Technology TransactionsOne Sure Election Winner This November
Over the past few years homes in my community just outside the Nation"s capital have risen in value at an astonishing pace. I"d like to suggest that current owners knew this would happen and shrewdly bought ahead of the market, but that"s not the case. No one could anticipate that 82,000 jobs would be created in the local area for each of the past two years, the fundamental lever behind soaring home prices.
Of course, while we"re busily adding to the local job base and population count, we"re also at work making it difficult to construct new homes, thus driving up demand and prices still more. For instance, we routinely require large lots, a policy that effectively excludes both inexpensive homes and many would-be buyers from the market.
Around the country many communities -- but not all -- have seen nicely-rising home values. Median prices for existing homes reached $191,800 in June, according to the National Association of Realtors -- up 9.6 in a year.
And there"s more to come, at least in and around Washington, D.C. I expect another price spurt in the coming year, especially after November. Why?
Political equality.
In the local area we strongly favor both parties -- but not at the same time. As a matter of fairness, we consistently want the "ins" to lose and the "outs" to win, regardless of party affiliation. And then, during the next election, we want the same thing to happen again, thus causing the "ins" to be out and the "outs" to be in.
Truth is, if we had our way we"d have annual presidential elections. In fact, elections every few months might not be bad.
This political perspective is not a matter of self-interest, of course. Instead we strongly believe in electoral mayhem merely as a matter of enlightened citizenship, something very much in the public interest. After all, if neither major party is in office very long, if no political agenda can be completed, is not the Republic more secure?
If the November elections produce a new administration, those now in office will stay on in the local private sector and new people from the other party will take the jobs of those who used to be in office. More people combined with little new housing means more real estate demand and still-higher home prices.
If the current administration is re-elected, the result will be much the same. Regardless of party or political philosophy, new federal offices will be created to fill out the government and additional private-sector contractors will be hired, thus ensuring lots of jobs for additional people -- people who"ll need housing.
Notice that it doesn"t matter who wins in November. Republicans or democrats, liberals or conservative, farm boys or urban legends, all are united by a common goal, a bipartisan and non-political desire to own appreciating real estate. That"s a platform residents in the Washington area support.
This system seems entirely reasonable and enlightened to us locals. After all, here in Washington you can be a ranking government official one day and a knowledgeable consultant the next. And vice versa.
So do your part and vote this November. Vote for the candidate of your choice, preferably someone in need of new or larger digs in Washington, someone who will want to stay on in the Nation"s capital regardless of how future election cycles turn out.
When evaluating candidates forget about voting records and political preferences. Instead, get to the core issues and ask the questions which need to be raised: So, Mr. or Ms. Candidate, how many bedrooms will you need in Washington? Will you drive or take the subway? Do you prefer a detached home or a townhouse? How much can you put down?
Think of a growing federal government as both a certainty and as an election dividend of sorts, a gift from a grateful Nation to those who live in and around the Beltway, a way to stem executive unemployment and the flow of jobs overseas while making sure Washington homeowners prosper every few years -- regardless of who wins or loses at the polls.
For more articles by Peter G. Miller, please press here.