If one chooses to wade through all of the explanations and proposals, the proposed solutions all boil down to one – let’s use “OPM” – other people’s money, whether it comes through subsidized housing or some other vehicle. I don’t and won’t characterize subsidized housing as meaning housing for the impoverished. There was a time when it was a privilege to live in Chicago’s projects which were integrated and filled with mostly working class families, after all.
The problem is not with subsidized housing but with using “other people’s money.” It almost always means that ultimately the taxpayer will pay for it, just as they do with any other government program (ie. the bailout on student loans – “pay for 10 years and the “government” will pay the rest”). Any proposal to provide housing should look at the true beneficiaries of such a program. The closer you tie it to those people, the more equitable it becomes.
The problem of then morphs into another one – just who are the beneficiaries? Is it the resident workers who now get to live in “paradise” and improve their quality of life by eliminating a commute and maybe keep more of what they make? Is it the local business owner who can continue to pay a “living wage” of say, $10-20 an hour instead of $25-35/hour? Is it the local residents who can be certain that the bars, restaurants, and grocery stores will continue to stay in Glen Arbor? Is it the tourist who for whom prices for lodging, food, and the like continue to remain affordable?
As people in the article note, other places, particularly winter resorts have a similar issue. Could a partnership be struck with them such that workers would be able to work at the western ski resorts in the winter and here in the summer? Could cheaper, seasonal housing be a possibility? Every year places such as Mackinac Island manage to hire staff, sometimes from places like Jamaica. Others, such as Bay Harbor will hire people from Eastern Europe. You don’t necessary need year round residents.
In my opinion problem is the supply/demand imbalance of seasonal labor, not “affordable housing.” Affordable housing would be something that could be built and paid for through the income of tenants or owners, not through a subsidy taken from taxpayers. Is housing here expensive? Expensive is a relative term, meaning in relation to what? To the wages local business owners are willing to pay? Yes. Comparable housing elsewhere? Maybe not. Working here does not, nor should it guarantee a high enough wage to live here. Look at the big cities like Chicago. Just because you work in the Loop doesn’t mean you should automatically make $300,000/yr. and live downtown. No, people commute. Sacrifice may be required – perhaps all adults need to work. in a household with two wage earners working $15/hr. jobs should produce a household income of $60,000 – almost 20% above the 2013 U.S. household median income of $51,900. Two teachers might make $80,000-S90,000/year, not including benefits, including time off in the summer, when guess what? They could be working in local seasonal jobs.
There was a time when people responded to labor imbalances in a different manner. Eighty-five years ago, people – Oklahomans in particular – moved from the Dust Bowl to California. Today, millions of people are crossing our southern borders for a better opportunity. Our grandparents and great-grandparents left Europe for the same reason. People migrate for many reasons, not just because they are refugees from war. Today, everyone feels they should be able to live wherever they choose and make a good living just for doing so – that someone, meaning the government, owes them that. And the government means ultimately the taxpayer, as politicians give money away for votes.
Let the market determine prevailing wages and what kind of housing we have. If there is a shortage of labor, then let local businesses pay their employees more and raise their prices in consequence. If it gets too expensive, people will want to move to other retirement locales or travel to other vacations spots. Prices will come down on housing or businesses may not be as lucrative and not need to hire as many workers in the summer. It wouldn’t happen overnight and it won’t be without disruption, but like water, the employment situation will seek its own level. No one is guaranteed or has a right to a well-paying job in the Garden of Eden just for wanting to live there. As far back as I can remember (at least 40 years) the saying has always been, “A view of the Bay is worth half the pay.” If business owners want subsidized housing, let them build it with their own funds.