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.
San Francisco and New York also both have rent control. This disrupts the housing market. Also building codes often mean that if you try to update a place to respond to the market you fall under new, costly codes. So there is incentive to keep things just as they are.
 
I like playing with words. Some age groups make me think of bugs.

“There’s a big centenarian crawling up the wall.”

“Octogenarians swim around in the ocean.”

I heard where it is possible for humans to live 150 years. I forgot where I read that…but I don’t think it would be easy.
 
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. e more expensive in every other aspect, which makes it difficult for the poorer people to keep living there…
It would be great if some poor people could find an affordable place to live in Beverly Hills. They wouldn’t have to worry so much about crime. I’m sure that rich people would volunteer to build housing so that the poor could live among them.
 
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.
Not just scaling up, but it would hit hard on people with unusual expenses. For example, those with expensive medical conditions and poor insurance will find it much harder to save x percent of their income. I’ve found that’s often already a blind spot with many assistance programs both public and private - the need for assistance is determined by whether the average person of X family size would need help.

Part of the problem though is that there’s more money to be made, often, by renting to fewer well off people than to more poor people. I also think modern job markets are a disincentive to home ownership. Most younger people I know, you just expect to move around a lot in your life. Home ownership is less attractive to people who don’t want to put roots down.
 
40.png
ProdglArchitect:
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. e more expensive in every other aspect, which makes it difficult for the poorer people to keep living there…
It would be great if some poor people could find an affordable place to live in Beverly Hills. They wouldn’t have to worry so much about crime. I’m sure that rich people would volunteer to build housing so that the poor could live among them.
That’s either some next-level sarcasm, or straight up denial. I can’t tell which.

Honestly, we don’t even need to have them move to rich areas to reduce crime, just spread the population out into the “middle class” areas. It’s really just about avoiding consolidation, because that appears to invariably lead to problems.
 
I read it as a reference to what was going on in places like Seattle and Portland ("Multnomah County Offers Incentives to House Homeless in Backyards").

Basically, people are saying, “Hey! Our area is not affordable! Yeah, we’re not barring people from desirable neighborhoods by race anymore, but we’re barring people based on economics— and it has the same result. So what we need to do is encourage people to build accessory dwelling units (ADU’s) in their backyards, and we’ll have a rent-and-income-restricted program where low-income families can live in these ADU’s, and we’ll give the homeowners incentives for allowing people to live in their backyards!”

So, in places like Seattle, the rules are—
  1. You need to live in the main house. You can’t have a rental property and throw an ADU into the back and end up with two sets of tenants.
  2. You need to have lived there at least six months and the lot size needs to be at least 4,000 sf.
  3. You need to have at least a 50% ownership stake in the property. I don’t know if that means you’ve paid at least half of your mortgage, or if it’s talking about a husband-and-wife owning something jointly.
  4. You need to provide at least one off-street parking space or garage.
  5. No more than 8 people can live on the lot— so if you’re living in the main house by yourself, theoretically, you can put 7 people in the backyard house. If you have a family of 6, however, your ADU is limited to 2 people.
  6. Only one ADU can be built per lot.
  7. Total gross floor area can’t exceed more than 800 sf, including garage and storage space.
  8. You can convert a preexisting structure, but you need to follow codes.
  9. Townhouses/rowhouses follow different rules from sfh’s. Additional restrictions apply.
  10. If you build it, but don’t rent it in the program, you need to remove the features that make it a separate unit.
It costs about $250,000 to build an ADU in Seattle. 😮
 
In places like Portland, the proposed rules were—
  1. Homeowners don’t pay anything. They allow ADU’s to be built in their backyards.
  2. They rent them out for five years, maintain the ADU’s, and act as landlords. They get ownership at the end of the 5th year.
  3. If they break the contract, the homeowners pay the cost of construction.
  4. People in shelters will be placed in these ADU’s-- instead of shelters, streets, or tent cities.
  5. The houses will be about 200 sf, with plumbing. If the first family put in place moves out, the program will replace them with someone else. But there’s no time limit on how long they can stay. When the families get ownership, they have the option of kicking them out, and the shelter will place them in a new situation.
For comparison, in my town, I can probably build something like a prefab cabin or Katrina Cottage for something around $15-$20-$30k, including the cost of the land and the addition of plumbing. In Seattle, they can’t build an <800sf ADU for under a quarter-of-a-million. In Portland’s program, they can’t build a 20x10 cabin for under $75k.

