Category Archives: fair housing

Fighting Community Opposition in the Age of…Opposition

December 21, 2016affirmatively furthering fair housing, affordable housing, civil rights, fair housing, finance and race, home ownership, housing development, inclusionary zoning, redlining, Uncategorizedaffirmatively furthering fair housing, housing crisis, subsidized housingTed Wimpey

From the “Shelterforce Blog”, “Rooflines”

Posted in Shelterforce by Amy Clark on December 14, 2016

http://www.rooflines.org/4710/fighting_community_opposition_in_the_age_ofopposition/ via @Shelterforce

On Nov, 8, voters across the country heard the affordable housing call and approved numerous state and local housing funding measures that will make it possible for more of our neighbors to live in safe, healthy, and affordable homes. This was a real achievement in housing advocacy, but the work is far from over. Developers, local governments, and advocates must now move to convince the neighbors of proposed housing developments to accept more affordable homes into their communities.

The election that brought over 37 affordable housing measures to the ballot in eight states also elevated toxic rhetoric about people of color and other populations. The public discourse has changed, and that’s likely to affect our efforts to build support for affordable housing development and counter community opposition. Here’s what you may hear about affordable housing in your community, and how to prepare for it:

Racial animus. In the wake of the election, there have been many reports of hate-based harassment and intimidation across the country. An offending segment of our population feels newly empowered to use racist language in all types of situations. While racism and fear of difference have always been, at the very least, an undercurrent of some forms of community opposition, in recent years it’s largely been implied, not overt. You may see an uptick in overt racism in siting conversations.

What to do? While it would be satisfying—and, arguably, right—to call out racist language directly when you hear it, research tells us that this is likely to backfire, causing the speaker to defensively double-down on the prejudiced belief. Instead, a study this year found that “a short conversation encouraging actively taking the perspective of others can markedly reduce prejudice.” It argues for holding small-group conversations and facilitators trained to listen and find common ground.

Misinformation. You’ve likely heard much about the success of fake news during the presidential campaign. Misinformation this election cycle may have had a distinctive rightward bent, but don’t pat yourself on the back if you lean left. All of us are susceptible to information that confirms what we already believe, regardless of its factual accuracy. Don’t be surprised to see an increase in the misinformation about your work being posted online and handed around in anonymous flyers around the neighborhoods where you work.

What to do? Don’t write up a “frequently asked questions” page correcting the lies being told about your work. By emphasizing the misinformation—even when you later correct it—you’re just driving it deeper into peoples’ consciousness. Instead, first tell your truth (“Our apartments increase neighborhood safety.”), then signpost the misinformation and explain the motive behind it (“There is a myth circulating that affordable housing increases crime, promoted by a small new neighborhood group formed to fight our proposal.”), and finally give a brief, clear alternative explanation, repeated in graphics if possible (“In fact, by starting a neighborhood watch program and installing security cameras, we’ve helped create a 13 percent decrease in property crime in another neighborhood where we work. We want to work with you to have a similar positive impact here.”).

Ideological conflict. Research into persistent opposition to affordable housing has shown that spatial ideology—an individual’s set of beliefs around who can live in and use a particular place, and who has the right to participate in decision-making about a place—can be predictive of opposition to, or support of, affordable housing. The recent push to disenfranchise groups of Americans through voter ID laws and other restrictions is an example of a narrow conception of spatial rights, and the electoral contest was rife with rhetoric supporting a conscribed idea of to whom America truly belongs. Opposition may now more frequently focus on delegitimizing prospective low-income residents, perhaps as “not American” or simply “not from here.”

What to do? Unfortunately, ideology might be hard-wired, and thus addressing spatial ideology head-on might not be effective. At the same time, there are likely to be people in your community who believe lower-income people have an equal right to live in a place. Find these potential supporters by emphasizing the values of diversity and inclusion, and give this group a clear way to take action and vocalize support of your work.

