My good friend Daniel Pearson — OK, OK, I think he knows who I am, but we’ve never met other than in debates on Twitter — is an editorial writer for The Philadelphia Inquirer, and that makes him a liberal, but he’s not a far left whacko, and conservatives can actually talk to him. And, other than the fact that he appears to be holding a disgusting Philly cheesesteak in his Twitter pic — a hot, freshly baked Philly pretzel would be more than acceptable, but cheesesteaks are vile — I pretty much like him. Today’s main editorial shows that, for a liberal, he’s not completely ignorant of economics.
Since enforcement began in July 2022, only five housing projects — with a total of 106 new apartments and fewer than 30 income-restricted units — have received permits within the restricted area.
by The Editorial Board | Tuesday, February 27, 2024 | 6:00 AM EST
In December 2021, Philadelphia City Council created a new affordable housing program — known as inclusionary zoning — that sounded almost too good to be true.
With no public subsidy, density bonuses, or other financial concessions, developers of new properties with 10 or more units in parts of West Philadelphia and the greater Kensington area were required to set aside 20% of every proposed new development for affordable housing. Given the then-hot real estate market in these areas, supporters pitched the concept as a cost-free way to prevent displacement as neighborhoods changed.
The problem is obvious. Developers, like is the case with all other types of investors and businesses, are in business to make money, the maximum amount of money possible for the shareholders. A requirement to set aside 20% for “affordable housing”, without any financial kickbacks or concessions, means that there’s less money to be made. Not only is there less money to be made on the “affordable” units, but the presence of the lower cost units brings down the sale value or potential rents for the luxury condominiums or apartments.
“Philadelphia is in the midst of a full-blown housing crisis. If we continue to do nothing, housing prices will continue to go up, and the Black and brown people who are the backbone of this city will continually be pushed to the fringes,” said Councilmember Jamie Gauthier at the time. Gauthier, along with then-Councilmember Maria Quiñones Sánchez, proposed the bill.
Two years later, the legislation hasn’t lived up to those lofty goals — and it’s clear a new approach is needed.
Ryan Spak, an affordable housing developer with a track record of delivering new income-restricted housing without public subsidy, predicted that the concept would struggle. Spak told anyone who would listen that the bill would force him to either raise prices to unsustainable levels or to do business outside of West Philly. The math simply didn’t work out.
Mr Spak did the math, writing on January 6, 2022:
Today, rents have already risen to unseen levels. This legislation forces those costs to rise faster and higher because developers will have to charge more for the market-rate units to pay for the affordable units. For one example, to meet the required 20% of the units at 40% AMI (Area Median Income), Spak Group would need to rent a two-bedroom apartment in Cedar Park for $2,150 per month — $500 per month more than I’ve ever achieved in my 10 years developing and managing rentals in West Philly. The market will reject these prices; the project will never be constructed and, as a result, neither will the affordable units.
Other requirements would have different math, but he noted that “every analysis” made, with different tweaks of the proposal, would fail without direct government subsidies.
Going back to the first cited article, we can see the problem:
Gauthier said that while developers might make less money, the potential of adding 200 income-restricted housing units a year was too promising to reverse course. The fruits of the program, however, have been minimal, and even those were achieved only by reopening the door to subsidies.
Mr Pearson, who had told me personally that he strives to keep his editorials around the old 750-word limit, was pretty kind to the Third District Councilwoman with that small paragraph. What she actually wrote was:
A complaint we’ve heard from developers since day one is that MIN will diminish the return on investment for their projects — and yes, it’s true that this legislation will require them to see lower profits than they’re accustomed to. It remains unclear to me why we should find it unacceptable for developers and investors to see less of a return, but fail to question why we continue to build housing that doesn’t meet the needs of current residents. Just because the existing system works for developers and investors doesn’t mean we should let socially irresponsible development continue, unfettered.
Opponents of this legislation say it will stymie development in my district. I have a hard time believing that. To say that commercial development is booming in University City would be an understatement — and we know that today’s workers want their jobs to be close to their homes, which will lead them to continue moving to this part of the city. MIN will ensure that this growth doesn’t displace working-class residents and that we have equity in our neighborhoods for years to come.
