Affordable Housing in Delaware: Rising Taxes, Rising Costs, and Growing Concerns

By: Kahleen Rutherford, Guest Contributor

Affordable housing is one of the most pressing challenges facing Delaware families. Across the state, residents are confronting a mix of financial pressures and policy questions that are making it harder to find and keep affordable homes.

The debate is being shaped by several connected concerns:

• higher rents and housing shortages
• rising property taxes and growing foreclosure risk
• increasing construction and infrastructure costs
• questions about who should control growth and zoning decisions

As lawmakers in Dover weigh possible solutions, many Delawareans are asking a basic question: will these proposals make housing more affordable, or push it even further out of reach?

Rising Property Taxes and Financial Strain

For many Delaware families, the most immediate concern is the growing burden of property taxes. After the state’s first statewide property tax reassessment in roughly 40 years, many residents saw their tax bills rise sharply, putting added pressure on seniors and families living on fixed incomes.

In late May, New Castle County approved a 17% property tax increase to close a nearly $42 million budget gap. Delaware recently ranked as having  the highest foreclosure rate in America, with filings up 18% year over year in April. Realtor.com analyst Hannah Jones said the reassessments pushed some Delaware homeowners “over the financial edge.”

Housing Supply and Construction Costs

Delaware’s housing shortage remains severe. State housing officials estimate that lower-income renters need nearly 20,000 additional affordable housing units. Yet many residents worry that some proposed policies could make new construction even more expensive and slow the creation of badly needed homes.

A recent report from the Delaware Business Times raised concerns about proposed Senate Bill 272, which could increase construction costs across the state. Supporters say the measure would protect workers. Critics argue that higher building costs often mean taxpayers pay more for public projects and fewer affordable homes get built.

Those concerns are especially significant because Delaware is already facing major infrastructure demands. One in four bridges in the state is rated deficient, and some school districts are projecting tax burdens that could rise by 8–10 percent. For families already stretched thin, these added costs are becoming harder to absorb.

Local Control and Zoning Authority

A major debate in the Delaware legislature centers on Senate Bill 23 and the question of who should guide development decisions. The issue is not whether Delaware needs more housing, most people agree that it does. The deeper disagreement is over who should decide where and how that growth happens.

Should lawmakers from one region be able to override local zoning decisions in counties facing different infrastructure needs, traffic conditions, and growth priorities? The debate has become especially sensitive in Sussex County, where rapid development has already intensified concerns about congestion, schools, and public services. Many residents believe local officials and communities should retain primary control over zoning and growth decisions.

As Delaware searches for workable housing solutions, the challenge will be finding the right balance between growth, affordability, taxpayer impact, and local control. Residents across the state are watching closely and asking whether current proposals will truly lower housing costs—or simply add new financial pressure to families already struggling to keep up.

Kathleen Rutherford is a government relations and advocacy professional with experience in lobbying, public policy, and strategic communications in Delaware and Washington, D.C. Rutherford Consulting, Inc. provides policy analysis, advocacy strategy, and communications support that connects legislative decisions to real-world economic and community impacts.

How Much Carbon Dioxide Will There Be in the Atmosphere at the End of This Century?

By: Dr. David R. Legates, Guest Contributor

No one knows for sure. Yet climate models depend on assumptions about future CO₂ concentrations and the pathways that get us there. Their temperature projections hinge on these inputs. For years, modelers relied on a set of standardized scenarios. In early May, the Seventh Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) introduced a significant shift in how future climate projections are framed. This change will shape the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and marks a welcome move toward greater realism.

Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), developed for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report around 2014, provided standardized inputs focused on atmospheric concentrations and radiative forcing—the imbalance in Earth’s energy budget, measured in watts per square meter (W/m²) relative to pre-industrial levels by 2100. The main RCPs included:

• RCP2.6: very low emissions with strong mitigation, peaking and then declining.
• RCP4.5: intermediate reductions.
• RCP6.0: more modest reductions.
• RCP8.5: virtually no reductions, reaching about 8.5 W/m².

