I live in a box a hundred feet above the ground.
This is a really nice box: hard wood floors, electricity, hot running water, fast enough internet access, natural light, elevator, a concierge. It's 900 square feet for two people, with a lot of useable spaces that're designed really well for our life. But, fundamentally, this is a box of metal and glass and wires a hundred feet above the ground.
There's an incredible amount of infrastructure that makes this desirable: grocery stores, mass transit, jobs (the federal government is headquartered nearby), water, electricity, schools, a working local government, etc etc. That infrastructure is already built.
From the window, I can see the local jail. It's a pretty decent jail, with a 3-star yelp rating (I shit you not). I can also see the new county-run homeless shelter, which only takes men. Down the road is a shelter for women and families, run privately.
There are 230,000 people in the county. There are about 250 homeless people; 85 in families, 150 or so who are single. The unemployment rate is around 2%; there are more jobs than qualified people. The median household income is just over $100,000. Of those 25 and over, 40% have a masters or professional degree. The average rent is $1,858.
We are governed with patience and kindness. I know thanks to attending county board meetings and listening while my elected representatives deal with asinine questions. There are programs in place for housing assistance.
Given all of this: How in the hell do we have a housing shortage?
That is: The county is rich, and is governed by people who care. We have infrastructure. And yet, the average rent is very nearly a quarter of the median income. The rent is too damn high.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In comparision: Oklahoma City has ~600,000 people. The median household income is ~52,000. The average rent is $800. That's $10,000 a year, or under a fifth of the gross. That's better, but not great.
ReplyDeleteArtificial scarcity of affordable housing makes private rental more profitable.
ReplyDeleteBuilding affordable housing is the role of the government and non-profit landlords.
evonomics.com - The Real “Takers” in America: The Unproductive, Rent-Extracting Rich - Evonomics
Rhetorical question, or info-seeking?
ReplyDeleteTony Lower-Basch A little from column A, and some from column B. I know the rents are too damn high because it's essentially an unregulated market on a necessary product.
ReplyDeleteMamading Ceesay Oh, absolutely. Providing a public option gives a nice way of putting pressure on the market.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if county or city is a better comparison to your data...
ReplyDeletePittsburgh has around 302k people, a median income of $56k, and an average rent of $1,076 for a one bedroom and $1,436 for a two. so somewhere between a fifth and a third. I wonder if the county averages would be better way to gauge this. Lesse... Allegheny county has 1.2 million people, a median household income of $48,948, and a two bedroom goes for around $1000 (which is closer to my own lived experience). So a bit under a quarter of gross. Also a quick look says there are ~1100 official reported homeless people in the county...
But yeah, the rent is to damn high. I choose to double my commute time (still via public transport) in order to get the lower rent I have and I wouldn't necessarily say my rent is /good/. But it's doable.
I am not an expert. Genius partner is probably only two network links (at most) away from an expert who could point us to useful primers on the subject, if you’d like me to inquire.
ReplyDeleteOne question is: Does the niceness of my box that overlooks the metro mean other people have crapper boxes?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that is one succinct question, honestly. Or at least there is some ambiguity to what you are asking.
ReplyDeleteAt the least I can come up with...
Is niceness absolute or relative?
Does the relative niceness of your apartment make others seem less nice?
Does the niceness of your apartment contribute to the crapness of another (by taking up space, making the view worse, taking away services, etc.)?
Does you being willing/able to pay for it make it less likely that other places will receive the care they need to be nice?
So, I'm wondering, what are you trying to get at?
Matt Johnson Essentially I am asking: By taking up resources and participating in consumer-based rental properties (and, TBH, our rent is substantially higher than the average), am I contributing to the rents being too damn high?
ReplyDeleteThat is: By living where and how I do, am I making the world crappier?
So sort of the last two options. My initial reaction is to cop out and say "That's complicated". But also, yeah, probably you do. But that is part of existing in the system.... if you chose to live in a less nice place would that actually /help/?
ReplyDeleteI'd have more free money, which I could give to WoC running for congress. Or towards housing for the less privileged.
ReplyDeleteI might also make less money, because the world is stupid.
Which is always the problem, right. We spend some of our money on ourselves, some on family, some on making the world a better place. And we all hope to find the right balance.
Yup.... "It's complicated"...
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Brooke Amendment (1969), paying over 25% of your income is "rent-burdened" but that really depends on your income, too. (Raised to 30% in 1981, but again, what's 30% for a family making $20k a year is a lot more impactful than to someone making a lot more, who would be spending more, yes, but might then have money left over...) Affordable housing is feeling the crunch at least three ways: development costs increase when politics has 1) created tariffs on materials to build, 2) scared away a lot of the undocumented workers who were making the labor costs so low (which is its own, separate problem) and 3) despite costing $ for $ the same amount as market housing, still has operation cost increases when we take capitalist leanings of vendors into account but no way to increase income. And yes, continuing to pay means people continue to expect those rents.
ReplyDelete[ahem] I might have a lot to say about this...
Meera Barry We are listening!
ReplyDeleteWhich is to say: If you want to educate us, please do so. You are, however, not expected to do so.
Also note: You can not want to for a whole boatload of reasons: spoons, spellslots, me being a jerk, etc etc. You need not give any reason to not teach us, and there is no expectation that you do so.
While Fair Housing is where my passion lies, affordable housing is my bread and butter. I've got a lot of thoughts and not a lot of structure today, but let me work one example through...
ReplyDelete(caveat: remembering that this is all U.S.centric, and isn't touching the weirdness that is CA/NY.) (Oh, and I meant to add in re: politics, the tax cuts just made tax credits kind of useless for a lot of businesses, and the lowincome housing tax credit has been the main source of funding for affordable housing in the last 8 years or so.)
