The problem with affordable housing

[Otis]

We had a hearing the other night on an affordable housing project. One of the opponents actually said this:

"When I’m paying over 2,000 a month for a mortgage and someone is allowed to live next door with a lake view that’s paying 250 a month that’s not right."

Lake views, apparently, are only for people who can afford high payments. This particular lake view includes the manufactured home park across the street.

Edit:
Then someone testified thusly: "I’m not opposed to having housing for people who need it. I am opposed to putting apartments that start at $250 a month in a neighborhood that has $350,000 to $500,000 homes in it."

She now has been appointed to the planning commission!

[mendelman]

And god forbid your kid's teachers would then be able to live in the city they work for.

[Michele Zone]

And god forbid your kid's teachers would then be able to live in the city they work for.

Well, it's not like we value our children today in America anyway. That's part of why daycare workers, etc. are some of the worst paid jobs around. God forbid that we should care what kind of treatment children receive. We don't mind paying for additional prisons later on, down the road. At least prison guards are paid decently, and thus contribute more to the economy than child care workers.



It's all about the money, you know. That's all that matters.

[Suburb Repairman]

We had a hearing the other night on an affordable housing project. One of the opponents actually said this:

"When I’m paying over 2,000 a month for a mortgage and someone is allowed to live next door with a lake view that’s paying 250 a month that’s not right."

Lake views, apparently, are only for people who can afford high payments. This particular lake view includes the manufactured home park across the street.

Well, at least he didn't accuse them all of being pedophiles and drug dealers, which actually happened at my previous job with a proposed apartment development.

The most recent successful affordable projects I've seen have called themselves "service workforce housing" that list possible tenants as teachers, cops, firefighters, etc.

[jaws]

They had to pay full price to live there, now they will be taxed so that others will be paid to live there.

I'd be angry too.

Well, it's not like we value our children today in America anyway. That's part of why daycare workers, etc. are some of the worst paid jobs around. God forbid that we should care what kind of treatment children receive. We don't mind paying for additional prisons later on, down the road. At least prison guards are paid decently, and thus contribute more to the economy than child care workers.

You're completely wrong. The reason daycare workers, like school teachers, are badly paid is because the disutility of being a daycare worker is much lower than of being, for example, a garbage collector. Supposing that they were paid the same, no one would choose to become a garbage collector.

That is also why progressive income taxation is bad. If we have to choose between teaching at 30,000$ or working on an offshore oil rig for 90,000$, and the government taxes 45,000$ from the offshore rig job, then we are choosing between 30,000$ and 45,000$. The more the government taxes the oil rig job, the more the oil company will have to raise salaries to compete with teaching jobs, thus increasing the raw salary gap.

Then you will of course complain that teachers and daycare workers are poorly paid.

So please understand why for a lot of people seeing a teacher get subsidized housing is an outrage.

[wahday]

One might point out to the person making this argument that the final in-pocket monthly profit no doubt benefits the one who both earns more and owns a more valuable home. Also, when they sell, they will capitalize on their investment. The subsidized housing recipient will not.

In my (limited) experience in this area, the things people say at hearings are often veiled articulations of what they are afraid to say publicly (and which they may not even recognize themselves). In this case, there is likely also a perceived concern that house values will decrease if the project is built, but people are reticent to publicly state that they are scared of living next to poor people because they may not make as much profit off of their already expensive homes. It is a common concern that should probably be addressed quickly.

A big question in this is also "on what legal grounds could the council deny the project?" This will, of course, depend on the particulars as to whether resident concerns can be considered legitimate. If its because people are afraid of poverty or a racial or ethnic group, there is a danger of being nailed for exclusionary zoning practices.

Often developers (non-profit or for-profit) will spend a lot of money doing various studies to show what the likely impact of traffic or school performance, or whatever is, only to find that those who are objecting shift their argument when seeing data that does not support their concerns. I have even seen it come to people finally saying at a public meeting that they don't want any n***ers in their town, which of course resulted in the project passing with no objection (what councilor wants to align themselves with that sentiment?).

