Banning Hamburger: Housing Codes in America

 
shutterstock_242818684

Mulberry Street in New York City’s Little Italy, ca. 1900.

If a liberal observes that rich people are eating steak, while poor people are eating hamburgers, the obvious solution is to ban the hamburger. It sounds silly, but if you apply this rule, for example, to the minimum wage for teenagers, it all comes into focus. It is “obvious” that people should not be underpaid — and so we must forbid low-paying jobs. Steak or bust.

Do-gooders doing evil is hardly a new phenomenon. New immigrants to the United States in 1900 could find a place to drop their heads for seven cents a night. It was not remotely nice, but it was cheap. The average hourly wage was 20 to 30 cents, meaning that a person could sleep for 20 minutes of work. Think about that: Can you imagine having a bed to sleep on for a few bucks?

In 1892: – two rooms in an attic cost $3 to $ 5 per month – three rooms (kitchen and two bedrooms) cost $6 to $12 per month – four rooms as described above cost $12 to $16 per month. source….

This tenement apartment at 340, 342 and 344 Cherry Street …  opened in 1888 and boasted a laundry room and bath rooms (rooms with bath tubs) on the lower level as well as a kindergarden on the first floor. Each floor contained a WC (water closet) that was shared by two or more families. All rooms had windows, none were smaller than 10 feet by 8 feet and each apartment contained at least one room that was at least 12 feet by 12 feet. There was no dark narrow hallway, all having widows and gas light at night. Some apartments had running water. Rents were from $6 to $15 per month.

Let’s see … as compared to an average national income of $450 per worker … with only one person working, housing was $72-$180 for a year — or as low as 16 percent of a person’s income. NYC incomes were actually higher ($600 for female teachers, $900 for male teachers for example), so housing could be as low or lower, than 10 percent of one’s income.

Even in the 1940s, the average rents for apartments in New York ran about $50 per month, with housing in the Lower East Side at about $30/month. Even this is probably overstated:

The average rent on the Lower East Side in 1930 was $6 a month per room. Thus, a three-room apartment in 97 Orchard Street might have rented for about $18 per month, little more than it did in the 1870s. There were, however more than 10,000 people at the time living in rear tenements who paid as little as $2 a month per room. source.

The median income for a man in 1940s Lower East Side was $1,358, allowing him to support a family in a three-room apartment in NYC for 17 percent of his income. And that was living pretty high — the tenements offered a much cheaper option. Conclusion: Housing was very cheap for a long time.

The result? People could save. They could move upward. They invested in themselves, in tools and education. Even in homes. In 1938, a new house cost two times the average income. And these poor people did just that. Very few NYC immigrants in 1900 were still poor in 1920.

And now?

Median home values (costs) adjusted for inflation nearly quadrupled over the 60-year period since the first housing census in 1940. Today, housing costs 40 percent of a poor person’s income. That is up from 10-17 percent in 1900-1940.

What changed? Liberals banned the hamburger.

Tenements were dangerous and unhealthy. Sure, people chose to live there and save their money for other things, but we all know that people don’t know what is best for them. So we needed to enact housing codes, and then make them ever-more-stringent as the enforcers of these codes (which include tradesmen) maximized their self-interest.

In recent years, the trend is accelerating. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal said that regulatory costs are up 30 percent over the last five years alone! Regulations are in fact a huge portion of housing costs. And it is not just fire codes or strength codes; we now have water offsets, required park spaces, landscaping…

$8,000 for a new type of storm-water capture device required for each house, $3,500 for customized architectural plans required on every lot and about $15,000 to remove a tree from the property. …. New regulations included a survey required in some areas of the Midwest to determine whether endangered bats are on a property, which builders said can cost $10,000 or more for each new development. WSJ

Is it any wonder why people cannot get ahead? Why people see that working hard does not translate to climbing the prosperity ladder? There is no option for me to rent out my garage to poor people, or for people to build makeshift housing. The government would raze any such living arrangements, declaring them “unsafe.” The poor must eat steak, or go hungry.

And given that so many of these codes are actually driven more at a local level than by the Feds (I think), here is my question: Is there any viable pathway back to a regulatory structure in which people can be free to choose their own level of acceptable cost/benefit when it comes to housing? Or is hamburger never going to return to the menu?