Distrust of institutional authority. The success of populist presidential candidates from both parties points to, among other things, Americans’ growing distrust of institutions. Whether it’s in banks, the news media, or government itself, people across the political spectrum have lost faith. Unfortunately, affordable housing development connects to all sorts of things many of our neighbors have come to doubt: taxation, finance systems and entities, and zoning, just to name a few.

What to do? First, people who have lost trust will hear a developer mention “partnering with the government” and translate that into an attempt to paper over a profit-making arrangement. Step away from the marketing talk and use plain language to explain what you do, and why it is successful. Second, reframe the role of these perceived-suspect institutions. A new paper from Enterprise Community Partners and the FrameWorks Institute recommends that we help people understand the role of government in affordable housing by explaining, “the role of systems in shaping outcomes for people and … communities,” and by, “zooming out” to tell broader stories that explain the impact of housing issues on an entire community. You know your work is about more than simply units; help others understand this too.

Countering community opposition has never been easy, and I hope to hear that these predictions have not come true, but even if they do, our work can have a long-term impact on decreasing bias. There is evidence that white people living in diverse neighborhoods “endorsed fewer negative stereotypes, and [feel] closer to Blacks as a group.” When we create diverse, inclusive communities, we help decrease prejudice and division. That’s something truly worth fighting for.

Reform land use, promote shared growth of new housing

September 28, 2016affirmatively furthering fair housing, affordable housing, density, fair housing, housing, housing crisis, Municipal and Regional Planning, zoning, zoning regulationsaffirmatively furthering fair housing, affordable housing, inclusionary zoning, inclusive communitiesTed Wimpey

– San Francisco Chronicle http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Reform-land-use-promote-shared-growth-of-new-9283703.php

By Jason Furman | September 25, 2016 | Updated: September 25, 2016 8:34pm

Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle

When certain government policies — like minimum lot sizes, off-street parking requirements, height limits, prohibitions on multifamily housing, or unnecessarily lengthy permitting processes — restrict the supply of housing, fewer units are available and the price rises.

It is no secret that cities like San Francisco, New York and Washington, D.C., face challenges in the availability and cost of housing. But policymakers and economists have increasingly recognized both the role that certain inappropriate land use restrictions play in raising housing costs — not just in major cities but across the country — and the opportunity for modernizing these regulations to promote shared growth.

Basic economic theory predicts that when the supply of a good is constrained, its price rises and the quantity available falls. In this respect, the market for housing is no different: When certain government policies — like minimum lot sizes, off-street parking requirements, height limits, prohibitions on multifamily housing, or unnecessarily lengthy permitting processes — restrict the supply of housing, fewer units are available and the price rises. On the other hand, more efficient policies can promote availability and affordability of housing, regional economic development, transportation options and socioeconomic diversity.

Research suggests that local barriers have become more restrictive in recent decades. One way to measure this is comparing the sale price of houses with construction costs. This gap typically reflects the cost of buying land — which increases with tighter land use restrictions. Indeed, the gap has increased in the past two decades: House prices from 2010 to 2013 were 56 percent higher than construction costs, a 23 percentage-point crease over the average gap during the 1990s.

Of course, many land use regulations can have benefits for communities. Environmental reasons in some localities may make it appropriate to limit high-density or multiuse development. Similarly, health and safety concerns — such as an area’s air traffic patterns, viability of its water supply, or its geologic stability — may merit height and lot size restrictions.

But in other cases, barriers to housing development can allow a small number of individuals to enjoy the benefits of living in a community while excluding many others, limiting diversity and economic mobility.

This upward pressure on house prices may also undermine the market forces that typically determine patterns of housing construction, leading to mismatches between household needs and available housing.

Improving land use policies can also create benefits for the U.S. economy as a whole. High- productivity cities offer higher-income jobs than low-productivity cities and often attract workers who move from other cities, naturally bringing more resources to productive areas of the country. But when unnecessary barriers restrict the supply of housing and costs increase, then workers — particularly lower-income workers who would benefit the most — are less able to move.

