Homeownership always has been a component of the “American Dream,” and there’s no dispute that a segment of the population struggles to achieve it. As that gap widens, the supply of affordable housing shrinks, and costs of funds increase, the dream slips further away. The lack of workforce housing immediately impacts industrial expansion in Hardin and surrounding counties.
Background: For factors contributing to limiting affordable housing options, we need to look no further than planning and zoning offices in some cities. Many U.S. cities have imposed such restrictive covenants on building new homes that it’s driven the cost of construction to the point that developers can’t maintain acceptable profit margins by building smaller, more affordable units. Currently, around 15% of the costs of new home construction projects are siphoned off by government regulation, permit fees, inspection fees and hearings. These facts alone are partly responsible for blocking an entire sector of potential home buyers from initially entering the housing market.
Zoning regulations: Some communities are responding to this inequity by revising zoning regulations to enable a second tiny home structure in the backyard of an existing home. This revision has proven an excellent option for folks responsible for older parents or even adult children who may find it helpful. Other communities have set up task forces of all stakeholders to break apart and reassemble planning and zoning rules, regulations and policies to better match the critical objective of creating more affordable housing options and driving out some useless government regulations and fees.
Reversing the self-imposed barriers imposed by rules, regulations and policies that work to the disadvantage of affordable housing options will be challenging. Many of these obstacles are institutionalized and have strong support for retention by the government agency whose existence is contingent upon them, not to mention the collection of municipal revenue streams.
The irony: An irony associated with developing more affordable housing options is that many people who recognize the need and claim to be advocates for affordable housing options are the very ones who tend to reject plans when they directly impact their interests.
Solutions: There are solutions to the development of more affordable housing options. The most obvious one is to permit building more houses on smaller tracts of land. Another one is to revise planning /zoning regulations to reduce “setback” requirements in subdivision development. With the government fees to build a new home hovering around 15% of the costs of new home construction, find ways to reduce this burden. While intended to improve housing conditions, this government overreach is slowing the development of more affordable housing options.
Conclusion: With all this said, is the effort and advocacy for more affordable housing options worth the energy needed to make a small dent in the challenge?
Ask a schoolteacher whether a student living in stable conditions does better in school than they would otherwise. Ask an employer whether an employee who owns their home is a better, more stable worker. Ask the police chief if he/she thinks this would make a difference in law enforcement.
Expanding affordable housing options in our community is a leadership issue. Those who seek affordable housing options for their family may have no political power but rely on leaders to identify and pursue social issues like this and others.
Granted, this is an extracurricular activity for municipal leadership that may go unnoticed by the public. The winning approach isn’t from the government creating new affordable housing options, though; it will come from the government getting out of the way to enable the private sector builders and land developers to complete projects for a large category of home buyers.
