Loan Gridlock.

Should you stay in the city, where high-density development often makes living an ecologically virtuous life easier, or move to the suburbs, where homes are cheaper? It's a tough choice for many environmentalists. And it may be a false one.

Common mortgage-lending practices make urban living artificially unaffordable. Most homeowners devote about 55 percent of their income to housing and transportation costs combined. Families in suburban areas spend 30 percent on their homes and 25 percent or more on their cars. Those in urban neighborhoods with good transit spend a mere 10 percent getting around but 45 percent on their homes.

But mortgage bankers rarely allow housing payments to exceed 30 percent of income, so urban abodes are "mortgage unaffordable" for many buyers. The mortgage industry's view steers buyers to the suburbs, indirectly increasing air pollution, traffic, and sprawl.

Scattered efforts are being made to level the playing field. Mortgage giant Fannie Mac provides small "Smart Commute" bonuses â€" about $10,000 in additional purchasing power â€" in 40 urban communities. In Boston, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority provides a boost of up to $90,000 for people who buy near transit stations.

Ideally, the mortgage industry would add the percent of income saved by urban transit directly to the 30 percent of income it uses to calculate loan payments. With that change, buying where transportation is inexpensive would be the fastest route to affordable housing.

~~~~~~~~

By Patrick H. Hare