There are many factors at play in the housing crisis; many of them beyond the control of local and state governments to affect. But there is one factor in their control - building more housing.
"Some factors are difficult to control — inflationary pressures and its incumbent issues (rising ALICE population, stagnant wages, and growing income inequality) are largely out of the realm for local and state governments to do much about."
In the words of that great liberal mind of the 1980's, Ronald Reagan: "There you go again."
That could not be more wrong. Nowhere can more be done about the above issues, which are more of the cause, than treating the symptom of the current shortage and costs.
You're concerned about renting agents price fixing?
Maybe you ought to vote for the party that supports things like the Justice Department, rule of law, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - who represent citizens rather than corporations.
Accept that for all of its foibles and imperfections, our government is us in a representative democratic republic. Which one party is openly promising to destroy, in obedience to their billionaire supporters.
Rising Alice population? You think that had more or less to do with the push that Democrats joined in, but Republicans certainly led the way - in the 90's-00's to today to push global trade without condition. The difference being that Republicans see a fair playing field by bringing America down to their level - by looking the other way on slave labor and indentured servitude here, rather than insisting that products being made there do not promote those things. Likewise for civil liberties, environmental protections.
Why are we okay with buying a product made more cheaply by poisoning a river in Shanghai or the Mekong delta, when we wouldn't accept an American manufacturer doing the same thing? How can that American manufacturer compete in such an environment? You complain about stagnant wages? Vote for the party who supports that even playing field.
And then wealth inequality. Again, when you choose to vote for not only Donald Trump and Glen Youngkin, as well as the Rob Wittmans and Tara Durants on the ballot- you're voting for those who continually put the rich first and then promise that by providing billionaires welfare, they will then trickle it down on the rest of us.
And are willing to overthrow our government and rule of law to do it. Don't believe me? Listen to what they say. Project 2025. Felon Trump's "dictator for a day" or telling his disciples that if he wins this time, there won't be a need next time. Vance's embrace of ignoring the law and characterizing those who disagree with fascism as "subhuman". There's some pretty clear choices there if you care to think about it.
And in the long run, do you think foreign born billionaires like Thiel, Murdoch, and Musk are supporting that for you, or for themselves?
That wealth inequality that you mention, which was as bad as the age of the robber barons BEFORE the current crisis, is the direct result of that policy. I wouldn't say that's wealth raining down on us.
More like processed wealth. In liquid form to paraphrase Clint Eastwood in the Outlaw Josey Wales.
With most the value extracted and salted away in bitcoin or Bahaman bank vaults long before it gets to working people.
Point being, sure - support policies that improve the housing choices - within reason. But don't be afraid to work on the causes as well as the symptoms. The best way you can do that is vote accordingly. There is a choice. Choose wisely.
Btw -when that Drew guy hucks for the Card Cellar, it always seems pretty tongue in cheek, and in good fun. After all not like the people who own that place are asking for millions in government support. They just want to sell you a baseball card. Pretty benign.
Not sure this recent unquestioning support for the initiatives sponsored by the realtor and housing industry are the same.
I know this is labelled as an editorial. But it does call into question your objectivity when you decide to put on the reporter hat instead if the one doing the reporting has their own agenda.
Oh, where to begin? Why do we regulate the price on the gas, water and electricity entering the home, while letting the free market determine the price of of that home? Why do we allow landlords to profit from "gravy" inflation- and constricted-supply-induced rent increases above and beyond necessary increases while the industry disingenuously fights all rent-control ideas? Why do we allow the massive wealth transfer of taxpayers' HUD spending to affordable housing investors/producers/managers while still leaving low-income residents subject to voucher availability, rental instability and nearly non-existent affordable housing purchase options (Note: vouchers allow renters, who receive no Federal HUD dollars, to spend just 30% of their income on rent while the Federal government pays the remaining rent directly to the landlord)? Why do we ignore the impact that housing vulnerability has on veterans, seniors, the disabled, crime, education, public health, economic productivity, domestic violence, homelessness, the environment, etc., causing us to spend more and more to mitigate these issues? Relatedly, why do we leave the Federal minimum wage at $7.25/hour while CEO pay has grown 1209.2% from 1978 to 2022? The US economy has not been a true free market economy since the 1930's. It's time to start stop pretending it is when it comes to the necessity of housing.
In the last 3 years Stafford Supervisors have approved rezonings for 680 Apartments and Townhouses in the name of Affordable housing. There are 450 apartments at the Garrison that are waiting to be built and another 600 apartments and townhouses at Centreport that are going to break ground soon.
There are also 1,500 residential units that were approved on County land for downtown Stafford.
The Supervisors will decide what to do with that land in the future.
That's 3,230 apartments and townhouses alone and doesn't include the thousands more approved residential lots. The last thing we need is more residential period.
Stafford has a high percentage of owner occupied housing. That is what makes the average household income high. The new rental units will not only bring that percentage down, but it will diminish our ranking in household income.
The residential growth rate is not sustainable and must slow down for our infrastructure and the business Real Estate Tax percentage to catch up. Currently Businesses are paying about 16% of all Real Estate Taxes. That percentage needs to be about 25%. The only way for that to happen is to slow the residential growth. Slowing the residential growth down is what the vast majority of Stafford voters want.
Surveys done in Stafford show the vast majority of citizens want the residential growth rate to slow down to sustainable levels. They also want the infrastructure to be built before the housing.
Why do Real Estate taxes keep going up?
Here is the simplest way to demonstrate why uncontrolled Residential growth is the main driver for Tax increases.
Stafford County goes into school debt of over $60,000 for every new house that is built in Stafford. 1,000 new houses per year is $60,000,000 more in new County debt per year. The real estate tax revenue of $4,500 per house multiplied by 1,000 houses is $4.5 million.
The new Debt is one time school impact costs per single family home. There are also many other fiscal impacts per new house that could lead to more debt. Those fiscal impacts exceed $20,000 per house for Public Safety, Parks, Roads and general Government.
This excludes interest payments on the loan, school operation costs, maintenance and depreciation.
The lifespan of the building is irrelevant to the upfront costs.
Some parcels have proffers that will pay a portion of the costs, but historically in the last 20 years the proffers have paid less than 5%
This excludes interest payments on the loan, school operation costs, maintenance and depreciation.
Some old school debt is paid every year and is not a factor in the new debt.
"Some factors are difficult to control — inflationary pressures and its incumbent issues (rising ALICE population, stagnant wages, and growing income inequality) are largely out of the realm for local and state governments to do much about."
In the words of that great liberal mind of the 1980's, Ronald Reagan: "There you go again."
That could not be more wrong. Nowhere can more be done about the above issues, which are more of the cause, than treating the symptom of the current shortage and costs.
You're concerned about renting agents price fixing?
Maybe you ought to vote for the party that supports things like the Justice Department, rule of law, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - who represent citizens rather than corporations.
Accept that for all of its foibles and imperfections, our government is us in a representative democratic republic. Which one party is openly promising to destroy, in obedience to their billionaire supporters.
Rising Alice population? You think that had more or less to do with the push that Democrats joined in, but Republicans certainly led the way - in the 90's-00's to today to push global trade without condition. The difference being that Republicans see a fair playing field by bringing America down to their level - by looking the other way on slave labor and indentured servitude here, rather than insisting that products being made there do not promote those things. Likewise for civil liberties, environmental protections.
Why are we okay with buying a product made more cheaply by poisoning a river in Shanghai or the Mekong delta, when we wouldn't accept an American manufacturer doing the same thing? How can that American manufacturer compete in such an environment? You complain about stagnant wages? Vote for the party who supports that even playing field.
And then wealth inequality. Again, when you choose to vote for not only Donald Trump and Glen Youngkin, as well as the Rob Wittmans and Tara Durants on the ballot- you're voting for those who continually put the rich first and then promise that by providing billionaires welfare, they will then trickle it down on the rest of us.
And are willing to overthrow our government and rule of law to do it. Don't believe me? Listen to what they say. Project 2025. Felon Trump's "dictator for a day" or telling his disciples that if he wins this time, there won't be a need next time. Vance's embrace of ignoring the law and characterizing those who disagree with fascism as "subhuman". There's some pretty clear choices there if you care to think about it.
And in the long run, do you think foreign born billionaires like Thiel, Murdoch, and Musk are supporting that for you, or for themselves?
That wealth inequality that you mention, which was as bad as the age of the robber barons BEFORE the current crisis, is the direct result of that policy. I wouldn't say that's wealth raining down on us.
More like processed wealth. In liquid form to paraphrase Clint Eastwood in the Outlaw Josey Wales.
With most the value extracted and salted away in bitcoin or Bahaman bank vaults long before it gets to working people.
Point being, sure - support policies that improve the housing choices - within reason. But don't be afraid to work on the causes as well as the symptoms. The best way you can do that is vote accordingly. There is a choice. Choose wisely.
Btw -when that Drew guy hucks for the Card Cellar, it always seems pretty tongue in cheek, and in good fun. After all not like the people who own that place are asking for millions in government support. They just want to sell you a baseball card. Pretty benign.
Not sure this recent unquestioning support for the initiatives sponsored by the realtor and housing industry are the same.
