Politics, it's local

Rona,

I expect government to stay out of my business. Be small and efficient and provide for basic services, protection and safety nets. I think we can all agree that for the most part government is incredibly inefficient at performing any task.

The key is a smaller government.
You comment about your candidate is a reflection of today’s climate. Everyone in Washington/Boston is bad except for my guy/girl.

As far as housing; government should be hands off and let market forces dictate pricing. This is far more efficient that government controlling prices with bailouts, subsidies or controls which lead to selective discrimination.

I think we can all agree that for the most part government is incredibly inefficient at performing any task.

I think not. Research the amount spent on office work and administration by Medicare, compare it to any private insurer, then get back to us. Do the same with the cost of Blackwater versus our own men and women in uniform performing the same jobs. Finally, review the last week's financial newspapers.

That said, the best way to provide affordable housing is to let housing be affordable. I think Levittown was built to sell for 2x incomes--no need to provide vouchers. Many of these affordable programs seriously distort the housing market. Rent control is the reason that Cambridge housing stock is still in shambles. We now have several affordable housing projects that feature Corian countertops, air conditioning, and underground parking where the residents park--I am not making this up--their Lincoln Navigators, before going upstairs to watch--I'm not making this up either, I can see it from the window--their widescreen plasma TVs. Partly as a result, Cambridge has become a town for the rich and the supposed poor. Works very well for the vote-seeking city council, so they can focus on foreign policy, but not so well for the middle class, which has left the city in droves.

To date, the government has spent a total of $900 billion bailing out a collapsed mortgage market. Stop propping up bad companies and high prices, and more people will be able to afford homes on their own.

This post is old, but I'll chip in anyway...

The truth is, no one who already owns a house really wants affordable housing. The only way meaningful affordable housing can exist is if prices for housing become lower. That's sort of an obvious statement, but think of the implications. Do you really think all the property owners in a town are going sit around and let politicians put forward policy that is going to wipe out a huge fraction of their net worth?

Of course with the bubble, prices went way beyond sustainable, but that's another matter. Even without the bubble, housing prices around here are going to be high (just not as high as they are now). The fact is, there are more people than there are houses. The only solution would be to build, build, build - that is, build dense, modest housing and condos that people can actually afford. For reasons I mentioned above, no one is going to let that happen.

I admire what Levitt did. I read once that he said something to the effect of "Anyone can make a good house for $1,000,000. What I want to do is make good houses that are affordable." However, Levitt had one thing that doesn't exist around here - Land!

As Marcus points out, what we are left with is a screwy system in an attempt to give some people affordable housing while not impacting property values too much. Such a system cannot possibly meet the needed demand, so getting affordable housing is kind of like winning the lottery. It's inherently unfair. To make matters worse, plenty of people game the system.