All told, this means slower economic growth: Some researchers have estimated that GDP could have been almost 10 percent higher in 2009 if workers and capital freely moved so that the distribution of wages across cities was the same as in 1964.

On the other hand, smarter land use and housing policy can promote both growth and equity. While most land use policies are appropriately made at the state and local level, the federal government can also play a role in encouraging smart land use regulations. Today, the Obama administration is releasing a new toolkit at http://bit.ly/2d4dVAc that highlights best practices that localities have employed — including streamlining permitting processes, eliminating off-street parking requirements, reducing minimum lot sizes, and enacting high-density and multifamily zoning policies — to reduce overly burdensome land use restrictions and promote mobility and economic growth.

Reforming land use policies can have important benefits for local residents and the nation as a whole, not only raising economic growth, but ensuring that its benefits are widely shared among all Americans.

Jason Furman is the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

New HUD AFFH rule – the Good & Some Devils in Details

July 27, 2016affirmatively furthering fair housing, civil rights, fair housing, housing development, Opportunities, Place mattersaffirmatively furthering fair housing, affordable housing, HUD, inclusionary zoning, inclusive communities, integrationTed Wimpey

Okay dear readers, this is a wonky article but for those of you interested in HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule it is a good read. (Ted Wimpey)

The Devils in the Details: Key Issues in Implementing the New AFFH Rule

by Dan Immergluck and Mindy Kao Rooflines post on July 5, 2016

“For most of the Fair Housing Act’s history, its requirement to “Affirmatively Further Fair Housing” has been largely dormant. With the advent of the new AFFH rules in July 2015, however, there is some promise that this provision might be taken more seriously.”

http://tinyurl.com/AFFH-rule-FHA-DetailDevils Link to ROOFLINES, the Shelterforce Blog,

…

Separating Fact from Fiction to Design Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs

May 13, 2016fair housing, housing, housing development, inclusionary zoning, zoningTed Wimpey

Inclusionary Housing, A Series of Research & Policy Briefs by Center for Housing Policy

[Below is an excerpt. Here is a link to download the full piece -12 pages. http://www.nhc.org/#!2016-fact-and-fiction/jfbck ]

By Lisa A. Sturtevant, Ph.D.

May 2016

Inclusionary housing programs generally refer to city and county planning ordinances that require or incentivize developers to build below-market-rate homes (affordable homes) as part of the process of developing market-rate housing developments. More than 500 local jurisdictions in the United States have implemented inclusionary housing policies, and inclusionary requirements have been adopted in a wide variety of places—big cities, suburban communities and small towns.

Despite the proliferation of inclusionary housing programs,the approach continues to draw criticism. There have been legal challenges around inclusionary housing requirements in California, Illinois, Idaho, Colorado and Wisconsin, among others.

In addition to legal questions, critics have claimed inclusionary housing policies are not effective at producing affordable housing and have negative impacts on local housing markets. While there have been numerous studies on inclusionary housing, they unfortunately do not provide conclusive evidence about the overall effectiveness of inclusionary housing programs. These studies vary substantially in terms of their research approaches and quality. In addition, it is difficult to generalize the findings from the existing research because researchers have examined policies in only a handful of places and at particular points in time when economic and housing market conditions might have been quite different. Given these limitations, however, the most highly regarded empirical evidence suggests that inclusionary housing programs can produce affordable housing and do not lead to significant declines in overall housing production or to increases in market-rate prices. [emphasis by author]

…

Landmark Discrimination Case: Fair Housing Act Thwarts NIMBYs

May 2, 2016affirmatively furthering fair housing, fair housing, Uncategorized, zoningAFFH, affirmatively furthering fair housing, inclusionary zoning, inclusive communities, integration, NIMBYTed Wimpey

I am sharing here in full an article about a U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision with significant fair housing and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing import for planning, zoning and permitting of residential housing development that was published April 28, 2016 in the legal issue blog site, “Manatt.” Especially check out the three basic “Practice Pointers” at the end of the article for the main take away.

