Harrop: Is it housing we can’t afford or just our expectations?

By Froma Harrop / Creators.com

What is meant by “affordable housing”? The term suggests a certain level of shelter at a moderate price but offers no details. That makes it irritating.

The question really is: Who can’t afford what kind of house? A new study insists that half of New York City households can’t afford to live there. But obviously, that half is still there. Perhaps they make sacrifices in other areas. Perhaps they’re helped by subsidies.

The study — by the Fund for the City of New York and the United Way — seems shocked that 86 percent of households led by single mothers with young children are unable to cover the costs of basic needs. The “income inadequacy rate” for households with no workers is 95 percent. Even if New York rents were half what they are, these groups probably couldn’t afford them.

A related crisis, we are told, involves families with modest to upper-middle incomes. They can’t find decent housing in expensive metros that fits their budget. But what kind of housing do they consider “decent”? Roomy three-bedroom apartments in much of Manhattan require multi-millions.

That size home, plus a backyard, would be easy to come by in Tulsa, Okla., or Indianapolis or Birmingham, Ala. And if that type of housing is of great importance to a family, it makes total sense to seek out these less costly cities, which can also be wonderful places to live.

What’s unfortunate are the crusades to plow through zoning laws in the name of expanding the housing supply in high-cost cities. They’re usually led by an odd alliance of left and right. The targeted neighborhoods are often not only the most expensive but also some of the most densely populated.

Developers want free rein to level small buildings and replace them with luxury high rises. The helping activist voices make their activities sound almost noble. The left often doesn’t understand that the lower walkups being replaced are the very housing that blue-collar people can afford in expensive ZIP codes.

New York is surrounded by water. Sure, there are parking lots and old warehouses that can go, but generally, the land just isn’t there to build new civilizations. It’s crazy to put forth policies that destroy the human-scale charm that made residential neighborhoods desirable in the first place; and not just the fanciest ones.

The cost of housing is a function of supply and demand. Big cities in Texas can offer larger homes at a lower price, in part because they are surrounded by vast flat plains on which builders can easily plop down new residences.

But even there, rising demand leads to higher prices. Look how expensive Austin has become.

Billionaire investor Peter Thiel recently remarked that it would be “tough” to move his company from Silicon Valley to Miami, once considered a cheaper alternative with lower taxes, because Florida has gotten so expensive. Other “hot” smaller cities — Spokane, Wash.; Nashville, Tenn.; Boise, Idaho — must now cope with soaring home prices as newcomers outbid long-time residents.

By the way, New York rents just hit another all-time high. That suggests a willingness to accept small living quarters at high prices because of a great desire to live there. Anyone who doesn’t like the deal has a vast continent on which to spread out.

Some media convey the impression that everyone’s “fleeing” liberal New York. But as Yogi Berra said about Mamma Leone’s restaurant, “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”

Every day, penniless young people and immigrants rush to New York, Miami and Los Angeles. They make do. The housing that so many say is “unaffordable” is not necessarily evidence of a housing shortage. It could be an oversupply of expectations.