Coming from a community that has eliminated most barriers to housing development (where there is infrastructure to support it) and still seen prices relentlessly rise (partly because we did that, expanding housing choice in a way that neighboring communities did not, although they are catching up), I can only comment that every market is different and that I am planning on addressing the "abundance" approach to housing in my own newsletter sometime soon. But I do have one answer for your question about what is needed if zoning barriers are mostly gone. And its not one that's on your list.
It would take me about 4 minutes to stroll from here to a 7-acre parcel that has been held for speculation for decades. It has all utilities and excellent (improving, even) access. It is level and well drained. It is not in the town's designated growth center, so its current yield would be 35 new dwellings, with a possible 40% bonus for making 20% of those perpetually affordable, potentially 49 dwellings. ADUs would be allowed with single family homes, but townhomes or something similar are more likely. Given the evolution of this neighborhood, it would not be hard to upzone this parcel (which faces an arterial and has low-intensity commercial neighbors), but even 35-49 new units would be a valuable addition to the housing stock and profitable. So, why hasn't it developed?
Because, despite a lot of whining about taxes, its cheap to hold land. What we need to get this parcel in play (and there are others) is a Land Value Tax that makes the costs of holding land that ought to be developed prohibitive, while taking part of the tax burden off of building. That would make more difference here than anything that could happen here except possibly a return to reasonable interest rates.
Always a thoughtful newsletter, thanks.
Coming from a community that has eliminated most barriers to housing development (where there is infrastructure to support it) and still seen prices relentlessly rise (partly because we did that, expanding housing choice in a way that neighboring communities did not, although they are catching up), I can only comment that every market is different and that I am planning on addressing the "abundance" approach to housing in my own newsletter sometime soon. But I do have one answer for your question about what is needed if zoning barriers are mostly gone. And its not one that's on your list.
It would take me about 4 minutes to stroll from here to a 7-acre parcel that has been held for speculation for decades. It has all utilities and excellent (improving, even) access. It is level and well drained. It is not in the town's designated growth center, so its current yield would be 35 new dwellings, with a possible 40% bonus for making 20% of those perpetually affordable, potentially 49 dwellings. ADUs would be allowed with single family homes, but townhomes or something similar are more likely. Given the evolution of this neighborhood, it would not be hard to upzone this parcel (which faces an arterial and has low-intensity commercial neighbors), but even 35-49 new units would be a valuable addition to the housing stock and profitable. So, why hasn't it developed?
Because, despite a lot of whining about taxes, its cheap to hold land. What we need to get this parcel in play (and there are others) is a Land Value Tax that makes the costs of holding land that ought to be developed prohibitive, while taking part of the tax burden off of building. That would make more difference here than anything that could happen here except possibly a return to reasonable interest rates.
You are getting banned