[jaws]

In my (limited) experience in this area, the things people say at hearings are often veiled articulations of what they are afraid to say publicly (and which they may not even recognize themselves). In this case, there is likely also a perceived concern that house values will decrease if the project is built, but people are reticent to publicly state that they are scared of living next to poor people because they may not make as much profit off of their already expensive homes. It is a common concern that should probably be addressed quickly.

That is also perfectly reasonable. Since municipalities are democratic and egalitarian, a large influx of less wealthy people will create the possibility of wealth redistribution (in fact affordable housing is one such act). Current residents will suffer higher taxes while not getting service in proportion to these higher taxes, services that will go to the less wealthy residents. This will without exception reduce their property value.

[Otis]

Well, at least he didn't accuse them all of being pedophiles and drug dealers...

That was a different guy.

It was explained to the commission and the audience that this is not a section 8 subsidized housing project, but is designed to be affordable workforce housing.

By the way, the project was approved unanimously.

[MountainTOD]

I found this link that should help in making arguments to the contrary -

Addressing Community Opposition to Affordable Housing Development: A Fair Housing Toolkit
Type : Report
Year Published: 2004
Published By: Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania
Authors: Sara Pratt, Michael Allen
http://content.knowledgeplex.org/kp2...ents/68549.pdf

but since it passed unanimously you dont seem to have the need for it.

[planner?]

I'm glad to hear that the proposal was approved.

It has been proven by a large number of studies that LIHTC projects do NOT negatively impact the surrounding property values of a community. . .

I think veiled racism and ignorace can explaing much of the NIMBYism toward affordable housing. . .

I also think that any community that cannot house it's workforce has an inherent sustainability problem

[AubieTurtle]

A new renter has moved into the condo across the hall from me. That unit was subsidized $40,000 (plus closing costs and downpayment assistance) as "workforce" housing. In the four and a half years since the building was completed, the girl who bought the unit has lived there for maybe six months, the rest of the time she has rented it out, at what I assume is a nice profit at market rate. It makes me wonder if I could get away with buying multiple workforce housing units in different projects and rent them out. If they don't bother to verify that the people buying the units actually live in them, are they going to bother to find out if it really is my only home?

I don't have a problem with mixed income housing (I live next to a HOPE VI project and a homeless shelter) but it needs to be sold at market rate. If it is a rental, a voucher like Section 8 should be used so the resident is completely aware of how much of a subsidy they are getting from society and jail time should be involved for those who cheat the program by subleasing. If units with a lake view can be built and sold at a lower rate without a subsidy, screw the "OMG, property values" folks.

[jsk1983]

And god forbid your kid's teachers would then be able to live in the city they work for.

I always find comments like this somewhat humorous. Of course I am from Buffalo, I'm sure it is a much different situation in more prosperous markets. Teacher salaries here top out at 70-80k and cops salaries are often even higher. If people making this kind of money are having trouble purchasing a house there are some serious issues that need to be adressed. Personally I think many cities have grown too large for their own good. At the same time it seems many smaller and medium cities would be more than welcome to absorb some of that overflow.

[Suburb Repairman]

A new renter has moved into the condo across the hall from me. That unit was subsidized $40,000 (plus closing costs and downpayment assistance) as "workforce" housing. In the four and a half years since the building was completed, the girl who bought the unit has lived there for maybe six months, the rest of the time she has rented it out, at what I assume is a nice profit at market rate. It makes me wonder if I could get away with buying multiple workforce housing units in different projects and rent them out. If they don't bother to verify that the people buying the units actually live in them, are they going to bother to find out if it really is my only home?

Sounds to me like somebody hasn't done an effective job of monitoring or did not place an owner-occupancy restriction on it. That's the kind of thing newspapers around here just LOVE to get hold of.

[DetroitPlanner]

I always find comments like this somewhat humorous. Of course I am from Buffalo, I'm sure it is a much different situation in more prosperous markets. Teacher salaries here top out at 70-80k and cops salaries are often even higher. If people making this kind of money are having trouble purchasing a house there are some serious issues that need to be adressed. Personally I think many cities have grown too large for their own good. At the same time it seems many smaller and medium cities would be more than welcome to absorb some of that overflow.

