Housing for all

Towns that snub affordable housing could find that closing the door to the less well-off comes back to haunt them

Some of the towns in this part of North Carolina aren't the first, and won't be the last, to be lured down a wrong road by their perception of financial self-interest. Yet it's disturbing to see how boldly some leaders are shirking a proper level of responsibility for housing low-income residents.

The N&O's Peggy Lim offered examples from the eastern Triangle: In the Johnston County seat of Smithfield, Town Council members rejected a 56-unit complex of affordable apartments. The project's lone supporter on the council said his colleagues wanted to avoid bringing more poor people to their town.

In Wake County, the Knightdale council went so far as to pass a policy that new single-family homes should have a minimum value of $185,000. In Clayton, it was ostensibly fear of crime that undercut an affordable apartment development.

Attempting to improve their towns by excluding people without much earning power is a short-term strategy at best. Inevitably, these towns will want to attract the service workers, teachers, police officers and grandparents whom their policies would tend to keep out. A far wiser strategy would go in the opposite direction: Encourage more development of lower-income housing and help those in need to afford it.

Not all developers are willing to propose affordable housing, especially if it doesn't fit into their profit picture or marketing plan. When a builder comes along who is willing to invest private money in such a project, local leaders ought to be all ears. Smithfield's opposition to such a proposal could prove harmful, not only in limiting housing opportunities for some people but even in discouraging some employers who are concerned about housing for their workers.

In Knightdale, the current average price of a new home is $161,000, high enough to price many hard-working people out of its market now. The Town Council's new required minimum value of $185,000 only makes matters worse.

With a median selling price well over $200,000, Wake County may well be some 29,000 units short of housing next year for families earning $43,000 a year or less.

Raleigh was far wiser to ask the voters' approval last year for affordable housing bonds, and the people overwhelmingly said yes. A welcoming attitude certainly ought to help make the city more competitive for workers who are needed in a crisis than communities concerned first for their tax base.

Beyond that consideration ought to be an awareness of the demographic changes ahead. Raleigh developer Claude Hicks told The N&O about a marketing study projecting the most population growth in Johnston County, not among singles or families, but among people over 55. It's more than a little disappointing that Benson, in southern Johnston, this spring turned down 48 affordable apartments for the elderly along with 114 townhouses and 14 single-family homes.

If Triangle cities and towns aren't worried about violating federal housing discrimination laws -- and they should be -- they should take the practicalities into account. The quality of the local economy and the services they have to offer will depend, at least in part, on people affected by the decisions local leaders are making about affordable housing today.