Category: Housing

Crime: Perception vs. Reality

The Daily Escape:

Saguaros and poppies, Catalina SP, Tucson, AZ – March 2024 photo by Paul J Van Helden

From Jeff Asher, a crime analyst based in New Orleans:

“Murder plummeted in the United States in 2023, likely at one of the fastest rates of decline ever recorded. What’s more, every type of Uniform Crime Report Part I crime with the exception of auto theft is likely down a considerable amount this year relative to last year according to newly reported data through September from the FBI.”

We all knew that crime rates skyrocketed between the mid-1960s and the late 1980s. Then they went into a slow 35-year decline. Now, homicide, violent crime, and property crime rates have returned to what they were prior to the latest 20-year increase. This means that if you’re under 55, crime rates have been falling for most of your adult life.

But America perceives that crime rates are high. A Gallup poll released last November found 77% of Americans believed there was more crime in America than the year before. And 63% felt there was either a “very” or “extremely” serious crime problem — the highest in the poll’s history going back to 2000.

Wrongo doesn’t truly believe the polls since Pew revealed that 12% of people under 30 and 24% of Hispanic people who opt into online polls claim they have a license to operate a nuclear submarine, but here’s a chart:

(This is based on Gallup’s annual Crime survey, conducted Oct. 2023)

The question is, why the disconnect? NPR quoted Jeff Asher:

“There’s never been a news story that said, ‘There were no robberies yesterday, nobody really shoplifted at Walgreens….Especially with murder, there’s no doubt that it is falling at [a] really fast pace right now.’”

One theory you might have is that since the Covid pandemic caused social disorder, dysfunction in our government, and all sorts of problems, including that spike in crime, you might expect crime to remain high even after the country went back to work and school.

Another theory is that when people say “crime“, they don’t exclusively mean “people breaking the law“. Instead maybe they mean “behavior which upsets me“. For example, when the Philadelphia DA tries to focus on eliminating bail for simple drug arrests, while opposing police corruption, he’s said to be soft on crime. Then Republicans (and Trump) tried to impeach him, saying that they’re being “tough on crime” and crime remains a politicized news story.

Another theory is that the narrative around homeless people drives perception of crime. The idea that “homeless people have been violent“, or simply that “homeless people live near me and I don’t want any shelters built nearby,” strengthens the perception that crime is everywhere. For people who feel that way, the statement “Crime is a big problem” is equivalent to the statement “I always see homeless people when I go into town”.

This may explain why crime rates “near me” are perceived to be substantially lower than how national crime is perceived. Few of the homeless are encamped in their suburbs.

If you look back on the 1980s, there were a large number of visible homeless people in Washington DC, and Reagan dismissed them as “homeless by choice“. Today, there are plenty of homeless people on the streets in every city. It’s important to remember that when St. Reagan was governor of California, he released mental patients onto the streets.

This was part of “deinstitutionalization”: The emptying of state psychiatric hospitals that began in the 1950s. As hospitals were shut down, patients were discharged with no place to get psychiatric care. They ended up on the streets, some eventually committing crimes that got them arrested.

In 1963, JFK signed the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Health Centers Construction Act. (It turned out to be the last bill Kennedy would sign.) The law was designed to replace “custodial mental institutions” with community mental health centers, thus allowing patients to live—and get psychiatric care—in their communities.

However, a sufficient number of community mental health centers were never built.

In 1965, Medicaid accelerated the shift from inpatient to outpatient care: One key part of the Medicaid legislation stipulated that the federal government would not pay for inpatient care in psychiatric hospitals. This further pushed states to move patients out of their state facilities.

That’s when homeless people began to be visible to most of us.

Later, in the 1970s, Nixon declared a war on drugs, setting the stage for tough-on-crime policies. Laws, like mandatory minimum sentences for possession and other drug-related crimes, disproportionately affected people of color and pushed incarceration rates to record levels. Between 1972 and 2009, America’s prison population grew by 700%.

The homeless get blamed for the bad behavior of a small minority of their group. But since an awful lot of the dysfunctional are homeless because their families or friends couldn’t cope with their behavior, it’s logical that the general public would also find their behavior a problem.

And it’s more than just the homeless. In Wrongo’s small Connecticut town, long-time residents resent people who have moved in recently. They are appalled by the occasional drug arrest or stolen car that was left unlocked in a driveway.

This scales up to people in our town bellowing about CHICAGO!!!! Or LA or Portland, OR. They see the far enemy as young Black/Hispanic men in certain zip codes destroying each other. And just possibly turning their attention to our tight, white community here in the Litchfield Hills.

It’s a good thing that overall crime and especially violent crime rates are much lower than they were 30 years ago. But we’re still faced with the overriding perception that people see their families at greater risk now.

This has spilled over into how parents treat their children. NO parent today would allow their kids to get on a bike and roam miles from home. Everything is monitored. If you ask why, the near-universal response is: “It just isn’t safe out there. Not like it used to be.”

Used to be? Most kids were tooling around on their bikes Goonies-style during the 1980s, when crime nationwide was at its peak.

