Poor people lose again (part 2)
Anonymous in his comment to my previous post expressed a concern that the effect of the ordinance I envision is overstated. He also challenges some of the numbers in my previous post. So, I thought I would provide the asked for proof.
First, as to the density of R-3 housing versus R-1 housing, I can honestly say I have no way to know. Unfortunately, the printout I have of the Brandon zoning map (found here ), is too small to allow me to measure relative sizes. I either need a much larger print out or a smaller dot-grid to measure with. Otherwise the result would be 0% of the designated residential areas are R-3. Of the designated R-3 areas, all but 3 are fully platted.
As for apartment availability, there are 1600+ rental units occupied in Brandon, but the census data does not break down houses versus apartments. The median rental price in 2000 was $557 per month. Assuming a person makes $6 per hour (which is above minimum wage), the median rent would account for 54% of his monthly income. (all data from the 2000 census found at epodunk)
Finally, he questions the $100 per square foot figure for housing. I ran a quick search on realtor.com for Brandon homes, and then randomly selected pages 7-10 to use for calculations. This resulted in 32 homes with both prices and square footages listed. The average price of the homes was $158,895.28 with an average square footage of 1589.3125 square feet. This is an average price per square foot of $99.98. Taken by line (p.s.f. of each house averaged) the average rises to $100.81 per square foot. Using the $99.98 value, the average 1800 square foot home would cost $179,964.00 . That pretty much guarantees the guy serving burgers at the Brandon McDonalds isn’t a homeowner in Brandon.
posted by Thomas @ 4:09 PM
4 Comments:
OK, so maybe the figures do tend to show these houses go beyond what the salary of a Brandon resident can afford. If that is the case then these houses won’t sell and if they won’t sell then the prices will go down and poorer folks can buy them then (granted not the poorest, but the poorest cant usually buy a house anyway and we cant buy houses for everyone unless you are a communist) By the way there are not many burger servers living in their own houses in Jackson or Hattiesburg or Tupelo or any other city, those cities don’t have this requirement and he still doesn’t get a house. When those people get into houses then this ordinance might hinder someone, but until then it doesn’t.
The people this ordinance hinders are not the poorest people, they're the lower middle class people. I recognize the burger turner is not getting a house any time soon. It's the guy making 35,000 with a wife and kid that can't get into a house in Brandon now (or much of anywhere else in this area). As for economics taking care of the problem, I thought this area would have run out of people who can afford these houses before now. Apparently if you don't give the market a choice on necessary items (and housing is a necessity), people will get themselves into any kind of a debt to acquire it.
So, if I understand what your saying is, if we are concerned about the lower middle class people not being able to get into houses at 1800 sq ft this wouldn't be a problem if the banks or mortgage people would not give them the loan they cannot afford to pay back. That is a banking problem that is dealt with at the state level (or should be dealt with if its not). That makes your beef a state problem, not one with the city
There is indeed a banking regulation angle to this problem. But the crux of my argument is the city has no business limiting the size of available houses. The fact that the banks overlend is certainly one of concern, and one which may resolve itself in the short term I read an article in the last few days on the increase of defaults on ARMs and the expected rise in foreclosures. When I can find the link I'll post it. The other end of this problem is the availability of affordable housing in the first place. Affordable is not just a function of what the banks will lend, it is also a function of the income of the individual. By limiting the ability of builders and developers to construct smaller, less expensive housing, the city has in effect changed the entry price point for housing. This has great benefits in protecting the value of the existing housing, particularly housing in the upper price brackets. However, it limits in absolute terms the avalability of housing in the lower price brackets. The dearth of available houses in the lower price ranges in this area, not just in Brandon, is putting home ownership out of reach for many people. When the only option for buying a house is to take on a risky debt scheme, which is not outside the parameters of allowable lending in the state, many people will do so. Living in an apartment or mobile home should not have to be their only other option. If government is setting out to make life better for its citizens, it is supposed to do so for all citizens, not just the wealthy.
Post a Comment
<< Home