
A proposal to roll back exclusionary zoning would make housing more affordable - petethomas
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-12/ben-carson-and-hud-get-ready-to-take-on-the-nimbys
======
xvedejas
In Japan, zoning is handled federally; and the result is much more affordable
cities.

"Why Tokyo is the land of rising home construction but not prices"
[https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3...](https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60)

An overview of zoning practices there:
[http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-
zoning.html](http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html)

~~~
burlesona
Federal zoning would be really difficult to get done constitutionally, but
state level zoning wouldn’t be as hard and would have most of the same
benefits, ie. reducing the power the nimbys.

However there’s no reason to think that would fix it all, transportation
planning, design, and funding is almost entirely a state and federal affair,
and the nimbys still torpedo all sorts of things that would be great for the
region at the expense of a particular neighborhood or block.

To some extent though, that’s a feature of democracy, not a bug. There are a
bunch of reasons we’re in the mess we’re in, and federal programs and
subsidies contribute a lot. The threat to take away federal funding for places
that don’t accept housing growth may be more effective than a brute force
approach in the end, who knows.

~~~
ende
Right. There’s no need to take this “all the way to the top” (ie Federal).
States can easily supplant the zoning powers of their local governments.

~~~
prolikewh0a
Won't happen. The Nimbys have all of the money and can influence the votes in
extraordinary ways. Look at Seattle, they won't budge and we have an enormous
amount of single family housing. Our mayor is also nearly entirely useless as
well, and seemingly only cares about sports teams.

The amount of propaganda that would be pushed out to crush any changes to
zoning would be on historic levels.

~~~
pcwalton
AB 2923, which overrides local zoning in order to allow BART to develop on its
parking lots, recently passed both houses in California, despite NIMBY
objections. And the Housing Accountability Act, which NIMBYs loathe, has long
been law (and was even strengthened relatively recently).

Renters are a growing political force.

~~~
mixmastamyk
> Renters are a growing political force.

Renters (often under rent control) are NIMBYs as well, don't understand or are
convinced that supply and demand don't apply to housing.

~~~
pcwalton
> Renters (often under rent control) are often NIMBYs as well

This is a very SF-specific view of the world. :)

Rent control is specific to just a handful of locations and is often subject
to statewide restrictions (e.g. Costa-Hawkins). In _general_ , renters are
less inclined toward NIMBYism. This is especially true for the younger ones,
who don't benefit as much from RC even in the locations where it exists. And
even rent controlled tenants don't like the fact that they can't move.

~~~
chaostheory
It applies beyond just California. It's in NY as well, and I wouldn't be
surprised if there were more locations.

------
bradleyjg
The charts at the top are eye opening. More and more of our income is going to
pay for pieces of land. Unlike computers, TVs, and even troublesome areas like
healthcare the land is not getting better and better. It’s instead a purely
zero sum game.

We probably can’t eliminate the scourge of land rents altogether but we can
stop making the problem worse by putting in place more and more policies
designed to raise housing prices rather than lower them. Such policies are
exactly the opposite of what the government should strive for.

~~~
FussyZeus
Because we can make more computers, execute more healthcare services, etc.
Land is a zero sum game; we have a fixed amount, and while it's possible to
create more, it's prohibitively expensive to do so.

Add to it, land is the primary method by which "old money" remains in that
category.

~~~
munificent
_> Land is a zero sum game; we have a fixed amount, and while it's possible to
create more, it's prohibitively expensive to do so._

Yes, but that sum in the US is _huge_. Drive around the midwest or any region
outside of an urban core and its empty space as far as the eye can see.

The problem is large-scale economic and demographic changes. The US used to
have:

* A culture that prized living in suburbia away from dense areas.

* Labor-intensive agriculture that provided a lot of jobs in rural areas.

* Labor-intensive manufacturing that provided a lot of jobs in a large number of smaller cities.

All of those forces encouraged the population to spread out. Those forces are
evaporating. The suburbs are now seen as soulless sources of miserable
commutes. Automation and consolidation has dramatically reduced the number of
farm employees needed for a given square acre of land. Automation and cheap
imports from other countries have eliminated manufacturing jobs.

Without those forces counterbalancing things, there is a strong trend towards
consolidating into large metropolises which can't absorb the growth that
quickly.

We can try to stuff every more dense housing in those cities and gradually
turn them into concrete boxes. Some amount of densification is good. But
instead of investing almost entirely in that, I really wish the US was working
to try to make small and mid-size cities more desirable too.