People just seem hell bent on seeing the world as a massively scary place, one filled with predators.

There are major political implications, when data aren’t facts, when truths are lies.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Monday Wake Up Call – July 17, 2023

The Daily Escape:

Comb Ridge, UT & AZ – July 2023 photo by RC Bullough Photography

Wrongo and Ms. Right were urban pioneers in NYC in the early 1980s. We rented a loft on Maiden Lane in the financial district. Back then, we had to go uptown or to Hoboken, NJ for groceries because there were so few people living amongst the downtown forest of office towers.

But by the 2020 census, lower Manhattan was the fourth fastest-growing residential neighborhood in NYC. Since the pandemic, downtowns have looked more like the ghost towns of the 1980s with so many workers adapting to remote work. And they seem to be staying away.

Things are going to get interesting. We may be at the beginning of a massive structural change, not just a temporary blip impacting office towers: It seems that companies have figured out they won’t ever need this vast amount of vacant office space. Brookings says that office utilization averages less than 50% across major US downtowns. While The Gothamist reports that national office vacancies are at a high of 19.2% (compared to 12.6% in early 2020). They also report that McKinsey predicts that remote work will erase $800 billion from urban office real estate values.

This has many cities thinking about conversion of office space into residential space. In NYC, 25 Water Street, which was once home to the Daily News and JPMorgan Chase, has a plan to gut the offices, carve out courtyards and add 10 floors to the 22-story structure. GFP Real Estate and Metro Loft bought the building, formerly known as 4 New York Plaza, in December for about $250 million.

One loophole is that the Financial District doesn’t require that the conversions include any affordable housing. So this project will not have any apartments with capped rents for low-income units. That isn’t true in other parts of the City, like Midtown, Queens or the Bronx.

Boston is testing an incentive program for developers to convert empty downtown offices into housing. Mayor Michelle Wu announced that the owners of repurposed buildings could get up to 75% off on their property taxes. Boston’s office market vacancy rate climbed to 14.2% in the second quarter, the highest level in 20 years, according to data from CBRE Group Inc. And median monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment has jumped 8% in the past year to $2,800.

Boston’s downtown has about half of the city’s office space. An October 2022 report commissioned by the city found that economic activity downtown remained 20% to 40% below pre-pandemic levels for industries like retail.

Back in NYC, Mayor Eric Adams is also proposing incentives to designate 136 million square feet of office space for conversion to residential development. It’s worked before: A 1995 tax break for conversions helped create 13,000 new apartment units in Lower Manhattan.

Brookings raises the question of what the taxpayers’ interest should be in these conversions:

“To what extent are current high office vacancies a market problem whose burden falls on the private sector (property owners and investors) and to what extent do they represent a market failure and policy problem to which government must respond with financial support from the public?”

The advocates of tax breaks and other financial incentives say it will:

  • Help drive foot traffic to downtown businesses struggling from a lack of commuters.
  • Bolster municipal coffers, as cities often rely on property taxes from office buildings.
  • Supply much-needed housing amid a shortage that has many paying exorbitant rents.

It seems that office-to-home conversions are no more a comprehensive remedy for housing than e-bikes are for transit issues. Few office buildings are truly suited for conversion. It’s often more straightforward for developers to knock down the existing structure and build condos from scratch.

Moreover, the best thing that cities can do to encourage more housing is to loosen zoning restrictions, allowing multi-use and apartment buildings to be developed rather than just supply tax breaks.

The battle lines are drawn. The 25 Water St. developer said state and city lawmakers will have to pay up if they actually want to turn vacant offices into homes:

“The politicians, if they want to create housing in New York City out of these buildings, they will need to provide significant incentives….And if they want to provide affordable housing, those incentives would have to be even higher.”

Time to wake up America! We can’t let our mayors give away more tax revenues to developers! We’re unsure if the current rate of office utilization will improve or not, so cities need to be smart about what they do next. To help you wake up, we dust off an oldie. Here are the Rolling Stones with “Salt of the Earth” from their album “Beggars Banquet”. Performed live at the Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus in 1968. This was the first tune where Keith Richards had the lead vocal:

Sample Lyric:

Raise your glass to the hard-working people
Let’s drink to the uncounted heads
Let’s think of the wavering millions
who need leaders but get gamblers instead

Facebooklinkedinrss

How To Think Differently About Housing

The Daily Escape:

Sunrise, Outer Banks, NC – June 2023 photo by Stephen P. Szymanski

Wrongo and Ms. Right have 12 grandchildren, only one of which is still in high school. The other 11 are out of school and pursuing their careers or are finishing their education. Only one of the 12 owns a home. Their experience with real estate is representative of what most younger Americans face in today’s real estate market. Ben Carlson uses data from Redfin to show us that mortgage payments are way up over prior years:

The median mortgage payment was up by more than $1,000 over four years. Carlson reminds us that this is just the monthly mortgage payment, it doesn’t include insurance, property taxes or upkeep. This is part of the reason that housing affordability is more excruciating — the pace of the increases has happened so quickly. We’ve simply never seen prices and rates rise this fast in such a short period of time. And asking prices are up as well:

Note that at the end of May 2023, the median asking price was $397k, up from $300k in May 2020, a 32% increase in four years.

