by jim chittum » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:20 am
I am somewhat of an "expert" on affordable housing since I have lived in affordable housing all my life. My first home, a log cabin in the Ozarks was extremely affordable. We had no running water, electricity or indoor plumbing. Since the first three determinants of price in real estate are location, location, and location, that also held down the value to approximately zero. In fact the place was so affordable that it was given to my family by a relative if we would agree to pay the taxes.
Later, my family moved north where we lived the remainder of my childhood in rented housing until I was in high school when we purchased a home for $4,500 in a small town in Southern Illinois for $4,500. Again, the price was driven by location, since my Dad had to drive 30 miles to get to work.
After I graduated from high school and left home, it was back to renting apartments. When I got married, my wife and I rented apartments for eight years until we could save enough money for a 20% down payment on our first home. Since then I have owned a series of ever better homes in ever better locations until I ended up in our current home here in the Mill. Nice home. Excellent location. And affordable for us, since we could afford to pay for it.
Every single one of these homes, including our current home, has been "affordable" in the sense that my family paid the rent, mortgage, and taxes from our own resources. The use of the word "affordable" for subsidized housing is just another instance of torturing the language to create euphemisms for political correctness. What is really being proposed is that people be provided "unaffordable" housing, or housing that they cannot afford, by virtue of receiving some sort of subsidy.
Now this may be a good idea or a bad idea, depending upon your particular political persuasion, but I just wish that they would call it what it is for a change: "unaffordable" housing.