I won't argue over whether DC should provide a paid holiday for Emancipation Day, or whether it's a good day for a tax protest, but must DC treat the traffic rules as a holiday/weekend? What a mess. And this isn't just a car issue. People parking in what are usually traffic lanes during rush hour means cyclists pushed into traffic lanes (and cars) and cars fighting for space through yellow/red lights, impeding crosswalks.

by ah on Apr 15, 2011 9:01 am • link • report

In the Post article about the three pedestrians and one cyclist hit "a pedestrian was seriously injured when struck by a vehicle on a ramp from the George Washington Bridge about 4:30 p.m"

Where the heck is the George Washington Bridge? [I know it's a typo...]

by David C on Apr 15, 2011 9:36 am • link • report

"at best, taxation without representation."

Really, Virginia? You're really going to pull that on us, because you lost a 2-1 vote? On a project that all 3 jurisdictions are spending money on, despite being located entirely within your borders?

....and to point the phrase at DC is almost laughable. "Representation" does not mean "I get my way no matter what." It means you get a vote. You lost that vote. It's insulting to those of us who are actually taxed without being represented.

by andrew on Apr 15, 2011 9:37 am • link • report

@Andrew; yes. It would be a very good idea to kick Maryland and DC out of the MWAA. I have no idea what percent of DTR users are Virginia residents, but it is a substantial minority. I get why it was nice, back in the 80s, to talk about regional cooperation agencies, but in MWAA we've now created an unaccountable monster.

by charlie on Apr 15, 2011 9:40 am • link • report

@andrew: Virginia actually lost an 11-2 vote. Everybody voted for the measure except two of Virginia's members. In fact, Virginia three other members voted for it, so even if it were just a Virginia thing, it would have passed.

by Tim on Apr 15, 2011 9:43 am • link • report

Two out of seven years, the whole country gets to file income taxes late because of DC's "Emancipation Day".

I propose that DC rename this holiday "DC Taxation without Representation Day".

That way, two years out of seven, the whole country will be reminded that they get to file taxes late and they'll get the name of the holiday with it.

by Michael Perkins on Apr 15, 2011 9:51 am • link • report

@ mortgage interest deduction

I can't imagine they would cut the mortgage interest deduction now, it would cause another significant drop in housing prices now and foreclosures would skyrocket. It might be possible to roll it back gradually so that it is only applicable for mortgages up to $500k.

by Nicoli on Apr 15, 2011 9:58 am • link • report

The rest of the country knows DC gets taxed without representatives. And with the exception of people that follow politics, they don't care.

by TGEoA on Apr 15, 2011 10:01 am • link • report

I think there is zero chance the HMID goes away entirely and immediately. It is much more likely to be capped, phased out, or converted into some form of tax credit. I think in any scenario it would have a gradual decline--e.g., a $50k reduction per year in the mortgage cap for 10 years to drop it from $1m to $500k (or over 20 years to zero).

But you have to start somewhere. Of course, as health care reform showed, "somewhere" is after the next election.

by ah on Apr 15, 2011 10:04 am • link • report

@Nicoli

I would have to agree. Aa recent new home owner I like my refund check. I just used it to fix some things around the house and pay for my summer vacation.

Also putting a limit on the value would be unfair to locations like DC. 500k is a pretty standard house around here, but in other areas buys two.

by Matt R on Apr 15, 2011 10:04 am • link • report

What ah said.

I'm all for Emancipation Day, but it's a total mess out there and rush hour lasted an hour longer than it should have this morning(at least out my front window and in my Dupont Circle neighborhood).

The lack of parking enforcement also hurts downtown businesses.

Celebrate the holiday, but rethink the parking enforcement policy next year. Don't celebrate the breaking of the chains with a massive traffic tie-up.

by Mike Silverstein on Apr 15, 2011 10:11 am • link • report

RE # Of Police

Copied below is a comment I made back in Feb regarding the same issue.

We have plenty of police, more so than any other major metropolitan area, and by quite a bit.

Citizens per Officer

DC - 150 - 1
NYC - 241 - 1
Chicago - 212 - 1
LA - 380 - 1
Boston - 307 - 1

And thats just the MPD, we haven't even counted in the thousands of Capital Police, Park Police, ATF, FBI, Federal Protection Service, Secret Service officers who may not offically patrol DC, but are all packing guns driving the streets, riding the metro, living here etc and who would or could step in if they saw something.

by freely on Apr 15, 2011 10:12 am • link • report

@Matt R, @Nicoli

Politically, I doubt the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction will ever go away. It's fairly widely popular, even though it's actually mildly regressive. It only helps people who have enough income/wealth to be able to buy a home in the first place. From the research I've red, it doesn't actually boost home ownership, it just helps people who can already afford homes buy bigger/nicer homes. We can see this with international comparisons - Canada, for instance, has no program equivilent to the HMID yet still has home ownership rates comprable to the US.

