Perspectives
on
Housing
A White Paper
on Affordable Housing,
by Thomas N. George
page last updated September 09, 2005
Perspectives
on
Housing
A White Paper
on Affordable Housing,
Page 2
Over
75 percent of the rental units in this country are owned by solitary
owners, and not by investor companies or groups. We need to return
to the practice of fostering the duplex or triplex, but we cannot do so
under the present system.
Keep
in mind, not all units need to be three-bedroom ranches. Many of
those needing affordable housing need only one or two bedrooms. If
an elaborate, four-bedroom, three-bath, dwelling is allowed on a
one-acre-minimum lot, why can’t we have two affordable one- or
two-bedroom, one-bath, dwellings on the same size lot? The amount of
effluent that is discharged from a home with three or four children as
residents is probably far greater than that of two units occupied by a
single person or elderly couple. Aesthetics might suffer with more
cars in the yard, but cars don’t sleep in a cold doorway. This is,
after all, part and parcel of the family lives of our citizens, who live
in a real town, not a museum exhibit. It is in the best interests of
landlords to monitor aesthetics, to protect their investment.
* * *
The Pied Piper of planning for years on Cape Cod was Armando Carbonnel. In Commonwealth Magazine (summer, 1999), he had a great deal to say about the issue of density as it affects environmentally sensitive development. He wrote,
But there is no question that some patterns of development are more expensive than others and will contribute to higher real housing costs. I think it’s important to see that in a big-picture context. . . . Planning and smart growth can be very consistent with reducing those costs.
Mr. Carbonnel went on to write,
Let me talk about density for a second. I think density has been something to be avoided in Massachusetts for many years. We’ve been reducing density, increasing lot sizes and so forth, to try to achieve environmental goals. But in many cases, I think that’s been counter-productive. I think we need to encourage appropriate density, more intense development in appropriate locations with proper infrastructure. I think that will have the effect of reducing land costs, so it will contribute to reduction of housing prices. But I think it would also lead to more efficient patterns of development that would reduce the total cost of living for households.
I concur.
* * *
There
need to be more loan programs, in both the public and private sectors,
with easier application and qualification criteria. If banks doing
business in Massachusetts can invest in housing in Brazil
and China, they should be able to allow looser credit criteria for the
purpose of buying homes by our own local citizens. More loans must be made
available to those within close reach of ownership. Banks must be
more innovative—for
example, they must write loans with longer amortization periods, loans
wherein interest is paid only for the first few years, followed by regular
amortization for the rest of the term. After five years, the
owner’s wages will have advanced or the value of the property will have
increased to allow a refinance at a lower monthly payment. Owners
and banks must be agreeable to a payroll deduction for loan, tax, and
insurance payments. Owners should be able to get advice or training
for self-help simple home maintenance projects to alleviate costs.
Requirements for building homes or using
manufactured homes should be reviewed to ascertain areas of construction
that can be modified with the intent to lower building costs while
maintaining safety