But high mortgage rates and rising home prices aren’t deterring all buyers. John Burns Research shows buyers still outnumber sellers by a wide margin in today’s market. They report that as of April, even with 7% mortgage rates, 78% of all real estate agents say that buyers outnumber sellers in their markets.

And for rentals, the national median rent for a one-bedroom apartment has climbed to $1,504, according to research from Zumper. That’s significant: It’s only the second time in history that it has risen past $1,500. But the median doesn’t represent what you’ll pay in big cities:

In America, buying an investment property near work is more lucrative than actually working. The growth of asset values has outstripped returns on labor for four decades. Last year, one in four home sales was to someone who had no intention of living in it. Investors are incentivized to buy the type of homes most needed by first-time buyers: Inexpensive properties generate the highest rental-income cash flows.

Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies found that in 2019, the median net worth of US renters was just 2.5% of the median net worth of homeowners: $6,270 versus $254,900. There’s no better example than the economic challenges to America’s young persons than trying to find (relatively) affordable housing near where they work.

A very interesting article in the May 23 NYT Magazine suggests a possible solution to housing inflation. Vienna, Austria began planning it’s now world-famous municipal housing in 1919. Prior to that, Vienna had some of the worst housing conditions in Europe. Vienna’s housing program is known as “social housing” (Gemeindebauten), a phrase that captures how the city’s public housing and other limited-profit housing are a widely-shared social benefit:

“The Gemeindebauten welcomes the middle class, not just the poor. In Vienna, a whopping 80% of residents qualify for public housing, and once you have a contract, it never expires, even if you get richer.”

Vienna isn’t a small town. Its population is just under 2 million, and if it were in the US it would be our fifth largest city, between Houston and Phoenix.

The availability of Vienna’s social housing also helps to keep costs down even for private housing:

“In 2021, Viennese living in private housing spent 26% of their after-tax income on rent and energy costs on average, which is…slightly more than the figure for social-housing residents overall (22%).”

One of the reasons Vienna’s social housing works is that it is not means-tested; it is open to middle class people. And as a result, the residents care more about whether their grounds stay clean and beautiful. In the US we restrict public housing to the poorest of the poor, making public housing something to escape from, not to enjoy.

Meanwhile, 49% of American renters are paying landlords more than 30% of their pretax income, In New York City, the median renter household spends 36% of its pretax income on rent.

The key difference is that Vienna prioritizes subsidizing construction, while the US prioritizes subsidizing people, like with housing vouchers. One model focuses on supply, the other on demand. Vienna’s choice illustrates a fundamental economic reality, which is that a large-enough supply of social housing offers a market alternative that improves housing for all.

Calls for a federal social-housing plan in America might sound far-fetched but the US government is already deeply involved in the housing market. There’s generous support for homeowners and deliberately insufficient support for the lowest-income households. In 2017, the US gave $155 billion on tax breaks to homeowners and to investors in rental housing and mortgage-revenue bonds, more than three times the $50 billion spent on affordable housing.

For many, housing expense can be an economic burden. And it’s hard to even contemplate what it would mean to have it not be a problem. What’s mind-boggling is how social housing gives the economic lives of Viennese an entirely different shape.

Imagine where the rest of America’s young adults’ income might go if they were able to spend much less of it on housing. Vienna’s program is a look into a world in which homeownership isn’t the only way to secure a financial future.

Facebooklinkedinrss

It’s Impossible To Buy A $200k Home Anymore

The Daily Escape:

Mt. Hood sunrise – February 2023 photo by Mitch Schreiber Photography

Happy Valentine’s Day for those who celebrate! If you don’t celebrate, find someone or something to give a little bit of love to.

In all of the hype about the Super Bowl and Rihanna’s halftime show, you may have missed that homes selling for less than $200k have basically disappeared in America.

John Burns, a real estate consultant, reports that they are now 0% of the new home market. They were 40% of the market 10 years ago. Burns also says that $500k+ new homes have grown from 17% of the market to 38% of the market during Covid. He provides this handy chart showing how average home prices have changed since 2010:

At the same time, sales of homes going for $500k or more (red line) have shot up from less than 10% to nearly 40% of the new homes market and represent the largest share of new home sales.

This isn’t great for Millennials looking to buy their first homes, or for retirees who have to downsize. It also explains why many first-time homebuyers are angry.

It’s not only the $200k and under segment that has fallen off a cliff. New homes going for between $200k – $300k now make up just 11% of the total, down from 80% of all new home sales in the year 2000.

Ben Carlson shows Federal Reserve new home price data going back to 2000 that breaks down new homes price points more clearly. He says that those being sold for $750k and up have gone from less than 1% to more than 10% of the market.

A few reasons for the shifts: First, we’re not building enough new houses anymore. Second, we’ve seen changing tastes drive demand toward larger homes, helping move the market to a new floor in home prices. Inflation didn’t help either.

We overbuilt in the 2000s housing bubble, and that led to more than a decade of underbuilding ever since. There was a brief spike during the pandemic housing craze but that has abated with mortgage rates rising so rapidly in the past year.

In 2002-2006, we were building around 120,000 new homes per year. In 2022, it was more like 65,000 units per year. Tastes have changed as well. Houses today are substantially larger than they were in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

In his book The Fifties, David Halberstam talks about how the housing market played a huge role in the rise of the suburbs following World War II. Then houses were about 1,300 square feet. In the 1970s, the median size of a new home in the US was 1,525 square feet. Today it’s around 2,500 square feet.

Tastes have changed. People want bigger houses. They want open floor plans for entertaining, bigger bedrooms with more bathrooms, and more storage space for all of their stuff.

It’s also true that homebuilders aren’t incentivized to build starter homes anymore. In the 1950s the government helped out the troops and their families. With the GI Bill, the federal government took some of the risk that homebuilders wouldn’t be able to find mortgages for all the new houses they were building.

Local zoning regulations have made it difficult to get approvals to build new homes. So builders have moved upmarket in home size to justify those upfront expenses. Starter homes aren’t as profitable as they once were.

There’s a big change in the buyer’s market as well. The WSJ quotes John Burns: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“You now have permanent capital competing with a young couple trying to buy a house.” Burns estimates that in many of the nation’s top markets, roughly one in every five houses sold is bought by someone who never moves in.”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in an article last week entitled: “American Dream For Rent: Investors elbow out individual home buyers. Metro Atlanta is ground zero for corporate purchases, locking families into renting’. The Journal says a generational housing shortage, inflated construction costs and a surge in consumer demand all contributed to the historic rise in prices.

But there’s little doubt that a flood of cash from institutional investors has exacerbated it. They quote Maura Neill, a realtor in Alpharetta:

“They go after every listing under $500,000
it’s like clockwork…The property gets listed and, sight unseen, they make offers within an hour.”

This is late-stage capitalism at work. Young working couples are increasingly shut out of buying homes. America is failing them. It would be helpful for families to build equity by purchasing homes instead of renting.

Pricing families out of home ownership carries risks to a cohesive society.

We should have a federal tax policy that disincentivizes ownership of multiple single-family homes, by investment funds. The way to remedy this is to steer investors to other assets that don’t directly impact individual welfare to the same degree as single family housing.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Will New House Prices Go Down?

The Daily Escape:

Mt. Hood viewed from Timberline Lodge – December 2022 photo by Mitch Schreiber Photography

We have all watched house prices go through the roof since the start of the pandemic. Of Wrongo and Ms. Right’s six kids, two do not currently own a home, and despite having good jobs, and wanting to buy, they’re priced out of their local markets. Houses near Wrongo’s daughter on Cape Cod, MA have nearly doubled in price since the start of the pandemic. The same is true for Wrongo’s son in Bergen County, NJ.

But house sales in US have been slowing down in the past few months as interest rates climb. Wolf Richter at Wolf Street says there are now too many new houses for sale:

“Inventory of new houses for sale…has ballooned to 470,000 houses, up by 21% from the already high levels a year ago, and the highest since March 2008….Which destroys the theory that home prices are high because the industry isn’t building enough houses…”

Wow, nearly a half-million unsold new houses! Much of this inventory of unsold new houses were built in locations that are far from the big suburbs and the cities. After the pandemic started, US businesses redefined the office to include working from home. That further moved to “live anywhere” remote work for some firms.

Now, firms are bringing people back to their physical offices. That makes selling houses at great distances from the office a tough proposition for new home builders. It means buying a lower price rural home based on a big remote salary is no longer in the cards for many workers.

According to Bloomberg, Lennar a major home builder, has been approaching the big corporate rental landlords with an inventory listing about 5,000 houses that it wants to offload:

“Lennar is circulating lists of properties to potential acquirers, according to people familiar with the matter….Many of the properties are located in the Southwest and Southeast…with the builder giving landlords the chance to acquire entire subdivisions in some cases.”

It’s an industry-wide problem. Home builders have pitched at least 40,000 new houses to rental operators in recent months. Bloomberg says that many of these houses had originally been sold to individual buyers who later canceled their purchase contract.

According to a survey by John Burns Real Estate Consulting, the purchase contract cancellation rate spiked to 26% in October, up from a rate of 8% a year ago, and up from 11% in October 2019. The cancellation rates were highest in the Southwest at 45%, up from 9% a year ago. In Texas, the cancellation rate spiked to 39%, up from 12% a year ago. That’s understandable since mortgage rates have been rising so quickly.

This tells us that a part of the “housing shortage” is both local and price-driven. We know that house prices are driven by building costs, which have spiked in the past two years. Prices are also driven by the quality of the schools in the area, or whether the location is near a tourist destination. Retirees can move anywhere, but they generally want to be close to doctors and medical centers and will pay a premium for location rather than pay a lower price to live in the middle of nowhere.

