As letter writers recently have expressed opposition to new housing in their Asheville neighborhood, some have argued that infill homes should be denied because they won’t be “affordable” anyway [“Council Must Listen to Community on Haw Creek Project,” April 17, Xpress]. Other “pros” and “cons” for such construction aside, this is a misguided idea.
In fact, new research affirms what housing advocates have argued for years: Even where land and construction costs are high, new infill is essential to reducing rent and home prices across core neighborhoods.
Here’s what the research says: Let’s say some homes are built in East Asheville. Most of these will likely be purchased or rented by locals. And that in turn frees up housing elsewhere. A family moving to a turnkey property in East Asheville made the decision not to purchase a fixer-upper in West Asheville. So the renter there gets to stay in their home. Further, that family’s old home near the River Arts District is now vacant. So a new resident moves in, leaving her old bungalow for another family. Again, that family is likely to come from within the Asheville region.
This phenomenon, which researchers call “moving chains,” is remarkable because it increases vacancies for lower-cost homes even when the chain begins with higher-priced ones. Ninety-five new homes may lead to dozens of fewer instances of displacement across the city.
This is reverse gentrification. Options for renters and homebuyers in desirable neighborhoods reduce displacement pressures and speculation in more vulnerable ones. Even when those options are “market-rate.”
The alternative — preventing new homes from being built in high-value neighborhoods — only makes such places more exclusive. It is irrefutably a primary mechanism by which class- and race-based segregation persist.
Most working people live in unsubsidized housing. That won’t change, absent a revolution in federal policy. And as Asheville struggles with the difficult task of better targeting the scarce funds that we have, freeing up more market-rate homes for such workers as teachers and nurses may provide them with a better chance of paying for housing on their own, allowing more subsidies for more vulnerable demographics.
Finally, another recent study reaffirms another point related to housing affordability: Allowing an increase in market-rate infill homes makes public dollars spent on subsidized housing go dramatically further.
One reason is that land accounts for a portion of construction costs; dollars that first go to builders end up in the pockets of landowners as passive income. But if we allow infill to be added in all of our high-demand, high-amenity neighborhoods, we diminish the pricing power that landowners wield. In short, with more housing capacity, public money is “captured” away from speculation, and more may go to help renters.
As City Council considers comprehensive zoning reforms and “conditional zoning” requests to promote more residential infill, and as Asheville prepares for an affordable housing bond this fall, remember that these things aren’t in competition. Rather, the city’s affordable housing goals are dependent on allowing that infill — even if much of it will be market rate.
— Andrew Paul
Asheville
Editor’s note: Andrew Paul is a lead organizer with the pro-housing advocacy nonprofit Asheville for All.
