Megan, you should've seen the original housing bill, which contained a $6 billion "tax rebate" (subsidy) for the homebuilders! I'm just glad that provision got cut.
It's possible the homebuilders could've burned down their inventory and used that money to help fund the mark-downs they would have had to take to do that, but they probably would've just built more homes.
While there is little limit to my ability to conceive of people using government programs as a way to enrich themselves, the degree of snark being directed at this provision is appropriate only if one assumes that there is no segment of the population which would be better served by being in rental units than in their own home. Regardless of how 'affordable' single family dwellings are, they are not the housing solution of choice for everyone.
There may be no virtue in subsidizing housing for any segment of the population. But if we're going to do it for owners, there's no reason to selectively disadvantage renters.
"There may be no virtue in subsidizing housing for any segment of the population. But if we're going to do it for owners, there's no reason to selectively disadvantage renters."
Exactly. This is why we should replace the mortgage deduction with a higher standard deduction that everyone, homeowners and renters, can use.
C'mon Megan, you're smarter than this. If you want to generally grouse about government programs, that's fine. I'm often in agreement on that note. If you want to complain that various affordable housing programs (govt-subsidized or insured loans, tax credits, tax exempt bonds, etc.) should be done away with, that's a fair argument worth having.
But the blog you linked to seems to be intentionally misrepresenting what is going on in the new housing act. I say "misrepresenting" rather than "misunderstanding" because the authors seem to be intelligent enough to actually understand what's going on.
As I'm sure you know, "affordable housing" is a term of art referring generally to rental housing--overwhelmingly apartments--for lower-income folks.
The fact that there are lots of single-family foreclosures around the country is basically irrelevant to a community's or the nation's affordable housing needs. In theory, sure--individual families could be moved into foreclosed homes. But what government agency is going to buy those homes, make sure they're livable, and coordinate the relocation of vast numbers of people? Under what regulatory regime will this happen? How could bonds or tax credits--which generally require large dollar amounts to make them attractive to syndicators, and therefore cost effective to affordable housing developers--be used?
The affordable housing industry--and it is a formidable industry--is not set up to address their goals through single family homes. And, just because there's a short term glut of foreclosed single family homes, it probably isn't advisable to try to re-gear the industry in that direction.
So, in terms of what is generally meant by "affordable housing," there is no "excess housing inventory". There are just a bunch of empty or soon-to-be-empty single family homes that are, as a practical matter, irrelevant to the "affordable housing" market.
"There are just a bunch of empty or soon-to-be-empty single family homes that are, as a practical matter, irrelevant to the "affordable housing" market."
The bureaucrats and managers of the "affordable housing" industry as it now stands see scattered, single family homes as irrelevant to their business model. The easier way to house the problem poor has been to concentrate them. This is also the way to keep the flow of federal subsidy in the hands of the existing mangers of this "formidable industry".
However a lot of experience in the US and other countries suggests that mixing small numbers of problem poor families into neighborhoods where the problem families can pick up the viewpoints, the educational opportunities, the knowledge of work oportunities and the lifestle models of non-failed people is an effective way to reducing the underlying social problem which gives rise to much of the push for "affordable housing".
If this Bill is interpreted as facilitating the buying up of empty single family homes for that purpose, then it might actually do quite a bit of good.
Megan, you should've seen the original housing bill, which contained a $6 billion "tax rebate" (subsidy) for the homebuilders! I'm just glad that provision got cut.
It's possible the homebuilders could've burned down their inventory and used that money to help fund the mark-downs they would have had to take to do that, but they probably would've just built more homes.
Better than the idea to keep housing prices up by destroying excess inventory.
While there is little limit to my ability to conceive of people using government programs as a way to enrich themselves, the degree of snark being directed at this provision is appropriate only if one assumes that there is no segment of the population which would be better served by being in rental units than in their own home. Regardless of how 'affordable' single family dwellings are, they are not the housing solution of choice for everyone.
There may be no virtue in subsidizing housing for any segment of the population. But if we're going to do it for owners, there's no reason to selectively disadvantage renters.
"There may be no virtue in subsidizing housing for any segment of the population. But if we're going to do it for owners, there's no reason to selectively disadvantage renters."
Exactly. This is why we should replace the mortgage deduction with a higher standard deduction that everyone, homeowners and renters, can use.
C'mon Megan, you're smarter than this. If you want to generally grouse about government programs, that's fine. I'm often in agreement on that note. If you want to complain that various affordable housing programs (govt-subsidized or insured loans, tax credits, tax exempt bonds, etc.) should be done away with, that's a fair argument worth having.
But the blog you linked to seems to be intentionally misrepresenting what is going on in the new housing act. I say "misrepresenting" rather than "misunderstanding" because the authors seem to be intelligent enough to actually understand what's going on.
As I'm sure you know, "affordable housing" is a term of art referring generally to rental housing--overwhelmingly apartments--for lower-income folks.
The fact that there are lots of single-family foreclosures around the country is basically irrelevant to a community's or the nation's affordable housing needs. In theory, sure--individual families could be moved into foreclosed homes. But what government agency is going to buy those homes, make sure they're livable, and coordinate the relocation of vast numbers of people? Under what regulatory regime will this happen? How could bonds or tax credits--which generally require large dollar amounts to make them attractive to syndicators, and therefore cost effective to affordable housing developers--be used?
The affordable housing industry--and it is a formidable industry--is not set up to address their goals through single family homes. And, just because there's a short term glut of foreclosed single family homes, it probably isn't advisable to try to re-gear the industry in that direction.
So, in terms of what is generally meant by "affordable housing," there is no "excess housing inventory". There are just a bunch of empty or soon-to-be-empty single family homes that are, as a practical matter, irrelevant to the "affordable housing" market.
"There are just a bunch of empty or soon-to-be-empty single family homes that are, as a practical matter, irrelevant to the "affordable housing" market."
The bureaucrats and managers of the "affordable housing" industry as it now stands see scattered, single family homes as irrelevant to their business model. The easier way to house the problem poor has been to concentrate them. This is also the way to keep the flow of federal subsidy in the hands of the existing mangers of this "formidable industry".
However a lot of experience in the US and other countries suggests that mixing small numbers of problem poor families into neighborhoods where the problem families can pick up the viewpoints, the educational opportunities, the knowledge of work oportunities and the lifestle models of non-failed people is an effective way to reducing the underlying social problem which gives rise to much of the push for "affordable housing".
If this Bill is interpreted as facilitating the buying up of empty single family homes for that purpose, then it might actually do quite a bit of good.