Zoning makes the housing go missing
Whether you're a NIMBY or YIMBY, "missing middle" housing is a property rights issue.
Arlington County, VA made a big news splash among people like you and me in recent days. From the ARLnow blog:
After years of consideration, and multiple days of public testimony and County Board discussion, one of Arlington’s most contentious local proposals in memory is becoming a reality.
The Arlington County Board voted unanimously Wednesday evening to approve allowing smaller multifamily structures — also known as Missing Middle — in what were heretofore neighborhoods of only single-family detached homes.
The vote will allow the by-right construction of buildings from duplexes to six-plexes, depending on lot size, with the units capped at four on certain smaller lots. The structures will be no larger, in height or footprint, than what’s allowed for single-family homes.
YIMBYs of Northern Virginia are overjoyed at their land use victory over “vitriolic, reactionary minority of Arlington homeowners.” Arlington County certainly isn’t alone in the yes-in-my-backyard vs not-in-my-backyard debates. YIMBY/NIMBY labels can play a helpful role in urbanism storytelling, both as a rallying cry to draw like-minded supporters and as a slight on the ideological opponents.
Put the advocacy labels aside for a moment and consider housing as a property rights issue.
Land use regulations exist to restrict your property rights.
And that makes sense as a bumper sticker. But the practical application of land use regulations reveals nuance. Any levelheaded person would quickly agree they support some types of restraint when it serves their personal interest.
In my experience, planners and urbanists dismiss the property rights phrase with an eye roll. All it took was a few prominent libertarians to articulate why property rights make or break a society, and the average person lets out a pfft and sneers “oh and I suppose you want to privatize everything so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”
When city planners talk about private property in the context of their work, they might share an anecdote about an obnoxious retiree who wanted to create a pond in his yard to stock fish in case Y2K shut down the grid and “protect his border” with an 8-foot privacy fence, possibly with barbed wire, surveillance cameras, and boobytraps.
But when city planners leave the office, they deal with property rights like any ordinary person. They’re not looking for a committee to approve which house they live in, what color schemes are allowed, or how long an out-of-town guest can stay in the home.
Wealthy people can afford to settle wherever they want. But 64% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, meaning more than half the country doesn’t have the luxury to just pick up and move when the mood strikes. And for financial or lifestyle reasons, many Americans simply aren’t in the market for a large home.
Missing middle housing refers to a range of housing types that fall between single-family homes and larger apartment buildings. Duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and small apartment buildings are all “missing middle.” We’re not talking about towering condo skyscrapers. Missing middle housing is the stuff you walk by in most older American cities without even noticing. It blends in with the surroundings.
City planners and urbanists often promote this type of development because it offers more affordable options for a diverse range of households. But city planners and urbanists have also been writing and enforcing land use regulations that outlaw housing variety. As an industry, planning loves to control what you can or can’t do. They write and enforce rules that
restrict a church from building tiny houses on its property.
prohibit a musician from converting a shed to an apartment with a recording studio.
outlaw a contractor from converting a historic mansion to a fourplex.
Land use zoning for “single-family only" residential has finally gained notoriety because it limits affordable housing options in entire neighborhoods. Developers have no choice but to construct detached homes on large lots with large setbacks from the curb, and spacing requirements between nextdoor neighbors.
This kind of exclusionary zoning is especially painful for people living in urban areas where land is scarce and expensive. This is part of what drove advocates in Arlington, VA to beg for the elimination of single-family zoning.
By eliminating single-family zoning and promoting missing middle housing, local governments can promote more inclusive and diverse neighborhoods that offer a range of housing options for all residents. Young professionals, empty nesters, divorced parents, and digital nomads have very different life experiences but share an interest in missing middle housing.
Zoning reform doesn’t eliminate single-family homes like the one pictured below. Small houses would absolutely be part of a neighborhood’s appeal.
This is deeper than a kindness or fairness issue. The lack of housing is a direct result of regulations that restrict property owners from creating affordable housing. If you were watching a made-for-TV movie in the 80s, the hero neighbor would convert his garage into an apartment for the lonely widower whose home was foreclosed. But in real life, the planning industry acts like that homeowner is a villain. “What’s next, a pig farm and a strip joint?”
Abolition is the way.
There are local governments that have taken steps to abolish exclusionary zoning. In recent years, a number of cities and states have passed legislation or taken executive action to promote more inclusive and equitable zoning policies. Oregon passed a law that effectively eliminated single-family zoning in cities with populations over 10,000. This law opens the door for developing duplexes, triplexes, and other missing middle housing types in areas that were previously restricted to single-family homes.
Similar efforts are underway in other states, including California, Minnesota, and Virginia. Basically, search the internet for any state with a volunteer YIMBY organization. Which brings me back to the labels.
I understand the urge to lean on yes-in-my-backyard as a statement of support for diverse neighborhoods. It signals to people that you’re open-minded and inclusive and want everyone to have a fair shot at a good life. But fairness and opportunity is hard to measure. On the other hand, your rights as a property owner are easy to quantify.
It’s about time we pressured politicians to legalize housing. Planners and urbanists, normies need your help identifying the technicalities that block progress. You can help turn this thing around.
Frame the missing middle housing conversation in plain language that resonates with your particular audience.
For the conservative:
Do you really want some appointed government body telling you that you can't convert a shed into an apartment? Or outlawing a duplex conversion that you could rent out? We can help restore liberty by reforming the local land use rules.
For the liberal:
Do you really want some group of privileged homeowners enforcing laws that were originally intended to segregate this neighborhood? Are you going to look the other way while low-income families suffer? We’ve got to reform the local land use rules.
For anyone:
Do you really think it makes sense to forbid small houses, townhouses, and apartments? Let’s get rid of dumb restrictions.
Congratulations to Arlington, VA for their recent progress. Things get better in the end!