Every five years, the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) must update their Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). The AI is a process that recipients of US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding are obligated to complete under the Fair Housing Act. Through the AI, these federally funded organizations review impediments in the public and private sector including how laws and rules impact availability and accessibility of housing and how housing conditions impact housing choice for protected classes. In both the 2013 and 2019 versions of the state AI, the No. 1 impediment identified was “Not in My Backyard-ism” (NIMBYism) creating barriers to housing choice for protected classes.
TDHCA announced the start of the new AI process in November of 2023. In the decade since it was first listed as the first impediment in the 2013 AI, NIMBYism is still a persistent barrier to fair housing choice in Texas and it is likely to appear in the new AI. In our recent report on TDHCA’s 2024 Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), the document that guides how Low Income Housing Tax Credits (HTCs) are awarded, we highlighted fair housing issues present in state statute and the QAP that need to be addressed such as local HTC approval requirements that empower NIMBY voices.
Though the same NIMBY issues are likely to appear in the new AI, the context has somewhat changed. Recent public focus on housing needs has shifted attention to moderate or middle income households under the guise of needing “workforce housing.” While the current housing crisis is severe enough to impact households at all income levels, the fact remains that low income people also work and are the most in need of affordable housing. TDHCA must keep this context in mind while developing their AI.
NIMBY and HTC
NIMBYism is a common theme in news coverage of proposed HTC properties. We often hear from opponents of affordable housing that new properties bring decreased property values, increased crime, overcrowded schools, and traffic congestion. Traffic is a particularly popular excuse for opposition to affordable housing.
However, research has shown that HTC properties benefit their surrounding neighborhoods and do not decrease property values or increase crime rates. A 2013 study of HTC properties in Texas found that new developments did not negatively impact local school performance. Low-income residents living in denser environments have fewer school-aged children and create less traffic than higher-income neighbors in single-family neighborhoods. Despite these truths, proponents of NIMBYism continue to push a false and flawed narrative.
TDHCA has made programmatic changes to address NIMBYism within its powers, though some reform is simply not within TDHCA’s authority. State statute requires that TDHCA consider letters of support, neutrality, or opposition from state representatives for any HTC application. Because of the competitive nature of the program and the possibility of negative points, this has historically given state representatives a “veto” option on proposed HTC development in their district.
Following the 2019 AI, TDHCA created a workaround allowing applicants to get full points with a resolution of support from the local government instead of a representative letter. This workaround is only possible if a letter is not received from a state representative. Representatives can still submit a neutral or opposing letter, which is very difficult for applicants to overcome. Only two applications between 2018 and 2023 were able to secure an award despite letters of opposition from their representatives (Cypress Creek at Forest Lane in Dallas, 2021; The Upland in Houston, 2023).
Political viability of developments is a clear issue when reviewing HTC data. In many cities, representatives and local government officials are only willing to support HTC developments that serve older residents in high income, white majority neighborhoods. HTC properties in first quartile income, majority white tracts in Grand Prairie, Beaumont, Lufkin, Waco, and Plano are all elderly-only properties. This is an ongoing issue. Over half of HTC units awarded in high income, majority white tracts in Houston since 2017 have been in elderly-only properties (57% of units).
While older Texans, many of whom are on fixed incomes, are in need of affordable housing, high opportunity neighborhoods need more HTC units for families too. Research has shown that children in particular experience lifelong benefits from access to quality housing in high opportunity neighborhoods. The inability to develop HTC units for families in high opportunity neighborhoods denies children access to these benefits.
The statutory requirement to consider the approval or disapproval of a state representative primarily serves as a tool for NIMBY neighbors wielding overwhelming social capital to circumvent the local process for development approval and prevent low income families from moving in. This harms TDHCA’s ability to fund developments in high opportunity neighborhoods. The new workaround is not enough to prevent this issue. In many cases, the NIMBY pressures on state and local elected leaders will be the same. As TDHCA examines this issue and updates their AI, they should be careful to maintain focus on the demonstrated need for deeply affordable housing.
Developments in NIMBYism
NIMBYism has long been associated with opposition to affordable or low-income housing, anything that does not align with “neighborhood character.” YIMBYism (“Yes in My Backyard-ism”) arose as an anti-NIMBY response to skyrocketing rents in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 2010s. However, this is not a binary issue. YIMBYs have suggested that reducing regulation on housing development to increase market-rate housing supply will stabilize demand and reduce housing costs through filtering, a process where construction of new, higher cost units eventually frees up units for middle- and low-income families, a sort of trickle-down housing theory.
Filtering is a controversial concept given the long timeline, dependence on disinvestment and weakening neighborhoods, and the fact that rising housing costs can reverse filtering effects, making housing even more unaffordable for low income households. A more effective method of creating affordable housing is building affordable housing specifically for extremely low-income families. This process should similarly expand housing availability for all renters. The greatest housing need is for the most deeply affordable units; construction of market-rate housing will never directly address this need. This core principle, the need for deeply affordable subsidized housing, is the foundation of a third IMBY group, the PHIMBYs – “Public Housing in My Backyard.”
Our recent blog post discussing the 2024 QAP highlighted the need to keep affordable housing focused on true affordability. TDHCA must keep this focus when launching their new AI efforts. In this context, YIMBY is not the opposite of NIMBY. We need deeply affordable housing to address the housing crisis, and unregulated development of market rate units or subsidized units for middle income households will not meet the greatest need.TDHCA will be developing their new AI this year. There will be multiple opportunities for public input and comment, which we at Texas Housers will be taking part in. If you are interested in learning more about the process, you can sign up to receive fair housing related emails from TDHCA, including AI-related announcements.