Published in Culture, Economics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 47 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    “My guess is that the best way to reverse this seemingly-inexorable metastization of regulations is to restart with a strict constitutionalist approach. The government of a breakout republic, at least at the federal level, can be limited so that it has no right dictating what people can and cannot do with their own property.”

    Exactly.  The Constitutional safeguards in the Fifth Amendment ” No person… shall  be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” have been largely obliterated in the common practices of our government.

    Early in twentieth century under the rise of Progressivism, the “Policing Powers” of government were granted by the Supreme Court the ability to ignore the 5th Amendment rights if some alleged that it was all for the “General Welfare”.  This taking of property has metastasized  into standard operating procedure for many government agencies .

    When faced with this kind of taking, the injured citizen practically has no recourse. Filing suit is expensive  and most likely a loser.

    This horrible practice affects not only housing, but all our basic necessities – food, energy, insurance and health care. It is severely limiting economic growth and jobs while at the same driving up costs for businesses and the consumer alike horrendously.

    In many ways, this epidemic of over-regulation is one of our most serious issues out there today,  but don’t tell the Donald or Hillary- they don’t want to hear it.

    • #31
  2. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    One caveat – these rules only account for those that it is politically correct to harass and extort. Victor Davis Hansen has written about the disparate impact of regulatory enforcement in California, and I can testify to the same effect here in Western North Carolina. For the law abiding schmoe rules, fines and infractions are unending, but for the illegal alien trailer parks sporting cobwebs of extension cords running from jury-rigged fuse boxes to campers and out buildings parked higgly piggly there are no consequences.

    • #32
  3. profdlp Inactive
    profdlp
    @profdlp

    Petty Boozswha:…For the law abiding schmoe rules, fines and infractions are unending, but for the illegal alien trailer parks sporting cobwebs of extension cords running from jury-rigged fuse boxes to campers and out buildings parked higgly piggly there are no consequences.

    Well, we can’t be racist, now, can we?  The illegal aliens might get burnt to a crisp due to their creative wiring schemes, but that’s better than us imposing our culture on them.  Right?

    • #33
  4. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Jimmy Carter:

    You’d think installing waterless urinals would mean less pipes, but no. Union thugs still got paid to install pipes that serve no purpose:

    Opposition to the waterless urinal was making plumbers look out of step. They were being painted as antienvironmental at a time when builders increasingly wanted to go green. Massey concluded that he was on the wrong side of the argument. By the end of 2006, he decided to support the urinal’s inclusion in the Uniform Plumbing Code.

    But there was a catch. When the code change was finally approved in 2009, it stated that water had to be piped to the waterless urinals. Standard plumbing still has to be done, but the water pipe is simply capped off behind the wall and never used.

    Thuggery? not necessarily: 

    There were problems with Falcon and other waterless urinals elsewhere, too. Over the past few years, the California EPA headquarters in Sacramento ran into trouble with the no-flush urinals it had installed: The drain pipes clogged, the urinals stank, and the bathrooms were messy; the units were removed in February 2010. Chicago City Hall and O’Hare International Airport have also removed their waterless urinals, citing clogged pipes. “That’s why it makes sense to plumb water to these things,” says Jim Majerowicz, a Chicago plumber who examined the O’Hare installation. “It’s about saving money for the building owner when they decide to pull these stinky things out.”

    • #34
  5. cirby Inactive
    cirby
    @cirby

    Ontheleftcoast:Thuggery? not necessarily:

    There were problems with Falcon and other waterless urinals elsewhere, too. Over the past few years, the California EPA headquarters in Sacramento ran into trouble with the no-flush urinals it had installed: The drain pipes clogged, the urinals stank, and the bathrooms were messy; the units were removed in February 2010. Chicago City Hall and O’Hare International Airport have also removed their waterless urinals, citing clogged pipes. “That’s why it makes sense to plumb water to these things,” says Jim Majerowicz, a Chicago plumber who examined the O’Hare installation. “It’s about saving money for the building owner when they decide to pull these stinky things out.”

