in old town, but not in Taylor's Ridge. I'm trying to analyze this without having any biases.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting point about the cars on the lawn. and just like Bart said about the crime, not all people who live in low income housing are criminals and not all park cars on the lawn. When I lived in Kent I drove a Ford Escort and at times it wasn't drivable, but it was always parked in my driveway. But why is there a higher rate? What is that extra variable that determines whether someone will be a criminal and/or park on their lawn?
ReplyDeleteJill
Interesting comment, Bart. You say you're not in favor of developers putting huge prices on homes just because the market will bear it. What about homeowners putting huge price tags on their homes if the market will bear it? If someone is willing to pay $600K for my home, is it unfair for me to sell it at that price? If it is OK for a homeowner to sell at market price, why isn't it OK for a developer to sell at market price?
ReplyDeleteI know you didn't specifically make that conclusion, but what an interesting idea to debate.
Doug
Homes are products. A higher priced home has more to offer then a lower priced home. There is more driving the price of homes then government or market demands. Location, school district, convenience to amenities and craftsmanship all contribute to a homes value. I think having a range of options in a community is a good model.
ReplyDeleteYou need moderate to lower priced homes to provide a product for people employed in the community. This helps to sustain the economy by providing a good labor force for goods and services. There are many people working in industries that contribute to our town, who may only be able to afford a 300k home.
Debbie
Doug - what is the difference between a 100K home, a 300K home, and a 600K home? Based on what I have seen of these, it seems to come down to a difference of maybe 25K in materials costs, and the rest is location and perception. I can't imagine why anybody would be so foolish as to pay 600K for a home unless it has something like 20 bedrooms, 8 bathrooms, a dining hall, or perhaps is gold plated.
ReplyDeleteDebbie,
ReplyDeleteIf a community needs lower priced housing then there is a demand to fill and someone should supply it. The government should not be involved.
Can you imagine if the tides were turned and you were to say that White Center needed bigger homes so rich people will move in because we need to have a place close to Seattle where CEOs can stay and find an appropriate house?
It is as ridiculous an argument as saying that Medina, or even Duvall, needs to make sure that we have affordable housing so those with lower incomes can live here.
I think that we forget that life is not fair. If I want a house in Duvall I need to do what it takes to be able to achieve that goal. Get an education, a well paying job, save enough money and purchase a home where I want. I should not expect the government to ensure that there is affordable housing so I can live in Duvall, Medina, Clyde Hill, etc without putting in the effort required to reach that goal on my own merits.
Bart,
ReplyDeleteIt is about perception. Which is a better car, a Lexus or a Toyota? Both are mede by the same company and while the Lexus may have a few upgrades they are essentially the same. Yet the Lexus demands a higher market value than the Toyota.
I agree that it is not the most wise fiscal decision but a great deal depends on perception. If there are people willing to purchase it then let them sell it for whatever the market will bear. That being said, if we have learned anything from the housing crisis, let the buyer beware.
Currently the government has not dictated lower income housing prices. The market has created it, which one mans loss is another mans gain in a free market system.
ReplyDeleteDebbie
While this is essentially true that they have not dictated it, they have done a great deal to encourage it. They have zoned certain areas in a manner that would make it unusable for anything other than multi-unit housing. They have offered tax breaks and credits to developers willing to build "affordable housing." They have put into place growth management plans that require a certain density rather than letting the market and people decide what the best use for land is.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, you are right that it has not been dictated by the government. But it has been helped as far down the road as possible.
Thomas,
ReplyDelete+1 on your comment that it is just as ridiculous an argument to say that White Center needs to provide million dollar homes to house CEOs close to their business as it is to say medina needs to provide a $100K home for their grocery workers. When I lived in Kent my job was in Bellevue and I took the bus to work every day. It would have been a waste of money for me to live in Bellevue and it wouldn't have even dawned on me to insist Bellevue provide me affordable housing.
The market does dictate affordable housing and I know where I need to live based on my current level of income.
Jill
Bart,
ReplyDeleteIt's your individual decision to not purchase a $600K house, but again it's all relative. I have a grandmother in Wyoming who would think you are out of your mind for spending $150K on a house.
I love the free market - how much do you, the individual think the product is worth and can you, the individual afford to pay for it without subsidy.
Doug
Jill and Doug - you are correct about the free market forces being a motivating factor. My concerns come from some other motivations that also raise prices...
ReplyDeleteWhen I grew up my family was middle class, but we lived just a couple of miles from some very wealthy neighborhoods. Many of the children I went to school with came from this neighborhood, and were the classic spolied rich kid kind of snob. If your parents didn't make as much as theirs you weren't worth their notice, no matter how well you did in school (academics or sports). They were very proud of their social status, and took every opportunity to make people aware of how much they had.
When I look at houses that are so expensive I have to ask whether the free market is really what is driving the price, or is it a need to feel superior to someone else? If it is truly a free market system that drives the price that high, then I can learn to deal with it. If it's an attempt to feed a superiority complex, then I would argue that this is incorrect behavior.
Bart,
ReplyDeleteYou raise an interesting point. Is the Market immoral? If it is does it matter?
