Skip to main content

Affordable Housing: Transforming the "American Dream" Into A National Nightmare

According to Melora Hiller, CEO of Grounded Solutions Network, "Community groups are looking into community land trusts as a tool because the affordability crisis all over the country." 

Hiller goes on to confidently claim, "Part of the reason is that markets have been left to do what markets do, which is to go up or down at will." 

The CEO then stamps her airy sales pitch with her firm's mission: "The community land trust is really trying to take the house out of that kind of up and down and keep it in a more stable situation." 

First, markets have simply not been "left to do what markets do." 

Government regulation on where we can build, how high we can build, what kinds of housing we can build, how much we can charge, and how we can lawfully occupy the units, has manifestly yielded the contemptible outcomes that we gauge today. 

And no, free markets don't naturally "go up or down at will." 

That's purely a function of what is called "supply and demand," a phenomenon that government has, once again, distorted with a variety of restrictions and regulations, with pernicious support from its widely-reported low issuance of building permits, record-high volumes of subsidies and a complementary easy monetary policy that works to keep that credit churning. 


The only sustainable way toward permanently-affordable housing is through a motivated and unfettered population with the capacity to build more units to accommodate residents who are productive in their own respective capacities. 

There's no easy way around this: home prices need to collapse in order for homes to become sustainably affordable again. 

They aren't rendered more affordable in the long run by ambitious measures intending to extend credit to otherwise-unqualified borrowers. 

This merely further falsifies the market's prices by undermining the pressures which might otherwise reset the equilibrium price of real property. 

In Hiller's video, entitled This is what happens when homes are made permanently affordable, the audience is exposed to a very real and astonishing graphic: "63.4% national homeownership rate is the lowest since 1966." 

Hiller then returns to describe community land trust (CLT), a "non-profit organization that serves a specific community, generally, and they have a board that's made up of people from that area who have a vested interest in having permanently-affordable housing." 

According to Hiller, they accomplish this end by "either acquiring or building or renovating a home, and when they sell that home, they are selling only the home itself." 

The kicker: the CLT retains ownership over the land. 

So what we are truly witnessing here isn't a purely compassionate phenomenon, but rather an alternative, and candidly backward, set of criteria administered in determining the way real property is exercised. 

Instead of opening the bidding to all qualified candidates, the CLT virtually monopolizes the process through discriminately narrowing the qualification criteria to a more arbitrary set of conditions, effectually ostracizing productive workers to the specific benefit of others whose reported incomes are merely less enviable than those of their rejected, politically-unimportant counterparts. 

In summary, this agenda is pure discrimination dressed with the trappings of seemingly-sound intentions. 

As it turns out, many people are making the appropriate decision by renting, as they are ambivalent about location and their tenure within their respective career fields. 

Moreover, many renters cannot count on stable inflows of income, so locking into a mortgage, or more literally a death pledge, is probably the least suitable decision for them. 

Buying a house is a long-term, serious commitment that isn't perfect for everybody. Just like any considerable investment, it is incumbent upon the buyer to assess his short-term and long-term plans and specifically ascertain how this decision fits within them. 

Artificially lowering, or altogether eliminating, these barriers will prove only to exacerbate the gravity of this predicament in the future, depriving the decision-maker of his former opportunity to conduct serious due diligence before committing to a load of responsibilities that he neither really wanted nor objectively considered plausible or suitable over the long run. 

In the end, this is yet another self-aggrandizing project operating under the guise of compassion, which the state happily sponsors through non-profit certification.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes