3 Less-Than-Helpful Things Concerning the Housing Crisis (Plus 3 Out-Of-The-Box Solutions)

It's probably at least once a week that I see posts in our area's community Facebook page where folks with a tone of desperation are reaching out- frantically searching for housing. Sometimes they are folks I know, and sometimes they are total strangers. Sometimes they are long-time locals, and sometimes they are newcomers. Sometimes they are single, and sometimes they are families. Their needs are the same- some sort of semi-permanent or permanent home that they can be secured of in a price point lower than the $2000 + a month range. That seems to be the new price point of our area's meager offering of rentals.

It's heartbreaking. It's also easy to get jaded about this housing crisis as it is a long-term fixture in our area. Too, any time we encounter a problem that keeps coming up again and again that we have little to no personal agency to solve, let alone make any headway on, we tend to have an innate reaction of apathy to some degree just as a protective mechanism for our own sanity. It's normal and natural to want to throw up our hands or wash them of the whole business. We want to walk away from the mess either mentally or physically.

One of the reasons I keep posting on this topic is that I don't like that apathy, normal though it is. It's important to realize that with each name, there is a story of a person whose life is now thrown into chaos because they are lacking one of life's fundamental needs- a roof over their heads.

In various discussions and commentary surrounding housing, I've noticed some common themes in folks' commentary. Here are some of what I hear and see that I could do without:

1. Blame the victims 

This can come in a variety of statements. Locals get blamed for voting for tax increases, for instance. "Well, you did this to yourselves by voting to raise the community's property taxes!" We get blamed for having pets (it is harder to rent with cats or dogs). We even get blamed for "choosing" to live here, "It's an expensive place to live, if you don't like that, you should move someplace else". 

Of course, none of this mentality is new, especially when you consider those who are homeless. How many times have we heard the jib "Get a job, you bum!"? This kind of erroneous thinking was deconstructed in the song "Underwear goes inside the pants", by Lazyboy, making the point that homelessness many time is driven by mental health issues which are not a choice.

Blaming the victim mentality goes far further back, of course. We only have to look to the Book of Job in the Bible. Folks he knew were sure Job's trials were due to his sin, but they weren't. This tendency is ancient and I believe it serves to separate the thinker from the sufferer, preventing the necessity of reaching out and helping. After all, if people dug their own grave, that absolves us from the responsibility of helping to get them out of it. 

2. Recognize that some solutions don't work for everyone

Another thing I've heard are statements suggesting that people just don't know how to leverage this system to get a place. They might suggest a family should just pick up and move to another area, not considering the close personal ties that they may have or the large financial cost of moving. In the case of Resort Town Colorado, they suggest moving to another cheaper town in the area (for us, that town doesn't really exist within commuting distance.)

They suggest to renters who are struggling to stay afloat that home-ownership is the answer. Home ownership after all will give them stability; avoiding constantly rising rent and increasingly fickle landlords who may kick them to the curb at any time. And, in a way, they are absolutely right. However, what are the barriers to home ownership?

They wonder why people haven't been able to save money to afford a purchase and suggest they start setting money aside by budgeting, scrimping and saving. "Give up Starbucks, you'll be able to afford your own place in no time!" In our area, houses below three quarters of a million dollars are becoming few and far between, and those below $500,000 are nearly extinct. Say you were able to find one of those "bargains" at a half million. If you were able to set aside $100 a month towards your future purchase by economizing, that would be roughly $1,200 a year. Not too shabby, right?! If you kept up that same rate, you could save up a 10% down payment in about 41 years. Hope you'll be able to pay the mortgage of $2,250 a month by then- sorry, that doesn't include property taxes or insurance.

Speaking of downpayments, people also mention down payment assistance (a great program that does help!) as a magic bullet to get people into home ownership. Or, they will mention Habitat for Humanity, which certainly does a lot of good! Unfortunately, some of our working class people fall outside the parameters of this program. These are all great ideas, but pointing them out to folks who don't fit the criteria is like pointing out amusement park rides through a fence to a child who only has 2 nickels in his pocket.

Even if a person was able to obtain downpayment assistance, that person would also have to compete in a housing market that has other folks waving around cash offers above asking price. That's to say, they'd have to compete! They'd also have to afford monthly mortgage, property tax and insurance on the high-priced place. Places that might actually be within reach are manufactured homes, which many banks will not lend for. Places that have manufactured homes also don't always include the land, which leaves the buyer paying lot rent ad infinitum. Doesn't exactly sound like a starter home environment, does it?

3. Support inaction

Our local government and our local people can sometimes create barriers to solutions as well. Trailers, RVs and manufactured homes cannot just be placed on a parcel of land, for a land owner to live in (the unsightly-ness!). NIMBYism drives opposition to new affordable housing and trailer parks. (NIMBY =Not In My Backyard). Folks who choose to camp permanently as a solution are forced to move sites frequently as a deterrent to this lifestyle. Irony of ironies, you can park your RV right in your driveway or on your land as long as no one is living there. RVs as displays of wealth are allowed, but displays of habitation are not!

Any time a proposition comes forward, people fight about it. They may feel it won't go far enough. They may feel it goes too far. It may not be affordable enough. It will cost too much. It's natural to want the best plan, but we keep finding ourselves with no new affordable or attainable housing being built. You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Lastly, they may have decided that since the housing crisis is someone else's problem, they don't need to step in or make their voice heard. This damages our community, because we are all interconnected. When we lose those citizens who are forced to leave to prevent their own homelessness, we lose community. Our child's best friend moves away. We cause destabilization. We contribute to the loss of employees and increase the cost of doing business because employee turnover is expensive. For those who manage to stay, but to the detriment of their pocketbook, we create workaholism, absentee parenting, and stress. We create a culture of people living paycheck to paycheck because they can't save to get ahead when all their money is going to rent increases.

We need to change how we're thinking about housing. We need to recognize it's a value to be invested in, that those who need it most don't have the means to solve the problems. The problems existed before them and will continue to exist as long as we don't build the options we need for people in every class.

Now, here are some potential ideas that may be practical solutions in some cases:

1. Intergenerational Housing

Having roommates can be challenging, but what if we have roommates who are our own children, nieces or nephews? Intergenerational Housing has been the norm throughout the world for much of human history. Yet, we speak of a 30 year old who's living in their parents' basement as some sort of failure and a pox on our society. Many of the larger homes in our area are out of reach for a single family, but could be within reach if parents and adult children pooled their resources. Likewise, siblings could share housing. Instead of looking down on this type of arrangement, we can normalize it as a potential solution. Use of written agreements and a set of expectations from all parties decided beforehand can help minimize the potential for familial conflict.

2. ADUs and Resident Owned Communities

Accessory Dwelling Units are apartments or dwellings attached to another, usually larger dwelling. They allow an already established home to create a living space for someone else in our community. They can go a long way towards serving the needs of folks in a variety of situations. New homes could be encouraged to include an apartment in the basement or garage as a way to help someone whose stretching to pay that higher mortgage, thus helping the homeowner and a renter at the same time.

Resident Owned Communities are typically trailer parks or tiny home parks that are not owned by a landlord, but the residents themselves. This allows the lot rent to be used to support the community's upkeep and maintenance and to keep costs low. As far as options that are possible at the lowest price tag, this one is definitely a great option.  Land would need to be purchased, and utilities run to each space. That could be the extent of the investment, which is a fraction of the cost of traditional apartments or houses. It would be fast, too. Residents could then buy their way into the community bringing their own place or some mobile homes could be placed ahead of time. Some lots could be rented or rented to own for those who aren't yet ready or capable of buying into the community. This would increase stability in our community and there is available land near some of our existing trailer parks.

3. Reframing our market-based housing assumptions. 

Folks sometimes assume home owners are the only ones affected with widespread property tax increases. This couldn't be further from the truth. Renters hurt because homeowners are always going to pass their costs on. Rises in property taxes for businesses has made the rental market even more unstable.

 What if, instead of using real estate sales as the basis of our conception of home value, which drives an insanity spiral of tax increases for both renters and owners alike, we reformed the tax code surrounding property taxes? We could divorce our property tax valuation from the market entirely and just create a formula where everyone paid based on square footage, everyone paid a flat rate, we paid by the number of occupants, or so on. We don't have to use the real estate market as a basis for our tax code, we are just used to doing things this way.

Speaking of real estate, instead of taxing the property owners (and therefore the renters) so heavy handedly, why don't we shift some of the tax burden onto the real estate transactions? Last week's real estate sales in our county were lower than most recent weeks at 10 million. Even a transaction tax of a fraction of a percent could generate a lot of local tax revenue in no time! Now imagine if we had the insight to invest some of that capital to make this place a home for people of all classes. Let's start building it!

On Sharing Meals

 My mom learned how to cook as a young housewife, but over the years became a cook with good skill towards simple, filling meals. Nothing fancy or complicated, mom served up chili, red or green, a big pot of spaghetti, or hamburgers with routine and skill. We ate together every evening for dinner. Other kids in our community, like my sister's boyfriend or my best friend, frequently joined our family dinner. Our extended family would join us whenever they came to town. We'd also gather around Grandma Mattie's table for dinner when we were visiting her. In fact, no matter how old Grandma got, she always greeted visitors in the most hospitable way possible- asking if they were hungry and sharing whatever she had in her pantry, no matter how meagre.

My family eats dinner together as well. Of all the other omissions or challenges of modern parental life, I cling to this practice whole-heartedly. Eating together is one true good I am able to provide my family every day, with my husband's brilliant cooking serving as the fare. 

In today's Gospel, a risen Jesus accompanied two apostles on the road. They don't recognize him, but we are told, he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. Even if you aren't a follower of Christ, we can still see the way that this happens in our own relationships. We learn about people, they reveal themselves, through the breaking of the bread. Sharing foods helps us know more about one another. Perhaps we have a conversation with our grandma as she shares a family recipe taking us back through time as we hear about her early life. We might share a meal with our own kids in which we talk about big, important things or small, trivial ones. Or perhaps, you can picture your first date, where you learned something significant about your future spouse.

Community gatherings can go a long way to healing our culture. Every day, loneliness and isolation hurts people in our society. We have a Pandemic of Despair trashing our lives.  These problems hurt the soul and can madden the spirit. What if we had a meal together where we'd talk about our troubles? What if instead of imbibing in ideology and culture war tactics, we sat and ate and asked questions and listened? Our community in Granby Jones has had success in this type of gathering, in large part in due to my dear friend and neighbor's welcoming ways. At our parish, we've been intentional about making more space and time to share meals together and it's something I've really cherished, as well. 

When we're free to really talk and listen, without the self censoring more frequently required in ordinary superficial interactions, we can go a long way towards understanding each other and, likewise, valuing one another. Going deeper, being more vulnerable and genuine, makes one more satisfied in our relationships as well. We also tend to be more peaceful in our own soul.

Last of all, I'd like to remind you that we all need a spot at the table. Jesus calls all people to have a seat at His table; as a follower of Christ, I should aspire to no less.  

What memories of good meals and fellowship do you have? Have you tried to maintain or regain this type of meal? If you could dine with people of a different culture or mindset, would you embrace the opportunity? 

Everything you ever wanted to know about sexual morality *but were afraid to ask

 At one of our Religious Education Family sessions, an enthusiastic priest shared a bit of philosophy with us. He presented Saint Thomas Aquinas' Four Ways of Knowing, a refinement on Aristotle's teachings, to a group of folks ranging from preschoolers to senior citizens and including a few non-english speaking families. The discussion was vibrant and surprisingly easy to grasp even for the youngest students. 

What is Aquinas' Four Ways of Knowing? Here I'll give just the meagerist and most informal summary here, based on the simple example we went over in class. First, imagine a table. Aquinas's first way of knowing has to do with form. This means we can recognize a table as a type, regardless of variations in style or material. His second method, makeup, simply means that we can know about an item by determining what it is made of. For instance, we can determine that a certain table is made of wood, another has a glass top and a wrought iron base. The third method of knowing regards the understanding about how something arises, for instance how the table came to be. In this case, we could probably tell you where we obtained this particular table, but also this type of knowledge could extend back to include the manufacturing process or even the design process or details of the harvesting of the particular tree used to make the table. Lastly, we have the final method of knowing: purpose. The table's purpose is to set food on, or other items; it's purposes does not include sitting on or use as a vehicle.

Later, I was reading "Love your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save Our Nation From the Culture of Contempt". Author Alfred Brooks notes that when talking about morality, individuals on the left and the right have vastly different takes. While the morality of fairness and care of others are nearly universals, other forms of morality, such as respect of authority are treated far differently between people of differing viewpoints.

Nowhere do I believe this difference is amplified than the consideration of sexual morality. Folks on the left are more likely to disregard any sexual morality beyond that of "two consenting adults (or adolescents)", while those on the right are frequently depicted as a group of puritans, hopelessly bogged down in repressive, close-minded rule-making and rule-policing when it comes to sexuality. Has modernity left the need for sexual morality behind with the ideas of the sexual revolution? Were the old rules just a method of repression and control? Or is there something else we're missing when we quickly dismiss sexual morality as a thing of the past?

I think this is a good opportunity to look at sex using Aquinas' perspective of the "Four Ways." When we presently consider sexuality at all; firstly, it seems like we are considering it solely from the second vantage point. The "what is it" is the only question we seem to have- how we are defining our particular sexuality. When we consider sexuality, from the first perspective, form, we can consider the fact that we are all familiar with what makes up sexual expression, even when we are sometimes in denial about it. For instance, we, as a population, did not buy for one minute President Bill Clinton's statement, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." We can also recognize that our children are participating in activities on the sexual spectrum when they are encountering sexting or pornography, though they may not be in physical contact with a partner. Just as a tall table or a small table or a pine table or a marble table are all still tables, sex is still sex even when it comes over the intrawebs.

The harder points for our modern culture to wrap our heads around are perspectives three and four. From an entirely biological standpoint, we're sexual creatures in the same way as all vertebrates, participating in the process of sexual reproduction for literal ages. From a more metaphysical standpoint, I personally believe that God gave us sex as a sacred gift. He gave sex to us to join in union; to be fruitful, to intensify our relationships and to create permanent, loving, and caring families. 

The fourth point seems to be integral to the whole consideration. Why bother? From a Catholic perspective, we've always believed that the purpose of sex is twofold. First of all, it is for procreation. Bringing new life into this world is one of the most basic, primitive, instinctual and obvious purpose of sex. This point is one of inherent beauty, goodness and joy. It's one we can't deny. This purpose is evident based on our biology and our hormones. However, I believe sex for us is different than solely a matter of procreation such as that you would see in other animals. Ideally, it is elevated and goes beyond this first purpose

The other purpose for sex, I believe, is bonding. It is an enjoyable reward to bring two different people together to become one, to lead life together in good times and bad. Since sex is about both bringing children into the world and creating unity in the relationship, we've also always believed that the proper place for sex was within marriage. This protects the children of the union with permanence and security. It protects the woman from the assymetries of sexual risk.  Life's a grinding challenge when needing to simultaneously provide for and care for the children (yes, I see you, single mothers, I respect you and you're doing your best in this challenging situation, but it is hard work to make this happen!)

Also, the bonding aspect of sex is just as important as the procreative part. For instance, which of us don't want a real partner, a truthful and kind soul, to grow old with? We are built mentally, physically and spiritually for relationship. While many are called to other forms of relationship as you may see in single life, a good number of us are called for a desire for relationship that is fulfilled in lifelong union. 

We've seen an unprecedented change in the way we consider sex in our world in the last half of the twentieth century to present, and I'm doubtful that even the most free-love "sex positivity" promoting individual would say it was all for the good. Though there are folks who feel that sexual freedom is paramount, problems arise when sexual freedom is considered more paramount than sexual responsibility. In fact, in all human realms, a balance of responsibility and freedom is necessary to lead to the conditions that lead to human flourishing. To think that sex is any different is to live in denial.

