SACRAMENTO REPORT
By Greg McConnell, Legislative Advocate

DEBUNKING THE MYTHS ABOUT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING

The other day I attended a meeting with Sunne McPeak, California's Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing. The meeting was packed with virtually every stakeholder on housing development including leading housing advocates, builders, developers, bankers, insurers and other interested parties.

Many in the audience wanted to make the case for more homeownership. However, my purpose for attending was to promote more multifamily rental housing. As I readied myself for the meeting, I looked at various studies that have been made to show the desperate need for quality rental housing.

Here are a few examples of the arguments that I prepared:

Workforce Housing - Teachers, police, firefighters, librarians, nurses, and other community resource people must be able to live in the communities they serve. We can talk about these people buying homes all day long, but the reality is that they are priced out of the single-family home market in most of California's desirable areas. If we don't build quality rental housing that these people can afford, they will opt to work in other locals where they can find housing.

Economic Development - Surveys around the nation point to unaffordable housing as the number one impediment to getting businesses to relocate. This is especially true in California where more and more businesses are considering relocating out of the state because their employees do not have enough gold to live in the golden state.

Gridlock - The reason it takes two hours to make a 30-mile drive is because too many people are commuting long distances to get to work. When I drive from Hercules to Berkeley, a short fifteen-mile drive, I am not competing with local residents for highway space. Increasingly, the cars on the road come from distant locations like Fairfield, Vacaville, Sacramento and points east. Oakland's Interstate 580 drivers compete with riders from Tracey, Stockton and Modesto. The situation in Southern California is worse.

The list of good reasons for more multifamily development goes on and on. By now only the most information resistant people don't know that we have a housing crisis and that we are millions of housing units short.

Armed with these arguments, I was confident that I could persuade people to do the obvious and agree to make development of multi-family housing a priority. Who could resist?

That is when the truth unfolded. Opposition to multifamily development is rampant. Visceral anti-apartmentism is based upon biases and prejudices that are completely unwarranted. People hear of apartment construction and immediately think of crime, overcrowding, demands on social services, and most important, reduced property values.

Debunking the Myths

Even though housing development is a hot button issues in Sacramento this year and the focus of sweeping reforms for consideration by the legislature. The challenge continues to be how to get policy makers to agree that it is California's best interest to allow smart, responsible, multifamily development. One answer is to debunk the myths.

The National Multi Housing Council put out a very good report in 2002 that makes the case for multifamily development. In Creating Successful Communities: A New Housing Paradigm.1 NMHC goes right to the heart of the opposition and gets to the core of the bias and prejudice against multifamily housing. Here are ten myths that are debunked in the report.

Myth #1: The Dream of Homeownership Is Universal
Reality: Apartment Living is Gaining in Popularity, Particularly Among Higher-Income Households

Myth #2: Apartment Residents Do Not Pay For The Services They Use
Reality: Apartment Residents Pay Property Taxes Via Rent, And Often At A Higher Rate

Myth #3: Apartments Disproportionately Burden School Systems
Reality: Single-Family Owners Have Three Times as Many School Children

Myth #4: Apartments Bring Traffic Congestion
Reality: Apartment Residents Own Fewer Cars and Are More Likely to Use Public Transportation

Myth #5: Apartments Bring Down Property Values
Reality: Homes Near Apartments Maintain Their Values

Myth #6: Apartments Increase Crime Rates
Reality: Apartments Help Create Safe and Secure Neighborhoods

Myth #7: Homeowners Make Better Citizens
Reality: Homeownership is Not Required for Good Citizenship and Strong Neighborhoods

Myth #8: Apartments Increase Local Infrastructure Costs
Reality: Apartments Use Municipal Infrastructure More Efficiently

Myth #9: Americans Oppose Higher Density Development
Reality: Consumer Acceptance of Higher Density Development is Understated

Myth #10: Homeownership Should Be Our Top Housing Policy Priority
Reality: Apartments Are Uniquely Qualified to Address Many of Our Most Pressing Needs

Why Housing Providers Should Support More Housing

Some existing rental property owners may ask: "why should I support more development, doesn't that create competition for my properties?" Of course it does. But consider this, the policy makers who don't allow adequate development, use this as an excuse to develop regulatory policies to "protect tenants." Every rent and eviction control law is justified on the theory of a housing crisis spurred by an inadequate supply of affordable housing.

The only way to solve the problem is to create more housing. So, to those who rant against development as though they are protecting their interests, I offer the following options: maintain the status quo and increase regulatory intervention. Or, help develop sufficient housing and eliminate the need for regulation.

Greg McConnell heads The McConnell Group, a California Advocacy and Consulting firm. The McConnell Group represents and advises apartment associations, property management companies, and individual owners throughout California.
For more information please visit www.themcconnellgroup.com.
( This article is copyrighted and cannot be republished without the consent of the author.)