HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2020, 5:35 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,034
The Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) Act passes the U.S. House of Representatives

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that calls for changes by localities that promote high-density residential zoning and thus more affordable housing development.

The Yes In My Backyard Act, HB 4351 doesn't mandate any affordable housing development or zoning, it stipulates that places receiving block grants from the federal government track and report their pro-housing policies. It also encourages localities to allow manufactured housing in places zoned for single-family houses, the addition of duplexes in such places, and to make other pro-affordable housing changes. The bill comes at a time of affordable housing agitation, with advocates calling for a litany of measures to deal with the problem, including unprecedented federal intervention in the form of national rent control. There is a shortage of 7 million affordable housing units nationwide, the National Low Income Housing Coalition reports.

Read more at: https://www.bisnow.com/national/news...medium=Browser

Quote:
A BILL

To require certain grantees under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to submit a plan to track discriminatory land use policies, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Yes In My Backyard Act”.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to discourage the use of discriminatory land use policies and remove barriers to making housing more affordable in order to further the original intent of the Community Development Block Grant program.

SEC. 3. LAND USE PLAN.

(a) In General.—Section 104 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5304) is amended by adding at the end the following:


“(n) Plan To Track Discriminatory Land Use Policies.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Prior to receipt in any fiscal year of a grant from the Secretary under subsection (b), (d)(1), or (d)(2)(B) of section 106, each recipient shall have prepared and submitted, not less frequently than once during the preceding 5-year period, in accordance with this subsection and in such standardized form as the Secretary shall, by regulation, prescribe, with respect to each land use policy described in paragraph (2) that is applicable to the jurisdiction served by the recipient, a description of—

“(A) whether the recipient has already adopted the policy in the jurisdiction served by the recipient;

“(B) the plan of the recipient to implement the policy in that jurisdiction; or

“(C) the reasons why the recipient has not adopted the policy in that jurisdiction.

“(2) LAND USE POLICIES.—The policies described in this paragraph are as follows:

“(A) Enacting high-density single-family and multifamily zoning.

“(B) Expanding by-right multifamily zoned areas.

“(C) Allowing duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes in areas zoned primarily for single-family residential homes.

“(D) Allowing manufactured homes in areas zoned primarily for single-family residential homes.

“(E) Allowing multifamily development in retail, office, and light manufacturing zones.

“(F) Allowing single-room occupancy development wherever multifamily housing is allowed.

“(G) Reducing minimum lot size.

“(H) Reducing the number of buildings protected by historic preservation.

“(I) Increasing the allowable floor area ratio in multifamily housing areas.

“(J) Creating transit-oriented development zones.

“(K) Streamlining or shortening permitting processes and timelines, including through one-stop and parallel-process permitting.

“(L) Eliminating or reducing off-street parking requirements.

“(M) Reducing impact and utility investment fees.

“(N) Allowing prefabricated construction.

“(O) Reducing or eliminating minimum unit square footage requirements.

“(P) Allowing the conversion of office units to apartments.

“(Q) Allowing the subdivision of single-family homes into duplexes.

“(R) Allowing accessory dwelling units, including detached accessory dwelling units, on all lots with single-family homes.

“(S) Legalizing short-term home rentals.

“(T) Legalizing home-based businesses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2020, 6:58 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 848
Not going anywhere in the senate, unfortunately.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2020, 9:52 PM
BnaBreaker's Avatar
BnaBreaker BnaBreaker is online now
Future God
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago/Nashville
Posts: 17,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro View Post
Not going anywhere in the senate, unfortunately.
Yeah, just like every other fucking positive bill benefiting human beings coming out of the House, this too will rot on Mitch McConnell's desk. It is a fine idea though!
__________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."

-Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2020, 10:18 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by BnaBreaker View Post
Yeah, just like every other fucking positive bill benefiting human beings coming out of the House, this too will rot on Mitch McConnell's desk. It is a fine idea though!
Not necessarily pretty sure the whole YIMBY thing has been supported by Ben Carson and the Dep. of Housing & Development.


...although probably
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2020, 12:47 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,284
Pro-housing does read to me, like a Republican, pro-business talking point.

Quote:
The bill has considerable support among real estate industry organizations, including the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts and the National Multifamily Housing Council.
Then again, this does also sound like "government overreach" which is also a Republican thing to say when opposing a policy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2020, 7:06 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
Pro-housing does read to me, like a Republican, pro-business talking point.



Then again, this does also sound like "government overreach" which is also a Republican thing to say when opposing a policy.
I really hope you understand that Blue-good Red-bad as some sort of axiomatic worldview is incredibly idiotic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2020, 8:52 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,284
My post simply laid out the political reality of passing laws in this country. I don't see how you can take it as political, partisan, or judgmental. What in my post leads you to believe I've shared my political beliefs? If you knew me, you'd know how much I DETEST the constant political bickering and automatic black/white worldview.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2020, 9:17 PM
floor23 floor23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 66
Interesting bill, but it doesn't really seem to have any teeth to it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2020, 2:39 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
Sacramento~City of Trees
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro View Post
Not going anywhere in the senate, unfortunately.
I’m not so sure partisan politics has anything to do with it. We can’t even get a similar bill passed in California despite having supermajorities in both the Assembly and Senate and a supportive Governor.

‘Senate Bill 50 was an effort to undo California’s decades-long reliance on single-family housing and suburban sprawl stretching inland by spurring a development boom near transit and job centers‘.
__________________
“Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”~~Theodor Seuss Geisel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2020, 7:47 PM
muertecaza muertecaza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,605
I'm as pro-housing as anyone here, but I seriously doubt that adding another level of federal bureaucracy in the form of reporting requirements is going to make a material difference in housing construction and/or housing affordability.

This seems like a half-measure implementation of Ben Carson's suggestion that HUD withhold CDBG funds altogether from communities with exclusionary/discriminatory zoning practices:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/h...ng-cdbg-funds/

Even that isn't going to be the most effective means, as the article points out, because the most exclusionary communities are already those that receive the least (or no) CDBG funds. But it would be better than toothless reporting requirements and asking nice that communities look at better zoning practices.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:07 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.