Suburbs Adopting 'Missing Middle Housing' Density Policies Risk Importing Urban Decline
Source: Alvin Lui. "Suburbs Keep Importing Policies That Ruined American Cities." August 27, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that suburbs like Carmel, Indiana are making a mistake by copying housing density policies from cities that are already struggling with crime and dysfunction. He claims that adding apartments and multi-family housing to suburbs will bring the same problems—more crime, higher taxes, and strained infrastructure—that caused people to move to the suburbs in the first place.
Conclusion
Successful suburbs should not adopt high-density 'Missing Middle Housing' policies modeled on struggling cities, because such policies undermine the very qualities (low crime, homeownership, fiscal stability) that made these suburbs desirable in the first place.
Premises
- Families moved to suburbs specifically to escape urban problems and access low-crime neighborhoods, homeownership, and clean streets
- Missing Middle Housing proposals in suburbs like Carmel, Indiana are explicitly modeled on cities (Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle) that are themselves struggling with the problems suburbanites fled
- Empirical studies (Louisville crime hotspot study, Indiana University 2006 study) show correlations between higher-density housing and significantly higher violent crime rates compared to low-density housing
- Higher-density and multifamily housing developments are associated with increased property tax burdens on long-term homeowners (Florida State University panel study)
- Subsidized multifamily housing tax exemptions impose substantial costs on local taxing entities, as shown by the Rice University Baker Institute study of Harris County, Texas ($355 million already, $2.2 billion projected)
- Increased density strains infrastructure, roads, utilities, schools, and emergency services beyond what current systems were designed for
- Federal HUD mandates (like Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) coerce or incentivize local leaders to adopt upzoning policies, undermining local control over zoning decisions
Assumptions
- Correlations found in cited studies (density-crime, density-taxes) reflect causal relationships rather than confounding factors like poverty or pre-existing urban conditions
- The specific policies and outcomes in cities like Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle are representative of what would happen if suburbs like Carmel adopted similar zoning changes
- Maintaining low-density, single-family zoning is the primary or best mechanism for preserving suburban qualities like low crime and fiscal health
- Suburban homeowners' interests (property values, low density) should take precedence over housing affordability and choice for renters or lower-income residents
- Local government autonomy in zoning decisions is inherently preferable to federal housing policy standardization