So, why was development booming in University City? The area is home to the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania, Drexel University, the former University of the Sciences, now part of St Joseph’s University, the very famous Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP), along with several other places of note, and has been gentrifying since the 1960s, pushed by Penn’s programs to help faculty and staff buy there. And, of course, there’s student housing. Simply put, there were people with money to spend, and developers have chosen to make money in an area where there was money to be made. Miss Gauthier might believe that developers would blithely accept “lower profits than they’re accustomed to,” rather than considering the possibility that many would not accept “lower profits” and would simply invest their money elsewhere.
There’s more than that, or course. As we have reported previously, there is significant resistance to city projects in West Philly that some believe would lead to more gentrification in the area.
Angst is roiling minority neighborhoods as they struggle to balance the opportunities and the threats created by gentrification. “West Philly is the new Africa,” one resident warned at a community meeting. “Everyone wants the property that’s in West Philadelphia.”
by Jason Laughlin | February 21, 2020
The topic of the community meeting — a plan to beautify 52nd Street, to make it safe, welcoming, and prosperous once again — was, on its face, nothing but good news for West Philadelphia’s long-declining business corridor.
Yet the audience of about 50 residents and retailers, mostly African American, grew increasingly agitated as urban designer Jonas Maciunas flipped through a PowerPoint presentation of proposed improvements. Many weren’t seeing a vision of a neighborhood revitalized from Market to Pine Streets. Instead, in the talk of redesigned intersections, leafy thoroughfares, and better bus shelters, they heard the ominous whisper of gentrification.
“It just seems that when white people decide to come back to a certain neighborhood, they want it a certain way,” said Carol Morris, 68, a retired elementary school teacher.
Morris’ declaration opened the floodgates of fear and anger that recent night at the Lucien E. Blackwell West Philadelphia Regional Library. Maciunas and Jesse Blitzstein, director of community and economic development for the nonprofit Enterprise Center, which is spearheading the project, were peppered with skeptical questions ranging from the validity of surveys showing community support for the improvements to the maintenance of trees that would be planted.
Now, why would any developer want to risk his money on a project that the neighborhood doesn’t want? Who among the higher-end buyers and renters, would want to buy or rent in a neighborhood in which many of the locals don’t want beautification projects because they might bring in more white residents?
Mr Pearson also noted that Philly isn’t the only place where ‘inclusionary zoning’ hasn’t lived up to the promises made for it:
Portland, Ore., enacted inclusionary zoning in 2020 and saw a similar decline in the construction of large apartment buildings, with many developers instead opting to reduce the scale of their projects so they did not meet the threshold that required set-asides. The well-meaning measure also seems to raise the cost of existing homes.
California towns with inclusionary zoning saw housing prices increase by 20% relative to towns without it. Those kinds of spikes limit the restrictions’ potential to stave off gentrification. It isn’t much use to provide 30 new affordable apartments if the price of Philadelphia’s existing 700,000-plus homes goes up.
Gee, how ’bout that? Governments try to push and pull on the economy, doubtlessly aided by doctors of economics, yet they always seem to get it wrong.
Councilwoman Gauthier got everything wrong, because she was basing her ‘economic’ policy on what she sees as promoting ‘socially responsible development’. Well, investors don’t care about socially responsible development; they care about making money!
In the end, there’s a great fact about economics that so many people, liberals and conservatives alike, and economics professors, just don’t understand. The economy simply cannot be controlled, because the economy is 250 million taking over a billion economic decisions, every single day. Deciding whether to stop on the way to work at Wawa or just making a cup of coffee at home is an economic decision, deciding to scarf down two pieces of toast at home or grab a bagel at Dunkin’ Donuts is an economic decision. These things may seem small, and individually, they are, but when a thousand potential customers have to decide whether to get coffee and a sandwich at Ultimo Coffee or go elsewhere, because the baristas are on strike, those things, in the aggregate, start to become influential economic decisions.
And those decisions are taken by people, not graphs or flowcharts or city councils. Miss Gauthier’s act, pushed through the Philadelphia City Council, didn’t work out the way she expected, because the economic actors she wanted to influence, took their decisions differently from what she hoped.
