Sunday, December 26, 2021
Why won’t governments fix housing affordability?
Because they CAN'T. No government has ever found a way. And the reason is simple. Housing is a commodity like everything else that is bought and sold. And anything that is bought and sold is governed by the law of supply and demand. If the demand outstrips supply, the price will rise. So it follows that there is only one way to get the price of housing down. You have to increase the supply of it
But governments put up lots of obstacles to block an increase in supply, -- principally land use restrictions. And local governments are big on both lande use restricions and building restrictions. So local governments have to be stamped on to increase the supply of housing. And that is politically dynamite any time it is attempted. Existing homeowners like the restrictions. They keep "riff raff" out of their neighbourhoods
Rapidly rising property prices have led to increasing concerns around affordability, but support for government intervention may actually decline as affordability worsens, a new paper suggests.
Authors of the study argue that homeowners seek to protect their property price gain from being taxed away or undermined by growing housing supply, resulting in less support for government intervention in housing market inequality.
While based on European data, local experts and economists say it points to the challenge of rolling out reforms to improve housing affordability when more people, and voters, are homeowners than not.
Grattan Institute household finances program director Brendan Coates said the politics of improving housing affordability was fraught because most voters already owned a house or investment and mistrust any change that might dent property prices.
“The interest of homeowners tends to outweigh the interest of renters. There’s that classic adage from John Howard who [as prime minister] said that no one is complaining in the streets about their house value going up,” Mr Coates said.
The political consequences of housing (un)affordability, published in The Journal of European Social Policy earlier this month, used data drawn from European and British social surveys and an analysis of British elections to explore the relationship between housing affordability – house prices relative to incomes – and the demand for redistributive and housing policy.
Authors Ben Ansell, a professor at Nuffield College and the University of Oxford, and Asli Cansunar, an assistant professor at the University of Washington, found consistent evidence that declining affordability, driven by increasing house prices, decreases support for interventionist housing policy, especially among homeowners across Europe, and increased votes for the conservative party in the UK.
The beneficiaries of unaffordability, who they noted were those who own property, will prefer to keep policies and parties in place that keep prices high and rising, they concluded. However, while citizens on aggregate become less supportive of intervention, this masked a growing polarisation in preferences between renters and owners in less affordable regions.
Mr Coates said the research design was plausible in the European context, and that poor affordability would likely impact the preferences of political constituents. However, it was not clear if the politics would play out the same way in Australia, noting that at the last election, when Labor was promising changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, the electorates that swung to Labor tended to be those of higher income earners, while lower income electorates swung toward the Coalition.
However, Mr Coates also noted it was inner city working-class suburbs that had won big in the “housing lottery” as prices climbed over the years, as they were the group with the largest share of their wealth in housing, while the wealth of higher income earners was typically more diversified.
Mr Coates added there was a clear trend in Australia, though, of wealthier areas being more resistant to increased housing supply, but this was driven by multiple factors and not just potential concern of downward pressure on property prices.
“The real question in the Australian context, where there are clearly more house owners than renters making housing policy transformation really hard, is whether there is enough interest from baby boomers … sufficiently worried about whether their kids can ever buy, that leans them more to reform.
“Or whether the solution [they reach] is to double down … by giving [their children] more access to the bank of mum and dad [to get into the market].”
Mr Coates said both tax reform and increased supply would be key to improving housing affordability in Australia, and worried about staunch proponents of either approach downplaying the other at the current inquiry into housing affordability and supply in Australia, when both were clearly needed.
Independent economist Saul Eslake said supply side reforms were only part of the solution and the federal government needed to back away from policies that inflate housing demand, and had been pursued by both sides of government, such as first-home buyer grants, negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount.
It was a tragedy that Labor had walked away from proposed changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax, he noted, with the opportunity for such reform now possibly gone for a generation.
A greater focus on building more social housing was also needed, with both parties allowing the proportion of such housing to decline egregiously over the decades.
Appearing before the affordability inquiry last month, he asked members of the committee whose interests they were most concerned about: the 11 million Australians who already own at least one property, and the more than two million who own more than one, or the minority, albeit a growing minority, who have been unable to buy. He noted their answer would determine what they recommended to Parliament, with their report expected early in 2022.
Mr Eslake said while politicians shed “crocodile tears” for young Australians struggling to get onto the property ladder, there was a huge gulf between what they say and do. However, Mr Eslake, who also referenced Howard’s comments, acknowledged most homeowners did not want to see government action that would stop the value of their property going up.
“There is a very large constituency that is resolutely opposed to anything that would dampen the rate of house price inflation, yet that is surely at the heart of what you have to do if you’re going to solve the affordability issue.”
