For years, housing reform advocates have insisted that America’s affordability crisis is not just a matter of economics—it’s a matter of political will. At long last, that political will is materializing in state capitols across the country. Red and blue states alike are moving to dismantle outdated, exclusionary, and often racially tinged zoning rules that have long prevented new housing from being built at the scale we desperately need.
The result? An unexpected wave of bipartisan housing reform that is reshaping the balance of power between state governments and the localities that have often stood in the way of progress.
The Governing article by Jared Brey outlines this shift with clarity. From Connecticut to Texas, from California to Montana, legislatures are advancing sweeping bills designed to reduce local red tape, encourage denser development, and—most importantly—get more housing built.
For those of us waiting for change—this is a signal that, while change has been slow in coming, its time has arrived.
The Status Quo Is Broken
For decades, cities and suburbs—particularly wealthier, whiter ones—have used zoning codes to wall themselves off from growth. Minimum lot sizes, restrictive parking requirements, bans on multifamily housing, and procedural hurdles to permitting have been wielded as tools of exclusion. These local controls have led to housing scarcity, rising costs, and growing inequality.
As Michael Andersen of the Sightline Institute put it, “Change is scary, and yet we’re all dealing with the consequences of the status quo.” Those consequences include record-low vacancy rates in places like Connecticut and out-of-reach home prices in California. In a society where housing is the single largest cost for most families, these barriers to supply have become intolerable.
That’s why the Connecticut bill now awaiting Gov. Ned Lamont’s signature is so significant. It doesn’t just tinker at the margins. It assigns each town a target number of housing units and compels them to zone accordingly. It removes parking minimums, eases conversions from commercial to residential, and promotes transit-oriented development.
As Rep. Antonio Felipe put it, “We tried to do many things at the same time.”
And that’s exactly the right approach—because the problem is systemic.
A National Trend, Not Just a Coastal One
Importantly, this wave of housing legislation is not confined to liberal strongholds.
Texas has passed bills to legalize housing in commercial zones and reduce minimum lot sizes.
Montana, led by Republicans, has implemented what some are calling the “Montana Miracle”—a suite of Yes in My Backyard reforms that restrict local zoning powers.
Florida and New Hampshire are moving in the same direction.
The Mercatus Center’s Salim Furth has tracked hundreds of such bills. Dozens have already passed, and more are expected. About a third of them streamline permitting, while others update building codes, legalize accessory dwelling units, or allow multifamily buildings with modern safety standards like single staircases.
The common theme is this: states are stepping in where cities have failed. They are asserting that housing is not just a local issue—it is a regional and even statewide concern.
When exclusionary zoning in one city spills over into housing shortages and homelessness in another, it becomes the state’s problem. And increasingly, states are recognizing their responsibility to act.
The Political Fault Lines Are Shifting
Of course, the backlash is real. Connecticut’s bill, though passed by a Democratic majority, has drawn opposition not only from Republicans but from suburban Democrats worried about political fallout.
Gov. Lamont reportedly wants revisions amid pressure from local officials. In California, cities have sued the state over its aggressive housing mandates—and lost.
Yet the logic of state intervention is hard to ignore. As Furth put it, “You can get a lot further if you do one thing at the state level than if you go town by town.”
This is the nature of structural reform. It will always face pushback from those who benefit from the status quo. But as affordability worsens and economic opportunity shrinks, the costs of inaction become too high to bear.
What’s more, there’s growing recognition that housing reform is key to a functioning democracy.
When people can’t afford to live near where they work, when they are priced out of good schools and safe neighborhoods, when they’re pushed into homelessness or overcrowded apartments, their civic engagement suffers. Housing is foundational.
Cities Must Step Up—or Step Aside
To be clear, states cannot solve the crisis alone. Local governments still control much of the implementation. They can choose to support the spirit of these new laws—or they can undermine them through delay, obstruction, or litigation.
As California’s experience shows, aggressive state action invites resistance. But it also shows that enforcement matters. The state has begun suing cities that flout housing mandates, and those legal victories have strengthened the hand of reformers. If more states follow suit—with not just bold laws, but bold enforcement—then change may finally stick.
