A recent Washington Post article asked the question: Should cities subsidize housing for a family making $141,000? The issue has been raised as DC Mayor Muriel Bowser has proposed a $20 million workforce housing fund in the city to support the development of housing affordable to middle-income households. There has been sharp criticism from some advocates over spending millions of dollars to help higher-income households access housing when there is a need for more than $2 billion for critical health and safety repairs in the city’s public housing developments.

The District of Columbia is not alone in trying to figure out how to prioritize local funding and to balance the needs of extremely- and very-low income households with the growing challenge of maintaining middle-class households in the community.  In Massachusetts, the $100 million Workforce Housing Initiative is providing assistance to developers of housing for middle-income housing. The City of Philadelphia recently expanded its Workforce Housing Credit Enhancement program which supports the development of middle-income housing.

While it is clear that housing affordability challenges have moved up the income ladder in many places around the country, it is also fair to ask whether limited public financial resources should be directed at serving middle-income households when the needs among extremely- and very-low income households are so dire. In addition, it is reasonable to analyze if cities are adopting sufficient land use and zoning policies (e.g. density increases) to help facilitate more housing overall even as they direct public money to support middle-income households.

In local debates about building new multifamily housing, the conversation often turns to babies—well, actually to the school-age children that babies ultimately become. The argument is that new housing equals new school children, and new apartments likely means new lower-income school children. Because schools are often overcrowded as it is and school funding remains insufficient to meet current needs, there is understandable backlash against new development that will only put more pressure on local schools.

In heated discussions about local growth, it is important to have as many facts as possible. Sometimes the facts directly refute long-standing perceptions. The relationship between new residential development and new school children often is one example.

In our work with the City of Falls Church, Virginia, we looked at this relationship between new housing and school children. Falls Church is located in Northern Virginia and is well-known for its high-quality schools. Residents of the City take a lot of pride in—and are very protective of—their public school system. Recent new development in the City, particularly new multifamily apartment buildings, have raised concerns about the impact of this new development on the public schools.

The data showed something that was surprising to many. Between 2010 and 2017, the City of Falls Church added more than 500 new residential units, primarily homes in multifamily buildings. Over that same time period, the number of households with children dropped while the number of overall school-age children increased.  Where were all these children coming from?

It turns out—not from the new multifamily buildings.  New multifamily units have very few school-children living in them—roughly 0.1 to 0.2 children per unit on average.  Instead, the growth in the number of school children was driven by more families in existing and new single-family homes have three instead of two children.

New residential development can result in the need for more investments in public facilities and infrastructure. It is necessary to plan for the needs of new residents and businesses when developments are approved.  However, it is important to understand what the real impacts might be—based on data—rather than letting decision-making be swayed by myths or misperceptions.

Let us know if we can help you better understand how new residential development shapes your community.

The Local Solutions in Action series highlights strategies for expanding housing options and increasing housing affordability. The focus is on land use, zoning, financial and other regulatory tools that are available to cities, counties and towns that can be used to meet the housing needs of their residents and workforce.

School District-Owned Land

Public land policies make government-owned land available at reduced or no cost for affordable or mixed-income housing. Often, this includes land owned by the municipal government, but in some cases, the local school district controls vacant or underutilized property that could be repurposed for housing. This asset can provide an important opportunity for making below-market-rate housing available to teachers and school support staff, allowing them to live in the community they serve.

There have been successful examples of old school buildings being converted into housing, sometimes housing designed specifically to serve school staff. There are communities across the country of public school buildings sitting empty as the number of families with children decreases. In 2014-2015, it was estimated that more than 1,500 public schools in the U.S. were closed down.  While sometimes a sign of decline, these buildings could also provide an opportunity. For example, a school building Clendenin, West Virginia built in 1914 was abandon for years until the school district partnered with a developer to convert the building into housing.  Other West Virginia communities are looking for ways to build teacher housing.

Rising housing costs in communities across the country are making the issue of teacher housing a front burner issue. High turnover and difficulty attracting teachers and other school staff are the primary drivers behind the push for more affordable teacher housing.

In 2016, the California Assembly adopted a bill requiring local agencies and school districts to prioritize surplus land for affordable housing. School districts were specifically directed in the legislation to partner with a qualified developer to develop housing specifically for teachers. But the implementation at the local level has not been smooth sailing.

