President Donald Trump issued an executive order that establishes a White House Council focused on "eliminating regulatory barriers to affordable housing." The council is to be chaired by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Ben Carson.
The order reads: "These regulatory barriers include: overly restrictive zoning and growth management controls; rent controls; cumbersome building and rehabilitation codes; excessive energy and water efficiency mandates; unreasonable maximum-density allowances; historic preservation requirements; overly burdensome wetland or environmental regulations; outdated manufactured-housing regulations and restrictions; undue parking requirements; cumbersome and time-consuming permitting and review procedures; tax policies that discourage investment or reinvestment; overly complex labor requirements; and inordinate impact or developer fees."
The order adds, "These regulatory barriers increase the costs associated with development, and, as a result, drive down the supply of affordable housing. They are the leading factor in the growth of housing prices across metropolitan areas in the United States. Many of the markets with the most severe shortages in affordable housing contend with the most restrictive State and local regulatory barriers to development."
The order engages the fiery political debate that has taken over the country in recent months as states and municipalities have struggled with finding approaches to address the nationwide housing affordability crisis.
Just last week, for example, to the chagrin of developers like President Trump, New York state approved the sweeping "Housing Stability And Tenant Protections Act of 2019," a bill that strengthens, extends, and makes permanent certain rent control regulations in the state.
Simultaneously, California has been embroiled in a state-wide debate over proposed state-level housing reforms that could bring extensive tenant protections while boosting allowable residential densities in urban areas.
Cities across the country, including Minneapolis, San Diego, and Buffalo, have enacted varying zoning and parking requirement reforms that have begun to reshape housing policies in those cities.
It is unclear what effect President Trump's foray into housing politics will have on local zoning fights or how the council's recommendations will interact with the recently-implemented Opportunity Zone regulations.
37 Comments
Things are getting real interesting real fast (as fast as housing policy can move, that is). Kriston Capps wrote an excellent article on how "Trumpzoning" might make for odd bedfellows, but also points out that Corey Booker's approach might be the one that *acutally* works: to limit not CDBG grants, but federal *road funding* to communities who refuse to upzone.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/06/democratic-candidates-housing-election-2020-trump-campaign/591604/
No more roundabouts in Carmel, Hoosiers, unless you build affordable housing!
If the progressives ever manage to regain power, I think automobiles are the perfect lever to institute some of these changes. Infrastructure funding via the gas tax (or just reducing the corporate subsidy to fuel refiners) never goes anywhere because cars are so precious in this country.
Trumps solution to everything seems to be burn it all down and hope something is left to grow.
"...overly restrictive zoning and growth management controls; rent controls; cumbersome building and rehabilitation codes; excessive energy and water efficiency mandates; unreasonable maximum-density allowances; historic preservation requirements; overly burdensome wetland or environmental regulations; outdated manufactured-housing regulations and restrictions; undue parking requirements; cumbersome and time-consuming permitting and review procedures; tax policies that discourage investment or reinvestment; overly complex labor requirements; and inordinate impact or developer fees."
Why do I fear that the 'solutions' proposed will disproportionately focus on eliminating one of these elements?
my main fear is he accidentally shoots out some workable policy ideas, thus making them unacceptable on principle to the progressive leaders who maybe hopefully someday (fingers crossed) get control of things. it's hard enough to convince people many of these are necessary reforms without having them associated w trump.
Yes, much like the way Trump is not wrong to criticize all of our manufacturing jobs offshore being sent offshore, although his administration doesn't seem to have much of a policy solution for the issue.
My main fear is that people who would throw out good policy ideas for political purposes get into power.
My main fear is that we continue to elect people who don't give a shit about policy beyond enriching themselves.
Well, that’s a guarantee regardless of who we elect. At least let them enrich themselves off of policies that are good for us too.
Big Govt is the problem. Why a majority of minorities don’t understand this, considering that their oppression has always been institutionalized and legalized through govt backed policy is beyond me...Zoning has always been a legal way to create enclaves of wealth and poverty.
To dump and concentrate “undesirables” and to protect the interests of the wealthy...Zoning is Segregation lite...made too complicated and too metastasized for the average joe to pin point...
this moment is extremely dumb. Zoning is an outdated form of design, but I guess we’ve decided to replace it with the market and see how it goes.
Density has to grow from robust public transportation and design culture. What are we replacing zoning.
The politics will go as follows — GOP will deregulate without funding transportation, transportation will become a hellscape and everyone will abandon the cities for the suburbs again — and Dems and architects will get blamed for McUrban Renewal
Ha. The Dems have ruined just about every city they have controlled. It can’t be worse.
Public tranist as we know it is outdated. We have a bus system in my city that runs all day...carries a maximum of 2-3 people in it at any time...they keep it going because it feels good I guess. Unsustainable to move 2-3 people with a giant bus when we can instead have a several public minivan like vehicles
for the same price with more routes and all...anyway, a little off topic
Mcurbanism is a term I thought I invented..(probably not)..I remember upsetting the archi gods back in school with that one...
Point is, look at the places, people in charge, and policies of each US city and then compare which ones are livable for average Americans....it ain’t NYC or SF or Portland...then come and tell me who’s serving who...all bs and as George Carlin said “it’s bad for you”
The affordability problems in NY, SF, Portland ( and way too many other places) are caused by NIMBY types mucking up the works.