I've got the same persepective. Civil servants are the best jobs to have in Detroit. It may not pay the best, but when you factor in workload, benefits, cost of housing, not having to worry about the next round of layoffs, we have it pretty good.

[AubieTurtle]

Sounds to me like somebody hasn't done an effective job of monitoring or did not place an owner-occupancy restriction on it. That's the kind of thing newspapers around here just LOVE to get hold of.

There is a ten year occupancy requirement. The problem is that the quasi-government agency does no follow up after the unit is sold. We had one of the subsidized units slip towards foreclosure and when we called the agency to inquire about purchasing the unit instead of allowing it to end up in foreclosure, they had absolutely no idea what to do. What is suppose to happen is that if the unit is sold for a profit before the ten years are up, then the profit is split between the homeowner and the agency. The agency however seemed totally uninterested in what was happening and apparently couldn't even find any records relating to the property. They had received millions more dollars in funding for new projects and I guess they didn't want to get bogged down in the past.

[jolinger]

One might point out to the person making this argument that the final in-pocket monthly profit no doubt benefits the one who both earns more and owns a more valuable home. Also, when they sell, they will capitalize on their investment. The subsidized housing recipient will not.

In my (limited) experience in this area, the things people say at hearings are often veiled articulations of what they are afraid to say publicly (and which they may not even recognize themselves). In this case, there is likely also a perceived concern that house values will decrease if the project is built, but people are reticent to publicly state that they are scared of living next to poor people because they may not make as much profit off of their already expensive homes. It is a common concern that should probably be addressed quickly.

A big question in this is also "on what legal grounds could the council deny the project?" This will, of course, depend on the particulars as to whether resident concerns can be considered legitimate. If its because people are afraid of poverty or a racial or ethnic group, there is a danger of being nailed for exclusionary zoning practices.

Often developers (non-profit or for-profit) will spend a lot of money doing various studies to show what the likely impact of traffic or school performance, or whatever is, only to find that those who are objecting shift their argument when seeing data that does not support their concerns. I have even seen it come to people finally saying at a public meeting that they don't want any n***ers in their town, which of course resulted in the project passing with no objection (what councilor wants to align themselves with that sentiment?).

With regards to your observation that homeowners are veiling their real concerns, I agree. Classic case of NIMBY-ism: People publicly support public housing as long as it remains "out there". In addition, discrimination is still a very real problem in the real estate industry, and planning runs the danger of being manipulated by these sentiments. People move into specific neighborhoods with the understanding that only their "kind" will have access to that neighborhood, modified segregation. It's the same sentiment that has driven suburbia since the beginning.

[natski]

I have found this conversation pretty interesting coming from the other side of the globe. Our 'affordable' housing is a little different here. The state is in charge of providing affordable housing and there are huge waiting lists to get a dwelling. Councils have never really had any juristriction on this.

But what is starting to happen now is that many Council's in Sydney are requiring that a certain percentage of units within developments be affordable housing- and that the developer basically gives the unit/s to Council, and Council as the owner gets a housing cooperative to look after it- find tenants, repairs etc. So instead of selling it to someone, it will continue to be rented out at an affordable price.

We also have the problem of people believing that those living in public housing should not have the benefit of living in the middle of Sydney City with water views- or be there at all. I think this is wrong also.

[Linda_D]

We had a hearing the other night on an affordable housing project. One of the opponents actually said this:

"When I’m paying over 2,000 a month for a mortgage and someone is allowed to live next door with a lake view that’s paying 250 a month that’s not right."

Lake views, apparently, are only for people who can afford high payments. This particular lake view includes the manufactured home park across the street.

Edit:
Then someone testified thusly: "I’m not opposed to having housing for people who need it. I am opposed to putting apartments that start at $250 a month in a neighborhood that has $350,000 to $500,000 homes in it."

She now has been appointed to the planning commission!

It must be the season!

