This sentiment isn’t exactly news to me, but I think it comes more from a place of “Common Sense” than actual practice. It’s emotional and fed by the uncertainty of the housing market. That uncertainty is easily pointed at renters who can be seen less invested in the property than homeowners.

I don’t think these feelings are unreasonable, but I do think they are unfounded. For me, this isn’t about homeowners’ rights, but using a preconceived notion to justify long-term potentially damaging polices.

First, renters alone are not going to lower the property value. Most studies on the effects of affordable housing on surrounding property values find few changes. The studies — in particular the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s study on mixed-income housing — cover everything from group homes to government-subsidized living and rental property.

A brochure prepared in August 2005 for the California Department of Housing and Community Development contains links to several websites and PDF’s documenting these studies as well as their conclusions.

Furthermore, a review of 17 studies spanning several decades by Mai Thi Nguyen of San Francisco State University concluded that, “affordable housing appears to have no effect occur when (1) affordable housing is sited in healthy and vibrant neighborhoods, (2) the structure of the affordable housing does not change the quality or character of the neighborhood, (3) the management of affordable housing is responsive to problems and concerns.

Extrapolating these results to rentals in the overlay areas of East Lansing, but it’s easier to let Ingrid Ellen, co-director of the Furman Center and associate professor of Public Policy and Urban Planning at the Wagner School of New York University, sum it up. Her conclusion — which echoes Nguyen’s — is, “We can say generally that there is very little evidence — no evidence — of the significant reductions in property values that communities fear.”

In my opinion, overlay districts are meant to keep students and lower-income families out. Some of that comes from growing up in East Lansing and observing the interactions between permanent residents and students, but a great deal of it comes from what residents said at that first council meeting. The picture that came together was one where the word “renters” was substituted for undesirables and the preconceived notions about their behaviors were used to inflame fears of lowered property values.

Still, I can see why residents are leery of having students around. On average, we probably get into more trouble than permanent residents. And we’re not homeowners, so there could be an argument made that we care less for the places we inhabit. Case in point, my roommates and I used the walls of our first apartment for knife throwing practice. Granted, we patched and filled the holes before we moved out, but it’s hard not to think we would have acted differently had we owned the property.

That was when I first graduated from high school. The overlays in place now are for areas where people would be looking for the same thing the residents want: peace and quiet. Although it might seem odd, there are students — undergraduates and graduates — who want to be far away from all the activities typically associated with student areas. I like to think these are the kinds of individuals who rent property next to the East Lansing Police Department.

Homeowners are justifiably worried about the value of their property, but they should keep in mind empty houses and foreclosures will sink property values faster and more assuredly than any renter could.

David Barker is the State News opinion editor. Reach him at_ barkerd@msu.edu.