A person who has no interest in a relationship with another, but just wants to use that person's body, either by looking at that person lustfully or having sex, but disrespecting, dismissing or degrading that individual is certainly using sexuality in a way that doesn't lead to human flourishing, for themselves or for their partner. The used one, regardless of whether words of consent were spoken at the time, will most likely suffer due to this ill use. 

What is another risk of the libertine "Do whatever feels good as long as you have consent"? When we remove sexuality from the confines of either of its dual purposes, so it meets neither the purpose of procreation or bonding, it loses all meaning. Meaningless sex, for those who've participated in it, leaves us cold and sad and lonely. Meaninglessness overall hurts our culture because it brings in nihilism and hopelessness. Clinical depression rates and suicides are unfortunately on the rise. If there's no point in life, what is the point? Our culture already struggles with despondency, so we don't really need sexuality to become another source of isolation and despair, no matter how "liberating", do we?

I have a confession to make. It took me a very long time to muster up the courage to finish this blog. I started writing it several years before I actually finished it. I hesitated because of the volatility of the material, and how much our culture seems to draw lines of division around any differences in our thoughts on this subject. Simply put, it is a topic with landmines hidden under the surface at every turn. Likewise, I did not want to cause distress or division between folks who might view this subject differently than me. I don't speak these works today from a place of perfection or condemnation. However, more and more, the large scale stakes of ignoring sexual morality to our society seems clear to me. Also, my continual conversations with many people frequently show me that I had information to impart and explain that might increase more understanding on the topic. We should do the hard work of discussing these topics and discussing them well. I'm a firm believer in hashing these differences out.

We may argue about what should make up our morality. "It may be possible to argue about which morality is the necessary morality," Jordan Peterson explains in his recent book Beyond Order, "but it is not possible to argue that morality itself is thus unnecessary." It's understandable that we need rules to follow in order to keep society functional and to encourage human flourishing Yet, in our society today, at least when it comes to sex, it seems we've declared that no rules need apply. Although we try to pretend they don't, rules actually matter, even if many of our rules are implied today rather than explicit.

Many people consider these discussions of sexual morality as one of their major objections to Christianity, and many Christian groups have therefore made an effort to free their congregants of the "repressive" Christian rules regarding sex. While complete abandonment of these rules don't lead to human flourishing as I've argued throughout, it's important to realize that they are just one piece of our overall picture in Christianity. For instance, Bishop Robert Barron warns against getting bogged down with the "Crotch issues" of the church, as it diminishes the inexhaustible love and forgiveness given to us by our Lord. None of these rules should serve to make us feel like we are gate-keepers of the faith, and church leaders need to serve the needs of people regardless of their sexual practices and identities. If our Lord can call lovingly to St. Mary Magdellen, a former prostitute, our job is to love our neighbors in their brokenness, while sharing the truth that will lead them to greater human flourishing.

Nowhere do we see the failure of disregarding sexual morality and the loss of sexual responsibility than in its most gaping absence; in things that we can nearly universally still recognize as problems. Child sexual abuse is a clear example. We see that one person crosses a moral line and follows only a selfish call to fulfill a desire with no regard to the dignity or worth of the child involved. Another example is human trafficking, while both adults and children are held against their will to generate money for greed-motivated individuals and satisfy the appetites of other depraved individuals. Rape and sexual assault also clearly fall into this category. All these examples point to the need to set boundaries, to follow rules. We're not only talking about ideals and the highest human pursuits, but clearly, the loss of sexual morality can be implicated in some of the worst human rights abuses of our times.

Morality needs to point to an ideal human situation, that leads to the highest level of human flourishing. That doesn't mean that people, in our collective weakness, should despair when we don't live up to the ideal. When the culture at large disregards the meanings of sex, it disregards the meaning of people, family and culture. 

While discussing sexuality, we should emphasize that it is a blessing, both good and important. We need to teach that it is also serious, with serious implications. It's not just one sport or recreation among many, to be taken up thoughtlessly for fun or to please a partner (and lets face it, the lines between consent, coercion and non-consent may be blurred by other factors like substance use, age and power differences and social pressures to conform). There are freedoms, but there are responsibilities as well. We would be well served to remember both.