NIMBY v. YIMBY
Density and Displacement
Zoning is more than a bloodless means of regulating what may be built and where. It shapes demographics, economic zones, and the look of neighborhoods. It can also give rise to strong emotions between planners and residents, between long-time residents and newcomers, and between local control and top-down initiatives. At its worst, it provokes disparagement of those with differing views on what is important and how to achieve it, to the point of labeling them exclusionary and/or racist.
Broadly, there seems to be agreement in Arlington that many residents want to preserve aspects of the town that they love, such as our trees and green spaces, our older neighborhoods, and our unique small businesses; and also that Arlington is becoming ever more expensive, and that we need to provide affordable options for existing residents and newcomers both.
For a long time, the best path to creating more affordable, and more-affordable, housing was believed to be by allowing greater density and loosening zoning restrictions. But density efforts have been in place long enough now for new research to emerge, based on outcomes rather than theory. Much of it paints a different picture of what works to create affordable communities, and shows how current efforts have actually led to a decrease in affordable units, the displacement of existing residents at the lower end of the income spectrum, and a homogenization of economic and demographic diversity.
“Real estate interests and some scholars argue that unaffordable housing costs
are primarily due to a shortage in housing supply, and that any increase in
supply—including luxury development—will ultimately help depress rents. While
there is some evidence new housing production does eventually help lower
median rent in the neighborhoods where construction occurred compared to
other areas, these effects take decades to surface. Worse, by the time such
price effects register, large numbers of low-income residents have likely already
been pushed out ... During the decades analyzed, significant displacement had
already occurred and median rents were hiked up by gentrification.”
-- “Here’s What We Actually Know About Market-Rate Housing
Development and Displacement”
Development and Displacement”
Amee Chew
Shelterforce.org
One of the most significant findings is that new development can actually decrease the overall number of affordable units, because it destroys “naturally occurring” affordable units when new units are built in their place. Consider the older “garden apartments” in Arlington that line Mass. Ave. and Broadway, with rents at or below HUD-defined affordable rates. Once targeted, they are likely be redeveloped as market-rate rental units, with a certain percentage of affordable units required. The overall result is the addition of market-rate apartments to a community, a small number of affordable units, and a net loss of existing lower- rent units.
denser construction (known as upzoning), the changes have been shown to have
-- “Is It Time for American Cities to Stop Growing?”
Vinnie Rotondaro
Vox.com
In “Neighborhood Upzoning And Racial Displacement: A Potential Target For Disparate Impact Litigation?” a paper from the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, author Bradley Pough says, “... upzoning changes are taking part in the same underlying activity as exclusionary zoning tactics: maximizing the value of land in the hopes of attracting or retaining mobile capital. The perhaps not so obvious corollary to this activity is that, by maximizing the value of land, residents and elected officials are gradually pricing out consumers who can no longer afford this product. In the case of exclusionary zoning, these consumers are the low-income minorities who, but for the cost, would move to the desirable suburb. In the case of upzoning, these consumers are often the low-income minority renters already living in the neighborhood who are gradually pushed out (i.e. displaced) due to higher rents and pricier surrounding amenities.”
In “Zoned Out! Race, Displacement, and City Planning in New York," editors Tom Agnotti and Sylvia Morse also present the case that upzoning drives minority displacement. They use neighborhoods in New York City as examples, where upzoning has led to an increase in average rents, a reduction in affordable housing units, an increase in white residents, and a noticeable reduction in the neighborhood’s minority populations. They go on to say: "But rezonings are very difficult to deal with. With zoning, most people don't understand it. It's kind of a hocus pocus, a lot of technical terms, and the way they're explained at community meetings, they're explained in way that doesn't encourage most people to get engaged in any serious way - a lot of pretty pictures and maps, and a lot of nice sounding fairytales about how great the neighborhood's gonna be after the rezoning. The big challenge today is to discredit this kind of charade."
“In Chicago, where rezoning also occurred to allow for more growth and taller,
no effect on housing supply while ‘housing prices rose on the parcels and in
projects that were upzoned.' "
projects that were upzoned.' "
Vinnie Rotondaro
Vox.com
In “Neighborhood Upzoning And Racial Displacement: A Potential Target For Disparate Impact Litigation?” a paper from the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, author Bradley Pough says, “... upzoning changes are taking part in the same underlying activity as exclusionary zoning tactics: maximizing the value of land in the hopes of attracting or retaining mobile capital. The perhaps not so obvious corollary to this activity is that, by maximizing the value of land, residents and elected officials are gradually pricing out consumers who can no longer afford this product. In the case of exclusionary zoning, these consumers are the low-income minorities who, but for the cost, would move to the desirable suburb. In the case of upzoning, these consumers are often the low-income minority renters already living in the neighborhood who are gradually pushed out (i.e. displaced) due to higher rents and pricier surrounding amenities.”
