NewGeography.com blogs

Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post takes on the role of homeownership in our society. I'm generally a fan of Samuelson's writing, a normally sober, cold-eyed analysis of issues without favor to one ideology over another, so imagine my disappointment when reading him say, "The relentless promotion of homeownership as the embodiment of the American dream has outlived its usefulness."

Of course, there's more to his column. He goes on to say:

Unfortunately, we let a sensible goal become a foolish fetish. Not everyone can become a homeowner. Some are too young and footloose; some are too old and dependent; some are too poor or irresponsible. Some don't want a home.

This is different that saying homeownership is not a worthy goal for our nation and is quite distinct from the ideas of Richard Florida, who has previously written that homeownership is overrated and who’s recent "Roadmap" to recovery focuses on de-emphasizing homeownership. Where Florida is right is in acknowledging that this would "blow up" the fundamentals of our economy.

He's also engaging in what I call strategic diminishment – that is, consciously pursuing a future that is less than our current state. Many elite progressives think we have it too good and that our lifestyle choices are harmful to ourselves and our planet. It's not enough that they want to be scolds; they want to use the power of government to change America into a place where our quality of life is diminished.

And progressives also glorify this reduction with a "less is more" attitude. The Washington Post recently presented the case against air conditioning, and USA Today reported on the banning of drive-throughs in the city that pioneered them sixty years ago. I've addressed strategic diminishment as it relates to the mobility and the Obama administration’s “Livable Communities Act,” but this is also true for homeowners and covers not just the percentage of homeowners but even the size of homes. Ron Utt of the Heritage Foundation warns how even the President has adopted a worrisome narrative on homeownership.

Before we go off the deep end, let's clear up two points. First, the crisis we've gotten ourselves into is not because people own homes. It's because of the flawed policies promoting homeownership. We know about the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but also contributing were various land-use planning schemes collectively known as Smart Growth.

Second, homeownership has many benefits. Homeownership is more than a lifestyle choice; it's a source of wealth and stability. And when homeowners take out a second mortgage on their homes, it's often as a source for financing their own small businesses – another ideal we associate with the American Dream.

There are countries with equal or greater rates of homeownership that do not have government intervention policies that skew the market. But as we consider housing policy at the local, state, and federal levels, what should be the principles on which it is based?

Before we adopt A Nation of Renters as our new creed, let's fix the broken policies that got us here.

Ed Braddy is executive director of the American Dream Coalition, a non-profit grassroots and public policy organization that promotes freedom, mobility, and affordable homeownership. The ADC's annual conference takes place September 23-25 in Orlando, Florida. For more information, visit americandreamcoalition.org or email Ed at ed@americandreamcoalition.org.

I saw this story in the Omaha World Herald last week: Benefits of stimulus bill spread unevenly over U.S. As I read through it, I became increasingly impressed. The journalists start off by laying out who said what about the benefits of stimulus spending. They provide quotes and facts from the White House, the Congressional Budget Office, and Joe Biden’s spokesperson. They include viewpoints and analysis from professors at Berkeley, Harvard, George Mason and the editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives. They even talked it over with the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers – the people in charge of receiving and accounting for the billions of dollars represented by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. What impressed me most, though, was that they did their own research – not just reporting what the Administration or Congress told them was happening or was supposed to be happening.

“Spending the Stimulus” is a website put together by McClatchy Newspapers and the Medill News Service to track what was promised and what was done, how much was actually spent and where and on what the stimulus billions were spent. I was intrigued by their finding that “much of the stimulus money has yet to go out the door” eighteen months after the emergency, gotta-fix-it-now legislation was passed. After Congress approved $750 billion for the Wall Street Bailout in October 2008, I’m pretty sure all that money was out the door before December!

