What Affordable Housing Means(darrellowens.substack.com)
darrellowens.substack.com
What Affordable Housing Means
https://darrellowens.substack.com/p/what-affordable-housing-actually
24 comments
Exactly, there are real definitions for these things. There are also great programs for people making 80% or less of the area median income (AMI) - HomeReady/HomePossible that not enough people take advantage of.
Ultimately home builders over indexed on building large/expensive homes as there was an easy to get market there. Not enough starter homes were built. This plus no major capital investments in public transportation in.. oh... 75 years has resulted in making commute times longer and longer therefore driving up prices which are commutable.
Ultimately home builders over indexed on building large/expensive homes as there was an easy to get market there. Not enough starter homes were built. This plus no major capital investments in public transportation in.. oh... 75 years has resulted in making commute times longer and longer therefore driving up prices which are commutable.
More-over, the government agency is using a much better definition!
Affordable should mean affordable, not taxpayer-funded.
Affordable should mean affordable, not taxpayer-funded.
I agree that the HUD definition is better, but what do we do when there are large numbers of people in an area where there is not available affordable housing? Like if market rent starts at $1000/month for a bachelor suite, and a minimum wage worker earns $2000/month, what do we do (societally)?
Build housing and transit! Aggressively! Angrily! Eminent domain aggressively to build better transit, force the placement of stations where it make sense geographically, and fucking roll over NIMBYs within 4 miles of stations.
>Build housing and transit! Aggressively! Angrily! Eminent domain aggressively to build better transit
I completely disagree. The NIMBYs you complain about are the ones running the local governments. Doing the things you suggest require some higher level of government to basically take the place over and force these things over the objections of the politically-connected locals.
Instead, I think these overpriced places need to be made to die. Let them feel the full effects of their policies: make it so no service workers will work there for less than $200k/year, and just going out to eat costs $1000/person. If a higher-level (state or federal) government does anything, it should be for the lowly workers, to do things like help them relocate to cheaper places and leave these overpriced places full of dried-out poop on the street and boarded-up stores because the NIMBYs didn't want "those people" living anywhere near them.
I completely disagree. The NIMBYs you complain about are the ones running the local governments. Doing the things you suggest require some higher level of government to basically take the place over and force these things over the objections of the politically-connected locals.
Instead, I think these overpriced places need to be made to die. Let them feel the full effects of their policies: make it so no service workers will work there for less than $200k/year, and just going out to eat costs $1000/person. If a higher-level (state or federal) government does anything, it should be for the lowly workers, to do things like help them relocate to cheaper places and leave these overpriced places full of dried-out poop on the street and boarded-up stores because the NIMBYs didn't want "those people" living anywhere near them.
Except they don’t end up feeling the effects. What happens is they start offering rent control or voucher programs to help lower income families. This gets presented as “equitable”, when all it really does is push wages down for a specific class of people. These same people get “stuck” in affordable housing because they won the housing lottery and can no longer afford to move out.
Has anything thought about just doing... nothing? If a city doesn't want to make itself affordable for minimum wage workers, then why exactly is that a problem? I would encourage other municipalities to try to lure away these workers with some incentives, like a relocation bonus, but if places like SanFran refuse to build affordable housing, I feel like it would be better if they simply couldn't get anyone to work there for less than, say, $200k/year. If that means locals have to pay $50 for a Starbucks drink and $500-1000 for a sit-down restaurant meal for 1, then that seems like a good thing to me. At some point, the whole thing will collapse.
The reason there's no affordable housing (or public transit) is because municipalities don't want it. They're run by NIMBYs who block every attempt at building it, and who run up the costs for what housing there is. These people need to feel the consequences of their actions, instead of having some higher-level government compensate for them.
The reason there's no affordable housing (or public transit) is because municipalities don't want it. They're run by NIMBYs who block every attempt at building it, and who run up the costs for what housing there is. These people need to feel the consequences of their actions, instead of having some higher-level government compensate for them.
[deleted]
Offer and demand, increase offer to lower prices, basic economics
That definition doesn’t work in this context. Plenty of Bay Area tech wizards are not paying 30% of their gross income for their housing.
It doesn’t make their housing “affordable” in the same sense that zoning committees insist on “affordable” unit splits for new development.
It doesn’t make their housing “affordable” in the same sense that zoning committees insist on “affordable” unit splits for new development.
I think it's important to note that not all affordable housing is subsidized. We can achieve affordable housing without* direct government manipulation of prices
"Direct government manipulation of prices" never works (see rent control data for just one of many examples).
