This is a multi-part series making yet another effort to correct misinformation and false narratives surrounding housing in Howard County. See the post Tale As Old As Time for the first part in the series.
In Tale As Old As Time, I noted that there are some ubiquitous narratives surrounding development in Howard County that are little more than old wives’ tales. I went on to list three tenets that contradict these narratives (our infrastructure inadequacies are the fault of elected officials and ourselves; slowing housing construction has not, and will not, deter population growth; and none of our problems will be solved by obstructing housing, but will instead be exacerbated). In this post, I’m going to show you the data behind my assertions. It may surprise you to see how perception differs from reality.
- Howard County’s population grew 13.4% from 2010 to 2020, according to the 2020 Census. In comparison, the Baltimore-area county with the next-largest growth was Anne Arundel at only 4.4%. Statewide, Maryland’s population grew by only 6.8%.
- Data from the Census Bureau’s 2020 American Community Survey and historical ACS tables reveals the following:
- Howard County has roughly 120,000 housing units. 51% are single-family detached; 23% are single-family attached.
- The median home price in Howard County rose from $415k to $456k from 2010 to 2020.
- 71% of HoCo’s housing stock was built between 1960-1999. Only 9% of HoCo’s total housing stock was built since 2010.
- Of the counties in the metro area (Howard, Carroll, Anne Arundel, Montgomery, Baltimore Co), Howard’s housing density is the second lowest; only Carroll is less dense.
- 37.6% of HoCo’s homeowners moved into the region in 2010 or later.
- HoCo’s average household size grew from 2.7 in 2010 to 2.8 in 2020.
- Data from HoCo’s Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) and the Spending Affordability Advisory Committee (SAAC) reveals the following:
- Since 2010, HoCo has averaged ~4,000 homes sold every year, not including rental unit turnover.
- Since 2010, HoCo has averaged only ~1,600 new homes built – apartments/rentals and senior housing included.
- In 2010, 34.5% of HoCo’s total land area was residential development, while 35.6% was open space or preserved land. In 2020, 34.6% of HoCo’s total land area is residential development, while our open space and preserved land has grown to 38.8%.
- Data from HCPSS’s enrollment reports and feasibility studies reveals that HCPSS’ student population has grown 15% from 2010 to 2020, yet its capacity has only grown about 8% in that time.
- This USA Today report notes that the threat of flooding to historic Ellicott City has been known to elected officials since as far back as the 1970s and that elected officials over the years have declined to implement the infrastructure upgrades needed to mitigate it.
- This report from the Baltimore Sun reveals the following:
- The upstream development that is typically blamed for OEC’s catastrophic flooding would not have prevented the flooding had it remained woodlands.
- Development standards for storm water management are much more stringent today than they were at the time much of the upstream development in OEC was built
- OEC’s location at the bottom of a granite valley in addition to inadequate infrastructure upgrades as noted in the USA Today article were major factors in the 2016 and 2018 floods.
- The latest SAAC report for FY2022 reveals the following:
- Howard County’s public demands, and therefore its spending, is surpassing its revenue growth and has been for a while now.
- Howard County has historically dealt with such fiscal challenges via short-term fixes, which has included punting on infrastructure needs – all of which end up costing more in the long run.
- Increasing the tax base via new residential and commercial development is the best long-term solution.
This is a lot of data, so I’ll boil it down to these key points:
- Howard County is in high demand.
- Howard County’s population growth, and its student population growth, has outpaced housing growth over the past decade. In other words, slower housing growth hasn’t deterred population growth. This shows that housing doesn’t drive growth; it accommodates it.
- School overcrowding hasn’t deterred families with children from moving here, nor has it deterred anyone from having or adopting children.
- Contrary to popular belief, our land use and density figures show that we’re not paving over every inch of the county with concrete and dense development. We have a lot of green space, and we have a lot of single-family homes.
- It is the government’s role to plan for and provide public services and facilities and to ensure adequate revenue is collected from residents and businesses. Our public infrastructure inadequacies are due to government policy failures on both counts.
- Blaming developers and development for our infrastructure woes ignores the fact that houses don’t use infrastructure, its occupants do. This misguided belief absolves both elected officials and ourselves of our obligation to pay for what we use and demand. It makes sense for developers to pay into infrastructure, of course, but it’s worth pointing out that we don’t get a cent of school surcharges or impact fees from any of the roughly 4,000 existing homes that are sold in the county each year.
- Pushing the financial burden for solving our infrastructure woes onto developers sounds good, but it only results in higher housing prices, exacerbating our affordability crisis. Not only that, but expecting new development to pay more for infrastructure needs while simultaneously limiting new development due to inadequate infrastructure is shooting ourselves in the foot.
- As noted in the SAAC report, the best long-term solution is to grow our residential and commercial tax base. Obstructing new housing robs us of school surcharges, impact fees, and new property tax revenue that can help pay for the infrastructure we need. Obstructing housing will not stop people from moving here; it will only ensure that they will end up competing for existing houses, driving up prices and providing us with no infrastructure fees.
No doubt some of you see this piece as defending developers. I really don’t care about them. I care about housing affordability and our schools, and at the end of the day, preventing developers from building only makes housing affordability worse and won’t get new schools built. I’d like to see more housing not because it benefits developers, but because it benefits us – in the form of additional revenue for school capacity and other public amenities (including housing subsidies!), and additional housing supply to help accommodate growth and better moderate prices. The “evil developer” narratives may feel good, but they won’t help a damn thing.
Stay tuned for my next piece, which will discuss the role of homeowners in all of this.