Monday, May 8, 2006
Here are two contrasting footnotes in the nation’s affordable housing crunch. Today, the Washington Post writes that land in Manhattan is now so valuable for housing that gas stations have all but disappeared from the island. By contrast, NPR reported yesterday on the troubles of Newark, New Jersey, just ten miles west of Manhattan. Once one of America’s largest cities, Newark’s population has fallen from over 430,000 in 1950 to only about 280,000 today. The median home price is, according one source, only about $222,000, less than half that of the entire metro area.
The contrast is striking: On one hand, there is a dearth of land for housing; ten miles away, a city has lost 150,000 people over the past 50 years. Why isn’t the latter a partial solution to the former? The reason is not that Newark is inconvenient. A quick train ride away and close to the Hudson River tunnels, New Jersey’s largest city makes for a gloriously rapid commute by New York standards. The reason for its unpopularity is, of course, Newark’s social problems. Despite the nationwide fall in crime and the revitalization of cities, Newark remains one of America’s most dangerous cities (the NPR story quoted a high school student who said he is afraid of murder and crime each day). Newark, a great majority of whose residents are either black or Latino, has a median family income of only about $29,000 – less than half of the state average.
There IS affordable housing and buildable land for such housing in America’s expensive metro areas. But because most citizens refuse to move to areas occupied by poor people and with crime (and I'll leave unanswered the question whether an area would become more popular if the crime were to fall but the demographics remained unchanged), the vacant lots remain.
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Can UberPOOL Make Carpooling Cool?
- Are Earth Day cookies an endangered species?
- Fordham Urban Law Center's Sharing Economy | Sharing City Conference - April 24
- Land Use, Telescopes and Sacred Land in Paradise
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances