Last week, I wrote about the elephant in the room regarding the affordable housing crisis for low0income households. The media and housing activists regularly subject us to sob stories to promote “renters’ protections,” but they say nothing about the choices that many low-income households make. An example comes from an article in The Fresno Bee.
The article, which clearly supports rent control, tells us that Juana Iris Meza and her family spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. The family of six was living in a one-bedroom apartment costing $560 a month, but recently moved to a three-bedroom condominium for $1,350 a month. The family chose to more than double their housing costs, but the article glosses over this fact. Instead, we are supposed to feel sorry for the family and support rent control.
Further, Meza and her husband are trying to raise four children while making $45,000 a year. The parents chose to have children, apparently without considering the financial ramifications. Again, the article does not address the personal choices that have contributed to the family’s financial problems.
Individuals have a right to make bad choices, such as bearing children that they can’t support. But they do not have a right to force others to pay the cost. The article tells us that rent control would save Meza money by limiting what her landlord can charge for rent. This shifts some of the cost for Meza’s children to her landlord.
We do individuals like Meza no favors by absolving them of responsibility for their choices. When we do so, those individuals have little motivation to make better choices in the future.
Many will argue that children are often the innocent victims of their parents’ irresponsibility. Therefore, we must enact policies such as rent control for the sake of the children. Such an argument ignores the fact that the taxpayers and landlords who are forced to pay for those policies are no less innocent.
Ignoring facts is mandated by the framework embraced by housing activists. They pick and choose which facts to consider. They look only at the short-term while failing to identify future consequences. They refuse to consider the pros and cons of alternatives. Refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room won’t solve the housing crisis. It will only make the problem worse.