So what's the policy goal of the HMID? If it's to promote home ownership, it doesn't seem to have an impact. If it's to help those who can't otherwise buy home, it doesn't seem to do that either. Seems to me it encourages sprawl, though (although no, I haven't seen research to that effect).

by Distantantennas on Apr 15, 2011 10:19 am • link • report

"Some Prince George's leaders are concerned about the gentrification and displacement that could come with the construction of the Purple Line"

HAHAHAHAHAHA, Bethesda is afraid of poor, black people and PG is afraid of rich, white people. Gotta love it! Can't believe PG hates the prospect of people with real income moving into some of their thousands of foreclosures, but maybe they are in fact that racist.

by jag on Apr 15, 2011 10:20 am • link • report

PG raises Purple Line gentrification fears

What is surprising about these fears is apparently that nobody thinks that the poor people that live in areas that might gentrify/get richer, get richer themselves.

Has anybody ever looked at income or wealth development of the people that originally lived in such neighborhoods?

by Jasper on Apr 15, 2011 10:33 am • link • report

@freely

DC - 150 - 1
NYC - 241 - 1
Chicago - 212 - 1
LA - 380 - 1
Boston - 307 - 1

Are we maybe a more inherently law-breaking citizenry than these other cities? I have to wonder after the mayor and at least a copy councilmembers got themselves arrested the other day ... ;)

by Lance on Apr 15, 2011 10:36 am • link • report

@freely, as has been noted before, it's kind of hard to compare two cities in such a way. How much of their suburbs do they include? If you compared DC to Manhattan would that change? What if you added MoCo, PG, Arlington and Alexandria to that mix? These cities are geographically non-comparable. That doesn't mean we don't have too many cops, but it means the comparison is not particularly useful.

Re: HMID. They should get rid of it. It accomplishes nothing - not even allowing people to buy bigger homes. If it disappeared home prices would just drop so that people could buy the same amount of house as before. The issue is that current home owners would lose a lot of money overnight. Now, you could argue that if you buy a house and assume that the HMID will always be there, you've made a bad assumption - that there is some risk and you should account for that - but that may be too much for people. So they should add in a tax credit of some sort to balance out the loss of value as well as grandfather current homeowners in to the current HMID. The credit could be credited when the house is sold (to spread it out over years and would offset taxes on capital gains where applicable) Both would go to those who owned a completed home, or had a contract on one, the day the bill passed. For builders who had partially built homes, a lesser credit could be given.

Everyone is made whole, the government starts saving money in a few years as tax credits drop and more people pay taxes on their homes. Market distortions go away.

Chances of this happening 0.0001%

by David C on Apr 15, 2011 10:36 am • link • report

*couple councilmembers

by Lance on Apr 15, 2011 10:36 am • link • report

@Jasper

Good point, and what if the housing values in those areas do go up more then they would have otherwise. Those people who have bought property could sell and end up with more money.

by Matt R on Apr 15, 2011 10:37 am • link • report

I didn't take the article about universities to have much of any evidence about less vocal members of communities supporting expansion. How would the writer know--they're less vocal!

The point is that some universities have a decent relationship with their residential neighbors and others don't--perhaps there's a socioeconomic component to that, or maybe not.

Anyway, someone tweeted yesterday about this being an Uber-NIMBY group. Seems highly a propos.

Of course, the AU-area folks aren't singling out AU--they attack pretty much any development, from townhouses (CanalParc) to bike lanes.

by ah on Apr 15, 2011 10:52 am • link • report

I would point out that the city maintains public services for a population of over 1 million. Just sayin'...

by Adam L on Apr 15, 2011 11:04 am • link • report

DTR lawsuit:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3455.asp

by charlie on Apr 15, 2011 11:06 am • link • report

Some random thoughts:

-That photo is funny and all, but giving legislators a good salary is historically a more progressive policy since it means that people other than rich people can afford to run for office. It doesn't always work out that way, but that's certainly the history of it.

-The mortgage interest deduction isn't mildly regressive, it's hugely regressive. I definitely think it should be capped, but it will be difficult to phase that in. In the mean time, out of equity's sake we ought to create a rent deduction since economically speaking rent and interest are pretty similar.

