A thoughtful article about rent control
One of the biggest barriers thrown up against the construction of affordable housing, or housing in general, is that the increased number of children will negatively impact the schools. This is often a code for more racist beliefs. In any case, I am supplying an article from Shelterforce Weekly which quotes a study that disputes that notion. Like the author, I am skeptical that facts will change anyone’s mind.
Adding Housing Doesn’t Overcrowd Schools
November 30, 2017
‘Monopoly’ by Rodrigo Tejeda, via flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Only a few things in life are certain: Death, Republicans trying to cut taxes on the wealthy, and the fact that people opposing new housing development will bring up the possibility of overcrowding the local school system.
The fears trotted out in the face of proposed affordable housing developments rarely come to pass. One of our most popular articles describes how the claims made about four specific developments were evaluated after they were built and found to have either not happened, or happened to a much smaller extent than feared. “Many of the common fears about affordable housing are either overstated or simply wrong,” that article concluded, but it called for more systematic study.
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council has delivered with a study that examines the relationship of new housing development and school enrollment in 234 public school districts across Massachusetts. It found they are not correlated at all:
We find that the conventional wisdom that links housing production with inevitable enrollment growth no longer holds true. At the district level, we observe no meaningful correlation between housing production rates and enrollment growth over a six-year period. While it is true that schoolchildren occupying new housing units may cause a marginal change in enrollment, they are one small factor among many. In cities and towns with the most rapid housing production, enrollment barely budged; and most districts with the largest student increases saw very little housing unit change.
There are too many other factors, including changing demographics and bidding up of prices in desirable school systems, that are affecting enrollment numbers. Housing production just isn’t registering.
Is Evidence Enough?
This is good news for housing advocates. Who wouldn’t want an evidence-based rebuttal to NIMBY fears (or what they claim to fear when what they actually fear is not acceptable to admit in public)?
However, I have my own fear. The idea of “more housing units will equal more students” has such an intuitive logic to it (after all, families with children who will go to the public schools could move in), and confirmation bias is very strong. I therefore worry that this will be one of those cases where trying to win a point merely by presenting contradictory evidence might just cause people to dig in their heels. Of course, hopefully decision makers will be more open to evidence than those who are trying to influence the decision makers, but that’s not a guarantee.
It seems to me like this study probably shouldn’t be trotted out during particular permitting fights without being paired with the details of the situation of a particular school system and its capacity, and the particular housing market. For example, is more school enrollment even actually a bad thing? (Many suburbs are seeing marked declines in enrollment, says the MAPC study.)
This is probably also a really good time to review best practices for engaging in high-conflict conversations—leading with values statements, using language that brings people in rather than reinforcing their ideas, shifting the overall narrative.
Here’s hoping that used carefully, these fascinating findings can help smooth the way for more housing where it is needed.
More research is showing that good health outcomes are dependent on decent housing. We know that people who live in-substandard housing are more likely to have health problems, more frequently get admitted to emergency rooms. Excessive hospital stays for uninsured people drive up health care costs significantly. Hospitals are beginning to partner with housing professionals to find decent housing for frequent fliers to hospitals. I hope this starts to happen in St. Louis. Written by Paul Dribin
President Trump has proposed in his tax plan to eliminate the Federal Historic Tax Credits. This would be a disaster for most cities, and most significantly, St. Louis. Federal and state credits have been effectively used in St. Louis for years to rehabilitate and develop housing that is historically significant. The dollar value has to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The value to the community is even higher. This for a tax plan that increases the deficit and simply lines the pocket of already very wealthy Americans. Second, this does not even get at the possible cuts in the State of Missouri Historic Tax Credits proposed by Governor Greitens Written by Paul Dribin
I know a young man who is a physician and has finished his fellowship in Boston. He is considering jobs across the country but would not consider one in St. Louis because of the crime rate, and general conservative attitude of the area. I can understand the attitude of he and his wife. I wonder, what did Pittsburgh do right to be considered a hot city. For many years I considered it much like St. Louis but now it is considered one of the most desirable cities in the country in which to live.