This year’s flurry of legislative victories should be celebrated. They reflect a profound shift in how we view land use, housing rights, and the role of government. But the next phase will require vigilance. Advocates, lawmakers, and residents alike must push to ensure that these reforms translate into real homes for real people.
Because at the end of the day, housing policy is not just about units or zoning—it’s about dignity, opportunity, and who gets to belong. The states are showing courage. It’s time for cities to do the same.
From article: ” . . . localities that have often stood in the way of progress.”
Definitely don’t want to get in the way of “progress”.
From article: “To be clear, states cannot solve the crisis alone. Local governments still control much of the implementation. They can choose to support the spirit of these new laws—or they can undermine them through delay, obstruction, or litigation.”
The latter, I hope – since I’m against “progress”.
From article: “Cities Must Step Up—or Step Aside”
Or as George W. might have said, “you’re either with us, or again’t us”.
From article: “Of course, the backlash is real. Connecticut’s bill, though passed by a Democratic majority, has drawn opposition not only from Republicans but from suburban Democrats worried about political fallout.”
They’re not “worried about political fallout”. They’re OPPOSED to the corporate interests screaming about a fake housing shortage.
In other words:
“How did such a powerful consensus come together? As the saying goes, follow the money. Government subsidies and tax breaks for housing construction makes real estate developers fabulously wealthy. Banks, realtors, and corporate builders prosper from new construction, too. These industries’ fingerprints are all over the reams of reports and articles claiming that we must build our way out of the housing crisis. As Politico reported in November, “Lobbyists are scrambling to get help from Washington to goose the housing market.”
“Maybe we should listen instead to the housing experts whose bank accounts don’t get a boost every time a crane goes up.”
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/affordable-housing-crisis
“The result? An unexpected wave of bipartisan housing reform that is reshaping the balance of power between state governments and the localities that have often stood in the way of progress.”
So, authoritarian top-down control fueled by developer money and tooled by persons such as yourself and Mr. Wiener and all your little minions. And I think to myself, what a wonderful world :-|
“Change is scary, and yet we’re all dealing with the consequences of the status quo.”
Ahhhh yes . . . the ‘fear of change’ wording . . . straight out of the YIMBY playbook.
Join Our Neighborhood Voices. Fight the Authoritarian Power Takeover over local control.
I dont know that I see it in such black and white terms as Alan.
After all, “local control” in our case just means “a citizen veto”. which really doesn’t constitute “control”
As boss tweed from Tamany hall is reported to have said: ” I dont care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating”. Being able to say “no” to bad proposals is not the same thing as control over how our city actually evolves. We don’t for example, ever get to express a preference for what we DO want to build – the developers get to do that, and that is the biggest part of the problem here.
Im also reminded of a story from the former soviet union: Where a factory in the Ural mountains was given a quota to produce a certain number of bolts, but not given much steel to use. So they made the requied number of bolts… but tiny ones.. – ones that werent much in demand at all.
Did they fill their quota? yes. Did they actually help anyone? No.
This is the kind of thing you got when a government did central planning… really dumb requirements that dont take actual demand into perspective, and we are indeed in danger of a similar thing here when we allow ourselves to be motivated by fear of not fulfilling RHNA requirements.
Building single family homes that lose us money and dont actually help our displaced workforce, JUST for the sake of satisfying RHNA requirements, is just like building thousands of bolts that nobody needs. The best word to describe that mode of action is “stupid”
The middle ground between just a veto and this a robotic production of the wrong kind of housing would indeed be local planning, preferably city master planning, but failing that citizen planning if need be… which in our case is indeed the only remaining option.
The general gist of what you say *might* be true, if there was an actual shortage of housing in the area.
But there isn’t a shortage, regardless of how you look at it, how you measure it, etc. The population itself is no longer increasing, much to the chagrin of those who “resist change”.
What we have here are special interests who have a motive in convincing others that there’s a housing shortage. And in your case, you want to “create” an actual shortage (increased demand) in regard to increasing the number of local employers. (Who would then hire someone from Elk Grove, assuming that their business plans are viable in the first place.)
