Let’s do an experiment.
In any experiment, one starts with a question or problem, forms a hypothesis as to what they think will answer the question or solve the problem, then sets about testing the soundness of that hypothesis. At least that’s what I seem to recall from my high school science classes.
So, here are my questions. Will journalistic publishers ever provide unbiased information or at the very least, present ALL the sides of an argument with descriptions of where bias my bleed into them from the participating parties? Are journalists and editors and publishers capable of delivering data and opinions in a manner that stimulates conversation, understanding, and informed decisions? Or are they just about ego and money-generating clickbait?
I think one way of answering my questions is to provide a Counter-Counterpoint to a Contributor article published by Forbes, send it to as many media outlets as I can find contact points for, and wait and see if any of them decide to publish it. My hypothesis is that they won’t. I believe that journalistic integrity is, by and large, dead, if it ever existed in bulk to begin with. Having read newspaper stories generated over hundreds of years during my genealogical research I discovered journalists and their publishers have been, by far, more opportunistic parasite than helpful hero. I suspect that greed and power have superseded nearly all journalistic standards. My observation is that the majority of stories are generated to induce fear, bias, and hate. They are written to protect relationships with politicians and executives by only exposing misdeeds of long ago all while whitewashing current malfeasance or misdirecting readers with verbal slights of hand. Editorials are planted, leaks are “leaked”, and endorsements are doled out for party favors. It often feels as if “journalists” are merely scribes for sources with agendas instead of independent investigators following facts and truth. And of course, there are the pay-to-play articles written by “thought leaders” – for $9,500 you can buy a Partner Package which allows you to have a thought-leadership article published in Forbes.com’s Wealth Management section; there are advertorials written by marketing departments and published as if they’re “journalistic”, and Contributor Network stories which are pieces written by bloggers who’ve built up their own follower base that a media corporation wants to suck into its vortex in exchange for giving the blogger a By line in an international paper or magazine.
My test will not result in definitive proof of journalistic scruples, or lack thereof. There is a strong chance that this post never makes it past their junk folders or AI screening systems, and it’s only one single sample floating in an ocean of digital garbage, but it’s the best I can do.
So here we go…
To test my hypothesis of a near-total lack of journalistic trustworthiness in American media, I’m going to inject myself into a specific narrative published by Forbes in which their Contributor states Point: Housing Investors Are Not The Cause Of Higher Housing Prices and who the next day published a follow up titled Counterpoint: Wall Street Ownership Is Why Housing Is Out Of Reach.
Before I do that though, let’s define what a Forbes Contributor is, at least as far as I can tell. Forbes, on its website, is less than forthcoming about the process by which one joins their Contributor Network. I can find no application, no pathway to becoming a Contributor. One blogger I came across says it’s an invite-only gig requiring a “writer” to either get a referral from someone already on the inside or to make big waves on their own thereby getting the attention of Forbes which then sends an invite to contribute content to their site. Let’s go with that. For years apparently, Forbes didn’t pay some or all of its Contributors. I guess people would work for free to get on Forbes’s site? Now Forbes is paying its Contributors $250 a month for 5 posts (down from $500/mo. for 7 posts) and some pennies for reader hits. Not exactly going to pay the 7% mortgage interest rate on that home that’s 30% more expensive than it was in January, 2020, but money ain’t everything, right? In March of 2022, Forbes’ Staff posted a story about their Editorial Values and Standards. In it they touted their “highest standards for quality and trustworthy journalism” and said they were “committed to premium journalism, analysis and thought leadership.” The claimed their staff teams and contributor network are built on principles of “Independence & Integrity, Fair and Ethical Journalism, Freedom from Bias and Conflicts of Interest, Factual & Authoritative Reporting and Analysis, Inclusive & Diverse Voices.” They went on in the same article to discuss their “Safeguards” against bias, conflict of interest, and deceit. Additionally, in June of 2023, Randall Lane, the editor of Forbes wrote a piece titled In Forbes We Trust in which he patted himself on the back for being ranked 5th in a media trust survey conducted by YouGov, an organization headed up by Steve Hatch who was Facebook UK regional director 2014 to 2016 and their VP for Northern Europe from 2016 to 2023. I have two words for you: Cambridge Analytica. Oh wait, and Brexit and Donald Trump. Guess it was five words. Point being, I’m not really sure I put ANY stock in a media trust survey conducted by a company whose CEO was a higher up at Facebook during the Cambridge Analytica years, but that’s just me. Add to this Forbes’s love affair with Martin Shkreli, Elizabeth Holmes, Charlie Javice, and Sam Bankman-Fried and I really have to wonder about their “quality and trustworthy journalism”.