~~~
mixmastamyk
> large metropolises which can't absorb the growth

They choose not to.

> more dense housing in those cities… turn them into concrete boxes

A "US NIMBY-like" viewpoint. Paris is denser than the average city and lovely,
as are many EU cities. US cities designed before the car took over usually
nicer and more space-efficient as well, but are few and mostly on the East
coast.

------
specialp
I live on Long Island, and it is expensive. Schools are funded mostly through
high property taxes. It is nearly impossible to get high density housing
approved for working age people. The constituents want only 55+ for complexes
so they can reap the school tax benefits without more students.

So this in effect keeps affordable housing out as developers either build
3000+ sq foot "luxury homes" or 55+ communities.

~~~
lxmorj
Oh, smart move! Never thought of using that strategy to get advantaged school
funding.

------
mendelsd
If you want to make housing affordable you will need to reckon with this:
[http://positivemoney.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/UK-
House...](http://positivemoney.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/UK-House-
Prices-1997-2014.png)

House prices move with mortgage credit growth. Credit growth is one of the key
pillars of the politically sustained Ponzi-scheme that is the modern urban
housing market.

~~~
mywittyname
Banks love mortgages because they are easy, safe ways to earn a bit more than
the federal rate.

Wealthy consumers love mortgages because it's a cheap way to leverage a huge
asset for market-rate returns.

Normal consumers love mortgages because it allows them to buy a house.

Good luck taking that away.

Additionally, while access to credit raises housing prices, there's no
guarantee that removing access to that credit will in any way make housing
more affordable for moderate- or low-income people. More people would be
forced to rent and it's possible that the wealthy apartment owners will engage
in rent seeking and rents will just raise to match or exceed the cost of a
mortgage.

That will rob lower income people of their biggest opportunity for wealth
creation (housing appreciation) and increase wealth inequality.

~~~
Sileni
But you're ignoring the fact that people are already being priced out of the
housing market. The market only continues to gain steam while the next
generation can reasonably shoulder the burden being placed on them by the
previous. Otherwise those assets are going to deprecate. Credit allowed a
handful of people to become incredibly wealthy by becoming rent seekers, while
most people didn't realize they had the opportunity. The general consensus
seems to be "Tough shit if you weren't born in the 60's - 70's". I don't see
that ending well for the economy as a whole.

~~~
mrec
Yes. Here in the UK, I have a lot of sympathy with the view that Corbyn's
Labour would deliver debt-funded jam today by dumping the burden onto future
taxpayers, but the Conservatives have been doing the _exact same thing_ for
their own clients, via property inflation.

~~~
mendelsd
"Land by its nature is scarce. A site in Mayfair cannot be reproduced like a
pair of shoes. The monopoly rent it commands plays no productive role. It acts
as a private tax on the productive economy. The question has always been what
can be done about it." [1]

I posted that quote because it's the reference I found most speedily to the
idea that high land prices impose private (i.e. paid into the private sector)
taxation, rather than public. You didn't make the distinction between public
vs private taxation in your comment and I thought it should be made.

Public taxation is also involved of course, e.g. when governments need to bail
out the banking system; Help to Buy in the UK; etc.

[1] [https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/how-land-property-is-tied-
to-...](https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/how-land-property-is-tied-to-
inequality-the-uk-example/2014/10/24)

~~~
mrec
> _high land prices impose private (i.e. paid into the private sector)
> taxation, rather than public_

Agreed, though I'm not sure that's much consolation to the ones paying it.
With public taxation at least you can hope you're helping to fund something
useful.

~~~
mendelsd
Indeed!

BTW, you mentioned reservations about possible overspending by Corbyn's
Labour. I'm encouraged however by the noises they're making about
productivity, e.g. in a recent report:

"The report’s guiding idea is to encourage finance to flow towards productive
investment rather than speculation in property. This reflects an old complaint
about the City of London: it is a global entrepot with little interest in
promoting productive investment in the UK." [1]

And here is a very good primer on the important distinction between productive
and unproductive credit. [2]

[1]
[https://www.ft.com/content/c59c189e-85b8-11e8-a29d-73e3d4545...](https://www.ft.com/content/c59c189e-85b8-11e8-a29d-73e3d454535d)

[2] [https://youtu.be/N-FDdHj7rPk](https://youtu.be/N-FDdHj7rPk)

------
matchbok
Seems like it could work. Nonsense local policies to encourage "affordable"
housing like inclusionary zoning have been huge failures. In big cities, we
just need way more housing. Yet NIMBYs fight it at every step, esp in SF.

