Zoning and "Growth Control" Decried as Purposeful Drivers of Housing Scarcity

Alex Armlovich, a Senior Housing Policy Analyst at the Niskanen Center, has reignited the discussion around the deliberate nature of housing shortages, asserting that current land-use regulations are not accidental but rather a product of "growth control" policies. Armlovich contends that the complex web of zoning, permitting, and discretionary review regimes has intentionally constrained housing supply, leading to the widespread affordability crisis. His analysis underscores a growing consensus among housing experts that the scarcity is "purely political."

Armlovich explicitly states, "The housing shortage was not an accident. I've been trying to revive the anachronistic 1970s term 'growth control' to encompass the zoning, permitting, & pan-discretionary review regimes (that we often shorthand as 'zoning') to remind everyone that the shortage was purposeful." This perspective challenges the notion that housing scarcity is merely a market failure, pointing instead to a historical evolution of policies designed to limit urban growth.

Historically, the rise of zoning in the early 20th century, often termed "Euclidian zoning," emerged from a backlash against rapid urban expansion and was, in some instances, implicitly used for racial and class exclusion. While explicit racial zoning was deemed unconstitutional, practices like single-family zoning achieved similar exclusionary outcomes by leveraging class distinctions. Post-World War II, the automobile further entrenched these dynamics, with cities responding to suburbanization by tightening growth controls to manage population spread and mitigate traffic impacts.

These "growth controls" manifest in various regulations, including minimum off-street parking, lot sizes, height restrictions, and even the mix of bedrooms in new developments. Armlovich highlights that these restrictions prevent builders from amortizing land costs over more units, keeping housing prices artificially high. He argues that in high-demand areas, such regulations actually hinder land value maximization, contrasting with what would occur in a less regulated market.

In a recent interview, Armlovich elaborated on the political economy of housing, noting that local governments often prioritize fiscal zoning and the "homevoter hypothesis," where homeowners vote to defend property values and resist increased density. He advocates for shifting land-use authority to higher levels of government, such as states, which can better internalize the broader costs and benefits of housing policies. This approach aims to overcome local "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) sentiments that often stymie development.

Potential solutions are emerging, including bipartisan legislative efforts like the proposed "ROAD to Housing Act," which aims to incentivize pro-housing policies at state and local levels. This act includes regulatory reforms, such as easing restrictions on manufactured housing and streamlining environmental reviews for infill development, alongside funding and financing reforms to improve access to mortgages and expand housing assistance programs. These measures seek to address the systemic issues that Armlovich and others identify as the root cause of the housing shortage.