We all know that housing has become less affordable in recent years, and there’s no easy answer for changing it.

President Trump’s proposal for 50-year mortgages shows how there’s no easy answer. It sounds great because of the potential for lower monthly payments. It’s important, however, to consider all the ways it could negatively affect the housing market.

For one thing, I wouldn’t bet the farm on the idea that buyers would choose lower payments. They’d have more purchasing power. They might decide to just pay more for a newer or bigger house.

Even if they opt for lower payments, it’s not a good deal as the years add up. Experts have pointed out that there would be almost no equity accumulated in the first 10 years. It would be almost like renting.

Realistically people would take out 50 year mortgages without ever intending to pay them off. It’s not consistent with the traditional intention of the mortgage system.

It used to be that buyers purchased affordable homes, usually ramblers and older houses, which had plenty of potential to raise a family. It was expected that they’d probably stay in their homes until they needed nursing homes as elderly people.

Many baby boomers became wealthy that way. They bought houses and hung onto them while prices skyrocketed.

In the 21st century younger homeowners are likely to buy an expensive house to raise their kids. They often plan to downsize when the kids are grown. The big house is longer necessarily a long range investment.

Even though downsizing is often part of the ownership process, buyers have to invest huge amounts to get started. It’s a question now of just how much prices will continue to go up.

My best guess is that there’s bound to be a limit. At some point property values won’t appreciate as much. Incomes aren’t growing in proportion to home prices. So far there’s no shortage of buyers, but at some point that could change.

There are already signs that indicate it might. In the past several years, there’s been talk of an affordability crisis. It affects smaller markets such as Marshall.

It’s likely in Marshall that someone will pay about $200,000 for a home that’s nothing spectacular. It’s a very expensive American Dream. Mortgages that are scheduled to last for 50 years wouldn’t lower the prices. Instead they’d be likely push them upward as more potential buyers qualify for loans.

One market-related advantage of longer mortgages might be that they’d help property values in small towns. People could have very affordable monthly payments.

It would depend on if they’d choose to drive to larger regional centers for work, shopping and services. Some might. Others would pay more for convenience.

The best option for any size market seems to be the idea of building affordable homes. If I was 30 years younger, I’d hope that there would in the near future be a market for tiny houses or shed houses. It might also be possible to build lower priced three bedroom ramblers.

Habitat for Humanity chapters build affordable homes. It should be possible to have quality construction at a favorable price.

New neighborhoods with those types of housing options won’t make as much money for developers. It might take government incentives to get them built.

Marshall city officials did a good job about 20 years with the construction of the Parkway housing addition on the west side of the city. Parkway did help to create more affordable new housing.

Another Parkway just might not be enough with today’s housing market challenges. It might require even more affordable alternatives. We should be open to them. The needs of future homeowners should be a high priority, especially if they’re willing to adjust expectations.

— Jim Muchlinski is a longtime reporter and contributor to the Marshall Independent