Entire subdivisions sold as a rental community is better from the viewpoint of an individual home buyer instead of a percentage of that development’s homes being sold into a rental pool. No one should buy into a development that is partially sold and partially rented. The big landlords will rarely improve them beyond the least amount possible. So the overall value of all the homes in that community will be diminished by the presence of a rental pool.

We saw that in California in the 2007-2009 real estate bubble, where a few houses in otherwise nice neighborhoods would have overgrown lawns and trash lying in the yard, a clear sign of vacancy. That didn’t help the property values of the individual homeowner neighbors.

How far will housing prices fall? Nobody knows. Here is a chart showing average housing prices since 2019:

Comparing 2019 to 2022, average house prices have risen by 39%. Your area’s average may be even higher, particularly if you live in or near a large city.

It’s clear that the US housing market needs a price correction. Wrongo would like to say that people shouldn’t be offering anything higher on the house they want than it would have sold for in 2019. But, we may not get back to that price level anytime soon.

A price correction alone won’t solve America’s housing crisis, but a 20% correction sure would be a nice start.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Monday Wake Up Call – September 26, 2022

The Daily Escape:

Arches NP, UT – September 2022 photo by Nathan Smith

It can now take longer than 10 years for a typical first-time US home buyer to afford the down payment on a modest house, so says S&P Global in a July report (registration required). From the report:

“By fourth-quarter 2022, it will take 11.3 years for a first-time homebuyer with median income to save for a 10% down payment. It will take this homeowner 22.6 years to save for a 20% down payment. Both are over twice their pre-pandemic rates of five and 10.6 years, respectively.”

S&P estimates that with house prices rising so quickly, down payments are now twice the amount that they were before the pandemic. They also estimate that 60% of households could be priced out of the housing market by Q4 2025.

The NYT also is looking at the US housing market. They say that the US has a deepening housing crisis, including an acute shortage of:

“small, no-frills homes that would give a family new to the country or a young couple with student debt a foothold to build equity…”

Factors include land costs, costs of construction materials and government fees. The typical new home has grown in median size over the past 60 years, while the average number of people living in each home has declined:

These long-term trends were accelerated by the pandemic, which drove up demand for homes and house prices as people scattered, worked from home, and snapped up second residences.

Local policies are also driving this new reality. The Times reports that communities nationwide:

“…are far more prescriptive today than decades ago….Some ban vinyl siding. Others require two-car garages. Nearly all make it difficult to build the kind of home that could sell for $200,000 today,”

So, high prices due to high demand. High mortgage rates due to the FED clamping down on inflation. And cities and towns making it more difficult to build low-end homes. On top of that, investors bought about a quarter of all single family houses sold last year.

Wrongo grew up when homes were affordable for a one-salary family. His 1,400 sq.ft. “starter home” in a tidy NJ suburb (walk to take the NYC train to Wall Street) cost $28,000 in 1970. We sold it for $38,000 in 1976. Zillow estimates that it would sell today for $647,000, 23 times what it did in 1969! It’s unbelievable how high home values in that neighborhood have risen.

Also, home buyer expectations are higher today. If a home doesn’t have an open floor plan, three bathrooms and granite countertops, most young buyers think they are settling for much less than they want.

Owning a home has been a part of the American Dream, but it’s one of the three legs of that dream that are currently being killed: (1) High housing costs (2) Stagnant wages and (3) High health-care costs. When you add college debt to the mix, you have the makings of a revolution against the 21st century’s form of capitalism.

Part of the American dream is for your kids to succeed. That starts with a good education in a school district that aligns with that goal. That can rule out most public schools in our larger cities. If young families can afford the costs of private schools in cities, they must be very well off.

The only way that most people can choose that kind of school is to look in the suburbs. Suburban school districts pay for their good schools with taxes on expensive homes. That means parents, and the local government all have a stake in keeping local property values as high as possible, thus the difficult zoning regulations that make houses larger.

But smaller homes are also desired by many retirees. People who are living out their golden years often want to “downsize” into an affordable small home, condo, or townhouse. Many of these developments are being built throughout America. They can be beautiful inside, but they are often attached or semi-attached boxes crammed together on land that was never supposed to be developed.

Time to wake up America! Today in most parts of the country there is hardly anything on the market for under $300,000. Not much that resembles the tidy starter home Wrongo purchased 52 years ago.

Affordable housing prices aren’t coming back without government intervention. America needs to look carefully at its housing policies along with how we have let financialization take over the housing market.

Financialization of housing refers to the increasing presence of corporations and organizations that are creating or using real estate management, mortgage processes, and financial instruments to profit-seek against individual homeowners.

