Op-Ed in Washington Post about preserving affordable housing in the Purple Line corridor (Department of Duh)

There is an op ed, "Maryland must do more to preserve housing around the Purple Line," in the Washington Post by David Bowers of the Enterprise Community Partners--one of the nation's leading affordable housing constructors and advocates--about the need to preserve affordable housing in the swath of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties that will be served by the Purple Line light rail because new transit will lead to housing price appreciation.  

From the article:

When construction on the Purple Line began in 2017, the Purple Line Corridor Coalition, a multi-sector group, estimated that 17,000 affordable homes in the line’s vicinity were at risk of being lost to market forces. Rent increases will lead to displacement; 47 percent of all renters in the area around the Purple Line are already rent-burdened, meaning they pay more than 30 percent of their monthly income in rent. They can’t afford to pay more.

The concerns about housing appreciation due to better transit access from new projects aren't new.  

It's been an issue in the Langley Park community for more than 10 years ("In Langley Park, Purple Line brings promise, and fears, of change," 2011; "Along the Purple Line, worries that new transit will bring higher rents," 2021, Washington Post) and was raised in the Columbia Pike community of Arlington when they were considering streetcar service there ("Columbia Pike housing, transit questioned," 2012, Washington Post).

And those concerns are logical based on the experience in the region with Metrorail and how it has led to significant price appreciation, especially in core neighborhoods in Washington, DC and Arlington County, Virginia, even if it took a couple decades and longer to become visible.

One example is how the addition of the NoMA Red Line infill station in 2004 led to a significant increased in demand for housing north of H Street NE.  Since then housing prices have increased by 6x to 10x.

Express newspaper, 2012.

For what it's worth, I first suggested that Montgomery and Prince George's Counties go in on a community development corporation to address this in a brief blog entry in 2009.  

Relatedly in 2012, "Time + improvements in transit infrastructure = increased housing values."

Then in response to two conferences organized by the Purple Line Coalition in 2014, I wrote two pieces about this ("Purple line planning in suburban Maryland as an opportunity to integrate place and people focused initiatives into delivery of new transit systems" and "Quick follow up to the Purple Line piece about creating a Transportation Renewal District and selling bonds to fund equitable development").  

At the time, I talked about this with a member of the Montgomery County Planning Board, and he said it wasn't an issue of concern with the chair, because the chair couldn't see such a response being adopted, so why bother?

In 2017, I updated the post a wee bit and included it in the Purple Line series of articles about how to respond to and leverage the Purple Line as an addition to the Washington metropolitan transit network.

-- "PL #6: Creating a transportation development authority in Montgomery and Prince George's County to effectuate placemaking, retail development, and housing programs in association with the Purple Line"

Now that the Purple Line is going to be delivered 4+ years late, Maryland gets a little more time, but not much.  The places that are likely to be good locations for market rate housing are already being developed ("Suburban Maryland Purple Line light rail as an already successful economic development driver," 2020).

Amenities at the Chevy Chase Lake development will include a swimming pool, outdoor grills, co-working spaces, a wine room, a game room, a library, a bar and a fitness center. (Imerza)

For example, in Chevy Chase, new development is underway to leverage its location to the coming Purple Line ("New apartments leasing in Chevy Chase Lake in Montgomery County," Washington Post).  From the article:

Three residential developments are slated to be part of the Chevy Chase Lake development in Montgomery County, Md., designed to be a walkable mixed-use community with a town center and access to the Capital Crescent Trail. The development is adjacent to Connecticut Avenue and the planned Purple Line transit system, which will provide an east-west connection between Montgomery and Prince George’s counties.

My idea was that among its activities, the Bi-County CDC would help to fund, buy, operate and hold affordable housing in the corridor, including buying existing properties and adding more housing to them. 

Note also I was intrigued how Seattle was considering this issue wrt the Martin Luther King Corridor and the forthcoming addition of light rail there ("MLK Way: More than a highway or a piece of the next grand plan, it's home," Seattle Times).  I blogged about it in 2005.

And I was impressed by a proactive community development housing production initiative in Greater Phoenix in association with the light rail program there (""Light rail housing fund spurs 15 projects in metro Phoenix" and "Why you don't see more vacant lots along light-rail route," Arizona Republic).

How much time is necessary to respond to an obvious situation?

======

I find the affordable housing "argument" frustrating, because the problem is obvious--not enough housing--and the solution is obvious--build more.

But it costs money and requires government action is counter to the neo liberal argument that the market will solve every problem and government is ineffectual.

After reading an article about a project in Long Beach, California, I looked up Mercy Housing, a multi-state CDC focused on AH production, and this is on their website:

Nationwide, there are only 31 affordable units for every 100 extremely low income renters. In no state can a full-time minimum wage worker afford a one-bedroom or a two-bedroom rental unit at Fair Market Rent. 2.5 million children are homeless each year in the U.S. These sobering numbers are only a few of the many illustrating our country’s dire need for affordable housing.

These statistics couldn't be more clear.  There is great demand for affordable housing.  But if you want more affordable housing, you have to build it and it won't be produced by the for profit real estate development community, at least not without subsidy.

FWIW, the chapter on housing in Jumping the Abyss: Marriner S. Eccles and the New Deal, 1933–1940 is must reading.  The way that the housing market was restructured in the 1930s has set the stage of the US housing market ever since.  

Even then it was understood that housing for the lowest income segments would have to be subsidized.  But the "bias" or preference of policy makers was in favor of private housing production and not providing subsidies.  

Even though various legislation authorized affordable housing production, it was a very small part of New Deal housing measures.  And after a time, active government involvement in affordable housing was forbidden, and severe restrictions on what could be produced and for how much were also imposed, making production of high quality affordable housing increasingly difficult.

Today's piece by Philadelphia Inquirer urban design columnist Inga Saffron, "The Philadelphia Inquirer: The city desperately needs more public housing. There’s a perfect site in West Philadelphia," is equally illuminating.

She points out that since the Clinton Administration, public housing policy has focused on reducing the number of low income housing units, adding market rate housing to AH developments, lessening a focus on providing housing for the lowest income segments, and limiting new production.  From the article:

The real crisis in Philadelphia is poverty. Even as the city’s economy has rebounded over the last two decades, launching a building boom that has shined up blighted neighborhoods, its poverty rate has grown steadily worse. Almost a quarter of city residents struggle to pay for food and housing — 65,000 more than in 2000. No matter how many houses Philadelphia’s private developers build, those low-income residents will never be able to afford the rent. ...

Why doesn’t PHA just build more apartments? The short answer is that the federal government has drastically reduced funding to the nation’s housing authorities over the last three decades and imposed strict limits on new construction through the Faircloth Amendment. Things got so bad here that PHA closed its waiting list to new applications (except for seniors and the disabled) in 2013. The situation isn’t unique to Philadelphia: Today, there are 200,000 fewer public housing units available nationally than during the Clinton era.

So yes, as poverty and housing prices have increased, not just in Philadelphia, but nationally we have:

1. reduced the number of low income housing units; 
2. restricted construction of new low income housing units; and 
3. reduced the amount of money available to public housing authorities.

And we wonder why there is an AH supply problem?, while conveniently blaming "greedy developers."