The FWD #227 • 658 words

Housing polls reveal our biggest blind spot: ourselves.

America has some contradicting feelings about housing. Poll after poll shows strong support for affordable housing and increasing supply. Yet communities across the country—including right here in Virginia—routinely reject actual development proposals when they’re about to become a reality.

Mental gynmastics

As our previous blogs have covered, most Americans agree housing affordability is a significant problem that needs fixing. Support for affordable housing initiatives regularly polls above 70%. Yet at the same time, a February 2025 poll by Consensus Strategies found that 73% of respondents believe their communities are “fine as they are or overdeveloped.”

This isn’t just NIMBYism—it’s a deeper cognitive dissonance that shapes our housing crisis.

People genuinely believe housing should be more affordable. They support the concept of increased supply. They agree that workers should be able to live near their jobs. But when specific projects are proposed, the abstract good transforms into concrete concerns about traffic, property values, neighborhood character, and more.

Virginia’s version

We see this pattern play out across Virginia. A 2019 VCU poll found that while 78% of Virginians saw housing affordability as a problem nationally, only 57% considered it an issue where they live. Only 33% viewed it as a “very serious” local problem.

This disconnect is particularly evident in Northern Virginia. In Arlington County, residents recently mounted significant opposition to zoning reforms that would have allowed small multifamily buildings in previously single-family-only zones.

Similarly, Alexandria has seen strong pushback against density-increasing proposals despite the city’s progressive reputation and stated commitment to housing equity.

The result? Housing production lags demand, prices continue climbing, and the affordable housing gap widens.

The psychology behind the contradiction

What explains this disconnect between our stated values and our on-the-ground reactions? Behavioral science offers several insights.

First, loss aversion is a powerful force. We experience the potential for loss (real or perceived) more intensely than equivalent gains. While the benefits of affordable housing are diffuse and community-wide, the perceived risks feel immediate and personal to those nearby.

[The] potential losses of property value are alarmingly direct, personal, and tangible, while the benefits of improved housing can seem uncertain, more long term, and perhaps distant.

— The Decision Lab

Second, the “zero risk bias” shows that humans prefer absolute certainty—even when alternatives might leave us better off overall. We gravitate toward the status quo rather than accepting new, unfamiliar changes to our neighborhoods.

Finally, confirmation bias causes us to pay more attention to information that aligns with pre-existing beliefs. Personal anecdotes about problematic developments often carry more emotional weight than empirical studies showing beneficial outcomes.

Why reframing matters

This cognitive dissonance requires advocates to rethink how we talk about housing. Enterprise Community Partners and the FrameWorks Institute recommend shifting from a narrow “affordability” frame to a broader “fairness” frame.

Rather than focusing exclusively on individual household budgets, effective messaging centers on collective growth and regional interdependence. For example, instead of simply stating “more people need affordable homes,” consider the message: “Our ZIP codes shouldn’t determine the trajectory of our lives. When all communities have good homes, good schools, and strong businesses, it provides everyone with a fair shot at success.”

The public also responds better to explanations of how policies create disparities rather than just asserting that disparities exist. Explaining specific mechanisms helps people understand the systemic nature of housing inequity and builds support for meaningful solutions.

Most importantly, we must help people see that supporting abstract housing goals while opposing actual projects is a contradiction that perpetuates our housing crisis.

Moving forward

Our communities face a critical choice: continue the cognitive dissonance that blocks progress or align actions with stated values. Supporting affordable housing means supporting actual projects—not just abstract concepts.

The housing we say we want won’t materialize through good intentions alone. It requires accepting change in our own neighborhoods, not just someone else’s. That’s not just good policy—it’s intellectual honesty.