Why housing reforms keep failing

In many affluent countries, existing land use regulations constrain the housing supply.

Zoning directly restricts what can be built in a neighborhood or zone.

To circumvent zoning rules, developers seek variances that require complex, multi-stage and lengthy approval processes.

Design rules, environmental assessments and labor requirements further increase construction costs, decreasing what can be built.

Cumulatively, these restrictions drive up housing prices and generate extraordinary social and economic costs.

The high costs of land use restrictions have led many groups to campaign for reform.

Since these regulations are usually set by local governments, reformers have targeted higher levels of government, like state governments in the United States and the national government in Britain, to circumvent local land use restrictions.

This is the preemption strategy, by which higher levels of government override or preempt land use restrictions set by lower levels of government.

The preemption strategy has produced important successes.

California has seen a boom in accessory dwelling units, ADUs, after restrictions were relaxed beginning in 2016.

Just recently, following a decade-long effort, housing reformers achieved a significant milestone when California passed Senate Bill SB79 to upzone areas around transit stops in major metropolitan areas.

Similar legislative victories have occurred elsewhere in the U.S. and other countries.

Yet challenges remain even after legislation is passed.

Entrenched interests defending land use restrictions are often able to mobilize against housing development by delaying implementation at the local level, launching court challenges, and even reversing reforms.

While the effects of the most recent reforms are uncertain, past examples indicate that preemption proposals are just as likely to provoke resistance and retrenchment as they are to succeed at expanding the housing supply.

This record invites us to consider more radical models of land use reform.

In recent years, a variety of communities have had striking success with increasing housing through direct democracy.

The preemption strategy presumes that local residents must be forced to accept more housing development, which they invariably resist.

But when given the choice, neighborhoods across different contexts have directly approved the construction of new housing through referendums.

As all reformers agree, there are enormous benefits to building new homes.

Mechanisms for direct democracy at the very local level assure existing residents that they can share in these benefits.

When shared, these benefits provide majorities of local residents a reason to override the objections of extreme opponents of development and allow many more homes in their own communities.

With a broad coalition organized around sharing the massive material benefits of new housing, reformers can overcome persistent political barriers and transform land use around the world.

In many affluent countries, existing land use regulations constrain the housing supply.

Zoning directly restricts what can be built in a neighborhood or zone.

To circumvent zoning rules, developers seek variances that require complex, multi-stage and lengthy approval processes.

Design rules, environmental assessments and labor requirements further increase construction costs, decreasing what can be built.

Cumulatively, these restrictions drive up housing prices and generate extraordinary social and economic costs.

The high costs of land use restrictions have led many groups to campaign for reform.

Since these regulations are usually set by local governments, reformers have targeted higher levels of government, like state governments in the United States and the national government in Britain, to circumvent local land use restrictions.

This is the preemption strategy, by which higher levels of government override or preempt land use restrictions set by lower levels of government.

The preemption strategy has produced important successes.

California has seen a boom in accessory dwelling units, ADUs, after restrictions were relaxed beginning in 2016.

Just recently, following a decade-long effort, housing reformers achieved a significant milestone when California passed Senate Bill SB79 to upzone areas around transit stops in major metropolitan areas.

Similar legislative victories have occurred elsewhere in the U.S. and other countries.

Yet challenges remain even after legislation is passed.

Entrenched interests defending land use restrictions are often able to mobilize against housing development by delaying implementation at the local level, launching court challenges, and even reversing reforms.

While the effects of the most recent reforms are uncertain, past examples indicate that preemption proposals are just as likely to provoke resistance and retrenchment as they are to succeed at expanding the housing supply.

This record invites us to consider more radical models of land use reform.

In recent years, a variety of communities have had striking success with increasing housing through direct democracy.

The preemption strategy presumes that local residents must be forced to accept more housing development, which they invariably resist.

But when given the choice, neighborhoods across different contexts have directly approved the construction of new housing through referendums.

As all reformers agree, there are enormous benefits to building new homes.

Mechanisms for direct democracy at the very local level assure existing residents that they can share in these benefits.

When shared, these benefits provide majorities of local residents a reason to override the objections of extreme opponents of development and allow many more homes in their own communities.

With a broad coalition organized around sharing the massive material benefits of new housing, reformers can overcome persistent political barriers and transform land use around the world.