Why I’m voting no on Charlotte’s affordable housing bonds | Opinion
When Charlotte first began its major affordable housing push, the city identified a shortage of about 24,000 apartments available to low-income people. Nearly a decade and hundreds of millions of public dollars later, its estimate now stands above 42,000.
Read more Shame on Ted Budd for betraying North Carolina’s military members | Opinion
The city’s answer to that stubborn problem is another record-breaking housing bond, a request to borrow $125 million more on November’s ballot. That would push our total repayment bill well past half a billion dollars, once you figure in the interest.
Yet by now, we hardly seem to think about these bonds. The City Council puts another one on the ballot, and we vote for it without much public discussion. This request, in fact, was approved over the summer as part of the city’s budget, tucked amid hundreds of pages of minutiae.
With early voting approaching, I wanted to know what any informed voter should: What have we gotten for all this money?
The answer is remarkably hard to find. You can compile spreadsheets of disbursements, pore over developers’ applications and count apartments. Figuring out what our money actually made possible, and whether it was worth the cost, is another matter.
Whatever your political persuasion, you should demand that answer before approving another $125 million. As for me, I’m voting no.
Charlotte established its Housing Trust Fund in 2001, generally putting $15 million into it every other year. The urgency changed after the 2016 protests following the police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. Housing became part of the city’s promised response to poverty and a lack of economic opportunity.
Then-Mayor Vi Lyles pushed for $50 million in 2018. Two more $50 million bonds followed, then $100 million in 2024. Each increase becomes the floor for the next request.
The money supports several programs, but the biggest approach supplies money developers say they need to build apartments, in exchange for restrictions on rents and who can live there.
The city’s dashboard offers a basic accounting. Its income-band figures add up to 8,850 income-restricted apartments funded for construction or preservation since 2016.
That sounds impressive, maybe. Look closer, though, and the numbers raise more questions than they answer.
Most of those apartments serve the higher end of the eligible income range. At the upper limit, a family of four earning nearly $90,000 qualifies, with more than $2,200 a month in rent and utilities considered affordable under 2025 guidelines.
Developers routinely propose apartments with rents affordable at that upper level without asking for subsidies. Why pay for what the market already provides?
Read more Unusual fatal crash involved driver reported missing a week ago, NC troopers say
City staff members have told the council they need to fund apartments at higher income levels and in undesirable locations to spend the money before the next bond request. But spending down one bond before asking for another is hardly proof of success.
We can count what we helped finance. We still need to know what wouldn’t exist without our money, how much better off residents are and whether spending differently could help people more effectively.
Councilwoman Renee Johnson pressed for those kinds of answers during a housing committee meeting earlier this year. As the council plans out how to spend this next big pot of money, she asked, simply, how the city measures success.
When staff pointed to apartment counts, she asked about homelessness, evictions and help with security deposits. There were no ready answers.
“You’re doing the job that we’re asking you to do, but the reality is, people are really hurting,” she said.
Johnson is a Democrat. I’m a Republican. We disagree about plenty, but neither of us is satisfied with spending figures dressed up as results.
This week, I followed up with the city for evidence of benefits and whether taxpayers get good value. The shocking part is that the answers are still pending. A spokesman said it was “in the early stages of a comprehensive, independent evaluation of the Housing Trust Fund.”
Early stages. After all this money.
I’m not a Randian who thinks helping the poor should fall entirely to private charity. City government can reasonably help someone facing eviction after an emergency or being unable to afford a security deposit.
I’d prefer that safety net to an increasingly expensive attempt to counteract market forces. We’re being asked to take on a repayment bill above half a billion dollars while the city is still figuring out whether its approach works.
Charlotte voters should reject this housing bond. No more borrowing until the city can make the case. The city has gotten very good at asking for more. It’s past time we made it explain what we’re getting.
Contributing columnist Andrew Dunn is the publisher of the Longleaf Politics newsletter, which offers thoughtful analysis of North Carolina politics and policy from a conservative perspective. He can be reached at [email protected].
Read more NC Super 25 prep football poll: Major showdown between ranked teams in the Triad
