Sunday, September 30, 2007

An Argument for Cheap Housing

Lately, I've been wondering whether there really is, within this political universe, anything meaningful to be done about the widespread decline in housing affordability. Here in Seattle, as I've written before, the condo market is white hot, with tall skinny towers going up throughout the downtown and around 4,500 units of housing lost to condo conversions from 2005 to date.

Great gushing rivers of capital have flowed to Seattle because our market — with its projected job growth and a pricing equilibrium that favors condo buying over housing rental — is just about the sweetest spot an investor could possibly hope for.

That's capitalism, and much as we shake our tiny fists in its direction, it pretty much does what it's gonna do.

My recent read of Robert Reich's Supercapitalism has reminded me of the rules. I even find myself slightly regretting my jabs at luxury housing developer J. Ronald Terwilliger a few weeks ago. The system is geared to deliver the best prices to consumers and the most return to investors, and is unforgiving in its consistency. This makes his advocacy for workforce housing, his multi-million dollar housing philanthropy, and his leadership in Habitat for Humanity something extraordinary. The only way he could go further is to choose to not be a capitalist, in which case someone more ruthless would quickly take his place.

Last year, Councilmember Tom Rassmussen took the lead on a Statehouse bill that would have slightly slowed condo conversions and offered more assistance to those displaced. While the legislation was widely considered timid, even this failed to make it out of committee. House Speaker Frank Chopp, who is probably as strong an ally of human services as could survive in that position, says the bill died because it just wasn't sufficiently on his radar. I'm sure it didn't escape the attention of the developers, but perhaps they forgot to mention anything to Frank.

Whatever. This year, Frank says he'll do better, and advocates will rally around a second attempt.

While there is value in getting this on the books, the problem is that this year is too late. The horse is well out of the barn and across the pasture, and with rental vacancies at an historic low and rents at an all time high and climbing, capital has unerringly sniffed out demand and shifted toward rental housing construction. My big time developer friend tells me the condo thing is basically done. Aside from a few minor projects here and there, Seattle condo construction stops with what's in the pipeline now. Those rentals, however, won't be built for the lower end of the market. There's no money there. Or at least not as much.

Sadly, the odds of any real federal intervention in the housing problem are exceedingly low. Capitol Hill is dominated by financial interests who don't exactly favor the idea of government subsidizing the lower end of the market with public housing and Section 8 vouchers. This has led to three decades of starving the beast and continued cuts to HUD funding, even as the feds pretend to end homelessness. It has also led to the remarkable situation of more than three federal housing dollars to subsidize middle-class homeownership for every dollar spent on housing for the poor.

Add to that the fact that the capacity of government to mitigate poverty has been severely eroded by the war, tax breaks to the wealthy, and corporate welfare, and the prospects for relief become dim indeed. With local and state resources we have been able to make a dent in the housing crisis, but gains in affordable housing stock are more than trumped by continuous market losses.

So what's left? As I'm fond of saying, in a system where housing is produced for profit, those who can provide no profit get no housing. Unless, of course, conditions somehow change to make investment and construction in the lower end of the market more attractive. Urban renewal wiped out hundreds of thousands of units of "substandard" housing stock because people "shouldn't have to live that way." But no real alternatives were developed in its place, and we've grown accustomed to people living in conditions that are, in fact, far worse.

So what would be this look like? If we were able to build K-Mart housing to add another option to the generally Nordstrom quality stock being built, would this be stigmatizing? More so than homelessness? Would neighborhoods allow such housing to be created. Would the reduction in quality actually translate into lowered consumer cost, or would it simply mean more developer profit? Could the trade-off be legally enforced?

If government were able to find the mean between meeting necessary building code concerns for health and safety and lowering standards to make increased private investment pencil out, would more housing get built and more people be housed less vulnerably than they are now? If so, why aren't we doing it?

Obviously, there are arguments to be made against this from both the right and the left, so hardly anybody ever goes there. But what if we did? Click on the photo up top to see a thought-provoking 80s project in Taiwan.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

What about this food for thought: Housing includes shelter but is larger.

Shelter has recognizable form: single-family; high-rise; tent; etc. In obtaining housing, one gets higher access to a package of products contributing to one's ability to access an improved quality of life.

Is it possible we must make a paradigm shift to access a broader framework of solutions to homelessness?

The current approaches are all quantitatively driven - as in "number of housing units."

However, other options might exist. Could we also provide decent total living environments vs. limiting ourselves to an either "housing units" -or- nothing scenario?

Tent City, as an example, does not offer anyone a first-class housing option. It does, however, offer shelter and higher access to an improved quality of life.

Some thinking from the periphery tossed into the ring - to instigate more, other, and drill down for ideas still unthought.

Bill said...

I think we have all we need to house everyone somewhat soon, at least minimally. We have lots of idle land, even if some of it is owned privately. We've learned from Tent City and Dignity Village (Portland) that small communities can self-manage and be safe places. Maybe we need to start with Yurt Villages on a portion of vacant land or samll geodisics (sp?) or the like, and begin to build creative basic housing that doesn't mimick mcmansions. Instead of giving builders a tax-break on building a multi-family building as we do now, let's give landowners a break and let the land be built, even according to CAO, to house people by the people living there. Make it all green, user-friendly, accountable to local jurisdictions with consistent guidelines every settlement must follow. Pay taxes, etc. Maybe even a fund to pay the workers to build their own homes (jobs!). We think in wedding-ring boxes instead of out in the open air. Let's get creative!

Anonymous said...

Here it comes:

http://www.unicoprop.com/properties/inhabit_about.html

or

http://www.djc.com/search/news.html?formact=search&date=&quick=true&searchlevel=basic&query=Unico

******
DJC article:
(Seattle's) "Unico using modular units to build 'iPod apartments'
By SHAWNA GAMACHE
Oct 11, 2007
A & E"

Unico Properties is going mod. Modular, that is. The property management and real estate development company plans to construct several apartment buildings in Seattle and Portland over the next 12 to 15 months using modular, pre-fabricated apartment units that can be linked and stacked. ... Unico Properties is going mod. ... target LEED certification and Unico said it represents the future ... Unico is targeting the Generation-Y ...

Anonymous said...

miley cyrus nude miley cyrus nude miley cyrus nude

Anonymous said...

Good day, sun shines!
There have were times of troubles when I didn't know about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright stupid person.
I have never thought that there weren't any need in big initial investment.
Nowadays, I'm happy and lucky , I started to get real money.
It gets down to select a proper companion who uses your funds in a right way - that is incorporate it in real business, and shares the income with me.

You may ask, if there are such firms? I'm obliged to tell the truth, YES, there are. Please be informed of one of them:
http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]

Anonymous said...

Hello,nice post thanks for sharing?. I just joined and I am going to catch up by reading for a while. I hope I can join in soon.

Anonymous said...

It is not my first time to pay a visit this web site, i am visiting this website dailly and
obtain good information from here everyday.
Look at my blog ... tips to quit smoking

Anonymous said...

When you want to buy Twitter followers, there are numerous packages
on offer online. In fact, real Twitter followers help you achieve your business
goal in no time without making a hole in your pocket.

Whether you're building your Twitter followers in the <.

Also visit my webpage: Epic Followers
Also see my web page > Buy Twitter followers uk

Anonymous said...

It's not my first time to visit this web site, i am visiting this site dailly and get fastidious data from here everyday.

Here is my page ... onurbridals.com

Anonymous said...

Before long you will notice that your hands remain soft and silky all
the time. Of course, just because the theory is well known does not mean its right.

Request loved ones and workmates to let you recognize when your arms
are in your mouth.

my page ... How to stop biting nails