— https://www.manatt.com/real-estate-and-land-use/Landmark-Discrimination-Case-Fair-Housing-Act-Thwarts.aspx —-

—————————————————-

Real Estate and Land Use

Apr 28, 2016
Landmark Discrimination Case: Fair Housing Act Thwarts NIMBYs

Avenue 6E Investments, LLC v. City of Yuma (March 25, 2016)

Author: Michael M. Berger

Why It Matters: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision in favor of the City of Yuma, Arizona, and concluded instead that there was sufficient evidence to present to a jury that the City had rejected the developer’s application for an increase in zoning density for reasons of barely disguised animus toward the expected residents of the new development. The Court held that issues of disparate treatment and disparate impact under both the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the federal Fair Housing Act needed to be tried.

Facts: The plaintiffs/developers acquired 42 acres of undeveloped land with the intent of building a “moderately priced” housing project. They are known in the area as a developer of Hispanic neighborhoods. Although the General Plan allowed for homes on either 6,000- or 8,000-square-foot lots, a prior owner had it zoned for 8,000-square-foot lots. Unfortunately, the economy would no longer support lots of that size and the developers sought a rezoning to the smaller size which in turn would allow increased density. The City had done some studies, concluding that its population was racially divided, with most of the low-to-moderate-income housing in the areas populated by Hispanics. These developers wanted to develop their housing on the border of a predominantly white area.

The City’s General Plan acknowledged that racial segregation is wrong and that large-lot zoning raises housing costs and impairs the ability of the City to provide housing for moderate-income buyers. The Planning Commission approved the rezoning to smaller lots and recommended that the City Council do so as well. The City Council, however, was besieged with NIMBY complaints and thinly veiled anti-Hispanic charges, complaining that these particular developers were known to “cater to” the people responsible for the vast majority of major crimes.

Two other facts had some import. First, there were similarly priced and modelled homes available elsewhere in Yuma, a fact that the City thought absolved it of any claims of disparate impact. Second, a fact that proved difficult for the City to impress on the Court was that, in the preceding three years, this was the only rezoning request that had been rejected out of 76 applications.

The developers filed suit under the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violation of the Equal Protection guarantee, as well as for disparate impact and treatment under the Fair Housing Act. The trial court entered summary judgment for the City on the sole ground that the adequate supply of similar housing elsewhere in the City automatically foreclosed any finding of disparate impact.

The Decision: The Court of Appeals reversed. When the opinion began with a paean to the Fair Housing Act and the way it “strikes at the heart of the persistent racism that so deeply troubles our Nation,” something that the provision of more affordable housing can help to cure, it was apparent that the conclusion was foregone: judgment reversed.

The Court of Appeals was unable to disregard the bright light of the fact that out of 76 applications, the only time the City had denied a zone change in the past three years was this one. There could be no explanation for the denial other than racism, particularly in light of some of the communications made by neighbors to the City Council about the presumed criminal proclivities of the anticipated residents of the new development. Nor would the Court have anything to do with the trial court’s idea that the presence of similar developments elsewhere in Yuma obviated the problem. Indeed, it merely emphasized the fact that the City was racially divided and at least some of its residents wanted things to remain that way.

There appeared to be no principled opposition to the requested zone change. As the Court of Appeals put it, the record was replete with “code words” and “veiled references” for the Hispanic influx that the neighbors anticipated, turning the development into a “low-cost, high-crime neighborhood.” The case had no chance on appeal.

Practice Pointers:

Neighbors frequently oppose projects in their neighborhoods that are intended to be occupied by lower-income families. Local governments often bow to this political pressure. This decision may well serve to justify these projects, even in the face of neighbor opposition.
Language similar to the “code words” used by neighbors in this case is common among project opponents opposing higher-density projects. Local agencies need to be mindful of the exposure that this kind of language may impose if the projects are disapproved by the local agency.
At the very least, local agencies need to include sufficient data and facts in the record to support their decision as not being based on discriminatory rhetoric.

