What do CAFers think about housing policy, particularly affordable housing for the working class?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RCIAGraduate

Guest
Many cities (and metropolitan areas) seem to see rents and housing prices climb. Workers and especially the families like those who are trying to make a living, live paycheck to paycheck, they struggle even if they are able to make ends meet. Perhaps for some, social mobility and moving up seems out of reach, for them, this is the enduring state of their lives.

I understand the middle class squeeze isn’t exactly the newest phenomena but it seems like it’s going to get difficult for folks to make it to rent, not to mention save for the future like retirement, long-term care or even providing for the education for their children. Additionally, there will be a need for affordable housing and convenient transit access for certain populations like the disabled, elderly and others who are not well adjusted to the automobile society. Do you think something ought to be done about it, and if so, what?
 
I think independent not for profit housing co-ops are great. We live in one… in Vancouver where buying a tiny one bedroom apartment will cost you at least half a million and buying a house is a fantasy akin to winning the lottery. We have a 6 digit family income but buying a house is not an option… at least not this decade.
 
Most cities in America offer incentives for developers to include affordable housing in their developments. Many cities require it.

Honestly, I think the government should stay out of it. Every time they’ve tried to create extensive affordable housing for low income families, the area has degraded into a nearly unlivable slum. There are areas, even in small cities, where the police dimply don’t go because it’s not safe for them to be there. Those areas, coincidentally, almost always happen to be “the projects,” or areas where large masses of low income individuals live.

I know this sounds terrible, and I’m certainly not saying that poverty is equivalent to immorality, but statistiacally speaking, concentrated poverty is bad for everyone involved, and when the government gets involved their first step seems to try to be to consolidate impoverished people into a given area. If we’re going to do anything, we need to decentralize poverty and mix impoverished people in with less down-trodden populations. The problem there is that those areas tend to be more expensive in every other aspect, which makes it difficult for the poorer people to keep living there…
 
I know I can look up it but could you explain what housing co-ops are? I was actually thinking of cooperatives recently (I feel like they could be a cool social project embedded with Catholic Doctrine while helping the poor). I remember in Los Angeles, I believe a priest founded a non-profit that developed social enterprises (basically businesses) that helped provide jobs for former gang members trying to turn a new leaf. Without delving too deep into politics, I understand social activism and certain initiatives (or more even simply the ideology of their founders) isn’t exactly everyone’s cup of tea (like politics itself) but the project does seem to be something that has done good for a community hurt by gangs and violence.

But yeah, tell us more about co-ops. Another idea I thought about was the feasibility of having municipal (or state) bonds for affordable housing development. The poor have difficulties for sure, but what about the working classes, if they can’t save, where is their future in economic terms (pardon for sounding too worldly).
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Most cities in America offer incentives for developers to include affordable housing in their developments. Many cities require it.
Click to expand...
That looks good on paper but from what I understand there are still slim pickings for affordable housing in our cities, that (and I think maybe Section 8) have outstripped demand that they seem akin to winning the lottery (and it ain’t even a free house because chances are you’ll still need to pay a third of your income, which still makes saving not so easy, especially if you don’t have a lot in the way of disposable income (yes, my major issue here isn’t just affordable housing but the accompanied side effect of not being able to save which puts people in economic jeopardy, I want Americans to be able to save like their Asian counterparts so they can build a future).

One idea I would like (but would likely be difficult to scale up) would be providing free housing on the condition of having tenants save x % of their income. That way, they have a measure of hope whether it’s building up that IRA/401K, their kid’s college fund or even a rainy day fund for emergencies and crises. Maybe they’d be able to leave something for a loved one or a cause close to their hearts. Pardon, I like to dream up these sorts of things.
Honestly, I think the government should stay out of it. Every time they’ve tried to create extensive affordable housing for low income families, the area has degraded into a nearly unlivable slum. There are areas, even in small cities, where the police dimply don’t go because it’s not safe for them to be there. Those areas, coincidentally, almost always happen to be “the projects,” or areas where large masses of low income individuals live.
Click to expand...
I know I am jumping topics but could you see mixed-income housing working especially since many working and middle class folks now find themselves getting priced out of the cities? And I know I am jumping around long-standing issues and topics but I understand that while Brown V Board Education succeeded in ending legal segregation, desegregation (and school integration) was considered to be messy (and apparently watered down with later rulings and funding cuts). Could integrated housing the second solution to solving this also insidious segregation (which has a history in occurrences like redlining)?

