|Re: Affordability||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Thomas Lofft (tloffthotmail.com)|
|Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:33:44 -0800 (PST)|
As has often been said, "The definition of Affordability is all in the budget of the purchaser" Many of the suggestions quoted are all about the way it used to be. When the Europeans first invaded North America, there was a very communitarian based local culture of nomadic tribes who had affordable housing that they took with them from summer pastures and hunting grounds to winter feeding and camping grounds. The Europeans introduced three major new ethics: land ownership, firearms, and European government. Ever since, it has been the concept of control of the land through restricted ownership, as constrained by the regulation of government enforced by the armed militia, that has continuously forced up the price of housing, regardless of the actual cost of moving or erecting a new tepee. Regardless of how much it costs to actually build a home in either Delaware Commons or Liberty Village, Swan's Market or Cambridge, the major difference is the cost of the land which is typically of limited supply in a market of increasing demand due to the constraints of local government. Ergo, price of land keeps rising. Currently, in a period of apparent oversupply and diminished demand due to employment uncertainty, affordability for the least in demand housing stock has increased for those still able to afford to purchase. Land costs of a new residence, including sewer, water, taps and permits, used to be about 25% of the total product cost. Now it has risen to over 40% and will move up to 50% as soon as local governments attach the next round of 'Energy Saving Mandates' for an even more egregious one size fits all backward bureaucracy. If subdivision of a huge supply of vacant land were more readily achieveable, land costs would decline and housing would be considered more affordable. Of course, that would mean a declining value of all presently owned property and there are a lot of voters who would resist that also. Tom Lofft Liberty Village, MD Originally from: Brian Bartholomew <bb [at] stat.ufl.edu> Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Afforability To: Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> Message-ID: <20100111210712.12B6375DCC [at] capelin.stat.ufl.edu> "Rob Sandelin" <floriferous [at] msn.com> writes: > If housing development was cheap and easy everybody would be doing it. That's exactly right. If housing development was cheaper and easier, lots more semi-poor people would be living in houses, all over the world. If a house was something you could bring home from the store and pull a rip cord to inflate, then anybody who wanted to could be living in a house. The closest real world approach to this is probably a yurt kit, which fits in a pickup truck. > It's neither. That's also exactly right. I wonder why that is? Why aren't there yurt cohousings forming everywhere, full of people who've lost their house to foreclosure? Suppose you wanted to form a budget cohousing, made from Katrina cottages at mobile home spacing with a center common house, on a vacant lot urban enough to bicycle to shopping. Let's say $70K purchase price for each household. This is affordable, and you start by hiring construction workers to lay sewer pipes in the ground -- > The building permit department has so few permit applications that > they have laid off 75% of their staff from 2 years ago. -- but as soon as the caterpillars arrive, the remaining building permit department shows up to stop you. After they finish telling you what they will permit you to build, your price will have increased over three times, from $70K to the $250K we observe today. This is why the low end of housing costs as much as it does. Where does the political support for all this permitting come from? Well, I've had a cohouser tell me that she wasn't about to pay all that money into a mortgage, only to have her resale value lowered by being next door to a Katrina cottage. The voters that want to raise the minimum price of housing by political means have succeeded; the consequence is that housing is now less affordable than it otherwise would be. We will have affordable housing when home purchasers start telling the neighbors they don't get a veto for cosmetics. Brian _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
- affordability, (continued)
- Re: Affordability David Heimann, January 16 2010
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.