I’ve been writing recently that the housing affordability crisis is rising up the league table of political issues of concern on the national level.  The last couple of weeks, that has become more glaringly obvious.  Shots at the issue are coming from all over.  To wit:

The year-long partnership between National APA and the National League of Cities to address the housing affordability issue, dubbed the Housing Supply Accelerator, released its playbook recently that

…is ultimately intended to realign stakeholders and advance solutions that accelerate and incentivize reforms to land use, housing development, and preservation.

Not really sure how useful or effective this will be, but it does have all the hallmarks of big national organizations “studying” a big national issue.

On June 5, in Washington, D.C., the Reducing Regulatory Barriers to Housing Act was introduced by Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware.

This bill repositions the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a policy partner with local governments that are working to tackle zoning reform.

Through a new role for the Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD could now create models, provide practical, technical assistance on zoning and land use, evaluate the impact of existing reforms, report findings, and provide case studies and data necessary to give additional resources to local communities.

The bill also creates two new grant programs related to zoning and permitting. One will support the development of a national zoning atlas, which will help to compile data and communicate the impact of zoning reforms. Another grant program will assist with speeding housing permitting and reviews through pre-approved plans and designs. HUD has ultimate authority over where funds will be allocated for these two new programs.

Do we really need Washington stepping in to help local governments to decide how to redo their zoning codes?  Will this bill go anywhere in an election-year Congress?  Again, it’s something that sends a message – this is an issue and we need to look like we’re doing something about it.

On Tuesday evening, Gov. Spencer Cox and challenger State Rep. Phil Lyman faced off in a televised debate.  Housing was one of the topic areas raised in the debate, which is no surprise, given the vocal statements over the past several months from Gov. Cox about the criticality of needing to get more starter homes built in the state.  Rep. Lyman had a different take on how to approach the issue, saying,

… he would focus on “free market” principles, pointing to Sen. Mike Lee’s proposed HOUSES Act that has been pitched as a way to increase availability of land and homes in Utah by allowing parcels of federal land to be purchased by state or local governments at a reduced price for housing development.

“We’ve got to do something to address the regulation costs,” Lyman said, adding it’s “almost impossible” to build a single-family home “because all of the incentives is to build high-density housing in population areas that are already densely populated, or to build commercial buildings or to go and build large mansions for those who can afford to pay for those.”

Lyman said “throwing money” at the issue “is not going to fix the problem.”

It’s almost impossible to build a single-family home?  Because of incentives for high-density housing?  Hmm, I’m not seeing that so much as the big factor out there.  But all this just adds to the elevating visibility of the housing and zoning reform issues.

This week, The Atlantic ran a piece by a couple of law school professors titled THE CONSTITUTIONAL CASE AGAINST EXCLUSIONARY ZONING.  The authors discuss their forthcoming article in the Texas Law Review that argues,

… that exclusionary zoning—the imposition of restrictions on the amount and types of housing that property owners are allowed to build— is unconstitutional because it violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Exclusionary zoning has emerged as a major political and legal issue. A broad cross-ideological array of economists and land-use scholars have concluded that it is responsible for massive housing shortages in many parts of the United States, thereby cutting off millions of people – particularly the poor and minorities – from economic and social opportunities.

While the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Euclid v. Ambler allows for land use regulation as part of the government police power to ensure health, safety and welfare, the professors say, limiting housing types is not a threat to health, safety and welfare and therefore is not allowed.

We contend Euclid should be reversed or strictly limited, and that exclusionary zoning restrictions should generally be considered takings requiring compensation. … (We) also considers different strategies for overruling or limiting Euclid, and potential synergies between constitutional litigation and political reform of zoning.

And even on the international political scene, housing affordability is playing a big role.  In the upcoming British parliamentary election set for July 4, Britain’s planning system is one of the major issues.  The Economist in a story this week titled “Labour’s growth ambitions demand more radicalism on planning, said some interesting stuff.  Because The Economist is  subscription-only publication and I can’t link to the story, below are some of the key points (at the risk of making this a long posting):

In Britain it has simply become too hard to build. By preventing building where it is needed, argued Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor of the exchequer, in a recent lecture, the planning system has pushed prices ever higher and held back Britain’s most productive cities. She described planning as “the single greatest obstacle” to economic success.

To get (new growth), Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, says he is prepared to “bulldoze through” opposition to homes and infrastructure, largely by reforming a planning system that has become a brake on the economy.

Labour says it would aim for 1.5m new homes over the next five-year parliament if it were to win the upcoming election. It has one big advantage: its voters are not nimbys.

The Labour Party would bring back targets and force local authorities to adopt plans that identify developable land… .  Any council that failed to comply would have development foisted upon them. Labour would also recruit more planning officers; it has separate plans to speed up infrastructure development by making it harder for local groups to veto national projects.

So there we have it.  Planners, it really looks like we’re about to enter the big leagues of politics.  We’ve always been players in the minors – local governments and state governments.  But it’s looking increasingly like we’re going to hit the national and international major leagues!