To help you wake up listen to Buddy Guy perform “Gunsmoke Blues” along with Jason Isbell. The tune is highly relevant, and very powerful. It’s from Guy’s album ,“The Blues Don’t Lie” due out on September 30th:

Lyrics:

Trouble down at the high school
Somebody got the gunsmoke blues
Trouble down at the high school
Somebody got the gunsmoke blues
Read it in the morning paper
Watch it on the evening news

…

Some folks blame the shooter
Other folks blame the gun
But that don’t stop the bullets
And more bloodshed to come
A million thoughts and prayers
Won’t bring back anyone

Facebooklinkedinrss

We’d Better Build Back

The Daily Escape:

Sunset, Herring Cove, Provincetown MA – October 18, 2021, photo by Karen Riddett

“Men must either govern or be governed.”   ̶  Elihu Root, 1912 Nobel Peace Prize Winner

Wrongo has never cared for Biden’s “Build Back Better” slogan. He prefers “We’d Better Build Back.” The focus should be on what could happen if we remain on the track favored by Sens. Manchin and McConnell, along with McConnell’s Republican colleagues.

We’d better build back from the wreckage of the Trump presidency. We’d better build back from the wreckage caused by Congressional inaction for the past 20+ years.

Wrongo is currently reading “Wildland, The Making of America’s Fury” by Evan Osnos, journalist at the New Yorker. Osnos says in the Prologue, (pg. 13) that September 11, 2001, and January 6, 2021, were two cataclysmic events in American history, and that the intervening 20 years was: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“…a period in which Americans lost their vision for the common good, the capacity to see the union as larger than the sum of its parts. A century and a half after the Civil War, America was again a cloven nation. It’s stability was foundering on fundamental tensions over the balance between individual freedom and the protection of others, over the reckoning with injustice, and over a basic test of any political society: Whose life matters?”

Umair Haque makes the importance of building back clear in a way that only someone living abroad can:

“America has the rich world’s lowest quality of life, by a long way — after all, Americans will die 5–10 years younger than Spaniards or Germans, but even that understates the issue. It is uniquely a dismal life: nowhere else do we see opioid epidemics, kids massacring one another at schools, having “active shooter drills…”

Haque points out that the fundamentals of a decent life: A living wage, universal access to healthcare, affordable education and housing, and a secure retirement are no longer within reach for the average American.

That’s why we’d better build back.

Step one is to deal with the threats to democracy. We will soon know if the Democrats can actually rouse themselves from their Republican-lite slumbers to pass the Freedom to Vote Act to help get this done.

Step two is to pass the Build Back Better Act, Biden’s social spending bill. It’s now clear that the bill will need to shrink in order to pass. And like the House and Senate, America doesn’t agree on which of its big-ticket items are most important, but shrinkage is on the agenda.

The bill has remained popular in the polls. One thing that’s clear from public surveys: People want to pay for the bill by taxing the rich.

A Vox and Data for Progress poll, conducted between October 8-12, found that 71% of voters support raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans to pay for the bill. Eighty-six percent of Democrats and 50% of Republicans back that idea. Other tax provisions that could be included in the bill, like tax increases on corporations and capital gains, were supported by more than 65%. Increasing corporate taxes is Wrongo’s preferred policy approach to raising revenues.

Vitally important to the job of building a better country is the proposed new spending on health care, long-term care, childcare, and clean-energy jobs. These ideas are supported by 63% of voters in the poll.

The wisdom of the framers has given us an unrepresentative Senate. That unrepresentative Senate has given us the filibuster, which can be changed, but apparently not by our current Democratic Senators.

And despite its popularity, Biden’s social spending bill won’t be passed in its present form until Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema get what they want removed from it. A real question is whether we have moderate Democrats or just mediocre Democrats who are willing to kill democracy as we know it for some phony principle.

But you can bet it’s not just Manchin and Sinema. There are at least 8-10 other Democratic Senators with substantial bases of wealthy contributors who feel the same pressures and are perfectly happy to have the whole package scaled down, delayed, and possibly killed.

This brings us to step three. Elect better Senators, but how? We were taught in school that in a democratic republic, you get the politicians that the voters (or at least those people who are allowed to vote) want.

This means we need better voters.

How do we get them? It’s hard to know how to do that, except you know, PASS THE FREEDOM TO VOTE ACT!

Facebooklinkedinrss

Dems Fumble Eviction Response

The Daily Escape

Mt Rainer at sunset, Paradise, WA – July 2021 photo by regulader. 

There’s a political crisis brewing for Democrats in the form of the now-lapsed eviction moratorium. Progressive Democrats are angry at mainstream Dems like Pelosi and Biden for failing to extend the moratorium that expired on August 1.

The moratorium was put in place 18 months ago by the CDC. It has been popular with tenants, but many of them never caught up on their bills, and/or figured out how to access the aid promised under the moratorium.

Landlords sued to end the moratorium, and last month, the Supreme Court allowed the moratorium to remain through the end of July. But at the time, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that any further extensions would require “clear and specific congressional authorization” via new legislation.

While Kavanaugh said that a further extension of the moratorium would require Congressional action, that wasn’t the issue before the court. The issue before the court was whether to vacate a lower court stay. Their decision left the moratorium in place. When a judge expresses views beyond the specifics of the case, it is known as dicta, and is not binding.