Mr Eslake said it was unclear if Australians had become any more opposed to redistribution policy as affordability declined, but noted that while Australia had quite a progressive income tax transfer system, wealth was taxed very lightly compared to other countries.
Any polarisation in preferences between renters and owners was less obvious locally, Mr Eslake added, saying he was often surprised that there was not more anger from young Australians about the way in which the market has been rigged against them by their parents’ generation. But even if they were to adapt their voting behaviour, he said, who would they vote for, with no big reforms on the table from either party.
The last federal election showed the concern homeowners had for housing reform.
Economist Jim Stanford, director of The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work, said that in the context of declining housing affordability it made sense for homeowners to be more cautious about their future and reforms, as they could feel more insecure in their situation, but was sceptical of the paper’s suggestion that they had benefited from unaffordability, noting few could sell off property without needing to buy elsewhere.
Many would also worry about their children and see that their kids did not “have a hope in hell” of buying a decent property, if poor affordability continued.
“I don’t think they are better off, even middle-class homeowners would be better off with a policy that thought of a housing as a more basic service. I don’t accept that they have made money off this boom [and just want] to continue to,” he said.
However, the last federal election had shown the concern homeowners had for housing reform, Dr Stanford said, noting that rightly or wrongly, those who saw themselves as housing investors could be influenced by scare campaigns against policies that made a lot of sense, like Labor’s proposed change to negative gearing.
“The government tried to portray it as a tax on homeowners, which is nonsense, but given how the election unfolded everyone is going to be curious about what they propose in this election, that experience sort of ratified the point … with this article.”
Dr Stanford said a big part of the solution would be building up Australia’s supply of non-market housing, which governments had basically walked away from over the last generation, with the time right for an ambitious plan to build more social and affordable housing.
Housing Minister Michael Sukkar and shadow minister for housing and homelessness, Jason Clare, were contacted for comment.
*********************************************
UK Supreme Court backs Government's decision not to allow gender-neutral passports with an 'X' option instead of just male and female categories
The Supreme Court has backed the Government's decision to not allow gender-neutral passports.
Earlier this year, justices heard an appeal from campaigner Christie Elan-Cane who believes the Government's current passport policy is degrading and illogical.
Elan-Cane, who has campaigned for more than 25 years to achieve legal and social recognition for non-gendered identity, brought a case to the UK's highest court in the latest round of a legal fight for 'X' passports.
Elan-Cane argues that the UK's passport application process, which requires individuals to indicate whether they are male or female, breaches human rights laws.
The Supreme Court challenge, which was contested by the Home Secretary, centred on the current policy administered by Her Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO) - part of the Home Office.
Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled it was 'beyond argument' that Elan-Cane's right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged, but that the current policy did not amount to an unlawful breach.
In a judgment today, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Giving the ruling, Lord Reed said: 'The form is concerned with the applicants' gender as a biographical detail which can be used to confirm their identity by checking it against the birth, adoption or gender recognition certificates provided and other official records.
'It is therefore the gender recognised for legal purposes and recorded in those documents which is relevant.'
The President of the Supreme Court found that Elan-Cane's interest in being issued with an 'X' passport was 'outweighed' by other considerations, including 'maintaining a coherent approach across government' as to what genders are recognised.
Lord Reed continued: 'There is no legislation in the United Kingdom which recognises a non-gendered category of individuals.
'On the contrary, legislation across the statute book assumes that all individuals can be categorised as belonging to one of two sexes or genders, terms which have been used interchangeably.'
At a hearing in July, justices were told by that the current gendered policy has a significant impact on the lives of those affected.
Kate Gallafent QC, for Elan-Cane, said that non-gendered people, such as Elan-Cane, and non-binary people have to make a false declaration to get a passport, which 'strikes at the foundation of the standards of honesty and integrity to be expected of such official processes'.
Elan-Cane underwent a double mastectomy and then an NHS-funded hysterectomy in the 1980s and 1990s.
Ms Gallafent told the justices it was illogical for part of the state to recognise and facilitate Elan-Cane's identity while other parts did not.
She also argued there was a 'fundamental incoherence' in how the sex on a passport is changed for binary transgender people compared with other legal documents.
The court also heard that the Home Office accepts that a person's gender identity can be male, female, both or neither.
Sir James Eadie QC, for the Home Office, argued there was a need for an 'administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender'.
In written arguments, he said: 'It is obviously problematic, and highly undesirable, for one branch of Government, i.e. HMPO, to recognise non-binary identification when no other Government department does so.
'It may lead to the same person being treated as having a different sex/gender by HMPO for the purposes of issuing a passport on the one hand, and by other Government departments for all other Governmental functions on the other.'