NIMBY means nada unless the desires are codified by government.
Chemex, I’m not following why horrible road conditions would make people move back to the suburbs?
GOPYIMBYs won't fund (public) transportation, and then depressing McUrbanist housing (dense and not) will get built with big garages, roads will get overcrowded like LA, and the cycle will just continue.
I'm against any -imby, pro urban design -- which starts with new trains in mid-size cities. It seems truly depraved when people look at NY/SF and think they aren't dense. That's not to say there aren't areas that could be developed. But the motto should be: free the design (transit, economy, structure, context, spaces, history, common sense) and the housing will follow. Especially in mid-size cities that have room to grow organically.
Also, democratic mayors usually have more of a burden on them because they have to both keep corrupt bureaucratic public systems running and economies happy. GOP has the luxury of not caring about those that aren't served by the market.
P.S. I invented McUrbanism, but if you want it I also like McUrban Renewal
Trains are becoming outdated. We need to invest in a decentralized public transit system that works on our roads....like public self driving cars that stop when we text them....public transportation as we know it is very outdated and limiting for lower density cities...
High cost mega-structure systems like subways are part to the reason that dense cities have become ridiculously expensive and elitist. Tax burden on the middle class is causing an exodus...and to keep the overhead covered cities are pandering to the super rich...Here’s a new term to describe SF and NYC circa 2019...”sugar daddy urbanism”
I agree with Chemex.
Given the choice between subways (and, honestly, BRT) and "public self driving cars that stop when we text them" I'm putting my chips on the technology that exists.
Nevermind that without a wholesale shift to non-gasoline engines, the environmental benefits of public transit would be more than offset by the advent of self driving cars, and without a similarly wholesale shift to self-driving cars (ban non-self driving cars in cities?) congestion would only increase.
Trains are useless in sprawl cities. In my city we have huge buses going all day...never seen more than 2-3 people in them..but some politician feels good I’m sure so that’s cool. Talk about wasting energy...
And train to what? A transit hub that’s 10 miles from where you are trying to get to? And, the technology does exist. We have electric cars, we have gps, we all have phones...put in location and go. Easier than building huge megastructures that cost billions in taxes, leading to mass flight of middle class and gentrification. High tax cities always become unlivable! These moron failed politicians want to now ruin the country like they ruined the states they are in charge of. Deblasio,
What a clown.
Also tduds, “without wholesale shift to...” Yes, and here is an area where public transit can lead the way by cities investing in the technology and working with tech companies to implement innovative systems into urbanized areas.
If you don’t think self driving electric cars will be the future you aren’t paying attention much. They already exist. They will undoubtedly be commonplace in the next decade or two...
It’s cheaper and more efficient in every way possible than building huge train infrastructures with who know how much embodied energy...
That's an argument against sprawl. Not trains.
the urban design choice would be both — a train system that runs downtown to suburbs (like some mid-size cities have) with self driving cars that work locally to either train on grocery store. I hate this concept of self driving cars going everywhere — they will just end up congesting the popular areas and underserving the not. I also dislike taxes on certain behaviors as a design tool. Just build the right solutions and tax individuals that make a lot of money. It’s not that hard
Design is still the key, but everyone is asleep at the wheel of tech-centered hype — including so-called designers and pop media hacks.
Tduds, how do you stop sprawl? We need solutions that adapt to urban trends, not pipe dreams of top down master planning that ignores the reality of the most pervasive conditions. Sprawl is here. It’s everywhere. Land owners own land. That will be sold to build more sprawl. That’s the given contextual reality and constraints in many places. Good design respects constraints and context and finds workable solutions within those boundaries. Decentralized infrastructures are the most hi-tech, sustainable, and low cost solutions because they can adapt to the road infrastructure that already exists. Trains are fine for some places, and maybe a combo like Chemex says is best, but we aren’t going to solve 21st century urbanization issues with 19th and 20th century methods.
Cars have become demonized for many good reasons, but many of those reasons are currently technologically solvable.
Why is this even something Trump can mess with? Why should the president, who in no way could be familiar with the needs of the many communities across the country, be the single most import and powerful person in those communities? Why does the president essentially alone get to decide if a town builds a new transit line? Why does the president have any say in how a town is zoned or developed?
What's better than rent control? A tax on vacant lots and unoccupied
buildings. While rent control makes it less attractive to supply
accommodation, a vacant-property tax makes it less attractive NOT to! A
vacant-property tax of $X/week makes it $X/week more expensive to fail
to get a tenant, and thereby REDUCES, by $X/week, the minimum rent that will persuade the owner to accept a tenant.
Such a tax, although
sometimes called a "vacancy tax", is not limited to what real-estate
agents call "vacancies" — that is, properties available for rent. It
also applies to vacant lots and other properties that are not on the
rental market, and is designed to push them onto the market and get them
tenanted.
A vacant-property tax is intended to be avoided; if
it's properly designed, nobody actually has to pay it. And the
*avoidance* of it would initiate economic activity, which would expand
the bases of other taxes, allowing their rates to be reduced, so that
the rest of us would pay LESS tax!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.