So, the administration actually was free to extend the moratorium, and assuming the extension was later challenged in court, they could argue to the Justices that circumstances have changed. Here’s Judd Legum: (parenthesis by Wrongo)

“First, the Delta variant has made it more dangerous to allow millions of evictions to proceed voluntarily. Second, the time that Kavanaugh thought would allow for the orderly distribution of the funds (one month) has not been sufficient.“

But instead, Biden wanted Congress to act. The Congressional Democrats launched an effort to extend the ban, but the House adjourned last Friday without passing a bill. Senate Democrats were also pushing for an extension but didn’t have enough support that would lead to passage.

And now, the Biden administration is in a bind. Moderate Democrats along with Republicans, do not want to see the moratorium extended. Biden doesn’t want it extended either, so maybe we’ll see a deluge of evictions. From The Guardian:

“More than 15 million people live in households that owe as much as $20 billion to their landlords, according to the Aspen Institute. As of July 5, roughly 3.6 million people in the US said they faced eviction in the next two months, according to the US Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey.”

On Sunday, Pelosi and other House leaders said that action extending the moratorium “must come from the Administration.” They said that extending the moratorium “is a moral imperative to keep people from being put out on the street which also contributes to the public health emergency.”

But it’s hard for Democrats to hold the moral high ground when they refuse to stand on it. The House hasn’t interrupted its 7-week recess to address the issue.

Progressive Democrats are up in arms. Last weekend, Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) led a protest on the Capitol steps to get the attention of her colleagues and the country. She wants Congress to reconvene and extend the national eviction moratorium.

What we’re seeing here is the political power of a freshman Congressperson. Bush has the attention of the media as she sits outside the Capitol. That means the administration and senior Democrats are paying attention. These kinds of political stunts rarely work, but since the Dems are in control of the government, albeit with very slim margins, everything needs to be taken seriously.

OTOH, eviction is purely a state/local process. It’s very difficult to really do much at the federal level. Also, landlords deserve to be paid, and able-bodied renters need to pay their bills. That’s how our system works.

The fact is that tenants and by extension, landlords were promised help and haven’t gotten it. The pandemic has caused a cascade of negative consequences at all levels. But $ billions of taxpayer funds are unused, and available to help landlords, if only they could avail themselves of the opportunity.

The system is set up to convey the payments to landlords, but renters must apply for the money, and too few either know about it, or have availed themselves of the program.

The White House won’t step in. The Dems in the House and Senate can’t be bothered to delay their trips to the Hamptons and the Vineyard to solve the problem. The Republicans, the so-called party of Christianity, will do nothing to help.

Who’s left? AOC and Cori Bush on the steps of the Capitol?

There are rumors that Biden is finally going to do something about this, but no details yet, as of this writing.

Facebooklinkedinrss

The New Housing Bubble

The Daily Escape:

Shakers Creek flowing into the Mohawk River, Colonie NY – April 2021 photo by M’ke Helbing.

We’re hearing about bidding wars for single family homes, often with winning bids that are substantially above already high asking prices. In fact, house prices have risen by 11.2% from a year ago, the largest increase since housing bubble #1 in 2006, according to the National Case-Shiller Home Price Index for January.

The Home Price Index measures “house-price inflation” by comparing the sales price of a house in the current month to the price of the same house when it sold previously. It’s tracking the dollars it takes to buy the same house over time.

But house price inflation isn’t part of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). While about one-third of CPI is based on housing costs, it only tracks rents, not home prices. So, you can see what’s going on: Everybody knows that the costs of home ownership are surging, but only a portion are included in our inflation measures, so inflation is being understated.

Let’s look at the NY metro area. It covers NYC and numerous counties in the states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Here’s the spike in prices over the past six months:

House prices rose 11.2% for the year. There were big differences between price tiers, with low-end house prices surging by 14.9%, while condo prices remained in a tight range for the past three years, and the NYT reports that Manhattan condo developers are selling units at big discounts.

There’s another factor driving prices. The WSJ reports that: (brackets by Wrongo)

“From…individuals [with]a few thousand dollars to pensions and private-equity firms with billions, yield-chasing investors are snapping up single-family houses to rent out or flip. They are competing for houses with ordinary Americans, who are armed with the cheapest mortgage financing ever, and driving up home prices.”

The WSJ quotes John Burns, a real estate consultant: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“You now have permanent capital competing with a young couple trying to buy a house.” Burns estimates that in many of the nation’s top markets, roughly one in every five houses sold is bought by someone who never moves in.”

Houston is a favorite location, with investors accounting for 24% of home purchases. More from Burns: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Limited housing supply, low rates, a global reach for yield, and what we’re calling the institutionalization of real-estate investors has set the stage for another speculative investor-driven home price bubble…”

This is the second try by institutional investors to play in the single-family home market. Starting in 2011, they bought foreclosed homes at steep discounts, accounting for about a third of sales in some markets and setting a floor for then-falling home prices.

It turned out that renting suburban homes proved very profitable. The pandemic has brought a new race for suburban housing. And the big new-home builders like DR Horton and Lennar Corp, are working directly with institutional investors. They’re building blocks of homes, and selling them to the investors, who rent them out.

