Citistates Group

Even as G.W. hits the stump for vast tax cuts, and states struggle with horrific deficits, a big gaping capital hole — the housing crisis in America’s regions — continues to worsen.

An early May alarm report, from the National Housing Conference, points up the issue. Not just the poor and chronically underhoused are now in risk of losing, or never finding, a roof to go over their heads, NHF suggests. Many of the stable “middle class” working folk — the elementary school teachers and police officers, licensed practical nurses and retail salespeople whom we know are essential to make our communities and entire metro areas tick — are getting priced out of decent housing. Median incomes for those occupations now fall short of the nearly $50,000 necessary to qualify for a national-average median priced home of $156,000, the Housing Conference reports. In almost half the 60 metro areas included in the survey, families dependent on a police officer’s salary are priced out of the market. Families dependent on one teacher’s salary can’t afford to buy a home in 32. (For detailed stats, check here.)

What’s often forgotten is that lack of housing can drag down an entire regional economy. Access to a suitable labor pool, which we know is key to prospective employers, is severely hindered by lack of affordable housing. And when families lack adequate homes, a whole range of social problems, overcrowding and congestion degrade the entire community’s quality of life. In the long run, everyone pays a price.

Clearly, our national and state governments ought to be taking a keen interest in this issue. Strong regions mean collective national, state strength.

But there’s lots of opposition to doing any more (or as much as we did historically) to help housing. And there’s a local angle, too.

Because: Who is it who turns out, in local zoning and permit hearings, to block the way for the teachers and firefighters and nurses to live in the town or neighborhood? Quite often, it’s folks who already figure they have their home or McMansion. So they dream up fears about the perils of allowing less-valued-housing to be introduced nearby, on the theory that they (anyone less affluent) might reduce values. Or cut off someone’s fancy view. Or trigger costly new enrollments in the local schools. Or cause a bit more traffic.

Of course there are occasional abuses in new development: ugly new structures, exploitive physical placement, perils to water tables, big traffic impacts on neighboring jurisdictions who have no voice in the permitting. Sound local and regional planning systems are essential to prevent or mitigate those problems. Another reason that intergovernmental regional collaboration isn’t just “nice”; it’s imperative for residents quality of life.

But the complainers — especially as infill development gains headway in many regions — too often seek to prevent almost any type of new development near their homes. One senses many people believe that the American Dream stops with them. The same reasoning, I’d argue, that says “Give me my tax breaks first, I’m productive, you’re not.”

This is not the kind of attitude, I’d postulate, of which great global regions are built….

Or do I have it all wrong? … Your comments are welcome.