The root cause of lack of affordable housing is zoning based on NIMBYism. If you want the price to go down, you need to increase the supply. That's a good way to not get re-elected in a lot of places.
The root cause of lack of affordable housing is zoning based on NIMBYism. If you want the price to go down, you need to increase the supply. That's a good way to not get re-elected in a lot of places.
Never works is not quite fair. A huge proportion of the housing market in Vienna is government owned and Vienna seems to work fine.
Yeah sorry meant to say without. Fat fingered the keyboard
I find it surprising that its a percentage of gross income and not net. 30% of gross income will be close to 40% of net income.
The other surprising thing is that landlords will ensure that only rent is below 30% of gross income of a prospective renter. Add utilities and the person will be paying over 40% on housing.
The other surprising thing is that landlords will ensure that only rent is below 30% of gross income of a prospective renter. Add utilities and the person will be paying over 40% on housing.
The issue with HUD is it doesn't define a house. Is it a room you can rent? A studio, 1bd, free standing home? What is weird to me is we use different definitions on what is acceptable by area instead of what human needs we have. In Texas a studio might be small but in NYC it is a luxury.
Despite asking, "So what’s affordable housing, luxury and market-rate mean?" I don't think the author gives sufficient attention to the term "luxury." Their best point is made in the photo of the sign advertising "affordable luxury rentals." In reality, "luxury" is a meaningless marketing team slapped on virtually every new apartment or condo development, even if it's cheap housing in distant suburbs for service workers displaced by prices in the core city.
This is important, because the marketing use of the word "luxury" is exploited by NIMBYs to stop the construction of new housing. They oppose the construction of affordable housing by using dog whistles and other dark arts to appeal to classism and racism. They oppose the construction of "luxury" housing by co-opting progressive rhetoric about the need for affordable housing, saying the construction of high-end housing will only make our affordability crisis worse.
Since there is no room for middle ground between "affordable" and "luxury," as the picture in the article shows, their anti-luxury playbook complements their anti-affordable playbook to let them oppose any new dense housing of any kind.
This is important, because the marketing use of the word "luxury" is exploited by NIMBYs to stop the construction of new housing. They oppose the construction of affordable housing by using dog whistles and other dark arts to appeal to classism and racism. They oppose the construction of "luxury" housing by co-opting progressive rhetoric about the need for affordable housing, saying the construction of high-end housing will only make our affordability crisis worse.
Since there is no room for middle ground between "affordable" and "luxury," as the picture in the article shows, their anti-luxury playbook complements their anti-affordable playbook to let them oppose any new dense housing of any kind.
The only part I don't think is entirely accurate, is your use of "co-opting", insomuch as the rhetoric is used by the people who are NIMBYs, who are one and the same group that make up "progressives". The progressives are the NIMBYs as much or moreso than apparent conservatives, and always have been. Not to say there aren't also true YIMBYs in both groups, but there's a hell of a lot of overlap between those who vote progressive and are ostensibly liberal, and those who gain the most in home appreciation and/or oppose denser housing near their SFH. It's what defines a NIMBY, because it's fine as long as it's elsewhere, and is inherently hypocritical.
I like George Carlin's bit from the 90s on this; right out the gate he perfectly describes not just this idea, but also a series of other examples of idiotic rhetorical posturing we embrace unironically in 2023.
[0] https://youtu.be/YjONsL4thQQ
I like George Carlin's bit from the 90s on this; right out the gate he perfectly describes not just this idea, but also a series of other examples of idiotic rhetorical posturing we embrace unironically in 2023.
[0] https://youtu.be/YjONsL4thQQ
It's very problematic when phrases are co-opted for marketing purposes like that.
It is an example of how disconnected the public can be from important details relevant to public policy.
It is an example of how disconnected the public can be from important details relevant to public policy.
So it's defined as policies expected to produce affordable housing, whether or not housing turns out to be affordable under those policies. And it's not affordable without those policies in place, regardless of price.
It's an old trick. Hayek described it well, way back in the '40s:
> "The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those they have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as this complete perversion of language."
> "The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those they have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as this complete perversion of language."
Author: what [affordable housing] actually means: subsidized, rent regulated, usually awarded, housing.
HUD: Affordable housing is generally defined as housing on which the occupant is paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for housing costs, including utilities. ( https://archives.hud.gov/local/nv/goodstories/2006-04-06glos... / https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-featd-articl...)
HUD defines affordable housing in terms of, well, its affordability. The author attempts to define it in terms of attributes secondary at best to affordability.
To the extent there's a discrepancy between the definitions of the federal government agency in charge of such matters and a random author on substack (who cites no source for their definitional claim), I'm going to go with the agency.