Sir James said that amending the passport policy would be likely to require eligibility criteria for an 'X' passport to be raised.
'If there are no such criteria, and access to an 'X' passport is a matter of free choice unconnected to gender identity, the justification for such a change is significantly less forceful,' he said.
****************************************
Why You Should Come Out of the Closet With Your Conservative Values
Dennis Prager
I received a phone call on my radio show from a man who said, “Dennis, I’m a gay conservative actor in Hollywood, and it is far easier to come out of the closet as gay than as a conservative.”
That call was in the 1980s.
While the current cancel culture —the firing, humiliation, disparagement, and smearing— of conservatives is exponentially worse today than 30 years ago, it is not new.
As a result, the great majority of Americans who are conservative—that is, about half the country—hide their true beliefs. They fear saying anything that differs with the Left. This would include such reprehensible sentiments as:
* With all its flaws, America is the finest country ever made.
Men do not give birth.
* There are only two sexes.
* A person’s color is the least important thing about them.
* The greatest problem in black life is not whites but a lack of fathers.
* A man who becomes a woman and then competes in women’s sports is cheating.
* Posting to social media a video by a renowned epidemiologist, virologist, or medical doctor who asserts that ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine with zinc, when used early enough, almost always prevents hospitalization for COVID-19.
The list is far longer than this. But if you think even this list overstates the problem, put any of these statements on any mainstream social media platform and see what happens. See if any relatives drop you from Facebook or even from their lives. See what your employer says or does. See what Twitter or Facebook does to your account.
There are valid reasons to fear publicly differing with the Left.
So, then, what arguments can be offered on behalf of coming out of the closet?
The first is this: For every person you alienate, you will likely bring at least one new, wonderful person into your life.
Putting aside issues of courage, of standing for what is right, of saving America from those working to destroy it, there is a great selfish reason to come out of the closet: kindred spirits, i.e., good people, will discover you.
In 2020, I received an email from a young woman in her second year at Harvard who told me that my book that explains the Left and America, “Still the Best Hope,” had changed her from liberal to conservative. Needless to say, I was intrigued to learn more about her and, as it happened, she lives—as I do—in Los Angeles. So, I invited her to sit in on my radio show.
While speaking to her during commercial breaks, I was impressed enough to ask if she would be willing to describe her political and moral metamorphosis on the radio. I warned her that appearing on “The Dennis Prager Show” and talking about her conservative views would likely lead to some lost friends, angry, if not alienated, relatives, and attacks back at Harvard. I made that case persuasively enough to give her pause and ask, “May I call my mother?”
She stepped out to make the call. When she returned to the studio, she announced, “I’m coming on.”
About half a year later, she made another appearance on my show, and I asked her what happened after her initial appearance.
“I went through two weeks of hell,” she responded.
As predicted, she lost friends she had had since elementary school, some relatives limited their contact with her, and some students back at Harvard regarded her as an indecipherable sellout.
“Then what happened?” I asked.
“Then I entered heaven,” she responded.
She offered two big reasons.
One was that she began to sleep better than she had in years. The other was the number of kindred spirits, all quality people, who reached out to her, some of whom became friends.
Regarding reason one —sleeping better— staying in the closet exacts a serious mental price on a person. One should not think only coming out of the closet exacts a price.
As for the second reason, virtually no price paid for coming out of the closet is comparable to the rewards of doing so. There is little as happiness-inducing as having kindred spirits in your life.
*************************************
San Francisco APPROVES new measure that will see notorious Tenderloin District flooded with cops to tackle homeless drug crisis despite protests from city's woke Supervisor and DA
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved an emergency order Friday to tackle the opioid epidemic in the city's crime-ridden Tenderloin neighborhood, despite multiple woke city leaders attacking the crackdown because it would flood the area with cops.
Mayor London Breed's order was passed by a vote held shortly after midnight Friday, with eight voting in favor of the plan and two voting against it, following a marathon 10 hours of debate and public comment.
The public health emergency declaration also authorizes the Department of Emergency Management to set up a new temporary center where people can access expanded drug treatment and counseling. Anyone caught abusing drugs who refuses help faces being arrested and locked up, sparking howls of protest from some of the violent city's progressive leaders.
Several supervisors raised objections, although only Board President Shamann Walton and Dean Preston voted no. They decried the lack of details and dearth of available treatment beds, and said that over-policing would victimize African Americans and the homeless.
'I know that this is an incredibly painful, traumatic and emotional conversation,' said Matt Haney, the supervisor who represents the neighborhood, before the vote. He said he hopes the city will bring all of its 'innovation, unyielding compassion and relentless determination' to confront the crisis.
