Housing that is affordable is often quantified as spending no more than 30% of your income on direct housing related costs (rent, mortgage, property taxes, insurance, utilities). However, while simple and clear, It assumes a very compartmentalized view of housing. It doesn’t consider how the location of that housing impacts so many other parts of our lives – so many other expenses. 

A new study from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health attempts to quantify many of the tradeoffs that come with the sprawling patterns of housing development that have become widespread since the proliferation of the car. In the researcher’s own words, “the most notable finding is that compact and connected counties are more affordable for residents for combined housing, transportation, and energy costs.” In other words, where housing costs might be higher, the offset of lower transportation and energy costs result in net less money spent. The report also examines other interesting correlations such as increases in social capital and decreases in disconnected youth. 

In this week’s edition of the Leader I penned an op-ed that offers an additional consideration: not only can well executed dense housing development be less costly, but is also essential for curbing climate impact. (Shout out to Local 20/20 who shared their column space with HSN!)

May’s newsletter continues to explore this theme with commentary on the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, potential opportunities for our local home builders and a new permanently affordable housing development happening on Whidbey Island.

In Community, 

Eric Jones
Director