Evan Gould: The dangers of ‘housing, but …’

This commentary is by Evan Gould of Burlington, a husband, father, software engineer and housing advocate. He is a member of the Burlington Development Review Board and Vermonters for People Oriented Places, a grassroots organization dedicated to building affordable, resilient communities.

“I want housing, but … it shouldn’t be too tall to match the neighborhood. I want housing, but it should be tall enough to preserve open space. I want housing, but it needs to have on-site parking because I have trouble finding it on my street. I want housing, but parking should be limited to encourage walking and biking. I want housing, but I want it to be for families. I want housing, but I want it to be for workers. I want housing, but I want it all to be affordable. I want housing, but only in unused spaces. I want housing, but I want it to preserve backyards. I want housing, but I want it to preserve greenspaces outside of town.”

As a housing advocate, I’ve spoken to many Burlingtonians. Most people say they understand the housing crisis and very few say they don’t want housing. The only caveat is that new housing must cater to their personal agenda. I don’t think people are being disingenuous or that these concerns aren’t valid. The issue is that many of these visions directly contradict each other, which is perhaps why we find ourselves in this mess in the first place.

We are facing the second highest per capita rate of homelessness in the country. It’s easy to lay blame on drugs, mental health or poverty, and while these may all contribute, the single greatest indicator of homelessness is low vacancy rates and high rent prices .

In Burlington we have inclusionary zoning , some eviction protections and the largest community land trust in the country . Despite this, the average person’s housing has become substantially less affordable in the past eight years .

Austin, Texas, a city without these policies, had the single steepest decrease in average rent price of all major metropolitan areas this year . Why has Austin become more affordable, while we became less? The answer could be because Austin chose to build more housing. In fact, Austin built 1.5 times as many housing units in 2022 as New York City did , a city 10 times its size.

Supply is not the only solution we need. Shane Philips, a housing researcher at the University of California Los Angeles Lewis Center, suggests an affordable city is like a stool supported by three legs: stability, subsidy and supply. Without one, the whole stool falls down.

In Vermont, and in Burlington especially, we’ve ignored supply. Year after year, long-term rent-burdened residents have been forced to leave or become homeless. Other policies such as rent stabilization and the right of return for displaced tenants would offer additional protections for renters. However, implementing these and continuing to neglect supply creates a system that squeezes out the middle class and excludes new residents who haven’t had years of stabilized rent or make too much money to qualify for subsidies.

Consider that San Francisco, a city with the strongest tenant protections in the country, but restrictive zoning, is one of the least affordable places in the world .

Research from Notre Dame , UCLA , and elsewhere has shown increasing housing supply has proven to stabilize housing costs. When renters can afford a newer unit, their existing unit becomes available for someone else. In the same way, when someone is retired and wants to downsize, that frees up their old home for a family.

Good housing policy is good climate policy. Policies that enable shorter commutes and encourage efficient heating can make a sizable dent in our greenhouse gas emissions.

Transportation is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Vermont and the heating of buildings is our second highest. By building more housing types near job centers, we can easily reduce the transportation emissions caused by commuting. Additionally, multi-family and dense single family homes, such as townhouses, require, on average, half as much energy to heat as detached single family homes.

Instead of waiting for perfection, we need action. Each of us has a different vision, but it cannot continue to delay us from taking steps to address our housing needs.

To that point, I am supportive of the Neighborhood Code. I spent six months at planning commission meetings, sometimes leaving happy, others disappointed. There are many things I would’ve preferred.

For example, I want housing, but … I would’ve preferred it with a single residential zone because equity is important to me, and it reduces gentrification . I want housing, but I would’ve preferred higher buildings, especially in the corridors, because dense housing near transit makes transit more viable . I want housing, but I would’ve preferred if it had allowed some mixed use citywide so people in every neighborhood could walk to a cafe, bakery or day care.

I want more housing, and I support the underlying idea of the Neighborhood Code because housing is a human right. Our city needs to house people and soon.

If you feel the same way, I encourage you to reach out to your councilors, sign the informal petition by Vermonters for People Oriented Places and attend the public hearing on Monday, March 25.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Evan Gould: The dangers of ‘housing, but …’ .