But whether you’re dealing with the homeless or just low-income families, there’s a whole lot of NIMBY going on…
 
I don’t know the answer, but we have a growing problem. Around here, very few young families can afford a “starter home” any longer. As a result, new apartment buildings are going up like wildfire. And rental rates are high. Families will be living in apartments possibly for their whole child bearing years. We are going to turn into a renters society, as opposed to an owners society. This is not a good thing. With it will come falling birth rates, lots more cohabitation, and a general loss if dignity which homeownership brings (see Rerum Novarum). Do we really want to turn into a society such as Western Europe?
This is a middle class problem. We all think of government housing as 60s and 70s era housing projects for the poor, so we say we want it to stay completely private and unregulated. What we need to admit is that a complete laissez-faire economy evolves into a complete concentration of wealth. Being a conservative, I consider that a bad thing. We need to find good solutions, we need reasonable government control and involvement, that works, that is driven from the community level (think subsidiarity).

We need to admit the current direction is wrong.
 
Yeah, no.

If you want to do that, have fun, but my property is my property, and I’d rather not have someone living in my back yard.
 
Yeah - and when those families are using two incomes to rent an apartment, it then crowds out the young singles crowd. This is why we’re seeing people live with their parents so much longer; housing prices are going up much faster than wages. Not that living with parents is always a bad thing, but there are plenty of us for whom it’s not a realistic option.
 
It actually is a bad thing most of the time, IMO, even when everyone gets along.
 
I agree.

My own house has two ADU’s on it. One used to be the maid’s house, back in the 1920’s. The other is a garage apartment-- one of my husband’s coworkers lived there in the 1970’s with his wife when they first got married.

Right now, they’re both used for storage. But if I ever fell on hard times and needed to, I could rent them out— after a significant renovation! 😛 And that used to be normal, for older widows to bring in some extra income with a rooming house.

However, our municipalities have shifted very firmly against the concepts of rooming houses, and now you get people trying to run a household on a McJob income. Rooming houses weren’t necessarily all that and a bag of chips, but they served a particular segment of the population-- and when you pull that out of the housing ecosystem, the alternative is often the shelter.

Looking at Portland’s houses for sale, it looks like you can get a boarded-up shack, a 600 sf 2/1, a house with no drywall, or a manufactured home in a trailer park for a quarter of a million dollars. 🙂 (Yeah, there are a few better homes for sale, but they’re either underpriced in hopes of a bidding war, or foreclosures or short sales, or whatever.) You’re more likely going to need to spend more like $500k for a “normal” house… and anyone who spends half a million dollars on their house is unlikely to be the kind of person who would be comfortable inviting a stranger to share their private space with them. Are they homeless because their luck is bad? Are they homeless because of poor life decisions? Are they homeless because of drug or mental health issues?

You can’t just destroy one part of the housing ecosystem, and then try to retrofit it back in into a different segment of the housing ecosystem.

Some places are experimenting with sort of a quasi-dormitory-like approach, but they call it “co-living” or micro-apartments, which is way trendier and cooler than “rooming house”.

Inexpensive housing shouldn’t be illegal. But much of the 20th century was spent getting rid of it— and this is where we are.
 
There’s some issues with infrastructure as well, where the electricity and water aren’t set up to accommodate smaller dwellings. I know the tiny house or modular houses are trending now. Personally I’d love something like that - I live in a little studio and it’s perfectly fine for a single person. (Although I’ve also considered exactly what you’ve mentioned - looking for an older woman or couple with space to rent. It used to be considered a good option especially for young ladies.)

But then I suspect I’d be considered the more desirable sort of tenant - the young working adult who has a job, maybe not a lot of income but something steady. I imagine it’s much harder for people who have pasts involving addictions or drug use, or who may have kids.
 
Honestly, I think the concept of boarding houses was great. It allowed people to find a cheap place to live when they started working or when they moved into an area, they provided structure and meals, and they were generally safe even in low income areas. They were also neighborly, and fostered a sense of community. I honestly don’t understand why cities moved to get rid of them.
 
