.jpg)
Editor’s note: What follows is the first installment by our newest columnist, Mike Lowry of Lexington. His column will be replacing that of syndicated conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby, which the paper has been running the past couple of years.
Is Lexington the wrong place to build affordable housing? Is there a better plan?
Prospective home buyers and renters have seen the price surge and supply drop in housing they can afford. The call for affordable housing is greatest in the large cities, especially ones experiencing people living on the streets, in cars, or slum conditions.
The Pew Research Center studies have found the age group believing affordable housing is a major issue is greatest with people in the 21 to 30 year age range. They are at an age when they are first entering the work force or fresh out of college and only starting a career and not having a large saving. But since Covid, with the recent major jump in energy costs and inflation, more and more of the 30 to 49 year age range are finding the need for affordable housing.
A major problem with affordable housing is determining what needs to be done and how best to do it. The political answer has been a shotgun effect of sending money everywhere and seeing what works. This has proven to be far from successful.
Zoning issues have stopped a lot of affordable housing projects as homeowners are not exactly excited about having large apartment complexes in their neighborhoods. Thus, the housing in large cities tended to get built in areas where property was cheaper and with fewer property owner complaints. When they were built, they were often far from employment centers and jobs. Thus, income stayed low and soon the housing joined in looking like the neighborhood rather than improving the neighborhoods.
But our question should be does it make sense to build affordable housing in Lexington and if so what kind of affordable housing and where.
Lexington has two primary economic bases and employment sectors — one is the colleges and schools and the second is the hospitality industry (lodging, restaurants, etc.).
Buena Vista has a primary economic base in manufacturing and a growing educational college and school sectors. In short, Buena Vista is closer to the factory jobs, their area has a larger population of nonstudent residents ages 21 to 49 and cost of building affordable housing there would be less. Could not a stronger case for building affordable housing there make more sense than in Lexington? Being only six miles apart, would Lexington not also gain from the housing being built there?
This brings us to the question of what kind of affordable housing and how best to do it?
In England, after World War II, they had to replace the many homes lost in the war. They built massive homes and apartments known as “council houses” and made them available at low rents. As the economy improved, residents moved out to homes of their own and new people moved in but the attitudes and economy had changed. Many of the council houses turned into drug and crime-infested slums.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did something radically different. She offered to let people in council housing buy their home or apartments, allowing the purchase price to come from past rent payments and other incentives to get the government out of the housing market. Many took advantage and once the people owned the properties, they tended not to just live in them but to improve them, either for themselves or to sell for a profit to a home buyer looking for “affordable housing.”
Singapore does not build affordable housing with subsidized rents but ownership instead. Instead of rent, occupants are buying their apartments over a longer term with a low monthly payment plan. If they elect to move prior to paying off the cost of the apartment, the past payments are considered as rent rather than purchase payments. In the tight housing market of Singapore, few want to give up their apartment until they own it, thus maintenance and improvements become the job of the owner rather than the government.
Other towns like Lexington have found it more practical to buy existing homes and apartments and rehabilitate them using local low interest loans or programs like the National Housing Trust Fund for loans or grants. This not only improved existing properties, it provided local construction jobs and improved properties around the community instead of creating large apartment complexes with the traffic issues, sewer and other municipal services and improvements cost being passed on to the taxpayers while making developers, often out of town large groups, wealthier.
The Housing and Urban Development program, Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program could help with these types of projects as well.
Habitat for Humanity, in addition to building new homes, has a program to improve existing dwellings now. Could this or similar programs be expanded with additional funds from local or governmental programs?
Before undertaking the construction of massive apartment complexes, perhaps the city officials in Buena Vista and Lexington, along with the officials from Rockbridge County, could really take in a broad look at what would be the best strategy for the entire county to gain a broader perspective.