-Pat Herrity: You sir, are a jackass.

by TM on Apr 15, 2011 11:26 am • link • report

@DavidC,

What are you talking about? This is a very simple and straightforward comparison and geography has nothing to do with it and if it did, it would make your argument worse because the District and the jurisdiction the MPD is in charge of is tiny.

The MPD (DC police department, not Arlington or PWC) has enough officers to provide 1 per 150 District of Columbia Citizens.

NYPD has 34,500 officers covering the boroughs of NYC with a combined population of ~8.3 million people, hence the ~240 citizens per officer.

What is it that you don't understand? You don't seem to think the comparison is useful, but cops per capita is exactly how every law enforcement agency in the US determines its manpower requirements.

Point is, we have tons of cops, the most per capita of any major metro in the US. If anything, the critisizm could be that they simply aren't patroling where they are needed.

by freely on Apr 15, 2011 11:28 am • link • report

Per capita cops is one convenient measure, but it doesn't take into account other relevant factors as to whether there are too many or too few, such as population density and overall socioeconomic characteristics. That said, what's a better initial measure?

by ah on Apr 15, 2011 11:34 am • link • report

freely, perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

Not every area needs the same number of police officers per capita. Wealthy areas and rural areas might need fewer for various socio-economic reasons.

Since no two cities have identical socio-economic demographics, no two cities have identical needs vis-a-vis law enforcement.

Thus, any comparison is apples to oranges.

Would you compare DC's per-capita law enforcement needs to those of Barre, VT? If not then you recognize that per-capita law enforcement is by no means one-size-fits-all. You need more police officers where you have more crime.

What, I might ask, is the crime rate per capita in each of those cities? The better measure might be officers per crime.

by David C on Apr 15, 2011 11:35 am • link • report

On the MID:

Canada does not have a mortgage interest deduction, yet they have a similar rate of home ownership to the US.

The biggest difference is in the kind of homes people buy and how they finance them. The MID encourages highly leveraged purchases of larger than necessary homes - buying a home becomes an investment decision instead of a housing decision.

In Canada, buying a home is a housing decision. Most mortgages are 15 year fixed rate because there is no incentive to go longer than necessary and increase your borrowing costs. Mortgages are paid off as soon as possible. I also believe there is a trend towards living within your means and buying homes that are within one's budget.

The MID is many things, but it does not increase home ownership.

by Alex B. on Apr 15, 2011 11:36 am • link • report

@Jag's black people and PG is afraid of rich, white people. Gotta love it!

Let's go ahead and get this out the way. The reason that "gentrification" is seen (however wrong) in the way it has been (white people) has a lot to do w/Jag's post.

Did the article mention that PG leaders were fearful of "rich, white" people or just gentrification?

And you all always rail against the notion that Jag him/herself posited? Hmph! I wonder why.

Also PG County hasn't had some of the highest income of blacks in the country just because. So no, "real" income ain't the issue here. They've had it for quite some time now.

by HogWash on Apr 15, 2011 11:39 am • link • report

The MID encourages highly leveraged purchases of larger than necessary homes - buying a home becomes an investment decision instead of a housing decision.

Just wanted to flag this: in addition to larger houses, doesn't "high leverage" enabled by MID also tend to increase the price of livable urban real-estate--since walkable RE in low-crime neighborhoods with good school is a scarce commodity? Could make the argument it drives up rents, too.

Anyway, the dynamic in the exurbs seems to be quite different from that in the cities and streetcar-suburbs.

(Disclaimer: I'm commenting on this issue Lance-style, since I've given it almost no thought, so take it for whatever it's worth.)

by oboe on Apr 15, 2011 11:46 am • link • report

I don't expect the Alexandria waterfront to ever amount to much more than a place for rich people to take their dogs for a crap.

by spookiness on Apr 15, 2011 11:46 am • link • report

@DavidC,

Again, you've lost me. I was very clear in my comparison that it only included similar large metropolitan areas.

Chicago, LA, NYC, Boston...

If I was comparing DC to Pleasantville Iowa that gets one murder every 19 years then yes, you would have a point.

by freely on Apr 15, 2011 11:54 am • link • report

I have removed a comment by TGEoA which used ad hominem attacks.

by David Alpert on Apr 15, 2011 12:20 pm • link • report

freely, the problem with your comparison is that those cities are not identical, not in anyway that matters to law enforcement. Just as Pleasantville, IA is different to DC. The murder rate in DC is different from the murder rate in both Pleasantville and in NYC (even on a per capita basis). So comparisons to both of those places are equally invalid.

by David C on Apr 15, 2011 12:25 pm • link • report

@David,

Yet you leave the ad hominem attack from oboe. Nice.

by TGEoA on Apr 15, 2011 12:29 pm • link • report

Look at this chart. DC's crime rate is more than twice as large as NYC's, of course we have more cops - we have more crime. Just as Pleasantville probably has fewer cops.

