New Report: Changing Minds on Restrictive Zoning

NEW YORK, NY — From New York to California, Americans looking to rent or buy homes are contending with soaring costs, largely owing to a housing market that fails to build new supply. But voters too often support policies that exacerbate the problem, preempting local policymakers from addressing costs and delivering a pro-growth agenda. In a new issue brief for the Manhattan Institute, Jason Sorens, the Director of the Center for Ethics in Society at St. Anselm College, zooms in on the local politics of development, explaining the attitudes towards local zoning regulations that tend to thwart new growth and offering suggestions for more productive conversations.  

Reviewing the latest literature, including field research he conducted in New Hampshire and the Tristate, Sorens suggests many Americans favor building more homes in the abstract, but balk when it comes to building in their local communities. His brief provides insights on this trend, as well as urgent recommendations for addressing the serious demand for greater housing opportunity across the United States. These include:

• Americans support development in general and want policy to increase the housing supply beyond their immediate neighborhood in order to better meet rising demand. But Americans also oppose development in their backyard and prefer single-family zoning, a finding that replicates across demographic subgroups throughout the country. 

• Public hearings distort public decision-making by favoring homeowners who attend them; municipal random surveying can better capture local opinion. “By right” zoning ordinances can encourage development, and a clearer rules-based process can enable more certainty about timing and development costs. 

• Shifting local elections on-cycle with state elections and preempting the most restrictive zoning rules at the state level better reflects the views of all citizens. Emphasizing to voters the trade-off between affordable housing and lack of development, while broadening input to all voters, will prevent a vocal minority from squashing majority opinion. 

Housing advocates can in fact shift voters' preferences to be more pro-housing, and policymakers can redesign local institutions to better reflect public opinion. In doing so, they can facilitate a more pro-growth agenda towards affordable housing, while promoting democratic participation and giving Americans a voice. Sorens’ enthusiasm for affordable, engaged communities and his original academic contributions on the topic offer timely insights on a crushing problem affecting Americans across the country.

Click here to read the full report.