On Saturday morning I took part in a discussion of microhousing on a panel convened as part of the regular monthly meeting of the Seattle Neighborhood Coalition. Even though the discussion was announced with a lengthy and biased history of microhousing in Seattle by opponent Rick Barrett claiming that a “cabal” was “targeting” neighborhoods and avoiding the public process (Right. What does Barrett et al call what we’ve been doing over the last two years?), it was actually very well facilitated. There was only one moment when pandemonium broke out. I called the use of the term “renters” as code language intended to associate renters with all kinds of bad things in neighborhoods.

The exchange started when a woman in the front table started asking about “what kinds of people live in these small units without a bathroom.” I pointed out that nobody is building micro or congregate housing without bathrooms. I also pointed out that our own data show that the average tenancy in microhousing is about a year. I think she said “that’s not enough.” And she kept on asking about the people who are renters who aren’t invested in the neighborhood. She talked about the rental housing that was run down in the neighborhood. I countered that renters aren’t usually responsible for the upkeep of the buildings they live in. Then, after the sustained exchange, I suggested that talking about renters is code language intended to imply that renters are bad people.

That was the moment the room went a bit crazy. One man was shouting and banging his fists on the table. Another man, the camera man (the whole thing was video taped!), said, “you’re twisting the truth! Tell the truth.” It went on like that for awhile, a bit like one of those moments disorder that breaks out on the floor of the House of Commons. The facilitator, Bill Bradburd, actually did stand up and call everyone back to order, and we finished on a quieter note. But why the outrage and calling out the connection with “renters” with neighborhood blight? What does calling this out create such a stir?

Keep in mind what microhousing opponents have already said in public over the last two years in a seemingly endless process of disparaging developers and residents of microhousing. It has been documented at Publicola by Erica Barnett (more than once), Dominic Holden at The Stranger (also more than once),  and in a very funny post called “The Ten Wackiest Comments by Seattle Microhousing Opponents.” And of course I’ve called out the angry neighbor comments here too, also more than once.

Here’s what Leroy Laney, an angry neighbor in Capitol Hill said to City Councilmember Sally Clark:

Are you spending time in the community to witness the increases in height allowances are disproportionate to the look and feel of entire blocks.   Our lovely community is losing the appeal, charm and attraction for steady income, responsible, professional homeowners all for the ugly box and transient renter.

But the NIMBYs hate to be called out for this kind of speech that associates being a renter with neighborhood destruction. But if you don’t believe all the documentation about the vile stuff that comes out of the “established neighborhood” from us locals, there is a study that validates the phenomenon of using renters as the scapegoat for all kinds of awful things. A study by sociologist Kathy Kremer at Aquinas College in the Michigan Sociological Review, called, Homeowners, Renters, and Neighbors:Perceptions of Identity in a Changing Neighborhood takes a close look at how neighbors view renters. Kremer found that,

• 44 percent of the Creston residents [the neighborhood studied] indicated rental housing or renting households are their greatest neighborhood concern.
• Among only the home owners, 62 percent noted this was their greatest concern.
• Survey responses given by homeowners often connected rental units or renters themselves with other community concerns, such as crime or drugs.

Kremer goes on to point out that,

This data reflects the primary concerns of home owning residents of the Creston neighborhood, and their fear that this changing identity will lead to lower property values, drugs, and crime. Renters have also expressed concerns with renting households, but related to repairs needed and inattentive landlords.

All of this sounds familiar to anyone who has been following the microhousing debate. Change, by definition, is not easy because it involves the unknown. It makes perfect sense that people would be worried about new people moving into their neighborhood. But associating renters with things that would ruin the neighborhood isn’t fair. As my panel colleague Dennis Saxman and microhousing opponent pointed out, he has been criticized just because he’s a renter. Well, I am a renter too. And the study points out, renters do care about their buildings and how they work. Renters are impacted by the same problems as homeowners. Calling out the demonization of renters isn’t pleasant, but it isn’t pleasant listening to it either.