Do some townships go out of their way to keep poor people out?
A new report on housing affordability in Lancaster County doesn't tackle that explosive question head on. But in an oblique way it raises the issue, one we as a community should be exploring.
What the report by the county planning commission does highlight is how township regulations drive up housing costs, making it more and more likely that developers build only for the well-to-do.
A key finding: Homes in 42 of Lancaster County's 60 municipalities aren't affordable to a family earning $52,000 — the county's median household income.
It seems likely the census will show a widening gulf of economic segregation with too many low- and moderate-income families able to find housing in only a few areas (Lancaster, Columbia, Marietta).
Exclusive townships?
Jane Pugliese, housing director for the planning commission, said the report's purpose "wasn't to point fingers" but to start a discussion about how zoning and other regulations create barriers to affordable housing.
Municipalities, for instance, may require developers to put in excessively wide streets, provide for unnecessary parking or jump through hoops to build attached residences.
Any benefits those regulations offer the public, the report says, should be weighed against the costs they impose on the builder and, ultimately, the buyer or renter.
The government considers housing "affordable" if a family spends less than 30 percent of its monthly income on rent or mortgage payments, utilities and property taxes.
The planning commission found Salisbury, West Lampeter and East Hempfield townships — with monthly housing costs exceeding $2,000 — to be the least affordable.
The state requires municipalities to provide for all housing types, but Jim Shultz of Charter Homes said he experienced "pitched battles" when, as head of low-income housing builder HDC, he sought to "open up the suburbs" to affordable housing.
A big challenge, Shultz said, was finding a tract both zoned for townhouses or apartments and having water and sewer service.
The 63-page report (see www.co.lancaster.pa.us/planning) confirms his point. In some suburbs — the report doesn't say which — 20 percent of the areas zoned for attached housing lack water, sewer or both services, making high-density development unsuitable.
"If the community says, 'Here's where you can build it,' that's exclusionary, no question," Shultz said.
Economic impact
The report warns that the number of cost-burdened households here is growing faster than projected, having reached 30.1 percent of the population in 2007. It's a trend with worrisome implications for our economy and quality of life.
If we want to spur business, for instance, we had better provide places where retail clerks, assemblers and receptionists can afford to live.
If we want to attract talented young people, we had better build housing that new college graduates — saddled, on average, with $23,000 of debt — can afford.
If we want to ease the burden on retirees, we had better provide downsizing options.
If we want to relieve wasteful traffic congestion, we had better plan housing near workplaces.
And here's a final point not in the report. If we want the city to be fiscally sustainable, we can't allow it to be the only place low and moderate-income families find housing.
Land use is destiny. An imbalance of housing types will warp the county's future.