Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
A Defense of Multi-Unit Housing

A Defense of Multi-Unit Housing

Last updated on: December 26, 2019 at 3:27 pm by Libby Anne

A Defense of Multi-Unit Housing 2019-12-26T15:27:38-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It’s not often that I come upon a tweet that keeps me raging for days, but this one did.

https://twitter.com/lukerosiak/status/1209217111127707648

“Dems Declare War On Suburbs, Seek To Ban Single-Family Housing Neighborhoods As Barrier To ‘Integrated Communities’,” tweeted right-wing journalist Luke Rosiak. “State laws in Oregon and Virginia would override local officials to add high-density housing and public housing in every neighborhood,” he added.

Rosiak then linked to Daily Caller article titled “Democrats Seek to Outlaw Suburban, Single-Family House Zoning, Calling It Racist and Bad for the Environment.” And Rosiak didn’t stop there. He went on and on and on, adding to his original tweet.

‘This could completely change the character of suburban residential life,’ Republican says Dem boosters call wanting to live in quiet, natural settings “modern-day redlining” and want to add duplexes or townhomes in EVERY neighborhood, even multi-acre lots.

Not the duplexes!

Let’s get two things clear from the outset. First, this is about whether local governments should be allowed to limit what people can do with their own private property. You’d think conservatives, who ostensibly lionize private property ownership and oppose government regulation, would oppose limits on what people do with their own property. But no! In this case, they’re doing they opposite. They want to limit what people can do with their property.

This is about whether someone can build a multi-family unit on property they own, or subdivide a home they own. Currently, zoning laws in many areas prohibit multi-family housing entirely, barring property owners from developing their own property into multi-family units. In other words, this is about conservatives undermining the rights of property owners, which is weird. Or at least, it should be weird. It’s not, really.

More on that in a moment.

The second thing I want to make clear is that I am not here for trashing duplexes. In practice, living in a duplex differs little from living in a single family house—you have your own backyard, no HOA fees, a ground-floor entrance, and no one living above or below you. There’s a shared wall, yes, but if a duplex is well built, that can be barely noticeable.

I should know. I live in a duplex*. When I read Rosiak’s trashing of duplexes aloud to my husband, he laughed and said “living in a duplex is just like living in a single family house, except it’s cheaper.” He’s not wrong. The area where we live is so expensive we couldn’t afford a single family house—and we are solidly middle to upper middle class professionals. But a duplex? A duplex we could afford. Because there are duplexes, we could live here.

When we moved into our duplex, I thought I was picking second best. I’d grown up in a culture where the American Dream was defined by single family home ownership. But you know what? Over the past few years, I’ve concluded that duplexes are where it’s at. And townhouses!

Scarcely a week goes by where I don’t take a moment to sell someone on the virtues of duplexes and townhouses. Living in a duplex or a townhouse is like living in single family house, except cheaper—and in this area, single family houses are simply out of reach for most people.

So I am not here for trashing duplexes.

Let’s return to Rosiak for a moment:

Republicans say putting duplexes in quiet, semi-rural areas would only add to traffic and sprawl, and destroy nature. Democrats aim to spread poverty from the city into the suburbs, and put public housing in every neighborhood, in the name of “equity.”

As Jamelle Bouie put it, “it is always nice to see people take off the mask.” Indeed. We can’t have the poors coming in from the city! That would be a disaster!

Let’s be perfectly clear—removing single-family zoning designations isn’t about spreading poverty. It’s about allowing property owners to develop their property into multi-family units. Because multi-family units are typically more affordable, a larger number of multi-family units gives people with lower incomes more options about where to live. Creating more multi-unit housing would not spread poverty; it would simply mean that people with lower incomes could afford to live in more neighborhoods. It would give them more options.

And that, according to Republicans, is bad.

The longer I’ve lived in my current home—a duplex—the more I’ve become sold on the virtues of mixed housing. Where I live, there are duplexes, townhouses, condos, apartments, and single family houses, all mixed together. (There are also lots and lots of trees, parks, and small backyards for grilling and gardening, so yes, we do have nature too.) And I absolutely love it.

I realize that Rosiak does not see diversity as a benefit. What he’s trying to sell Americans on is the virtue of residential segregation—by income most primarily, but also by race. He’s betting that Americans don’t want to live by people who are poor, or different from them.

No really—think about it. If you have a neighborhood where every house costs around $500,000, only people who can afford houses that cost $500,000 will live there. People who can afford more house will live elsewhere, as will people who can’t afford that much house. The same is true of every price point and income level. If the housing in an area is homogenous in terms of price point, the population, too, will be homogenous.

Because the housing in the area where I live is mixed, the population is, too. Housing values vary by a factor of five, and I have never lived somewhere this diverse—both economically and racially. At school, my children rub shoulders with children whose families own lake houses for vacationing and children whose families are homeless and doubling up.

I have yet to notice any negative affects of any of this. We know and like our neighbors. We’ve made plenty of good friends in our area; there’s always someone to invite over. We grill out in our backyard. Our children are constantly off playing at the park a few neighborhood blocks away—there are usually other kids there to play with, and if there aren’t, all they have to do is knock on a few doors. In many ways, their childhood feels very 1950s.

I understand what’s going on here: Rosiak and the Republicans he cites are trying to scare suburban voters back into their column. I am here to say that mixed housing does not destroy neighborhood feel. Nor does living around people with diverse incomes. You can have leafy streets and children running up and down the sidewalk to neighbors’ houses or the park and a mixture of multi-unit and single family housing.

“This would be a disaster,” the Claremont Institute‘s Ryan P. Williams wrote on twitter. No. No, it would not. Allowing private property owners to develop their property into multi-unit buildings, thus making housing affordable to a wider range of people, would not be a disaster.

Conservatives claim they are against government regulation—and in favor of a world that gives people more options and otherwise leaves them alone. Isn’t that the point of removing regulation? To give more choice back to the people? More freedom? That’s what this is about.

But then, zoning has often been used to further racist ends. Subdivisions, with their limited entries to ensure that people that didn’t live there would never have any reason to enter them, were developed in the context of intense redlining and racial segregation. Racial covenants and homeowners associations, which also limited what homeowners could do with their own property, were also created initially to keep those people out of the neighborhood.

Promoting the end of single family zoning is going to require a public relations campaign that puts the spotlight on neighborhoods like mine and cuts through the bullshit to separate fact from propaganda. The Republican Party thrives on fear—fear of change, fear of the other.

It’s time to say no to all of that.

* My regular readers will find the fact that I live in a duplex highly amusing, given the title of this blog’s regular open thread. I would only note that I moved into a duplex after naming the open thread in honor of patriarchal author Debi Pearl’s trashing of duplexes, not before.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

Politics

housing

Previous Post

December 24, 2019

This Is Not an Evangelicalism I Recognize

Next Post

December 27, 2019 Door in the Dragon's Throat: An Introduction

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does the Bible say about pride?

Select your answer to see how you score.

It is a virtue It always wins It is harmless It goes before a fall