In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times has called for the federal government to dramatically expand its housing subsidy program (often called Section 8). Currently, the Los Angeles Housing Authority administers 58,000 Section 8 vouchers. However, the authority estimates that 600,000 vouchers are needed to provide vouchers to everyone who qualifies. If the Housing Authority gets its wish, the city’s Section 8 funds would skyrocket from $780 million per year to nearly $8 billion. The paper justifies this largess by saying that homeowners have long benefited from government policies and it’s time renters enjoyed similar benefits. A rational approach would be for the government to quit dispensing favors to anyone–homeowners and renters alike. But a rational approach isn’t in the foreseeable future.
We are routinely bombarded with stories about the affordable housing crisis. But nothing is said about the affordability crisis in regard to smart phones, flat screen televisions, computers, automobiles, or a host of other values that we need to live in a modern society. And the reason we don’t hear about those crises is because they don’t exist. And the reason they don’t exist is because the producers of those values have remained far freer than the producers of housing. So, those who manufacture smart phones, flat screen televisions, computers, and automobiles can produce products for many different markets. They can produce inexpensive products with few features, they can produce luxury products with every bell and whistle imaginable, and they can produce a range of products in between. They can produce products for nearly everyone, regardless of their income. But the producers of housing have not enjoyed that freedom for more than one hundred years. Zoning, preservation, and other land-use regulations have long restricted the freedom of builders and developers, and the affordable housing crisis is the result.
In February, city officials in Orange City, Iowa, adopted an ordinance that requires rental properties to be registered with and inspected by the city. The city administrator said, “The purpose of the ordinance is intended to provide a safe and healthy environment for residents of our community.” Apparently, city officials don’t think that property owners or tenants are capable of determining if the rental property is providing a safe and healthy environment. Apparently, in Orange City, Iowa, only city officials have been anointed with that ability.