Unless you live in a neighborhood or town that has a perfect balance of all racial minorities, you are a racist. At least, that’s the view of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and of the plaintiffs in a new lawsuit against the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council. According to the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, which have a lot of low-income minorities, the Met Council’s housing plans perpetuate segregation by assigning more low-income housing to the plaintiff cities and not enough to wealthier suburbs such as Edina and Mendota Heights.
The notion that every suburb should have a perfect balance of minorities and those that don’t are de facto racist is absurd. Different people have different needs, and the things that low-income people need–access to public transport, social services, and family support–are not the same as the things that moderate- to high-income people need.
The solution of advocates of “affirmatively furthering fair housing” is to require that cities with racial imbalances build new, high-density housing and require the developers of that housing to set aside a share of those homes for low-income families. But, even if that were a good idea, that wouldn’t solve the problem that low-income people would rather live in areas where they can get the support they need than in wealthy suburbs.
A low-income family will not be happy living in a yuppy neighborhood where the only grocery store is a Whole Foods and the only coffee shop is a Starbucks. Nor will they be happy living further from other family members. The idea that planners can pluck some low-income minority families out of their neighborhoods and expect them to thrive in a wealthy suburb smacks of racism itself.
Suburbs that are “doing their fair share in terms of affordable housing” are “good citizens,” says Myron Orfield. No, they aren’t; they merely have housing that is older, making it more affordable, than outer-ring suburbs. None of them made a conscious decision to provide “their fair share” of affordable housing.
Housing is a genuine example of trickle-down economics. High-income people buy or build new homes. Lower-income people buy the used homes that are perfectly serviceable but may have last decade’s appliances or decor.
The viagra without prescription uk enzyme known by the name of PDE5 has created all the mess for people. This is all because the manufacturing firms are not paying out much on research and brand marketing operations for these medications. on line levitra That is, there are several products in the market in the form of impotence medicines that can offer hopes for guys struggling with an inability to build or maintain hardness during sexual stimulation. generic discount levitra This problem can be alleviated by changing medicines with the help of health expert. levitra samples This process grinds to a halt when regional governments limit the construction of new single-family homes. Such restrictions lift the cost of all housing, making it less affordable for everyone. But the wealthiest people can still buy homes that the slightly-less wealthy might have purchased, while moderate-income people can still buy homes that lower-income people might have purchased. At some point, however, the unaffordable conditions caused by restrictive land-use policies, such as the Twin Cities’ Metropolitan Urban Service Area, will increase the number of lower-income people who cannot afford to buy even the least-expensive homes.
The Twin Cities lawsuit carries a whiff of conspiracy. It seems likely that the Metropolitan Council wanted to get sued so it could impose even more draconian affordable-housing targets on the outer-ring suburbs.
Multifamily housing is only more affordable than single-family because the housing units are smaller. On a per-square-foot basis, multifamily costs as much and often more to build than single-family.
If the Met Council really wanted to make housing more affordable, it would relax the urban service boundary so that homebuilders can provide the region with lots of new homes, thus making older homes available to lower-income families at a more reasonable cost. Allowing more people to own their on homes will also enable more of them to start small businesses by borrowing against the equity in their homes.
Planners wedded to the idea that urban sprawl is evil would rather blame housing affordability issues on greedy developers than their own plans. Even if the developers don’t get the blame, the requirement that they sell a certain share of new homes to low-income people below cost will mere make the price of all homes in the region (except for the handful of “affordable homes”) go up. Nor is there any guarantee that the low-income units would actually go to impoverished minorities; it seems likely that many would to to recent college graduates whose past earnings have been low enough for them to qualify but whose future earnings will be far above poverty thresholds.
In effect, planners are saying one thing and doing something completely different. But, as Antiplanner readers know, that happens quite frequently.
Incidentally, the Antiplanner will debate Myron Orfield in Minneapolis tomorrow (Wednesday, September 24). If you can’t attend, I understand the Sensible Land Use Coalition will videotape the fireworks and make the videos available to the public.
Racism, you bet!
“Affordable home” laws and regulations generally have restrictions that require the units to remain “affordable” for many years – thereby robbing the purchasers of the opportunity to share in any increases in values that their neighbors enjoy – while not protecting them from drops in value.
Just another example of liberal racism. Tell minorities that they are doing them a favor by having them buy a home that is “affordable” (in reality, often more expensive than nearby properties), but which keeps the minority homeowner stuck in the home because they cannot sell it at a profit and improve their lives.
And all of these plans are directed at minorities – not at poor people in general. I have never seen any governmental plan to put trailer parks for poor whites into rich liberal neighborhoods.
As a Seattle liberal, I want to live in diversity. That’s why I pay $1.2 mil to live in Magnolia, Queen Anne, Madison Park, because, honestly, as a liberal, who wants to live near niggers?
The Antiplanner wrote:
Housing is a genuine example of trickle-down economics. High-income people buy or build new homes. Lower-income people buy the used homes that are perfectly serviceable but may have last decade’s appliances or decor.
Not if a county government encourages the construction of garden apartment developments in order to attract low-income housing with the hope that poor people that reside in those garden apartments will ride transit instead of driving.