These were designed primarily for exploring physical climate responses across distinct forcing levels, not as precise socioeconomic forecasts. They were paired with emissions scenarios from Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). RCP8.5 was intended as an extreme high-end case for exploratory purposes, but communication gaps led many researchers, media outlets, and policymakers to treat it as a central “business-as-usual” projection.

For CMIP6 and the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) expanded the framework. SSPs combined socioeconomic narratives—covering population, economic growth, technology, and policy—with specific radiative forcing targets.

Key examples included SSP1-2.6 (sustainability-focused), SSP2-4.6 (middle-of-the-road with modest mitigation), and SSP5-8.5 (high fossil-fuel growth with no strong policies). The trailing number again indicated the forcing level in W/m² by 2100.

These scenarios served multiple roles: driving Earth system models to simulate temperature, precipitation, extremes, and sea-level rise; assessing impacts on ecosystems, agriculture, and infrastructure; evaluating mitigation costs and policy options; and supporting risk management under uncertainty. Differences stemmed from assumptions about population and GDP growth, energy mixes (coal-heavy versus renewables and nuclear), technological progress, international cooperation, and model-specific factors like climate sensitivity and carbon-cycle feedbacks.

The extreme scenarios, particularly RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5, assumed a massive resurgence in coal use—up to fivefold increases—along with high energy demand and very slow decarbonization. Under SSP5-8.5, CO₂ concentrations were projected to exceed 936 parts per million by 2100, potentially driving warming as high as 11°F (about 6°C). These relied on Integrated Assessment Models with outdated assumptions, including “return-to-coal” hypotheses based on untested resource extraction models. Critics noted that these baselines were increasingly disconnected from reality.

By the mid-2010s, clear discrepancies emerged. Global coal use peaked around 2013 and then flattened. Costs for solar and wind fell far faster than anticipated. Emissions growth slowed dramatically from about 3% per year in the 2000s to near-flat levels post-2010. Real-world trajectories aligned far more closely with moderate scenarios like RCP4.5 or SSP2-4.5. Meta-analyses confirmed that IAMs had systematically overestimated future coal use.

As renewable energy economics improved, the extreme coal expansion assumed in high-end scenarios became highly implausible. Forcing by 2100 appeared far more likely to hover near 6 W/m² than 8.5.

Despite this, thousands of studies continued using the high-end scenarios to model impacts such as extreme heat, sea-level rise, and ecosystem disruption. This amplified perceptions of high-end risks in public and policy discussions, often without sufficient emphasis on their low probability. While defenders argued the extremes helped stress-test models and highlight vulnerabilities, emissions data increasingly showed that current policies project warming of roughly 2.5–3°C by 2100—consistent with moderate pathways like SSP2-4.5.

A notable course correction arrived in April 2026 with a paper outlining the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP7, which will underpin the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report. It explicitly labels CMIP6’s highest forcing levels (such as SSP5-8.5) as “implausible.” The new framework introduces seven scenarios ranging from very low to high, without the old extreme labels but with clearly defined 2100 radiative forcing targets.

The most important change is the absence of any RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 equivalent. The new high-end scenario reaches only 6.7 W/m², with annual CO₂ emissions around 71 gigatons in 2100—compared to 128 gigatons in SSP5-8.5. Cumulative emissions are correspondingly lower. The previous SSP3-7.0 pathway has also been dropped, as the new high-end level features about 9% less forcing. The updated scenarios build on revised SSP narratives with more pragmatic socioeconomic assumptions. For instance, earlier high-population growth projections, particularly for Africa, had inflated some extreme outcomes; sensitivity analyses showed demographics play a meaningful role in warming projections.

This shift carries several implications. Thousands of prior studies based on the most extreme scenarios will need careful contextualization or may become less central. Future CMIP7 modeling will use more realistic ranges, treating the highest scenarios as “what-if” explorations rather than core baselines. This should reduce overemphasis on catastrophic outcomes and better align projections with observed trends in energy markets and emissions. It also encourages greater focus on near-term information, adaptation, and socioeconomic realism.

