That desperation for more housing — especially affordable housing — is the backdrop for a proposal to build a new apartment complex in the core of the downtown. As reported in the local paper, the city council approved permits for a 78-unit apartment complex that is being marketed as Eight05 Laurel (my apologies to those who are grammatically sensitive).
If you are an advocate for affordable housing, this is a big leap in the right direction. We are adding 78 units to the most walkable and bikeable neighborhood in town. At least 29 of these will be two-bedroom units (the most urgently needed kind). Sixteen of them will be reserved for families making up to 80% of the median household income and another 31 will be reserved for people making up to 15% more than that median. The remaining 31 will be sold at market rate.
Lots to cheer for if your goal is to make affordable housing. There is dramatically less to be excited about if the goal is to make housing affordable.
While it builds a handful of affordable units, this proposal will do nothing to make housing in the Brainerd Lakes area broadly affordable. In fact, it reinforces the financialized approach to housing, a top-down system that has disconnected housing prices in nearly all American cities from local reality. In that sense, it makes our housing problem worse, and at an enormous cost.
To make this project happen, the state of Minnesota is providing $6.8 million in a workforce development grant. The city is also throwing in almost $3.5 million in a tax increment financing subsidy while waiving $257,400 in utility charges. The Brainerd Lakes Area Economic Development Corporation is adding a main street grant of slightly less than $200,000. On top of that, the Crow Wing County Housing Trust Fund is providing a subsidized 20-year loan of $1.3 million.
That’s around $12 million in subsidies. For 78 units. That is a subsidy of $154,500 per unit in a city where the median home price is $210,000. No matter where your heart is on building affordable housing, you have to acknowledge that there is no way this approach scales.
It is hard to imagine Brainerd repeating this effort with another project of this scope, let alone enough projects to get the thousands of units our studies suggest are needed. Spending time and resources on an approach that doesn’t scale — has no chance of scaling — is what leads to the feeling of helplessness many local leaders attest to when it comes to housing.
This project is what moving heaven and earth looks like for a local government. It is the kind of thing we see cities of all sizes attempting to do, all over the country. Yet, in the scope of the affordability challenge we face, it is nothing. Sisyphus laughs at us.
We have to move beyond the narrow, almost futile task of making affordable housing and start working on the broader and more meaningful effort of making housing affordable.
The term “housing trap” is a way to explain the financialized craziness that makes housing prices more responsive to macroeconomic capital flows than local supply and demand dynamics. The reason housing prices are crazy everywhere at the same time isn’t because every local market has the same supply constraints. Supply constraints exist in many markets, sure, but the story of housing affordability is primarily a financial one.