[Electronic-LAN] Vox.com: The pro-housing consensus that wasn’t

Thu Dec 5 18:41:07 CST 2024

Am I wrong in thinking that the Minneapolis 2040 plan that took away the zoning of single-family had been tied up in court until this past summer? It had been challenged by environmentalist saying they had not done an environmental impact study and that was upheld by the Hennepin county Courts and development was stopped with a stay.  It was only after the legislature passed the bill saying that county development plans or city development plans were not subject to environmental review that then the stay was lifted . So the 2040 plan has only been in effect since the summerof 2024– less than 6 months. Although some but not all buildings that were started before the challenge were allowed to continue as permits had already been issued for them. I think that that was about 24 buildings. But I could be wrong about all this.Two of my sisters live there and are well informed . Population growth in Minneapolis has been weak the last five years.
Let me know if I am misinformed-PLEASE
On Dec 5, 2024, at 4:18 PM, kthompson at sunflower.com wrote:

HI,

Let’s try attaching my chart!

Thanks,

Kyle Thompson

kthompson at sunflower.com<mailto:kthompson at sunflower.com>

785-331-5783

<image001.png>

From: Electronic-LAN <electronic-lan-bounces at lists.ku.edu> on behalf of kthompson--- via Electronic-LAN <electronic-lan at lists.ku.edu>
Date: Thursday, December 5, 2024 at 3:42 PM
To: McClure, Kirk <mcclure at ku.edu>, Listserv of the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods (LAN) <electronic-lan at lists.ku.edu>, Sheri Ellenbecker <sheriellenbeck at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Electronic-LAN] Vox.com: The pro-housing consensus that wasn’t

HI Kirk,

Has your work been critiqued by any groups like Strong Towns or any of the large coterie of urbanists?

According to this chart, something is happening in Minneapolis. My understanding is that it is predominately Transit Oriented Development and not infill duplexes and triplexes. Note: Minneapolis is a college town.

[X]

I think people will cite your work and say, “See we don’t need to build more housing”, without looking at your concerns about zoning and subsidizing certain forms. I do believe that only through more density, sprawl can be contained and more affordable housing can be built. Since LAN is concerned about the LDC, do you have criticisms of it or are you generally in favor of it.

Thanks,

Kyle Thompson

kthompson at sunflower.com<mailto:kthompson at sunflower.com>

785-331-5783

<image001.png>

From: Electronic-LAN <electronic-lan-bounces at lists.ku.edu> on behalf of McClure, Kirk via Electronic-LAN <electronic-lan at lists.ku.edu>
Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 at 10:39 PM
To: Sheri Ellenbecker <sheriellenbeck at hotmail.com>, ELECTRONIC-LAN <electronic-lan at lists.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Electronic-LAN] Vox.com: The pro-housing consensus that wasn’t

Sheri and all,

Good questions.

Households versus families.  Terminology is always tricky.  In the housing field, we all stick with the definitions used by the Census Bureau.  A household is one or more persons who occupy a single housing unit.  A family is two or more persons related by blood or marriage.  A family usually lives in a single housing unit, but a family can be spread across multiple units. A household may or may not be a family. A household can be a single individual living alone, or a household can be 2+ people who may not be related by blood or marriage.

The “missing middle” and the “entry level home.”  It is true that low-cost starter homes, duplexes and townhouses are not being built in great numbers.  Some people blame zoning. Minneapolis recently eliminated single-family zoning in an attempt to promote greater mixing of housing types and price levels.  It will take years to see how much, if any, effect the elimination of single-family zoning will have.

NIMBY.  The sad reality is that existing homeowners do not want low-cost housing built in their neighborhoods out of fear that the low-cost units will lower the value of the existing higher-priced units. Whether through zoning or other means, existing homeowners will fight to protect the value of their homes.  This is a political roadblock that is hard to overcome.

Subsidies for developers.  It is very costly for the government to subsidize builders to construct lower cost housing units. It is nearly always less expensive for the government to help low-income households purchase units already in the market.

New units versus existing units.  New units are only a very small part of the total housing stock, and very few households ever own a new home.  Existing units in good shape can meet the needs of the low-income at lower cost to the taxpayers.  It is generally more cost effective and easier to overcome NIMBYism to subsidize low-income homebuyers purchase and renovate existing homes than it is to subsidize homebuilders to build new homes for low-income homebuyers.

Raise wages.  I have often said that nothing fixes a rooftop better than a paycheck.  The single most effective housing program is raising the minimum wage.  California recently adopted a $20 per hour minimum wage.  Housing analysts will be watching because when a household earns $40,000 or more, affordability problems tend to go away.

I hope that this helps.

All the best,
Kirk

Kirk McClure
Professor Emeritus
Urban Planning Program
University of Kansas
mcclure at ku.edu
________________________________
From: Sheri Ellenbecker <sheriellenbeck at hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 3:06:20 PM
To: McClure, Kirk <mcclure at ku.edu>; ELECTRONIC-LAN <electronic-lan at lists.ku.edu>
Cc: Gary Webber <gkwebber at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Electronic-LAN] Vox.com: The pro-housing consensus that wasn’t

Thanks. That is very enlightening data that you’ve shared. Some incomplete thoughts that I have had are that often a family has two houses because the family is not one unit. Does that count as two household then? Another thing that has been in the back of my mind is that there is no incentive for the builder to build a moderately priced home. They make a lot more money on more expensive homes I think. so the little slab ranchers that we rented when we were first married are no longer being built. The bedrooms were small. The bathrooms were small and they had an eaten kitchen. That served us nicely then it seems like those are not even being built now as single-family dwellings. And I do believe that most people want to have a single family dwelling as opposed to an apartment when they have a family.  Maybe that is something that is no longer possible in America. But I think in small town America like Lawrence Kansas that is what people want. Am I right in that? I think that if there was a way for the city to offer an incentive to build these types of homes , maybe more people could afford them. Also, there’s another way to look at this and that would be to raise wages.

On Dec 4, 2024, at 2:58 PM, McClure, Kirk via Electronic-LAN <electronic-lan at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

LAN members,

I just want to chime in on the affordable housing issue.  As a former member of LAN from Old West Lawrence, I continue to follow the good work of the association.  I also am a retired professor of urban planning who specializes in affordable housing.

The books mentioned in the Vox.com article are all noteworthy, but they probably are not the best research available in the area of affordable housing.  The authors of these books all come to the field of housing with limited knowledge of how housing markets behave, and these authors have a great many predispositions.  All are predisposed to think that the price of housing is high because the supply is scarce.  In many good and services, this may be true; it is not true in housing.  Careful examination of the data show that there is no shortage of housing in nearly all of the 916 metropolitan areas of the nation, including Lawrence.

Some quick facts from the Census, the most reliable source of population and housing data:

                Item                      2000                     2020                     Change                Percent Change

                Population         80,083                 94,934                 14,851                 19%

                Housing Units  32,792                 43,421                 10,629                 32%

                Households      31,435                 39,688                   8,253                 26%

Housing growth outpaced both population and household formation.  Thus, there is no housing shortage in Lawrence.  But prices are high here as they are throughout the nation.

Prices are high for reasons other than scarcity.  Our building codes demand that housing be built to high standards which increases prices.   Our capital gains tax laws favor investment in owner-occupied homes making homes the single largest component of household net worth which contributes to upward pressure on prices.  As a household’s largest investment, homeowners protect their investments with zoning codes that exclude lower-priced homes contributing to upward pressure on home prices.  Supply chain problems, labor problems and high interest rates have contributed to recent increases in the costs of building new units which also contribute to upward pressure on prices.  The upward trend in prices outpaces the growth of incomes, especially for poor households who tend to be renters.

The housing affordability problems of Lawrence (and nearly all metropolitan markets in the nation) result from low incomes and a housing market that cannot produce housing affordably priced for the low-income households.  What this means is that we cannot build our way out of the housing affordability problem.  Adding large quantities of housing units will not lower housing prices.

We can help to resolve housing affordability problems with rental assistance (Housing Choice Vouchers) and low-income homebuyer assistance (downpayment assistance and below-market interest rate loans).

There are exceptions.  Special needs households and the homeless have problems that are best addressed by building housing that fits their special needs.  However, for the vast majority of the population, the market has already built the housing that is needed; we need to help the poor pay for the housing that already exists.

I hope that this helps.

All the best,

Kirk

Kirk McClure, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Urban Planning Program

University of Kansas

mcclure at ku.edu<mailto:mcclure at ku.edu>

From: Electronic-LAN <electronic-lan-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Gary Webber via Electronic-LAN
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 12:23 PM
To: ELECTRONIC-LAN <electronic-lan at lists.ku.edu>
Subject: [Electronic-LAN] Vox.com: The pro-housing consensus that wasn’t

https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2Fpolicy%2F389431%2Fhousing-affordable-homes-yimby-nimby-shortage-construction&data=05%7C02%7Celectronic-lan%40lists.ku.edu%7C2e5f36f050ca49c16d4b08dd158eae39%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638690424806467698%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3NOS0EmiolDf0LCRK9NAmFlr5CjIOvplnP0nfBq7cR0%3D&reserved=0

I suggest reading this article from Vox (link above), which summarizes 3 new books on housing trends in the U.S. It provides an excellent review of the history of housing that got us where we are today, and the possible paths proposed to improve the situation.

Gary Webber

_______________________________________________
Electronic-LAN mailing list
Electronic-LAN at lists.ku.edu
https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/electronic-lan
<minn chart.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/electronic-lan/attachments/20241206/5da81d40/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 30252 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/electronic-lan/attachments/20241206/5da81d40/attachment-0001.png>