The change represents a healthy scientific self-correction. Empirical data on energy transitions, renewable cost declines, and emissions trajectories have prevailed over modeling inertia. It echoes earlier evolutions in IPCC scenario development—from the 1992 scenarios to the 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, then to RCPs and SSPs—where real-world emissions have consistently trended below the worst-case assumptions.

That said, the push for aggressive net-zero policies continues in many circles, and models will still emphasize the value of mitigation for “climate stabilization.” For the Seventh Assessment Report, however, expect moderated high-end projections and a more grounded assessment overall.

While uncertainties remain—climate sensitivity, technological breakthroughs, policy choices, and natural variability—the CMIP7 update is a positive development. It moves literature away from implausibly extreme baselines toward scenarios that better reflect plausible futures. As always in climate science, time and better data will continue to refine our understanding.

This recalibration offers hope for more balanced, evidence-driven discussions about risks, adaptation, and policy in the decades ahead.  Only time will tell as even the new highest scenarios are overstated.

Dr. David R. Legates is a Retired Professor at the University of Delaware and is the Director of Research and Education at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.  He also is an Advisory Board Member of A Better Delaware.

Why School Board Elections Matter More Than You Think

By: Nancy Mercante, Guest Contributor

School Board elections take place on May 12^th this year. In recent years, as little as two percent of eligible voters have turned out to vote. A large part of those who vote come from special interest groups. If you’re not part of such a group, chances are you haven’t been voting in School Board elections! Our Republic depends on an informed and engaged citizenry, made up of people who pay attention to and follow important issues and vote. Educating children is an important issue.

Children are the future. Their success or failure in life is determined by good parenting and a good education. Delaware’s future depends on developing a highly skilled workforce at all levels to create and sustain a robust economy. When we fail in education, we fail our communities, our state and our nation.

Look at the role of a school board for what it is, a Board of Directors elected to oversee and steer our school districts to produce the highest possible outcomes. Many would agree that it is not happening. Our state trails the country in almost every phase of education.

The Board needs people with expertise in education, but as with any endeavor, it needs more than so-called experts. It also needs business and professional leaders, community representatives, and concerned parents to deal with diverse issues such as curriculum, security, discipline, public relations, budgets, facilities and human resources. All these functions are rolled up in an enormous responsibility to serve the needs of our children, our community and our taxpayers.

Whether a School Board succeeds or fails, its impact is widespread. Children, families, the future workforce, and even the criminal justice system are among the segments of society impacted. It is unconscionable for a community not to take an active interest in the performance of its school board as it bears so much power over the future.

Citizens for Delaware Schools (C4DS) was formed in recognition of the need to arouse public awareness of the plight of our public schools in three ways:

Highlight where the public school system is falling short.

Nationwide testing has repeatedly shown that Delaware students lag severely behind in core areas of reading, writing and math. Recently, Delaware Department of Education test scores have revealed similar underperformance.

Attract qualified and diverse citizens to run for school board.

Powerful special interest groups and in some cases the existing School Boards themselves

have exerted oversized influence over the selection of candidates on an ideological basis.

This control coupled with financial and vocal support has limited the ability to new candidates to gain the support needed to win elections leaving the majority of sitting School Board members to go unchallenged.

Publish a Voter Guide to help voters cast an informed vote.

Prior to the last three elections, C4DS has sought responses from all School Board candidates to questions regarding a variety of education issues. This information is compiled into a Voter Guide using unedited responses in the candidates’ own words. The Voter Guide is promoted through radio appearances, newsletters and articles in numerous publications to assist voters in choosing the candidates best suited to improve Delaware public schools on a non-partisan basis.

Importantly, C4DS and other well-intended organizations can do a lot to draw attention to our School Board elections, but the one thing we cannot do is to get out and cast your vote.

As a local broadcaster recently put it, “If you pass a school bus stop with ten children waiting for the bus, think to yourself that only three of them can read and do math at grade level”.  Only you the voter can bring about change. For the information you need, visit Citizens4DelawareSchools.org and be sure to sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Nancy Mercante had a career in corporate communications for major companies in the financial, pharmaceutical and telecommunications industries. She founded Citizens for Delaware Schools, a nonpartisan nonprofit, two years ago to advocate for a better education for every student in Delaware.