Contributing Editors

Jerome Lyle Rappaport

Jerome Lyle Rappaport
Founder and Board Member
Read Bio

Edward Glaeser

Edward Glaeser
Professor of Economics at Harvard University
Read Bio

Stephen P. Johnson

Stephen P. Johnson
Executive Director of Phyllis and Jerome Lyle Rappaport Foundation
Read Bio

Greg Massing

Greg Massing
Executive Director for the Rappaport Center for Law and Public Service
Read Bio

Alasdair Roberts

Alasdair Roberts
Professor of Law and Public Policy at Suffolk University Law School
Read Bio

Joseph Curtatone

Joseph Curtatone
Mayor, City of Somerville
Read Bio

Tim H. Davis

Tim H. Davis
Independent Research Consultant
Read Bio

Scott Harshbarger

Scott Harshbarger
Senior Counsel, Proskauer Rose LLP
Read Bio

Vivien Li

Vivien Li
Executive Director of The Boston Harbor Association
Read Bio

Guest contributors

Monika Bandyopadhyay
Suffolk University Law Student

David Barron
Harvard Law School and former Deputy Counsel for the Office of Legal Counsel in the US Department of Justice

Linda Bilmes
Senior lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. Assistant Secretary of Commerce during the Clinton Administration.

Brandy H.M. Brooks
Director, Rudy Bruner Award for Urban Excellence, Bruner Foundation

Felicia Cote
Rappaport Fellow, Harvard Law School/Harvard Kennedy School.

Amanda Eden
Suffolk University Law School student

Sara Farnum
Student, Suffolk Univ. Law School

Kristin Faucette
Student at Suffolk University Law School

Benjamin Forman
Research Director, MassINC

Arthur Hardy-Doubleday
JD/MBA student at Suffolk University Law School and the Sawyer School of Business

Theodore Kalivas
Boston Green Blog, Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy

David Linhart
Student, Boston University School of Law

Antoniya Owens
Research Analyst, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Susan Prosnitz
Senior Advisor, TSA, Washington, DC

Ben Thomas
Boston Green Blog, Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy

Matthew Todaro
Student at Boston College Law School

Alexander von Hoffman
Senior Researcher, Joint Center for Housing Studies

Brett Walker
Student, Boston College Law School

Margarita Warren
Student at Suffolk University Law School

Back Off From Our Housing Choices

Thursday, March 10th, 2011
By Edward Glaeser

In February the Obama administration took two modest but welcome steps toward toward reducing federal subsidies for suburbia by proposing changes to the home mortgage interest deduction. But President Obama should go further, and make the case that the American dream is found as easily in a skyscraper as in a ranch house. He should even ask his libertarian opponents to join in a fight against paternalistic public programs that artificially subsidize suburban life.

The administration’s report “Reforming America’s Housing Finance Market’’ argues that the public role in housing “does not mean our goal is for all Americans to be homeowners.’’ Instead, it says, “Americans should have choices in housing that make sense,’’ and, “This means rental options near good schools and jobs.’’ The report wants to “responsibly reduce Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s role in the market and ultimately wind down both institutions.’’ While they exist, the report urges them to charge more for mortgage guarantees, as if they were “private banks or financial institutions.’’

In a parallel initiative, the president’s budget would reduce the deduction write-off for families who make over $250,000. This change starts downsizing the home mortgage interest deduction, which, like Fannie and Freddie, bribes Americans to borrow more to buy bigger homes and leave cities for suburbs. Homeownership will always make sense for many Americans, but we don’t need to encourage people to borrow more money.

Much mischief has been worked by the mortgage subsidies that were explicit in the tax code and implicit in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The subsidies encouraged Americans to invest in houses instead of businesses that bring growth. They prodded Americans to build ever larger homes that use more energy. The subsidies are also regressive. According to economists James Poterba and Todd Sinai, the deduction’s benefits are 10 times greater for families earning more than $250,000 than for middle income families.

Some argue that mortgage subsidies support wealth accumulation, but it seems odd to encourage saving by subsidizing borrowing. Interest subsidies lead homeowners to pull equity out of their homes, and Freddie and Fannie were part of the proliferation of low-money-down mortgages that made saving unnecessary for prospective homebuyers.

The great housing convulsion of the past decade illustrates that housing prices can crash as well as soar, and that encouraging Americans to make leveraged bets on housing can lead to a foreclosure society instead of an ownership society.

These home-borrowing subsidies also pull people out of America’s urban centers. More than 85 percent of people in detached homes are owner-occupiers, in part because renting leads to home depreciation. More than 85 percent of people in larger buildings rent. Since ownership and structure type are closely connected, subsidizing homeownership encourages people to leave urban high-rises and move into suburban homes.

The Obama administration has more enthusiasm for cutting home-borrowing subsidies than curbing federal funding for sprawl-inducing infrastructure, and that’s a shame. The proposed budget continues to increase highway spending, when we really need a profound commitment to using cost-benefit analysis for all transportation spending, road and rail alike.

The battles over the policies, like homeownership subsidies, that impact cities are often seen as fight over federal largesse, which leads to old, painful conflicts between urban Democrats and suburban Republicans. But a better framework might start with a respect for individual freedom that should cut across party lines.

Every Tea Party member should be willing to affirm that the federal government has no business shoehorning Americans into a particular lifestyle. That affirmation naturally leads to the conclusion that the government should stop socially engineering suburban lifestyles by subsidizing homeownership. Shouldn’t Americans be free to choose the city or suburb that suits them best without the federal government prodding them toward low-density living?

Edward L. Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard University, Director of the Rappaport Institute, is author of the forthcoming book “The Triumph of the City.’’ His column appears regularly in the Globe.  


Comments

No comments have been added.

(required, but never shown publicly)

» Show all posts

U.S. Representative Barney Frank speaking at the Harvard Kennedy School, cosponsored by the Rappaport Institute.
Statnet panel of current and former heads of local performance management programs including Stephanie Hirsch (far right), former head of SomerStat and Devin Lyons-Quirk, third from right.
Gov. Deval Patrick speaking at the Rappaport Center's Gubernatorial Speakers Series
HKS Professor Jeffrey Liebman (left) spoke about new ways to spur policy innovation at a State House briefing sponsored by State Representative (and former Rappaport Urban Scholar) Charles Murphy (right).
Triumph of the City: Ed Glaeser talks about his new book on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
 MA Attorney General Martha Coakley Hearing on Sexual Exploitation Online
Arianna Huffington and Alan Khazei speaking at the Rappaport Center
Mayor Menino attends Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Course for high school students
Former Lt. Governor Kerry Healey speaks about political parity at the Rappaport Center

News and Events


Add your Event

Word Cloud