The Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California-Berkeley just released a report looking at what kinds of measures are being undertaken around the country to address the housing affordability crisis.  Titled Pro-Housing Designation Programs: How States Are Incentivizing Pro-Housing Reform, it profiles and compares six pro-housing designation programs across the country – in Massachusetts, California, New York, Montana, New Hampshire, and Utah.

It’s pretty interesting to get a look at how what we are doing here compares to what is happening elsewhere.  One caveat, though, is that the report, the authors say,

… identify and compare state-level laws and programs designed to incentivize or otherwise encourage jurisdictions to tackle local barriers to housing production and affordability. We refer to these efforts as “pro-housing designation programs.” These programs are not meant to substitute for broader state-level housing regulations; they are complementary tools that states can use to help tackle housing supply and affordability challenges affecting their residents.

In other words, they did not look at state-level, top-down requirements such as allowing for multi-unit housing in all residential zones throughout the state.

Part of the discussions that have been on-going at the state level here in Utah with regard to additional new programs or requirements has noted that these requirements take time to implement and show results.  That is echoed in this report:

Pro-housing programs are relatively nascent across the country; three of the six programs featured were enacted in 2023, signaling an increased interest in this type of intervention. Data on program participation is limited, in part due to how new some of these initiatives are. As such, we do not seek to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs at increasing housing production or affordability.

And Utah (and some of the other states) get credit for developing these programs collaboratively with local officials and builders, to enhance acceptability and success:

Programs in Massachusetts, Utah, Montana, and New Hampshire were all developed by task forces and/or in convenings that featured input from a variety of housing and planning practitioners, lawmakers, and advocates.22 Interviewees in these states noted that involving key stakeholders early in the policy development process has been key to generating political will and program buy-in from local governments and other relevant actors. Stakeholder engagement has also helped state officials communicate state housing priorities to localities and improve program implementation.

It’s an interesting look at these recent efforts from someone on the outside, and seems to suggest that we’ve done a pretty good job of it here in our pretty, great state.  Of course, though, the proof is still forthcoming.