Housing issues key in city race

Journal-World ^ | March 13, 2003 | Chad Lawhorn

[Mercat]

I don't think we have to excerpt the urinal world... hope I'm not causing a problem. This article reminds me of the blind men describing the elephant. Also reminds me of the Boulder, CO phenomenon where the libs made the city so fancy and unfriendly to business that they had to import workers from Denver to clean their bathrooms, etc. Trouble is, Lawrence would have to go to KCMO or KCK which are too far away. I'm pretty proud that Johnson County has become more diverse economically and culturally and racially over the past decade. Lawrence has become more inbred because they keep out the Walmarts and tried to even keep out Borders and The Gap for crying out loud. They just want little beautiques. Now they're outlawed smoking so the bars and musical venues are starting to shrivel up.

[starfish923]

I never understood the concept of "affordable housing."
The free market takes care of rentals and homes are ALWAYS way too much. Borrowing from family and friends for the down is ALWAYS needed and the mortages and taxes are ALWAYS too high.
That is the good ole fashioned American way.
Why the HELL should the taxpayers pick up the tab for new homeowners or renters?

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Read it all and I still do not know where this is located.

[Mercat]

Opps, sorry. It's in Kansas. The site of the University of Kansas. I thought I had only posted it on the Kansas ping list but it ended up on news/issues. Lawrence is about 35-40 miles west of the KS/MO state line and about 50 miles from downtown KCMO.

[Meldrim]

"I'm pretty proud that Johnson County has become more diverse economically and culturally and racially over the past decade."

New Hampshire has neither the cultural or racial diversity, and we are doing just fine. If anything, you could make an statistical case that racial and cultural diversity correlates with poverty, illegitimacy and economic stagnation.

[Mercat]

If anything, you could make an statistical case that racial and cultural diversity correlates with poverty, illegitimacy and economic stagnation.

Actually, I just like eating all the ethnic foods. We are within walking distance of a Jewish deli, two asian food markets, a Mexican butcher shop and two Indian restaurants. There's an Ethiopian restaurant next door to Republican headquarters that I've been meaning to try. I have clients from all over the world which is enjoyable although challenging. I think getting up every day and interacting only with people who look and think like I do would be boring ... sort of a major reason why I think gay marriage is wrong. viva la difference.

[wizr]

"Lawrence is about 35-40 miles west of the KS/MO state line and about 50 miles from downtown KCMO."

There's your problem. It is now becoming a 'bedroom community' for Kansas City. Check the costs against the KC property values.

[Koblenz]

One strategy Carpenter is not interested in is the creation of large numbers of new building lots to keep up with the demand for housing.

That's good to hear. Increasing supply has never led to lower prices. At least in this guy's reality...

[New Orleans Slim]

"The free market takes care of rentals and homes are ALWAYS way too much."

The reason homes are too much is that people are willing to pay outrageous sums of money for homes. Once people stop doing that, then watch housing prices go down. This is why I rent in New York. I considered buying an apartment in Astor Place, but their cheapest units were going for $3.2M. There was no way in hell I was going to pay $3.2M for an apartment that hasn't even been built yet. And while the plans looked nice, they weren't $3.2M nice. Nonetheless, people bought them up. People need to quit buying at outragous prices.

[dufekin]

Housing prices and availability are based upon "supply," "demand," and "cost." We'll presume for this discussion that living with parents isn't a particularly attractive option for most students, especially given gasoline prices. We also will assume (for the sake of simplicity) that there are no housing options in the "suburbs" of Lawrence.

Let's start here: Demand has increased. More people want to own their own homes. If you attract new, better-paying jobs, people will hold them, and those people will want to live somewhere. Most will prefer to own a home, further increasing demand. Higher demand means that prices increase unless supply increases to satiate demand.

Kansas University students also need homes (almost exclusively rentals). I haven't a clue how enrollment has trended, but as enrollment increases, housing demand increases. Restricting the number of students per rental either increases the number of rentals or the price of rentals. You need to ensure adequate housing options rather than restricting the market; otherwise, cash-poor students will migrate to increasingly unattractive housing options.

Now, supply. The best way to decrease prices in the face of increasing demand is to increase supply. To generate this supply, the city should decrease regulations that inhibit builders from constructing new homes. Alternatively, the city could impose a 30% income tax so that no one has enough money to buy anything, thus quenching demand (and leading to mass exodus, leaving plenty of homes on the market). Zoning regulations usually are the biggest supply barrier. Farmers on the edge of town unwilling to sell their land to developers (or legally prohibited from doing so by some preservation trust) might also restrict supply in booming times.

Last, costs. Builders will not build housing unless they can pay the costs of adding housing. These costs include the cost of raw materials (increased greatly, especially for steel, because of a boom in China), the cost of labor, and the costs imposed by government. Government regulations only increase housing prices; they NEVER decrease prices. Rent control in New York, for example, discriminates against younger (and often poorer) families and in favor of long-established, old renters. Requiring "affordable" units only increases the price of "unaffordable" units.

[dufekin]

Well, you could lower prices without increasing supply by stifling demand. The city could impose a 30% income tax that would keep families too poor to buy homes or much of anything else. They'll lose their jobs and flee the city. Those with homes will have to leave and put their homes on the market. I think we've solved the problem. Prices drop--and still, no one can afford housing (but it's only because they're paying taxes).

[Mercat]

"People need to quit buying at outrageous prices"

and how do you propose to stop that? It's a bit like the Time Magazine articles last week saying that women don't need to work 80 hour weeks but men need to stop working 80 hour weeks so that the inequality will even out.

