3 ms·

The hottest trend in U.S. cities? Changing zoning rules to allow more housing

18 points by jseliger 3y ago

pasttense01 3y ago
Title is totally misleading. The article cites less than a dozen cities--a fraction of 1% of all cities. Instead it should say something like "A few cities change zoning rules to allow more housing". Across the country there is an overwhelming bipartisan consensus among Republican and Democratic home owners to keep zoning rules restrictive to keep housing prices high (and particularly the value of their own home).
- MilnerRoute 3y ago
  UC Berkeley researchers "identified zoning reform efforts in more than 100 municipal jurisdictions in the U.S.," according to the article. It also says there's even entire states changing zoning laws -- including California. "And the national housing picture is starting to change. At least half a million apartments were completed last year, and nearly 1.7 million housing units are currently under construction. Rents are starting to level off."
- poulsbohemian 3y ago
  Maybe you are right, but these changes represent the cutting edge if you will on what's happening in urban planning and improved access to housing. In that regard, while it represents a small number of cities, it's also the trend and thus news / discussion worthy.
poulsbohemian 3y ago
I live in one of the cities mentioned, and we were among the very first in our state to make zoning changes. It's certainly not a bad thing, but it has done very little to alleviate housing issues. I am monitoring about ten or so housing related bills working through our legislature at the moment, and while they might make improvements, most of them feel like the sponsors are just trying to do something without actually understanding the causes of the housing "crisis." There are also a lot of potential tax increases without a clear picture of how the money will be spent related to housing, which feels disingenuous. I'm getting tired of politicians using the phrase "affordable housing." Look, if they want government to build and manage housing, just say so and stop being euphemistic. It still won't solve the problem for all segments of housing. Too often I see well-intentioned governments, specifically legislatures, unwilling to do the politically hard things. We do need to build more, but that will require softening to regulation - which is something my state seems unwilling to do. We're also willing to look at one of the main problems: people simply don't make enough money to afford the houses we have. It's relatively easy to say "let's go build more houses" but much harder to say "let's figure out why not enough people are making a living wage."
- BadCookie 3y ago
  Being able to build a tiny ADU behind one’s house in my MCOL city isn’t very appealing because it might cost $300k+ AND increase the property taxes substantially. My impression is that many people considered it and then scoffed when they realized that the ADU would cost almost as much as they originally paid for the (much larger) main house and lot a decade or so ago—and at a much higher interest rate if borrowing is involved now.

18 points by jseliger 3y ago

Title is totally misleading. The article cites less than a dozen cities--a fraction of 1% of all cities. Instead it should say something like "A few cities change zoning rules to allow more housing". Across the country there is an overwhelming bipartisan consensus among Republican and Democratic home owners to keep zoning rules restrictive to keep housing prices high (and particularly the value of their own home).

MilnerRoute 3y ago
UC Berkeley researchers "identified zoning reform efforts in more than 100 municipal jurisdictions in the U.S.," according to the article. It also says there's even entire states changing zoning laws -- including California. "And the national housing picture is starting to change. At least half a million apartments were completed last year, and nearly 1.7 million housing units are currently under construction. Rents are starting to level off."
poulsbohemian 3y ago
Maybe you are right, but these changes represent the cutting edge if you will on what's happening in urban planning and improved access to housing. In that regard, while it represents a small number of cities, it's also the trend and thus news / discussion worthy.

poulsbohemian 3y ago

I live in one of the cities mentioned, and we were among the very first in our state to make zoning changes. It's certainly not a bad thing, but it has done very little to alleviate housing issues. I am monitoring about ten or so housing related bills working through our legislature at the moment, and while they might make improvements, most of them feel like the sponsors are just trying to do something without actually understanding the causes of the housing "crisis." There are also a lot of potential tax increases without a clear picture of how the money will be spent related to housing, which feels disingenuous. I'm getting tired of politicians using the phrase "affordable housing." Look, if they want government to build and manage housing, just say so and stop being euphemistic. It still won't solve the problem for all segments of housing. Too often I see well-intentioned governments, specifically legislatures, unwilling to do the politically hard things. We do need to build more, but that will require softening to regulation - which is something my state seems unwilling to do. We're also willing to look at one of the main problems: people simply don't make enough money to afford the houses we have. It's relatively easy to say "let's go build more houses" but much harder to say "let's figure out why not enough people are making a living wage."

BadCookie 3y ago
Being able to build a tiny ADU behind one’s house in my MCOL city isn’t very appealing because it might cost $300k+ AND increase the property taxes substantially. My impression is that many people considered it and then scoffed when they realized that the ADU would cost almost as much as they originally paid for the (much larger) main house and lot a decade or so ago—and at a much higher interest rate if borrowing is involved now.