The Multi-Faceted Debate

So, what do you think of when you hear the words "multi-family housing"? How about "high-density residential developments"? Do these kinds of developments ruin a community? Does this kind of residence put a dent into the finances of a city? What about crime rates? And do they have to be high-rise concrete blocks of shoe-horned humanity?

For those of us who have lived in apartments, we know that there are a veritable plethora of advantages: no yard maintenance, lower housing costs, greater social interaction with neighbors, proximity to services, etc. But for some reason, these developments have received a bad reputation. Many of the common perceptions about multi-family housing are simply not true.

1. Multi-family housing is ugly. Multi-family housing is only as ugly as the market will allow. It is no more ugly than other kinds of development (commercial, retail, and single-family, low-density developments) where developers have an interest in selling their product (housing). Attractive housing sells and leases better and for more than ugly. In the past, government supported housing projects have helped promote the idea that multi-family housing is ugly (based on the idea that housing projects need to be done efficiently - read, cheaply - in order to maximize investment). But keep in mind that the government doesn't build these units any more. These developments are being done by the same folks as the single-family developments.

2. Multi-family housing is only for the poor. There are basically three kinds of multi-family residential developments: government projects, government-subsidized low income, and non-subsidized housing. As mentioned, government housing projects of the type that sprang up in the 50s, 60s, and 70s are not being constructed any more. In fact, many of these developments that were built are being torn down. It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now. Even the government can learn, I guess.

Next, the government subsidizes some developments. There are specific guidelines for design that must be followed if a developer wants to gain this kind of subsidy. Most of these developments incorporate areas that are not low-income in addition to having units and/or renters who are receiving assistance.

Finally, there are non-subsidized housing developments. In order to be considered for government assistance, developers must meet certain criteria regarding the size, rent, and even materials and look of an apartment complex. Many developers choose not to meet this standard, usually wanting to build something bigger (more expensive). It is possible (however unlikely) that a person could qualify for housing assistance even in one of these apartment complexes, provided they can prove that their circumstances require that specific location. Thus, even the higher-end housing may have low-income tenants.

By and large, people who live in apartments are able to pay the full cost of the lease. While this may not be the same as a house payment, many times the cost of rent is equal to or greater than a mortgage. People from all backgrounds and economic status like apartments for the reasons listed above. In addition, as the baby-boom generation ages, they will demand housing choice that allows greater freedom than a traditional single-family house. These folks are not poor.

4. Multi-family increases crime. This is simply not substantiated. Wherever concentrations of people exist, a corresponding increase of crime is to be expected. But thieves and burglars are more likely to rob more affluent homes than town homes for the same reason that a Lexus is more likely to be stolen than my '99 Kia Sephia.

5. Multi-family increases tax burdens. This is true, but it is not the complete story. Placing people in apartments eliminates their tax burden (which is why some people opt for this kind of housing, anyway). But the property value increases based on improvements to the lot. The owner of the lot must pay an increase in the property value whether the apartments are leased or not. Thus, having empty apartments is better than having the agricultural exemption.

Further, these folks work, play, shop, and eat in the community. They buy gas, shoes, clothes, food, etc, all of which increases the sales tax base.

And speaking of exemptions, in Texas there is a tax exemption for folks who are over 65. People in apartments do not get this exemption. Thus, having retired folks in apartments frees up a home for someone who will pay taxes.

At the end of the day, it is important to remember that these services are exactly why a city is in existence. Those who for whatever reason find themselves in tough circumstances financially should find their burdens made easier by those who have plenty. Children of those who are poor will only find opportunities to succeed based on their educational chances. Rather than disparage those who are poor and discourage them from locating here (with our incredible schools), they should be encouraged to come and take advantage of the opportunity.

I have a lot more to say on this, but I think that this is enough for now. I look forward to hearing from you about this.