Opinion>Opinions - Finance

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Zoned out: How today’s homeowners make housing unaffordable for everyone else

Comments:

by Patrick Tuohey, opinion contributor - 05/09/26 8:00 AM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Patrick Tuohey, opinion contributor - 05/09/26 8:00 AM ET

Comments:

Link copied

Getty Images

At a routine zoning meeting, a homeowner steps to the microphone and delivers a familiar warning: new apartments will “hurt property values” and “change the character of the neighborhood.” This scene plays out in cities across the country, as housing reform proposals move from local councils to statehouses — and now, to the federal government.

These claims are pervasive and persistent. They are also, despite their intuitive appeal, not supported by the evidence.

The fear is understandable. Allowing duplexes or small apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods can feel like a fundamental change. If new construction is meant to lower housing costs, it seems logical to assume it will lower nearby home values as well.

In response, homeowners mobilize through neighborhood commissions, lawsuits and sustained pressure on local officials. These efforts rarely stop development outright, but they delay it, shrink it, and make it more expensive — often significantly so. The result is higher construction costs and fewer homes built.

Those existing homeowners are often unconcerned with increased housing costs because it is their homes whose values rise. Those costs fall most heavily on renters, first-time buyers, and younger families — would-be neighbors not represented at those zoning meetings.

Some cities, such as Raleigh, N.C., and New York City, have acted to reduce the power of these community groups. That is welcome. But it is also important to note new construction does not harm existing home values. Multiple studies over the last two decades have found negligible negative effects — and in some cases, positive effects on nearby home values. These studies have come from academic sources as well as both center-left and center-right institutions.

The conclusions are remarkably consistent. Studies in places as different as Los Angeles and suburban Salt Lake County find that new multifamily housing either increases nearby home values or has no measurable negative effect. A broader body of national research reaches the same conclusion. Even in cases where values decline, the effects are modest and concentrated in already high-value neighborhoods.

Concerns about “neighborhood character,” however, are harder to evaluate because they are rarely defined. The objection can refer to architecture, density or traffic. But historically, it has also carried a more unfortunate meaning.

In the early 20th century, real estate professionals and policymakers openly argued that the presence of certain racial or ethnic groups would reduce property values. A 1924 code of ethics for realtors warned against introducing residents whose presence might be “detrimental” to a neighborhood. Federal housing guidance later echoed similar concerns, cautioning against the “infiltration of inharmonious racial or nationality groups.”

Modern zoning rules no longer use such language, of course, and their modern proponents likely do not have such explicitly segregationist intentions. But the underlying logic — that some people or housing types threaten a neighborhood’s value or identity — has proven far more durable. That history helps explain why concerns about “neighborhood character” are so resistant to evidence: They were never about those measurable outcomes.

So why do these fears persist? In part because Americans have been conditioned to see housing not just as shelter but as their primary financial asset. For many households, a home is the largest, and sometimes only, source of wealth.

When housing is treated as an investment, any perceived threat to its value — even an illusory one — feels worth resisting. Opposition to new development becomes less about aesthetics or density, and more about protecting a balance sheet.

Unfortunately, the people most likely to attend zoning meetings, organize opposition or contact elected officials are existing homeowners. Those who stand to benefit from new housing are often absent; those who perceive a risk are concentrated and engaged.

Policymakers have unintentionally built a system in which the voices most opposed to new housing have an effective veto. But that veto is based on fears both unsupported and unsupportable. What is good for them may not align with what is good for the community at large.

Patrick Tuohey is co-founder of Better Cities Project and a senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute.

Add as preferred source on Google