Even more intriguing is the finding that the money was spread around rather unevenly. Beyond the infantile “Why Did North Dakota got More Than Me?” rhetoric going around among the states (by the way, the McClatchy-Medill per-capita graphic shows that most of New England got more than North Dakota), is the more interesting discussion of where would the spending be most stimulating. Transportation money was directed to the states under the “usual formula” despite the fact that the Great Recession didn’t follow a formula as it spread throughout the economy. The result: “researchers were unable to find any relationship between unemployment in a given area and the amount of stimulus dollars spent there.” If unemployment is lower in some areas than in others, it wasn’t because of the stimulus spending.

Maybe this is a good thing. Instead of focusing on the political necessity of justifying billions of dollars to pull the country out of the Great Recession (unlike the complete lack of justification for bailing out Wall Street), the McClatchy-Medill report raises more interesting points. Is it “rewarding failure” to send more money to the states that most failed to develop diversified economies that are resilient to downturns? Would we be throwing good money after bad to provide more spending for states that didn’t manage the cash inflow from the rapid rise in property taxes that came with rapidly rising home prices? Finally, did we really want a central government to make every decision – county by county – about where and on what the money would be spent?

If you missed this story last week, I highly recommend perusing the “Spending the Stimulus” website for more stimulating idea.

Logic suggests that a lack of affordable housing in a region will dissuade people from living there, and employment levels will suffer as a result. However, until recently, no one had readily tested this theory and simply relied on this logic to substantiate this assumption. Ritashree Chakrabati and Junfu Zhang of the New England Public Policy Center published a report looking empirically at this theory in the United States. In doing so, they have found a substantial correlation between a lack of affordable housing and suppressed job growth.

While Chakrabati and Zhang analyzed data from many US metropolitan areas and counties, they first used California as a state case study to cut down on the number of unaccounted-for heterogeneities created by state policies. California epitomizes the problem of a dearth of affordable housing suppressing an economy. The increased cost of doing business has driven companies out of expensive California, exacerbating the unemployment problem, while the recipients of this flight (mainly in the Midwest and Pacific Northwest) are finding some growth in this recession. These days, people aren’t prioritizing culture and lifestyle; they simply don’t have the budget for it. In order to grow, states must assure residents and businesses that they can sustain themselves during this difficult time.

The findings of this study should also alert countries such as Australia, now in the midst of a major land and housing crisis, about creating more affordable conditions around their urban core cities to maintain economic growth, much less stimulate it. Just as businesses are reluctant to stay in California, business will be reluctant to find a home in these expensive core cities. Almost every country depends on global ties to support itself, and it will be those that can strike a balance between affordable housing and standard of living that thrive.

Between now and the end of the year, a hot political topic here in New York will be whether to let the Bush tax cuts expire for people in the highest income bracket, as the Obama administration proposes, or whether to extend those cuts for everyone. Advocates taking the latter position will correctly argue that higher rates will be especially harmful to New York, because of the large number of wealthy people, who live here.

What is not likely to be discussed, however, is that because of the exorbitant cost of living in New York and the surrounding suburbs, federal taxes take a supersized bite out of the incomes of all New Yorkers, who in the vast majority are not wealthy at all. The result is that here in New York City, which is arguably the poorest city in America when it comes to what people can actually afford, we end up subsidizing other states and localities, where people pay less to Uncle Sam, even as they enjoy a higher standard of living than we do.

How could this be? The answer is that because New York and the surrounding suburbs are so expensive, businesses have to pay higher salaries to recruit people to work for them. According to the ERI Economic Research Institute, a leading data survey company that helps corporate clients set compensation packages and calculate the cost of doing business throughout the United States and elsewhere, these higher salary costs are substantial.

They calculate, for example, that a typical registered nurse in metropolitan New York earns $82,712 versus a national average of $65,464. In the case of an accountant, they calculate a figure of $74,388 versus a national average of $58,712. In the case of an administrative assistant, as they define those job responsibilities, they calculate a figure of $59,243 versus $47,961 nationally. And finally, they also provide data for someone working as a janitor. Here the figure they calculate is $38,142 versus $31,220.

