Housing Trend Report

Taking just a quick glance at the first figure and it’s obvious what the major problem is: “the missing middle.” There is a horrid lack of multi-unit non-apartment housing. Sure there are some, but there should be far more of these “starter homes” that are affordable and enjoyable. This doesn’t mean wiping out all single family homes (that’s absurd) but it does mean making room for redevelopment that supports more density where viable. This often starts with rezoning to allow for mixed-use development and reducing set-back laws and parking minimums/requirements. There are a multitude of policy changes that could support a future where college students like me don’t have to worry about whether they’ll be able to find a decent affordable home that isn’t in a characterless car dependent suburb.

Thank you for this work! It is very much appreciated. I would also suggest taking another close look at the 2050 population estimates that are underpinning this analysis. The document bases estimated needs on an expectation that Montgomery County will have 942,944 residents in 2050. Based on the information I’ve reviewed, this seems too low of an expectation. And if we’re using that figure to then estimate our housing needs, we run the major risk of systemically underestimating the amount of housing we will need to provide for our residents – which would then further exacerbate our existing housing and affordability crisis. The document indicates that MCPC uses DVRPC’s population forecasts as a starting point. DVRPC does excellent and important work (as does MCPC!) – and population projections are very difficult and will necessarily have some margin of error. In looking over the population estimates DVRPC has made since 2000 and comparing those projections to the actual U.S. Census Bureau data for the years projected, my takeaway is that the projections tend to be about 2 to 5 percent below the actual population figures. As I said, DVRPC does great work! However, when we use these figures to determine housing needs, we run the risk of underestimating our actual needs by tens of thousands of people. For instance, if the 942,944 figure in this report is actually underestimated by only 5 percent, then our housing needs will end up completely omitting over 47,000 people – potentially throwing the housing needs estimate off by tens of thousands of units. Looking at it another way, the 1-year and 5-year American Community Survey estimates over the past decade estimate about 0.41 percent to 0.47 percent population growth annually – which, if that remains consistent going forward, would imply that Montgomery County would have about 970,000 to 980,000 people in 2050 – or about 30,000 to 40,000 more people than this analysis assumes. Looking at the decennial Census data, the U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that Montgomery County has grown an average of about 6.57 percent every decade since the 1980 Census (so, starting after post-war suburbanization, to avoid artificially inflating the figures; additionally, starting at 1980 includes the lowest decennial growth rate in the county's history – which would lower the growth rate below what it would be if the analysis started in 1990, 2000, or 2010). At that rate, Montgomery County would have over a million residents by 2050 – or over 90,000 more residents than this analysis assumes. The only way I’ve found to reach the 942,944 figure assumed here is to use the lowest decennial growth rate in the entire history of the county (the 3.18 percent growth rate of the 1980 Census) – if one used that rate, you’d arrive at about 940,000 residents in 2050. But, again, that is the lowest figure in the history of the county, seems to be an historical outlier (is less than half of the rate seen in more recent decades), and is very low relative to every other indicator I’ve seen. The other item I’d point out is that the analysis seems to assume a roughly 5.36 percent vacancy rate. My understanding is that that is actually on the lower end of what experts consider to be a healthy vacancy rate. Lower vacancy rates tend to mean there’s not enough housing available and are an indicator of escalating housing costs and unaffordability. Something closer to 7 to 8 percent might be a healthier range for which to plan. But probably one of the biggest indicators that this needs analysis might be undershooting the mark is the line from the document that the housing needs figure “is the equivalent of 1,237 new housing units built each year (a figure regularly exceeded on an annual basis).” If we are regularly exceeding the housing needs projection – and yet still find ourselves in a major housing crisis – then that is an indicator that the needs projection is meaningfully off. I write this not to haggle over different figures, but simply to make the point that we should plan for the higher realistic end of our needs, not for the rosiest scenario. If we plan for the higher end of our needs and end up with fewer residents, then the worst thing that happens is that we’ve housed everyone (still a good outcome!). However, if we plan for the lower end of our needs and end up with many more residents, then we’re perpetuating a housing crisis that is going to displace many current friends and family, and keep out many of our future neighbors.