A look at what's going on in Trinidad, on H Street, and in the larger area north of Capitol Hill.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Post Article on Housing Unaffordability
Today's Post features another article on the large group of people who can't afford the high priced homes in the area, but also don't qualify for low income housing assistance.
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The reporter used a Mrs. Halford, a 48-year-old librarian for a federal agency with an annual salary of about $60,000, as a representative example of someone in this circumstance. The article says she lacks the means to purchase something she "likes" on the open market, and that she has been "priced out of something that by rights should be" hers, namely, a two bedroom condo with two baths, a washer and dryer and secure parking. She doesn't "think that's asking a lot" and says she would settle for something with only one bath and just a hookup for a washer and dryer. That being said, the two bedroom condo in Silver Spring she looked at with its "tired brown carpet, [] dated appliances, [and] the 'little bug' crawling in a kitchen drawer" for $199,000 didn't cut the mustard. For that price, she "would want it to be in better condition." On the one hand, I can understand her frustration. It's a universal lament of buyers that their money ought to be able to afford more house than the market is telling them it can. On the other hand, Mrs. Halford's apparent sense of entitlement to a home that meets her standards in a location of her choosing is something I find inexplicable. I've noticed an increased tendency for people to speak in terms of "rights" when they are really talking about needs or desires. I think that is a dangerous and somewhat debilitating way to view the world - i.e. waiting for the government swoop in and solve your problems. The government can do many things well, but "managing" the housing market isn't one of them. As is, she is free to make her choices given the situation in the market. She can compromise her standards and buy (which is something all buyers do, to one extent or another), she can continue to rent, or she could move to the 90-95% of the country where nice houses can be had for $150,000 or less. And don't tell me you can't get workers to live here because the prices are too high - if Mrs. Halford left there would be 20 applications for that librarian position as soon as it came open. I guess my point is that people aren't entitled to live where they want and in the manner they want, and the problem of high prices in desirable, densely populated areas is one the government can't solve and shouldn't attempt to solve.
You can't write too much about how unaffordable housing is in the DC area. However, my recent experience left me surprised with the very low numbers of people who take advantage of programs that are out there and are ridiculously easy to access. The woman mentioned in the article who makes around $60,000 a year would qualify for both HPAP (that gives $10,000 to help with down payment and closing costs, deferred for five years) and ACORN (that hooks you up with designated banks for loans up to 1% below market rate and no PMI.) I used both and was surprised with how easy it was.
I also agree with the previous comment on "rights." Whenever you start speaking in terms of "rights", there is little room for compromise. I would agree that we all have rights to a roof over our head. I would disagree, however, that this roof should come at the price, location, and conditions of our choosing.
To be completely flip (in contrast to the thoughtful comments above, with which I quite agree), the only way I can understand some of the housing-related reporting in the Post is to assume that it is written by very young underpaid renters who look around in despair.
Housing cost are a very contentious issue. I believe that mixed income neighborhoods are the ideal because they ultimately benifit us all. This is, however, much easier said, than actually implemented. When I purchased my house I used ACORN & put 3% down. There are other program (like NACA) that allow you to put 0% down. The thing is that you still must consistently make the mortgage payments (and this can be particularly difficult if you are supporting a family). HPAP actually would have been an option for the house that I ended up purchasing (it was mentioned in the listing). I did not go the HPAP route because my realtor felt that, in a competitive market, a seller might likely choose a buyer who obviously had the funds to purchase the house. The house that I purchased went on and off the market at least twice because the financing by purchasers (I don't know if they were investors) kept falling through. This seller may have been slightly more desperate because she was liquidating her real estate holdings in order to retire to the Carolinas. Still, there was continuing interest & I paid $500 over asking (but she threw in a new roof, so I came out ahead). The "sense of intitlement" issue is obviously a difficult one. It is very frustrating to find that you can't afford to buy a house in a city you have been living & working in for a while (I think more so when you have watched a rapid run up in housing prices). But to what does that "entitle" any of us? At the same time, doesn't the district (and don't all of us) have an interest in promoting economic diversity in our neighborhoods? What exactly is the government's role in this issue? I don't know the answer & my visions of some utopian community aren't helpful in real world application.
To comment further, I saw an episode of "Flip That House" the other night & (though they did much more work that I did, because they were ripping out entire walls & such) the house appeared to be in a condition quite similar to the condition my house was in a purchase. The house in question was filled with debris at purchase. Mine was not, but there were wires, big concrete blocks & some food items lingering. There were also lots of roaches & plenty of evidence of past mice. I paid $150k two & a half years ago for a house with 1582 square footage & wiring that was pretty messed up, but still usable (though I made frequent trips to the basement, had light where one switch downstair turned on, or off lights in upstairs bedrooms & I had about 20 watts max for the bathroom). I think I made around $55k the year before. Reality is what it is & we all have to face that fact. You're still left with the issue that many people can't afford to buy houses in the District. Many of these peoople are are the (government) cliches of teachers, police & firefighters (who do have some programs to help them buy houses), but many others many have jobs like staff for a non-profit, auto-mechanic, painter, single mother working part-time, or countless other possibilities. Is it really a good idea to push these people into the suburbs? Again, I don't know what the answer is, but I'd be willing to listen to any decent ideas.
This is a great debate. The most intersting part of it to me is that the woman in the story, whom by most standards would be considered middle class, is portrayed as a victim.
The normal narrative goes that local residents get displaced and neighboohoods gentrified by someone making $60K a year.
While I sympathize with her plight [to a point, entitled is too much] it is nice to seee the middle class not demonized for once for wanting to live in the City.
6 comments:
The reporter used a Mrs. Halford, a 48-year-old librarian for a federal agency with an annual salary of about $60,000, as a representative example of someone in this circumstance. The article says she lacks the means to purchase something she "likes" on the open market, and that she has been "priced out of something that by rights should be" hers, namely, a two bedroom condo with two baths, a washer and dryer and secure parking. She doesn't "think that's asking a lot" and says she would settle for something with only one bath and just a hookup for a washer and dryer. That being said, the two bedroom condo in Silver Spring she looked at with its "tired brown carpet, [] dated appliances, [and] the 'little bug' crawling in a kitchen drawer" for $199,000 didn't cut the mustard. For that price, she "would want it to be in better condition."
On the one hand, I can understand her frustration. It's a universal lament of buyers that their money ought to be able to afford more house than the market is telling them it can. On the other hand, Mrs. Halford's apparent sense of entitlement to a home that meets her standards in a location of her choosing is something I find inexplicable. I've noticed an increased tendency for people to speak in terms of "rights" when they are really talking about needs or desires. I think that is a dangerous and somewhat debilitating way to view the world - i.e. waiting for the government swoop in and solve your problems. The government can do many things well, but "managing" the housing market isn't one of them. As is, she is free to make her choices given the situation in the market. She can compromise her standards and buy (which is something all buyers do, to one extent or another), she can continue to rent, or she could move to the 90-95% of the country where nice houses can be had for $150,000 or less. And don't tell me you can't get workers to live here because the prices are too high - if Mrs. Halford left there would be 20 applications for that librarian position as soon as it came open.
I guess my point is that people aren't entitled to live where they want and in the manner they want, and the problem of high prices in desirable, densely populated areas is one the government can't solve and shouldn't attempt to solve.
You can't write too much about how unaffordable housing is in the DC area. However, my recent experience left me surprised with the very low numbers of people who take advantage of programs that are out there and are ridiculously easy to access. The woman mentioned in the article who makes around $60,000 a year would qualify for both HPAP (that gives $10,000 to help with down payment and closing costs, deferred for five years) and ACORN (that hooks you up with designated banks for loans up to 1% below market rate and no PMI.) I used both and was surprised with how easy it was.
I also agree with the previous comment on "rights." Whenever you start speaking in terms of "rights", there is little room for compromise. I would agree that we all have rights to a roof over our head. I would disagree, however, that this roof should come at the price, location, and conditions of our choosing.
To be completely flip (in contrast to the thoughtful comments above, with which I quite agree), the only way I can understand some of the housing-related reporting in the Post is to assume that it is written by very young underpaid renters who look around in despair.
Housing cost are a very contentious issue. I believe that mixed income neighborhoods are the ideal because they ultimately benifit us all. This is, however, much easier said, than actually implemented. When I purchased my house I used ACORN & put 3% down. There are other program (like NACA) that allow you to put 0% down. The thing is that you still must consistently make the mortgage payments (and this can be particularly difficult if you are supporting a family). HPAP actually would have been an option for the house that I ended up purchasing (it was mentioned in the listing). I did not go the HPAP route because my realtor felt that, in a competitive market, a seller might likely choose a buyer who obviously had the funds to purchase the house. The house that I purchased went on and off the market at least twice because the financing by purchasers (I don't know if they were investors) kept falling through. This seller may have been slightly more desperate because she was liquidating her real estate holdings in order to retire to the Carolinas. Still, there was continuing interest & I paid $500 over asking (but she threw in a new roof, so I came out ahead). The "sense of intitlement" issue is obviously a difficult one. It is very frustrating to find that you can't afford to buy a house in a city you have been living & working in for a while (I think more so when you have watched a rapid run up in housing prices). But to what does that "entitle" any of us? At the same time, doesn't the district (and don't all of us) have an interest in promoting economic diversity in our neighborhoods? What exactly is the government's role in this issue? I don't know the answer & my visions of some utopian community aren't helpful in real world application.
To comment further, I saw an episode of "Flip That House" the other night & (though they did much more work that I did, because they were ripping out entire walls & such) the house appeared to be in a condition quite similar to the condition my house was in a purchase. The house in question was filled with debris at purchase. Mine was not, but there were wires, big concrete blocks & some food items lingering. There were also lots of roaches & plenty of evidence of past mice. I paid $150k two & a half years ago for a house with 1582 square footage & wiring that was pretty messed up, but still usable (though I made frequent trips to the basement, had light where one switch downstair turned on, or off lights in upstairs bedrooms & I had about 20 watts max for the bathroom). I think I made around $55k the year before. Reality is what it is & we all have to face that fact. You're still left with the issue that many people can't afford to buy houses in the District. Many of these peoople are are the (government) cliches of teachers, police & firefighters (who do have some programs to help them buy houses), but many others many have jobs like staff for a non-profit, auto-mechanic, painter, single mother working part-time, or countless other possibilities. Is it really a good idea to push these people into the suburbs? Again, I don't know what the answer is, but I'd be willing to listen to any decent ideas.
This is a great debate. The most intersting part of it to me is that the woman in the story, whom by most standards would be considered middle class, is portrayed as a victim.
The normal narrative goes that local residents get displaced and neighboohoods gentrified by someone making $60K a year.
While I sympathize with her plight [to a point, entitled is too much] it is nice to seee the middle class not demonized for once for wanting to live in the City.
Intersting twist on a common tale.
Post a Comment