The “wave,” or should I now call it the “tsunami,” of zoning reform continues to grow and sweep over the country.  To wit:

If anything shows growing nationwide attention to an issue, it’s when the federal government proposes some kind of action.  In the March 26 release of President Bidens’ budget proposal for the next fiscal year, included was an item:

… for creating a $10 billion state and local grant program meant to encourage and support zoning changes that would allow more kinds of housing to go up in what are often largely white and wealthier neighborhoods.

As reported in the online newsletter for state and local government officials, Route 50, the proposal would use federal grants as an incentive to spur changes with local rules, which critics blame for stifling affordable housing and fueling racial inequities.

“U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development spokesman Michael Burns noted that in addition to proposing funding for states and localities changing their zoning rules, Biden as part of his budget is requesting a $50 billion increase in Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, as well as $25 billion to provide affordable housing grants to states and local housing finance agencies.”

Things are getting serious when the Feds step in like this.  The budget proposal, however, must first make its way through Congress, so there is no assurance that these programs will come about.  Still, it points out what is on the radar screens at the national level – zoning reform!

Next up, here’s a report from Planetizen’s editor James Brasuell as he attended the APA National Conference in San Diego this week:

I tried to attend two conference sessions on zoning reform. The first one, hosted by Jason L. Jordan, APA public affairs director, included YIMBY rockstar and former mayor of Culver City, Alex Fisch. The wall-to-wall standing room-only capacity of the room was too much for my post-pandemic nerves when I arrived there three minutes after the session started. From what I saw on Twitter, the room was full beyond capacity several minutes before the session started. I think this is maybe a sign of latent demand in the profession for zoning reform. Has the housing affordability crisis finally hit a tipping point where planners all over the country are finally getting behind the cause, following the example of the avant-garde of Minneapolis, Oregon, California, and, just last week, Maine?

I did manage to attend a working session where attendees gathered around tables to discuss the challenges and opportunities of zoning reform. The room was clearly behind the cause, but nobody knows better than planners the many obstacles to achieving the desired effects of zoning reform—most namely cultural resistance from a nation of aspiring single-family detached home owners and market considerations like what developers are willing to build and bankers are willing to finance.

Standing room only!  That says something about the expanding nature of this issue.  To James’ point about cultural resistance to zoning reform, comes this: 4 Cities Sue to Stop New California Law Permitting More Homes in Single-Family Neighborhoods.

“It is undisputed that planning and zoning laws are matters of municipal affairs,” the petition states. “The constitutional right of municipalities to zone single-family residential districts and the sanctioning principle upon which that right is founded has been well settled law for almost 100 years.”  By enacting SB 9, the state “eviscerated a city’s local control over land use decisions and a community-tailored zoning process,” the petition states.

Brasuell also mentioned the latest happening in Maine.  The state legislature there last week passed a bill that makes it easier for ADUs to be built in all R-1 zones throughout the state.  This was a considerable step back, however, from the bill as originally proposed by the Maine House Speaker earlier in the session.

The Speaker removed a provision to create a state board that could have overridden local project decisions as well as the provision that would have blocked growth caps.

The more stringent provisions were removed as opposition from Maine’s municipal association found sway with a number of legislators.  Even with the watering down of the bill to just deal with ADUs,

the bill was still opposed by the Maine Municipal Association along with most — though not all — Republican lawmakers.

The Maine situation reminds me to some degree of what has been happening here, where more draconian zoning reform measures have been discussed by lawmakers and state level policy people, but negotiations with municipal officials have resulted in less sweeping changes in state codes.  As I’ve noted previously, this is likely the better way to go because in places where zoning reform has been mandated from the state level without much regard to local concerns, the foot-dragging and downright opposition to implementation is dramatic.  In our case, the “reforms” that have been passed have generally had the support of the League and municipal officials, in large part because of the dialogue that has taken place.

In the last meeting of the Utah Commission on Housing Affordability, it was noted that their next meeting on May 11 would likely focus on the models for evaluating progress on housing affordability enhancement, including maybe the idea of “regional fair share” for communities (I opined on this in my March 23 blog post).

While we maybe are not being completely engulfed by the zoning reform tsunami as some other places are, we should by no means be taking our eyes off the horizon to see what else may be coming!