Why do I bring this up? It speaks to Forbes’s alleged journalistic standards. A major aspect of their business model is to chase “information” that generates interaction which translates into ad revenue. They’ve learned that humans love lists, rankings, rags-to-riches stories, and unicorns. For over a hundred years they’ve banked on humans’ insatiable quest to see people rise then watch them go down in flames. They make money creating heroes with their lists and profiles then cash in when those same conquerors are exposed as colonizers and frauds. It’s quite a brilliant, yet vile, system. Build ‘em up and knock ‘em down then claim FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, WE’RE JUST REPORTING THE FACTS wile making money off both ends and people who trusted you, invested in those people, bought a product you hyped, are left penniless and broken.
I also bring up the question of Forbes’ trustworthiness specifically as it relates to the author of the story to which I’m responding. What are his qualifications to earn a By line in Forbes? What are his motivations to do so? And does Forbes actually apply their safeguards to each article to test for bias, inclusivity, and “fake news”? Is there a process for someone to rebut a story, point out a perceived conflict of interest, or address half-truths – or does Forbes (and all the other media outlets) just paint every article they endorse via publication with a veneer of trustworthiness without any accountability?
So, let’s get into it.
The current housing situation in America is something near and dear to my heart. I spent months digging into the issue and published a post about it a little over a year ago.
I’m biased. I want to buy a home without becoming a slave to the mortgage and maintenance costs, costs that have exploded due to Bidenomics (his word, one he’s very proud of for some reason) and the Fed-induced Free Money Era. If a home was worth $300,000 in January of 2020, it’s now valued at, on average mind you, $422,181 because per the Case-Shiller Index national home values have gone up 40.727% between 1 Jan 2020 and 1 May 2023. Compare that to the increase between 1 Jan 2016 and 1 May 2019 (same time frame months but during “normal” times), the national home price index increased “only” 17.428% - still aggressive, but nowhere NEAR what’s happened since the Federal Reserve bankers ginned up their printing press. People who have bought homes at these exorbitant prices not only have to service their loans, but now have to pay correlating property taxes and insurance premiums, and their neighbors are impacted because no government or corporation will allow them to enjoy cheaper previous rates if there is money to be made – everyone will be reassessed. (Except in California where Prop 13 and Prop 19 allow wealthy Boomers to avoid paying their share by limiting their property taxes and allowing them to transfer their old base value to their shiny new million-dollar-or-less home.)
Not only do I want to be able to buy a home that doesn’t financially cripple me, I’m so selfish I want my kid to be able to afford housing in the future without having to give up things like food and soap. How horrible!
I believe that affordable, secure, peaceful housing is the solution to everything that is wrong with America right now. I know that sounds simplistic, but hear me out.
Humans require air, water, and food. In that order. After that, shelter is the next most important thing to our survival. It’s more than a human right, it’s a human necessity. Without it, we physically suffer the whims of nature – wind, precipitation, temperature, UV rays, smoke, insects and other wildlife. Without a place to call our own and in which to enjoy silence, hobbies, and passions, our mental health takes a beating. Without the security of four walls and a roof to protect our possessions – well, what’s the point of having televisions, furniture, stuffed animals, and sportsball equipment? If the Federal Reserve wants us to keep buying stuff to grow the economy 2% every year – they’d better fix the housing price problem Obama created* and which they hugely exacerbated over the last three years or we won’t have any money or motivation to buy stuff because we’ll either be too broke after paying rent or we’ll be homeless and have no desire for things. Which one? Which one?