I like the image, but note how there’s no “homeless” in the nice community to the left, but there is in regard to “Detroit” (or the Soviet Union) on the right.
I was recently in Sacramento (don’t go there much these days), and found that the homeless situation is even worse than it was before. (It almost felt like a ghost town in regard to the workers I used to see around there). And yet, Sacramento is a “cheap” city for California.
What we have here is societal dysfunction, not a shortage of buildings. Not when there’s International businessmen who own “vacation suites” in Manhattan, Hong Kong, San Francisco, Jackson Hole, etc.
But as usual, the system itself pits the poor vs. the middle class (the latter group being the only one that pays taxes and is forced to abide by rules).
“This is societal dysfunction, not a shortage of buildings.”
That’s a false dichotomy. The housing crisis isn’t either/or — it’s both societal dysfunction and a shortage of affordable housing. When median home prices are out of reach even for dual-income professionals — when it takes $200,000+ annual income to buy a starter home in many parts of California — we’re not just talking about empty units owned by international elites. We’re talking about constrained supply across every income bracket.
Unlike you (apparently), I have no problem with some locations (including entire states) costing more than other locations. (Though there obviously are vast differences within states, and often within cities.)
I believe there is a term for this: “the free market”.
But the bigger cause of all of this is due to pursuit of “economic development” (e.g., Silicon Valley as an example). And in that example, they can’t even find U.S. workers skilled-enough to fill all of their positions, so they recruit them from overseas. (Who then displace middle-class native-born Americans.) Personally, I don’t have a problem with that, even though that’s part of how I ended up in hot, flat valley towns.
Ironically, the skyscrapers in the background of that image are what led to that price. Though truth be told, that house would have been knocked-down by now, if that was an actual image.
What you have there is a nice, modest suburban house that wouldn’t survive with those images in the background. In other words, “missing middle” housing that gets displaced by (successful) economic development.
In any case, I say “don’t be afraid of change”, even if it means you end up in some place like Davis rather than the Bay Area.
There are no skyscrapers in Davis. I think you need to rethink your views here.
Davis housing prices are below the state median, as I recall.
That particular house would probably go for (I’m guessing) below $800K in Davis.
If in a desirable location in the Bay Area (e.g., Silicon Valley), I’d say around $2.5 million.
But if you have a solution regarding your perceived “problem” of the same house costing different amounts in different locales, please let me know.
Also, I think you’re ignoring this part of my comment:
“Though truth be told, that house would have been knocked-down by now, if that was an actual image” (regarding the skyscrapers in the background).
The only way that particular house would (only) be $850K is if the image of the skyscrapers in the background is Detroit. I think even Houston’s skyscrapers would cause that house to be either knocked down, or in the $850K range (as is).
TK say: ” I dont know that I see it in such black and white terms as Alan. After all, “local control” in our case just means “a citizen veto”. which really doesn’t constitute “control” ”
That’s not what I mean at all. I think the City Council should decided, not have the state tell them what to do, and I’m not a fan of Measure J because I think it’s bad law and an urban limit line is better planning. This isn’t even about what I think is best regarding growth, it’s about believing in local control, not citizen veto. If we had this Council without Measure J, I’m sure they would build way more than I’d like to see, but at least the state wouldn’t be telling us what to do, which is authoritarian to this ear.
Alan M. “If we had this Council without Measure J, I’m sure they would build way more than I’d like to see, . . . ”
That’s why the only “local control” that actually works is something like Measure J. And even then, a couple of proposals slipped through the “spanking machine”.
In fact, it used to be (and still is in most locales) that “local control” (pro-development councils) ARE the problem. That’s the exact reason why there was an enormous backlash against local (corrupt) control back in the 1960’s-1970s, in particular.
“Local control” would have destroyed Pt. Reyes, the Marin headlands, much of the rest of Marin and Sonoma counties – had “local control” not been removed from those people in the form of various ballot initiatives. (Back in the day when ballot initiatives were actually “grass-roots” initiatives, rather than paid shill initiatives.)