Could encouraging renting provide a more sustainable future — and a better quality of life for all of us? In Greater Greater Washington, David C. makes a timely argument about why we should encourage renting and mobility to reduce sprawl (via Streetsblog LA):
Some have been advocating that the government stop subsidizing home ownership, arguing that it locks people to a place, and when the economy goes sour people need the flexibility to go where the jobs are. I would say that we need to take it farther and that, in addition to allowing the unemployed to move to work, encourage the employed to move closer to work.
Pointing out that we currently have a lot of tax incentives that encourage home ownership — and along with those incentives, the unpleasant effects of sprawl and long commutes — David argues for public policies that encourage renting apartments, along with tax incentives for living near workplaces.
With links to related articles from The Atlantic, NPR, and other outlets, David’s post’s a very thought-provoking read. The comment stream on his post’s interesting too; I especially enjoyed reading Emily’s two cents:
Now back to the issue of rent being a “waste” of money. How is it a waste to exchange money for the right to live somewhere? My rent is reasonable, and renting enables me to live in a city center, near my job, great restaurants, public transportation, etc. That’s all value added for me, since purchasing a home right now would mean moving to the suburbs, driving more, and seeing my community of friends less. Add in the money I save by renting (and sharing my apartment with a friend), and I don’t feel like I’ve wasted anything. That extra money is used for my retirement fund, vacations, entertainment, etc. So renting helps increase my long-term financial stability while also increasing my quality of life.
I share many of Emily’s reasons for renting. As longtime readers know, I’m not a huge fan of the “American Dream” of home ownership. As a renter, I love that I’m able to walk to my friends’ places and bike to the beach. If I wanted to own a house, I’d have to give up these great amenities — and my social life and general happiness level would suffer because of it.
And while my commute wouldn’t be affected by a move since I work at home, I think this huge time-sucking issue should be one that people consider much more seriously before plunking down the money to buy a home. Too many people seem so attracted to the idea of owning a house that they willingly sign the dotted lines — and lose 4+ hours in every weekday of their lives just getting to and from work —
Earlier: Live near work, save planet and money and time and Masochism and westside traffic — a post in which I recommend reading Your Money or Your Life. Someone should write a book called Your Own Home or Your Life.
Photo by andropolis
Update, 5/18/09: Get naked, or get angry — for a better commute
The one argument FOR home ownership which I have heard and which makes sense is that it instills more pride in most people than renting. Therefore, many communities aim to have 50%+ owner-occupied units. I’m sure you’ve met people who just don’t care about their apartment because they don’t own it, and they aren’t financially responsible for damage and upgrades. I’m not saying it’s everyone, it’s just more common with renters than owners. Personally, I trim my hedges, clean the communal laundry room, and even caulked a window screen on my rental unit. But I don’t think a lot of people would do that. Then again, ownership isn’t for everyone either. But like downtown lofts have shown us (and I know there are positives and negatives to lofts), you CAN own something in a dense neighborhood. Condos and co-ops are rampant in most cities, some that are much more dense than LA.
Unfortunately, driving is sort of necessary most of the time. My boyfriend works in Culver City, I work in Sherman Oaks (and go to grad school in Northridge), and we decided to live sort of in between: West Hollywood. However, we walk almost everywhere on the weekends, including Trader Joes, the Hollywood Farmer’s market, movie theaters, bars, restaurants, and the Red Line (so we can take the train downtown). We love our neighborhood! I’m debating trying to take public transit to work one of these days (20 minute walk to the red line and then I think 40 minutes on a subway and a bus), and my boyfriend is considering biking the 10 miles to work, too.
My boyfriend told me when he was at USC in the last 90s there were administrators who commuted everyday from Victorville, which was becoming a bedroom community. That’s about 100 miles away! But at the time, he said you could get a house for $175,000. :-/
Comment by Meredith — February 26, 2009 @ 8:35 am
Hi Siel – I’m so happy to read this and am sorry that I missed your article from last October. I rarely meet anyone else like me who has no interest in owning a home. Friends and relatives look at me like I have two heads. Even Obama talks about home ownership as if it’s a basic human right.
Everything I need is within walking distance, I don’t spend my life stuck in a car commuting, and I have a community. I suppose buying a home in the city would be a nice trade-off but they are simply unaffordable and they are much too big.
I agree and disagree with Meredith. I think how a rental property is treated depends on whether the landlord keeps up the property and on who is renting. Overall, college students take less care than a settled family. And you should see some of the homes in rural Vermont where my family lives. They aren’t taken care of at all and frequently look worse than an uncared for apartment building in the city.
Comment by Kim Woodbridge — February 26, 2009 @ 11:35 am