$25 MacArthur Grant for Affordable Housing Research
During the past decade, the booming real estate market and waning federal subsidies resulted in the loss of over two million units of affordable housing, according to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation which announced on Tuesday that it was committing $25 million to the study of housing policy in the United States….
During the past decade, the booming real estate market and waning federal subsidies resulted in the loss of over two million units of affordable housing, according to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation which announced on Tuesday that it was committing $25 million to the study of housing policy in the United States. “A greater national commitment to affordable housing requires a greater understanding of the impact of housing on the well-being of children, families, and communities,” MacArthur President Jonathan Fanton, speaking at New York University’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, said today. “This new research will produce a deep, empirical evidence base to show how housing affects children’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development and how housing choices shape the economic, emotional, and physical well-being of adults.” According to a reader who attended the event, panel member and HPD Commish Shaun Donovan disclosed that a big focus of HPD over the next year or two is going to be addressing the need for “permanently affordable” housing that doesn’t trap families (by disincentivizing them to move) or disappear when initial owners turn around and sell.
Maybe MacArthur wants to devote a few bucks to an idea we’ve had lately: What if the government created a comprehensive housing voucher program that made subsidies linked to people and not properties? This would remove the incredible inefficiencies and disincentives of the current system, while providing a much more liquid subsidy program to the people who need it. Crazy?
MacArthur to Invest $25 Million in Housing Research [Newswire]
Affordable Housing [Macfound.org]
Photo of Boulevard Homes in East New York by gkjarvis
So what, 11:32? I hardly think that puts me in a class my myself. I would venture that 90% of the homeowners on this site have market rate apts because they can’t afford a mortgage without them. That still has absolutely NOTHING to do with my work with the community regarding low income housing, homelessness, etc. Would it make you feel better for me to be homeless myself for you to give me credit for anything? Sorry – not happening.
Sorry, Josh, supply and demand does not lower prices enough in this city to affect middle to lower income renters/buyers. Almost all of the new construction going on in this city is aimed at upper incomes. There may well be a shuffling around and a deal or two within that strata of buyers, but it doesn’t trickle down to where it counts. It only means that Joe Gotbux has several apartments to choose from, and maybe can leverage a deal out of one seller. That has no effect beyond that specific economic group. His moving from the Apthorpe building to the Time Warner Center does not mean a firefighter is moving to the Upper West Side.
JoshK-
I never said “deserve”- I said “need” and that’s a very differnt thing. I totally agree that no one needs to live in Manhattan (I tried it and hated it- ergo, here I am in Brooklyn).
But I think there is a further issue that too many people forget about city living. Business desperately needs employees to function. NYC has moved further and further way from any kind of manufacturing (indeed too expensive for them), and while kissing corporate butt is stifling the small mom and pop businesses which are an enormous part of the economic engine which employs hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers. NYC has had huge increases in so-called service industries, which are heavily dependent on people rather than technology. Think what the economy of this city would be without restaurants, theaters etc.
The enormous salaries paid to those in the financial services extends to only a small sector of the labor market so the majority of people do fall in the lower to middle income area in terms of salary. The majority of workers, in terms of people, falls into the lower income levels. But however you slice it- business needs labor to function. And if labor can’t afford to live without reasonable access to their jobs (that doesn’t involve a 2 hour trip in both directions), they can’t get to work, or they can’t afford to get to work because of the travel expense. They can’t afford to work for the salaries offered because everything is too expensive.
So businesses not only lose workers through high turnover, but replacing and training new people costs them. Big business is better able to absorb the cost but smaller businesses take a hit. Without the big business breaks corporations get, they are being forced out of business. That effects the economy because again, without small business the economic engine breaks.
It’s the domino theory. One thing can’t fall without setting off a chain reaction. Parts of Manhattan and the rest of the city have to remain affordable and liveable (please everyone- no comments about getting 6 roommates for a 1 bedroom in a rapidly gentrifying Harlem) for even lower income people.
So fix RC/RS- set income caps or whatever, but breaking it will do more than force out lower i come people. It hurts business.
iceberg ,
I don’t always agree with them. eg, they had Thaler on a while back. But they do get interesting people.
CHP has stated on this board that she rents at market rate because she can’t afford to do otherwise. That’s what the above statement was based on.
JoshK,
Suprisingly, I like reading the GMU professors over at CafeHayek (Boudreaux and Roberts), but even they aren’t anarchist enough for my tastes. In any case they fit my Austrian-economic tastes.
I don’t know if this thread is dead yet or not, but…
1. Iceberg, do you ever download the podcasts from George Mason U / EconLib? I think you’ll like them, they get some really good people.
2. Crown Heights – I think if you follow your example through, you will be convinced. Imagine with your example if we tore down a few buildings. There would now be fewer places to live. Would prices go up then? If your logic works, then somehow prices would have to now go down as lower supply leads to lower costs. Right? Therefore you are stuck into admitting that supply and demand determine price.
Then, imagine 5 people and four apartments. No matter how much money you give these five people, they will still be out one apartment, unless you build more. Now imagine that you are the LL of one of the apts, and you now hear that someone is building a few new units. You’ve been enjoying nice high rents b/c there’s not enough to go around. Do you anticipate that prices now with the new construction will go up or down?
Why is it taken as a given that any city should try to create opportunities for people below median income to live there? Doesn’t creating an artificial low end on the housing market only increase and enforce the divide between those who earn significant wages and those who do not? Doesn’t this just help create a whole community of services, both legal and illegal, that cater to, exploit, and try to maintain that low end? Isn’t the solution to fix the wage divide, not the monthly rent check?
Anon 5PM – how do you know that I don’t have a section 8 tenant? In fact, how do you know that I don’t let one of my tenants live rent free, because she is still in school? You don’t know anything about what I do, or don’t do, what I have or don’t have, or who I help, or how I choose to help them. Let me know when you get off of your self righteous throne and out into the trenches yourself. Next.
Josh, we’ve had this argument before, and I still don’t understand how anyone can believe in trickle down housing, especially in this city. By your argument, building new lux housing entices person A to move from the Dakotah to this new building. Person B would then move in, freeing up their aptment for person C and so on down the line, so that at the bottom, some low income person will now get a home? Surely you can’t believe that that works. You allow for no variables, such as someone coming into town from somewhere else and taking the Dakotah apt, thereby stopping the entire process, and housing remains static. That’s just a simplistic monkey wrench in the works, and I’ve blown your whole theory. No commies needed, unless the out of towner is part of the communist conspiracy.
Eryximachus, you are just nuts. I hope the AARP comes after you with a net.
I like JoshK’s extremism. He’s definitely got a point.
Housing would be much much cheaper if zoning was changed to allowed every building in NYC to be twice as high.
With all that new housing, I bet prices would drop in half. I’m a landlord, so I’d personally suffer from reduced rent and the decrease in the value of my property, if I didn’t build higher, but there’s no question that it would be a win-win situation for developers and middle class renters/buyers alike.
Down with zoning that protects the few. Let’s start a new New York City –one where everyone, rich and poor alike, can own there own home!
Well put, Joshk.