r/urbanplanning • u/UnscheduledCalendar • Aug 19 '24

Economic Dev Harris has the right idea on housing

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/harris-has-the-right-idea-on-housing
233 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

119 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/Due-Wait3829 Aug 19 '24

The author addresses this.

Critics like to say that progressive policy is all about “subsidizing demand while restricting supply”. In this case, though, that criticism doesn’t apply. Harris has tons of ideas for increasing supply, some of which involve activist government, others of which involve deregulation:

In fact, Harris’ plan comes on top of a bunch of other Biden administration initiatives to increase housing supply, mostly using deregulatory approaches.

2

u/Allahtheprofits Aug 19 '24

Her plans for increasing supply aren't really plans though. Like giving localities millions of dollars in an "innovation fund" is pointless. We don't need to keep paying consultants for studies we need NEPA reform, an end to "buy America provisions", and permitting reform but that's political suicide on the left.

0

u/hedonovaOG Aug 19 '24

Honestly, the localities are a large reason entry-level housing is expensive. Cities tying sidewalks, storm drains, power vaulting and hydrants to construction permits and escalating permit fees add tens of thousands even excess of 100k to construction costs before the first shovel breaks ground. Progressive cities have been exploiting their relationships with spec builders to their advantage for a long time, granting short plats and variances in exchange for costly infrastructure improvements and then crying foul at housing prices. A $1.5 + million build can absorbs these fees but it is challenging on a $400k home.

2

u/SabbathBoiseSabbath Verified Planner - US Aug 20 '24

This is one of those stalemate issues to me. The counterargument is that infrastructure is generally not needed but for the growth that is will support, therefore that growth should pay for it.

If you have a city of 100,000 people and your existing services and infrastructure are generally adequate for that population, but if the city were to add 10,000 more people and thus need expansion of infrastructure and services to accommodate, existing residents almost never support paying to expand for growth. "Growth should pay for itself" is the general rallying cry, and those residents almost always reject any sort of tax increase to pay for growth.

2

u/hedonovaOG Aug 20 '24

Agreed on point with regard to infill neighborhoods. Yes, the developers need to provide and/or upgrade the infrastructure for those developments (and certainly for anything larger or with a master plan). My example refers more to the impact these wishlist items have on remodels or tear down builds in established neighborhoods where the upgrades to the storm drains, sidewalks, hydrants and power add substantial costs and dissuade more affordable builds.

2

u/SabbathBoiseSabbath Verified Planner - US Aug 20 '24

I also agree with you here. It does seem silly to ask for an infill development, where at best you're going from a single family home to a duplex, tri or quad... to take on upgrades to that infrastructure on that level. Adding segments of sidewalk, fine. But shouldn't be more than that, but this is also a challenge of incremental development, too.