There's no such thing as a "no growth" community

Cities and suburbs across the U.S., and especially in California, have spent decades lying to themselves: “If we don’t plan for population growth, people will choose somewhere else to live.” It didn’t work here in Los Angeles, it hasn’t worked elsewhere, and it won’t work anywhere.

In the long run, every city has just one of three futures:

1. If demand is strong, it can build homes and grow its housing stock.
2. Alternatively, it can build very little and grow its housing prices.
3. Or, if demand is weak, it will eventually stagnate and fall into decline.

Unfortunately, many places continue to choose #2, to the great misfortune of renters, younger generations, and those without the luck of being born to wealthy parents.

We can’t have it all. Housing, as with every other domain of policy and life, involves trade-offs. One way of thinking about this — overly simplified, but useful nonetheless — is that cities have three characteristics. They can be appealing, unchanging, and affordable — but each city can only pick two, discarding the other.

If your city is appealing and unchanging, it won’t be affordable. This is the story of San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and many other coastal cities.

If your city is unchanging and affordable, it’s likely because it’s not very appealing. Many Rust Belt cities have this problem.

And if your city is affordable and appealing, it won’t stay that way for long — unless you plan for a future with more homes and more neighbors. They’re coming whether you like it or not.

Best to make a plan, and turn that growth, energy, and investment to positive ends.