No Moral High Ground for Affordable Housing

No Religious-Sanctioned Moral High Ground for Anaheim Affordable Housing
Affordable housing has become a political football in Anaheim. It has become a highly symbolic contest which attracts ill-informed media attention -- David-the little-guy versus the corporate Goliath of Disneyland, the proletariat laborers versus the bourgeoisie tourists, immigrants versus the Minutemen, "faith-based" groups versus the profit motive.

Now the Congregation Community Organization wants a group of powerful Catholic churches to enter the contest to religiously bless 200 affordable housing units in the new proposed 1,500-unit housing development located adjacent to Disneyland on 26.7-acres of city-owned land. Disneyland has sued the City to stop incompatible affordable housing in a tourist-zoned area (see "Church members demand housing," June 18). http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1732793.phpIs there a faith-based rationale for sanctioning affordable housing in the new proposed housing development? Seeking a religious-backed moral justification for affordable housing is highly problematic on both empirical and theological grounds.First, 175,418, or 53%, of Anaheim residents are Hispanic, presumably a large portion illegal immigrants. The poverty rate in Anaheim is 9.6%, which is 3.6% less than the State poverty rate of 13.2% and 3.1% less than the 12.7% national poverty rate (see U.S. Community Survey Census - 2005). The reason there is relatively less poverty in Anaheim is the "golden egg" of Disneyland. How can there be an affordable housing crisis if such a large proportion of migrants already live in Anaheim with a lower poverty rate than the average for California? Secondly, the obvious major cause of the so-called affordable housing crisis in Southern California is immigration itself. Government population policies have resulted in waves of new immigrants who typically obtain housing in "landing pad" neighborhoods in politically receptive communities near black-market jobs centers and wholesale markets (e.g., food, clothing, hospitality, and tourist markets).

Such neighborhoods typically consist of the oldest housing stock on small lots. Such housing stock has conventionally been what are called "starter homes" for first-time homebuyers. It is the first rung on the housing economic ladder. But with rampant immigration, such cheap housing has been monopolized by immigrants who, by doubling up in single family homes and apartments, overwhelm the market.

This pushes native first-time homebuyers out into the urban fringe to look for affordable housing. This is called the "push down/pop up" phenomenon because if you push natives out of cheap housing near jobs in the urban areas they pop up out in the suburbs. This pattern of "dumb growth" is what worsens our traffic, schools and air congestion problems as well as homelessness by removing former "flop houses" from the market.

What all this means is that there is no moral high ground advocating low-income housing in a "push down/pop up" world that concurrently displaces workforce housing out to the suburbs and edge cities. Paraphrasing economist Tom Sowell, "there are no affordable housing solutions, only tradeoffs."

Since when did affordable anything become an ethical-religious issue? Isn't the term faith-based affordable housing a contradiction in terms? Since when was it a Christian obligation to erect luxury affordable housing in pricey upscale locations with gyms, pools, spas, and adjacent to public transportation stations (light rail)? What about faith-based affordable automobiles, cosmetic surgery, or mink coats?

Affordable housing is something small, old, with few luxuries, and not near commercial and transit services; unaffordable housing is new with many amenities and located near public services. Why are they trying to build affordable housing in luxury locations? And wouldn't building low income housing units in luxury housing complexes in upscale locations be a "double dip" by not only turning old residential neighborhoods over to immigrants but also asking newcomer apartment renters and condo owners to subdidize the rents and prices of such affordable units as "inclusionary housing" ordinances do? Affordable housing advocates can't have it both ways - pushing citizen house buyers out to the suburbs and edge cities with the extra commuting costs and then taxing those who want to live near urban job centers again by making them subsidize the people who displaced them. Where is the religious mandate for luxury affordable housing when immigrants (God bless them) have squatted on the most desirable cheap housing near job centers?Instead of Christian leaders taking a transcendent stance of reconciliation and gratitude in such contentious matters as affordable housing they have embraced the highly polarizing entitlement and activist models of secular politics. Christianity is not a political, therapeutic, or social work project. It is declaring that "you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's house...with Jesus Christ as chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:19-22).

Helping immigrants to count their blessings of living in a country that has turned over some of its most desirable housing stock to immigrants would be a better Christian starting point to heal the growing divisiveness in our country over immigration. A Catholic Mass of Thanksgiving for America and the City of Anaheim allowing immigrants to live in highly desirable locations near jobs centers could send a signal of transcendence and reconciliation on the issue of affordable housing. It would also avoid killing the "Golden Goose" of tourism which sustains immigrant housing and jobs in the community of Anaheim.