~~~
ryandrake
You can’t just add in “moar housing” in a vacuum and declare mission
accomplished. Let’s say SF doubled its housing. Where are all these new
residents going to park? So, now it’s housing and parking that needs to be
fixed. Assume none of these new residents have cars? Ok now it’s housing and
public transit that needs to be fixed. Where are their kids going to go to
school? So we need more school capacity, too. How much more water, sewage,
electrical capacity will you need? How many more grocery stores will you need?
Restaurants? Gas stations? Where will all this new development go?

~~~
s0rce
Chicken-egg problem though. If you say transit doesn't go places or doesn't
run often people claim the density is too low and we need more people to use
it. Can't have the same excuses just used to block everything. Just start
building everything, high density housing, dedicated bus lanes, multi-level
parking garages, better utilities.

~~~
bilbo0s
> _Just start building everything, high density housing, dedicated bus lanes,
> multi-level parking garages_

I'd advise against this. We did that in Madison, and before we even got very
far doing this, Mother Nature started to hint to us that it might not be a
good idea.

Maybe there are places where you can just build Willy-Nilly. (I doubt it, but
what do I know?) I suspect, however, most places are like Madison, just not
quite as delicate. You probably have to be _REALLY_ careful about what you're
building.

And even more careful about where you're building it.

~~~
0xffff2
> Mother Nature started to hint to us that it might not be a good idea.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

~~~
bilbo0s
When we started building down what all the experts told us was an "under
utilized" corridor, a bit of flooding appeared. Initially, when the rain would
come down, you'd have to navigate through maybe 6 inches of water. Max.
Annoying, but not necessarily cause for alarm. As we built more, and more down
that corridor, it's gotten worse. Fast forward to today, and when the rain
comes down hard you're navigating through maybe a foot or a foot and a half on
a bad day in that area. It's also taking much longer to drain. (Nothing speaks
to the folly of thoughtless building like high end, fancy restaurants, in
gleaming new fancy buildings with sand bags out front that you have to jump
over.)

So yeah, no new plans for any new massive footprint, high density buildings
along that area in the near future. I suspect until they get this whole thing
worked out. Point is that just digging out massive parking garages, paving
over areas, building high density housing, it all sounds good on the surface.
And it might be good for other cities? Who knows?

But we now have a better understanding that you need a more well thought out
plan if you're a city built on a system of five lakes with a dam and locks
system delicately balancing their water levels as it is.

------
joecot
> On Aug. 13, Carson proposed requiring that cities that receive federal
> housing grants reduce their use of exclusionary zoning.

Question: is there anything stopping these cities from just deciding to
decline federal housing grants? The biggest culprit in this issue is Silicon
Valley. Do they really need Federal housing grants to make people want to move
there? The issue is too much demand already.

If Carson forces the issue, I can absolutely see San Francisco's city
leadership just declining grants instead of changing their zoning. That might
be enough to get some people voted out, but it'll take a while.

~~~
grandmczeb
HUD grants are a major source of funding for things like fighting
homelessness. The city could decline them, but they would have to make up the
difference.

~~~
joecot
Would they though? Are cities _required_ to make up the difference?

Problem: cities are artificially keeping housing prices up, pushing lower
income people out in favor of the upper class. The housing market is forcing
lower income people out of cities.

Solution: tell cities they have to stop artificially keeping housing prices
up, or the federal government will stop subsidizing low income housing and
subsidized loans.

If the goal is to gentrify your city and keep prices high, how is that a real
threat? That solution is only a threat if you assume these cities aren't
paying attention to what's happening at all, and I don't think San Francisco's
leaders are that dim.

~~~
bluGill
It isn't just about your city. If the working poor find it advantageous to
live your city for one half way across the state that is less people to work
the lower income jobs - now it is more expensive to get the toilets cleaned in
the office. This raises your cost of living, and lowers it in the other city.

Of course how this all works out is very complex and messy and will take
dozens of years before we see anything significant.

~~~
joecot
San Francisco has already found "ways" to deal with many of those issues. They
can't afford wait staff anymore, so restaurants are switching to counter
service[1]. A law firm started housing their lawyers in Texas and flying them
in because it was cheaper than housing there [2]. Delivery drivers can't
afford to work there, so they experimented with having robots do it instead
[3].

