*** As usual, questions below the fold. Keep reading! ***
According to Marin County, California, developers must include “affordable housing” in any development plan with two or more “market-rate” houses.
Residents of Strawberry, an affluent community in Marin County, oppose the requirement. Specifically, they oppose the local Habitat for Humanity’s (a “Christian” organization? Yeah, right…) efforts to build so-called low-income housing in their neighborhood. (Source)
[Clarification: Habitat for Humanity's work is admirable. Don't misunderstand me. The issue isn't what the charitable organziation does. It's the county's affordable housing requirement.]
Reasons cited: traffic congestion, parking issues, and concern about lowered property values. The unspoken reason is this one: We don’t want those people in the neighborhood.
If I lived in an affluent neighborhood, I’d feel the same way. This is an issue of class, not color.
Before I continue, let me say this up front and get it out of the way: I’m speaking in generalities. I recognize that there are exceptions to every rule, but the exception doesn’t disprove or negate the rule.
Generally speaking, people who work to save money to buy a house (and work hard to buy a nice house) appreciate it and the neighborhood in ways that people who don’t work to save money to buy a house don’t. It’s the difference between having a long-term outlook and a willingness to delay gratification, and an in-the-moment view of life and a focus on short-term pleasures. Saving money requires discipline and good financial planning. These qualities are correlated with other qualities you’d want in a neighbor.
There are certain people you just don’t want as neighbors, which is why you saved and worked hard to move to a decent neighborhood in the first place.
It has little to do with being a snob and a lot to do with building equity in property, raising children in a safe environment with decent schools, and overall, getting the kind of government services that justify your high property tax rates.
I don’t want to get bogged down with Marin County’s issues. It’s just a microcosm of what goes on daily all across the country. Let’s talk about the larger issue. According to liberal types, people have a right not just to housing, but affordable housing. Where did such a right come from?
Last year I wrote a post called “Bogus Rights,” borrowed from economist Walter Williams’s column of the same name, “Bogus Rights.” Williams distinguished actual rights, like the freedom of speech (which imposes no obligation on others) from so-called rights to medical care, food, and decent housing (which do impose obligations on others). He writes:
If it is said that a person has rights to medical care, food and housing, and has no means of paying, how does he enjoy them? There’s no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy who provides them. You say, “The Congress provides for those rights.” Not quite. Congress does not have any resources of its very own. The only way Congress can give one American something is to first, through the use of intimidation, threats and coercion, take it from another American. So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn’t earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.
So-called affordable housing, especially housing built in affluent neighborhoods, is more of the same government coercion. The same is happening in Fulton County, Georgia. The affluent residents want to secede from the rest for various reasons. The most important one is their lack of representation in the county government. They pay most of the taxes, but the government doesn’t serve their needs.
People moving into low-income housing in exclusive neighborhoods will not, cannot, pay comparable property taxes. They receive the benefit of a well-funded county government without having to pay into it themselves. They gain the benefit of a safe and clean neighborhood occupied by the kind of people who value safety and cleanliness, for example. Such qualities are filters that separate “good” neighbors from “bad.” Being able to buy a house in an affluent neighborhood at its market value filters out certain “bad neighbor” elements.
On the other hand, the housing debate is shifting toward “workforce” housing for civil servants who work in an affluent community but can’t afford to live there. Although “workforce” has a nicer ring to it than “low income,” the concept is still the same. Somebody has to take up the slack for families living in affluent neighborhoods in “affordable” houses. And those somebodies are taxpayers.
1) For readers who disagree with my assessment:
If you believe people have a right to food, medical care, and affordable housing, where does this right come from? If you cite a document or web site, please link to it.
2) For readers who agree with my assessment:
You’re brilliant! 
3) For everyone:
Is the married-with-children firefighter more worthy to live in an affluent neighborhood in a house subsidized by his well-to-do neighbors than the “single mom” raising fatherless children?
