There's Nothing Especially Democratic about Local Control of Land Use

[M II A II R II K]

There's Nothing Especially Democratic about Local Control of Land Use


Jun 16, 2021

Read More: https://modelcitizen.substack.com/p/...lly-democratic

Rescuing delegated state authority from homevoter regulatory capture is a win for democracy. California Senate Bill 50, legislation developed by Scott Weiner, a pro-housing state senator, would have made it easier for developers to build new, dense housing near mass transit. Despite several major revisions, SB 50 failed to clear the senate after multiple attempts at passage. According to the Los Angeles Times, SB50 flopped in Sacramento the first time (2019) because “an influential cohort with membership across the state opposed the measure with all its political might: suburban homeowners.” No surprise there!

- University of Louisville political scientist David Imbroscio, a vehement left-wing critic of YIMBYism (he calls it “anti-exclusionary zoning” or “anti-EZ”) argues that loosening local control over land use amounts to a “neoliberal” assault on democracy: Why? My argument boils down to this: The Anti-EZ Project seeks to usurp governmental (regulatory) control of local land use via the imposition of greater market-based allocation (sometimes called “neoliberalism”). And it does so especially by weakening the ability of inhabitants to determine democratically how urbanized spaces are “produced” (as embodied by the Right to the City ideal asserting “that everyone … not only has a right to the city, but as inhabitants, have a right to shape … design … and operationalize an urban human rights agenda [around these spaces]).” — Imbroscio is writing here of the Biden campaign’s relatively anodyne proposal to discourage exclusive single-family zoning by endorsing James Clyburn and Cory Booker’s plan to condition HUD and DOT state block grants on the implementation of policies to increase housing supply and reduce housing costs. This would include things like allowing the construction of duplexes and/or fourplexes in areas that currently allow nothing but single-family homes.

- It is flatly incorrect to suggest, as Imbroscio does, that rezoning exclusively single-family neighborhoods to permit duplexes or fourplexes would make the allocation of housing either more or less market-based. The housing market is comprehensively structured by zoning by local government. Allowing duplexes alongside single-family homes does nothing at all to change that. It simply changes the mix of housing likely to get built, bought, and rented by very slightly changing the structure of the thoroughly government-managed market. Upzoning is not unzoning. — Similarly, if states hungry for federal block grants lean on cities to legalize multifamily housing in areas that currently ban everything but detached single-family houses, that doesn’t displace governmental regulatory control in favor of market allocation. Local land-use power just is delegated state power. If a state legislature chooses to narrow the scope of that delegated authority as part of an effort to influence patterns of municipal land use in a more direct, less mediated way, that doesn’t weaken or displace “governmental regulatory control” in the least. To state the obvious, federal and state governments are governments.

- The implied argument is that city councils and local zoning boards represent local residents better than the state legislatures. But how well do local governments and planning boards actually represent the people of their communities? Not very well, it turns out. Boston University political scientists Katherine Levine Einstein, David M. Glick, and Maxwell Palmer, authors of Neighborhood Defenders: Participatory Politics and America's Housing Crisis, combed through records of thousands of Massachusetts public planning committee meetings to see who participated in the process and who didn’t. Here’s what they found: [L]ocal institutions, designed to enhance participation, actually empower an unrepresentative group of residents who we call neighborhood defenders to stop the construction of new housing.” — Participants are not representative of their communities, and they are generally more socioeconomically privileged than those who do not attend. This pattern is true both across towns — we see higher levels of participation in wealthier towns than poorer towns but also within towns. It should come as no surprise that a commanding majority of public comments opposed proposed developments.

.....

Compared to all local voters, commenters at public development meetings were considerably whiter, older, more male and much more likely to be homeowners.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Compared to all local voters, commenters at public development meetings were considerably whiter, older, more male and much more likely to be homeowners.

because wealthy old entitled retired people often don't have anything better to do with their time than attend their local "bitching and moaning" town council session.

[mhays]

Yes, and a fear-based bumper-sticker idea draws more people than a nuanced message like supply and demand or easier access to transit.

[Yuri]

I’d go as far as saying it should be up to federal level. Why on Earth few owners have a saying on other people’s property three blocks away? It’s classist, it’s racist, it’s apartheid and fundamentally unfair and immoral.

[10023]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I’d go as far as saying it should be up to federal level. Why on Earth few owners have a saying on other people’s property three blocks away? It’s classist, it’s racist, it’s apartheid and fundamentally unfair and immoral.

Well that certainly doesn’t make sense. I don’t think most people, particularly in Europe, can conceptualise just how large and varied the US is. Geographical and climatic differences alone would require completely different land use policies between regions.

[mhays]

Sure it makes sense. Federal rules don't have to be one-size-fits-all.

In Washington State, the state regulates growth at a concept level. Urban counties and cities are required to plan locally within the state guidelines. A federal policy could simply do the same thing nationally.

In fact a vast array of federal policies and spending is national in concept, but planned and administered locally and attuned to local needs.

[JManc]

The federal government has limited authority when it comes to land use within a state's borders unless it's federal land. This is why the states, not the feds, had power to open/ close economies during Covid.

[mhays]

Ok, fair point. But they can control federal infrastructure dollars, pollution standards, and other factors that could play a big role. If the will existed.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

The federal government has limited authority when it comes to land use within a state's borders unless it's federal land. This is why the states, not the feds, had power to open/ close economies during Covid.

Yeah, they can't dictate land use policies. But the federal government CAN tie federal funding to criteria and policy. One example where this happens is public transit funding. The government doesn't typically provide funding for rail transit projects that are not organized under a regional authority, which is why Detroit has never been able to secure federal funding to build a rapid transit system.

[dave8721]

Trying to implement any pro urban policies at the local level in Florida is a constant battle against the state. Another example just today, the state banned local governments from preventing gas stations from being built (ever for any reason) and banned requiring eclectic vehicle charging stations. We would love to have more local control. I'm sure it would take DeSantis about 15 seconds to step in with a law preventing the preventing of development of drive thru's if any local government tried.
https://www.miamitodaynews.com/2021/...-june-24-2021/

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a measure that blocks local governments from preventing the siting or development of gas stations and prevents mandating electric vehicle charging stations on fuel retailers. The Sierra Club said the changes will make “the transition to electric vehicles more difficult.”