San Francisco Supervisor Hillary Ronen and the city's infamous woke DA Chesa Boudin were among those moaning about Breed's new plan before it was passed.
'I believe that we should all be marshaling every resource we have in this city to address that crisis,' said Supervisor Hillary Ronen.
'But because of the way that this has been described in the media, I don't have faith that we're talking about the same thing.'
Meanwhile, Boudin - facing a recall over an embarrassing spike in crimes in the city blamed on his soft-touch on crime - has also condemned Breed's plan.
He said: 'We can't arrest and prosecute our way out of problems that are afflicting the Tenderloin,' Boudin said during a press conference on Monday.
'Arresting people who are addicted to drugs, jailing people who have mental health struggles, putting folks who are vending hot dogs or other food on the streets in cages will not solve these problems, and they are certainly not the only tools available.'
Breed's public health emergency declaration allows the Department of Emergency Management to re-allocate city staff and bypass contracting and permitting regulations to set up a new temporary center where people can access expanded drug treatment and counseling.
But advocates for the homeless and substance users are urging a no vote because Mayor London Breed has also pledged to flood the district with police officers to halt crime.
Public health officials encourage treatment for drug addicts, not punishment, but Breed has said that people consuming drugs in public may wind up in jail unless they accept services. Many locals have said that while they are sympathetic to the plight of addicts, many of whom are also homeless, they're fed up with the crime associated with the drug problem, as well as the filth and needles that now litter the famously-liberal city's streets.
The Tenderloin includes museums, the main public library and government offices, including City Hall. But it's also teeming with people who are homeless or marginally housed, a high concentration of drug dealers and people consuming drugs in broad view.
Breed said last week that it was time to be 'less tolerant of all the bull***t that has destroyed our city.' She said it's not fair that residents can't use their parks or leave home.
'When someone is openly using drugs on the street, we're going to give them the option of going to the services and treatment we're providing.' 'But if they refuse, we're not going to allow them to continue using on the street,' she said on social media this week. 'The families in the neighborhood deserve better.'
Breed has committed to opening a supervised drug consumption site as well as a drug sobering center, and said the Department of Emergency Management will lead the response much like it coordinated efforts to address the pandemic.
The department will, in part, streamline emergency medical calls, disrupt drug dealing and use, and make sure streets stay clean.
Deaths attributable to overdoses have increased more than 200 percent in San Francisco since 2018, and last year, more than 700 people died from drug overdoses in the city, more than the number who died from COVID-19, according to the proclamation.
Nearly 600 people have died of a drug overdose this year, through November, with nearly half of the deaths occurring in the Tenderloin and in the neighboring South of Market district, says the proclamation. These areas make up 7 percent of San Francisco's population.
Politically liberal cities across the US are grappling with crime in the wake of the 2020 murder of George Floyd, when their elected leaders pledged ways to reduce friction between police and vulnerable communities of color, particularly African Americans such as Floyd.
San Francisco and the Bay Area in particular has been hit hard by a spate of what officials are calling organized smash-and-grab burglaries and car break-ins. Between May 2020 and May 2021, there was a 753 percent increase in the car break-ins in the city's Central District, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
Walgreens closed a location at 790 Van Ness Avenue in October 2020 after losing up to $1,000 in stolen merchandise numerous days in a row, according to the San Francisco Chronicle
Officers have already made a string of arrests in relation to the late-November attacks, which police previously posited were related.
Three arrests have been made in connection with the coordinated attack on a Nordstrom Inc. store in the wealthy Bay Area suburb of Walnut Creek, California, on November 20.
An estimated 90 people overran the posh boutique and made off with more than $100,000 of merchandise before escaping in 25 separate cars that had their license plates removed or covered, prosecutors said.
The city's reputation has taken a hit amid embarrassing videos of shoplifting mobs targeting drug stores and high-end department stores, including Neiman Marcus. Earlier this week, Walgreens announced it was closing five of its stores in the city because of rampant shoplifting.
The city's woke DA Chesa Boudin has been accused of being too soft on crime, and faces a recall effort from locals who say say the ultra-rich area has become too dangerous to live in.
'The criminals are committing these acts in broad daylight in this city,' Breed told KGO-TV of the smash and grab Audi gang back in October.
They want her to use the money on adding more treatment beds, shelters, job training and other social services.
'What we currently see in the Tenderloin didn't happen overnight and stems from years of massive disinvestment and displacement,' said Jeannette Zanipatin, California director at the Drug Policy Alliance.
If approved, the emergency order would last 90 days unless Breed seeks renewal.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment