Throw More Money at the Problem

Problem: Housing in the Seattle area is too expensive.
Government solution: Artificially inflate the buyer pool by throwing millions in government loans at the problem.

Seattle will soon stake low-income housing developers in the cutthroat bidding wars for building sites.

The idea, which the City Council's Housing, Human Services and Health Committee approved as a two-year pilot project earlier this week, is to lend developers money fast and early — up to five years before they're ready to build.

The program will help non-profit developers secure sites before Seattle land costs get even more out of hand and better compete against their for-profit counterparts, who often can move more quickly, said Kollin Min, regional program director in Seattle for Enterprise Community Partners, an organization that helps fund low-income housing.
...
The program will get $2 million a year through 2009 from the city housing levy's operating and maintenance fund.

That's just a start, Min said.

"It's a very good first step," he said. "We need to have a larger pot to really make a dent in the problem."
...
The Legislature authorized a separate $1 million earlier this year for a similar program statewide.
...
Forty percent of the program money would go to home-ownership programs for residents earning 80 percent to 120 percent of the median income. Other money could go to rental housing for people making no more than 80 percent of the median income.

How does "spend more money" make sense as a solution for the problem of something being too expensive? I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure that projects like these only serve to further drive up prices.

Should local and state governments bother trying to get involved at all, or should they just let the market work itself out?

(Aubrey Cohen, Seattle P-I, 05.03.2007)

Bubble Link Roundup

There have been a lot of real estate articles in the local dead tree outlets the last few days. It's time for another link roundup before I get too far behind and forget to mention some of them.

First up, it's Mark Trahant of the P-I with yet another thoughtful, well-reasoned take on Seattle's housing market.

What if housing prices decline by 20 percent? That would solve Seattle's affordability problem, right? Most folks would say this is impossible. The data from last week show that house prices keep increasing no matter what. Our boom continues, just slower and steadier. But both our region and our country have boom and bust cycles as predictable as weather. It's as much of our history as innovation, military might or baseball. One minute we're panning gold, the next we're trying to recoup our investment in those nifty machines that pluck gold dust from stream beds.
...
Just think about what those higher credit standards will require: A significant down payment, good credit and, in Seattle, a high income.

More than likely, what it will really mean is that the supply of homes will grow — and prices, sooner or later, will fall.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have the Seattle Times encouraging first-time homebuyers to "learn the fine art of compromise."

Rolf Johnson and Kerrie Cooley had different jobs, different priorities and different resources, but on their brave hunt for a $250,000 home in the Seattle area they both learned it came down to what they were willing to give up.

Cooley let go of any notion of buying a house or living in downtown Seattle to find the modern, two-bedroom condo she wanted.

Johnson spent more than a year, bumped up his budget and moved farther from work to find the house, property and studio space he craved.

Compromise is definitely the name of the house-hunting game in the Seattle area, especially for first-time buyers who often can't come close to the $450,000 or so that it costs for a typical single-family house in Seattle and are looking more realistically at prices around $250,000.

Also worth noting is a pair of articles from the P-I and Times reporting on the recent blatherings of Senator Patty Murray. From the P-I:

The lack of affordable housing in Seattle and other places is a "silent epidemic," U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., told representatives of housing agencies, developers, labor and environmental groups Friday.

"We all need to work together, whatever hats we wear, to start to address this crisis," Murray, who chairs the Transportation and housing and urban development subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said during a housing forum at Seattle's Opportunity Place.

Some at Friday's forum want more federal money, while others support incentives or requirements aimed at local developers. Cities and counties need to allow more homes through zoning, some said.

Here's what the Times had to say about it:

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who was visiting Seattle on Friday during a congressional recess, convened the roundtable with representatives of housing agencies, business, Sound Transit, the Puget Sound Educational Service District and social-service agencies to see what she can do at the federal level to help people with low and moderate incomes find affordable housing.
...
Adrienne Quinn, director of Seattle's Office of Housing, said a recent study by her office reveals that 51 percent of Seattle workers do not live in the city. Households earning between $60,000 and $100,000 a year are the least likely to live within the city limits, she said.

"People are able to buy someplace, but not in the city of Seattle," Quinn said.

As we all know, you're less of a person if you rent, so it makes sense that Ms. Murray et. al. would focus only on buying homes when stating that Seattle is in the midst of a "silent epidemic" when it comes to "affordable housing."

Lastly, here's the latest paid advertisement masquerading as an opinion piece from a "guest columnist." Steve Francks just so happens to be the CEO of the Washington Realtors. His editorial is quite transparently nothing more than the latest volley in the Washington Realtors' It's A Priority campaign.

Transportation experts are tearing their hair out trying to figure out how to fix Puget Sound gridlock. But if they really want to improve transportation, they should focus on housing.

There are just too many people trying to drive between home and their jobs each day. There isn't enough tax money in the world to pave our way out of this problem, especially with our population growing by a million each decade.

Instead of trying to deal with the symptoms, I suggest we address the cause: too few affordable home choices near where people work. That's something that we can fix — with a little help from the Legislature.

