A chicken in every pot, snow on Christmas day, your own teeth at 70, and a single-family detached home (SFDH) you can call your own. Goals, dreams, or expectations, a couple are within your control, a couple are not. I have no trouble with the first three, but the last one gives me cause for concern. Not because everyone doesn' t deserve a place to call home, but for most, home translates into a single-family home on an individual lot.
This expectation concerns me for several reasons, three of which are related. First, it is unrealistic to assume that we will ever be able to provide this most costly form of housing to all of our country's citizens, and therefore, if it unfair to support people's expectations. Second, the infrastructure costs associated with this type of land development, in terms of street miles, sewer and water miles, utility miles, school bus miles, etc. , make this form of development very expensive to support. Third, the disbursement of our population onto one-fourth or one-third acre lots results in tremendous separation between workplace and home, shopping and home, cultural facilities and home, etc. , all with their commensurate cost in terms of added highway right of way and time lost commuting or traveling. The last concern is different, but perhaps the most important. Does ownership of a single family detached home really meet the lifestyle needs of everyone, at all times in their life? Most, on reflection, will agree to the first three points. However, the positive image of a SFDH is so strong, few have been willing to wish for anything less.
The appropriateness of a single-family detached home to meet all of our citizens' lifestyle needs is probably the most significant issue. Almost every survey of American desires would result in single-family home ownership as the preference. All of us are bombarded constantly with both direct and indirect reinforcement of the appropriateness and desirability of owning a detached single family home. As children, our first books depict grandmother's house with the swing on the porch and the tree-covered lot. Even our favorite animal characters live in houses. Politicians boast of their compassion for the homeless and their advocacy of programs to increase home ownership (a.k.a. single-family detached homes). The building industry, itself, spends millions of dollars promoting their SFDH products, most likely because they are the most expensive, offering the greatest profit to themselves, the selling real estate agent, the lender, etc. When the homebuilding industry does build apartments or townhouses, the marketing material describe them with a vocabulary that implies single-family homes such as private patios, individual entries, your own carport, etc.
There are many often-stated reasons in support of single-family ownership. But there are many differences between perception and reality. Owning a single-family home gives you the right to live your life the way you want, without anybody telling you what to do. See how quickly a loud party is visited by the local law enforcement agencies. See what happens if you try to put on an addition, a deck, or a garage without multiple reviews and permits. If you live in a single-family community that has architectural review covenants, you may be constrained from using any color you want, or to add a basketball backboard.
With a single-family home, kids have a place to play. There is room for the gardens; it would also be possible to better keep pets. Clearly that's true on a ten-acre lot, and, to an extent, even possible on a 3/4-acre lot. However, it gets a little more difficult on 1/2 and 1/3-acre lots, which represent the majority of housing developments in this country. Developing the arm of a future NFL quarterback quickly exceeds the width of most average single-family lots. Well planned cluster housing can result in large play/recreation areas that provide significantly greater opportunity.
Unquestionably, a single-family home has been and will continue to be a great place for many people to raise their families and live a comfortable life. But, what happens when everyone does this? What happens when the kids grow up and begin to make their own life, or try to? The three, four, or five bedrooms are great for the kids’ return visits and guests. In most communities, visits from the grandchildren require the extra rooms because, in most cases, they have been forced to live somewhere else where housing is less expensive. Large yards still offer an opportunity for people to garden. However, there is something less attractive about raking the leaves in the fall alone than doing so with the help of teenagers, and the inevitable diversion of jumping in the pile. Wouldn't a well designed condo, which handled the maintenance chores, has a full range of recreational facilities, could be left without worry, and was located in a desirable community environment, be a better choice for many empty nesters? Wouldn't the same type of units be attractive to those who haven't begun to fill a nest?
Not withstanding the appropriateness of owning a single-family detached home, there are many other economic presumptions or factors which currently lead us in this direction.
Our present tax laws reward those with the largest interest payments and highest taxes with tax benefits that probably far exceed government subsidies available to our lowest-income families, both individually and collectively.
A recently Washington Post article by Kenneth R. Harvey addressed the magnitude of our nation's housing subsidy, describing the tax deduction as the biggest housing program by far. And the biggest drains on the Federal Treasury have nothing to do with poor people. The story further reports the White House calculated the amount IRS won't collect next year as a result of home ownership deductions to be worth $72 billion. This is contrasted with the 1991 budget outlays for all public housing operating subsidies expected to be $1.8 billion, and outlays for homeless programs, expected to total $150 million.
What are the implications of all of this? For one thing, most young people in our country strive for home ownership as quickly as they can. Generally, it is a significant financial sacrifice and probably well before they need it. The young single engineer, working in a Suburban Activity Center, may find a condominium in one of the newly emerging outlying suburbs that he can afford, albeit with a tremendous financial stretch. And he buys it in order to get in on the escalating spiral of home appreciation. Never mind that it separates him from the action that he enjoys and commits him to an hour and a half daily commute and adds additional vehicle miles to the already congested highways.
The young engineer will further justify his purchase by saying that it is necessary in order to minimize his taxes and begin building equity and participate in spiraling housing cost escalation. He may not be aware, however, that the housing value escalation of recent years has not always been the case or as high as assumed. In fact, several recent studies, noted in the Urban Land Institute's January Land Use Digest 1990, have forecast declines in housing prices over the next two decades. The highly energized Washington market has only had a 1.7% annual increase, after adjustment for inflation, in the last twenty years.
It is also true that very little of a monthly payment goes into reduction of principal, particularly during the earlier years of a mortgage. But, isn't that interest tax-deductible? Yes, because of the way our tax laws are presently structured. It should also be noted that the deduction shelters only 28% to 35% of money spent, a very inefficient way to 'save.' Could not Congress enact laws that reward people for saving, for investing in public infrastructure bonds, or perhaps investment funds that aid the poor and less fortunate?
The desire for single-family detached homes has generated a very large business of creating “McMansions” on land that has been cleared to make construction cheaper. But, in order to attract buyers, recent houses have been gigantic – far more “house” than people need. An architect has analyzed the amount of home people occupy to be approximately 1,500 square feet. This leaves a great deal of unoccupied house which is even more excessive when children have moved off and start their own lives. The largest home built in Reston, in the early days, was on a lot selected for Robert Simon. It was purchased by the first broker to engage in home sales in Reston known as the Wellbourne house. It had 4,400 square feet, and each room had a window, or view of the lake. This included the shower and the master bath. As the children of the Kane family began to make their own way in life, the home became a difficult property to manage. A desire to remain in this location led the owner to propose dividing the home and making it a “Duplex”. This idea received lots of media attention and was given approval by the Reston “Design Review” board. Unfortunately, the owner suffered a stroke before he could implement the plan and left the property for a smaller, more manageable, townhome.
In summary, the qualities attributed to the single-family detached home do not exist for many. The market-driven economics of ownership are also less than assumed, and vulnerable. The Government-induced values can be changed. Is a single-family detached home optimum for everyone, at all times? Should our National Housing Policies be based on single-family detached home ownership as the Great American Dream? I don't think so.
|