The San Jose Unified School District has a plan to facilitate the development of teacher housing on school-owned land. Nine district-owned properties were identified as potential sites for housing targeting not only teachers, but also bus drivers, cafeteria workers and other school support personnel who do not earn enough to afford market-rate housing in San Jose.  Despite general support for teacher housing, there has been vehement opposition to repurposing school buildings for housing.

Let us know if we can share additional information on local policies that support workforce housing options.

Three Questions We Ask at Community Meetings

Community meetings are critical to any local housing planning process. We know a lot more than we used to—thanks to groups like the Frameworks Institute, MacArthur Foundation and Enterprise Community Partners—about how to talk about the challenge of housing affordability to guide the conversation away from myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings.

In our work with local communities, we have also realized how important it is not only to TALK to people in a different way about the importance of housing, but also to actively LISTEN to members of the community and to UNDERSTAND the concerns they have.

In recent community meetings we asked the following three sets of questions:

1. Does anyone here know someone who would benefit from lower-cost housing options in the community?  Is there a friend or a family member who would like to live here but can’t afford it? Maybe your grown children? Is there someone who works for you – either in a business or in your home – who might live in the community if there were more options?
2. Do you have concerns about more affordable or workforce housing options being developed in the community? How does housing availability in the community relate to traffic or school quality? What kinds of changes to the community would you expect if there were different kinds of housing options?
3. Do you think there are ways the community can sensibly support workforce housing options? Is increasing density in some parts of the community an option in your opinion? What about dedicated public resources? Do you think public-private partnerships can help facilitate the development of lower-cost housing?

By organizing public meetings around these questions, we allowed members of the community to define the housing affordability challenge on their own terms (question #1). We also give residents the space to voice their concerns without judgement (question #2). Finally, we encourage residents to be part of the solution, without limiting the discussion to our own recommendations (question #3).

This type of outreach is time consuming—but really important. When more residents have their voices heard and have a chance to be part of the process, we are better able to build support for local housing policies and initiatives.

Let us know how we can help build support around expanding housing options in your community.  Please reach out!  

The Local Solutions in Action series highlights strategies for expanding housing options and increasing housing affordability. The focus is on land use, zoning, financial and other regulatory tools that are available to cities, counties and towns that can be used to meet the housing needs of their residents and workforce.


Adaptive Reuse: Motel Conversion


Adaptive Reuse refers to programs, policies, and ordinances designed to create new housing in existing buildings once used for commercial, industrial, or public purposes. Adaptive reuse poses an alternative solution to demolition or deterioration, and provides an option for expanding housing options in an environmentally sustainable way, while also potentially maintaining historic buildings and preserving existing community structures.


Communities that have unmet demand for affordable housing and an abundant of old commercial building stock available have used adaptive reuse as a tool to create new affordable workforce housing. Adaptive reuse can require site plan review committee, special use permits, incentive programs, conversion factors, and new ordinance introduced. Therefore, there is no one standard way to implement an adaptive reuse program. The approach will depend on the goals and planning processes of the community, as well as the stock of potential buildings appropriate for repurposing as housing.


Converting older, dilapidated or underutilized motels can be an important component of an adapative reuse program. A successful implementation of Adaptive Reuse through Motel Conversion is in the City of Williamsburg, VA. This community has a strong demand for affordable housing and an abundance of motel properties in the area. A local motel property owner in Williamsburg took action by submitting a proposal to repurpose outdated and underused motel rooms into affordable apartment units, addressing his situation and the city’s. In 2014, the City of Williamsburg created a special use permit and a Planned Development Housing District for motel conversions. There is currently a limit of 150 adaptive reuse housing units possible through this program.


The PDH district and adaptive housing was added to the city code giving clear guidelines and definitions. The city has defined adaptive housing as primarily efficiency and one-bedroom units with adequate cooking facilities created from all or part of an existing hotel/motel and used for the purpose of providing non-permanent, affordable and flexible-term housing for individuals and families who may not have access to traditional housing alternatives.


The motel owner who first submitted the proposal has been successful in using the special use permit, converting 60 motel rooms into 47 housing units. These rooms fit the adaptive housing criteria, and have rents ranging from between $695 and $1,125 per month. The owner is in the process of converting 68 motel rooms into 53 additional housing units.


If you want to know more about how Adaptive Reuse programs can be used in your community to expand housing options, please get in touch!