Counterpoint: Dream of single-family homeownership doesn't divide, it unites

In the elaborately produced, multiple-page article "Zoning divide" (Aug. 8), the authors posit, explicitly, that the Twin Cities is highly segregated by race as a direct result of single-family zoning. They begin with a quote from a Black renter in St. Louis Park, expressing her dream of a single-family home, with "[d]efinitely a garden, maybe some chickens."

The article highlights a crowd in her community angrily opposing a multifamily housing project near their neighborhood. Like neighbors of such proposed projects across the state regardless of location or racial makeup, they cited all kinds of fears about new, high-intensity development. Loss of property value is the universal panic.

The authors immediately veer into a race-based attack on single-family zoning, relying on the historical fact that some (actually quite rare) single-family neighborhoods, developed a century ago, used private covenants to exclude minority buyers.

Their solution? The authors follow the paths promoted by Metropolitan Council and legislated in Minneapolis — dramatically increasing multifamily housing development and eliminating single-family zoning.

There are at least two major ironies in the premise. The first is that large majorities of householders — across ethnic groups, age groups and virtually every dividing line used these days — want to own and live in a single-family home. This is the reason so many single-family homes have been built: They are what most people want.

Black households desire them as much as do white households. Indeed, populations of color prefer larger homes than white Americans (source: a study from Brian McCabe, American Sociological Association, 2018).

In short, single-family homeownership is not a racist conspiracy; it's an American dream.

Most people want to own their own homes. People. Not white people, not racists. People.

The second irony in this article is the proposed solution to the supposed problem of racist single-family housing. That solution is the creation of more (wait for it) multifamily housing. Even though all ethnicities, ages and others want to own their own single-family homes, the authors attack the scarcity of rental units.

It's absolutely true that housing affordability is a huge issue. And it's true that this problem is more acute for racial minorities. But jacking up the supply of rental apartments doesn't address homeownership affordability — it actually increases costs. As the supply of housing tilts more toward multi-family, the relative lack of single-family homes will drive prices up — exactly what we are seeing. Supply and demand is a real thing.

The article's central example shows the absurdity of its solution. A woman is quoted dreaming of her own home, with a garden and chickens.

No amount of apartment building anywhere will make that dream come true.

One might argue for ways to support providing the kinds of housing people want, making it more affordable for the vast majority of the population — rather than continuing to parrot the "you must live as government officials in St. Paul tell you to live" narrative so popular in social planning circles these days.

People want to live in single-family homes they own, in neighborhoods where they can put down roots, where they can watch their kids play out back while they're cooking dinner, and where they can build wealth and stability.

People, just people, want that.