Great piece here Andrew. I tend to agree, this may be my own personal bias but I think the pendulum is swinging back in favor of the YIMBY movement.
The fact is, much of the wealth inequality and affordability issues that plagues the “West” can be tied back to overzealous zoning laws. It is time that we begin to relax zoning laws and this article contains a few suggestions.
But any reform, I think, must also strip zoning power away from local officials as they are the one most incentivized to create restrictions and drive-up property values. We should probably do as Japan does and move such power to a higher level of government that won’t be so inclined: https://www.lianeon.org/p/let-a-thousand-skyscrapers-bloom
I have mixed feelings about shifting land use power up. This works well in Japan largely because the rules are simpler and zoning is much more inclusive of mixed use. But in Britain a lot of the land use power is national, and things are even worse than in the US.
*Usually* local laws and policies are easier to change than state and federal, so *usually* local control is safer.
What I support without hesitation is state limits on what local government can do. For example if the state institutes a shot clock, or says cities can’t regulate parking, I think that’s relatively safe. It doesn’t put micromanagement authority in the hands of the state, but rather limits the level of micromanagement cities can do. Or another way to say that is, that kind of reform is the state re-establishing property rights that cities have unreasonably infringed.
Varying land use rules based on owner occupancy has a lot of procedural challenges—though I agree that skin in the game makes up for a lot! How is occupancy established? Business or just residential? For how long before or after? What happens when you move, does the use get discontinued? There’s an equal protection weakness, where we’re not distinguishing based on physical characteristics of the land but instead by the identity characteristics of the owner. And perhaps the biggest problem is that it removes local professional developers from the equation—people like Monty, Bernice, and me. Ironically, discretionary review can be helpful for us, because of our local knowledge and connections.
Fair points, there would be a lot to work out. I think the low-hanging fruit is more around process than use rules - ie, the zoning could be the same but homeowners could be eligible for expedited review or exempt from public hearing etc. I do think it will make sense for conditions to be attached, for example that you can only get such a permit every few years.
I don’t see how allowing owner-occupants a streamlined review would cut out incremental developers? If anything, I think lowering the barrier to entry on a project that you’ll live in might help more people become incremental developers. For example if the first project is building a backyard cottage for their own house, and they get a little help from the city to make that happen, now they have just a bit of experience which makes the thought of a second (not expedited) project less scary.
I am interested in the idea that the "character" of the developer might have greater weight, since part of the problem is neutral rules can allow crappier development. What I mean by the limitation on incremental developers: I think we are much too interested in the idea of the yeoman who builds his own individual house. This is an overly romantic notion. Most building today, even under the more incremental strong towns future will be undertaken by small full-time developers who will have no benefit from this rule. I don't think an amateur stumbling through his first project is likely to mint many new incremental builders. It's too hard. I wonder if we're better off training and apprenticing them to local development shops? (Of which we need many more)
1) People care a lot about the quality of life of where they live. I don’t think “home prices” drive NIMBY behavior as much as “I want my kids school to stay good” or any other lived experience issue.
2) A lot of #1 boils down to “I want well behaved neighbors”.
3) They will find ways to protect their quality of life, and if you take away one zoning ordinance they will figure out another way.
4) so the only way to make it work is to convince them that building won’t negatively impact their quality of life too much.
Places like Japan or Singapore can do this because there are almost no “bad neighbors” in their society and very high degrees of public order.
5) I think one reason red states have been better on building is that they do better job on this issue of public order and good neighbors.
They are also more keen on allowing freedom of association beyond mere “price them out”. School choice for instance dramatically reduces the negative externalities of sharing a school district.
Unless high rent blue states address these issues, I suspect that homeowners will find new workarounds to protect their quality of life if they feel it’s threatened.
Great overview! Looking forward to you publishing more on adaptive zoning here!
Great piece here Andrew. I tend to agree, this may be my own personal bias but I think the pendulum is swinging back in favor of the YIMBY movement.
The fact is, much of the wealth inequality and affordability issues that plagues the “West” can be tied back to overzealous zoning laws. It is time that we begin to relax zoning laws and this article contains a few suggestions.
But any reform, I think, must also strip zoning power away from local officials as they are the one most incentivized to create restrictions and drive-up property values. We should probably do as Japan does and move such power to a higher level of government that won’t be so inclined: https://www.lianeon.org/p/let-a-thousand-skyscrapers-bloom
I have mixed feelings about shifting land use power up. This works well in Japan largely because the rules are simpler and zoning is much more inclusive of mixed use. But in Britain a lot of the land use power is national, and things are even worse than in the US.
*Usually* local laws and policies are easier to change than state and federal, so *usually* local control is safer.
What I support without hesitation is state limits on what local government can do. For example if the state institutes a shot clock, or says cities can’t regulate parking, I think that’s relatively safe. It doesn’t put micromanagement authority in the hands of the state, but rather limits the level of micromanagement cities can do. Or another way to say that is, that kind of reform is the state re-establishing property rights that cities have unreasonably infringed.
That's interesting. I didn't know that Britians land use power was also national and the situation is worse.
Nice piece Andrew!
Varying land use rules based on owner occupancy has a lot of procedural challenges—though I agree that skin in the game makes up for a lot! How is occupancy established? Business or just residential? For how long before or after? What happens when you move, does the use get discontinued? There’s an equal protection weakness, where we’re not distinguishing based on physical characteristics of the land but instead by the identity characteristics of the owner. And perhaps the biggest problem is that it removes local professional developers from the equation—people like Monty, Bernice, and me. Ironically, discretionary review can be helpful for us, because of our local knowledge and connections.
Fair points, there would be a lot to work out. I think the low-hanging fruit is more around process than use rules - ie, the zoning could be the same but homeowners could be eligible for expedited review or exempt from public hearing etc. I do think it will make sense for conditions to be attached, for example that you can only get such a permit every few years.
I don’t see how allowing owner-occupants a streamlined review would cut out incremental developers? If anything, I think lowering the barrier to entry on a project that you’ll live in might help more people become incremental developers. For example if the first project is building a backyard cottage for their own house, and they get a little help from the city to make that happen, now they have just a bit of experience which makes the thought of a second (not expedited) project less scary.
I am interested in the idea that the "character" of the developer might have greater weight, since part of the problem is neutral rules can allow crappier development. What I mean by the limitation on incremental developers: I think we are much too interested in the idea of the yeoman who builds his own individual house. This is an overly romantic notion. Most building today, even under the more incremental strong towns future will be undertaken by small full-time developers who will have no benefit from this rule. I don't think an amateur stumbling through his first project is likely to mint many new incremental builders. It's too hard. I wonder if we're better off training and apprenticing them to local development shops? (Of which we need many more)
My default assumption is the following.
1) People care a lot about the quality of life of where they live. I don’t think “home prices” drive NIMBY behavior as much as “I want my kids school to stay good” or any other lived experience issue.
2) A lot of #1 boils down to “I want well behaved neighbors”.
3) They will find ways to protect their quality of life, and if you take away one zoning ordinance they will figure out another way.
4) so the only way to make it work is to convince them that building won’t negatively impact their quality of life too much.
Places like Japan or Singapore can do this because there are almost no “bad neighbors” in their society and very high degrees of public order.
5) I think one reason red states have been better on building is that they do better job on this issue of public order and good neighbors.
They are also more keen on allowing freedom of association beyond mere “price them out”. School choice for instance dramatically reduces the negative externalities of sharing a school district.
Unless high rent blue states address these issues, I suspect that homeowners will find new workarounds to protect their quality of life if they feel it’s threatened.
Looking forward to the post on adaptive code!