So, I live in a town that, where the infrastructure exists, did all three of those things (actually the minimum house size was eliminated as probably unlawful long before the other changes) 15 years ago. The result is that the cost of housing has nearly doubled. Attractive homes on small lots (7.5 units to the acre) in the walkable growth center sell for the same, ocassionally more, than older homes on large lots. We were first, but similar changes that came later in neighboring towns have had the same result.
Having been there, I think you are deceiving people by saying these are easy changes. Easy to cut-and-paste, sure, but maybe not as easy poltically? That's not my point, though. Just please explain the reality that the changes you propose have, at least in some places, actually caused the cost of housing to soar.
Hi Lee. Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure what market your town is in, but my hunch is that your community was one of the very few communities (relative to the overall metro region) that made meaningful changes to their zoning. If that is the case, what likely happened is that your community became a magnet for growth but there wasn't enough land area to satisfy all of the demand. If other communities weren't also planning and zoning for growth, then all of the new investment had no where to go but your small town.
That said, had your community done nothing, chances are good that property values would have escalated nearly as quickly, all other things being equal. A secondary factor may be that other investments were made to make neighborhoods more walkable or more amenity rich (e.g. more restaurants, cafes, stores, etc) which increased demand and prices.
Finally, I appreciate your comment that the politics of these decisions are much harder than this most recent post acknowledges. I fully agree with you. AND, I think we are allowing these things to be harder, politically, than they need to be. In every town I have worked through zoning amendments with, it is a very small percentage of the community population that gets really upset. They show to meetings by the dozens with a lot of vitriol, and the local politicians feel they have no choice but to cave to the pressure. Meanwhile, in most communities, if you ask citizens if they believe there should be more options available at a greater diversity of size, type and price, almost everyone will say yes. Local politicians need to know these things and be willing to push back on the relatively small number of naysayers.
None of this makes the conflict any easier or more comfortable. But that's the job of being an elected leader. IMHO
I agree about most people, and that we sometimes make it harder than need be. If you take a look at my newsletter, you will see my advice about talking to NIMBYs. It doesn't work everywhere, but that approach made (and continues to make) enough difference here. The changes were more difficult than you implied, but not that hard in the end. What's important is that it be a conscious strategy upfront, before NIMBY emotion engages with a particular project.
Re your explanations: You are correct that property values would have risen, but we were blown away by how much, how fast. Turns out that there was a market for a house on a small lot (we were the first in the area to allow that at any scale) and nicer apartments, Beyond that, I'm not sure investing in making a place amenable is secondary. There is a market for better schools (which is all perception, but raises prices), trails, parks, etc. Even, I think, just for having the reputation that local government works pretty well. There is also the need for complementary commercial. Even if its not walkable (and there are people who drive 2 blocks to the store), our residents mention convenience all the time.
What I would add as contributing factors are: 1) high land prices (we need an LVT instead of conventional property taxes) and 2) limitations on infrastructure capacity. Most of what I see written about housing on Substack and elsewhere seems to assume that infrastructure is free - very funny. And 3) in the end, we as a society need to treat housing as shelter to which there is a right, not an investment. I don't think anyone's primary residence should be subject to market interest rates, have to soak up high impact fees (about which the town currently has little choice because there is no alternative funding), have to soak up unearned rents paid to landowners, etc.
Zoning reform is a good idea when done well, but I suspect that there are a lot of other places where it isn't powerful enough to overcome the other constraints on the supply side.
This is a great article. I'm stealing these arguments for COS.
So, I live in a town that, where the infrastructure exists, did all three of those things (actually the minimum house size was eliminated as probably unlawful long before the other changes) 15 years ago. The result is that the cost of housing has nearly doubled. Attractive homes on small lots (7.5 units to the acre) in the walkable growth center sell for the same, ocassionally more, than older homes on large lots. We were first, but similar changes that came later in neighboring towns have had the same result.
Having been there, I think you are deceiving people by saying these are easy changes. Easy to cut-and-paste, sure, but maybe not as easy poltically? That's not my point, though. Just please explain the reality that the changes you propose have, at least in some places, actually caused the cost of housing to soar.
Hi Lee. Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure what market your town is in, but my hunch is that your community was one of the very few communities (relative to the overall metro region) that made meaningful changes to their zoning. If that is the case, what likely happened is that your community became a magnet for growth but there wasn't enough land area to satisfy all of the demand. If other communities weren't also planning and zoning for growth, then all of the new investment had no where to go but your small town.
That said, had your community done nothing, chances are good that property values would have escalated nearly as quickly, all other things being equal. A secondary factor may be that other investments were made to make neighborhoods more walkable or more amenity rich (e.g. more restaurants, cafes, stores, etc) which increased demand and prices.
Finally, I appreciate your comment that the politics of these decisions are much harder than this most recent post acknowledges. I fully agree with you. AND, I think we are allowing these things to be harder, politically, than they need to be. In every town I have worked through zoning amendments with, it is a very small percentage of the community population that gets really upset. They show to meetings by the dozens with a lot of vitriol, and the local politicians feel they have no choice but to cave to the pressure. Meanwhile, in most communities, if you ask citizens if they believe there should be more options available at a greater diversity of size, type and price, almost everyone will say yes. Local politicians need to know these things and be willing to push back on the relatively small number of naysayers.
None of this makes the conflict any easier or more comfortable. But that's the job of being an elected leader. IMHO
Thanks for a prompt response!
I agree about most people, and that we sometimes make it harder than need be. If you take a look at my newsletter, you will see my advice about talking to NIMBYs. It doesn't work everywhere, but that approach made (and continues to make) enough difference here. The changes were more difficult than you implied, but not that hard in the end. What's important is that it be a conscious strategy upfront, before NIMBY emotion engages with a particular project.
Re your explanations: You are correct that property values would have risen, but we were blown away by how much, how fast. Turns out that there was a market for a house on a small lot (we were the first in the area to allow that at any scale) and nicer apartments, Beyond that, I'm not sure investing in making a place amenable is secondary. There is a market for better schools (which is all perception, but raises prices), trails, parks, etc. Even, I think, just for having the reputation that local government works pretty well. There is also the need for complementary commercial. Even if its not walkable (and there are people who drive 2 blocks to the store), our residents mention convenience all the time.
What I would add as contributing factors are: 1) high land prices (we need an LVT instead of conventional property taxes) and 2) limitations on infrastructure capacity. Most of what I see written about housing on Substack and elsewhere seems to assume that infrastructure is free - very funny. And 3) in the end, we as a society need to treat housing as shelter to which there is a right, not an investment. I don't think anyone's primary residence should be subject to market interest rates, have to soak up high impact fees (about which the town currently has little choice because there is no alternative funding), have to soak up unearned rents paid to landowners, etc.
Zoning reform is a good idea when done well, but I suspect that there are a lot of other places where it isn't powerful enough to overcome the other constraints on the supply side.
Sounds like we agree on a lot, Lee. Looking forward to staying connect with you and following your newsletter.