Affordable housing....for software designers?

Lawrence Keyes, chairman of the Vermont Software Developer's Alliance Outreach Committee, writes an op-ed in today's Freeps arguing for support for the state's software industry.  He rightly notes some of the benefits of the

environment-friendly industry, paying an average wage of $60,000, which attracts a creative and well-educated work force to our state

So far so good.  Refreshingly, he doesn't ask for money from state government.  But this is what bothers me:

One of  his suggestions is that Vermonters

Support affordable housing. Housing is tight in Vermont. Our members report that they have managed to attract skilled workers from out of state, only to have the deal fall through because the new hire couldn't find an affordable place to live.

When someone earning an individual wage of $60,000--which is the median family income in Vermont--can't find an "affordable" place to live, either that person's definition of what they want, and what they are willing to pay, are out of synch with reality, or more likely,  there is something wrong with housing prices in Vermont.   Affordable housing should connote an image of a lower income wage earner or family having a hard time meeting mortgage or rent payments, not an image of a well-educated, well-paid software worker not being able to find a house.  If we think the state should be in the business of subsidizing housing for people earning $60,000, then we've got real problems. 

As I've said earlier (here, and here) the fundamental housing problem is that local and state regulatory and development barriers have made land prices, and hence housing prices, far too expensive given the amount of land available and the incomes of Vermonters.  That software engineer can also earn $60,000 in Charlotte (North Caroline, not Vermont) and find a house costing far less down there than up here.

Comments

[Ye Ol' Vermonter]

You probably need to recheck the pricing of housing in the Charlotte, NC area. Another problem with housing costs is simply that developers can make more money selling one large house than they can selling several smaller, cheaper houses - so what do they build? The regulator cost matter is more of a perception problem than a real problem from a state perspective. The real problems are with local fees and zoning laws which are basically designed to keep out low cost housing.

[Art Woolf]

Any producer would like to produce only expensive products, but competition forces them to produce products for all segments of the market (think the auto industry).

As to the price of housing in Charlotte, NC, CNN Money (at http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/hpci_data/index.html)
cites Coldwell Banker's analysis of a 2,200 square foot 4 bedroom 2.5 bathroom, 2 car garage house costing $204,000 in Charlotte, NC and $338,000 in Burlington, VT in 2005.

[Abbott de Rham]

In regards to Vermont housing costs. You are spot on regarding the regulatory cost. First you have a permitting process that can take years. All that time a developer must pay the carrying costs taxed at the highest and best use. Secondly is the ever increasing cost of over-the-top supporting documentation and plans that must be prepared by professional engineers in order to satisfy the various state and local Government entities reviewing applications. You must have certified plans for roads and parking, water supply, waste water, storm water, erosion protection, traffic studies; with a possibility of traffic studies, hazardous material site analysis, archeology site review, noise analysis, narrative on impact on local services, and the list goes on. Most of these requirements do not apply to single large houses. The more houses per acre the more documents and engineering time required. The regulatory system punishes increased density with smaller houses on smaller lots. Recently the State changed thresholds for application of construction general permits from five acres to one acre of disturbed land. The engineering requirements and on-site inspection adds up to a minimum of thousands of dollars. Many single family homes disturb more than an acre and may require this onerous permit. Virtually every development with more than a single house will require what is a very expensive permit to acquire and administer. Another reason not to build affordable housing in this state. If it is not affordable for the builders it will not be affordable for the home buyers. None of this addresses the risk of undertaking development in Vermont. You begin a permitting process by spending tens of thousands of dollars for even a smallish project with absolutely no assurance that you will successfully obtain a permit after multiple revisions, delays, challenges, ongoing professional fees, and spurious appeals. The risk alone reduces the number of projects and therefore inventory of available housing stock.

[Jim Gatti]

In the August 10th edition of the Free Press Kimberly Hefling (AP)breathlessly reports that the volunteer Army is increasing incentives and lowering standards to meet recruiting goals. What she fails to mention is that the changes are being done to INCREASE enlistments by 32,000. How else does she think they will do so? Everyone has alternatives, and everyone chooses the one that is most attractive. If a burger joint needs more kitchen staff they have to increase the pay and benefits to attract those who would otherwise chose to be an auto mechanic, work construction, or get into retail sales. At the end of the article there is a real gem by Donna Lieberman (NY ACLU)who lets her anti-military bias show when she bemoans the fact that increased incentives might lure low-income adolescents into making decisions that they would not otherwise have made. Would she prefer that the Army reduce incentives and limit the options available? What is the difference between the Army increasing pay and benefits and Google offering a signing bonus to attract more programers?