Addressing the nationwide housing crisis

A new bill signed by Gov. Josh Stein eliminates mandatory parking minimums for most new developments, giving builders more flexibility in deciding how many parking spaces to provide. For decades, local governments could require developers to build a minimum number of parking spaces based on the size and type of a project. Beginning Jan. 1, that decision will largely be left to developers and market demand.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting paper about the negative impact of inclusionary zoning in California where they banned IZ in 2009 and then reactivated all previously existing IZ in 2017:

From the abstract:
I estimate the effect of inclusionary zoning using novel administrative data covering all cities and counties in California. I leverage a statewide change in preempting law for identification, performing a difference-in-difference around an exogenous reactivation of local inclusionary ordinances. I find the typical inclusionary zoning ordinance reduces annual new residential construction by nearly a third (31.8%). [...] I estimate the cost of generating an affordable unit with inclusionary zoning to be approximately $800,000 in “excess rents” paid by market rate renters as a result of the policy’s constraint on supply. This exceeds the cost of directly incentivizing the creation of low-income housing in California through existing programs like LIHTC.
Click to expand...

1784755526059.png

More units built during the time when IZ was unenforceable and fewer when it was active, no surprise.
 
I looked at CA and there's a fair amount of new SFH available in the high 4's to 5's. Granted all of this is inland, so dunno where you would work, but hey.

That works out to be about 3 grand a month.
 
Following up from the discussion above, SF reduced IZ thresholds a few weeks ago:

missionlocal.org

San Francisco cuts affordable housing requirement from 15% to 5%

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to reduce the rate after the city controller warned new housing was too difficult to build.
missionlocal.org missionlocal.org

If literal San Francisco can do it to drive development…
 
Justbuildit said:
Following up from the discussion above, SF reduced IZ thresholds a few weeks ago:

missionlocal.org

San Francisco cuts affordable housing requirement from 15% to 5%

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to reduce the rate after the city controller warned new housing was too difficult to build.
missionlocal.org missionlocal.org

If literal San Francisco can do it to drive development…
Click to expand...
I mean their city government was a lot more dysfunctional than ours for much longer, probably creates more demand for technocratic excellence. I like the mayor and the direction the city is headed, but who knows, I don't live there.
 
The abundance agenda is taking hold in S.F. They say trends start out West. I don't yet see political support for a similar pragmatic approach to increasing housing supply in Boston.
 
Its kind of weird the amount of pushback against abundance Ive seen from progressives. Someone needs to be the party that starts building things again and Id much rather it be democrats. Blue states are also hemorrhaging population due to cost of living. I understand the aversion to deregulation, but this isnt a call for GOP style dump toxic chemicals in your drinking water to make an extra buck deregulation. Its more building dense walkable transit oriented housing is a million times greener than endless sprawl so we need to loosen regulations that have prevented this from happening for over 50 years type of “deregulation”. I wouldnt even really call it deregulation tbh, Id call it adjusting regulations to be able to better meet the demands of modern cities.
 
Regulation isn't an inherently left wing thing. It's been framed thst way post-Reagan but regulation csn absolutely be used to advance right wing objectives. That's what's been the case with the housing market and more left of center politicians need to be explicit in naming it as such
 
Part of the problem though is anti development isn’t a partisan issue. You have people with the full set of left-leaning regalia including yard signs and flags, absolutely stonewalling development at neighborhood meetings and blaming evil capitalists trying to bulldoze poor communities when it’s pure protectionism of their own homes/assets. So a baseline permissive regulatory environment has less to overcome and more stuff gets built.

Left of center politicians really need to show some bravery here and say that the end policy goal of more housing is worth the friction they’re facing.
 
If puritanism is the fear that someone somewhere is having fun then I think much of leftism is the fear someone somewhere is making a dollar lmao. The same electorate in NYC so opposed to Walmart (because it will put local retailers out of business with low prices) are willing to vote for tax subsidized grocery which if successful on its own terms will put local retailers out of business with low prices. I'm probably more surprised abundance as an idea is making as much noise as it is ngl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top