In “Zoned Out! Race, Displacement, and City Planning in New York," editors Tom Agnotti and Sylvia Morse also present the case that upzoning drives minority displacement. They use neighborhoods in New York City as examples, where upzoning has led to an increase in average rents, a reduction in affordable housing units, an increase in white residents, and a noticeable reduction in the neighborhood’s minority populations. They go on to say: "But rezonings are very difficult to deal with. With zoning, most people don't understand it. It's kind of a hocus pocus, a lot of technical terms, and the way they're explained at community meetings, they're explained in way that doesn't encourage most people to get engaged in any serious way - a lot of pretty pictures and maps, and a lot of nice sounding fairytales about how great the neighborhood's gonna be after the rezoning. The big challenge today is to discredit this kind of charade."
Here in Arlington, the US Census indicates that we have around 7,200 rental units, of which 1,100 are subsidized, leaving roughly 6,100 non-subsidized rental units. And of these, approximately one-third is in older, higher-density district apartment buildings. The overall median rate for market rate rentals in Arlington, including studios, one-bedrooms, etc. in apartment buildings and two-and three-families, is $1,593.00, which is right between the HUD rates of $1,647 for a two-bedroom, and $1,484 for a one-bedroom.
By contrast, if we look at new market rate developments, we see much higher rents. For instance, at Vox on 2, just across Rt. 2 from Arlington, a studio apartment starts at $2,275. Two-bedrooms run between $3,085 and $4,395. This building has 228 units. At a 15% affordable requirement, it would have had to include 34 affordable units. Our own Housing Corporation of Arlington currently has two projects underway which are 100% affordable, and which combined will provide 48 units.
The way to create affordable housing is to build affordable housing. Trickle-down development will never supply affordable housing in meaningful numbers.
“A real solution to the economics of American cities would require more work—more
Peter Moskowitz
“ ...despite stable economies, liberal leanings, and high involvement in municipal
politics in both New York and San Francisco, policies that could potentially help
poorer residents have been much slower to come and less robust than the influx of
new private capital that devours neighborhoods and displaces residents. In just
about every city [Peter] Moskowitz examines [in How to Kill A City], he finds that
choices by city and state governments limited the creation of affordable housing
and changed public-housing policies, giving poorer residents little refuge in
increasingly expensive cities.”
-- “The Steady Destruction of America’s Cities”
Gillian B. White
The Atlantic
And as Pough says in the UPenn paper, “... while inclusionary zoning programs aim to counteract the lack of new affordable public housing units, in practice they often end up serving a demographic noticeably wealthier than the intended recipients of the original public housing programs.”
By contrast, if we look at new market rate developments, we see much higher rents. For instance, at Vox on 2, just across Rt. 2 from Arlington, a studio apartment starts at $2,275. Two-bedrooms run between $3,085 and $4,395. This building has 228 units. At a 15% affordable requirement, it would have had to include 34 affordable units. Our own Housing Corporation of Arlington currently has two projects underway which are 100% affordable, and which combined will provide 48 units.
The way to create affordable housing is to build affordable housing. Trickle-down development will never supply affordable housing in meaningful numbers.
“A real solution to the economics of American cities would require more work—more
taxes, more laws, more intervention from the federal government. Those things
are hard. Gentrification is easy.”
-- How to Kill A CityPeter Moskowitz
“ ...despite stable economies, liberal leanings, and high involvement in municipal
politics in both New York and San Francisco, policies that could potentially help
poorer residents have been much slower to come and less robust than the influx of
new private capital that devours neighborhoods and displaces residents. In just
about every city [Peter] Moskowitz examines [in How to Kill A City], he finds that
choices by city and state governments limited the creation of affordable housing
and changed public-housing policies, giving poorer residents little refuge in
increasingly expensive cities.”
-- “The Steady Destruction of America’s Cities”
Gillian B. White
The Atlantic
And as Pough says in the UPenn paper, “... while inclusionary zoning programs aim to counteract the lack of new affordable public housing units, in practice they often end up serving a demographic noticeably wealthier than the intended recipients of the original public housing programs.”
He goes on to say that there are methods of creating affordable housing, such as community land trusts, that are succeeding, and that “At its core, the community- based planning movement simply asserts that residents living in areas slated for change ought to have some real say in how their neighborhoods develop. ... While full veto power almost certainly is not appropriate, the ability to cast votes of consequence over the changes occurring in their neighborhoods is necessary for ensuring that municipal policies do not completely trample local considerations.”
“Twenty years into this grand experiment, residents are bucking against what all this
growth has wrought: high rents, displacement, and a gutting of the very character
of their cities.”
of their cities.”
-- “Is It Time for American Cities to Stop Growing?”
Vinnie Rotondaro
Vox.com
Vinnie Rotondaro
Vox.com