Connecting the dots: Housing cost- community economic development – JOBS! Part 1

February 11, 2016affordable housing, density, economic growth, fair housing, housing crisis, housing development, integration, Uncategorizedaffirmatively furthering fair housing, affordable housing, fair housing, housing crisis, Vermont, workforce housingTed Wimpey

The insufficient supply of housing at a range of affordable prices, especially for rental housing, has important negative impacts on local economic development. Housing costs and availability impacts adequate workforce availability. The causes of high housing costs are multiple but a few factors are controllable by local municipalities, counties and regions with the understanding and political will. Exclusionary housing development zoning regulations for example fall into that category. Housing supply constraints affect local employment opportunities and wage dynamics especially in areas where the degree of zoning regulation barriers are more severe.

It’s getting much tougher to find good jobs in areas with adequate affordable housing opportunities. Even when job markets improve, the absence of strong sustained real income growth means that for more and more communities, the relative cost of housing will continue to climb at the same time the availability of adequately affordable housing is decreasing.

Research shows (see, “The Role of Affordable Housing in Creating Jobs and Stimulating Local Economic Development: A Review of the Literature” Center for Housing Policy) that adequate affordable housing in communities has benefits extending beyond its occupants to the community at large. Without a sufficient supply of affordable housing, employers and entire regional economies can be at a competitive disadvantage because of their increased difficulty attracting and retaining workers.

The excellent study referenced above provides a clear discussion of this issue. The primary thesis of the study is that developing more affordable housing in communities creates jobs — both during construction and through new consumer spending after the homes have been occupied. The positive impacts of building affordable rental housing are on par with and in many respects exceed the impacts of developing comparable market-rate units.

The take away from this is that housing affordability, inclusive communities and vibrant economic development, are intertwined in substantial ways. Communities can positively change the dynamics with various policies including favoring appropriate density in zoning laws.

Bullish on mobile homes

December 30, 2015fair housing, home ownership, housing, modular homes, predatory lending, reverse redlining, VermontClayton Homes, mobile homes, predatory lending, reverse redlining, Seattle Times, Vermont, Warren BuffettTed Wimpey

It seems that the wide-ranging portfolio of Warren Buffett, investment sage and one of the world’s richest men, includes a mobile-home empire that’s coming under fair-housing scrutiny.

That’s Clayton Homes Inc., the leading maker of mobile homes, which Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway bought in 2003. A Clayton affiliate is also the leading lender to purchasers of mobile homes.

Now comes an investigative series by the Seattle Times, the Center for Public Integrity and BuzzFeed alleging exploitative lending to minorities, not to mention racist employment practices. One of the key predatory-lending allegations is summed up by this sentence, the series’ third article published the other day:

“The company’s in-house lender, Vanderbilt Mortgage, charges minority borrowers substantially higher rates, on average than their white counter parts. In fact, federal data shows that Vanderbilt typically charges black people who make over $75,000 a year slightly more than white people who make only $35,000.”

To this and the series’ accusations launched beginning in April, Clayton issued a “categorical” denial in a press release dated Dec. 26, stating, among other things:

“(I)n 2015, for borrowers with credit scores less than 600 who chose to purchase a home-only placed on private land, and borrowed less than $50,000, the average note rate from Vanderbilt was the same for white and non-white borrowers. For borrowers with credit scores greater than 720, the note rate for non-white borrowers was 0.07 percent less than for white borrowers.”

Buffett stands by the company and told shareholders this past spring that he “makes no apologies whatsoever for Clayton’s lending terms.”

Most of the alleged depredations highlighted in the articles have taken place in the south and on native American reservations in the Southwest. Clayton does have a presence in Vermont. The company’s website lists two sales outlets in the state – in Montpelier and White River Junction – out of more than a thousand dealerships nationwide.

If the series’ allegations have legs, one might expect they’ll prompt a federal investigation or a reverse-redlining lawsuit of the sort that was lodged against Wells Fargo for preying on minority home-buyers in Baltimore and Memphis in the years leading up to the housing bust.

