Being Anti-Development Has Regressive Consequences

 

Today's post is the inverse of one from last year entitled "The Progressive Case for More Development." Just to define terms, "regressive" means that a burden falls disproportionately on those who can least bear it, and "progressive" means that a burden falls disproportionately on those who can most bear it. My city fancies itself as very progressive, and my University City community is even more so. And, many of those self-described progressives are pro-development for progressive purposes. But many of those self-described progressives are anti-development, also for progressive purposes. And while I understand the impulse, emotion, and logic behind that, I want to point out three very regressive aspects of opposing more real estate development:

1. Preventing new housing benefits status quo wealthy homeowners and exacerbates affordability issues for younger and less affluent folks. Housing is beholden to the economic laws of supply and demand, so when demand increases and supply doesn't, price goes up. Indeed, wealthy homeowners are among the most vehement opponents of new development, because they want to protect the value of their homes. Conversely, aggressively advocating for more housing makes all housing more affordable.

2. Preventing new development keeps job opportunities away from construction workers and other union labor. Labor unions are sometimes among the few left-leaning groups that actively voice their support for new real estate development projects. They know that the construction sector is vulnerable to our natural boom-bust economic cycle, and that a big construction project will mean jobs for many for years. Conversely, opposing projects can result in those projects not happening (or happening elsewhere), taking those job opportunities away in the process.

3. Preventing new development in blighted areas prevents those areas from being upgraded. By definition, more resourced communities have the resources to modernize their built forms, whether tending to repairs or doing wholesale renovation or putting in new product. Blighted areas by definition have suffered from disinvestment, which creates an opposite cycle of deterioration, unattractiveness, and abandonment. These are the areas that should want new development the most, to create a virtuous cycle of improvement, activity, and commerce.

These issues are, economically and politically and culturally, far more complex than I have laid out in a few paragraphs, and I get that. I just think it's important to understand that a progressive can support real estate development in a full-throated way. And, in contrast, to be progressive and oppose real estate development does have consequences that are regressive in nature.