When humans have a place to call their castle, when they have a community to call their own, they take care of it. Schools thrive, crime falls, business sprout up…It’s both common sense and historically proven. Read Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Read about the Tulsa Race Massacre and the strong, proud community African-Americans had built only to be burned to the ground by hate. People want to own something, they want to protect what they own, and they crave community. Turning us into a nation of rootless drifters flitting from home to home, school to school, job to job tears at the fabric of society. Once a hole starts the rest is never as strong as it was and it unravels. That unraveling is what is driving our worsening issues with unhealthy eating habits, drug and alcohol use, mental illness, crime, and violence.
There is currently a debate amongst “experts” about the solution to our housing “problem”.
First of all, the term “expert” is laughable at this point. The only thing these “experts” are expert at is conning people into believing they’re experts. Simply creating a website and social media accounts upon which one self identifies as an “expert” seems to be the only requirement to land on MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN, or to be cited in an article by opinionistas in The New York Times and The Washington Post. Once you’ve been anointed an “expert” by interview or citation, it’s off to the races – your follower count explodes, your book ends up on one of the endless best-seller lists and on short lists for the bottomless barrel of book prizes, and you, I assume, are invited to become a Forbes Contributor.
Secondly, the definition of “problem” is different depending upon the “expert”. Some “experts” claim we have too few homes, some claim investors are hoarding homes as rentals thus keeping them from the For Sale market, and yet others claim many Americans should just accept their lot in life – they are simply too poor and too stupid to live in good neighborhoods, in peaceful housing without shared walls, close to their jobs and good schools. They should just accept living in distant rundown ‘hoods, commuting for hours to and from work, and/or living packed into high-density housing like their 19th Century immigrant ancestors did. And they should just suck up all the financial and emotional costs of that kind of life because they just don’t deserve a single-family home in a “nice” neighborhood.
All of this brings me to Roger Valdez.
On 2 August 2023, Forbes published the above-referenced Counterpoint article written by him. Seeing as how it was labeled “Counterpoint”, I found the original article, the also-referenced Point article to which the counter was being made – by the same author. It was all a little fishy. Whenever I see headlines like this my ire is fanned because they SCREAM lobbyist and it burns my butter that lobbyists have total access to politicians, publishers, and television media while people who have other occupations, do not.
But I had to give Mr. Valdez the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he’s just a blogger who truly believes that investors aren’t the problem and has enough followers in his capacity as Director of the Center of Housing Economics to warrant a By line in Forbes wherein he’s allowed to share his opinion and those of people who disagree with him – although why they don’t get their own Forbes By line is troubling.
I went to the website of the Center of Housing Economics and learned it’s a project of another organization called Seattle for Growth, a 501(c)(4) non-profit. That (4) means that unlike a (3) wherein donations are tax deductible, donations to this organization is not. So, it’s a non-profit for tax purposes, but the donations that fund it are not deductible for the donors. Okay. The IRS only shows tax filings for Seattle for Growth up to 2018. As of that time, in addition to Mr. Valdez, the directors were three men who all make their livings as housing developers. The statement of purpose for Mr. Valdez’s organization and project amounts to wanting to steer change to Seattle building code to allow for more housing to be built to benefit “stakeholders”. At this point, the fence post is firmly up my bottom on this guy. I haven’t even read his articles yet because I need to know his angle before I do. I have no love for housing developers, but Seattle does need housing.
A further search of the internet reveals a story in The Seattle Times from almost exactly eight years ago titled: Sharp-tongued philosopher a provocateur for urban density. In the second sentence, the staff reporter for the Times labels Mr. Valdez a lobbyist for developers. Okay, so my intuition wasn’t off base. I’ll summarize the article: Mr. Valdez believes NIMBYists are the enemy because they reject duplexes and rooming houses in their neighborhoods, he’s been called a density pimp who preaches the gospel of growth and free-market economics, and in 2012 launched his building industry-sponsored advocacy group (Smart Growth Seattle/Seattle for Growth) to work with “stakeholders”, AKA builders?, to get Seattle leadership to let them build, baby, build. He appears to be genuine in his belief that more housing will help people, but somewhat contradicts his August 2023 articles by blaming the “NIMBY mafia” who want to protect their “investments” by denying development. Isn’t he saying that investors ARE the cause of higher housing prices if by protecting their investments they stand in the way of his perceived solution to the problem – more available homes?
