Here in Washington DC — the land of bureaucratic plenty — the various regional governments have become obsessed with “affordable” housing. Affordable for government workers, that is. In my neighborhood, a Democratic city council candidate has proposed “city living salary supplements” to get police, firefighters and teachers to move into the District:
The supplement would recognize the increased cost of living in the District and the benefit to the community of having them with in the city limits. [Candidate Cary] Silverman would advocate that the city set an ambitious goal of have 33% living within the District by 2010 and 50% by 2012.
Similarly, the City of Falls Church, Virginia, is trying to rig the local tax system to subsidize 174 “affordable” housing units. The local newspaper opined that residents must accept a possible tax increase to support the deal, because, “taxpayers, through their government, at all levels in this land, have a fundamental responsibility to provide for the general welfare of the public, and that includes putting roofs over people’s heads when they can.”
And last year, the treasurer of Arlington County, Virginia, tried to use $30 million from the county’s reserves to subsidize below-market mortgages for county employees. Not coincidentally, the treasurer had just weathered a tough reelection campaign and he was looking to strengthen his support among local bureaucrats.
Indeed, if you’re running for local office, housing subsidies for government employees is a great platform. You’re bribing the bureaucrats outright, and the remaining voters are duped into thinking this will improve public services. To quote the article on Cary Silverman’s proposal, “Silverman has said he will work tirelessly to help public servants become more accessible to the community by living here.”
Of course, as more government workers move into the communities they “serve,” there will be fewer people to generate the tax revenue to support them. After all, government workers pay no taxes, as Murray Rothbard explained. Every dollar paid to them is money confiscated from non-government sources. And yet that’s not enough to allow the bureaucrats to completely control the government, so now they must be subsidized further so they can further dilute the electoral strength of the remaining wealth producers.
{ 7 comments }
Fundamental “responsibility”? Yeah, Silverman has one – keeping his mouth shut.
How is it “ambitious” to allow for a measly 1 out of 3 firemen, teachers, etc. to live in the community they serve?
Your post assumes that readers agree that it’s ambitious or naive or ridiculous, when it sounds every bit of reasonable. Please expand more about why it should remain difficult for teachers to reach their students. Please expand more about why firemen should have to arrive 12 hours before their shift to ensure they’re on time.
Don’t assume people will agree with you because you cite a random article; try explaining why it’s a bad idea. Will it hurt these cities? Or is it more that it helps a certain group of people and not all others?
Matt,
I agree with Mr. Oliva. When government is using my tax dollars to pay for it, then yes, I have a right to call such a scheme naive and ridiculous. The onus of justification is on you, not us, when you’re spending *my* money. Also, it’s not economically sound to try to justify below-market mortgages to the nomenklatura.
The author forgot another “benefit” of having the public employees live within the municipality they serve: they’re a source of political support for their benefactor (and, to a degree, controllable by that benefactor). More available for contributions of one or another sort or for volunteered time. It’s a mess and always will be.
If truly this is something the people want then couldn’t they make it happen without government interference. Could not the homeowner or builder sell at a discount to such a person? Could not the bank decide that such people can access a better mortgage? Cannot those who plan to lease living space also choose to do so at a discount? At best, this is a plan to allow those who value this warm fuzzy, acquire this value in part by stealing from those who do not value this warm fuzzy.
This is the exact opposite of how it would work in a model classical liberalism city. In a model classical liberalism city the services are private and if the provider decides to use that income to purchase property in the classical liberalism city either as a residence or a place of business then he (or she) becomes a member of the private city ‘Association’ with full rights of membership.
It is the membership that accepts and abides by and potentially modifies the covenant that defines the aesthetics and ordinances of the city and those who visit for business or leisure know that they must respect that culture if they wish to enjoy the fruits of that prosperous place.
When criminals are not allowed entry then there is no need to distort the system (by penalizing the good citizens to subsidize ‘public workers’) to protect against them.
Criminals and degenerates will have to transform themselves into productive and virtuous persons or they will have no place to go, except to far off desolate places, when all cities are classical liberalism cities.
Quote from Matt: “How is it “ambitious” to allow for a measly 1 out of 3 firemen, teachers, etc. to live in the community they serve?”
Why would it matter where a teacher or firefighter lives? When they are at home, they are not working. If you feel its important for your “public servants” to live in your community, then you should buy them a home there.
Comments on this entry are closed.