Inside Track: Wealthy people have to live someplaceFebruary 7, 2007 |
February 7, 2007
One question continually
raised in local elections is that of “affordable housing.”
This was best exemplified at the recent Marana candidate
forum sponsored by this newspaper where we witnessed all
four council challengers (the two incumbents were absent)
and the two mayoral candidates endorse the concept with
few specifics between them.
While some found it a bad thing that many Marana residents can’t afford a new home, it seemed that most didn’t want to pursue the matter in depth probably because the majority of those currently voting in Marana can already afford to live there and aren’t that concerned about the issue. In fact, many like the rising value of the homes they bought. As a resident of unincorporated Pima County, I often visit friends in other parts of the county —Tucson Country Club Estates comes to mind — where I can’t afford even an older home and it really doesn’t bother me at all. I suspect most Maranans and other folks feel similarly. Rich people gotta live somewhere. Marana is typical of most smaller American communities in the burgeoning sunbelt where the issue of affordable housing is worth deeper exploration beyond cheering Habitat for Humanity, though they may have problems getting their stuff past all the CC and R’s in most subdivisions. Beyond that, there are many things local communities can do to make housing more affordable. • Keep taxes low. Oro Valley and Marana as yet have no property tax and many council people in both towns pledge to keep it that way. But inventing other ways to slam residents by charging a utility tax raises the cost of housing too. Best way to keep housing affordable is quit spending so much on the non-essentials all current town councils seem enamored with. • Join Pima County and the City of Tucson with a Section 8 Housing program where low income folks get subsidized rent in scattered locations in privately owned homes and apartments. This doesn’t lower the cost of housing, it merely subsidizes it and would require additional bureaucracy and more taxes somewhere and ultimately raising overall housing costs slightly. • Build public housing. While generally considered a tragic blunder in most big cities, perhaps a smaller version might work. Again, the tax revenues needed would probably raise the cost of other houses making them less affordable. • Support more manufactured housing. Not just the nice ones, but also the kind mass produced in Asia and resembling large cargo containers with windows and plumbing. Safe, healthy cheap and ugly but beats sleeping under the bridge — unless you happen to like sleeping under bridges better. • Reducing regulations. Many of the laws and rules homebuilders must comply with are not particularly useful, nor do they contribute to health and safety. Builders just pass on the costs. Eliminate some of those and reduce the real cost of new homes. Only one problem with most of the above: It’s highly doubtful that existing residents who mostly live under the often draconian rules of their HOA’s would vote for any candidate who supported them. People concerned that a mailbox color will reduce the value of their home probably won’t want a large habitable container anywhere near them, let alone a $100,000 triplewide. Further, the bureaucracy will continue to justify every comma in the building code and invent whole new paragraphs and sub-sections. City councils everywhere are generally helpless when it comes to controlling them and continually acquiesce to whatever. There will also be pressure from the well-meaning for items like making every new home senior- and disabled- friendly, the unintended consequences of which are incrementally pricing a few more seniors and disabled out of purchasing the house in the first place. That’s a quick grab-bag of ideas on the subject from no particular perspective put out to stimulate discussion. I fully expect all the candidates in both local towns to avoid almost all of them. |
BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! |
|
|
|||