I've been pretty up front about how I feel about East Palo Alto's Inclusionary Housing policy, and we will have some lively City Council meetings coming up.
I’m almost completely on board with doing away with IZ — as mentioned in my restack, I think if SCOTUS accidentally does the right thing here out of partisan spite, it will help us by taking further shitty IZ proposals (IE in the current sense of IZ, I’m not shading your own better ideas here) out of the NIMBY toolbox.
Because, after all, one of the things NIMBYs love to distract well-meaning pro-housing normies with is precisely those shitty IZ policies that look nice but are actually just tools of exclusion masquerading as charity for the excluded.
But my only reservation here is that it can also backfire on us and bog down our movement. The hard left LOVES IZ and PHIMBY but many are really closet NIMBYs or at least see nothing wrong with the current NIMBY hellscape; PHIMBY is already a pipe dream, which means if we take away IZ, much of the hard left may revert to their default NIMBYism.
Now, on second order, that may help negatively polarize some of the center-right further into our camp, but although I wouldn’t rule that coalitional trade out as a definitive net loss, it’s not exactly a trade I’m excited to bet on.
Spot on political analysis. Which means it’s very important not to do away with IZ entirely. Much better and more politically viable to replace it
Center right is winnable with or without IZ, my impression is that they’re much more motivated by public safety and transportation issues than the financial feasibility of development
The fundamental problem is that segregation is good. The value of real estate is who your neighbors are. Pricing out the riff raff is the entire point.
This is a good and not bad thing, one bad apple spoils the bunch.
Once you accept that people are going to use price and zoning to secure socioeconomic conformity for their neighborhoods, the solution becomes obvious. Let them and build a lot more housing. Build enough housing that the overall price comes down. Poors still wont choose to live in rich neighborhoods so they can save money and the racial demographics will be what they will be, but rent/income % will go down for everyone.
So if someone wants to slap down a rich people development let them. They move out of their existing housing stock, poors move into it, everyone wins.
The other thing you can do is make rich people less scared of living near poor people. But that means things like tough on crime, better schools/school choice, etc. you know good governance. The less negative externalities the poors cause the less rich people will be willing to pay to segregate those externalities away.
Density bonuses to incentivize affordable units is also a great tool. Also need to figure out process streamlining and code reform to bring down costs.
Density bonuses can be good in the absence of wholesale zoning reform as a political compromise.
The challenge is that bonuses can become a justification to avoid deeper zoning reform, which ultimately has the same externalities as inclusionary zoning. Requiring extra affordable homes in exchange for height and density still leads to less housing than just allowing the highest and density and offering financial incentives
Huge problem in cities like SF and LA, which try to do any reform as bonuses and ultimately end up with much less housing as a result
Great work here! I’m in a rural city that is in the cusp of a bit of growth as the neighboring larger metropolitan area sprawls our way. I’m thinking about how we grow while create housing strategies and policy to maintain housing affordability. This was very helpful for our thinking process. It’s a great time to prepare and take advantage learning from unintended consequences of previous strategies.
I generally doubt the viability of directly taxing the rich to finance affordable units. The rich already work very hard to keep their taxes low and the poors out, and they basically own the current NIMBY policy regime outright — if they didn’t, we wouldn’t have that regime in the first place.
The only demo that would go for that plan is the same PMC renter class who is already struggling to enact their YIMBY agenda.
As a matter of coalitional strategy, I’d rather just maintain our relentless YIMBY focus and pass our agenda without pissing off the rich. To the extent that we’ve already convinced many of them to get on board with our agenda, that’s already an amazing success, because YIMBY will ultimately give us a more competitive market where the rich can’t exploit us as much anymore.
If we can convince the rich that they’ll stay rich by building more shit, and it makes life more affordable for the rest of us so we’re not just paying off the rich’s mortgages with our rent dollars, I consider that a win. I don’t want to upset that apple cart.
Curse Strong Towns and their excellent rhetoric machine. I drafted a whole 1,000 words on this concept a few months back and felt so dang clever about it
“Euclid v. Ambler, refers to apartments and the renters who live in them as parasites on single-family neighborhoods.”
In fact, it’s just the opposite. Single family home suburbs lack the taxpaying density to pay for all those miles of roads needing maintenance, sewer and water lines, and power lines. Dense urban cores pay their own way, plus some.
I liked the idea of flipping the current IZ model with more voluntary, incentive-based tools, and I hadn't heard about using property taxes as one of those tools. One part I wasn’t totally clear on: how does the property tax break for developers translate into “a direct subsidy funded by wealthier residents”? Is the idea that the tax burden shifts, or something else? Would love to hear more on that point. I could see municipalities avoiding this type of incentive if it means overall less property taxes to fund city services.
Good question, my writing just wasn’t very clear here. I meant to suggest property tax breaks OR direct subsidy funded by property taxation would be ideal. Challenging in CA to achieve the latter reform due to Prop 13 capping property taxes, but other states have more flexibility
Either way, property tax breaks for the new development is more politically viable virtually everywhere
The phrasing is confusing! The term “inclusionary zoning” would be more intuitive if it generally meant less zoning (or a “negative list” system—first time I’ve heard that)
Great article, Jeremy!
interesting article, thanks for sharing
East Palo Alto' s IZ policy has resulted in a grand total of 2 units being built in the 7 years since it was passed. I wrote about the results here: https://epasun.org/we-need-to-change-our-failed-housing-strategy-in-east-palo-alto/
I've been pretty up front about how I feel about East Palo Alto's Inclusionary Housing policy, and we will have some lively City Council meetings coming up.
I’m almost completely on board with doing away with IZ — as mentioned in my restack, I think if SCOTUS accidentally does the right thing here out of partisan spite, it will help us by taking further shitty IZ proposals (IE in the current sense of IZ, I’m not shading your own better ideas here) out of the NIMBY toolbox.