In respect to the concerns of affordable housing developments, what would your take be on affordable housing for “moderate-income” developments (think those for working class folks and even public servants like educators, police and fire)? We’re not just talking about the poorest of the poor, but also working class folks who are “doing what they can” (working forty hours a week, making ends meet). The working class (and some of the lower middle class) seem to lose out because while they don’t qualify for public assistance, they’re far from easy street (as in they could use the help and their situation is precarious if not moreso due to the absence of public safety nets). Would you support measures to help those folks?
 
Most of your ideas seem to involve a substantial government involvement, especially providing “free” housing, which isn’t actually free, it’s just paid for by everyone else.

I personally believe that the market needs to be free to fluctuate. If there aren’t enough jobs in an area to sustain the population, then the population will move. I’m not saying that it’s easy, quick, or fair; but historically, trying to force a solution on these problems does way more damage than letting it work itself out.

This is why a close-nit community is so important, so that people who need help can get it. Unfortunately, our society isn’t structured to allow that sort of thing anymore. .

I don’t have a solution, but I do know that trying to force a fix will do more harm than good.
 
They operate under special federal and provincial legal frameworks, but are indepedent (at least ours is) from government. When a co-op is established, a group of people qualify for a special mortgage and build the complex- usually condo apartment or townhouse style. There is often a fenced in common yard / playground as well. Membership is defined as per co-op bylaws, but typically members have to “buy-in” with an established but reasonable amount and be approved by the existing membership through an interview process. Once accepted as a member, you are essentially a shareholder of the not for profit co-op and have full voting rights on decisions effecting the property. You pay a monthly housing fee akin to rent but usually much more affordable than market value, and that monthly fee may go down as the co-op’s collective mortgage is paid. Our co-op recently took out a second mortgage for renovations across the building, but this was voted on by the members and is covered by the set monthly housing fees we all pay.
 
I wouldn’t mind doing this sort of thing for a Catholic community, it’d probably be very nice. We could actually put the faith back at the center of life… That said, I like being in control of my property, so it’d be difficult to have it subject to a vote.
 
Last edited:
I remember reading of groups of people here in the UK getting together and buying land to build on. They were I think tradesmen or mostly so with also some keen diy ers and one or two able bodied unskilled people. The main idea is to all help each other build each property until they all had one completed each. So the labour costs were substantially reduced which in this country used to be around a third of the total build cost.

Again here in the UK large construction companies have allegedly built up large ‘land banks’ ie allegedly bought up swathes of land and then waited for prices to rise sufficiently to achieve a particular profit margin. It seems to me that if this is the case then perhaps government can help in incentivising companies to release land sooner, or perhaps even prevent them from buying unreasonably large areas in the first place.

It is a huge problem.
 
I am entering my second century of life and I know, barring a lotto win, that I will never own a home. I’ve worked hard every day since my teens, and that is simply a dream too far.
 
There is something to be said for relaxing zoning and other regulations to allow creation of new units or putting more people into existing units.

One thing I’ve noticed in my time, is the dramatic decrease in the number of “single room occupancy” situations.

Back at the turn of the 20th Century, when the US was getting a large number of new residents with our industrial growth, homeowners often leased rooms to new folks coming into the community- this kind of thing could be promoted again where there are housing shortages.

I looked at the 1940 US Census records, my 850 sq. foot, 2 br home had 5 residents in 1940, the identical house next door had 7. Encouraging people to live more densely could alleviate shortage problems.
 
I know it is possible to keep house prices affordable because other countries do it, we lived in Germany until 2015 and houses and apartments to buy were within the reach of most ordinary workers. Only a few areas such as the city of Munich were so expensive that the middle class were priced out. Also renters have a lot more legal rights in Germany so people could rent securely and even raise a family in a rental without fear that they could suddenly lose their home. Despite many parts of the USA, UK, Ireland, Australia and Canada having incredibly expensive estate because of the housing boom, especially since 2000, Germany has managed to avoid it and most of the associated social problems.

I think the worst result of the house price boom is young people delaying marriage and children because they cannot afford to buy a home or have enough financial security.
 
Augustinian said:
There is something to be said for relaxing zoning and other regulations to allow creation of new units or putting more people into existing units.

One thing I’ve noticed in my time, is the dramatic decrease in the number of “single room occupancy” situations.
Click to expand...
Yes, and boarding houses, which gave older people an extra income to save for retirement on, or live on through a working retirement.

Also, apartments over stores. They don’t build stores like that anymore.
 
Last edited:
I was lucky and got my home when the market was down. I could not even consider my current home at its market price now.

I have worked in Teaching and law enforcement and know a lot of teachers and police officers from those time periods. Almost none live in the county where they work because they just cant afford to. Most of them I know live two counties over (about an hour commute) What I think it dismally ironic that people are always going on about wanting cops to live where they work but they cant afford to on their pay.
 
Government built housing tends to be so poorly carried out that often needs to be demolished en masse.

Eliminate restrictive zoning to encourage the building of residential units .

Individuals need to avoid borrowing money … or to pay off loans [mortgages] as rapidly as possible.

Once the residence is paid for, it is yours and taxes become the only impedances.

Look at the terrible things the government has done to housing in Detroit and other inner cities.
 
Last edited:
The reason housing prices are high to begin with is because of government involvement. More government won’t help. One reason housing prices are high is because the government gives a tax deduction for mortgage interest. This means more money is pushed into the housing market then otherwise would be. It is the same reason college has gotten so expensive. The solutions offered are always more government which means the problem will get worse.
 
This is quite interesting. I live in Singapore and the government does control housing for the most part. Although the price isn’t what I call affordable, it is a better option than a completely free market. It may or may not work in the US tho, we are a really really small country.
 
Housing prices reflect the economic stability of an area. So in a poor, rural town like mine— you can get a 3/2/2 sfh for $500/month. In a large city— you might pay $2,000/month for the same thing. In San Francisco or New York, you may be looking at $6k/month for the same thing.

In cities, people used to live in rooming houses to cut costs. Oops, rooming houses are heavily licensed now-- to protect the residents’ health and safety, y’know. There’s already laws on the books that protect people from slumlords… why create extra bureaucratic obstacles for people who would otherwise be interested in offering such housing? Mostly because most people in most neighborhoods don’t want a rooming house on their street.

Connected to that, it’s illegal by ordinance in a lot of municipalities for more than x number of unrelated people to live together. That was mostly put in in university towns— because while people like the economic stimulus that a thriving university environment brings, they don’t want a frat house operating on their street. So by saying “no more than three unrelated people can live in the same house” cuts down on student rentals… but it also cuts down on singles who choose to room together to save costs and split bills.

Look at the HOA’s, where much of the new build takes place. Some friends of mine go camping every year, and were looking at buying a lot in an HOA, which used to be a tree farm decades ago, and is still heavily wooded. (This vast tract of HOA-owned woods is directly adjacent to a ranch, where all the activities take place. So rather than building their cabins on the ranch, and not have ownership of them, it would be a simple thing to buy the lot next door, build their infrastructure there, and then just walk right on over.) They wanted to clear some space, build a few small bunkhouse cabins, pay their fees, and otherwise leave their lot undeveloped and natural. But no. The HOA had its rules: No camping. Trees can be cut to make way for a structure, or to clear dead trees, but everything else needs HOA approval. No temporary structures. 1200 sf is the smallest structure allowed. If those are the rules for a stagnant rural HOA in the middle of nowhere, half an hour away from the closest town— how much more strict are “real” HOA’s?

Affordable housing exists all over the place. But it doesn’t necessarily exist where you want to live, or where your current job is, or in the form of the kind of house that you want to buy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top