    I’ve worked in a lot of large convention centers, and the ones that installed waterless urinals always have problems with them. The smell is the first thing, and it’s a doozy, but they also clog up and generally aren’t worth it.

    For that matter, low-flow toilets aren’t much better, especially in homes. Putting a low-flow system in an older home is just asking for trouble, since the underground outflow pipes were mostly designed for a minimum amount of flow to keep open.

    • #35
  6. Chris Campion Coolidge
    Chris Campion
    @ChrisCampion

    Mark:I think it is difficult to undo this because so many have a vested interest in the current structure, not just politicians. As an example, building codes started to deal with true risks to life like fires, but have now become all encompassing (and more costly) all in the supposed effort to reduce ever smaller amounts of risk. Here in Connecticut, porch railings can be no further than 3 inches apart. Most other codes allow 4 inches, but my state claims it wants to be super protective. Guess who’s selling more railings?

    I sold my condo in Vermont last year after I moved to Charlotte, NC.  I had to spend close to $4,000 on improvements related to a new fire code inspection standard (property sold for $148,000).  One of the new requirements was that any bedroom window had to have a certain higher area (window space available), and the window would swing out on an arm to the exterior.  Why?  In case of fire.  The window’s bigger space means, well, “bigger” people can get through it, and the swing requirement is so it’s easier to get out (removes the sash constraint).

    I don’t think this is a bad idea, but new windows, framing, for 2 bedrooms was a lot of money.  The problem is, any new code can be more or less justified, but no one gets a vote on it.  It just happens.  And the cost of it is borne or the economic activity stops cold – meaning I couldn’t sell the condo without those new windows (and a host of smaller improvements).

    The kicker is:  The fire code was put into place after I bought the place 3 years prior, so all of the improvements were not something the prior owner had to worry about.  It’s the creeping incrementalism at work.

    • #36
  7. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Love the hamburger.  We can’t hit this theme too much.  Even most Republicans believe we need the regulations.  We don’t.   We need good simple transparent law, and almost no regulation at all levels of government.  Regulations don’t mean what people think they mean, can’t do what people think they can, and don’t serve the interests people think they serve.

    • #37
  8. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Chris Campion: I don’t think this is a bad idea, but new windows, framing, for 2 bedrooms was a lot of money. The problem is, any new code can be more or less justified, but no one gets a vote on it. It just happens. And the cost of it is borne or the economic activity stops cold – meaning I couldn’t sell the condo without those new windows (and a host of smaller improvements).

    What tends to happen is that a requirement like egress windows get written into the International Building Code (revised every 3 years), and then formally adopted by states and then by local agencies.

    • #38
  9. Pony Convertible Inactive
    Pony Convertible
    @PonyConvertible

    But the really poor are better off.  Now they have their own cardboard box to live in, and the rent is free.

    • #39
  10. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    I Walton:Love the hamburger. We can’t hit this theme too much. Even most Republicans believe we need the regulations. We don’t. We need good simple transparent law, and almost no regulation at all levels of government. Regulations don’t mean what people think they mean, can’t do what people think they can, and don’t serve the interests people think they serve.

    Exactly. Well said.

    • #40
  11. Chris Campion Coolidge
    Chris Campion
    @ChrisCampion

    Ontheleftcoast:

    Chris Campion: I don’t think this is a bad idea, but new windows, framing, for 2 bedrooms was a lot of money. The problem is, any new code can be more or less justified, but no one gets a vote on it. It just happens. And the cost of it is borne or the economic activity stops cold – meaning I couldn’t sell the condo without those new windows (and a host of smaller improvements).

    What tends to happen is that a requirement like egress windows get written into the International Building Code (revised every 3 years), and then formally adopted by states and then by local agencies.

    Absolutely.  But the windows were at least 10-15 years old.  I just happened to be the lucky feller who got swacked with it.

    There is a waiver application, too, but you pay for it, and are unlikely to receive it.  So all the old condos that were built in the 1980s and 1990s are going to have to up-fit their windows at some serious expense.

    So fat people can escape.  It’s reverse Darwinism.

