It’s a lament as old as tract housing and suburbia: Not in my backyard.

Thanks to state laws, court rulings, and folks not wanting to tip their hand those four words aren’t often uttered.

Instead, they come up with a repertoire of grievances aimed at trying to derail development that doesn’t mirror their sensibilities and perceptions.

The biggest target of such sentiment in California — short of a nuclear waste dump, landfill, or chemical plants and such — are proposals to build high density residential.

Many of those that complain about the loss of nearby almond orchards two years after they bought their new $600,000 tract home, fret about the lack of affordable housing for their adult children, or marginally worry about the loss of farmland, and such will change their tune if a multiple family complex is proposed in their neighborhood.

It’s understandable on one level.

People aren’t typically thrilled about change.

Over the years those opposed to apartment complexes, townhouses, and even homes on smaller lots possibly going next to their neighborhoods can be counted on to tell city officials such projects will:

uspawn crime.

ucause their home values to plummet.

ugenerate blight.

utrigger traffic congestion.

A funny thing about such assertions.

New single family homes in Manteca have been guilty of the same things out of the gate or within a relatively few years of being built.

Back in 2002 to 2006 at the height of California’s meth epidemic, several new homes in southwest Manteca just east of Airport Way were raided where large scale labs complete with 50 gallon drums of chemicals were seized.

Then there were the McMansion grow houses supporting the illegal cannabis market.

As for blight, modern apartment complexes in many cases represent $40 million plus investments and have ongoing upkeep and require tenants to follow rules or hit the road.

You don’t see any apartment complexes built after 1985 in Manteca with vehicles parked on lawns, dead grass and vegetation, cars being repaired in driveways, debris being stacked outside, or carports converted into storage sheds stuffed to the gills.

The same can’t be said of all tract homes built in Manteca since 1985.

As for traffic congestion, rest assured apartment dwellers in many cases have no more — or even less — cars than a single family home.

Typically, an apartment unit puts one or two more cars on Manteca’s streets.

Tract home driveways with two to four cars plus some more parked on the street or on an “auxiliary” concrete pad are not that rare.

As for homes plummeting in value, when home sales are strong — which over the years has been most of the time in Manteca — you are going to be hard pressed to find an example where an apartment project undermined property values of nearby tract homes, especially complexes built after 1985.

Smaller lots, duplexes, and townhouses aside, the biggest “not in my backyard” complaints center around multiple story apartments.

Now that Manteca has at least four new apartment complexes that are three stories with a 44-unit four-story complex and 164-units in a five-story building proposed, rest assured the fight is going to center on privacy concerns.

The trend to keep many new homes affordable has been more developments with lots 3,500 square feet or smaller compared to the 1960s - 1970s standard of 6,000 square feet and the 1990s - 2000s standard of 7,000 square feet plus.

That has resulted in a dearth of single story homes in a growing number of subdivisions.

Over the years, those in existing tract neighborhoods in Manteca have successfully fought back to block new two-story homes in new development from backing up to their property or else have obtained concessions from builders limiting second story windows facing new homes.

Manteca’s leaders are going to be hard pressed to implement housing policies they spent the better part of seven years refining for the updated city general plan guiding municipal growth through 2040 by letting “privacy” issues connected with multiple story buildings hinder the advancement of high density projects.

If for no other reason, it goes counter to state mandates about housing needs and conserving farmland conversion.

And while apartment rents may seem high, various financial institutions underwriting housing construction have documented the biggest at market affordable housing trend in California — two bedroom apartments more often than not with two bathrooms where unrelated individuals that are not in a partnership per se.

Splitting such rents in half make them on average 40 percent more affordable than one bedroom apartments.

In other words, there is a need for such high density housing in Manteca especially those proposed with a percentage of set side units for low income at-market renters.

As such, they are much more effective answers to affordable housing than Manteca slapping a $12,000 to $40,000 affordable housing fee on a new single family home.