Posted on 01/05/2006 3:47:09 AM PST by Smile-n-Win
Not often do Rush Limbaugh and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman agree on anything but recently both of them pointed out the same pattern in the prices of housing -- and both were correct.
The pattern is this: Despite hysteria over high home prices, in most parts of the United States housing is quite affordable. But in some places housing prices are astronomical -- three times the national average in much of California, for example.
Despite the old rule of thumb that housing should cost no more than one fourth of your income, there are parts of California where tenants and new home buyers pay at least half their incomes for housing.
This can be a serious problem in such places because it means that only the other half of people's income is available to pay for such frills as food and clothing.
These dire situations are more likely to be featured in the media, partly because bad news sells newspapers and gets higher television ratings.
Moreover, media elites are more likely to be living in the places where housing prices are out of sight -- places like Manhattan, coastal California, and the posh suburbs around Washington or various other cities.
(Excerpt) Read more at capmag.com ...
Dr. Sowell nails it again.
People in existing homes see an immediate benefit from limiting the supply of new homes- the value of theirs goes up. They end up getting hurt down the road when they try to sell and buy elsewhere.
To the elite socialists, the masses belong in government subsidized housing (yes, private urban housing projects that receive government "incentives" in cash or tax breaks are actually subsidized).
Actually, I think the opposite is the case. Illegal aliens (and even many legal immigrants) don't necessarily respond to such escalating home prices by staying out of an area . . . they'll often respond by moving more and more people into the higher-priced homes. This problem is rampant in many parts of the New York metro area.
Is the movement a product of greed or a desire to shift a higher percentage of the limited land available under government control? Perhaps the homeowners who profit from "green space" zoning are simply the (payed-off) useful idiots of the socialist elite.
Fact is it is common for a five family do obtain a house in L.A.
For some I would expect it is far simpler. People who don't want to live in cities want to preserve the small towns they live in. By restricting the building of townhouses and condos with land use restriction laws they hope to preserve their small towns. At the same time they want to avoid the increases in taxes that come with increases in population (school taxes, highway taxes, water/sewer rates, trash collection fees, etc.).
The libertarian would argue that the land use should be restricted through ownership, not government control. For instance, if I have no desire to view neighbors, I would buy a few acres of land and place my home in the middle of the land surrounded by trees.
Government-designed land restrictions are neither covenants nor contracts. Zoned areas are rezoned at the drop of a hat, or a few thousand bucks into an elected officials coffers. The "small-town" ideal would be better achieved through planned, privately owned communities with homeowners' covenants.
The motivation is greed. The justification is open spaces and greenery.A collateral benefit is government control which isperceived as the elitists own control of everyone else.
Ah yes. The petty powermonger, also known as an "elected official". :-)
The "small-town" ideal would be better achieved through planned, privately owned communities with homeowners' covenants.
In fact I actually own communal property in an organization such as the ones you suggest on a very large lake in New Hampshire. So much of our membership dues are spent in legal battles with state and local governments over taxes and other "green" restrictions concerning the lake. We have restrictions on the number of memberships and the size and height of our homes. It's a private organization and those are the rules. In order to change the rules we fight annually at membership "town" meetings. It works well, specifically because our population is limited by charter. Just as the "town meeting" ideal worked as long as towns were kept small, this works because we vote to keep ourselves small.
Our community of which I own 1/360th of as well as my individual home is responsible for paying taxes on all the land and I then I pay taxes on my individual home. The town recently hiked taxes on a vote of the town's residents to pay for a school (many of our members don't live here all year and of course were not eligible to vote). The towns in New England are also starting to float around a concept called a "view tax" which adds an extra amount if you have a nice view (I guess in the judgement of a tax-hungry assessor). Now where did we put that tar and feathers?
I'm not sure if driving up the housing costs reduces slumification and school failure. In fact, it may promote those ills. Home ownership is not only the primary investment of choice for most Americans, it provides stability, promotes responsibility, and commits the owners to the well being of the neighborhood. Renters, on the other hand, have no real vested interest in the community and neighborhood they live in. If things get too bad, they can find another apartment when their lease is up. In fact, the better the neighborhood, the higher the rent. It was Sean Penn's character in "Mystic River" who commented how "a good crime wave will keep the rents down".
The cities that have the most crime problems and worst schools are the ones with the lowest rates of home ownership.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.