Just to confirm again the wide-ranging nature of the whole “zoning reform” trend, here are a couple of items that speak to and confirm that.

Montana’s state legislature passed at least three bills on this topic.  The big one was the Montana State Planning Act, SB382, which I have written about previously.  It was supported by most legislators and by the Montana League of Cities and Towns (the League executive director, who has a master’s degree in urban planning, wrote much of the bill).  It was an example of state/local cooperation on the issue, but the legislature also passed a couple more bills that were not so well-received by local governments.

SB 382, sponsored by Sen. Forrest Mandeville, R-Columbus, passed 95-5. It would fully overhaul cities’ land-use planning process. As part of that, it would require that cities adopt five recommendations from a list of 14 strategies for increasing housing access. The bill would apply to cities with more than 5,000 people that are in counties with more than 70,000 people.
· SB 323, sponsored by Sen. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls, passed 72-26. It would require that cities with more than 5,000 residents allow duplexes anywhere that single-family residences are allowed. The bill previously would have required larger cities to also allow triplexes and fourplexes, but it was amended in the House Local Government Committee.
· SB 245, sponsored by Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, R-Billings, passed 96-4. It would require cities to allow multi-unit housing developments in commercial zones. The bill would apply to municipalities designated as urban areas that have more than 7,000 residents.

… the League expressed more concerns about other zoning-related bills that they said would impose top-down mandates on cities.

The bills were substantially amended as a result of local opposition.  Here are a couple more stories on the Montana bills:

Pro-housing zoning bills advance

Montana Joins Push To Overhaul Single-Family Zoning Laws to Increase Housing Density

Colorado, which I’ve also written about previously, had to scale its zoning reform bills way back after getting stiff opposition from local governments.  Just goes to show, I think, how not working closely with those cities and counties on these types of measures can really limit what gets done.

Colorado land-use bill survives crucial first vote, but drops 70% of its upzoning along the way

The centerpiece of the bill when it was introduced last month was an “upzoning” requirement that would have allowed denser development across large swaths of many cities. The idea drew intense opposition from local leaders, including many Democrats, because it overrides existing city laws.

On Tuesday, bill sponsors and members of the Senate Local Government and Housing Committee rolled back the measure’s ambitions. Instead of being forced to allow higher density in all their residential neighborhoods, Front Range cities would only have to upzone more limited areas.

And finally, here’s an example of the international nature of this trend to reform land use regulations.  In reading a couple of stories in a recent issue of The Economist on broader political issues in other countries, these clips lit up my brain.

This one about the UK:

Labour, says Sir Keir, will change regulations to permit onshore wind farms and accelerate their connection to the national grid. “The role of government is to knock those impediments out of the way,” he says. As for confronting nimbyism and expanding housing supply, an area where the Tories have conspicuously fallen short: “I think we have to take this on,” he says. “It will require tough decisions.”

And this one from, of all places, Ukraine!

Still, there is an opportunity to make permanent the diminution in organised crime in Ukraine. The main effort must come from within the country. A draft law from December aims to reform urban planning: related government documents say the construction industry is prone to “abuse of power”, “general corruption” and “avoidance of punishment”.

Truly a global issue!