Alex Jiang (adj2257)
Professor Kamas
ACC 366P
24 April 2018
Not in My Backyard
Mankind is funny. We are honest until we lie, we are loving until we hate, we are giving until we stop. We delude ourselves into thinking we are much better than we are and writers throughout the ages have documented our hubris and our foibles. But that is the history of mankind. We constantly think about how much better we would do or how much good we would contribute to society if only we were in a different position. We think in terms of grand and noble goals when we are on the outside looking in but as soon as we reach the “in”, our mentality shifts. Oh wait, I won’t approve this initiative that I pushed for so hard because I didn’t think of X, Y and Z. Hypocrisy is deeply rooted into our psyche and is the fire keeper that stokes the flames of the hearth which is our ego. This very word is the seed of modern day politics as politicians desperately vie for any vote they can get. It is also the catalyst behind all kinds of protests and movements such as Not in My Backyard (NIMBY). NIMBY signifies an “opposition to the locating of something considered undesirable in one’s neighborhood” (Rafferty and Kinder). And in this case, affordable housing. According to a survey conducted by the National Low Income Housing Corporation, “76% [of people] believed [affordable housing] should be addressed by their elected leaders in Washington” (National Low Income Housing Coalition). So how does hypocrisy apply here? Hypocrisy applies here because people are all for the idea of affordable housing except for when construction happens near them, citing reasons such as decreased property value and safety of their children. Although there are supposed concerns with lowered property value, safety issues and “flooded schools”, the economic, social, and community benefits brought forward by establishing affordable housing far outweigh the negatives.
Money is the greatest motivator. It is the cure all. And affordable housing brings just that. According to a 2011 article written by Rebecca Cohen and Keith Wardrip, “the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) estimates that 100 units of affordable housing for families generates roughly $827,000 for jurisdictions” (Cohen and Wardrip). This means that the construction of affordable housing brings tangible monetary benefits to local and state governments. According to Cohen and Wardrip, “affordable rent and mortgage payments can significantly increase the residual income that households have at their disposal after meeting necessary housing costs – by $500 or more per month in some cases” (Cohen and Wardrip). This means that by creating cheap living spaces, families that were once spending most of their paycheck on rent and housing now have increased buying power to put into local businesses and promote the local economy.
On top of that, affordable housing promotes job creation which in turn increases income and spending. Jobs ranging from construction to engineering to restaurants to retail all need people to fill, and “between 2011 and 2015, affordable housing projects created 329,400 total jobs” in New York alone – “46,800 which were permanent” (Moelis). This creation of jobs helps reintegrate low-income families and the homeless back into society and provides a chance for them to live the so-called “American Dream”. Those with a negative view of the homeless often portray the homeless as “lazy”, “uninspired”, and taking money away from hard working tax payers. While that may be true of a certain segment of the homeless, the number one reason for homelessness is severe family tragedy that destroyed the safety net they once had leaving them on the streets (Fogarty). The creation of jobs from construction of affordable housing gives a chance for these so-called “lazy” and “uninspired” people to get back on their feet. Isn’t it hypocritical for advocates against affordable housing to not only refuse to help out the homeless because the homeless are “lazy”, “greedy” and should work for their money but also prevent initiatives to help create jobs so that they can work for money?
Finally, there are real benefits brought to residents near where affordable housing is constructed. According to a report authored by the public policy and economics team at Blue Sky Consulting Group, “affordable housing saves taxpayer money by reducing demand for other government services including homeless, health, and other social programs” (Dietz). This means that even the most avid proponents against establishing affordable housing in their area will reap some of the rewards. Less government money towards homeless, health and other social programs leads to more money put into roads, schools, parks, and other government funded projects generally viewed as “positive”.
I would like to think that behind even the greediest of men, there exists some joy when the less fortunate are inspired and enabled. That behind the greed, there is compassion and a genuine desire to “help thy neighbor”. Beyond the fiscal and economic benefits brought forward by affordable housing, there are measurable societal benefits associated with establishing affordable housing in the region. According to a report by the Blue Sky Consulting Group, “affordable housing improves resident health by reducing exposure to environmental hazards and frees resources to pay for health expenses and food” (Dietz). Through affordable housing, low-income families are better able to care for themselves and their children leading to longer lifespans and a general improvement in quality of living.
More specifically, according to Enterprise Community Partners, a developer for affordable housing, “children in unstable housing situations are less likely to get the food they need… and may experience poorer health, lower than healthy weight and higher developmental risks – increasing their chances for life-long health problems”. Not only that, “for children, frequent moves have been linked to increased lifetime risk of depression”. Children aren’t the only ones at risk, “mothers in these families suffer as well – having higher incidence of depression and poor health” and “adults who felt worried or stressed about their ability to pay their rent or mortgage were three times more likely to report mental distress and were almost 50 percent more likely to have trouble sleeping – both of which can have long-term physical and mental health consequences”. In a study conducted by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing studies comparing low-income families with and without affordable housing, “those affordable housed families spent nearly five times as much on health care, a third more on food, and twice as much on retirement savings” and as a result, had a “35% greater chance of being classified as a ‘well’ child, 28% lower risk of being seriously underweight, and 19% lower risk of being food insecure” (Enterprise). I find it hard to believe that even the most selfish of people would not find joy in seeing the lives and health of children and their caregivers improve by leaps and bounds. In this case, the advocates against affordable housing are not just protesting affordable housing and purported “property values”. They are protesting against the improved health and well-being of America’s children. They are protesting against single-mothers struggling to make ends meet. They are protesting against the elderly and the veterans who devoted their lives to our country.