NYC covers an enormous area, including many more suburban areas, areas where they probably need few cops.

Crimewise, we're more comparable to Philadelphia. How many cops do they have per capita?

by David C on Apr 15, 2011 12:32 pm • link • report

@freely

NYPD is also pretty much the only police authority in the city. Much of D.C. is patrolled by other federal law enforcement agencies, notably the US Park Police which patrols about 20% of the city's land. D.C.'s population also raises 70% during the workweek to nearly double the city's resident population, which blows away New York City's 10% commuter rate. Of course, that's not to mention the numbers of non-residents who are here on nights and weekends. Go out to D.C.'s nightlife hotspots and see how many people out and about actually live in D.C. (my guess, maybe half?) but they still need police and other emergency services.

There's a lot that goes into figuring out how many officers are needed, and I don't think comparing DC to NYC is very useful in that regard.

by Adam L on Apr 15, 2011 12:35 pm • link • report

Correction to above: I didn't mean to say doubles our population, I meant to say that it pushes it over 1 million.

by Adam L on Apr 15, 2011 12:36 pm • link • report

TGEoA: How is saying he's commenting in the style of Lance an ad hominem attack? I agree it's not really a conversation-advancing statement, but but I don't think it warrants deletion.

by David Alpert on Apr 15, 2011 12:44 pm • link • report

@Adam,

You just made my point for me.

You yourself admit other police agencies patrol DC, removing responsibility rfom the MPD, but then you say you think MPD needs more?

In the District we have the 1800 capitol police force, 450 metro police, 200 DC Park Police officers, all specifically patroling the District of Columbia with the MPD.

Then ofcourse we have the thousands of Secret Service, Federal Protective Police, ATF, FBI and CBP agents driving, walking, working in DC. No, they aren't patroling a beat, but they are additional law enforcement bodies carrying guns that could step in if they saw something.

Realistically, the white collar crowd coming to DC 5 days a week to do their 9-5 aren't the ones committing the crimes in DC, but if you want to include those hours where the population reaches a million people, then fine the ratio is slightly higher than NYC, and still lower than Boston and LA.

by freely on Apr 15, 2011 12:55 pm • link • report

@TGEoA:

Yet you leave the ad hominem attack from oboe. Nice.

Sorry, inside joke. You missed the post from yesterday where Lance was quoted as saying he rarely thinks about his posts for more than a few seconds before commenting. And yet, somehow, they always seem to hit their target.

by oboe on Apr 15, 2011 12:59 pm • link • report

@David

I'm commenting on this issue Lance-style, since I've given it almost no thought

If "Lance-style" means "almost no thought" then it is ad-hominem.

by TGEoA on Apr 15, 2011 1:01 pm • link • report

@oboe , David

Fair nuff. Carry on.

by TGEoA on Apr 15, 2011 1:02 pm • link • report

@freely

I'm just pointing out that there are lots of dissimilarities which make DC unique from NYC which affect why comparing per-capita numbers of officers may not be the best approach. I have no idea if 3,800 officers is too many, too few, or just enough, but I imagine there are other ways of calculating what the appropriate number is.

by Adam L on Apr 15, 2011 1:41 pm • link • report

Let's go ahead and get this out the way. The reason that "gentrification" is seen (however wrong) in the way it has been (white people) has a lot to do w/Jag's post.

Did the article mention that PG leaders were fearful of "rich, white" people or just gentrification?
----------------------------------------------

Hmmm, gentrification used to mean "gay white people" then it morphs into "rich(er) white people"... and finally stops somewhere at "rich(er) people".

Kinda like newcomers to dc = "white people" or myopic twits = "white people".

This shorthand has been used for quite a awhile around DC. we all know what it means.

(and yes, we could go with the many more ways people say things to insult without insulting... or not.

PG was the richest black majority county in the USA at one point in time. Is it still?

by greent on Apr 15, 2011 1:43 pm • link • report

I don't know if DC needs more Police. But, there are two major reasons they are higher than Baltimore or other cities, whether it is apples to oranges or not, I am still comparing fruit.
First, DC is a MAJOR tourist destination, it probably has the highest number of tourists on a per capita basis of every major city in the country.

