In Which The State Does Not Exist

            In the previous post (3-27-22), Analysis considered an alternate look at the state, one in which the state itself was the disguise. The quote from Graeber and Wengrow’s book was focused on “the realities of power.” Analysis gave three examples of where it ostensibly looks like the state is about the business of running or solving things (wielding power) where in actuality it is only a front for an unnamed source. In 2 of the 3 presented (if not, in essence, all 3) the unnamed is the market, which the state is committed to keep “free” (at the expense of the rest of us). The quote suggested an alternate view can be achieved by looking where the state is not. A Washington Post article entitled Corporate landlords are gobbling up U.S. suburbs. These homeowners are fighting back. (Peter Whoriskey and Kevin Schaul, 3-31-22) does precisely that. No news here in Licking County Ohio that the anticipated Intel chip facility is the dominant news without a day going by that some feature of it doesn’t appear. Unwritten (specifically) is the likewise near daily pressure on homeowners to sell their property to “investors.” The red hot real estate market is fueled by cash only offers, driving prices up. The Post article sheds some light on this market (which has got to be free): “As investors have targeted the American suburbs, faraway companies have begun to take over entire blocks. Last year, investors bought nearly 1 in 7 homes sold in the nation’s top metropolitan areas – the most in two decades of record-keeping, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from realty company Redfin” “In Charlotte and surrounding Mecklenburg County, landlords backed by Wall Street own roughly 11,500 houses – more than 4% of single family homes, according to an analysis last year by the University of North Carolina at Charlotte Urban Institute. Most of the houses are in the starter home price range, “likely putting the most pressure on the lower end of the market,” said the institute’s Ely Portillo. Most of those purchases were made by one of six major out-of-state companies: Progress Residential, American Homes 4 Rent and Invitation Homes each owned more than 2,000 homes, according to the Urban Institute analysis, while Tricon, Amherst Residential and FirstKey each had more than 1,000 homes. Faced with this surge of corporate landlords, many homeowners associations have begun to fight back.” “Using the same legal authority that allows homeowners associations to punish people who fail to cut their grass, the [Charlotte, NC] Potters Glen board erected a hurdle for investors: a new rule required any new home buyer to wait two years before renting it out.” Other HOA’s in the area followed suit with varied duration of ownership and rental use restrictions. None outright ban rentals but rather are aimed at slowing the rate of return for non-owner occupant investment purchases (with their immediate profit expectations). For better or worse, HOA’s are grassroots democratic endeavors. Essentially they operate where the state is not. Much like unions they rely on active and engaged participation to be effective. And they can be squelched. In Ohio there are a plethora of laws continuously passed within the state legislature denying the Ohio constitution’s right of home rule. Like labor unions, HOA’s are formed and operate where the state does not exist (for the state masks the unbridled market). The implications of all this for Newark Ohio are staggering. As Analysis has repeatedly pointed out, just under half of all Newark residences are non-owner occupant (rentals). By definition HOA’s are comprised of owner occupants. At best, HOA’s are only a partial solution to the expanding domination of the free market.

Advertisement