Understand that Fair Market Rents (FMR) (you can read about the methodology for it, and look them up on your own at: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html) are effectively what the Section 8 program uses to determine how much they will cover of the rent for a location.
Section 8's best intentions: if you have a housing choice voucher (HCV), you have a golden ticket that allows you to live next door to anyone, meaning poverty is deconcentrated and you can have the good schools and the good areas where there's access to food, medical, and transportation and your neighbor doesn't know you're poor.
True version: you can't afford anything but the distressed neighbourhoods. Why? Three reasons just off the top of my head.
1) Hidden rules. (You can read a lot about these through Ruby K. Payne's work, which is not without problems, but is a great beginners guide. I like looking just at the questionnaire: http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/introtosociology/Documents/Hidden%20Rules%20of%20Social%20Class.htm)
2) Supply and demand... somewhat. Where there is sufficient supply, rents are already high. When people continue to find ways to pay them, there's no reason to bring them down. The only time market properties reduce rent or offer concessions is with high vacancy. If the cost is such that you have to sneak three or four roommates in, well, it happens a lot. (Then you get kicked out and have to find somewhere that doesn't run backgrounds or such, which generally isn't an improvement...)
3) Prejudice against renters. Denver (Colorado) recently passed an ordinance that sets source of rent payment as a protected class for Fair Housing purposes. This means that landlords can't just say, "I don't accept vouchers," as a reason to prevent someone from renting there. Now, I've worked property management for several years: I know there are a number of people in the program who do not understand (were never taught in many cases) how to maintain their homes to a white middle class standard (AKA, the standard of so many new landlords in the market... there are a lot of people who have been attracted by "easy money" but have no knowledge of what leasing really takes). This means that often the rental takes on more damage than "normal wear and tear." Sometimes they just raise the rate to more than the FMR will cover. There are a lot of solutions to this, but it ends up becoming a stigma against people with the HCV. (And this is only the smallest tip of a huge iceberg on this topic.)
There are a lot of ways this could change. I've heard tons -- we could create maximum rent increase standards for conventional housing. (Right now, in a market property you could raise the rent $1000 a month and if you could find the people who would pay it, no one can say nay.) You could ease tax credit income rules to take in more of the hidden middle (people who make between 60% and 80% of the area median income (AMI)) or even lower income requirements (currently we ask for 2x rent, or an HCV that covers FMR value. That means they're paying 50% of income, but maybe they'd be solid and not set up to fail if they were paying, say, 60%? Or 75%?) Profiteers are going to profiteer: vendor prices have risen with the market, and we still need painters and paint, cleaners and cleaning supplies... but if we can spend our money on more up and coming businesses (often run by minorities) maybe we can make a good deal and give them a solid anchor client. We could reduce the number of flags people use to invalidate residents: having any kind of arrest or conviction that is harmless to others. End NIMBYism. As I said, there are tons of things that can be done.
ReplyDelete[I encourage everyone who is eligible to vote affordable housing is becoming a major issue. The answer is NOT (unlike one of our candidate's thoughts) to "improve peoples' lives so they can afford more." Private+public partnerships are a good start. Whenever I get called for a poll, and they ask me what's my greatest concern, "Affordable Housing" gets mentioned at the top.]
The fact that it is 100 feet above the ground suggests that there is a naturally constrained supply. It’s possible that there is some sort of collusion to unnaturally elevate prices, but that seems like a claim that would require some pretty credible evidence.
ReplyDeleteMeera Barry I really appreciate you breaking this down.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Dyamn.
ReplyDeleteBrendan S Estimate. We live on floor 10 of a tenth floor building. I can see for a reasonable distance, as a lot of the surrounding is shorter.
ReplyDeleteMeera Barry "Right now, in a market property you could raise the rent $1000 a month and if you could find the people who would pay it, no one can say nay."
ReplyDeleteGah, yes this. We had to hurriedly leave our last apartment because when the lease came up for renewal the agency raised the rent literally 50%... then within a year they raised it to double /that/ rent. Which... I guess they found people willing to pay, but it's insane.
Matt Johnson I do have to amend that there are places in the country where such laws do exist, but they're few and far between, and they are definitely fought hard by apartment associations. Rent control is a debate with almost too much history -- attempts to make it sane collapse underneath the expectations of it.
ReplyDeleteEven if there are laws, enforcement is another thing. Who wants to bring a civil suit against a megacorp? Anyone?
ReplyDeleteAnd as a further amendment, the recent tax bill that was passed in late, late 2017 DID have a structure whereupon tax credit housing could "balance" units - more units with a 30% AMI limit (for rent and income) with more units with an 80% AMI limit, but a lot of affordable oversight organizations have been extremely cautious in how to make rules for this because there wasn't a blueprint on how to make it work with the current standards. That said, once those guidelines come through (Colorado has recently created such a process) it could reduce some of that rent burden.
ReplyDelete(How tax credit housing is affordable in as concise a nutshell I can do this moment: investors put in funds, they get some amount [averaged to dollar for dollar] in straight credits on taxes owed as long as the property remains in compliance. Residents pay prices that are fairly close to market standards, but there is a maximum amount they can pay, a "rent ceiling" if you would, and there is a maximum amount of income they can have to qualify: usually between 30 and 60% AMI.
Frex, the FMR for 2018 on a one bedroom unit locally was $1127. The tax credit 60% AMI maximum was $1012, minus whatever utility allowance [an average of how much utilities the resident has to pay costs] is at the property. For a one bedroom unit, that's $44 locally. So the most someone is going to pay is $968 out of pocket for that one bedroom unit in a tax credit property. That's still pretty ridiculous, but at least there IS a maximum.)