I agree with this piece… as far as it goes. But how does a piece about zoning reform and housing supply/demand so often avoid any mention of residential segregation as a factor that suppresses housing production? Some discourse does recognize that Euclidean zoning was deliberately designed as a tool of exclusion to replace overt Jim Crow racial zoning. But its almost never acknowledged that white avoidance of Black (and “too integrated”) neighborhoods artificially nullifies the availability of adequately zoned land and inflates prices/rents in predominantly white areas (“the”segregation premium”). Segregation suppresses demand and value in Black areas, often below the costs of construction. Hence investors wont invest, developers wont build, banks wont lend and buyers cant buy. Only subsidized housing with deep subsidies gets built invthose areas, further perpetuating segregation. This artificially engineered scarcity is not inevitable (“the true “social engineering”). But it will take intentional action beyond just zoning reform to reverse what has been engineered. At its root, the fair housing movement against exclusionary zoning recognized this truth. But its largely forgotten—-or glossed over by today’s zoning reformers.
Hi Barbara. I agree with everything you've said and I have written about these factors in previous writings. These posts are designed to be short reads and its hard to touch on everything in every post. Thanks for your note.
The housing shortage has coincided directly with the rise of short-term rentals and private equity more than anything else. This argument that zoning is the cause is so far misplaced my developers, it’s becoming comical.
Portland, where we’ve had some of the most flexible and progressive zoning anywhere, and loads of missing middle housing before it was cool, has not kept up with demand. Hell, we even passed a regional affordable housing bond - happily. But places like sprawling Austin and other places in the south building predominantly single family homes? Prices going down!
Michigan has sprawled endlessly and haphazardly for half a century and has barely grown in population for the last 25 years. And this is a place where impact fees aren’t even legal - who needs ‘em when you can just build the perimeter of all the corn fields and throw in a septic?
Brian, did you read the full article? The truth is that zoning was a major barrier until very recently (and still is in most places), and that barrier is layered on top of several other factors. It’s not realistic to argue that changing zoning fixes everything, but without changing zoning we can’t fix much of anything.
I did. And even as someone who is for continued zoning reform, pro density, pro affordable housing, pro walkable communities — I’m nearly 100% convinced the YIMBY movement has become nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Homebuilders Association.
I agree with this piece… as far as it goes. But how does a piece about zoning reform and housing supply/demand so often avoid any mention of residential segregation as a factor that suppresses housing production? Some discourse does recognize that Euclidean zoning was deliberately designed as a tool of exclusion to replace overt Jim Crow racial zoning. But its almost never acknowledged that white avoidance of Black (and “too integrated”) neighborhoods artificially nullifies the availability of adequately zoned land and inflates prices/rents in predominantly white areas (“the”segregation premium”). Segregation suppresses demand and value in Black areas, often below the costs of construction. Hence investors wont invest, developers wont build, banks wont lend and buyers cant buy. Only subsidized housing with deep subsidies gets built invthose areas, further perpetuating segregation. This artificially engineered scarcity is not inevitable (“the true “social engineering”). But it will take intentional action beyond just zoning reform to reverse what has been engineered. At its root, the fair housing movement against exclusionary zoning recognized this truth. But its largely forgotten—-or glossed over by today’s zoning reformers.
Hi Barbara. I agree with everything you've said and I have written about these factors in previous writings. These posts are designed to be short reads and its hard to touch on everything in every post. Thanks for your note.
The housing shortage has coincided directly with the rise of short-term rentals and private equity more than anything else. This argument that zoning is the cause is so far misplaced my developers, it’s becoming comical.
Portland, where we’ve had some of the most flexible and progressive zoning anywhere, and loads of missing middle housing before it was cool, has not kept up with demand. Hell, we even passed a regional affordable housing bond - happily. But places like sprawling Austin and other places in the south building predominantly single family homes? Prices going down!
Michigan has sprawled endlessly and haphazardly for half a century and has barely grown in population for the last 25 years. And this is a place where impact fees aren’t even legal - who needs ‘em when you can just build the perimeter of all the corn fields and throw in a septic?
Brian, did you read the full article? The truth is that zoning was a major barrier until very recently (and still is in most places), and that barrier is layered on top of several other factors. It’s not realistic to argue that changing zoning fixes everything, but without changing zoning we can’t fix much of anything.
I did. And even as someone who is for continued zoning reform, pro density, pro affordable housing, pro walkable communities — I’m nearly 100% convinced the YIMBY movement has become nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Homebuilders Association.