Not so easy

December 29, 2015affordable housing, Baltimore, fair housing, housing, housing subsidies, housing vouchers, income inequality, integration, public housing, renters, Section 8, segregation, Vermontaffordable housing, Baltimore, housing news, housing vouchers, integration, segregation, Thompson vs. HUD, VermontTed Wimpey

A key goal of affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), as it’s envisioned playing out around the country, is to break up concentrations of poverty and to promote socioeconomic and racial integration. That means ensuring opportunities for lower-income people and racial minorities to live in wealthier, “high opportunity” neighborhoods with access to jobs, goods schools and public services.

Two ways to facilitate those opportunities:

Promote regional mobility among people with Section 8 vouchers, enabling them to leave high-poverty areas and move into more well-to-do communities. This can require increasing their housing allowance so that they can afford higher suburban rents.
Build affordable, multifamily rental housing in those same, heretofor exclusive neighborhoods.

Both of these approaches deserve consideration around here, as Vermonters contemplate how to make their communities more socioeconomically inclusive. Meanwhile, it’s interesting to see how they’ve played out in an entirely different environment: metropolitan Baltimore.

First, some background: Baltimore has a long history of racial segregation (click here for a trenchant account), and in the mid-1990s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development was sued by city residents (Thompson vs. HUD) for its failure to eliminate segregation in public housing. In 2005, a federal judge found that HUD had violated the Fair Housing Act by maintaining existing patterns of impoverishment and segregation in the city and by failing to achieve “significant desegregation” in the Baltimore region.

Seven years later, a court-approved settlement resolved the case in a way that anticipated the AFFH rule that HUD issued this past summer.

The settlement called on HUD to continue the Baltimore Mobility Program, begun in 2003 in an earlier settlement phase. The program has provided housing vouchers to more than 2,600 families to move out of poor, segregated neighborhoods and into areas with populations that are less than 10 percent impoverished and less than 30 percent black. The program provides counseling before and after the move and has received high marks from evaluators who cite improved educational and employment outcomes for beneficiaries. A similar regional program is underway in Chicago.

The settlement also called for affordable-housing development in these “high-opportunity” suburban communities – 300 units a year through 2020. To make this happen, HUD was to provide new financial incentives for developers.

Here is where the story takes a dispiriting turn. Three years later, not a single developer has applied for the incentives. No affordable housing projects are even in the pipeline. That’s according to an eye-opening story the other day in the Baltimore Sun.

So, what happened? Why haven’t developers shown any interest? HUD had no explanation, according to the story, which suggested that perhaps the program hadn’t been well-enough publicized: a prominent builder of affordable housing admitted he didn’t even know about the incentives. Could it be that they weren’t generous enough?

Whatever the reason, the Baltimore experience reflects how difficult it can be to introduce affordable housing to privileged enclaves. No one should underestimate the AFFH challenge.

A little holiday cheer

December 24, 2015elected leaders, fair housing, housing, housing crisis, New Jersey, NIMBYism, Portland, renters, Vermont, workforce housingaffordable housing, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, housing crisis, Portland, Seattle, subsidized housing, VermontTed Wimpey

Portland, Ore., has come up with a new funding source for affordable housing: tourists! The city council has voted to dedicate a share of the tax on Airbnb-type rentals to the city’s Housing Investment Fund — $1.2 million a year. That’s a drop in the bucket in a city where the affordable housing shortfall amounts to about 24,000 units, but it’s better than nothing.
Jackson Hole officialdom has agreed to consider a plan that would dial back commercial growth in favor of housing, with density bonuses offered for workforce housing. A citizen campaign bearing slogans like “Housing not hotels” apparently got a receptive hearing.
The Republican leadership of Howell, N.J., is backing an affordable housing project despite, and in the face of, some unusually ugly civic opposition — in a state where support for affordable housing is typically associated with Democrats. This profile of courage, in the Atlantic, includes a fine summary of the tortuous (and torturous) fate of affordable housing in New Jersey after the landmark Mount Laurel decisions. Another example of how good intentions and a supportive legal infrastructure are not enough.
The “recapitalization” of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as proposed by two economists, would direct a flood of new money to the states for affordable housing via the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund. Vermont would get $4.6 million a year for affordable housing for 20 years under this scheme. Sounds great, but whether this proposal has any legs is an open question. Some members of Congress would just as soon do away with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae altogether.
A community of 15 tiny houses is scheduled to open later this month in Seattle to provide transitional quarters for homeless people. Granted, this isn’t exactly cheerful news, but at least it’s different.

