The Morality of Housing

By Charles Houston

I called actor Eddie Murphy. “Eddie, this is Charlie Houston in Virginia. How’re you doing, guy?”

“Do I know you?” he answered.

“Not yet, but I want your help,” I said.

Eddie was unsure but polite. “How can I help you?”

“Well, Eddie, we want to move to Beverly Hills near you but it’s pricey. Can you talk to your mayor, and see if there’s a way the town can provide us with an Affordable Dwelling Unit? Something really nice.”

“Huh? You serious, man?” Eddie was now irked.

“Sure. It’ll be ‘Coming to Beverly Hills 90210,’” I answered. “You know, like your movie ‘Coming to America.’”

Eddie had enough. “Dude, you need to get your own house. Why are we supposed to help you?”

“Because it’s the right thing to do,” I implored.

Eddie hung up.

Frustrated, I started thinking and soon had an idea. I’d delve into the philosophy of housing and see what I could find. I’d start at the new Gypsy encampment near Lovettsville. I had seen signs: “Madame Leora, Mystic and Fortune Teller.” She could help me.

Leora was ensconced in a small tent. A worn oriental rug was on the floor; incense was in the air. Candles flickered, shedding dim light. I handed over a credit card, and sat comfortably. The mystic produced a small glass of a brown liquid. “Drink this,” she said. “Relax and we will talk.”

I obliged and soon felt mellow and warm.

“What do you seek?” she asked me.

I told her, “I am interested in the morality of housing, and what duty citizens have to others.”

“Whom do you think can guide you in your search?” she asked.

“Let’s try great philosophers or political economists,” I answered, “Like Plato, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill. Karl Marx.”

Leora recognized the names. “We can reach them from a séance.”

“Let’s do it,” I replied. Her concoction was working and I was amenable to her suggestion.

Most of the candles were extinguished. More incense was burned. Leora chanted softly. Soon I saw them. Plato in a red robe, balding and bearded. A stern face. Adam Smith, in 18th century fashion with a powdered wig. Mill balding and serious-looking. Big-headed and bushy-bearded Marx. They began philosophizing.

Mill’s classical liberalism maintained that liberty put individual freedom above domination by the state. Adam Smith supported that notion. There was an “Invisible Hand,” he said, by which individuals pursuing their self-interest produced societal good. I wasn’t sure. Is the proliferation of breweries good or bad? Can a neighbor convert his home to some noxious use?  How about homebuilders who bring sprawl?  

Marx intoned his different perspective, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. That’s the moral course.” I saw a smirk beneath his whiskers.

Plato wrapped things up, “What is the basis of moral and social obligation?” He answered his own question, “Seek wisdom to understand the good, which will ensure a good communal life in society.”

I sank deeper into my seat and thought for a while. “I thank each of you gentlemen. You may return from whence you came but please return if I need you.” 

I looked at Madam Leora. She waved a bejeweled hand and the philosophers vanished. “Are you satisfied,” she asked me.

“Yes, but a bit confused. I also realize something.”

“What?” she asked.

“Well, philosophers’ beliefs are simply their opinions. Well thought-out and deftly explicated, but just opinions nevertheless. So why would not my opinions be just as valid?”

“They would be,” replied the mystic as she returned my credit card. “Go and form your own ideas.”

I did just that. The primacy of the individual was an enticing thought, but Plato had it right. If we are a moral and civil society, then the goal is a “good communal life,” and to reach that we need a social contract with some moral obligation to care for others. A safety net, as it were. Under that contract, recipients also have a duty, usually, to live in a civil and productive manner. The Greek philosopher’s focus on “wisdom” becomes crucial. We help through governmental taxation and spending (though “wisdom” often fails to apply to governments, and we have no choice in the matter) we help through individual charity, and in the case of land conservation, zoning is supposed to achieve a balance of uses that benefits us all. 

Loudoun County government is now focused on providing affordable housing to lower-income households, as part of an “Unmet Housing Needs Strategic Plan.” This is an impenetrable 265-page tome which seems to be the premise to use zoning or other incentives, to compel or incent developers to build Affordable Dwelling Units, or “ADUs” as they are usually called.  

I tested the plan with a reality check. Did it include the word “roommate”? Yep, but only about four times, mostly in a negative context like, “I had to get a roommate.” Nowhere did I see a positive statement that applies to most twenty-somethings, “A roommate and I were able to get a nice apartment.” The plan thus ignored that staple dwelling arrangement for young adults. Well, how about the word “marry,” as in “When I marry, my spouse and I will have two incomes and can buy a house.” Nope, that concept is completely absent in the 265 pages.

Should government be in the housing market? I conjured the philosophers and they promptly materialized. Marx said yes, while Mill and Adam Smith said no. Plato, the wisest of the bunch, said, “Maybe.” Regardless of differing opinions, the ADU train is leaving the station, and our County has issued a Request for Proposals from developers who would build affordable apartments.

A better approach would be to give housing assistance directly to those who qualify, and empower them to choose what kind of housing, and where, they want. I’ve lost that argument, unfortunately. 

The County’s plan suggests that the selected developer will build an entire lower-rent apartment complex. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. It would soon become nothing more than project housing, where the poor are concentrated in one area. This eviscerates any desire for a diverse environment. 

Concentrating the less-well-off in a single location never works. A classic example was the notorious Pruitt-Igoe project in St. Louis. Its 2,800 units in multiple buildings started deteriorating shortly after opening. It became almost completely segregated, and was the poster child of failed urban renewal projects. Pruitt-Igoe was spectacularly dynamited in the 1970’s.

Another caution was described by Roberta Gratz in Common Edge (an architectural website with a progressive slant) who says that many neighborhoods in New York have been up-zoned based on claims promising diversity and affordable housing, but none of these promises were realized, and perversely the up-zoning created the opposite conditions: less diversity, fewer affordable units, and whiter, wealthier neighborhoods as developers had their way with the new zoning. Could this happen here? 

“Yes, it could,” said Adam Smith warned, with John Stuart Mill concurring. However, Karl Marx was optimistic and assertive, “The state works for the common good.” Plato demurred, “Let me illustrate the answer.”

“Assume that there are two apartment buildings in Athens,” he stated. “Parthenon Pines has young people just out of college, living with roommates; single mothers; married adults who don’t want the responsibilities of a house; wealthy retirees; elderly people in smaller flats; lower-income families with children. It’s very congenial. Acropolis Creek only has tenants who are economically disadvantaged. Which is the better?” 

---

Charles Houston developed office buildings for an Atlanta-based firm. He lives in Paeonian Springs.