January 27, 2006

Of two minds on affordable housing

By Harry L. Cook
Ashland

Your Jan. 21 editorial boosting tourism makes economic sense, but the part on affordable housing raises questions. Lower taxes and higher incomes for young families would be good too. But how do we get there?

The reason that housing costs are so high in Ashland is because it is a very nice place to live, and prices are high because demand is high. Can you imagine what it would be like with affordable housing?

But, closing our eyes to the inevitable consequences, I think that the bottom line is that we can’t have affordable housing in Ashland without public subsidy, either hidden or open. The city could make a token gesture by providing a few homes or apartments, but this would only help a few and hardly make a dent in the real problem.

For a real solution to provide affordable housing for all who would like to live here, you seem to be of two minds on public subsidy. You deride it and then embrace it. On the one hand you say that taking the money from here and there would be a bureaucratic nightmare. But then you seem to say that using tourist money, which is part of the spin cycle, would be a good idea.

You suggest growth and cogs to foster that growth. You like development and something to bolster our economic base all seemingly oblivious to the glories of economic growth in the form of still more traffic congestion, more pollution in an already polluted valley, more taxes, etc.

For some problems there is no really good solution, only the least worst. A permanent small town character for Ashland may be hopeless, but we don’t have to hasten the day of its demise by our own misguided policies. A noble but impossible dream — affordable housing in an area in which market prices for housing are among the highest in the nation while maintaining some semblance of small town atmosphere.