Sounds great. Who doesn’t want a higher salary? But unfortunately, it’s not that simple. The problem is that the IRS doesn’t care how much you can actually buy with your hard earned dollars. They just want to see the number printed on your W-2. And as we all know, the more you make, the more you pay.

For the average registered nurse in New York, filing as an individual, and assuming no special deductions or one-time credits, the tax bite amounts to $14,381 versus $10,219 for the average registered nurse in the rest of the country. An accountant here pays $12,444 versus $8,531 nationally. For an administrative assistant, the figure is $8,656 versus $5,844. And in the case of a janitor, the figure is $3,899 versus $2,864.

But wait, it gets worse than that. Based on data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, it turns out that the cost of living in the New York metropolitan area is significantly higher than the difference in salaries alone would indicate. According to their data, the cost of living here is 45 percent higher than in the rest of the country or approximately twice the difference in salaries.

Yes, employers have to pay more to recruit people to work here in New York, but they don’t have to make up the whole difference. Economists refer to this as money illusion, which is their way of saying that people find it difficult to distinguish between the nominal value of money and the true purchasing power of that money in the marketplace.

If we recalculate salaries to take into account the cost of living, it turns out that the federal tax premium that New Yorkers have to pay is even greater. Thus, if the tax bite were to reflect the actual standard of living for a registered nurse in New York, the real tax would be $8,106 instead of the actual tax of $14,381 or a difference of $6,275. For an accountant, the difference would be $5,775. For an administrative assistant, it would be $4,352, and for a janitor, $1,778.

The lessons here are clear. In the short term, New York’s Congressional delegation needs to restrain efforts to raise taxes in Washington, D.C., because the impact here will be greater than elsewhere. And in the longer term, we need to determine why the cost of living in New York is so high and then implement the reforms necessary to fix the problem and give New Yorkers a standard of living that is competitive with rest of America.

The opposition Liberal-National Coalition, locked in a close battle with the ruling Labor Party in Australia's Saturday elections, has adopted a housing policy to improve the nation's housing affordability. The policy would require states to monitor housing affordability and to release more land for development. There would also be a review of the efficacy of development charges.

Australia suffers from some of the most unaffordable housing in the world, with a Median Multiple (median house price divided by median household income) of 6.8, which is more than double the historic norm of 3.0. With recent interest rate increases, the median household would have to pay more than 50% of its gross income to service a mortgage on the median priced house. Little more than 15 years ago, house prices were affordable in Australia, which had seen home ownership rise from approximately 40% before World War II to approximately 70%. The principal cause of the loss of housing affordability has been the virtual universal adoption of "smart growth" ("urban consolidation") land use restrictions, which have (among other things) made it virtually impossible to develop inexpensive housing on the urban fringes, with the price of rationed land driven up many times.

The Coalition's housing policy includes the following provisions that are directly related to removing the urban consolidation barriers to affordable housing:

In order to continue to receive federal funds, States and Territories will need to increase land supply and reform their planning and approval systems under the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA).
States and Territories will need to set affordability targets to guide land releases and dwelling approvals. In order to receive federal funds States and Territories would need to demonstrate that they had a plan for delivering these targets and those approvals and land releases occurred consistent with the targets established.
The Coalition will review of State, Territory and local developer charges, which have been contributing an increasing component to the cost of development. State and local governments that build higher charges into the cost of housing will be less able to meet their home affordability obligations under the Compact.

Housing affordability has been an issue of substantial concern in Australia for years and has emerged as the top concern among voters in this election. State governments have talked about housing affordability, but have done little. Over the past five years, house prices have continued to rise relative to incomes. Just in the last nine months, a mortgage payment on the median priced house has risen from $500 in Adelaide to more than $800 in Sydney.

The Coalition policy, however, represents the second significant development in recent weeks (Note). The first was an expansion of the Melbourne urban growth boundary by 440 square kilometers. All of this may signal an overdue attention to housing affordability in Australia.

-----

Note: Performance Urban Planning statement on the Coalition housing policy.

-----

Photograph: Adelaide: Urban fringe land (no houses allowed). Photograph by author