Not only does expanded affordable housing options create recognizable positive economic and social impact, we are also able to see beneficial improvements in the community via education and employment which both provide long-term benefits.
First, because less taxpayer is spent on homeless, health, and social programs after the establishment of affordable housing, we will be able to see more money invested into local public education systems. This leads to hiring better staff, teachers, and higher rates of college placement. Not only that, it will help children of low-income families to break that cycle of helplessness where they do not have access to educational resources. According to Enterprise, “housing instability can seriously jeopardize children’s performance and success in school, and contribute to long-lasting achievement gaps. Quality affordable housing helps create a stable environment for children, contributing to improved educational outcomes”. On top of that, studies show “students who experience homelessness or hypermobility have been show to perform below other low-income peers throughout elementary school” and “are more likely than their peers to drop out of school, repeat grades, perform poorly in school, disengage in the classroom, and suffer from learning disabilities and behavior problems” (Enterprise). Through years of psychological research and countless experiments, we know that humans are social creatures and feed off the emotions of those around us. Schools with a large population of children who are homeless or suffer unstable housing will rub off on the performance of other children and as a result lead to less-motivated staff and instructors. This feedback loops leads to a decreased education quality for all involved. So why not start at the root of the problem and provide stable and affordable housing for homeless and hyper-mobilized children?
We also see improved employment opportunities for those in areas with affordable housing. Beyond the obvious creation of jobs, “many employers have reported that a lack of affordable housing makes it more difficult – and thus more – to recruit and retain employees”. And in a “national survey of more than 300 companies, 55 percent of the largest respondents acknowledged an insufficient level of affordable housing in their proximity and two-thirds of the same respondents believed that the shortage negatively affected their ability to hold onto qualified employees” (Cohen and Wardrip). This inability for companies and employers to hold onto employees leads to higher rates of unemployment and an unnecessary hindrance on the local economy. A lack of affordable housing will also be less attractive to companies and they will be less likely to expand to such areas.
The benefits of affordable housing have been well-noted ranging from creation of more jobs to improved health of children to increased employer attraction. Yet, “many affordable housing developers view local opposition [as] the most important barrier to development after insufficient subsidy” (Iglesias). So, what do the detractors say?
Perhaps the primary argument against the expansion of affordable housing is residents believe their property value will fall. However, “many studies have shown that affordable housing does not drive down nearby property values” (Pendall). In fact, these “menacing” affordable housing buildings can drive up property values as more companies and drawn in and establish their businesses in the area. As presented by Cohen and Wardrip, “research findings summarized in a report by the Center for Housing Policy show that the impact of a new affordable housing development on nearby property values is more likely to be neutral or positive” (Cohen and Wardrip). Property values can also be increased as schools will be improved and have increasing college placement rates.
Another concern of adversaries is the safety of their children. However, “recent research suggests that low and moderate-income households who participate in affordable homeownership programs have a much lower risk of delinquency” (Cohen and Wardrip). Also, the increased socialization affordable housing residents would have with their neighbors would lead to a better understanding of societal norms and create an attachment to the community. Amber Fogarty, the Chief Goodness Officer at Mobile Loaves and Fishes which is a nonprofit focused on affordable housing, notes that their residents go through a rigorous screening process and the assisted families are typically so grateful and appreciative of the help that rarely does crime occur (Fogarty).
A third issue “raised about affordable housing is that it will flood local schools with children, increasing the demand for school facilities and educational services” (Cohen and Wardrip). This false notion is primarily based off the antiquated idea that low-income families have more children; however, “today there is only a small difference in the average number of children per household when comparing income levels”. This argument against putting low-income family children in school is also morally wrong. It completely disregards societies duty to educate all our youth as they are the future of the country. It is blasphemous to think that those born in a higher economic status deserve an education while those born to low-income families do not, and consequently, will not be able to break the cycle of poverty. This idea is often perpetrated by those who are against welfare and “charity” donations to the poor. But it is hypocritical to complain about expanding welfare programs and also to complain about when low-families are actively trying to help improve their situation.
Our country is in constant turmoil. And that is natural. It is crazy to think that a country of over 300 million will all agree on anything, much less something like expanding affordable housing. It is even crazy to think that we are all rational beings who do not flip-flop sides whenever it suits our interest because even our president does that. But it is worth a shot to point that out, to hope people realize that the poorest are trampled upon over and over with reckless abandon. To hope people realize that those that are least talked about are the ones that need the most help. And affordable housing is a step in that right direction. Issues raised by detractors about safety, property value, and schools have largely been proven false and the tangible economic, societal, and community impacts cannot be ignored.
So let us take a leap as mankind: to recognize our hubris and our foibles, to recognize that we can improve, and to decide that we will.