Second, it is the seat of government. Even if it is actually the Capitol Police, Secret Service, State Dept Security, etc responsible for large parts of the city, the MPD still has to provide some services and coordinate with these agencies.

by jonathan on Apr 15, 2011 2:00 pm • link • report

@greent, and who concluded that gentrification meant gay white people? To be honest, I never heard that one. Maybe that's what it meant in your neck of the woods.

The first time I ever heard the "gentrification crowd" be referred to as myopic twits was last fall. I don't ever recall hearing it before then. IMO, that would back up your claim that this "shorthand" has been used for quite a while in DC. Really? When?

I don't think there was any "read between the lines" there. Courtland explained exactly what he thought a myopic little twit is. Nothing subliminal there.

I don't know if PG is still the richest black county but if not, I'm sure it's still in the top 3.

by HogWash on Apr 15, 2011 3:13 pm • link • report

You'll take the mortgage interest deduction out of my cold, dead hands. I think the vast majority of its other recipients feel pretty much the same way. Yes, it distorts home sales. Yet if you remove it, we'll be looking at another housing collapse as homes go underwater and can't be sold. Not a particularly good idea in this economy.

by Fritz on Apr 15, 2011 4:06 pm • link • report

Yet if you remove it, we'll be looking at another housing collapse as homes go underwater and can't be sold

Not if done right. You don't just kill it and move along. You ease out of it. Grandfather people in or lower the cap over 25 years from 500,000 to 0.

by David C on Apr 15, 2011 4:11 pm • link • report

Re: Police numbers, I'm also curious as to how often the MPD officers are pulled off their beats to provide security for special events, whether it be a mass gathering at the Mall, a protest at the IMF or something like the Cherry Blossom Festival. I only personally know a couple of street cops, and it seems like they are asked to work insane amounts of overtime to police events like these, in addition to their normal duties.

by TJ on Apr 15, 2011 4:25 pm • link • report

Two things
On Pat Herrity's comments regarding the MWAA, I have to this point said that its not right to place the sins of the father upon the son. But this shows that Mr. Herrity is as much a goofball as his father, who is responsible for much of why transportation in Fairfax county is such a clusterf&&k, particularly Tysons Corner. So here we have something where the son has chimed in that something favored by the majority of his colleagues in Virginia is such a terrible wrong because it provides jobs with good and proper benefits to the very people he supposedly represents. People in Fairfax, lets remember this next election time OK?

On the number of police in DC vs other cities, the comparison IMO has little to do with crime rates. Instead its due to the fact that Washington is where the government is. People who have some real or imaginary gripe against "the government" come to Washington to make it right. If some friend of your second cousin tells you that the city council of Lincoln Nebraska made some decision 20 years ago that he disagrees with, you don't go to NY or Chicago or LA to complain about it. YOu go to Washington DC to make it right. You go up to the guard post at the white house and ask to see President Obama, because he is the only person in the world who can correct this situation. We deal with this every day with busloads of tourists coming to see the sights and museums of this city. Some of them are school children, and some are not. The whole point is they don't go on a bus trip to Los Angeles, they take a trip to DC because that is where the government is. The relative levels of crime in the two cities is not relevant to this--cops have to do what they can about street crime in any city, but in DC you have the added factor of people coming to see where the government is.

by rextrex on Apr 15, 2011 5:02 pm • link • report

@Hog:

When I moved to 14th & W, NW in 1999 - I was referred to as the "rich gay gentrifier" by the other residents of W St(that was the nicest modifier used). So, it's been around quite awhile. And it was a funny comment, as I was bartending -real rich job there and renting - not buying but yeah, I am white and of the ghey persuasion.

I don't know who "concluded" this is the way it is.. just like "new DC residents" = white people.... who concluded that? Been here for almost 20 years, but teenagers heckle me as a "newcomer". I've been here longer then they have been alive.

Maybe it is just a NW thing... but no, cuz my friends moved to 9th & H St, NE in 2000 and were called the "great white gentrifiers" by their 60 year old neighbor... so that's another 'hood and over a decade of usage.

Yeah, good ole MD living Milloy made up the myopic twit... but the sentiment is still the same, ain't it?

Maybe EoTR, these weren't heard... as "gentrification" stayed WoTR until recently? I honestly don't know who "Concluded" a use of a phrase... but as I always move into "bad" neighborhoods for cheaper rent (and it reminds me of home).. I've been hearing these phrases for over a decade - and it really was short hand for "the (white) gheys are coming".