I know this is labelled as an editorial. But it does call into question your objectivity when you decide to put on the reporter hat instead if the one doing the reporting has their own agenda.
Just a thought.
Moving on.
Oh, where to begin? Why do we regulate the price on the gas, water and electricity entering the home, while letting the free market determine the price of of that home? Why do we allow landlords to profit from "gravy" inflation- and constricted-supply-induced rent increases above and beyond necessary increases while the industry disingenuously fights all rent-control ideas? Why do we allow the massive wealth transfer of taxpayers' HUD spending to affordable housing investors/producers/managers while still leaving low-income residents subject to voucher availability, rental instability and nearly non-existent affordable housing purchase options (Note: vouchers allow renters, who receive no Federal HUD dollars, to spend just 30% of their income on rent while the Federal government pays the remaining rent directly to the landlord)? Why do we ignore the impact that housing vulnerability has on veterans, seniors, the disabled, crime, education, public health, economic productivity, domestic violence, homelessness, the environment, etc., causing us to spend more and more to mitigate these issues? Relatedly, why do we leave the Federal minimum wage at $7.25/hour while CEO pay has grown 1209.2% from 1978 to 2022? The US economy has not been a true free market economy since the 1930's. It's time to start stop pretending it is when it comes to the necessity of housing.
In the last 3 years Stafford Supervisors have approved rezonings for 680 Apartments and Townhouses in the name of Affordable housing. There are 450 apartments at the Garrison that are waiting to be built and another 600 apartments and townhouses at Centreport that are going to break ground soon.
There are also 1,500 residential units that were approved on County land for downtown Stafford.
The Supervisors will decide what to do with that land in the future.
That's 3,230 apartments and townhouses alone and doesn't include the thousands more approved residential lots. The last thing we need is more residential period.
Stafford has a high percentage of owner occupied housing. That is what makes the average household income high. The new rental units will not only bring that percentage down, but it will diminish our ranking in household income.
The residential growth rate is not sustainable and must slow down for our infrastructure and the business Real Estate Tax percentage to catch up. Currently Businesses are paying about 16% of all Real Estate Taxes. That percentage needs to be about 25%. The only way for that to happen is to slow the residential growth. Slowing the residential growth down is what the vast majority of Stafford voters want.
Surveys done in Stafford show the vast majority of citizens want the residential growth rate to slow down to sustainable levels. They also want the infrastructure to be built before the housing.
Why do Real Estate taxes keep going up?
Here is the simplest way to demonstrate why uncontrolled Residential growth is the main driver for Tax increases.
Stafford County goes into school debt of over $60,000 for every new house that is built in Stafford. 1,000 new houses per year is $60,000,000 more in new County debt per year. The real estate tax revenue of $4,500 per house multiplied by 1,000 houses is $4.5 million.
The new Debt is one time school impact costs per single family home. There are also many other fiscal impacts per new house that could lead to more debt. Those fiscal impacts exceed $20,000 per house for Public Safety, Parks, Roads and general Government.
This excludes interest payments on the loan, school operation costs, maintenance and depreciation.
The lifespan of the building is irrelevant to the upfront costs.
Some parcels have proffers that will pay a portion of the costs, but historically in the last 20 years the proffers have paid less than 5%
This excludes interest payments on the loan, school operation costs, maintenance and depreciation.
Some old school debt is paid every year and is not a factor in the new debt.
Below are my calculations of Stafford school impacts from 2 years ago.
The school costs have increased significantly since then.
HS#6 seats are now estimated at $82,500 per seat.
Estimated costs per School from 2022.
High School #6 $150,402,000 Divided by 2,150 seats = $70,000 per seat
Elementary School #18 $51,187,000 Divided by 964 seats = $53,000 per seat
Middle School #9 $84,607,000 Divided by 1,100 seats =$77,000 per seat
.
Table 2. Students per single family Dwelling Unit (DU)
New Pupils Elementary School 0.431 X $53,000 = $22,062
Middle School 0.235 X $77,000 = $18,095
High School 0.281 X $70,000 = $19,670
Total School Impact per single family Dwelling $59,827
.
Students per Townhouse Dwelling Unit (DU)
New Pupils Elementary School 0.265 X $53,000 = $14,045
Middle School 0.126 X $77,000 = $9,702
High School 0.153 X $70,000 = $10,710
Total School Impact per Townhouse Dwelling $34,457
.
Students per Apartment Dwelling Unit (DU)
New Pupils Elementary School 0.113 X $53,000 = $5,989
Middle School 0.040 X $77,000 = $3,080
High School 0.074 X $70,000 = $5,180
Total School Impact per Multi family Dwelling $14,249