Affordable housing

The Washington Post gives us a sob story on today's front page:

For half a decade, Gwendolyn Halford, a 48-year-old librarian for a federal agency, has searched several Washington suburbs for a home to buy. With an annual salary of about $60,000, she is too well-off to qualify for most affordable housing programs, but she lacks the means to purchase something she likes on the open market.

So she remains a renter, frustrated by the actions of elected officials. "You are allowing developers to come in to build condo units and homes at prices that a large percentage of the population can't afford," she said. "So what is going on here?"

Ms. Halford, allow me to explain what is going on. If you make $60,000/year (considerably more than myself) and can't afford a place to live the only person to blame is you. At 48 years old if you had been saving even 10% of your income starting as late as age 35 you'd have over $60K in the bank for a down payment. With that kind of money in the bank and making $60K per year you should be able to afford at least $250,000 for a place. Yeah, it's a tough market, but you can find something for a quarter-mill.

:

But rather than assume responsibility for her predicament, Halford casts blame on developers and politicians. Apparently developers, rather than being able to pursue the most profitable enterprise, should be required by politicians to build homes that Halford can afford. Or something. The world should be altered to cater to her needs.

:

On the other hand, maybe she is right. It seems that if you complain enough you might get your way:

The Montgomery County Council is considering a bill that would require developers of sites near Metro stations to expand their projects by about 8 percent to add workforce units at below-market prices. A family of four with a salary of $90,000, under one scenario, would pay $300,000 for a townhouse. The median price for a new townhouse in Montgomery during the first quarter of this year was nearly $460,000.

Of course all this really is is a disguised tax. The developers certainly aren't going to take a hit on their incomes. When they are forced to charge less for some homes they simply charge more for others. And those who work hard and save and earn more and save more are punished, while those who don't are rewarded.

:

If we really wanted to get serious about the housing problem maybe we could start by looking at ways to ease the cost of doing business for developers so they could bring more supply on the market. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen since the mentality around here seems to be that business is the enemy and government is your friend.