The visibility of zoning reform as a national issue continues to grow.  Over the last few weeks, even the presidential campaigns have been getting into it.  Both candidates have made statements about the need for more affordable housing.  The Harris campaign has put forward a couple of proposals, as noted in the New York Times:

Vice President Kamala Harris correctly identified one of America’s biggest problems when she said that “there’s a serious housing shortage.”

In unveiling the beginnings of her economic platform, Ms. Harris announced a housing plan that includes demand-side subsidies like $25,000 for all first-time home buyers. The problem, however, with any policy that gives more money to buyers is that it pushes up demand, which only pushes up prices further, as housing supply has become ever more rigid amid development opposition.

Another proposal is a $40 billion innovation fund that might have the same structure as the Obama-era Race to the Top education initiative, in which communities submit proposals and the federal government rewards the proposals it likes best with cash that can be used to pay for home construction or renovation. If the fund offers federal money to localities that enact meaningful reform, this could have some bite in a few larger cities that already have some appetite for building. But no reasonable cash handout is likely to achieve much in the more prosperous suburbs that are NIMBYist ground zero. The opposition to change is too strong. Moreover, the track record of Race to the Top suggests that local governments often promise far more than they deliver.

The recently adopted Republican party platform says:

“To help new home buyers, Republicans will reduce mortgage rates by slashing Inflation, open limited portions of Federal Lands to allow for new home construction, promote homeownership through Tax Incentives and support for first-time buyers, and cut unnecessary Regulations that raise housing costs.”

With housing getting such attention at the national political level, some are beginning to worry that this issue may now become another point of polarization between the two major political parties.  Housing and zoning are generally state- and local-level concerns, and there appears to be an increasingly bi-partisan approach to dealing with it at those levels (see July 6 2024 blog post). Will the issue now get bogged down in fights between the parties and candidates over what the problem is and how to deal with it?

Jerusalem Demsas, in a recent story in The Atlantic, notes this.

Those afraid of elite Democrats polarizing this issue are misreading the political economy of the housing shortage. The affordability crisis is being driven by Democrat-led states and cities. If downballot Democrats get on board with Harris and Obama, then elected officials in charge of housing policy in highly restrictive California, New York, and Massachusetts will face immense pressure to change course.

And yet one of the biggest pro-housing success stories has been pro-Trump Montana Governor Greg Gianforte’s slate of reforms—the “Montana Miracle”—that passed last year.

So it’s kind of hard to say just what impact the increasing politization of the housing and zoning issue by national political parties may have, other than it looks like it’s going to get more visibility and attention.

Demsas writes then, however, that there is a better way to deal with the issue:

… what would be even better is if cities themselves felt motivated to be partners in producing more housing rather than obstacles. That’s what makes the national Democrats’ sweeping new tone on housing policy so exciting. Trying to get housing advocates to hold every blue-state local government to the letter of the law is time-consuming and expensive. Convincing them that their partisan and ideological commitments require figuring out how to build more housing would be much more effective.

We know of the efforts that have been made on zoning reform in cities such as Minneapolis, Columbus, Milwaukee, Raleigh, and others.  We’re also seeing some significant moves in this direction right here in our own fair state.  At last week’s League of Cities and Towns conference, a session featured the recent moves by Farmington City to allow for the separate ownership of ADUs in their city.  City officials and staff in the session described how the concern over the high price of housing in their city, and the inability of anyone with a low or moderate income to even think about buying a home there, convinced councilmembers and others that some innovative thinking and solutions were needed.  After considerable study, discussion and work, the planning commission recommended and the council recently enacted changes to city code that allows for division of property around detached ADUs (DADUs – what they’re called in the city’s code) and separate ownership.  Now that’s thinking outside the box!

Salt Lake City has also taken steps to revise their residential zones back to what they were prior to the 1990s, when duplexes, and sometimes more units, were permitted on any lot in any residential zone.

While these local actions are great, and will likely be more accepted and successful than top-down mandates, the real question is, will enough local governments consider doing the same to really make a difference?  The word needs to spread about what is going on in these communities.

Here’s to hope, and common sense.