D.C. Wants to Pay You to Live Near Your Work
Move to any of those areas, get $12,000. (Office of Planning)
We all know that it makes sense to live near where you work, both for your own sanity (never get caught in rush-hour traffic!) and for a city to function better (what if we could get rid of rush hours altogether?). Then, of course, there's D.C.'s own unique frustration of having so many of its workers live in Maryland and Virginia.
The Office of Planning is trying to counteract that problem by throwing money at it: They've found $200,000 to spend on a pilot program that will match employer grants of up to $6,000 per person for closing and down payment assistance on homes near Metro stations and bus lines. Through a competitive process, OP will select three participating companies, which will dole out grants (or deferred-interest loans) to employees who want to move either to houses within two miles of their workplaces or to areas within a half mile of a D.C. Metro station or a quarter mile of a "high-quality bus line."
You can't knock the intention here. But the method raises questions: Will $12,000 actually convince many people to move closer to their jobs? The map attached to the request for applications makes clear that the eligible areas cover most of D.C., and the grants are available to people at any income level—might this grant just throw free money at people who were planning to move somewhere else anyway? The program, which can help a maximum of 60 people at the minimum grant amount, is supposed to be a pilot, and pilots are supposed to be scalable—does D.C. propose to solve its commuter problem by paying everyone who's willing to relocate near transit or within walking distance of work?
This just doesn't seem to be a very smart way to go about smart growth.
Please also read this update post!
9:17 am
Are renters not eligible?
9:49 am
This should be a federal, or at least regional program. Annual tax credits that would be based on how far you live from where you work. ie, $3,000 if you live within 1 mile, $2,000 if you live within 5 miles, $1,000 if you live within 10 miles, and $750 if you live within 20 miles. It isn't always the amount of people commuting, but the length of commutes that create traffic issues. Some people are commuting from MD to Leesburg or vice versa, often cutting through the city. This is insanity, but perhaps if there was a carrot, it could entice people to change their ways. It should definitely be valid for renters too
10:36 am
But wouldnt this cause more "gggeeenttrifcation" that scary word that DC leadership says is evil?
3:16 pm
This sounds like an excellent solution to the vexing problem of high vacancies and low property values near Metro stations.
...oh, wait...
3:50 pm
This is ridiculous. Taxpayer money is going to be used to give housing subsidies -- why should my money be taken and transferred to someone else so they can own a home (BTW, how well has government promotion of the housing sector worked out?)?
Seems to me that most people prefer to live near where they work and hate their commutes, but this is only one factor in the decision of where to locate. School districts are another huge one, and no one will locate for a few thousand dollars if it places their kid in a crappy school district. Of course, if we had school choice this wouldn't be nearly such an issue.
4:11 pm
Bad plan, I know many people who bike commute from upper NE, Spring Valley and other non-metroable areas, but that choice isn't considered in this pilot. I also know plenty of people that leave almost on top of a metro stop, and drive everywhere. It's not the location that's important, it's the behavior, in other words, driving by yourself to work, errands, etc. Instead of this harebrained scheme, increasing the cost of single occupancy driving is what's needed.
Difficult problem though, how to discriminate multipassenger from SOV. Ultimately, the indiscriminate high fuel costs are the best way since for the most part, politicians exercise no downward control on gas prices, and can only make increase the taxes. If we had a $1 per gallon fuel tax, probably 1/4th of our congestion problems would vanish in a week, to be replaced by other social problems and hysteria over costs. What you would ultimately see in a year or two is a massive increase in efficiency: trip efficiency, fuel efficiency, business efficiency, etc. that would bring most costs back down.
We'll never get a cluster of politicians to willingly go for this, so we'll just have to wait for an inevitable price shock driven by unpredictable world events. Why plan ahead when you can just wait for a disaster to do the hard decision-making for you?
9:29 am
Just because people move to an areas within a 1/2 mile of a D.C. Metro station or 1/4 mile of a "high-quality bus line" doesn't meean they'll use it. How about a grant to people who like me who gave up their car to live in DC?
10:25 am
This is a terrible idea, but is in keeping with other forms of social engineering going on at the Office of Planning. Is staff deciding who will get grants and who won't. This sounds vaguely familiar -- didn't this country fight a war over the purchace of people?
12:57 pm
Employer-assisted housing programs are a GREAT idea. Baltimore did a similar program starting three or four years ago with much success. (http://www.housingpolicy.org/assets/EAH/Baltimore_LNYW.pdf)
1:27 pm
This is funny since I used to walk one mile to my DC gov. job. Then they moved the office to far flung relatively inaccessible location. And there's no telecommuting policy in place.
6:13 pm
That doesn't even make a dent in the cost of a mortgage for property in DC! $500K and maybe...although I'd always have that nagging thought, "terrorists don't target suburbs." And what about the schools? Would do for folks with kids. Aren't DC schools lousy?
6:21 pm
(Meant "WOULDN'T do for families"...in previous post)
What happens if you take part, move, invest in a home, and then get fired from your oh-so-close job in the inevitable restructuring and downsizing that seems to be the normal course of affairs in business today. Isn't average for years at the same job now something like 5 years?