Nagging question

December 23, 2015affirmatively furthering fair housing, affordable housing, fair housing, housing, housing crisis, income inequality, middle class, Mount Laurel, renters, segregationaffordable housing, housing crisis, housing news, property valuesTed Wimpey

How does an affordable housing development affect surrounding property values?

There’s no simple answer to this question, in part because of the many variables that come into play– the siting, for example, and the nature of the neighborhood (blighted? well-to-do?), the scale of the development, the design, and so on.

Not surprisingly, though, the question has spawned a large literature. A rather dated survey of the research, from the Furman Center at NYU, found that “the vast majority of studies have found that affordable housing does not depress neighboring property values, and may even raise them in some cases.” A “Field Guide to Effects of Low-Income Housing on Property Values,” put out by the National Association of Realtors and citing numerous references, updated last year, agrees: “Most studies indicate that affordable housing has no long term negative impact on surrounding home values.”

Indeed, that’s the standard pitch that affordable-housing advocates make in the face of NIMBY opposition: The notion that affordable housing drives down property values is a “myth.”

Then, along comes a study with an inconvenient conclusion, seemingly muddying the water. That would be “Who Wants Affordable Housing in their Backyard? An Equilibrium Analysis of Low Income Property Development,” by Stanford economists Rebecca Diamond and Tim McQuade. Their finding is that, within a 0.1-mile radius, Low Income Housing Tax Credit-financed developments raise property values over the long run in low-income neighborhoods but lower them in higher-income neighborhoods. They conclude: “Given the goals of many affordable housing polices is to decrease income and racial segregation in housing markets, these goals might be better achieved by investing in affordable housing in low income and high minority areas, which will then spark in-migration of high income and a more racially diverse set of residents.”

This conclusion runs contrary to the spirit of affirmatively furthering fair housing, which advocates a balanced approach for affordable housing investment: revitalizing blighted areas, on one hand, and desegregating higher-income areas, on the other. This dual approach also has the imprimatur of the U.S. Supreme Court, which effectively endorsed it in its ruling this summer upholding the disparate impact doctrine. (For our previous post on this, click here.) The court’s ruling favored a Texas plaintiff who argued that affordable housing projects should NOT be disproportionately sited in low-income minority neighborhoods.

While we await critiques of the Stanford study from the affordable-housing commentariat, we take note of various examples where affordable housing has not depressed property values in higher-income communities: Places such as Mount Laurel, N.J., epicenter of New Jersey’s fair/affordable housing movement, where a Princeton study found that values in surrounding neighborhoods were unaffected (for the New York Times account, click here). Or Weston or Wellesley, two of Massachusetts’ wealthiest communities, where a Tufts study found that mixed-income developments had no effect on surrounding property values, as reported via Shelterforce.

One factor that might well have a bearing, and that would not show up in the Census-tract-type data used by the Stanford researchers, is design. Affordable housing doesn’t have to look cheap or barracks-y. In fact, if the design is done well, affordable units can be hard to distinguish from market-rate units.

Planning consultant Julie Campoli demonstrates this in her “Thriving Communities” webinar/seminar presentation. She shows each of the following two slides of four photos each and asks viewers to guess which is affordable and which market-rate. We’re giving the answer away by showing the labeled versions here, but her point should be obvious.