[Mercat]

Wow, impressive analysis. The logical direction for Lawrence to expand would be eastward, towards the major metro area of KCMO but, midwestern towns traditionally (I think it's a prevailing wind thing) expand south and west. Also, east of town is largely flood plane and, a large chunk of it is tied up in political correctness surrounding the Haskell Indian College which claims that it's sacred ground. This last issue has kept the K-10 by pass from happening which has also stunted growth. Since most of the Haskell students are now getting their degrees from KU, I suggest turning that facility into a casino and I think that would salve the concerns about sacred dancing grounds etc. although I hate casinos.

[cgbg]

"Affordable housing" becomes a crisis when federal, state, and local governments:

Pass insane zoning laws preventing construction on certain size lots, in certain areas, or in certain neighborhoods.

Follow enviro-wacko rules that vastly inflate the cost of demolition, renovation or new construction.

Pass building codes that may be great for mcmansions but are overkill for housing designed for low income folks.

Subsidize owners or renters thus artificially increasing the demand for housing in an area.

There are hundreds of government policies that make housing more expensive. Politicians should spend a lot more time looking at their own existing ordinances and laws if they want to find the problem.

[New Orleans Slim]

"and how do you propose to stop that?"

I don't think it can be stopped. It needs to stop, but it won't.

[New Orleans Slim]

"Rent control in New York, for example, discriminates against younger (and often poorer) families and in favor of long-established, old renters. Requiring "affordable" units only increases the price of "unaffordable" units."

I got a better one for you. I rented my apartment back when I was in law school before the lower east side was cool. It was cheaper than the law dorms at NYU and within walking distance. It was also rent stabilized. 9 years later, I still live in the same one bedroom apartment. I am a senior corporate litigator at a major firm (and made a hell of a lot of money last year). The lower east side is now trendy and rents have spiked.

I pay $1350/month thanks to the rent stabilization laws - up from the $800/month I originally paid. The rent stabilization laws were not intended to subsidize cheap rent for lawyers and investment bankers. But there you have it. And yes, I think the rent laws shoud be repealed, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to continue to take advantage of them while they exist.

[hedgetrimmer]

"affordable housing." is housing whose cost has been shifted to other people to pay.

For example, a city in my county requires 30% of a housing development to be "affordable" or sell at below market prices. So the developer does a couple of things to accomplish this. First, he applies to for a greater density in the development, for example, he may have been planning to build 6 single family homes, now he'll build 10 or 12 on much smaller lots. He may opt to put in duplexes or quadraplexes in the place of some of the houses, so more people can live on the same acreage. The county or city will usually give the developer some kind of subsidy, or tax break for building these units, or they might let him keep a couple for rental income. Then, he calclulates the cost increases on the single family home that will cover the reduced price home. This immediately creates a price bubble for the homes that are on the "free market". The homes with the reduced price cannot be sold to just anyone. Usually a government agency or NGO decides who gets to buy the cost shifted homes, or live in them.

Because the remaining homes on the free market have to cover the costs of the rest of the development, and that includes government mandated parks, open space, community education centers etc, the cost of the free market homes skyrocket.

The upshot is that the price of single family homes purchased on the freemarket goes through the roof, and the number of government controlled housing units shift upward dramatically. The free market pretty much doesn't exist anymore in a lot of housing markets and the single family home is soon to be only something the very wealthy can aspire too, because they will be the only ones who can pay for everyone else's housing as well as their own. The trouble is, most people don't realize why they are paying so much for their homes, and if they did, they'd probably want to choose the person to live in the home they are subsidizing rather than let the government do it.

[dufekin]

Well, it's a bad idea (in general) to build housing in a floodplain, and I'd support zoning regulations to prohibit it (if the restriction is reasonable; that is, if most available land isn't so restricted). That land could be put to better use in agriculture or as a public park. I don't live in Lawrence, so I'm not terribly sure if commuting to Kansas City is particularly practical. But the solution to the housing "crisis" is to build much more housing somewhere.

[tahiti]

The article states:

"City officials in 2000 changed the city's zoning code to make it illegal for more than three unrelated people to live in a single family home."

Then you state:

"Now they're outlawed smoking..."

Wow, does not any "public official" in Lawrence, Ks care about or even have read the Kansas state constitution?

§ 1. Equal rights. All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

§ 20. Powers retained by people. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people; and all powers not herein delegated remain with the people.

It is obvious that it is part of the concept and the basis of "liberty" and of rights "retained by the people" for private property owners to decide how many unrelated people will live on their property, whether they will pay rent and if they will smoke cigarettes are not.

These ordinances are blatantly and unambigously unconstitutional.

If I was a Lawrence, Ks resident I would be all over the city commission to revoke these ordnances immediately or suffer the consequences of:

§ 18. Justice without delay. All persons, for injuries suffered in person, reputation or property, shall have remedy by due course of law, and justice administered without delay.

Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) — State officers (public officials) may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities.

Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992) — State or local officials who stand by or protect an unlawful eviction or seizure are liable for damages under 42 USC 1983.

University town equals socialist/communist.

[starfish923]

"Affordable housing" becomes a crisis when federal, state, and local governments

I didn't write this to you.
Housing was ALWAYS more than an ordinary blue collar could afford. Houses/property were always expensive; that is life. That's why is has ALWAYS been the "American dream."
Making the taxpayer pay for someone's "dream" isn't fair. Folks gotta go out and make their own dream come true.