What We Really Need Is Good Paying Jobs

by lewwaters

Tenement 3Not too surprising to see the Lazy C editorializing in the Sunday edition, “Make Housing Affordable” with, “In order to thrive, our community must accommodate young families, newcomers.”

Wasn’t it years worth of pushing for more and more “affordable housing” that led to the mortgage bubble that burst and saw our economy tank?

How about instead of pushing for more government involvement in housing, government and envirowackos get out of the way and allow some good paying, family wage middle class jobs be created instead of pushing for taxpayer subsidized playgrounds for the wealthy like the concrete jungle planned for the waterfront?

Why cry about “affordable housing” when this very rag supported slapping families with thousands of dollars a year in tolls and increased taxes to pay for a light rail project voters consistently rejected funding for at every election?

This rag also supports the construction of that waterfront concrete jungle with condominiums and high end shopping and hotel / restaurant that struggling families will be unable to afford to live in.

They also say in the editorial, “The private sector will play the biggest role in developing housing, but there is a role for government in making sure that suitable land is available, development fees are appropriate and permitting processes are as streamlined as possible.”

Then begin the very next paragraph with, “The best solution of all, of course, would be for incomes to grow.”

Yet they are solidly opposed to the creation of family wage, middle class jobs at the Port of Vancouver from a proposed Oil Terminal that would ship American oil throughout the United States to be refined into much needed fuel and a plethora of products that actually do benefit all families, including lower income, not to mention the massive increase in revenue to the city, state and county needed to offer temporary assistance to those in need.

Also at odds in their editorial claim is “making sure that suitable land is available” as they have also strongly opposed updates to land management, expressed in an April 19, 2015 editorial, “A Myopic View of Land Rules” where they said, “While property owners will understandably view the world through their own self-interests, elected officials should be expected to see the bigger picture.”

So much for “making sure that suitable land is available,” as just where would they figure such “suitable land” would come from if not from the vast open lands tied up in bureaucratic regulations and unable to be used.

Land owners are not farming it as that cost more than they can see in return, so it just sits as others outside of the area demand it be left alone as per their desires, not the desires of those who actually own it and pay the county taxes for owning it.

And let us not forget the Vancouver City Council granting tax abatements to wealthy developers’ years ago with the provision that the High Density project must include “affordable housing.” Once completed, we see $1,150 and $1,500 per month rent charges.

Hardly what I would consider “affordable.”

Yes Vancouver, you have a problem as both your city council and sorry excuse for a newspaper have for years favored wealthy developers to create more high end housing and apartment developments while advocating little more than minimum wage, part-time job creation.

Chickens have come home to roost as envirowackos fearmonger projects that actually would grow the economy and the Lazy C demeans any effort to lessen regulation and taxes on a struggling middle class.

And, their answer is more of the same?

You voted for these people and keep the Lazy C in business.

No one to blame but yourselves.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Keep this blog active with a voluntary contribution at the PayPal button at the top of the sidebar on the right. Thank you.

2 Comments to “What We Really Need Is Good Paying Jobs”

  1. Some affordability links:

    “Restricted supply leads to higher prices and less affordability. We see the association in the relationship between land use regulations and affordability in several dozen U.S. metro areas (Figure 3)……..
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20151120_barriers_shared_growth_land_ use_regulation_and_economic_rents.pdf

    That Hissing Sound
    Paul Krugman, Nobel Economist
    “So when people become willing to spend more on houses, say because of a fall in mortgage rates, some houses get built, but the prices of existing houses also go up.” (Bold added)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/that-hissing-sound.html

    The Impact of Building Restrictions on Housing Affordability (182k)
    Edward L. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko
    Federal Reserve Bank of NY Economic Policy Review / June 2003
    http://www.debunkingportland.com/docs/0306glae.pdf

    Regulatory Barriers
    BY DAVID ENGEL
    Director of the Division of Affordable Housing Research & Technology at HUD.
    http://www.debunkingportland.com/docs/brightideasSpring2004regbarriers.pdf

    The Causes and Consequences of Land Use Regulation: Evidence from Greater Boston
    Edward L. Glaeser and Bryce A. Ward
    Harvard Institute of Economic Research
    http://www.debunkingportland.com/docs/HIER2124.pdf