    • #41
  12. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    @chriscampion It’s also an example of the transnational nature of the administrative state, and the way in which it imposes costs. I mean, for a state or local agency not to adopt code revisions would probably result in increased insurance costs because buildings were going up noncompliant to current standards…

    That said, I live in earthquake country. Building codes matter, and the knowledge about seismic reinforcement evolves. And when I was a kid, we lived in what is now called a wildland-urban interface with really poor access for fire trucks and landslides in the winter. Fortunately, the rain that caused the landslides that blocked the roads also eliminated the wildfire risk for the winter.

    • #42
  13. Ralphie Inactive
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    iWe:

    The Dowager Jojo: The drivers for building codes are insurance companies and banks.

    For fire risk, I see it.

    To a point.  Construction methods such as fireblocking, drywall and smoke detectors do not break the bank. The current push is for sprinklers in all new homes. Can’t just inform owners of the option, must be mandatory.

    As a person with 20 plus years of residential drafting experience it is frustrating to see the direction of codes, zoning and land use requirements.  The easy application if you might be in wetlands or floodplain (a lot of Michigan is) is 16 pages (not counting the required maps, photos and drawings) and a quick response is 3 months. For an addition to your home. (The same department that was involved with the Flint water fiasco)

    Banks (if the home is mortgaged) and insurance companies have  vested interests in seeing that houses are finished and safe, others have no interest unless it is law. Blower door tests used to be optional, now law. The builder cannot perform these tests, they must hire outside experts; you know, the guys that lobbied and testified in Lansing why it should be code.

    Diminishing return regulations keep people in older homes that have issues. Out of frustration, I heard a builder friend of mine say he thinks homeowners should not be allowed to do their own work, and their houses should be made to be brought up to code. Nice work if you can get it.

    • #43
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Richard Fulmer:

    Quake Voter:My grandparents house in Woodside was built on spec in 1942 for $7,000. It passed to my uncle at market value for $42,000 in 1973. Same house sold last year for $825,000. My uncle’s fifth-year teacher’s salary was $12,000 in 1973; it’s around $60,000 today.

    Amazing! In 1973, your uncle’s house sold for 3.5 times his teacher’s salary. Now it sells for 13.75 times a teacher’s salary! While the stated policy of federal housing regulations has always been to make homes more affordable, their actual effect has been to make them far less so.

    Homeowners who own love to see that sort of increase in value. There is a that effect too. Once I have have a house, then I am “in” the system and I want to see values go up.

    • #44
  15. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    Homeowners who own love to see that sort of increase in value. There is a that effect too. Once I have have a house, then I am “in” the system and I want to see values go up.

    Unless and until you have kids who want to own homes, too.

    • #45
  16. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    cirby: For that matter, low-flow toilets aren’t much better, especially in homes. Putting a low-flow system in an older home is just asking for trouble, since the underground outflow pipes were mostly designed for a minimum amount of flow to keep open.

    No [expletive.] And low flow toilets aren’t just a problem for the homeowner’s sewer pipes, either:

    San Francisco’s big push for low-flow toilets has turned into a multimillion-dollar plumbing stink.

    Skimping on toilet water has resulted in more sludge backing up inside the sewer pipes, said Tyrone Jue, spokesman for the city Public Utilities Commission. That has created a rotten-egg stench near AT&T Park and elsewhere, especially during the dry summer months.

    The city has already spent $100 million over the past five years to upgrade its sewer system and sewage plants, in part to combat the odor problem.

    Now officials are stocking up on a $14 million, three-year supply of highly concentrated sodium hypochlorite – better known as bleach – to act as an odor eater and to disinfect the city’s treated water before it’s dumped into the bay. It will also be used to sanitize drinking water.

    That translates into 8.5 million pounds of bleach either being poured down city drains or into the drinking water supply every year.

    Not everybody thinks it’s a good idea.

    Water in California is a real problem. Nuclear power, desalinization….? Nah. What are you smoking?

    • #46
  17. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    iWe:

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    Homeowners who own love to see that sort of increase in value. There is a that effect too. Once I have have a house, then I am “in” the system and I want to see values go up.

    Unless and until you have kids who want to own homes, too.

    Not a good long term strategy. Just going with how it works. “I got mine – Screw you!”

    • #47
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.