I can't find anything more recent than 2009 - but at that time, PG was the richest in America. That kinda bodes well for MD - having PG and Montgomery... they have 2 of the top counties (by $) in USA. Nice.

by greent on Apr 15, 2011 5:20 pm • link • report

A lot of you don't understand that part of the purpose of the mortgage deduction is to encourage stability. Stable citizens = stable tax base.

by TGEoA on Apr 15, 2011 8:45 pm • link • report

@HogWash

"Did the article mention that PG leaders were fearful of "rich, white" people or just gentrification?"

I typed out a lengthy response, but it's completely unnecessary. Of course there's a race aspect to gentrification fears. Just like there's a race aspect to the fears at the Bethesda end of the line. Both extremes are laughable at best and pure racism at worst.

by jag on Apr 15, 2011 10:41 pm • link • report

A lot of you don't understand that part of the purpose of the mortgage deduction is to encourage stability. Stable citizens = stable tax base.

Perhaps you can make us understand. How does the mortgage deduction encourage stability? Is Canada, which has no MD, less stable than the US? If not, why not? I'm as always, eager to learn. And a little drunk. And terribly sexy.

by David C on Apr 15, 2011 11:16 pm • link • report

@Oboe You missed the post from yesterday where Lance was quoted as saying he rarely thinks about his posts for more than a few seconds before commenting. And yet, somehow, they always seem to hit their target.

Except that's not really what you said above in your ad-hominem attack is it? You said I'd said .... since I've given it almost no thought ... and I NEVER said that. I'd said something to the effect that it didn't take me long to think a matter out and respond to it. And that's NOT the same as 'giving it almost no thought'. That was, I think, Jasper's (?) 'spin' on what I'd said.

And you're correct TGEoA, that IS an ad-hominem attack ... just like Jasper's (?) original spinning of what I'd said. Neither of which were corrected by David.

by Lance on Apr 16, 2011 2:02 am • link • report

MoCo is now the richest majority-minority county.

by TimW on Apr 16, 2011 4:47 am • link • report

@ Lance: So, someone quotes you, and you defend yourself with something someone else said, but you can't really remember who said it, or what was actually said? Wow, that sounds convincing. Just defend your own words dude. And if you wanna drag someone in, then find the correct quote. Or go hang our with Jon #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement Kyl.

by Jasper on Apr 16, 2011 12:18 pm • link • report

I think the mortgage deduction for homeowners is a good thing because I think home ownership is a good thing. Homeowners take a greater financial risk when they buy a home; they're tied to it for a longer period of time. Their fortunes are more dependent on the long-term success of their communities, and they (should) take more interest in making sure that the community they live in thrives. Isn't a focus on the long-term success of a community something we should support?

by Amber on Apr 16, 2011 10:59 pm • link • report

Amber, that is the story we've been told - that homeownership creates better citizens. But a lot the research that showed that has been refuted since then. Here's an article by Ed Glaeser on it. According to him, the main positive externality of home ownership is better tended gardens. I think there are a lot of renters who are good citizens and are interested in making their community thrive.
On the downside, home owners can get trapped by their mortgage. The opposite of ownership is mobility - and we certainly want mobility. Many people in Detroit or other shrinking cities have stayed because they can't afford to sell their home at a loss and they hope to get a job where they are soon - even while they might have a job offer elsewhere. The things we own, eventually own us. We'd probably be better off with more renters.

by David C on Apr 16, 2011 11:46 pm • link • report

Sure, homeownership can be good for communities - except there's no reason to believe that the Mortgage Interest Deduction encourages home ownership at all - instead, it serves as a massive give-away to people who already have the means to be home owners.

In urban areas, there's evidence that it actually works against the idea of encouraging home ownership by increasing prices. In the Ed Glaeser piece David C linked to:

Problem #2: The deduction pushes up prices in places where the supply of new homes is constrained, as it is in many coastal markets. Economics 101 teaches us that if we subsidize demand where supply is inelastic then the only effect is to make prices go up. Housing supply is pretty constrained in places like New York City because of land-use restrictions and lack of land. In these places, the deduction doesn’t make housing more affordable. It just transfers money from buyers to sellers, and that makes little sense.

There's nothing wrong with renting from any sort of community perspective. It's far more important to encourage it in urban areas, because urban areas will naturally have lower rates of ownership simply due to the more complicated nature of multi-unit housing ownership.

by Alex B. on Apr 17, 2011 9:48 am • link • report