12.01.2005 | "Too Affluent for Buyer Assistance"

An alternate title to a news story with this in its title might be, "Nevermind the free market, people should be able to live wherever and however they want." At the least, this would be a better summary.

First, let's define the "problem." There is a potentially real problem, and the bleeding-heart version that is presented in the WaPo. The story focuses on the fact that the housing market in the Washington, DC metropolitan area has caused many middle-income people to not be able to buy what they'd like and still have a short commute to work. This is the "problem" treated by this story, and the left-wingers who populate our local nanny-state governments.

There's an example provided of a woman who earns $60,000 a year, but who "lacks the means to purchase something she likes on the open market." This whiny one

saw a two-bedroom condominium in a Silver Spring high-rise Friday. Looking past the tired brown carpet, the dated appliances, the "little bug" crawling in a kitchen drawer, she saw some potential. But for $199,000, she said, "I would want it to be in better condition than that."

For those unfamiliar with the DC metro area, Silver Spring is a close-in suburb, with some, er, interesting areas that are sorely in need of some redevelopment. This one example is actually a good example -- just not in the way perhaps intended by the elitists who write for the WaPo. Or who staff our local governments.

"Dated appliances?" Oh, the humanity. Hard cheese, missy. You don't like the "dated appliances?" Move out to Frederick, or even Hagerstown, Maryland, where prices are lower. The bottom line? There is no "problem" as defined by the bleeding hearts. The only problem is that some people want something for nothing. Too bad; like the Stones' song goes, "you can't always get what you want."

There is, however, a potentially real problem. It is how to ensure that lower-paid public employees, those essential to the community, will be able to live in the community. This is addressed, partially, in the story:

The beneficiaries [of housing assistance] are mainly public employees who can't afford to live where they work and employers who complain that housing costs force workers to commute too far or leave. Helping a firefighter, teacher or librarian buy a house is the sort of goal few politicians would fail to embrace, given the votes commanded by public employee unions. (emphasis added)

Yes. "Votes commanded by public employee unions." But the reality is that my tax dollars should not go to subsidize a librarian's desire to not have dated applicances. Frankly, I don't care if librarians can afford to live in my town of Alexandria. Police and firemen, however, perform a much more immediate and useful public service. The answer isn't to throw money at the situation. The answer is to set high standards, and high pay for certain jobs. Police and firemen come to mind.

If that still doesn't work, where work is defined as having a sufficiency of police and firemen resident in the community, then provide housing assistance only to those who hold such jobs. And let the city's voters (or county, depending on jurisdiction) have the final say in how this is done.
It all comes down to common sense. Which includes some hard-earned wisdom: if you deny the forces of the free market, you will pay dearly. One way or another, sooner or later. Most likely sooner. There's nothing of material value that's free in this life.