Because, after all, one of the things NIMBYs love to distract well-meaning pro-housing normies with is precisely those shitty IZ policies that look nice but are actually just tools of exclusion masquerading as charity for the excluded.
But my only reservation here is that it can also backfire on us and bog down our movement. The hard left LOVES IZ and PHIMBY but many are really closet NIMBYs or at least see nothing wrong with the current NIMBY hellscape; PHIMBY is already a pipe dream, which means if we take away IZ, much of the hard left may revert to their default NIMBYism.
Now, on second order, that may help negatively polarize some of the center-right further into our camp, but although I wouldn’t rule that coalitional trade out as a definitive net loss, it’s not exactly a trade I’m excited to bet on.
Spot on political analysis. Which means it’s very important not to do away with IZ entirely. Much better and more politically viable to replace it
Center right is winnable with or without IZ, my impression is that they’re much more motivated by public safety and transportation issues than the financial feasibility of development
The center right often also see light IZ as a virtue signal, a kind of vestigial expression of their latent/heldover neoconservatism.
The fundamental problem is that segregation is good. The value of real estate is who your neighbors are. Pricing out the riff raff is the entire point.
This is a good and not bad thing, one bad apple spoils the bunch.
Once you accept that people are going to use price and zoning to secure socioeconomic conformity for their neighborhoods, the solution becomes obvious. Let them and build a lot more housing. Build enough housing that the overall price comes down. Poors still wont choose to live in rich neighborhoods so they can save money and the racial demographics will be what they will be, but rent/income % will go down for everyone.
So if someone wants to slap down a rich people development let them. They move out of their existing housing stock, poors move into it, everyone wins.
The other thing you can do is make rich people less scared of living near poor people. But that means things like tough on crime, better schools/school choice, etc. you know good governance. The less negative externalities the poors cause the less rich people will be willing to pay to segregate those externalities away.
Density bonuses to incentivize affordable units is also a great tool. Also need to figure out process streamlining and code reform to bring down costs.
Density bonuses can be good in the absence of wholesale zoning reform as a political compromise.
The challenge is that bonuses can become a justification to avoid deeper zoning reform, which ultimately has the same externalities as inclusionary zoning. Requiring extra affordable homes in exchange for height and density still leads to less housing than just allowing the highest and density and offering financial incentives
Huge problem in cities like SF and LA, which try to do any reform as bonuses and ultimately end up with much less housing as a result
Great work here! I’m in a rural city that is in the cusp of a bit of growth as the neighboring larger metropolitan area sprawls our way. I’m thinking about how we grow while create housing strategies and policy to maintain housing affordability. This was very helpful for our thinking process. It’s a great time to prepare and take advantage learning from unintended consequences of previous strategies.
I generally doubt the viability of directly taxing the rich to finance affordable units. The rich already work very hard to keep their taxes low and the poors out, and they basically own the current NIMBY policy regime outright — if they didn’t, we wouldn’t have that regime in the first place.
The only demo that would go for that plan is the same PMC renter class who is already struggling to enact their YIMBY agenda.
As a matter of coalitional strategy, I’d rather just maintain our relentless YIMBY focus and pass our agenda without pissing off the rich. To the extent that we’ve already convinced many of them to get on board with our agenda, that’s already an amazing success, because YIMBY will ultimately give us a more competitive market where the rich can’t exploit us as much anymore.
If we can convince the rich that they’ll stay rich by building more shit, and it makes life more affordable for the rest of us so we’re not just paying off the rich’s mortgages with our rent dollars, I consider that a win. I don’t want to upset that apple cart.
The mono-cropping : SFH-only zoning :: healthy ecosystem : diverse neighbhorhoods analogy has definitely been done. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/7/3/making-normal-neighborhoods-legal-again
Curse Strong Towns and their excellent rhetoric machine. I drafted a whole 1,000 words on this concept a few months back and felt so dang clever about it
This would be huge.
https://cityobservatory.org/inclusionary-zoning-portlands-wile-e-coyote-moment-has-arrived/
^This post from Joe Cortright started to shift my perspective on inclusionary zoning a while back.
For a radical and fresh idea, one could build a condo complex with a hydraulic elevator like Carvana, except for condos: https://github.com/hatonthecat/OpenSourceCondo
We'll all be in a better spot when it's common knowledge that zoning is an unnecessary evil.
“Euclid v. Ambler, refers to apartments and the renters who live in them as parasites on single-family neighborhoods.”
In fact, it’s just the opposite. Single family home suburbs lack the taxpaying density to pay for all those miles of roads needing maintenance, sewer and water lines, and power lines. Dense urban cores pay their own way, plus some.
lol why did you pick the English guy to read this?
No idea, probably something to amuse myself when deciding the settings for my Substack 7 months ago
Will have to change it though, I’m very anti redcoat
I liked the idea of flipping the current IZ model with more voluntary, incentive-based tools, and I hadn't heard about using property taxes as one of those tools. One part I wasn’t totally clear on: how does the property tax break for developers translate into “a direct subsidy funded by wealthier residents”? Is the idea that the tax burden shifts, or something else? Would love to hear more on that point. I could see municipalities avoiding this type of incentive if it means overall less property taxes to fund city services.
Good question, my writing just wasn’t very clear here. I meant to suggest property tax breaks OR direct subsidy funded by property taxation would be ideal. Challenging in CA to achieve the latter reform due to Prop 13 capping property taxes, but other states have more flexibility
Either way, property tax breaks for the new development is more politically viable virtually everywhere
The phrasing is confusing! The term “inclusionary zoning” would be more intuitive if it generally meant less zoning (or a “negative list” system—first time I’ve heard that)