Home prices throughout our state continue to rise month after month. Wages, however, do not. The result is a huge gap between typical home prices and what typical families can afford. The Center for Real Estate Research at Washington State University, which tracks the gap with its "Housing Affordability Index," shows home affordability in Washington at a 15-year low. The gap is particularly wide for first-time home buyers, who, according to the index, could afford the local median-price standard only if they were living in Benton or Adams counties.

What's a middle-wage family to do? Hit the highway and drive to find an acceptable home you can afford. Between 2000 and 2005, 67,000 people moved from King County to Pierce County. Another 14,720 Pierce residents moved south to Thurston County during the same period.

If I can make some time in the next week or so, I'd like to write essentially a counter-point editorial of my own in response to Mr. Francks' drivel.

So what other recent local real estate articles have I missed?

(Mark Trahant, Seattle P-I, 04.06.2007)
(Heather Rae Darval, Seattle Times, 04.07.2007)
(Aubrey Cohen, Seattle P-I, 04.06.2007)
(Stuart Eskenazi, Seattle Times, 04.07.2007)
(Steve Francks, Seattle Times, 04.10.2007)

Bubble Link Roundup

Here are a few short quotes from some recent interesting articles (followed by some pithy one-liners) that I haven't had the time to dedicate entire posts to:

Slumping sales of lots could presage fewer new houses for region

A key future indicator of the housing market is down sharply, but that could be a good thing, local real estate executives are saying.

Puget Sound area home builders have been buying substantially fewer finished lots from residential developers as the builders try to gauge the demand for their new homes in the months ahead.

Builders buying fewer lots today could mean fewer new homes tomorrow.

"Finished lots are hanging around longer than they have in quite some time," said consultant Matt Gardner, a principal at Gardner Johnson LLC in Seattle.

But, I thought the Seattle market was still hot, hot, hot!

Generous pay isn't enough to keep some on the road

The number of commuters in South Sound continues to grow, but some people are bucking the trend.

They've quit.

Melinda Spencer of Olympia took the step a few years ago. Spencer used to commute from Olympia to her job as a technical writer at Redmond-based Microsoft, where she earned about $73,000 a year.

Making that kind of money, Spencer's husband, Keith, could complete his degree at The Evergreen State College, and they could invest in property. In 1997, the couple paid $110,000 for their Olympia home.
...
Yet after three years of driving to Redmond, spending three hours in her car each day, something had to change. "It was awful," she said about her commute. "I felt like I showered (in the morning), ate (at night), and turned around and did it all over again. It was time to end this lifestyle."

She ended it by starting her own home-based technical communications business. Another reason to stay home was the birth of her first son, she said. Today, her husband works as a high school teacher in Rochester, while Spencer works at home and raises their two children. The money is tighter. Spencer estimates their combined income at just more than $2,000 a month after taxes and health insurance are deducted.

But in the 10 years they've owned a home, it has tripled in value to $300,000; they would be unable to afford it today, Spencer said.

"We would be looking at one of those old dogs that has been foreclosed on," she said.

Isn't appreciation wonderful?

Home bailout scams on rise

As interest rates rise, many people with adjustable-rate mortgages find their payments too high to manage. That has paved the way for con artists offering relief.

WASHINGTON – As home foreclosures increase across the country, scam artists promise struggling homeowners a quick bailout, but they end up stripping the properties of their value or owning the homes outright.
...
State officials urge cash-strapped property owners – particularly the elderly, immigrants, minorities and low-income – to be wary of mailings, phone calls and visitors offering to help "save your home" and "avoid foreclosure."

The Washington State Attorney General's Office recently settled a suit against three businesses that claimed to save the homes of people who were facing foreclosure for unpaid property taxes. The companies – Fiscal Dynamics Inc. and Cumulative LLC, of Tacoma, and Northwest Assets of Seattle – allegedly broke promises to pay the back taxes and instead tried to sell the houses at auction and keep the owners' rightful proceeds, according to the complaint.

Now wait just a minute. How can people possibly be facing foreclosure in the fantasy rainbow-land of forever double-digit appreciation? Hmm...

Last and most certainly least: Average Seattle worker can't afford to live here

Last year, the typical single person in Seattle earned enough to buy a home for just under $200,000 while the typical family of four had enough to pay just over $280,000, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The median prices were about $450,000 for a house and $290,000 for a condo.

Typical families can afford apartments, but the rent for the average one-bedroom apartment in King County rose 8.5 percent in the past year as vacancies fell 17 percent — down to 3.9 percent, according to Dupre + Scott Apartment Advisors. Hal Ferris, a partner in developer Lorig Associates, said increasing construction prices mean living in a new development will cost more than what HUD assumes typical families can pay.

And many median-income workers choose to buy and commute rather than rent.

"They can buy somewhere, but that somewhere isn't in the city of Seattle," said Adrienne Quinn, director of the Seattle Office of Housing.

First off, I'd take that data from Dupre + Scott with a giant frikkin' grain of salt. Secondly, government solutions like the ones discussed in this article are like putting a band-aid on a tumor. They completely ignore the root cause of the problem, and don't even effectively address the symptoms.

(Jeanne Lang Jones, Puget Sound Business Journal, 03.26.2007)
( Rolf Boone, The Olympian, 04.01.2007)
(Tony Pugh, Tacoma News Tribune, 04.02.2007)
(Aubrey Cohen, Seattle P-I, 04.02.2007)