The impossible bargain of feel-good politics

BY BILLY COONEY

During its March 11 meeting, Asheville City Council approved a few changes to the zoning code. Among them were updates to the rules governing flag lots and cottage courts, both of which are often used in attempts to increase the supply of moderately priced housing. Those changes, however, include exemptions for certain neighborhoods identified as vulnerable to gentrification. The purpose, which was explicitly stated during the March 6 agenda briefing, was to protect them from further development pressure and prevent resident displacement.

Council ostensibly wants to apply the zoning updates in these neighborhoods as well, once members figure out how to implement anti-displacement policies. But behind this admirable intention lurks the belief that avoiding policy updates in neighborhoods will keep them safe from change. This is a big problem across the country, in cities small and large. Even Los Angeles opted to exclude single-family neighborhoods from its Citywide Housing Incentive Program. Elected officials nationwide seem reluctant to support increased housing development in single-family neighborhoods, regardless of whether those neighborhoods are vulnerable.

Fossilization kills neighborhoods

First, restrictive zoning is exactly what got this country into the current housing crisis. Many U.S. cities have incredibly strict land-use regulations that have made it impossible to build anything other than single-family homes in most residential neighborhoods. Freezing communities in amber is largely why housing has become so expensive, and doubling down on this, even when well-intentioned, will only worsen the situation. Thus, it’s essential that Council eliminates those exemptions once measures to prevent displacement are in place.

Second, preventing development does not prevent change. Restrictive zoning purports to ensure architectural, economic and cultural conformity. It’s a tool we cling to in the hope of maintaining some control, whether it’s rich neighborhoods keeping poor people out or poor neighborhoods keeping rich people out. But the truth is that even with restrictive zoning, neighborhood residents are often unhappy with new home construction. After all, there’s no guarantee that the style of a new home and the character of its inhabitants will match the existing neighborhood. During the March 11 meeting, for example, one resident complained about big, expensive homes driving up her property taxes.

Even without development, however, neighborhoods will change. Refusing to build housing can create demographic stagnation as kids grow up and move away. So unless a neighborhood welcomes new families — or young couples on a budget who might decide to start a family — the school-age population eventually shrinks, leading to school closures and, potentially, a less desirable neighborhood. Over the long term, restrictive zoning clearly fails to preserve neighborhood character.

Third, clinging to restrictive zoning is not a viable strategy for managing displacement and affordability. Single-family zoning is not protective — it’s exclusionary. Its purpose is to keep people out and maintain rising property values. And while Council’s carve-outs seem well-intended, they exclude substantial portions of the city. One of these exempted areas includes part of Montford, one of Asheville’s most desirable and expensive neighborhoods.

In light of all this, I don’t see how we can take an honest look at what restrictive zoning has accomplished — segregation and a full-blown affordable housing crisis — along with its failure to ensure perpetual stability, and still believe it can be a useful tool for managing development.

Accentuate the positive

Instead, I’d like to see us talking about development as a tool for good. Many Texas cities have adopted a pro-growth mindset that acknowledges the benefits of building more housing — including helping to create a strong economy and a solid tax base that can support well-funded schools — as well as some trade-offs, such as increased congestion and neighborhood change. If Council members are serious about addressing the affordable housing crisis, they need to be comfortable with the trade-offs.

In my opinion, cities are destined to change. We don’t have to be thrilled by every new development. Sure, some will be ugly, and there will be more traffic. But if we embrace growth as a sign of a desirable and thriving city, we can take it in stride while implementing policies that strive to make the best of it.

My argument here is not that gentrification is inevitable or that we shouldn’t care about displacing residents. But change is inevitable, and without accepting that fact, we can’t move forward with policies that address our housing needs at both the top and the bottom of the market. Claiming to address the housing crisis while avoiding policies that are even slightly controversial is an impossible bargain with no tangible upside.

Asheville resident Billy Cooney is an urban planner whose work focuses on land-use and transportation policy. He serves on the Downtown Commission and occasionally writes about local planning topics. The views expressed here are his own.