Now that I knew a bit more about Mr. Valdez, I read his two Forbes articles.
Right off the bat I smelled baloney. Forbes should have at least labeled these as Opinion pieces if they want to protect their “journalistic integrity” and in my opinion labeled them as marketing material for an organization whose goal is building more homes and creating density – because that matters in the housing discussion. Building more homes is about profit for a select few. Density, in my experience, leads to overcrowding, mental strain, resource drain, and eventually its own death spiral.
Mr. Valdez used his role as a Forbes Contributor to write two articles inspired by an idea pitched to him by Jason Mitchell, a real estate agent – the notion that Wall Street investors have caused and sustain higher housing prices. I question why Mr. Mitchell didn’t have the opportunity to write his own Forbes piece? Surely, he would have if given the opportunity if for no other reason than to have his own publicity-generating headline and By line, right?
Mr. Valdez rings the Woke bell – racism against Chinese by way of complaints against foreign buyers, then moves on to argue against himself regarding investors. First, he trots out the REO-to-rent lobbyist line of, ‘Don’t be mad at us, we only own 1.5% of US homes,’ then admits that deep-pocketed buyers can buy up whole blocks of homes and really screw the locals but jumps to that not being the real problem – the real problem he claims, is a lack of homes. He defends institutional buyers, he wants to protect them from investment taxes and strict limits on the number of homes they can control. It’s almost as if he’s now working for Black Rock, Invitation Homes, American Homes 4 Rent, and AirBnB. But he does naturally fall back to his ‘Just building more is the solution!!!’ argument, so who knows where his loyalties lay.
But when he rolled out the toilet paper analogy and I really had to question what the hell Forbes is thinking when they choose their Contributors!?
Mr. Valdez tries to liken the current housing market to the toilet paper situation during the early days of COVID. He compared how “annoying” it was to roll up and find only one roll of TP left at the store to how “annoying” it is for real estate agents who don’t have the seller/buyer churn they depend upon for their livelihood, and how “annoying” it is for buyers who have to enter bidding wars for a home of their own because fat cats are buying everything with cash and taking them off the sales market by turning them into rentals.
Annoying? ANNOYING? That really roasted my chestnuts! It’s not ANNOYING when you can’t buy a home because some corporation with billions of investor dollars has bought up all the housing in your area – the area where you work, where your kids go to school, where your family/church/support system is located. It’s not ANNOYING when you’re forced to become a renter facing annual rent increases, junk fees the investors tack on to pad their profits, and the ever-looming specter of having to move on the whim of your landlord. That’s not ANNOYING, Mr. Valdez, that’s cruelty!
If you want an analogy, Mr. Valdez, I’ll give you one. Toilet paper ain’t gonna cut it because there are alternatives to toilet paper, Mr. Valdez! If I’m out of TP I can use leaves, wrapping paper, newspaper, an old towel, a plastic bag, a bidet, or my hand. There is no alternative to housing, Mr. Valdez!! If you want an analogy between the housing lockup and the COVID pandemic I draw your attention to the scum who hoarded all the sanitizer, masks, and disinfecting cleaners then listed them for sale on Amazon, eBay, Craigslist, etc. at disgusting markups. These skidmarks called themselves “entrepreneurs” and cried, ‘I’m just trying to feed my family! Why are you being so mean to me?’ while standing in front of a garage FULL of Purel they’d traversed three counties to stockpile! THAT is what investors are doing. Whether they are local residents of Seattle who own one home and don’t want an apartment complex next door, whether they are a couple who own and operate an AirBnB empire of 15 homes in Arizona while living in Thousand Oaks, or whether they are large-scale investors who buy up entire devlopements – investors ARE the problem.