The crime is driving the negative attitudes toward St. Louis. There are so many positive aspects to the community. Affordable housing and great neighborhoods, short commutes, great cultural attractions, Resturant’s, professional sports. We could have it all if we got crime under control. Written by Paul Dribin
Housing and healthcare are one and the same. I don’t need to restate the obvious; people with poor housing options tend to be less healthy, and people who are less healthy tend to live in substandard housing.
I am putting some ideas together to address this. Think of this scenario which often happens. A patient cannot be released from the hospital in a timely manner because they are homeless. The daily cost in the hospital is $3000. Wouldn’t it make sense for hospitals to subsidize the rent for these individuals and get supportive services for them? A second issue. Many readmissions to hospitals could be avoided if people lived in decent housing. As I said, I will be putting a project together to address this. Paul Dribin
I have a very good perspective on St Louis having grown up in Chicago and living here for 21 years. In spite of itself, St Louis is a great place to live. The culture and restaurants are first class. It is a great sports town and housing is quite affordable. You can get anywhere fairly quickly.
Why have things not taken off here. There are several reasons
1. Racism. Most of the other problems, crime, education, jobs, and dysfunctional government come from or racist traditions
2. Crime. People around the country hear about crime in St. Louis and don’t want to move here.
3. Education. Many school systems are still a mess
4. Cronyism. By cronyism I mean the strong tendency of people from St. Louis to pick there high school friends for key jobs and not consider outsiders.
5. Dysfunctional government. This speaks for itself and is related to the other problems.
We know what it takes to correct these issues. We have had lots of studies. Do we have the leadership and political will to make the changes? Written. By Paul Dribin
Hope VI is a now discontinued public housing program that completely rehabilitated distressed public housing projects in this country. The idea behind the program was to combine physical rehabilitation social services and create mixed income communities. I had the opportunity to work on the Darst Webbe program in the near south side. That program has been successful in creating a mixed income community and has led to improvements in surrounding neighborhoods.
Recent research has evaluated HOPE VI. The program has not really transformed lives and it was noted that displaced public housing residents did not readily move back
I believe the program has provided urban development benefits but has not significantly improved the lives of residents. The cost is quite high and demolition and new construction may have been cheaper. The jury is still out on mixed income housing. I have serious doubts that given a choice anyone would opt for this type of housing
In writing about great organizations in St Louis Beyond Housing is probably the best. They have been in business for years and fully realize that community development must be comprehensive and is hard work.
They are focused on Pagedale and the Normandy School District. Their projects include housing development and rehab,homeownership training, foreclosure prevention,and economic development. They have brought a movie theatre, grocery store, and bank to the area. They have created the 24:1 imitative which is bringing the smaller communities together to meet common goals.
Their leader is Chris Krehmeyer a talented, passionate, and caring individual. I am proud of their work
I am repeating an idea I have expressed in previous blogs because I believe it is so important. The idea is that low income people would be significantly better served by a guaranteed income rather than construction of affordable housing. I am writing this for the following reasons:
1. Too much of the money spent on affordable housing is siphoned off to third party people and does not directly benefit the low income resident.
2. Construction is just too hard to get right. Studies have shown that very little affordable housing is build outside areas of concentration of poverty. Research again shows that low income people concentrated in poverty stricken areas have much less chance to improve their lives.
3. Income supplements largely eliminate the stigma attached to affordable housing. People could rent where they liked, use funds for a downpayment on a house, or make the normal market choices that other people do.
4. Desegregation would be easier.
5. The program would benefit more people than a construction program.
6. The program would provide benefits to more landlords and developers. Why? Because if implemented on a full scale the funds generated would provide tremendous demand for an increased number of apartment units. Apartment developers could feel confident there units could be leased.
I have a couple qualifiers to go along with the positive points:
1. These funds should not discourage employment. I would see them as a supplement to low wage jobs and not a substitute for employment. Someone who worked would actually be better off.
2. There still need to be construction programs to target special needs populations-persons with disabilities,elderly, and homeless people.
3. There needs to be a strong mortgage program in place to support the increased housing development. The FHA multifamily programs are potentially excellent, they need to be streamlined and simplified.
I am not confident that my concept will be enacted any time soon. I do think it is one of those rare ideas that can unite progressives and conservatives.