It’s not ‘affordable’ housing — it’s ‘subsidized’

The term “affordable housing” in the context as currently used in Santa Fe is the wrong terminology. All housing is affordable to someone. The more appropriate term is “subsidized housing,” which is housing provided at below-market rates subsidized by some entity other than the buyer.

Federal housing programs are subsidized by those who pay federal income taxes. State, county and city housing programs are subsidized by those who pay taxes to those governmental entities.

Not-for-profit housing programs such as Habitat for Humanity and Homewise are totally or partially subsidized by benefactors.

Below-market rate housing extorted from developers is subsidized by all the other homebuyers in those developments who make up the unreimbursed difference in the developer’s cost by charging more to them, ergo “subsidizing” those units.

But who is really being subsidized? I submit it is all the businesses that do not pay wages adequate to purchase even entry-level housing. I mean wages that would be double the often-touted $15 an hour. Oh, can you just hear the screams from those businesses? “I would go out of business if I had to pay that much!” “My customers won’t pay what I would have to charge!” Utter nonsense. Has it escaped everyone’s attention that the cities with the highest cost of living, say New York or San Francisco, all have active food, hospitality and service industries?

There are also some severe ramifications that result from the current push from the city and county for more housing developments: Increased traffic congestion; increased need for infrastructure; and increased water consumption.

Increased traffic: It would appear neither the city nor the county has the public funds or the political will to open new arterial streets through existing neighborhoods — Richards Avenue, for example. Gone are the days when St. Francis Drive and Paseo de Peralta were ripped through historic neighborhoods. So what will happen? Nothing. Get ready to spend a lot more time sitting at traffic lights, for increased travel times and experiencing increased traffic through residential neighborhoods as locals seek out alternate routes.

Increased infrastructure: New developments do not pay their way. The increased property taxes generated by new developments are never enough to pay for increased sewer and water treatment plants, new roads, new schools, libraries, parks and recreational facilities, etc. So get ready for an increase in your taxes to pay for the plethora of bond issues required to finance these facilities. Once again, you will be “subsidizing” housing. I have not heard discussion in this community about creating “impact fees” for developers to finance the necessary infrastructure that their developments create.

Increased water consumption: Every day we read about the decadeslong severe drought we are experiencing, about the Rio Grande running dry in Albuquerque and about farmers in Hatch not getting any irrigation water. Are we so politically schizophrenic that we cannot see the irony in promoting population growth in Santa Fe?

The great economic development myth that is always espoused is that a community has to grow in population to survive. This is clearly promoted by the business community as a way to expand its revenues. However, there are too many examples of communities with a stable population that can refute this theory. How about determining the environmental carrying capacity of the Santa Fe region instead, and limiting population to that? We ostensibly have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” However, we do not have the right to live wherever we please and be financially supported by others.

By the way, I am a liberal Democrat, a former small-business and downtown property owner, past president of several downtown associations, Chambers of Commerce and county economic development committees, and the architect for over 20,000 housing units, albeit in another, but similar, area.

Stuart H. Barger writes from La Puebla.