Last edited:
Not just young people.

I was a recent college grad when the word temployment was coined. I knew it was the end of an era where you could settle down and have a job that allowed you to retire with pension and a gold watch. Now employment is more dicey and you have to move to find available jobs. This is why I cannot buy a house even if I can afford it. I know sooner or later I will be laid off again and will have to move to find another job.

Just like marriage, home ownership is something not in the cards for me.
 
Affordable anything simply means wealth distribution by governmental force. Since this has nothing to do with charity or changing the human heart, it is not the means to an end that the Church should involve itself in. It is secular/pagan in thought.

The Church, via its ersatz social gospel, has entered far too far into secular politics in recent decades.

They should stick to the often neglected/forgotten Gospel, as it also covers this subject.
 
I honestly don’t understand why cities moved to get rid of them.
Some of it was economic. That’s why you have things like zoning— all houses on a block have similar requirements, similar usages. You don’t have a grocery store, a 2/1, a 5/3, and two garage apartments all next to each other. My block was built up in the 1920’s— and that’s exactly what we’ve got. (The grocery store has since been transformed into a sfh.) So ultimately, rich people didn’t want to live next to poor people.

That’s also why you have things like number-of-people-per-bedroom, or number-of-sf-per-person restrictions in rentals. We all know the stories of the turn-of-the-century families who lived, 10 in a 1-bedroom house. Once upon a time, I thought I was renting a 1/1 to a mom, dad, and infant. OK, it would be a bit tight, but it was cool. I realized when they moved in, however, that it was actually mom, dad, infant, his two kids from another relationship, and her other kid from another relationship. I was okay with putting in 3 people in a 400 sf house… but I wasn’t going to put a family of 6 in 400 sf. I made them leave, because they had lied on their application. But 100+ years ago, that was perfectly normal… you did what you needed to do in order to make ends meet.

So, back in the day, they said, “We can’t have overcrowding due to public health concerns! We don’t want disease to spread!” But, oops, somehow, it mostly seemed to apply as a way to clear out immigrant neighborhoods, rather than university dorms, prisons, military barracks, owner-occupied residences with big families… 😉

Same thing for fire safety concerns. Capsule hotels used to be very common for workers and traveling salesmen and [whoever else needing cheap lodging on a tight budget. Or renting the same hotel room in 8-hour shifts to shift workers. Those hotels still exist in other parts of the world, but it looks like this—

2e6ccf669cad473cec24bf3c20ce711d8948d81f.jpeg


and we decide, “Nope, that’s just not healthy” and ban it. It might not be ideal---- but when it’s the difference between homelessness and shelter— I remember driving through downtown Houston at 3 in the morning, and seeing blocks and blocks of people neatly lined up sleeping on the sidewalk under bright lights. 😦 It was so unexpected, it took me a while before I understood what I was seeing.

There were certainly dangers. There was the arsonist who set fire to two stairwells at the Seattle Ozark Hotel, which was a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotel. 20 people died in that fire. They said, “Oh, you need fire sprinklers!” and came down on buildings that didn’t have good sprinkler systems and fire escapes in place— which was a good idea. But then the Seventh Avenue Hotel burned about a year later, and 12 more people died… and more restrictions were added.
 
From 1970 to ’71, 40 hotels and other residential buildings, mostly in the Skid Road area, were closed and another 21 were demolished, eliminating a total of 3,264 units of low-income housing. In a 1983 inventory completed as part of the environmental impact statement prepared for the city’s downtown revitalization plan, it was estimated that between 1960 and 1980, 15,622 housing units were lost in an area comprising downtown, South Lake Union and First Hill. Of the 13,093 units that remained in the downtown area in 1982, nearly 4,000 sat vacant and only 7,311 were affordable for low-income residents.
So if you combine that with de-institutionalization…! You’ve definitely got a crisis on your hands. But so many structures were either too expensive to retrofit with new safety features, and had to sit vacant, rather than being put to use… or people divested themselves of real estate and sold them to developers, who were more than happy to take advantage of all this under the disguise of social concern…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top