Mr. Valdez makes the point that investors turning their homes into rentals (which I concede are necessary in any community, long-term rentals anyway) is “contingent on constrained supply.” He is spot on, but it begs the questions…WHY is the supply constrained? And is building more the answer?
In 1869, Jay Gould and James Fisk bought up all the gold in New York and controlled the price of it. In the run up to their lockup, they lied to the public and the President claiming that they were just wanting to help poor farmers by increasing gold prices and lowering the dollar – it had to do with import/export fees and was total bull crap. Conspiring to control an asset class and lying about your motivations is as old as the hills. “Investors” in homes – be they individual homeowners, short-term rental “entrepreneur’s”, mom-and-pop long-term rental landlords, or institutional bulk buyers are all motivated by their own bottom line and any story they tell should be run through a bull crap detector.
An individual homeowner is scared of his home losing value so any perceived threat to that – an apartment building, a duplex, or too many homes on his street becoming rentals is going to be an issue to which he plays close attention. Whether or not an apartment complex is an actual threat to his home value is fear mongering fodder for politicians so inevitably nothing gets built. Visit the news archives for the City of Encinitas – they can teach a master class in class warfare.
Short-term rental operators are nasty pieces of work. They fell entitled to own dozens of homes in popular places that sit empty up to 60% of the time. If more homes were to be built, that might mean more competition from fellow investors and more vacant days. Can’t have that. Luckily some cities are finally waking up to the scourge that is AirBnB and VBRO, but not enough of them and not with enough urgency.
Small long-term investors have historically NOT been a problem to the supply side. Usually they offer a needed service, but all too often of late they have become greedy slum lords who evict people just to screw the next tenant out of higher rent. They too do not like more available housing because, well, supply and demand.
And then there’s Obama’s Beast – the creature he unleashed to get foreclosed homes off the books and property taxes rolling back into state and local coffers. These big boys get presidents and senators elected, politicians who now protect them from the wrath of the American public being crushed by housing prices. These fiends have shills in the media who promote stories about how it’s a supply problem brought about by politicians and building codes and NIMBYs; they say, ‘But we only own 1.5% of all US homes, we’re not the problem!’ and no one ever contradicts them live on air or factchecks them in a “thought leader” article by pointing out that in some markets they own 10% or more of homes, and even higher percentages in specific neighborhoods. Do you think for one second that it’s really a supply problem and even if it were, that these Fisks and Goulds would allow more homes to be built?
But let’s say that everyone agreed to just build more homes. We build so many homes that there’s such a glut of them that they finally drive down rents and home prices. At what cost?
How many trees need to be felled? How much habitat destroyed for resources and buildable land? How does this affect our changing climate, how does this affect the number of people in the path of natural disasters? How does it affect drought, wildlife, and pollution levels?
And what of the Boomers’ homes? There’s a huge swath of the population that is going to start dying off and/or moving into care situations. I mean maybe there’s a bunch of Gen Xers who will want to live in The Villages or Big Canoe or 55+ Communities, but my husband and I don’t know anyone of our generation (X) or our child’s generation who wants to live like that – under the thumb of an HOA, in those areas, with a bunch of grouchy old people. What happens with the Boomers’ homes when they’ve reverse-mortgaged the value right out of them and there’s nothing left to transfer to their kids but a huge bank loan that needs to be paid off? There are a lot of millennials banking on this great “wealth transfer” that may never happen if A) there’s no equity left because Nana and Pappap spent it all on cruises, casinos, and Cialis and B) if there’s a glut of alternative homes built in better areas to the point no one wants to enter a bidding war for Nana’s rose-wall-papered bedroom.
Let’s do a thought exercise and assume the answer is Mr. Valdez’s favorite word – density. Do we build housing projects in Seattle? In San Diego? What does that do to the infrastructure in those areas? Can they withstand the surges in population because the theory seems to be if we build it they will come? Is the idea to build a glut of high-density tenements and projects so that people are faced with choosing between affordable cells and financially crippling single-family homes? Do we just explode in high-density growth until 99% of America’s residents are stacked like bee larvae?