A suburb in Niagara County north of Buffalo, Wheatfield, is up in arms about this very issue. It seems a local church has some land that it wants to build all of 64 affordable townhouse units on (some of which will be 1 BR units for seniors), and all the NIMBYs are out in force -- despite the fact that nobody said "boo" to the proverbial goose back in 2004 when the zoning was changed from single family residential to multifamily residential.

You have to understand now, these upstanding folks aren't racists or bigots or anything like that, but they just think "the poor" and "the colored" (yes, the moron used that term with the tv cameras rolling) should "live in the city" and not bring their "crime" to Wheatfield.

[KSharpe]

It must be the season!

A suburb in Niagara County north of Buffalo, Wheatfield, is up in arms about this very issue. It seems a local church has some land that it wants to build all of 64 affordable townhouse units on (some of which will be 1 BR units for seniors), and all the NIMBYs are out in force -- despite the fact that nobody said "boo" to the proverbial goose back in 2004 when the zoning was changed from single family residential to multifamily residential.

You have to understand now, these upstanding folks aren't racists or bigots or anything like that, but they just think "the poor" and "the colored" (yes, the moron used that term with the tv cameras rolling) should "live in the city" and not bring their "crime" to Wheatfield.

God, that's really embarrassing for your community. In my neck of the woods, people resist anything that isn't single family residential and at least in the 150 Gs range. I certainly don't mind affordable housing adjacent to me. What bothers me is what Jaws was talking about- the expensive home you worked your tail off to earn, with basically the same home given to someone else who did no work for it at all. I'm not saying that subsidized housing needs to be Cabrini Green style, but your lifestyle should be pretty basic if you are relying on the taxpayers.

[The One]

God, that's really embarrassing for your community. In my neck of the woods, people resist anything that isn't single family residential and at least in the 150 Gs range. I certainly don't mind affordable housing adjacent to me. What bothers me is what Jaws was talking about- the expensive home you worked your tail off to earn, with basically the same home given to someone else who did no work for it at all. I'm not saying that subsidized housing needs to be Cabrini Green style, but your lifestyle should be pretty basic if you are relying on the taxpayers.

Off topic:
KSharpe has the best Avatar right now.....ha ha ha......

Great articles in the Christian Science Monitor this last week about Massachusetts loosing young workers by the truck loads because of the lack of affordable housing and low salaries....

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0109/p01s03-usec.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0110/p01s03-usec.html

[Masswich]

I always find comments like this somewhat humorous. Of course I am from Buffalo, I'm sure it is a much different situation in more prosperous markets. Teacher salaries here top out at 70-80k and cops salaries are often even higher. If people making this kind of money are having trouble purchasing a house there are some serious issues that need to be adressed. Personally I think many cities have grown too large for their own good. At the same time it seems many smaller and medium cities would be more than welcome to absorb some of that overflow.

Around here, even if public sector salaries were $70-80K, that wouldnt be enough to afford a 2 BR condo. There is a serious problem in the Boston area for not just teachers and cops but most normal people. The sentiment against development of any kind in Boston just exacerbates the lack of affordable housing. In the long run I think its somewhat inevitable that the area will fail to gain population and become somewhat of a "beautique" city where people come if they make a lot of money or are associated with an institution that subsidizes their housing cost. Most of the average workers are going to end up living at the ends of the commuter rail or even farther out.

[KSharpe]

Borat was on NPR today, as well
I am inclined to think that consumers have some hand in this. If we all decide that the only cool place to live is LA, then, it will be incredibly expensive there. There's some snobbishness that goes toward someone living anyplace that isn't on the coasts or isn't a major metropolis that contributes to this phenomenon.

[mendelman]

There's some snobbishness that goes toward someone living anyplace that isn't on the coasts or isn't a major metropolis that contributes to this phenomenon.

Or the fact that the jobs are in these places.

[KSharpe]

To an extent, yes. However, check out the planning jobs listed today on APA....many in small cities in the midwest, southeast, etc.

[mendelman]

To an extent, yes. However, check out the planning jobs listed today on APA....many in small cities in the midwest, southeast, etc.

Well, I'm not talking about just planning jobs...I talking about all job sectors.