Housing in the City
Mayors nationwide are challenged by rising housing costs. As leaders of their cities, one of mayors’ chief priorities is constituent satisfaction. Mayors consider a wide variety of constituent concerns, including housing costs, schools, and nightlife/food (i.e., people want more). Chief among them, however, is housing costs. Over one-half of mayors highlighted housing costs as one of the top three factors that drive residents to move away from their cities. Housing costs outpaced other prominent issues such as jobs, schools, and public safety (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Voting With Their Feet: Why Residents Move Away
What are the top three factors that prompt people to move away from your city to somewhere else? These may be things that your city is struggling with and/or are better elsewhere.
Mayors believe land use and zoning issues are key drivers of constituent approval. Given their beliefs about residents’ concerns in relation to housing costs, mayors unsurprisingly rated zoning and development as critical to voter approval: 35 percent of mayors selected it as the factor that had the biggest impact on voters’ ratings of mayoral performance. The only other arena that mayors believed to be as important to voters was the police (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Constituent Approval
Which issue do you think has the biggest impact on voters’ approval of your performance?
Vocal minorities are highly influential across a range of local issues, including housing development, the minimum wage, and transportation issues like bike lanes and on-street parking. While mayors believed policies related to housing development were significant to voters, they thought that it was one of the policy arenas that was dominated by a “small group with strong” views (see Figure 4). Only 41 percent of mayors felt that “majority opinion” had more influence on housing policy than did a small group with strong views. Of the seven policy arenas examined, bicycling infrastructure (88 percent) is the only issue besides housing that more mayors say is dominated by a small group. At the other end of the spectrum, mayors widely see education and policing as areas in which policy is more responsive to majority preferences.
Figure 4: Constituent Influence: Majority Views vs. Influential Minority
Some policies reflect the views of the majority of citizens, while others are influenced by a small group with strong views. For each of the following policy areas, can you tell us whether you think a majority of constituents or a small group has the greatest policy impact?
Mayors believe that housing is a top constituent concern, and only a very small share think that the current housing stock effectively meets the needs of their cities. As shown in Figure 5, a mere 13 percent of mayors describe their housing stock as matching constituent needs “Extremely well” or “Very well.” The bulk view their housing stock as adequate, with 57 percent selecting the middle (“Moderately well”) category. A sizable minority—30 percent—view their housing stock negatively. The vast majority of mayors see significant room for improvement in their cities’ housing stock.
Figure 5: Housing Stock
Overall, how well does the current housing stock in your city match the needs of your population?
Mayors in all regions of the US believe there is a mismatch between their current housing stock and the needs of their city. As seen in Table 2, these figures are fairly similar across all parts of the country, with nearly a majority of mayors, or more, in all regions of the country describing their housing as matching constituent needs “Moderately well.” One outlier is the West, where 45 percent of mayors selected one of the two negative categories (“Slightly well” or “Not well at all”) to describe their housing. Given the well-documented housing crisis in parts of the Western US, it is unsurprising that mayors from this region were particularly concerned. In contrast, mayors from the Northeast seemed slightly more inclined to rate their housing positively, with almost one-third indicating that their housing met the needs of constituents “Very well.”
Table 2: Housing Stock Match by Region
Region | Extremely well | Very well | Moderately well | Slightly well | Not well at all |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Northeast | 0% | 30% | 70% | 0% | 0% |
Midwest | 3% | 17% | 55% | 24% | 0% |
South | 6% | 3% | 68% | 16% | 6% |
West | 2% | 4% | 49% | 27% | 18% |
Notably, mayors who governed expensive and inexpensive cities expressed largely similar views about housing stock. Unsurprisingly, mayors of the cities with the highest housing costs—those in the top one-third of the national housing price distribution (median housing price)—were most concerned about their housing stock. One-half of these mayors rated their housing stock negatively. In contrast, only 29 percent of the mid-priced cities and 13 percent of the most inexpensive cities expressed stark concerns (see Table 3). Where we see more similarity is in the unwillingness of mayors of all cities to rate their city’s housing stock positively. Even in the least expensive cities—those in the bottom one-third of the housing price distribution—only 18 percent of mayors believed their housing served constituents “Extremely well” or “Very well.” Moreover, across all three housing price categories, a plurality of mayors opted for the middle category; their housing served their constituents only “Moderately well.”