Having spent the last three years trapped in an apartment due to COVID and the current housing market situation, I have a huge issue with Mr. Valdez’s high-density housing push. When you’re forced to share walls, floors, ceilings, parking, and recreation with 300 people – it takes a toll. When you are faced with annual rent increases of 10% or more while living in a depreciating asset filled with rotting carpet and appliances that are limping along – it takes a toll. When you run the numbers and realize that the $400 a month rent increase is more manageable than coming up with $6,000 to move (first month’s rent, deposit, moving costs) – it takes a toll. When you watch Gavin Newsom write waivers for his kids to go to their private school and know that he’s got a mansion with a backyard to play in all while closing the parking lots at beaches, parks, and other recreation areas so that only the people who live within walkable distance to them could use them – you realize that density housing is a cruel solution meant to protect wealthy investors who feel entitled to own all the single family homes and lock them up for profit.
So, what is the answer to the housing question? Easy. Housing is a human necessity, not a profit center for investors. Home hoarding should be illegal – no more than two homes, townhomes, or condos per individual. Sure, that might mean a husband and wife could own four homes, but they’ll have to think hard about that when they learn that profits on sales of residence other than one’s primary residence will be taxed at 40% when the homes are sold. And they will be regulated as far as rent increases, junk fees, and maintenance requirements. Additionally, there will be strict limits on short-term rentals – if there are so many that homes are sitting vacant 50% or more of the time, you’ve got to cull the roster because you’re just hurting your community. You want to buy up the monopoly board? Fine. But not at the expense of people becoming financially paralyzed, bankrupt, ill, or homeless. A business can own apartment complexes, trailer parks, and residential hotels – but there will be FEDERAL tenant protections against excessive rent increases, any and all junk fees, unwarranted evictions, and poor maintenance. And yes, we do need to build more homes in some area and people are just going to have to learn that “affordable housing” isn’t code for crime, you ignorant narcissists. By definition, affordable housing has to do with the median wage and people’s incomes proximity to it. In any affluent community, teachers, nurses, fire fighters, bank tellers, grocery store workers, truck drivers, and entry-level software coders would all qualify for “affordable housing”. These are hardworking people who deserve to live near their jobs, but locals continuously fight against allowing townhomes and condos and apartments in their cities. And to add insult to injury, when the city councils in these communities finally do on occasion approve a development of single-family homes, the one or two allocated “affordable homes” the builder built to get tax incentives and building approval – they get sold at marked down prices to INVESTORS who then rent them out albeit at below-market rates because they are designated as “affordable homes” for the purposes of the cities’ State-mandated housing element. But it’s those INVESTORS who get the tax benefit of owning the homes, they control who gets to live in the homes and for how long, they are allowed to raise rents every year. This should be ILLEGAL! When affordable homes are finally built – they should be available FOR PURCHASE to qualified people as their primary residence.
So, that’s it. A different perspective to the housing market situation. Will Forbes make me a Contributor so I can partake in the discussion? I doubt it. But you never know unless you test your theory.
And one final thought that has occurred to me as I’ve written this…Should media organizations focus on fewer but higher quality stories? It seems to me that by flooding the market with content and noise, they have lost more credibility than they comprehend and by extension have lost vast amounts of advertising and subscription income. Do they help themselves or society by pumping out endless opinion pieces from “experts” of questionable authenticity or would they, their readers, and advertisers be better served by newspapers, magazines, and video channels that valued truly unbiased investigative reporting and well-rounded discussions among actual experts instead of one-sided articles produced by lobbyists?
*Obama decided to give away (only a slight exaggeration) huge swaths of America’s housing stock to institutional investors at the end of the 2008-2012 Housing Bubble collapse. He allowed banks and credit reporting agencies to destroy the creditworthiness of the working classes so they could not re-buy their homes at the newer, reset values and instead forced them to become renters of their old homes when institutional buyers scooped them up at huge discounts courtesy of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), and Barack Obama. Emboldened by Obama’s support and cheap money, these enormous economic Basking Sharks have been gobbling up housing ever since.
No comments:
Post a Comment