It's been tremendously clear that San Francisco has become an experiment in
seeing if you can still run a city while pushing out all the poor people. Its
been worker infrastructure has been coming apart at the seams for years now
and the city's leadership has made little attempt towards fixing it -- instead
entrepreneurs are just trying to find ways to work around it. I have little
confidence that threatening to pull federal housing funding will dissuade the
city from their path.

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17394551](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17394551)

2\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15874565](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15874565)

3\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15880100](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15880100)

------
mikevp
Interesting...

At first, I thought nominating Carson for head of HUD was a very strange
choice. He's a neurosurgeon. Why???

But then... He was Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, so he
had some administrative experience.

Then, I realized that Ben Carson has one bit of very relevant life experience
that no other HUD director has ever had: He grew up in The Projects.

I thought then that that might lead to something interesting. Seems I may have
been right.

------
temp-dude-87844
As with most things, engineering a blunt policy solution will lead to
unintended consequences.

If this proposal goes into effect, by clobbering local zoning codes, anything
with sufficient money behind it is going to get built. This typically means
projects that optimize for the developer's ability to extract rent from
residents: 3 or 4-story apartments with small unit sizes, basic finishes made
to aesthetically look high-end, and bare minimum green space or community
space. A common approach is to use high-end appliances, a one-time cost, to
ask for higher rent. This is the sort of construction that pops up in American
suburbia today, where there's sufficient demand, and gets adapted to a more
"urban" form with flat roofs and minimal changes.

Despite many of these projects being built, there's a price floor beyond which
the rent will not drop, because the developer has to make payments on loans
and maintain a profit. Therefore, while housing affordability is sure to
improve in some places where it's absurdly high, it won't meaningfully be
altered in places whose urban form is predominantly suburban. This is doubly
so because the plentiful supply of single-family homes offers an a low-cost
way to get started as a landlord.

Developers also have a choice on where to build. If it's cheaper after
expenses to assemble a large parcel in Morgan Hill or Tracy or Vacaville,
build out the site, and charge those rents, than to do the same in West
Portal, one of them isn't getting built.

~~~
notJim
This is right, and this is the problem with solely YIMBY/market urbanist
approaches to housing. Developers will all chase tech workers who can pay
significantly more money for housing, and the housing market is segmented
enough that it doesn't really free up housing at the low end. See this article
for more: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-
expensive...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-expensive-
cities-rents-fall-for-the-rich--but-rise-for-the-
poor/2018/08/05/a16e5962-96a4-11e8-80e1-00e80e1fdf43_story.html?utm_term=.864b99668145)

We do need to build housing, but it can't all be "luxury" housing.

This should be familiar to people because it's happening in the commercial
space, too. It's the same thing as when storefronts would rather sit empty and
waiting for a Chase Bank to come along than accept the lower rents from some
other shop. The Chase Bank will pay far more in rent.

~~~
nine_k
Make providing e.g. 10% of the apartment capacity of a block as affordable /
municipal-controlled housing a part of the building contract. Or make
redevelopment of a "luxury" block tied to redevelopment of a less luxury block
providing affordable housing (still net-positive for the development company,
just much less lucrative).

That is, make affordable development a part of the price of luxury development
if you must. Just don't stall the development completely.

This works best with large development companies and projects, though.

~~~
maxsilver
We have that. It's called "inclusionary zoning", and it's another thing the
YIMBYs are trying to kill.

------
afpx
One thing to note is that it’s the land itself that appreciates. The housing
built on top of it generally doesn’t. That is, structures generally depreciate
unless labor and material costs rise significantly.

So, why not cap the profits that can be gained from squatting on land? Or
increase taxes on under-utilized land? Then, wouldn’t land owners have
incentive to build more housing?

~~~
darksaints
Density-restrictive zoning increases our demand for land.

I, for example, only need about 1000sf of living space. In city where the
minimum lot size is 3000sf and maximum FAR is 30%, my demand for land is
3000sf. However, in a city where 12 story buildings are abundant, my demand
for land is only about 100sf, including proportionally allocated common area
space.

By not allowing dense housing, city zoning codes are making affordability
illegal by statute.

------
pjc50
It seems like the underlying mechanism is
[https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/08/ben-carsons-new-
argum...](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/08/ben-carsons-new-argument-
against-fair-housing-rules-its-about-nimbys/567449/) , which is a rather
different spin.

------
pessimizer
I looked for an explanation of "exclusionary zoning" in the article, but I
guess it just means "zoning."

It's always great when an administration can repurpose unimplemented
legislation designed to reduce segregation, and use it to enrich property
speculators.

