A Dearth of Modest Housing Stock

This evening as Evie and I returned from Tyson’s Corner we drove through an older neighborhood with modest homes (pre-1980 era). Here and there were large tracts with more recently built homes (built in the last 15 or so years). These more recent homes are either large homes equal to or larger than the Beverly Hillbilly mansion, or are luxury townhomes. It struck me that few, if any, modest 2,200 to 3,300 square foot homes are being built in our area, and that is a shame.

It is a shame as the modest and starter home housing stock is limited. These are the homes that should make up the core of the housing stock. These are the homes young families use to establish themselves. These should be the affordable homes for the blue-collar workers, the retail clerks, the secretaries, the bus drivers, etc. Unfortunately, due to a short supply even these modest homes are not moderately priced. Hence, those with moderate household incomes either have to buy homes further out on the city’s edge, and thereby increase commute volume and as such increase stress upon road infrastructure, or pay for higher prices and thereby put their household finances at risk, or remain renters.

Affordable housing is an issue. The lack of modest housing stock lays the foundation for the supper heated housing market many of our major markets experienced between 1998 and 2008, and which was a significant contributing factor behind the bank failures. A growing stock of modest housing stock throughout the area will allow those with modest incomes to live closer to their place of employment which in turn would help decrease the volume stress we experience during the morning and afternoon commutes.

While I could blame the developers, I cannot unduly fault them and shoulder them with most of the blame. Developers are like other business owners; They are out to make as much money as possible in as short a time as possible. There is greater profit in high end housing. I fault the local, state and even federal politicians for not designing in tax incentives and enticements to encourage developers to build modest homes. One is to have larger lot expectations and possibly a higher sales taxes on new homes greater than so many square feet and/or a certain percent above the median value in the area. On the other end, lower sales and lot taxes on modest homes could provide incentives to build such homes. In other words, design in elements to increase the profit margin for building modest homes while decreasing the drive to build the larger homes.

We need far more new modest homes that have basic fictures, lack the high end bells and whistles and have unfinished basements that owners can finish later. Such homes should be on lots that allows from the owner to expand the footprint some but not large enough of a lot that would allow the home to evolve to double its initial footprint. Modest housing stock forms the bedrock of a community’s stability and as attested by the Northern Virginia area, when the building of such housing in sufficient volume is neglected the stress upon the overall infrastructure only grows…and that is a shame.

What say you about your area?

Societal Trends

Societal trends over two to four decades can be telling in helping one to understand significant shifts that are taking place. Since 1980 the average personal income in the United States has increased from $24,079 to $40,454, adjusted for inflation. How does that 168% increase compare to other major expenses.

Average gasoline prices have increased from $1.25 to 2.85, at 228% in real dollar terms. While the number of miles driven a year have increased by about 22%, with more efficient engines the amount spend on gasoline when inflation is taken into account has increased only 12%, from $2,015 to 2,269.

First class stamp has increased 193% from 0.15 to 0.44, This increase does not take into account inflation.

Milk has increased from $2.16 per gallon to 3.29, a 52% increase.

The cost of the average new home has risen from $76,400 to $268,800, 251% in real dollar terms. Primarily due to more expensive land, much larger and more well appointed homes, the increase is new home prices has been a greater rate than income increase. When inflation is taken into account, the increase drops below 160%.

Over the last thirty years the amount spent on health care on a per capita basis, and adjusted for inflation, has increased 202%, again at a much higher rate than income. Health care is consuming more and more a person’s budget from 1980 when it consumed about 7.5% of the average person’s income. Today health care consumes almost 14% of a person’s income…and with more than three times the rate of people who uninsured than ever before. An aging population is a factor but it and lawsuits are not as significant a factor as the citizenry believes. The major factor is a growing profit return at all levels.

Suppliers of equipment and medicine profit share on a per dollar of sale prices has increased dramatically. In 1980 most major health care insurance plans and hospitals were run by nonprofits companies who had 3.5 to 5.5% rate of return whereas today the insurance and hospital market is dominated by profit firms who have pushed the rate of return to 18 to 20%. In 1980, 95% of insurance premiums went out to providers whereas today that has dropped to 82 to 80%. This does not take into account that for profit hospitals are retaining a greater share of each payment they receive. Further it does not account for fewer benefits being provided and with co-pays that are rising three to fivefold. Matters are not expected to improve for the better as companies seek to increase the rate of return to 78%.

Healthcare is and will continue to be one of America's greatest challenges, and will become even more so over the coming years. Significant changes are not likely to happen until the system starts to crash. Hopefully it will not take the type of protests and marches that took place during the Viet Nam error or at the level we have just witnessed in Egypt.