|
 |
|
 |
|
| DREAM HOUSES | |
 September 2002 
|
|||
|
|
Many residents of Burlington, Vermont who earn the median salary cannot afford to buy or rent a median-priced house or apartment -- and the disparity continues to grow with the housing market boom. What does this mean on a national level? Housing experts Wendell Cox and Susan Popkin answer your questions. |
|
|
Jim Skeen of Davis, CA asks: Living near a big city, I seem to hear a lot how difficult it is to build affordable housing in the city. My question then is, would it be easier to build affordable housing in more outlying areas, such as beyond the suburbs? Also, would it be easier to build affordable housing in large numbers, something like a bulk concept? Dr. Susan Popkin responds: Yes, the housing market in many areas is booming, putting new homes out of reach for many households. In Chicago, one group is experimenting with promoting "employer assisted" housing, where employers subsidize mortgages for employees so that they can live in the area. This solution may become more popular if the market continues to stay hot. Many suburban and outlying areas have zoning restrictions that prohibit the construction of higher-density affordable housing. Only a few areas have managed to overcome this problem successfully. In Minneapolis/St. Paul, as a result of a fair housing lawsuit, the city and suburbs agreed to the construction of a specific number of affordable units. Montgomery County, MD, requires developers of new complexes to set aside 10 percent of their units for affordable housing. Wendell Cox responds: It surely will continue if much of the nation's urban planning fraternity has its way. For example, in the name of curbing urban sprawl, planners and the politicians they advise are forcing middle-income homebuyers who work in the San Francisco-San Jose area to "leap frog" over their excessive land regulations to affordable housing in Stockton or Modesto. This pattern will be repeated elsewhere as more states and localities are seduced by smart growth's siren call. Even worse, however, is that statewide "comprehensive" planning, such as in Oregon, would remove even this less than optimal choice. Younger and lower income households would increasingly have to huddle in higher densities than incumbent homeowners are willing to tolerate. All of this is in the name of protecting more than 97 percent of the nation's land from expansion by the scant 2.6 percent that has been developed over the last 400 years. If the accelerating trend of excessive land regulation is not reversed, the situation will get a lot worse, will last a lot longer and will be much more difficult to correct when reason returns. Remember that it took more than 70 years for the bankrupt Soviet planning regime to implode, and transition has been no "picnic."
|
|||||||||||||
| |||||
 | |||||
| |||||
|
|
| |||
| |||||
| |||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | |||||