Horton built 124 houses in Conroe, Texas, rented them out and then put the whole community up for sale. It was purchased by an online property-investing platform, Fundrise LLC, which manages more than $1 billion on behalf of about 150,000 individuals.

Lennar just announced a rental venture with investment firms including Allianz and Centerbridge Partners to which it will sell more than $4 billion of new houses.

This is late-stage capitalism at work. Young working couples are increasingly shut out of buying homes, and that’s both depressing and disturbing.  America has failed them. It would be helpful for families to buy homes instead of renting, and pricing families out of home ownership carries risks to a cohesive society.

And the Right wonders why young people are turning to socialism. Freezing young people out of the housing market could have disastrous social consequences.

We should have tax policies that disincentivize ownership of multiple single-family homes, especially by investment funds. The way to remedy this is to steer investors to other assets that don’t directly impact individual welfare to the same degree as housing.

Back in the 2006-2009 housing bubble, we had plenty of speculators and an excess of housing inventory. It was so bad that Wrongo’s barber owned nine rental houses in three states before the bust.

This time around, we have very low inventory, the lowest rates ever, and big money chasing yield. Once pension funds are investing in an appreciating asset class, you know the bubble is about to burst

Facebooklinkedinrss

Available Housing Drives Growth in Jobs

The Daily Escape:

Snow near Boulder, CO – November 2019 photo via

Last week, in our town’s Mayoral race, each side had a signature issue. For the Republicans, it was roads. For the Democrats, it was affordable housing. Wrongo has served on the town’s municipal roads committee for three years. He’s also attended a few town workshops on affordable housing. The incumbent Republican Mayor won in a landslide.

Did that mean that affordable housing was a non-issue? Not really. Like most of Connecticut, our town has a sharp income divide. And despite having among the most affordable housing in Litchfield County, we have elderly poor and younger middle-income people vying for limited multifamily housing stock.

The major problem is a concern that affordable housing equals more kids in our schools, and more infrastructure. The reality is that the incremental real estate taxes that landlords would pay the town will not offset the increased costs of schooling and infrastructure.

But, the town also desires greater economic development. New businesses and jobs are important to increasing our tax base. We’re not alone in this. Consider the city of San Jose, CA. The Silicon Valley region has added about 385,000 new jobs over the past five years, but only approved about 60,000 housing units. From Vox: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Communities sometimes mobilize in opposition to some kind of new project, but this…happened when someone proposed building some offices near a new football stadium in Santa Clara, California, is mind-boggling: San Jose has taken the rare step of publicly opposing the project, saying it would add far too many jobs, exacerbating the region’s housing shortage.”

It’s difficult to believe that we’ve reached a point in our economy where creating new jobs can be construed as bad for existing residents of an area.

The Bay area isn’t overbuilt with housing. San Francisco is less densely populated than Brooklyn, NY. Santa Clara County, where Silicon Valley is located, is significantly less populated than the Long Island suburbs. The fear is that meeting the need for housing will lead to many lower income residents living in high-rise buildings.

Or take New York City, where Amazon was shocked when the public said that Amazon could take their 25,000 new jobs and shove them. (brackets by Wrongo)

“It’s only natural that Amazon saw its promise to create 25,000 jobs as a blessing, for creating jobs is most [all] of what we have ever asked of American companies. But given the realities of our economy…. it’s also only natural that many New Yorkers wanted nothing to do with it.”

Promises of 25,000 new jobs in NYC sounded much different in 2019 than it would have sounded in 2009. If you’re among the sea of NYC hotel and restaurant workers, you know you’re never likely to be qualified for one of the jobs Amazon promised to create in your backyard. And since it would be built in an area where many hourly workers live, they naturally opposed what would have driven their costs of housing even higher.

Amazon already had 2,000 employees in NYC in November 2018, when the HQ search concluded. Despite not building a NY headquarters, that number has grown to 5,000 in the past year. Amazon’s continuing jobs expansion in NYC makes the case that those who fought against the state’s $3 billion dollar incentive package were correct.

No economic problem is simple, and neither are their solutions. Here is a good rule of thumb: When things are complicated, inputs are messy. Some factors may cancel out other factors.

And in the case of trying to increase economic growth in a given city or town, an available, skilled workforce in numbers sufficient to meet the new business needs is primary. Available housing is huge as well. These two inputs exist in a feedback loop. Our towns can’t grow if workers can’t find housing.

Freezing housing stock in a growing economy helps those who enjoy higher Socio-Economic Status (SES). Our cities are seeing an outflow of lower SES’s and an inflow of higher SES’s. This is making housing costs in our second-tier cities move closer to what they have become in NYC and LA.

Exurban ring towns like Wrongo’s are seeing inward migration, mostly of middle and lower SES’s who routinely commute long distances for work. That adds local spending on goods and services, but puts pressure on local housing stock and on schools.

The landslide results in our town’s election was a vote for better roads, and against changing zoning requirements to add affordable housing. Indirectly, it also was a vote in favor of lower economic growth, just like what happened in San Jose, CA.

But we shouldn’t be confused with Silicon Valley.

Facebooklinkedinrss