As I see it, the value of a home, car or anything else is only as high as someone is willing to pay for it.
While I may not agree with the motivation of the person purchasing a mansion it does not have any bearing on the demand in the market.
I don't want the government interferring with the market and I really don't want the government penalizing the motivation of those buying.
The old axiom is true. Life is not fair.
While I wish that those children you spoke of were more considerate, I can not condone any governmental action to address it.
I'm not advocating government action either - I'm asking us to consider our own motives when we decide whether to spend 300K or 600K on a home, and whether we are behaving in a way that sends the kinds of messages we really mean to send?
ReplyDeleteI agree that we should examine our own motives beforewe purchase items. Once again making the point the the individual is best suited tomake those decisions rather than the government telling them to make them or encouraging them to make them.
ReplyDeleteJill it is true, there are towns that are defined by very high income land values. I have seen some that have thrived such as Vale and Jackson Hole. However there are other communities like Medina, that are basically just houses. I don't know if Duvall is poised to be the next jet set vacation spot, or a bedroom community for the privileged.
ReplyDeleteGwen
I'm going to suggest that we not make judgements or assumptions on other people's choices. When I move to Medina, you might assume I want to show superiority, when actually I just want to feel safe when I walk around my neighborhood at night. If I buy a house that's bigger than I need, you might assume I want to show superiority. But actually I need the extra room to house relatives who have to come here for appointments at Swedish medical center. I'm not going to buy a small house in a less safe part of town because I'm worried about what you think of me.
ReplyDeleteAnd if it makes you feel better, Bart, I can guarantee the snobby rich kids you knew growing up are miserable today. If everything is handed to you, you never learn to be satisfied with what you have.
Jill
So what role, if any, should government play in "affordable housing?"
ReplyDeleteThe ONLY role government should play in affordable housing is keeping property taxes down
ReplyDeleteBro
Jill - you're right about assuming the motivations of others. I certainly didn't mean for my example to show that I think that *every* person who buys a 600K house is a snob or that every person who lives in old town has a car buried somewhere in their lawn... I recognize that many people have different needs and different perspectives. I intended my example to help reflect a situation where the motivation that leads a person to be willing to pay 600K for a home is not the wisest course of action. Other motivations such as choice of schools, crime rates, resale values, etc. make more sense to me, and lend weight to the option of buying a more expensive home.
ReplyDeleteIn either scenario, as Bro and others have pointed out, the government's job is to do the home inspections / permitting and to keep the taxes as low as possible.
If the government is responsible for keeping taxes low then are they also responsible for keeping spending under control?
ReplyDeleteBart - Thanks for the information on Toyota versus Lexus. I guess it would be a good idea to buy a Toyota at half the price since it's essentially the same car as the Lexus. As for government spending, maybe everything should be privatized? Because everyone knows the private sector does a better job then the government. And then those who don't want the services have an option out.
ReplyDeleteAs for affordable homes in our town, the most expensive real estate is in old town with those homes advertised at 850K. A better area for affordability would actually be the trailer park which is a nice community of people.
Debbie
Doesn't one more or less equal the other?
ReplyDeleteI wish they were the same but they are often not the same. The government has a bad habit of spending far more than they take in.
ReplyDeleteDuvall has done a good job with this the last few years. I'll give credit to the mayor, council and city staff for that.
Jill, you should get to know Councilmember Elizabeth Walker. She grew up in Medina. Hillary
ReplyDeleteClyde Hill. Not Medina.
ReplyDeleteI am kind of suprised that John Did not point that out. He clearly has done his research on the Council.
ReplyDeleteThat being said I think the more we know about the Councilmembers the better. We should know what their backgrounds are, what their positions are on the issues and where they want to guide the community. Thankfully Duvall is small enough to allow us that opportunity.
who is John? Now I'm confused.
ReplyDeleteOne of the ways that the State encourages the creation of affordable housing is through the encouragement of smaller lot sizes and more dense land zoning.
ReplyDeleteOften, when a city pursues approval of their comprehensive plan, one of the items that they will present is an explanation of their 20-year population projection (this is often not up to the city, it is apportioned through a separate process), along with a description of how they will accommodate that population. Continuous UGA expansion is generally frowned upon (read urban sprawl) and efforts to create multi-family housing and smaller lot sizes in single-family homes will be scrutinized when plan adoption is considered at the county level and if it undergoes any Hearing Board review.
Most people have a difficult time getting behind this concept (regardless of which side of the aisle you prefer), but unless there are substantive changes to the Growth Management Act, it is a reality that every community will face and have to address.
- Politicalinclin
The thing I have a difficult time with is why the government feels the need to be involved in this at all. In the early years of the country the government gave land away encouraging people to move farther from cities and to expand the country. Talk about urban growth.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is a good thing that the government is involved in how a town develops or how a city wants to grow.
As land owners we should all be good stewards of the land and should act responsibly to care for what we own. That being said it should not be mandated by the government.
Speaking of reasons why government should not be involved, has anyone looked up their 2011 tax bill yet? Mine jumped by 10% - it's even higher than it was at the peak of the housing bubble. Time for a new blog, Thomas!
ReplyDelete