Courtney LaCaria
Housing & Homelessness Research Coordinator
Mecklenburg County Community Support Services
In June, the Building Bridges blog launched a new series devoted to unpacking some of the most commonly misunderstood housing and homelessness terms and concepts. Earlier posts in the series covered the topics of “Housing First;” Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (or NOAH); the role of supportive services in the work to end and prevent homelessness; and most recently, common myths and misperceptions about affordable housing.
These posts are inspired by the 2025 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing & Homelessness Strategy (CMHHS), which was launched in April 2021. The 2025 CMHHS represents the first time that the public and private sectors have come together to comprehensively address the entire housing continuum, from housing instability to homelessness, in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
Advancing widescale solutions – even the ones backed by research and data – also means overcoming obstacles that have historically gotten in the way. Some obstacles take the shape of myths or misconceptions.
This week’s post focuses on the last of five common myths and misperceptions about affordable housing, and ultimately, what correcting these misunderstandings can mean for the work to end and prevent homelessness in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
DOES “AFFORDABLE HOUSING” MEAN…?
There are multiple myths and misconceptions regarding affordable housing. Many have been around for a long time and are revived whenever there is a new development or policy proposed. (To read a previous post, which includes an introduction on the definition of affordable housing, please click here.)
It is important to note that these myths are not limited to Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
While this is not meant to be an exhaustive list, outlined below are five of the top affordable housing myths; this blog post will focus on the second of the five, unpacking the myth, itself, and highlighting examples from other communities that have attempted to reframe and reclaim the truth:
TOP 5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING MYTHS
MYTH 1: DOES AFFORDABLE HOUSING MEAN…LOSS OF NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER?
MYTH 2: DOES AFFORDABLE HOUSING MEAN…UGLY BUILDINGS?
MYTH 3: DOES AFFORDABLE HOUSING MEAN…LOW QUALITY?
MYTH 4: DOES AFFORDABLE HOUSING MEAN…HIGHER CRIME RATES?
MYTH 5: DOES AFFORDABLE HOUSING MEAN…LOWER PROPERTY VALUES?
MYTH 5: DOES AFFORDABLE HOUSING MEAN…LOWER AREA PROPERTY VALUES?
Like the previous post’s topic, this is yet another long-standing myth that is one of the most common misperceptions about affordable housing. It is at the heart of much of the “Not In My Back Yard” (or NIMBY) protests. Similar to the myths previously explored in this series, this myth is also steeped in stereotypes about the type of people who live in affordable housing. To better understand this myth, it is helpful to unpack the ideas that support it and, ultimately, keep it alive, and the lessons learned from the research that refutes it.
A policy brief from the Furman Center of New York University entitled, “Don’t Put it here!” Does Affordable Housing Cause Nearby Property Values to Decline? provides an overview of the available research, including work completed in North Carolina, conducted on this issue. Overall, the brief concludes that “affordable housing does not depress neighboring property values, and may even raise them in some cases. […] Neighbors should have little to fear from the type of attractive and modestly sized developments that constitute the bulk of newly produced affordable housing today.”
In fact, the brief describes the results of multiple studies, all of which found that affordable housing development positively impacted strong neighborhoods with already higher property values; additionally, positive effects on neighborhoods with lower property values and/or distressed properties were also cited. The Furman Center policy brief states that “much of the research suggests that the type of affordable housing matters less than the quality of the properties’ design, management, and maintenance.” For example, “larger, more concentrated affordable housing developments were more likely than smaller developments to have a negative impact on nearby property values.” Regardless, the overall impact of affordable housing to surrounding neighborhoods was summed up as a net positive to no impact.
This speaks to the positive perception generated when an affordable housing development matches the “character” of the surrounding neighborhood.
Even with research to refute the myth, many communities, including in Charlotte-Mecklenburg still experience neighborhood opposition to the affordable housing development. To combat this, the policy brief offers five concrete ways to minimize the opposition and maximize the positive effect of affordable housing development:
“Design: Affordable housing that is attractively designed and blends with the surrounding neighborhood may be more likely to have no effect or even a positive effect on nearby property values. An attractive design also may be helpful in allaying community concerns about the aesthetics of a proposed development.
Management: Not surprisingly, poorly maintained housing – whether privately owned or subsidized – has not been shown to depress nearby property values. Affordable housing that is well-managed and well-maintained is more likely to have a neutral or even positive effect on surrounding properties.
Revitalization: Rehabilitation of distressed properties for affordable housing has proven beneficial to neighboring home values. Neighbors are likely to view quality, affordable housing as preferable to vacant lots or dilapidated buildings.
Strong Neighborhoods: As long as it is not overly concentrated, locating affordable housing developments in strong neighborhoods with high home values and low poverty rates is unlikely to have adverse effects on nearby property values. These findings provide support for the emerging trend toward mixed-income housing and communities.
Concentration: Research suggests that distressed areas may benefit from new affordable housing developments that are large enough to overcome surrounding blight. In other neighborhoods, large concentrations of affordable units are best avoided in favor of more moderately sized developments that may limit the negative effects associated with concentrations of poverty. “
This myth assigns more weight to impact of affordable housing on property value; in reality, housing affordability is much less significant than other variables that influence property values. These factors include physical characteristics such as the color and/or design of the houses, and/or renovations made to homes that are uncharacteristic for the neighborhood; environmental characteristics such as the presence of power lines, highways, billboards, and/or excessive pollution; and other criteria, such as proximity to activity centers and open space.
Finally, like the other myths in this series, this myth is founded upon (and therefore, often used as a proxy) for several negative stereotypes of the individuals who live in affordable housing: that these individuals are low-income and/or not working, and/or are Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC), which was explored and unpacked in the Building Bridges blog linked here.
SO, WHAT
Property values matter. They can indicate positive trends for a county, city, or even simply a neighborhood; attracting residents and business investment, as well as reflecting access to quality schools, jobs, parks, and other amenities; funding the services necessary to support a thriving populace; influencing the amount of equity available for homeowners; and finally, contributing to the overall strength of a given community.
It is important to note that when property values in a neighborhood increase rapidly, this can result in lower-income individuals and families being excluded from a neighborhood. Evidence suggests that ensuring the preservation and expansion of more affordable options in gentrifying areas will support families in need and not be a drag on these rising property values.
According to a research completed by Appalachian State University on the public opinion of affordable housing and NIMBYism, the negative perception of affordable housing is often more powerful than the research that disproves it; however, once affordable housing is constructed in a neighborhood, the negative perceptions of affordable housing actually decrease. As the saying goes, seeing is believing. The challenge is for communities, like Charlotte-Mecklenburg, is to produce more examples for residents to see.
Stay tuned for future posts covering common housing and homelessness-related misconceptions and myths. To learn more about the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing & Homelessness Strategy, please visit: www.charmeckhousingstrategy.com
SIGN UP FOR BUILDING BRIDGES BLOG
Courtney LaCaria coordinates posts on the Building Bridges Blog. Courtney is the Housing & Homelessness Research Coordinator for Mecklenburg County Community Support Services. Courtney’s job is to connect data on housing instability, homelessness and affordable housing with stakeholders in the community so that they can use it to drive policy-making, funding allocation and programmatic change.
