WHAT THE AUTHORS EXAMINED

The study analyzed:

• Rent changes

• Housing burden

• Migration patterns

• Income mobility

• Neighborhood demographic shifts

• Gentrification pressure

• Local government revenue patterns

• Housing stability measurements

Across dozens of metro areas over multiple decades.

​

KEY FINDING #1 — Gentrification & Dense Redevelopment Raise

The study shows:

 

Neighborhood-wide rents increase when dense redevelopment occurs.

 

This includes:

• Existing buildings

• Adjacent properties

• Older housing stock

• Units previously considered “naturally affordable”

In other words:

New dense construction lifts all rents in a neighborhood — not just the new buildings.

This is exactly what is happening around every dense Bellingham project.

 

KEY FINDING #2 — Renters Face Higher Cost Burdens & Instability

One of the most important findings:

 

Rent elasticity = 0.15
Wage elasticity = 0.04

 

That means:
For every 1% increase in density, rents increase nearly 4× faster than wages.

This flips the Sightline narrative upside down.

Density does produce economic activity…but that economic activity does not benefit renters.

It benefits:

• Landowners

• Developers

• Cities through higher tax assessments

• Firms that profit from urban agglomeration benefits

 

Renters alone fall behind.

 

KEY FINDING #3 — “No Displacement” Is a Misleading Claim

The authors do something rare:
They calculate net welfare — benefits minus costs.

Even after adjusting for:

• Shorter commutes

• Lower public service costs

• Better amenities

• Energy efficiency

The result:

 

“The net benefit remains negative for renters.”

This is a devastating finding for the density-as-affordability argument.

Even in the BEST-case scenario, renters lose ground financially in dense cities.

 

KEY FINDING #4 — Homeowners Benefit, Renters Lose

Because more people are competing over the same limited amount of land:

Land values rise disproportionately.

The authors explain:

• When cities restrict expansion

• When land supply is artificially constrained

• When zoning prevents outward growth

Density compounds scarcity instead of relieving it.

This is exactly Bellingham’s situation:

• 0 of 15 UGAs annexed

• Population up 30%+

• No new land supply

• Density piled on top of scarcity

This isn’t affordability — it’s a pressure cooker.

 

KEY FINDING #5 — Cities Capture the Financial Benefits

The study also documents negative externalities:

• Increased congestion

• Higher pollution exposure

• Higher noise

• Social inequality pressures

• Amenity crowding

Public services may become more cost-efficient — but the burden shifts to residents.

 

KEY FINDING #6 — Density Does NOT Create Affordability

This is the bottom line.

The study concludes:

• Density increases aggregate economic output

• But the gains are captured by landlords, property owners, and governments

• Renters face higher costs and receive fewer financial gains

This is exactly what we see in Bellingham:

• Renters pay the highest cost per square foot in the city

• Dense apartments generate far higher impact and connection fees than single-family homes

• The City prefers density because it produces the most revenue

• None of this makes housing cheaper for residents

WHY THIS STUDY MATTERS FOR BELLINGHAM

Everything the NIH warns about is happening here:

​

✔ Dense redevelopment → rising rents citywide

✔ No annexation → artificial scarcity

✔ Higher assessments → property taxes rise

✔ Renters get squeezed between scarcity & redevelopment pressure

✔ City revenue spikes through REET + fees + valuation growth

✔ Homeowners benefit financially, renters do not

​

And yet the City tells residents:

 

“Building more density everywhere will make housing affordable.”

This study — and your lived reality — show the opposite.