Table 3: Housing Stock Match, by Median Housing Price
Median Housing Price | Extremely well | Very well | Moderately well | Slightly well | Not well at all |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bottom 1⁄3 | 3% | 15% | 69% | 13% | 0% |
Middle 1⁄3 | 5% | 7% | 60% | 19% | 10% |
Top 1⁄3 | 3% | 6% | 41% | 32% | 18% |
Mayors highlighted a wide array of housing problems when discussing this mismatch. One midwestern mayor said simply “affordable housing is a beast” that his city was struggling with as it “grow[s] so rapidly.” One southern mayor worried that there was “not enough stock for sale” as a consequence of residual foreclosures after the 2008 housing crisis. A western mayor highlighted political obstacles, observing a “paradox” in his community in which “people are concerned about [the] cost of housing, but nobody wants to see new housing built.“
More systematically, the plurality (40 percent) prioritize increasing the availability of affordable units with more than one bedroom, with another 35 percent emphasizing increasing homeownership rates (see Figure 6). Modernizing and/or replacing older housing stock was also popular, with 29 percent of mayors citing it as one of the top two changes they would like to see in their city.
Moreover, mayors’ preferences for changes to their housing stock were essentially non-partisan. As Table 4 shows, the proportions of Democrats and Republicans highlighting the need for the most commonly cited changes, such as more “affordable units” (40 vs 32 percent), increased “home ownership” (35 vs 40 percent), and “modernize” older stock (31 vs 32 percent), were the same. The most notable difference was the Democrats were more likely to focus on improving “stability for renters” (24 vs 4 percent) and availability of “subsidized housing” (15 vs 4 percent).
Figure 6: City Housing: Desired Improvements
What are the top two ways you would like to see housing in your city change?
Table 4: Top Two Ways to Change Housing, by Party
Democrats | Republicans | |
---|---|---|
Improve housing stability for renters | 24% | 4% |
Improve the quality of current subsidized/affordable housing | 13% | 12% |
Increase availability of accessible units for residents who are elderly/disabled | 7% | 16% |
Increase availability of affordable multibedroom units | 40% | 32% |
Increase availability of affordable studios and one-bedroom units | 16% | 16% |
Increase availability of higher-end units | 13% | 16% |
Increase availability of publicly subsidized housing | 15% | 4% |
Increase home ownership rates | 35% | 40% |
Modernize/replace older housing stock | 31% | 32% |
Among mayors, there is little consensus about whether to focus on the rental market or homeownership. In response to an open-ended question about the metrics they look at to measure housing affordability (see Section 7. Leveraging Data in Decision-Making), roughly equal portions of mayors explicitly mentioned a metric linked to the rental or buying markets (33 percent to 27 percent, respectively). That is, mayors were equally likely to name something such as “average rent” as they were “median sales price.”
While mayors across the country expressed similar concerns about their housing stock, they differed about the ways they would most like to see their cities’ housing change. This is unsurprising, given that levels of sprawl, age of housing, availability of different sizes of units, and resident demographics all vary depending upon the region of the country. As shown in Table 5, mayors in the Northeast and Midwest were especially focused on modernizing/replacing older housing stock. In contrast, in the South and West—where housing is much newer—mayors were comparatively less concerned about age and upgrades. Two areas were priorities for at least 20 percent of mayors from all four regions: increasing the availability of multibedroom units and increasing homeownership rates.
Table 5: Top Two Ways to Change Housing, by Region
Northeast | Midwest | South | West | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Improve housing stability for renters | 20% | 14% | 13% | 22% |
Improve the quality of current subsidized/affordable housing | 0% | 24% | 23% | 4% |
Increase availability of accessible units for residents who are elderly/disabled | 10% | 10% | 6% | 13% |
Increase availability of affordable multibedroom units | 40% | 34% | 29% | 49% |
Increase availability of affordable studios and one-bedroom units | 20% | 14% | 16% | 16% |
Increase availability of higher-end units | 20% | 24% | 16% | 11% |
Increase availability of publicly subsidized housing | 0% | 3% | 6% | 20% |
Increase home ownership rates | 40% | 24% | 42% | 38% |
Modernize/replace older housing stock | 40% | 41% | 32% | 18% |
Affordable multibedroom units and homeownership rates are top priorities for American mayors, regardless of the affluence of their city. More than 20 percent of mayors of inexpensive, mid-priced, and expensive cities highlighted these two policy areas. Given the naturally differing needs of expensive and inexpensive cities, there are important differences in policy priorities between mayors of these cities: while over one-quarter of mayors of inexpensive cities listed increasing the availability of higher-end units as one of the top ways they would like to change their housing stock, only 6 percent of mayors of expensive cities felt the same (see Table 6). Similarly, only one-quarter of mayors of expensive cities prioritized modernizing or replacing older housing stock, compared with less than one-half of mayors of inexpensive cities.
Table 6: Top Two Ways to Change Housing, by Median Housing Price1
Bottom 1⁄3 | Middle 1⁄3 | Top 1⁄3 | |
---|---|---|---|
Improve housing stability for renters | 15% | 10% | 29% |
Improve the quality of current subsidized/affordable housing | 18% | 19% | 3% |
Increase availability of accessible units for residents who are elderly/disabled | 8% | 10% | 15% |
Increase availability of affordable multibedroom units | 21% | 57% | 38% |
Increase availability of affordable studios and one-bedroom units | 10% | 14% | 24% |
Increase availability of higher-end units | 26% | 17% | 6% |
Increase availability of publicly subsidized housing | 3% | 14% | 15% |
Increase home ownership rates | 46% | 29% | 32% |
Modernize/replace older housing stock | 46% | 19% | 24% |
Taken together, mayors governing cities across the country and at all housing price levels would like to see significant changes to their existing housing stock. Some of these changes are common across city types, with mayors of a variety of cities highlighting the importance of increased homeownership and availability of affordable multibedroom units. Other policies are more localized, suggesting a mix of national programming and customized local approaches would be most appropriate for addressing mayoral housing priorities.
Addressing these housing challenges naturally comes with a number of significant obstacles. Mayors worried in particular about a lack of state or federal funds and inadequate bank financing for individuals. As illustrated in Figure 7, the salience of these challenges differed, however, depending upon which group mayors considered. While mayors did not believe mortgage financing was a major problem for residents who are elderly/disabled, one-third of mayors cited it as a potent obstacle for low-income and middle class families and for residents of color. Similarly, according to mayors, the diminishing availability of state and federal funds is particularly problematic for low-income families (49 percent of mayors) and residents who are elderly/disabled (38 percent of mayors).
Mayors also expressed concerns about the cost to modernize or update housing and the difficulty in securing or maintaining a lease. At least one-fifth of mayors mentioned outdated housing stock as a major concern for all groups except residents of color. Similarly, one-fifth of mayors highlighted lease difficulties for all groups except middle class families. Interestingly, only a small number of mayors cited zoning and land-use regulations as significant obstacles despite their prominence in national media accounts about the national affordable housing crisis. In addition, while mayors broadly are concerned about housing access in their communities, one-fifth of them did not believe that housing access was an issue for middle class families or residents of color.
Figure 7: Improving Housing Access: Top Two Obstacles
What are two biggest obstacles to improving access to housing for________?
Potential political controversy surrounding affordable housing development also did not appear to be a top concern for mayors across most groups. One notable exception centers on low-income families; 20 percent of mayors suggested that local neighborhood resistance posed an important obstacle to housing access for that group. Similarly, when asked more explicitly about the types of housing that engender political controversy, 55 percent of mayors highlighted housing for families as more likely to spur conflict, with only 2 percent selecting housing for seniors (see Figure 8). As one mayor told us, there is a “greater acceptance of seniors that need help, [and] more of an understanding of their situation. For families, people are worried about the impact on schools.” Another mayor explained that housing developments for families are easier to oppose because “environmental impact studies would show more congestion and transportation issues for family housing compared to seniors.” Strikingly, 43 percent of mayors did not believe that either type of housing would generate political controversy in their communities.
Figure 8: Affordable Housing: Controversy Over Types
Imagine you have received a grant to construct a new affordable housing development. Which type of project would generate more political controversy: senior housing or family housing? Or would neither generate controversy?
- Cities are divided into thirds based on the distribution of median housing prices across cities with at least 75,000 people nationally. [return]