West Port Experiment

The following article appeared at First Things, written by Carmel Richardson.

When I heard the price the retired man was asking for his home, a full $80,000 over online estimates of its value, I flinched. The market is hot in our small town, and the location was good, but was it that good? More importantly, would the bank appraise it so high? Just seven years ago, this seller had purchased the home for less than half the price he wanted for it in 2026.

My husband and I were in a spot familiar to many in our generation: trying to scrape together enough cash to buy a house from an older couple, who neither needed nor wanted the space, yet priced it extraordinarily high. Another retiree in our neighborhood recently listed his home, a three-bedroom house with a modest yard, at $100,000 over its estimated value. A third home in town has been relisted at least twice, as the retired woman selling it refuses to lower the price, despite knowing the home needs thousands of dollars in mold remediation and electrical updates. When we offered a number below her asking price, and above the home’s estimated value, she accused us of trying to fleece an older woman. It has since remained on the market for more than a hundred days, but she’s not in a hurry. She owns the home outright.

As the average U.S. home-price-versus-income ratio nears record highs, and home turnover hits record lows, it is hard for young Americans like us to view the possibility of a housing market correction without some sense of justice. Many, both Zoomers and Millen­nials, believe President Trump ought to do something to force this correction, and bring down the price of a starter home, which has implications for family formation, fertility rates, and the general success potential of young Americans. Pursuant to this, in January, Trump directed the federal government to favor small investors over large institutional ones—single families over Blackstone, for example—in the purchase of single-family homes. Likewise, the White House has successfully lobbied Congress to ban Wall Street investors from buying single-­family homes, one of the key provisions of the 21st ­Century ROAD to Housing Act passed by the Senate in March. The bill, which heads to the House for final approval, also offers a number of changes, from deregulation to building incentives, in an attempt to boost the overall housing supply.

Read the rest of the article here.

* * * *

Some observations and questions here on the subject, as one who is keenly interested housing the next generation of my family and church. This article does seem to resonate with me anecdotally. It does seem that the Boomer generation in my experience—at least the secular unconverted examples I’ve known—lead the good life with something of a detached interest in the welfare of next generation. It definitely seems more like, “sink or swim: I’ve succeeded—now you shift for yourself.” I also wonder whether divorce among the Boomers is yet another exacerbating pressure on the housing market. Not only do they own larger homes with unused space as this article observes, but parted partners needlessly doubles the drain on the housing market.

In terms of raw ideas, some directly prompted by the article while others not. I have limited experience in housing beyond renting and owning private homes, so take these for what they’re worth.

1. What about two close families buying a larger home and duplexing it? The row housing thing really seemed innovative. This would just be the same on a smaller scale.

2. I’ve read about home-sitting for snowbirds. I think Ocean City and other coastal towns would have a lot of this kind of housing.

3. Could relationships be developed between Boomers and Zoomers, where a rent-to-own arrangement is developed?

4. I don’t know what this would look like or how it would work, but could some program be developed to match a Zoomer family with a Boomer single or couple without children or aren’t close to them, and some mutually beneficial relationship could be developed with a view to taking on property? Maybe this could be paired in some way with in-home senior care? A rather rough, undeveloped idea.

5. Are there alternative financing ventures, capital funds managed by Christians who are keen to do community development? Could one be pioneered perhaps in New Jersey, where Christians reinvest savings and retirement income into a managed reserve for affordable loans?

6. Could a consortium of Reformed Christians in the state of New Jersey meet to collaborate on such questions?

What ideas can you think of? What suggestions would you make? E-mail me at michael@reformedparish.com.