    Zoning’s Steep Price
    Edward L. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko
    “Measures of zoning strictness are highly correlated with high prices. While all of our evidence is suggestive, not definitive, it seems to suggest that land-use regulation is responsible for high housing costs where they exist.” (Bold added)
    REGULATION FALL 2002
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n3/v25n3-7.pdf

    Residential Land Use Regulation and the US Housing Price Cycle
    Haifang Huang and Yao Tangy
    Department of Economics, University of Alberta, Department of Economics, Bowdoin College
    “Contrary to prior literature, our findings indicate a significant link between supply inelasticity and price declines during the bust, whereas Glaeser, Gyourko, and Saiz (2008) found little evidence of such a relationship from an earlier downturn from 1989 to 1996.”
    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~ytang/Huang-Tang-Aug-2011.pdf
    http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/markcalabria/2012/02/20/local_governments_also_to_blame_for_ housing_crisis

    How Urban Planners Caused the Housing Bubble
    http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/how-urban-planners-caused-housing-bubble
    Full analysis:
    http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa646.pdf
    from: http://www.debunkingportland.com/zoning-increases-cost.html

    “public policy have not made land scarce enough”
    Metro Is Raising Rents, Land Value & Housing Costs to Force High Density
    http://www.debunkingportland.com/mindset.htm

    http://www.debunkingportland.com/housing.html

    http://www.debunkingportland.com/plans.html

    http://www.debunkingportland.com/politics.html

    Like

  2. I lived most of my life in the SF Bay Area (with about a decade in the Sacramento Valley). I watched as “no growth” policies took over in California — but despite such policies, the population boomed (until the last decade or so…) Housing prices, both for ownership and rental units skyrocketed. Several communities (notably Berkeley and San Francisco) established rent controls (which only has the impact of benefiting those that already have housing — and hurt those who are looking for housing (for example, someone with a rent-controlled apartment is inclined to stay-put, even though divorced or otherwise has lowered needs… but it’s cheaper to stay that to move … this blocks market price from allowing decisions that give the most people the opportunity to have the size and cost housing that most fits their needs.

    A decision by the courts blocked rent control boards from forcing building owners to stay in the rental business — Thus, many apartment units were “converted” to condos — selling for outrageous prices (in the land-limited area) — further reducing the available rental units to newcomers seeking housing.

    The “green belts” and other restricted growth (the county I lived in had about 1/3 of its area (across the center of the county) under restricted development rules. This forced new growth further away from the areas where the jobs were located. Rail based rapid transit (BART) had been built to hustle workers to the large offices in the Oakland and San Francisco city-centers. Tax hungry San Francisco then established a “payroll tax” (cities in California are not allowed to have an income tax) — this had the unintended consequence of seeing the companies with significant “back office” operations move their armies of clerks to new office parks in the suburbs — naturally, located OFF the BART system, since zoning had forced higher density housing to be located near the transit stations (“transit villages”) … Thus, the Bay Area now have massive office parks miles and miles from the rail transit system. The office population in San Francisco is considerably smaller than it once was (though SF has now become “silicon valley north” as new technical companies have been scooping up cheap office space in SF). This has changed middle class clerical positions (that could be filled by a wide swath of the population) into highly technical highly paid jobs requiring substantial educational qualifications.

    The left’s ideas about zoning, “no growth” policies (thanks, in part to Malvina Reynolds’ 1962 hit (performed by Pete Seeger) “Little Boxes” that describes housing as “little boxes on the hillside” … “all made out of tricky tacky” which “all look just the same.” Of course, the specific houses that Ms. Reynolds criticized, located on hills just outside the edge of San Francisco, visible from the freeway as you head south. The steep terrain forced houses close together in strips (with swaths of un-lanscaped hillside that was too steep to develop). These homes, at the time, where essential middle-class housing.

    Unfortunately, Washington (state) has a streak of the same leftist mentality, with statewide “no growth” laws. I salute Commissioners (now councilors) Madore and Mielke in the efforts they’ve made to circumvent the no-growth policies as they affect Clark County. Hopefully, the new Councilors, will prove to be as enlightened. (Otherwise, we (the voters) will have to toss them out of office, won’t we?)

    Like

%d bloggers like this: