One reason the act has gained support is that it avoids preempting local zoning authority outright. Instead of overriding local control, the act focuses on research, guidance, and incentives for localities that choose to reform their zoning and regulatory frameworks. While this approach may seem like a balanced first step, it raises important questions about how far federal agencies should go in shaping local decisions. Incentives and guidance can easily evolve into indirect pressure, administrative burdens, or expectations that narrow the flexibility of states and localities. Even if all the bill’s provisions are implemented, it will not, on its own, significantly reduce price pressures. States and local governments still must reform their restrictive systems.

The ROAD to Housing Act utilizes a range of policy tools, grouped into four general categories: mandated reports, financial incentives for regulatory reform, adjustments to housing finance programs, and updates to existing federal supply-side initiatives. This bill takes the unusual step of focusing on expanding housing supply before turning to subsidy-heavy approaches, which marks a shift from many earlier federal housing proposals. Even with this emphasis on supply, the breadth of the bill makes it difficult to evaluate as a cohesive policy approach, and combining many unrelated programs into a single package increases the risk of mission creep, a problem common across federal housing initiatives.

New reports

A major component of the ROAD to Housing Act is its mandate for a series of reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department for Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Many of the reforms highlighted in these guidelines are supported by evidence, including reducing minimum lot sizes, parking reform, allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and streamlining both zoning and building codes. Collectively, these reports would be mandated by the Housing Supply Frameworks Act. The Housing Supply Frameworks Act is the portion of the broader bill that directs GAO and HUD to develop these reports and model guidelines, essentially serving as the research and planning section within the ROAD to Housing Act. However, federally curated guidance often becomes an informal standard that localities feel pressured to follow, even when local conditions differ. Analysts at institutions focused on federalism have frequently warned that benchmarking and advisory frameworks can grow into de facto expectations that add new bureaucratic oversight without meaningfully accelerating supply.

However, requiring research and monitoring by HUD and GAO into these reforms is not equivalent to enacting them. Local governments must implement these changes to enable supply adjustment, and that is where they are likely to encounter resistance. Knowing these barriers, this act goes one step further to nudge local governments toward enacting these proposed reforms.

Federal financial incentives for reform

Beyond requiring research, the ROAD to Housing Act establishes several incentives to local governments that expand their housing supply. Most notably, it establishes a $200 million “Innovation Fund,” which will be awarded annually by HUD to local governments that demonstrate measurable supply expansion from 2027 to 2031. Grants will range from $250,000 to $10 million and be awarded to no fewer than 25 recipients annually.

This could encourage cities to take on politically difficult zoning reforms. However, federal grants can also cause jurisdictions to prioritize actions that maximize eligibility rather than reforms that address the most significant structural barriers. Jurisdictions may make symbolic or superficial changes to qualify for funding while avoiding deeper reforms that could truly expand housing options. There is also the possibility that some jurisdictions will benefit from market-driven supply increases unrelated to any policy change, while others with genuine constraints receive little or no support.

In addition, the ROAD to Housing Act establishes several other grant programs to expand home supply through rehabilitation. Notably, the Whole-Home Repairs Act and the Revitalizing Empty Structures Into Desirable Environments (RESIDE) Act give grants and forgivable loans to low-income homeowners and small landlords looking to repair old or dilapidated structures, through differing avenues and terms. Further, under the Accelerating Home Building Act grants are provided to local governments to develop pre-approved designs. These grant programs are also to be administered through HUD. 

Rehabilitation programs help preserve aging housing and prevent the loss of existing units. Still, they do not meaningfully expand overall supply in markets where zoning and permitting rules limit the addition of new homes. The act also supports pre-approved building designs through the Accelerating Home Building Act. These efforts may help simplify parts of the construction process, but without broader zoning reform, pre-approved plans will not significantly expand supply. HUD’s growing portfolio of grant programs also raises concerns about administrative complexity.

Mortgage reform

The ROAD to Housing Act includes several demand-side tweaks to the existing housing finance landscape to aid accessibility. Included as part of the act are incentives to increase the role of small-dollar loan originators and the expansion of Title I loans to cover the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and the purchase or improvement of manufactured homes. Further, this act expands existing financial literacy programs.

While these may help certain borrowers, demand-side tools do not directly address the primary driver of high prices: inadequate supply in many communities. If supply does not increase, new lending programs can unintentionally raise prices by boosting purchasing power without increasing the number of available homes. Because the act also aims to encourage supply-side reform, the risk is smaller than in past demand-driven programs, but it still warrants caution.

Reforming existing housing programs

Finally, this act makes several positive adjustments to existing housing programs. For example, it lifts the cap on the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, which allows local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) to convert public housing into privately-managed Section 8 housing and is largely beneficial for tenants. Further, through the Build Now Act, it ties community block grants, one of the largest federal affordable housing and development grants, to broader housing supply, thereby again incentivizing land-use liberalization. Regarding private investments in affordable housing, it raises the cap on public welfare investments by banks, many of which directly support affordable housing initiatives.

This could encourage better land-use regulation, but it also imposes additional conditions on one of the largest federal development programs. The expansion of caps on public welfare investments for banks will likely increase private capital in affordable housing projects, though it also raises questions about the growing federal influence over private investment decisions.

Conclusion

Taken together, these provisions aim to connect federal programs more directly to local regulatory reform and affordable housing investment. The intent is to support voluntary action rather than mandate it. However, there is a real risk that expanding federal incentives, guidance, and grant programs will overshadow the need for comprehensive local reform. A meaningful improvement in housing affordability still depends on states and cities reducing exclusionary zoning, shortening permitting timelines, and updating outdated building codes. The ROAD to Housing Act identifies many contributors to high housing costs and encourages local governments to take action. The bill includes several positive elements, especially the emphasis on zoning reform and regulatory streamlining. At the same time, it carries risks of administrative expansion, program duplication, and indirect federal involvement in land use decisions. A balanced assessment should highlight both the promise and the pitfalls of the act. Federal guidance and financial incentives can only support affordability if they help remove barriers to housing expansion rather than add new layers of oversight. Genuine progress requires local and state governments to confront and reform the regulatory barriers that continue to limit housing supply

The post The ROAD to Housing Act carries promise but risks bureaucratic expansion appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida’s housing market is under severe strain. Median home prices now exceed $450,000, with more than half of renter households being cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their income on housing. This growing imbalance between home prices and income has made it difficult for workers and families to live near employment centers, schools, and essential services. Senate Bill 208 presents an opportunity to address these challenges by strengthening property rights, removing restrictive zoning barriers, and streamlining permitting processes so the private sector can respond effectively to housing demand.

We share the same goal as Chair McClain: strengthening property rights and improving housing affordability in Florida. Senate Bill 208 would do both.

Strengthening property rights and preempting restrictive zoning

Senate Bill 208 reinforces the right of property owners to determine the most productive use of their land within reasonable bounds of public safety. In many communities, outdated zoning codes prohibit the construction of multifamily housing or mixed-use development on land already suitable for such purposes. These restrictions prevent willing owners and developers from responding to demand, blocking the natural evolution of neighborhoods.

By preempting local governments from imposing unnecessary barriers to housing, this bill restores the decision-making authority of property owners. Property rights are a cornerstone of economic freedom and prosperity, and zoning should not be used to preserve exclusivity or prevent lawful, market-driven development. When local governments restrict property owners’ ability to adapt to changing needs, the result is higher costs, less competition, and fewer choices for Florida families.

Streamlining development and reducing bureaucratic delays

This bill also strengthens Florida’s commitment to reducing red tape in housing production. Lengthy and uncertain approval processes often increase project costs and discourage investment. By refining permitting timelines and creating greater consistency across jurisdictions, Senate Bill 208  provides predictability for builders and investors while ensuring transparency for residents.

A streamlined permitting process allows private developers to bring new housing online faster, reducing the mismatch between supply and demand. Every additional week or month of delay increases carrying costs, which are ultimately passed on to renters and buyers. Cutting unnecessary bureaucracy is one of the most effective ways to expand housing supply without adding new spending or subsidies.

Encouraging private investment

Senate Bill 208 relies on private-sector leadership rather than government intervention. The bill does not mandate specific outcomes but instead allows developers and property owners to respond to the market. By lowering barriers and creating predictability, the legislation encourages investment in a range of housing types that meet the needs of Floridians.

Developers, small builders, and local investors are best positioned to assess demand and deliver housing where it is needed most. A regulatory framework that aids development leverages the efficiency of markets rather than expanding state programs or long-term subsidies. Allowing the private market to function more freely aligns with Florida’s economic strengths.

Reducing labor market distortions

Restrictive local zoning not only limits housing supply but also distorts Florida’s labor markets. When workers cannot find housing near job centers, they are forced to live farther away, increasing commute times and reducing productivity. Employers, in turn, face higher recruitment and retention costs.

By removing these barriers and allowing more housing to be built near employment hubs, Senate Bill 208 helps align workforce availability with economic growth. The legislation will make it easier for workers to live closer to jobs, improving both household well-being and business competitiveness.

Consideration: Tax preferences

While Senate Bill 208 takes a strong step toward deregulation, it continues to rely in part on property tax exemptions to encourage housing production. Although these incentives can help offset regulatory costs, they can also create uneven advantages among developers and distort market neutrality. Florida should continue to focus on broad-based deregulation as the most effective and equitable way to promote housing supply, ensuring that all property owners benefit equally from a freer market.

Policy adaptation for Florida

Senate Bill 208 represents an important step forward in expanding housing opportunities and protecting private property rights in Florida. By curbing restrictive local zoning, streamlining permitting, and encouraging private investment, the bill empowers property owners and the market to respond to demand for housing.

Reason Foundation supports the passage of this legislation and encourages the Florida Legislature to continue leading the way in housing reform that respects individual freedom, limits government interference, and promotes economic growth.

The post Florida Senate Bill 208 would strengthen property rights and improve housing affordability appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Among the most influential yet overlooked aspects of the building code are its egress, or exit, requirements. In most jurisdictions, apartment buildings above three stories must include two separate staircases to allow occupants to evacuate during a fire. This rule originated in the early 20^th century, when fire spread rapidly through wood-frame structures and safety systems such as sprinklers and smoke containment did not yet exist. While the intent remains sound, ensuring safe escape during emergencies, the rule’s rigidity now limits the kinds of multifamily housing that can be built, particularly smaller and mid-rise apartments that fall between single-family homes and high-rise towers.

Although it may appear that revisiting these safety standards means trading safety for cheaper or easier construction, that is not the case. Modern building practices have advanced far beyond what older codes account for, and most developers are constructing safer buildings than ever before. Nearly all new multifamily projects include sprinkler systems, smoke detectors, pressurized stairwells, and fire-resistant materials that significantly reduce the risk of smoke, which remains the greatest danger associated with stairwell safety during a fire. Compartmentalized floor plans and automatic suppression systems further limit exposure and contain flames within a single unit. Research consistently shows that the number of staircases in a building is far less predictive of safety outcomes than the presence of these systems, which are now standard features in contemporary construction. This means that older, still-in-force regulations requiring multiple stairwells are less effective and redundant in light of new practices. Such redundancy leads to higher costs and fewer dwelling units than could be accomplished with more up-to-date requirements.

Many developed nations reflect this same understanding in their building codes. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, and Australia permit single-stair residential buildings well above the U.S. height limit of three stories, with research finding no higher fire-related risk. Canada, for example, allows such buildings up to six stories, while France permits them up to 16 stories, yet both maintain lower residential fire fatality rates than the U.S. The United States records roughly 1.1 residential fire deaths per 100,000 people, compared with 0.5 in the United Kingdom and 0.4 in Canada, despite their more flexible egress standards. This disparity in fire-related deaths suggests that comprehensive fire-safety strategies such as sprinklers, pressurized stairwells, and smoke containment are the true determinants of safety outcomes, not the number of staircases a building contains.

Design, livability, and housing supply

Revisiting the two-stair requirement could also improve spatial efficiency and expand housing options. A second staircase consumes valuable interior space, often lengthening corridors and reducing the number of possible apartments per floor. Further, when this constraint is removed, developers can construct dual-aspect units (apartments with windows on two sides), enhancing natural light, airflow, and livability. In one modeled comparison, the single-stair design accommodated 10 apartments per floor compared with nine in the two-stair version and provided six wheelchair-accessible units instead of four. The freed space can be used in different ways, whether for additional units, larger floor plans, or improved features and amenities, depending on how developers choose to design the building. This design flexibility also allows for a greater range of apartment types, including family-oriented two-, three-, and four-bedroom units, within a compact footprint.

Studies also indicate that single-stair mid-rise buildings with compact floor plates can reduce total construction costs by roughly 6% to 13% compared to similar dual-stair designs, further improving their financial viability.

From a policy standpoint, these design efficiencies can make development feasible on smaller or irregular infill lots, specifically the sites often left vacant in urban areas due to design restrictions. Grouping minimum lot size reform, density reform, and reforms allowing single-stair layouts could facilitate mid-rise “missing middle” housing—three- to six-story buildings that bridge the gap between single-family homes and large apartment complexes. Such buildings tend to integrate more harmoniously into existing neighborhoods while providing attainable homes near transit and employment centers.

Importantly, the discussion around affordability should recognize that cost savings derived from code flexibility can directly influence project feasibility. Reducing excessive internal space requirements does not compromise safety and allows resources to be reallocated toward quality finishes, energy efficiency, or additional units. Developers respond to both the profit motive and the cost structure imposed by regulation; adjusting those structures can stimulate new housing production at little to no cost to the taxpayer without direct subsidies.

Policy reform momentum and a balanced path forward

A growing number of jurisdictions are beginning to reexamine building codes through this lens. Seattle updated its building code in 2024 to allow single-stair buildings up to six stories when equipped with sprinklers, pressurized stairwells, and limited evacuation distances. Hawaii and Washington, D.C., are conducting similar studies, and New York City has initiated a review of its egress standards in light of advancements in suppression and smoke-control systems. These reforms reflect a shift toward performance-based regulation, where compliance is measured by safety outcomes rather than by prescriptive design rules.

Critically, reform efforts are proceeding with caution. Policymakers and fire-safety experts emphasize that single-stair layouts should remain limited to mid-rise buildings with comprehensive safety systems and robust construction materials. Evidence supports this threshold: both international practice and empirical testing indicate that buildings within this height range (three- to six-story buildings) can maintain safe egress conditions during fire events when modern systems are present.

Understanding that the greatest fire risks occur in older, noncompliant buildings reframes the debate. Encouraging new construction under contemporary codes not only adds housing but also improves safety overall by replacing aging, higher-risk structures. Updating the egress standard retires old, out-of-date rules that no longer enhance safety with proven modern safety engineering that also serves public needs for housing.

Building codes interact with zoning, permitting, and infrastructure requirements to shape the feasibility of new housing. When outdated internal standards persist, they inadvertently restrict production and inflate costs with no added benefit to anyone. Modernizing these codes allows cities to respond to both safety expectations and affordability challenges with equal rigor—an approach that’s both smarter and safer. Ultimately, the single-stair discussion is part of a broader movement to align building regulations with current technology and housing demand. The data show that under modern safety systems, single-stair mid-rises achieve comparable safety performance to traditional two-stair buildings simply through codifying already-standard practices. Updating the code to reflect that reality would not only encourage innovation but also ensure that new homes are built to the highest contemporary standards of safety, design, and livability.

The post The staircase rule that’s limiting housing growth appeared first on Reason Foundation.

In 2024, 33,974 homes were completed in new buildings across the five boroughs, including both market-rate and affordable units, the highest total since 1965, and the first time since 1966 that completions surpassed 30,000. Brooklyn accounted for 40% of the city’s new housing, while Manhattan trailed behind Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens for the third consecutive year. But while production is happening, it’s not happening evenly. New development continues to be concentrated in working-class and low-income neighborhoods, while wealthier areas with strong infrastructure and job access have largely shielded themselves from growth through zoning and legal resistance.

Where housing gets built, and who it’s built for, shapes the impact that an increased housing supply can have on the city. Working-class neighborhoods are seeing more construction, but much of it is targeted toward higher-income renters. With limited new housing in areas like the Upper East and Upper West Sides, wealthier renters are increasingly turning to the outer boroughs, where access to transit still offers convenient commutes, to find new homes. That dynamic intensifies demand in working-class neighborhoods, raising prices and accelerating displacement. If more housing were built in high-opportunity neighborhoods, even at market rates, it could help absorb demand that’s currently spilling into lower-income areas. In other words, building where we haven’t built before would relieve the pressure where it’s building up the most.

In SoHo, for example, a 2021 rezoning aimed at creating about 3,500 new apartments, including an estimated 900 affordable units, became one of the city’s most hotly contested land use debates. It was the first major rezoning under the de Blasio administration to focus on a wealthy, majority-white neighborhood after years of targeting lower-income Black and Latino areas. Opponents argued that the plan would encourage luxury development and alter the neighborhood’s character, even though most past rezonings have focused on historically marginalized communities. The backlash was so intense that lawsuits and protests continued even after the City Council’s approval.

The Upper West Side tells a similar story. A proposed 775-foot tower at 50 West 66th Street faced years of legal challenges, community petitions, and zoning appeals. Critics denounced the project’s use of oversized mechanical voids to inflate height, even though it complied with existing zoning. Meanwhile, at 200 Amsterdam, developers assembled a gerrymandered 39-sided zoning lot to push their tower to 668 feet, sparking a drawn-out legal battle that reached the New York Supreme Court. A judge initially ordered the top 20 floors removed, but the decision was reversed on appeal. These projects ultimately progressed but faced years of delays and increasing costs. It also sent the message that even by-right development encounters challenges in affluent areas.

On top of all this is the cost of simply getting housing approved and built. According to Turner & Townsend, it now costs more to build in New York City than anywhere else in the world, averaging $5,723 per square meter. Zoning changes can take more than two years through the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), and lawsuits under environmental laws can add two or three more. That six-year timeline can raise construction costs by more than a third, adding up to $67,000 per unit. Delays make it nearly impossible to provide affordable and middle-income housing without significant subsidies. Consequently, many developers will likely build only in areas with minimal resistance.

In a city where the most powerful neighborhoods can stall or kill housing with lawsuits, design complaints, and procedural roadblocks, it’s no surprise developers default to building in communities with fewer resources to push back. That’s exactly what’s happening. Working-class neighborhoods that have historically absorbed new housing are now facing growing pressure as higher-income renters move in, driving up rents and putting long-term residents at risk of displacement.

Rising demand and limited options have created pressure across the entire income ladder, not just at the bottom. Much of the new housing that is built is targeted toward high-income renters or tied to deeply subsidized units, leaving little for those in the middle. This “missing middle” includes moderate-income earners who earn too much to qualify for programs like housing vouchers or income-restricted affordable units, but not enough to afford market-rate rent in most neighborhoods. With few options available, many remain in rent-stabilized or modest older units that might otherwise serve lower-income families, further tightening supply at the bottom of the market.

Even rent control, which is intended to provide stability, can have unintended side effects that worsen the crisis. Because the benefit is tied to the unit instead of the renter, some tenants hold onto deeply discounted homes regardless of income level. Many of these apartments never return to the open market. And as demand spills over into the remaining unregulated stock, market rents climb even faster. Ironically, this pushes affordability further out of reach for the very people rent control was intended to help.

So yes, more housing is needed, but not just anywhere. The city continues to greenlight growth in specific neighborhoods while others remain off-limits, protected by outdated rules and political resistance. That uneven pattern deepens inequality and worsens the crisis for those already struggling.

To move forward, New York needs a more consistent, citywide framework that prevents wealthier areas from opting out of growth. That could mean strengthening state-level zoning mandates, reforming ULURP to limit discretionary approvals, or setting baseline density requirements for high-opportunity neighborhoods. Until the same rules apply across the board, efforts to address the housing crisis will continue to encounter the same roadblocks.

The post Resistance to zoning reform in NYC’s wealthiest areas comes at a citywide cost appeared first on Reason Foundation.

According to Freddie Mac, the U.S. needs to build approximately 3.7 million housing units to meet current demand. The National Low Income Housing Coalition reports an even more severe deficit of over seven million affordable units for extremely low-income renters. However, as the numbers illustrate the scale of the problem, solutions must take into account not only how much is built but also where new housing is located.

Only about 7.3% of federally owned land is located near high-demand urban areas where access to jobs, transportation, and services is concentrated. Most public land is geographically remote and lacks the infrastructure, such as roads, sewers, and utilities, needed to support housing development. Without these foundational elements, these parcels are not immediately viable for residential construction and may require significant public investment to become feasible. The inability to move the land into the market and to provide long-term public benefit assessments makes it difficult to ensure that the land would be any better used than it currently is, especially if it is not located near urban areas where demand and infrastructure already exist, or that the transfer would effectively address the housing crisis.

Meanwhile, legislative proposals such as Senator Mike Lee’s Helping Open Underutilized Space to Ensure Shelter (HOUSES Act) raise important questions about how public land is allocated and whether these transfers serve broader housing goals. The Act would allow federal land to be sold to states at below-market rates, with minimal federal oversight. While the land would remain government-owned, now by the states, there is no requirement that it be developed at all, let alone for housing. Without mechanisms to ensure that transferred land is brought into the market where housing is needed or used efficiently in high-demand regions, it is unclear whether such transfers would represent a meaningful improvement over the status quo or contribute to alleviating the housing shortage.

Worse, these transfers could promote land banking or speculative holding by local governments, especially if there is no urgency or incentive to develop. They may also reduce public accountability by transferring oversight to state-level institutions without clear guidelines. In regions with inadequate infrastructure or immediate housing demands, this strategy risks creating bureaucratic inefficiencies instead of producing real results.

Rather than pursuing large-scale transfers of remote public lands, a more promising strategy is to focus on well-located opportunities already within reach. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has identified Florida, Massachusetts, Washington, Texas, and California—states with both high housing demand and substantial amounts of developable public land—as areas of opportunity. If these parcels were developed at a low density of seven units per acre, they could yield approximately 1.9 million new housing units. At a higher density of 25 units per acre, that number increases to 6.9 million units.

Of course, enabling more housing also means confronting the rising costs of construction. Tariffs on imported materials—including lumber, drywall, and appliances—have added between $7,500 and $10,000 to the cost of building a single-family home, with lumber alone accounting for nearly $5,000 of that increase. These figures could increase if the Trump administration ends up moving forward with high tariffs as promised.

The increased costs from tariffs are passed on to consumers, pushing homes further out of reach for middle- and lower-income buyers. Although the administration has announced plans to expand domestic manufacturing of construction materials, these efforts will take years to materialize, if they materialize at all. Currently, high costs continue to restrict the production of affordable housing at the necessary scale.

Proponents of using federal land for housing sometimes argue that these lands offer a workaround to local zoning barriers. A 2024 task force co-chaired by Utah Governor Spencer Cox noted that federal lands are not subject to local zoning and permitting processes, making them attractive sites for expedited development. And if federal lands were simply transferred from federal to state ownership, zoning rules might then apply. Cox’s argument highlights the challenges of municipal-level obstruction, but it does not address the root issue: restrictive local land-use policies that constrain housing supply in urban areas.

A more effective long-term solution involves reforming local zoning laws and streamlining the permitting process rather than bypassing local governance altogether. Coordinating efforts among federal, state, and local authorities to promote infill housing, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and mixed-use development near transit hubs and job centers would be more beneficial for improving housing access than prioritizing undeveloped remote lands.

A targeted, flexible approach

One way to effectively address the housing crisis is for policymakers to prioritize the following actions:

1. Expedite infill development in areas that already have existing infrastructure.

2. Roll back exclusionary zoning and outdated land use restrictions that restrict the supply of housing.

3. Allow development by right for conforming projects, speed up permitting processes, and minimize development fees.

4. Adapt underutilized commercial properties and buildings for residential use.

5. Support partnerships with churches, nonprofits, and other mission-driven landowners to create new housing opportunities in urban and transit-accessible areas.

As policymakers explore strategies to expand the housing supply, it’s important to consider not just how much land is available but also where it is, whether it can be developed affordably, and how its use aligns with long-term public priorities. Rather than treating land as the missing ingredient, the real opportunity lies in removing the barriers that prevent us from building housing where people need it most.

The post Public land is not a silver bullet for the housing shortage appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This ambiguous relationship, where Puerto Rico is governed by the U.S. but not fully integrated, has contributed to market distortions, driven up costs, and restricted economic growth. Policies like the Jones Act and federal oversight through the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) have made it more difficult for Puerto Ricans to afford housing. Additionally, the archipelago’s limited autonomy hinders the development of local solutions. As a result, Puerto Rico is caught in a cycle of displacement, rising costs, and dependency due to structural barriers beyond the scope of local policymakers. Resolving the question of political status would not only address long-standing constraints of self-determination but would also open the door to more comprehensive and effective housing strategies.

The roots of Puerto Rico’s housing crisis

Puerto Rico’s housing crisis is a result of long-standing displacement and property challenges. Many residents have migrated to the U.S. in search of better economic opportunities, a trend that intensified after Hurricanes Irma and María devastated the archipelago in 2017. A significant barrier to recovery is that many Puerto Ricans do not have formal property deeds. This often results from generational land subdivisions and verbal agreements that were never officially recorded. As a result, many were denied disaster aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), preventing them from rebuilding and deepening housing instability.

The combination of natural disasters, economic decline, and policy failures has led to widespread property abandonment. Today, Puerto Rico has the highest number of vacant properties in the U.S., with nearly 30% of housing units either abandoned or not on the market, far surpassing states like Maine and Vermont. Rather than using these vacant units to meet local housing needs, policy decisions have made the market more attractive to outside interests than to Puerto Ricans themselves.

At the same time, policy decisions favoring outside investors over local residents have further distorted the housing market. Act 22, part of Puerto Rico’s tax incentive program, allows U.S. investors to move to the archipelago and pay zero federal or local taxes on their capital gains and passive income. While the intent is to attract investment, the policy prioritizes wealthy newcomers at the expense of Puerto Ricans, many of whom are priced out of their own communities. Although Act 22 is a local law, it reflects the broader limitations imposed by Puerto Rico’s political status. As a U.S. territory, the archipelago has limited authority to develop economic strategies or trade policies that serve the long-term interests of its people. With greater autonomy, Puerto Rico could pursue global investment on its own terms, without relying on incentives that benefit outsiders more than residents.

This tension between attracting capital and protecting residents is at the heart of the housing crisis, especially when policies are designed without full political or economic self-determination. As a result, this approach has created a lopsided market where incoming investors benefit from special treatment, while everyday Puerto Ricans face high energy costs, rising home prices, and limited access to capital. The government’s preferential treatment of these outside actors has shaped a housing system that caters to profit-driven speculation, not long-term stability or affordability for local residents. And even when Puerto Rican leaders try to implement reforms, they’re often constrained by federal oversight or denied the autonomy needed to respond effectively to the archipelago’s housing needs.

These broader economic limitations are not abstract—they show up in people’s daily lives and in the affordability crisis unfolding across the archipelago. In 2024, average home prices increased by 15%, with the typical home now costing $221,824. New homes surged even more—by 20%—reaching an average price of $351,407. Meanwhile, Puerto Rican families earn only 61% of the income needed to qualify for a mortgage, and the median household income is just $25,621. Homeownership is becoming increasingly out of reach, and renters are also facing financial pressure. These dynamics are pushing people out of their communities, driving up displacement, and worsening the cycle of abandonment.

PROMESA and Puerto Rico’s constrained fiscal authority

In 2016, Congress enacted PROMESA in response to the archipelago’s $72 billion debt crisis. The law established the Financial Oversight and Management Board (FOMB), commonly referred to as La Junta, to oversee Puerto Rico’s finances and restructure its debt.

But the roots of the crisis run deeper. For years, locally elected leaders avoided making hard decisions, delayed structural reforms, and allowed dependency on federal funds to grow. Rather than addressing the growing debt when it was still manageable, they allowed problems to build until outside intervention became unavoidable, leaving Puerto Rico vulnerable to the kind of fiscal oversight that PROMESA now imposes. Since its implementation, PROMESA has prioritized debt repayment, often at the expense of public services and long-term investment. More than 600 public schools have closed, funding for the University of Puerto Rico has been drastically cut, and many essential services have been reduced. These cuts have made it more difficult to recover from disasters, invest in affordable housing, or establish stable economic conditions.

Puerto Rico’s limited political power exacerbates this challenge. Unlike U.S. states, the archipelago lacks full representation in Congress and doesn’t control its fiscal future. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (FOMB) members hold sweeping authority, but they’re not elected by or accountable to Puerto Ricans, deepening the sense of disconnection from those making critical decisions that affect daily life. This is similar to what happened in Greece during its debt crisis, when external creditors imposed harsh austerity policies that led to deep cuts and long-term consequences. In both cases, fiscal control by outside actors, regardless of intent, has made it nearly impossible to prioritize long-term recovery while meeting short-term repayment demands.

Ultimately, PROMESA is a symptom, not the root cause. It reflects the long-term consequences of failed leadership but also underscores what happens when a place lacks both economic autonomy and the political power to chart its own path forward.

Other federal policies that fuel the crisis

Several federal laws further limit Puerto Rico’s capacity to respond to its housing crisis:

1. The Jones Act and its impact on the cost of living

The Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920) is a federal law requiring that all goods shipped between U.S. ports be transported on U.S.-built, owned, and operated vessels. This restriction has made Puerto Rico one of the most heavily impacted regions, driving up shipping costs and limiting trade efficiency.

A recent study by economists Russell Hillberry and Manuel I. Jimenez, published by the Cato Institute, estimates that the Jones Act imposes an annual burden of $1.4 billion on Puerto Rico, effectively functioning as a 30.6% tariff on shipping. Puerto Rican consumers alone shoulder $692 million of this cost annually— a hidden financial burden that has rivaled or exceeded typical U.S. tariffs on imports in recent years, and may become even more painful as new tariffs take effect. Additionally, the law increases the cost of investment by $403 million per year, discouraging economic growth and making housing and infrastructure development even more expensive.

This means that construction materials, appliances, and essential goods are significantly more expensive in the housing market, making homebuilding and renovations increasingly unaffordable. It also disrupts supply chains, leading to delays in disaster recovery efforts. Despite numerous calls for reform over the years, the Jones Act continues to be in effect, disproportionately affecting Puerto Rico while failing to provide the intended national security benefits.

2. Federal disaster aid and housing recovery

Puerto Rico’s territorial status has limited its access to federal disaster aid, especially after major hurricanes. Unlike U.S. states, Puerto Rico receives FEMA and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) disaster funding under different conditions and often faces longer delays. After Hurricane María, over 330,000 FEMA applications were initially denied, with around 79,000 rejections tied to a lack of formal property deeds. Many Puerto Ricans inherit property informally through generational arrangements, leaving them without official titles. As a result, thousands were deemed ineligible for aid and unable to rebuild, deepening housing instability and fueling migration to the mainland.

In addition to the FEMA denials, the federal government’s overall response was slow and uneven. This contributed to a wave of displacement and abandonment of homes across the archipelago. Bureaucratic hurdles and additional layers of oversight uniquely applied to Puerto Rico delayed the disaster recovery process by over $20 billion in HUD disaster mitigation funds. Internal reviews later confirmed that HUD’s own policy bottlenecks also played a significant role in delaying the disbursement of urgently needed aid.

3. HUD and Section 8 housing funding disparities

Beyond disaster recovery, Puerto Rico continues to face long-standing disparities in federal housing assistance. Despite a poverty rate of over 40%—more than double that of the poorest U.S. states—the archipelago receives less federal housing support per capita than many places with fewer challenges. In FY 2024, Puerto Rico’s Public Housing Administration received approximately $178 million from HUD’s Capital Fund. However, this level of support falls short when measured against the scale of need across the archipelago.

One reason is that HUD’s funding formulas are based on data sets and criteria tailored for the 50 states, often failing to accurately reflect Puerto Rico’s economic conditions. These formulas can underrepresent the severity of poverty, housing insecurity, and infrastructure needs in the territory. Puerto Rico also faces recurring delays in accessing HUD funds—even when allocated—due to administrative complexities and overlapping federal oversight. These structural barriers have left Puerto Rican residents with fewer affordable rental options and little recourse in the face of rising housing costs.

4. Energy and infrastructure costs drive up housing expenses

Puerto Rico has some of the highest electricity costs in the U.S., with residents paying 23.77 cents per kilowatt-hour as of 2024, 41% higher than the U.S. national average of 16.88 cents per kWh. The high costs are primarily caused by a mix of fuel price fluctuations, regulatory inefficiencies, and Puerto Rico’s limited capacity to negotiate energy trade agreements due to its territorial status. Additionally, the Jones Act contributes to these elevated costs by mandating that imported fuel be transported on expensive U.S.-flagged ships, which restricts the archipelago’s ability to pursue cheaper alternatives.

While home prices in Puerto Rico are rising, high electricity costs make homeownership and renting less affordable. Frequent power outages and infrastructure failures add further financial strain, and under PROMESA, debt repayment has taken priority over critical energy investments. As Northeastern University Professor Laura Kuhl explains, “It’s impossible to understand anything about energy policy in Puerto Rico without acknowledging how much of its colonial relationship impacts all decision-making and all aspects of daily life.”

Recently, a loophole in the Jones Act allowed Puerto Rico to begin receiving U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) via an older U.S.-flagged ship built before 1996. While this marks the first LNG shipment from the mainland in years and may bring some savings, it’s no long-term solution. The vessel, American Energy, is over 30 years old and costly to operate, far less efficient than modern tankers.

A sovereign path to housing stability

Puerto Rico’s current territorial arrangement makes it extraordinarily difficult to address the housing crisis in any meaningful or lasting way. Federal laws like the Jones Act inflate the cost of importing construction materials, food, and basic goods, making life and homebuilding more expensive across the board. PROMESA, the federally imposed fiscal control board, continues to prioritize debt repayment over basic investments in housing, infrastructure, and energy. Without the legal authority to restructure its own economy, Puerto Rico remains trapped in a cycle of dependence that blocks locally driven solutions.

Independence would give Puerto Rico the ability to negotiate its own trade agreements and diversify its economy beyond the limitations of U.S. policy. It would enable Puerto Rico to design tax structures that serve the long-term interests of Puerto Ricans, instead of catering to wealthy outsiders. Rather than relying on flawed incentive programs like Act 22, Puerto Ricans could support local business development and create housing strategies rooted in the needs of their own communities, not the priorities of distant investors. Sovereignty would also give Puerto Rico the power to restructure its energy sector, invest in resilient infrastructure, and revitalize the thousands of abandoned properties that sit unused while families struggle to find affordable places to live.

Statehood, by contrast, would not necessarily resolve these foundational challenges. Many U.S. states are already grappling with federally induced housing crises driven by zoning restrictions, sluggish disaster aid, and inequitable HUD formulas. Statehood would not give Puerto Ricans the full decision-making power to design an economic future tailored to their specific and unique needs. Transferring oversight from one distant government to another would still leave Puerto Rico without the sovereignty to shape policies based on its unique context.

Ultimately, Puerto Rico’s housing crisis is not just a matter of policy inefficiencies—it’s a question of control: a question of who gets to decide what kind of future Puerto Rico builds, and for whom. For decades, its housing system has been influenced by external interests, resulting in displacement, speculation, and increasing inequality. Families are being priced out of their neighborhoods, and young people are leaving Puerto Rico in search of opportunities that should be available at home. Communities that have existed for generations are disappearing.

Sovereignty is not just a political concept; it is a practical means of safeguarding communities and ensuring that Puerto Rico serves the needs of its residents. The island must have the authority to protect what it has built, address what has been overlooked, and create a future where staying is not only possible but also sustainable.

The post Puerto Rico’s housing crisis is no accident—it’s by design appeared first on Reason Foundation.

For decades, restrictive zoning laws and limited housing development have left the middle class few options. The types of housing that once provided affordability—townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings—are now rare. Instead, New Jersey’s housing market has largely focused on luxury high-rises or subsidized low-income units, leaving middle-class buyers and renters priced out or stuck in homes that no longer meet their needs.

To tackle the crisis, Gov. Phil Murphy signed Senate Bill S50, a landmark housing bill, into law in March 2024. S50 expands the housing supply by allowing for greater density and streamlined development processes in key areas. The law replaces the previous court-driven process for determining affordable housing obligations with a more structured system under the Mount Laurel doctrine, a legal mandate requiring New Jersey towns to provide their fair share of affordable housing based on regional needs. This new system establishes a clearer method for calculating each municipality’s housing requirements and sets up a faster dispute resolution process to address challenges. These changes are intended to make it easier for towns to meet their obligations while ensuring that more affordable housing gets built across the state.

Yet, despite these advancements, the new law has faced strong opposition. A coalition of 27 suburban towns has filed a lawsuit to block the law, claiming that it imposes an unfair burden on their communities by requiring development without sufficient infrastructure support. These arguments highlight common misconceptions about zoning reform.

The role of public opinion in housing resistance

Public meetings play a key role in shaping housing policy at the local level. However, these meetings are often dominated by voices of opposition that do not represent the broader community. Research from the American Journal of Political Science analyzed 40,000 public comments at municipal meetings and found that participants are disproportionately wealthier, older, and more likely to be homeowners​ than their communities’ average demographics. This is significant because homeowners, compared to renters, are more likely to oppose new housing, especially when proposed in their neighborhoods.

This pattern is evident in the same lawsuit filed by 27 towns seeking to overturn the housing law in New Jersey. These municipalities argue they are being forced to accept an unfair share of housing while urban areas are exempt. However, courts have repeatedly denied their attempts to delay implementation, ruling that they did not provide sufficient legal grounds to justify pausing the law while their case is decided. These towns make up fewer than 5% of all municipalities in New Jersey, but their concerns reflect broader debates about zoning reform and housing policy.

Opponents may incorrectly assume that affordable housing will drastically change suburban communities for the worse. Public meetings often become echo chambers for opposition, with discussions centering around exaggerated fears of overcrowding, crime, and declining property values. However, research has consistently shown that allowing more housing—especially middle housing like townhomes and duplexes—helps stabilize costs and prevent displacement. The alternative is stagnation: Housing shortages continue, prices rise, and more middle-income families leave New Jersey for more affordable areas elsewhere.

Common misconceptions about zoning

A major obstacle to housing reform is the widespread misunderstanding of zoning laws and their impact. Many believe that zoning regulations help protect neighborhoods, prevent overcrowding, and ensure orderly development.

While zoning can serve these purposes, research shows that it is also frequently used to block housing growth and maintain artificial housing scarcity, which drives up costs.

Here are some of the most common zoning misconceptions:

Zoning prevents overburdened infrastructure. Many towns argue that increasing housing density will overwhelm roads, schools, and utilities. In reality, restrictive zoning does not stop population growth—it simply pushes it elsewhere. This leads to longer commutes, increased traffic congestion, and urban sprawl, ultimately affecting the towns resisting development. Workers are forced to live farther away, so they still rely on the same regional infrastructure—driving on local roads, using nearby hospitals, and straining transportation networks. Managing services and infrastructure for growing populations is a fundamental responsibility of local governments, and many towns across the country have successfully adapted. When municipalities claim they cannot accommodate growth, it often reflects governance challenges rather than an inherent inability to provide services.

Zoning preserves community character. This phrase is often used to justify opposition to new housing. Still, it usually serves as a cover for exclusionary policies that keep certain groups—frequently lower-income residents—out of specific neighborhoods. Many zoning laws were initially designed to segregate communities by race and class, and today, they continue to disproportionately impact renters and middle-income families by limiting affordable housing options. These restrictions also infringe on property rights by preventing owners from selling, renting, or modestly increasing density on their land, using government power to enforce stagnation rather than allowing market choices.

New housing will lower property values. Homeowners frequently oppose new development, fearing that their property values will decline. Housing shortages create volatility—when demand surges but supply remains stagnant, prices skyrocket, making homes unaffordable and increasing the risk of sharp market downturns. This kind of instability can hurt homeowners in the long run. A steady supply of new housing helps prevent these extreme price swings, keeping property values more predictable and sustainable.

Restrictive zoning protects quality of life. While zoning can help separate industrial uses from residential areas, overly restrictive zoning limits housing choices and forces workers to live far from their jobs. This leads to longer commutes, increased transportation costs, and reduced economic opportunity. In contrast, allowing more housing diversity—such as duplexes and townhomes—creates more walkable, vibrant communities.

What’s at stake: The cost of not building enough housing

New Jersey is already one of the most expensive states for renters. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, a full-time worker in New Jersey must earn $38.07 per hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment at fair market rent—far beyond what many middle-class workers make. A minimum-wage worker would have to work 84 hours a week just to afford a one-bedroom apartment.

Prospective homeowners face just as severe challenges. The median home price in New Jersey now exceeds $535,000, and in North Jersey, costs are even steeper. In Hoboken, the average home value is approximately $780,000, showing a 2.9% increase over the past year. In Jersey City, the average home value is $620,800, marking a 6.7% rise in the same period. 

Despite these rising costs, demand remains high. Even as affordability forces some residents to leave, North Jersey continues to attract new arrivals drawn by its proximity to New York City. But the housing crisis is not just about affordability—it’s about availability. Without enough housing to meet demand, prices will keep rising, pushing middle-income families out of the state and forcing low-income renters into housing instability.

The lawsuit brought by 27 towns in New Jersey highlights the ongoing resistance to housing reform despite clear evidence that increasing supply is the only sustainable solution. While opponents argue that the new law places an unfair burden on their communities, the reality is that restrictive zoning and development barriers have fueled the affordability crisis that is displacing residents across the state. With home prices and rents continuing to rise, New Jersey cannot afford to stall progress. The longer municipalities resist reform, the worse the crisis will become—forcing more middle-income families out, deepening economic inequality, and making stable housing even harder to find. Addressing these challenges requires a commitment to policies that expand housing options, lower costs, and keep the state livable for all residents—not just those who can afford it.

The post Why opposition to New Jersey’s housing reform is misguided appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Beyond the failures of addiction policy, housing scarcity—driven by excessive government regulation—has made it nearly impossible for many to escape homelessness. Restrictive zoning laws, costly permitting requirements, and government-imposed limits on housing supply have driven up rent prices, placing housing increasingly out of the financial reach of many Americans. 

Homelessness and substance use disorders (SUDs) are deeply intertwined, with problematic use of opioids, stimulants, and alcohol disproportionately affecting unhoused populations. Those who are homeless face a significantly higher risk of fatal overdose. Studies show that a 10% rise in homelessness is correlated with a 3.2% increase in opioid poisonings in metropolitan areas. 

Government mismanagement of housing and development policies, marked by excessive zoning laws, building restrictions, and ineffective public housing programs, has made it increasingly hard for the vulnerable to find shelter. Secure housing, healthcare access, and harm reduction services are essential for reducing the risks of overdose and infectious diseases while enhancing the chance for a healthier life. When the challenges of life on the street are compounded by addiction, recovery becomes exponentially more difficult.

Integrating harm reduction strategies with housing first models may create a sustainable path forward that is both compassionate and effective in addressing this socio-medical crisis. However, for housing first to succeed, cities must remove the artificial barriers that prevent housing construction in the first place.

The failure of shelters and short-term solutions

Rather than serving as a refuge, many traditional government-funded shelters impose rigid rules and entry requirements that create barriers to access, particularly for those struggling with addiction. Strict sobriety requirements, curfews, and limitations on personal belongings deter many from seeking help, leaving them in unsafe conditions on the streets. While these policies are often considered safety measures, they fail to account for the realities of addiction and frequently push individuals into encampments as a last resort. When these encampments are forcibly cleared, people often lose critical medications, leading to severe health crises such as untreated diabetes, withdrawal-related complications, and increased overdose risks.

But as encampments grow, cities respond by treating homelessness as a public nuisance rather than a housing crisis, resorting to encampment sweeps to make homelessness less visible. While encampments can create public health and safety concerns—blocking sidewalks, occupying parks, and straining sanitation services—sweeps do not address the root of the problem. Instead, they create a cycle of displacement without providing stable alternatives. The underlying issue remains: Without adequate housing options, encampments will persist. Addressing the housing shortage is the only long-term solution to both homelessness and the challenges encampments pose to public spaces.

Housing first: A proven yet underused solution

Housing first takes a different approach to providing shelter by removing abstinence-based conditions and providing immediate, stable housing. Unlike traditional shelters, housing first prioritizes rapid placement into permanent housing without preconditions, recognizing that stability is a prerequisite for long-term recovery. This model is grounded in the idea that providing housing first makes it easier for individuals to engage in substance use treatment, mental health care, and employment services, rather than expecting them to achieve stability while living on the streets. While some worry that lowering barriers to entry could lead to disruptive or unsafe situations, housing first programs approach these challenges by incorporating case management and support services to help residents maintain housing stability and address behavioral issues as needed.

Evidence supports the effectiveness of this approach. In Boston, a harm reduction-focused transitional housing program successfully combined low-barrier housing with on-site substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Unlike traditional shelters, this program did not require sobriety, yet 100% of participants engaged in case management, 49% received SUD treatment, and 25% transitioned to permanent housing within a year. This 25% transition rate is particularly impressive when compared to a systematic review of housing first programs, which found that only 27% of participants in traditional abstinence-based programs achieved stable housing within six months. It is particularly noteworthy that a single program achieved 93% of the combined outcomes of multiple programs. 

The Boston program also included a short-stay stabilization unit, allowing individuals experiencing withdrawal or medical complications to receive immediate care without needing to enter a hospital. Over the first year of the program, the number of opioid overdoses requiring emergency intervention decreased by 40% due to on-site care, and treatment retention significantly outpaced that of abstinence-based programs.

Similarly, a transitional housing program in Hawaii, where 74% of the homeless population had methamphetamine use disorder and 12% had opioid use disorder, demonstrated that integrating housing with on-site healthcare led to a 62% increase in mental health treatment engagement and a measurable decline in emergency room visits and overdoses.

However, the success of housing first approaches depends on proper implementation and support. Critics often point to Oregon’s Measure 110 as an example of failed drug policy reform. While Measure 110 decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs, the treatment and housing programs central to its success were never fully implemented as planned. This delay created a situation where drug decriminalization occurred without the necessary support structures in place, leading to misleading perceptions about the policy’s effectiveness. Housing first is not a standalone solution but part of a comprehensive approach requiring proper integration with other social services.

Why housing first can’t succeed without zoning reform

These findings reinforce what harm reduction advocates have long argued: Housing must be a starting point, not a reward for sobriety. Housing first programs follow this same principle, providing immediate housing with low barriers to entry while offering voluntary wraparound services.

Despite its proven effectiveness, housing first programs cannot succeed at scale without an adequate housing supply. Restrictive zoning laws, excessive permitting costs, and government-imposed density limits make it nearly impossible to construct affordable housing in the areas where it is needed most. Local governments wield significant power in shaping housing accessibility through land use policies, determining what can be built and where. Historically, these policies were often designed to exclude low-income individuals and people of color, with tools like single-family zoning used to block the construction of apartments and other affordable housing options. 

Today, restrictive zoning codes continue to limit the development of multifamily housing, including housing designated for those experiencing homelessness. Beyond single-family zoning, parking minimums, parcel size regulations, setback mandates, and other requirements further drive up construction costs, making housing and essential support services—such as mental health care and addiction treatment—more difficult to establish. The result is a landscape where communities with strict zoning policies see higher housing costs, more significant barriers to affordable development, and deeper racial and economic segregation.

Houston, Texas, provides a compelling case study of how a combination of housing first policies and a more flexible approach to land use can create effective solutions to homelessness. Houston is unique among major U.S. cities because it has never implemented formal zoning laws. This absence of restrictive zoning has allowed for a more flexible approach to housing development. As a result, it is easier to construct various housing types, including affordable units and transitional housing, which has kept home prices and rents reasonable and made housing homeless individuals easier. 

At the same time, Houston successfully implemented a housing first strategy in 2011, prioritizing getting people into stable housing without preconditions like sobriety or employment. The success of this approach has been bolstered by the city’s ability to build housing more freely. Together, these policies have contributed to a 68% reduction in chronic homelessness since 2011—demonstrating that reducing barriers to housing construction and housing access can create a more effective and scalable solution to homelessness.

Houston’s success is a direct result of its flexible zoning laws and lower housing costs, which make it dramatically cheaper to place individuals in stable housing than in cities like San Francisco. Unlike California’s restrictive zoning policies, which drive up housing costs and limit the supply of low-cost units, Houston’s flexible land-use regulations have fostered a greater availability of naturally affordable housing.

This difference is reflected in the cost of implementing housing first policies: Houston’s homeless service providers report that the total cost of housing and supportive services for one individual is between $17,000 and $19,000 per year, with only $12,000 going toward rent. In contrast, San Francisco spends between $40,000 and $47,000 per person annually, with housing alone costing as much as $35,000—nearly three times Houston’s cost. The reason is simple: San Francisco’s high rents, driven by restrictive zoning and artificial housing scarcity, make it nearly impossible to scale housing first programs efficiently. On the other hand, Houston has been able to house over 25,000 individuals, partly because its zoning laws encourage more housing development, ensuring an ongoing supply of affordable units.

What policymakers must do to end this crisis

To effectively address the intersection of drug policy and housing instability, the following recommendations are crucial:

Drug policy recommendations

Invest in harm reduction-focused housing

Shelters and supportive housing programs should integrate harm reduction services, yet funding for low-barrier housing remains severely lacking due to systemic barriers. Many affordable housing subsidy programs are structured around developer-focused incentives that overlook harm reduction priorities, and Section 8 policies often lack the flexibility needed to support harm reduction services. Additionally, many nonprofit organizations face constraints such as insufficient funding, understaffing, and a shortage of available beds or housing units. Greater flexibility in existing funding structures would significantly expand access to vital services. Programs can be more effectively resourced by combining public dollars with charitable and private funding and leveraging local community organizations. Additionally, reallocating resources toward housing first models would further enhance service delivery. Research shows that harm reduction-informed housing leads to longer stays, greater health improvements, and higher rates of stable housing retention—outcomes that punitive models consistently fail to achieve.

Eliminate abstinence-based barriers to housing

Sobriety requirements exclude the very people most in need of housing stability, forcing many into unsafe encampments or public spaces. Homeless program policies should be reformed to ensure housing eligibility is not contingent on abstinence from drug use. Housing first models—which provide unconditional housing alongside voluntary treatment services—have higher retention rates, better long-term health outcomes, and lower overall public costs than abstinence-based programs. The idea is to help them get sober, not just demand that they do so on their own before providing help. Federal and local governments should incentivize the expansion of housing first initiatives that integrate harm reduction and medical care.

Expand access to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD)

Despite being some of the only treatment methods for opioid use disorder (OUD) currently permitted by the FDA, access to buprenorphine, naltrexone, and methadone remains severely restricted for unhoused individuals. Shelters and housing programs should expand low-barrier MOUD access, removing unnecessary requirements that delay or deny treatment. Programs that co-locate housing with MOUD services have been shown to reduce overdoses, improve treatment retention, and support long-term recovery. 

Housing policy recommendations

Eliminate zoning laws that restrict housing supply

Restrictive zoning laws have artificially constrained housing supply, driving up costs and worsening homelessness. Cities should phase out many single-family zoning restrictions, which prevent the construction of multifamily housing, and remove excessive lot size mandates, height restrictions, and parking minimums that inflate construction costs. Updating these outdated land-use policies will create a wider variety of housing options, including smaller-scale infill projects, mixed-use developments, and affordable multi-family housing.

Streamline permitting and approval processes

Burdensome permitting and approval processes lead to delays and increased costs, discouraging private investment in affordable housing. We can significantly reduce bureaucratic obstacles by implementing by-right approvals for housing projects that comply with local zoning and safety standards rather than requiring discretionary approvals. Lowering excessive impact fees and regulatory costs for developers building affordable housing will further encourage private sector participation in addressing this crisis.

Expand adaptive reuse of existing buildings

Transforming vacant commercial spaces, underused office buildings, and hotels is a cost-effective way to expand housing options for individuals experiencing homelessness. However, zoning regulations and building code restrictions often prevent these conversions. State and local governments should ease regulatory barriers that hinder adaptive reuse while maintaining basic habitability standards. Converting existing structures into transitional and permanent housing provides a faster, lower-cost alternative to new construction.

Empower community-driven housing solutions

Government agencies should remove legal barriers preventing churches, nonprofits, and private property owners from developing transitional housing, tiny home communities, and other alternative solutions tailored to local needs. Rather than imposing top-down mandates, policymakers should support public-private partnerships that enable flexible, community-led approaches to housing instability.

Housing first works—if we let it

The link between homelessness and addiction is undeniable, yet policymakers continue to treat them as separate crises. The failure of traditional approaches—rigid shelter policies, punitive encampment sweeps, and abstinence-based housing—has only worsened conditions for those most vulnerable. Housing first policies have already proven their ability to break this cycle, but even the best programs cannot succeed at scale without the necessary housing supply.

The reality is simple: We must build more housing to reduce homelessness. Houston’s success shows that when barriers to housing development are lifted, housing first can thrive—housing more people at a fraction of the cost compared to cities with restrictive policies like San Francisco. Housing first works. The only thing standing in its way is bad policy.

The post How bad housing policy fuels homelessness, and how to fix it  appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Local governments set parking space minimums or specific requirements in ordinances or when approving specific projects. They are largely based on manuals and guidance from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, which provide general rules of thumb for how many trips can be expected for a given use of land and how many parking spaces are needed to accommodate those expected trips. In the United States, parking takes up a significant amount of land, often placing greater importance on cars than on people. About 5% of urban land in the US is taken up by parking, and in Los Angeles, for example, the average square footage devoted to parking per car (3.3 spaces) is more than the average square footage of home per person.

The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy reports that parking minimums contribute to inefficient land use and higher infrastructure costs. What appears to be “free” parking for consumers is anything but—its costs are hidden within the price of apartment and condo buildings. Developers absorb these expenses upfront but ultimately pass them on to renters and buyers through higher residential rents and home prices, further exacerbating the housing affordability crisis.

This problem is especially burdensome for lower-income households, which often own fewer vehicles but are disproportionately affected by parking-related costs. Requiring one parking space for an apartment can raise rents by approximately 6% of the annual budget for households in the lowest income quintile, and two spaces can account for as much as 12% of their budget. Many of these households do not own vehicles, but minimum parking requirements mean there is no option to rent an apartment without parking, so it is particularly regressive and unfair.

These requirements highlight the inefficiency of mandating parking requirements that may not align with actual housing and transportation needs. While parking minimums do vary based on apartment size—typically requiring more spaces for larger units—they still impose rigid mandates on developers, regardless of whether that level of parking is necessary. This approach fails to account for the fact that some buildings may be designed for residents who rely on biking, public transit, or shared mobility options. By tying parking requirements solely to the number of bedrooms rather than actual demand, these rules stifle flexibility in housing development, increasing costs and limiting innovative, more affordable solutions. When cities or counties impose the same parking standards across diverse neighborhoods and communities, they overlook each area’s different transportation needs and housing demands. This approach stifles creativity and innovation in housing development, preventing more efficient and affordable solutions from happening.

Parking minimums place a heavy financial burden on the housing market. Donald Shoup, a prominent urban planning researcher and author of The High Cost of Free Parking, has extensively studied the economic impact of parking mandates. Shoup found that required off-street parking increases construction costs by an average of 53% for underground parking and 37% for above-ground parking. These significant cost increases make it harder to construct affordable housing, particularly in areas with high land prices. Beyond direct construction costs, excessive parking requirements contribute to a staggering amount of underutilized land. A study on parking inventories in major U.S. cities found that Seattle’s parking infrastructure alone is valued at $35.8 billion—roughly $118,000 per household—while Jackson, Mississippi, has a per-household parking cost burden of $192,000. Compared to cities like New York, where parking per household is valued at just $6,570, these figures highlight how some cities have prioritized parking over efficient land use. This dynamic drives up the overall cost of housing, limits the availability of affordable options for residents, and reinforces inefficient urban development patterns that make housing less accessible.

The advantages are evident in cities that have reduced or eliminated parking minimums. Developers gain greater flexibility in designing housing that meets actual market demand rather than arbitrary regulations. In Buffalo, New York, after eliminating parking minimums in 2017 through its Green Code, mixed-use developments included less than half the parking spaces that would have been required under previous mandates, allowing for more efficient land use and lower construction costs​. Researchers found that 68% of new homes permitted in Buffalo since the Green Code was implemented would have been illegal under the previous zoning code​, demonstrating that eliminating parking minimums allowed for housing that otherwise could not have been built. Similarly, Minneapolis saw a 20% decline in adjusted rents since 2017 after eliminating single-family zoning and parking mandates, making it one of the few major U.S. cities where housing affordability improved​. These reforms demonstrate that reducing regulatory barriers results in denser housing developments, lower development costs, and increased housing availability, all of which contribute to making cities more livable and affordable.

Recent legislative efforts, such as the “People Over Parking Act” introduced by Congressman Robert Garcia in 2023, aim to eliminate outdated parking minimum requirements for new affordable housing and other developments. This would make integrating affordable housing projects with transit services easier. Congressman Garcia emphasized that eliminating parking requirements reduces costs, makes it easier to use public transit, and replaces heat-island blacktops with green spaces that improve stormwater management. Since transit systems across the US are struggling to regain riders lost during the pandemic, better approaches to public transit and removing impediments to accessing transit are important. Studies from cities like Seattle, Buffalo, and San Diego further support this approach, showing that parking reforms lead to cost savings for developers, increased proposals for affordable housing, and the creation of mixed-use projects.

Momentum for parking minimum reforms has grown so much that even smaller towns across the United States are joining the movement. Organizations like Strong Towns and the Parking Reform Network, a coalition of planning professionals, have tracked cities and towns in North America implementing or proposing parking reforms, whether citywide or in specific districts such as downtown areas. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed a law prohibiting local governments from mandating parking spaces for developments within half a mile of public transit stops. This has the virtue of allowing builders of projects near transit to evaluate how many parking spaces their customers are likely to want.

The financial and environmental costs of parking are also staggering. A Victoria Transport Policy Institute study estimates that annualized parking space costs range from about $600 for a basic surface lot on inexpensive land to more than $5,000 for high-amenity structured parking in central business districts. Parking also has a significant environmental impact. Constructing and maintaining parking facilities consumes large amounts of energy and materials, such as asphalt and concrete, which are energy-intensive to produce.

To tackle these challenges, policymakers should implement reforms to parking minimums. Firstly, minimum parking requirements at both the municipal and state levels should be eliminated. This modification enables developers to decide the amount of parking to provide based on actual demand. This market-based approach reduces unnecessary construction costs and creates flexibility for innovative housing solutions. Additionally, older buildings should be exempt from parking minimums to encourage adaptive reuse, including using some existing parking space for other things, if that makes it easier for businesses and housing developments to flourish without exorbitant retrofit expenses. At the same time, setting clear rules for determining when a property owner is using the land or building in a way that is creating spillover problems to neighboring properties with penalties for creating such spillovers will prevent developers from providing too little parking.

Revisiting parking minimums is an essential step in addressing the housing crisis. By eliminating these outdated requirements, we can lower construction costs, increase housing supply, and create communities that prioritize people over cars. Cooperating with developers to integrate affordable housing with transit networks reduces some parking needs and is easier to do without parking minimums. We need to acknowledge that parking’s hidden costs hinder housing affordability and take concrete steps to reform outdated policies that do not meet modern housing needs.

The post Why parking minimums are holding back housing appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Housing vouchers have long been a crucial support for low-income families, helping to close the gap between rental costs and what families can afford. However, vouchers alone cannot fix the problem if there aren’t enough homes to use them. To tackle the housing crisis, policymakers must address supply shortages and affordability through a dual approach that prioritizes expanding housing supply and improving the effectiveness of vouchers.

The housing affordability crisis has grown more urgent, with rents growing higher and climbing faster than general inflation over the past few years. Homeownership feels increasingly out of reach for millions, as the median price of an existing home was over $400,000 in November 2024, according to the National Association of Realtors.

Meanwhile, renters are bearing the brunt of this housing squeeze, with nearly half spending over 30% of their income on rent and a quarter dedicating over 50%. These rising costs are directly tied to supply shortages, as limited availability drives up rent and sale prices. Addressing this imbalance requires significant investment in housing development, especially in high-demand areas.

But investment alone can only go so far. State and local regulations and policies greatly diminish housing supply. For example, restrictive zoning laws, such as single-family zoning and limits on mixed-use development, prevent the construction of more diverse and affordable housing options. Houston is a great example of how a city can increase housing supply without overcomplicating the process. Unlike cities bogged down by single-use zoning and large lot requirements, Houston has taken a different approach that encourages smaller, higher-density housing. In 1998, the city reduced its minimum lot size from 5,000 square feet to just 1,400 square feet within its I-610 Inner Loop, later expanding this policy citywide. This small but meaningful change has made a big impact.

Between 2005 and 2018, Houston added nearly 75,000 new housing units within the Inner Loop alone. That’s double the number of new units built in San Francisco and Oakland combined during the same period, even though those cities have about the same land area. Houston’s reform allowed developers to replace single-family homes with up to three smaller detached houses or town homes, leading to the construction of 28,000 small-lot infill units—over a third of all new housing in the area.

What’s even more impressive is how these policies have helped keep housing affordable. Despite decades of rapid growth, Houston’s median home price is still below the national median, and rents are about half what they are in Los Angeles. It’s proof that light-touch density reforms can help cities grow while keeping costs down.

But this isn’t about building massive apartment complexes everywhere; it’s about making small, smart changes that add housing where they’re needed most. Historically, cities like New York in the 1920s and post-World War II suburban developments kept housing affordable by building at scale. Back then, permitting processes were simpler, and zoning accommodated growth instead of obstructing it. Today, fear of change and neighborhood resistance have slowed housing production to a crawl, particularly in areas where demand is highest. By 2023, per capita permitting rates were less than half of what they were in 1973, leaving supply woefully short of demand. Light touch reforms to permitting are key to encouraging much-needed housing supply.

Equally important is facilitating voucher use. The effectiveness of vouchers is often undermined by landlord reluctance to participate in the program. Many landlords cite administrative burdens, slow payment processing, and concerns about tenant reliability as reasons for opting out of accepting housing vouchers. This has created significant challenges for families trying to secure housing, especially in areas with tight rental markets or a shortage of moderately priced options. In some instances, landlords only accept vouchers for properties in less desirable locations, which restricts families’ access to safe and high-opportunity neighborhoods.

One solution for policymakers is local protections against voucher discrimination, like those implemented in Newark and Washington, D.C. In Newark, laws focused on source-of-income discrimination have reduced refusal rates to 31%, while in Washington, D.C., similar protections have brought refusal rates down to just 15%. DC has also adopted innovative policies, such as neighborhood-specific payment standards and higher “fair market rents,” which incentivize landlords in high-demand areas to participate in the program. These examples demonstrate how targeted legislation can significantly improve voucher acceptance and expand opportunities for families to live in safer neighborhoods with better resources and opportunities.

Nevertheless, these efforts are ineffective without a broader availability of affordable housing units to meet the demand. The scale of unmet needs is staggering: only one in four eligible households receives rental assistance, leaving millions of families without help. In 2021 alone, over 8.5 million very low-income households paid more than half their income on rent or lived in inadequate housing. These figures highlight that the housing crisis is not just about supply—it’s also deeply tied to affordability. Despite their benefits, vouchers often fall short of meeting rising rents, as adjustments to voucher amounts frequently lag behind housing market increases. In regions without sufficient housing supply, families with vouchers face steep competition for units, further limiting their ability to find stable housing.

Regional disparities compound this mismatch between voucher availability and housing supply. While metropolitan areas like Washington, D.C., and Newark have adopted policies like Small Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs) to align voucher values with local markets, many regions lag behind. In these areas, voucher holders typically face limited options, which reinforces existing inequities and restricts access to high-opportunity neighborhoods. To make vouchers more effective, policymakers must take deliberate action.

Rather than expanding subsidies in a system constrained by restrictive housing policies, efforts should focus on addressing the root causes of housing shortages. Expanding vouchers without increasing housing supply risks inflating costs and wasting taxpayer dollars on a system that is already under strain. Policymakers must instead tie efforts to improve vouchers directly to efforts that reduce supply restrictions, working toward a housing system where subsidies are more effective and ultimately less necessary.

Addressing the housing supply shortage is critical. Without enough units, families with vouchers will continue to struggle to find housing, and landlords retain significant power to discriminate. Increasing housing availability would reduce this power, making voucher programs more effective. Policymakers should enhance outreach programs for landlords to minimize administrative burdens and encourage participation, making voucher programs more accessible and appealing to property owners. Additionally, they should adopt measures prohibiting discrimination against voucher holders and invest in supportive services like housing navigation, tenant education, and community-based resources to help families maintain stable housing.

By simultaneously reducing supply restrictions and improving voucher programs, we can make housing subsidies more effective while reducing the overall need for them. A housing market that works for everyone not only lifts low-income families but also strengthens communities, reduces economic inequality, and fosters long-term stability for renters and homeowners alike. Achieving this vision will require bold reforms, significant investment in housing development, and thoughtful integration of subsidies—showing that innovation and compassion can go hand in hand.

The post From shortage to stability: Why vouchers need housing supply to work appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Although zoning is often framed today as a tool for protecting communities from harmful industrial encroachment, its early origins were rooted more in maintaining social order, property values, and segregation by class and race. Early zoning laws, such as New York City’s 1916 Zoning Resolution, were designed primarily to control building heights and separate commercial activities from residential areas. While zoning laws later began to incorporate health and environmental considerations by separating residential areas from factories, highways, and waste sites, their initial intent was largely focused on economic and social control, with a significant impact on who had access to desirable neighborhoods. However, these regulations have evolved, shaping not only the physical landscape of cities but also reinforcing social and economic divides. Understanding the tradeoffs of modern zoning requires an examination of both its protective benefits and its role in perpetuating inequality and limiting opportunities for many, particularly low-income and marginalized communities.

In the early 20^th century, racial zoning explicitly separated Black and white communities. Even after the Supreme Court ruled in Buchanan v. Warley (1917) that racial zoning was unconstitutional, many municipalities implemented facially neutral laws like single-family zoning that effectively excluded lower-income families from wealthier areas. These laws ensured that certain neighborhoods remained exclusive by setting prohibitive standards for the type and density of housing allowed. As a result, communities that were once segregated by race were now segregated by income, limiting access to better schools, jobs, and public services for lower-income and minority residents.

While the explicit racial component of zoning has faded, its legacy lives on in the way zoning laws still disproportionately impact racial minorities and low-income communities. Exclusionary zoning—especially single-family zoning—restricts the types of homes that can be built, like multi-family housing or affordable apartment complexes, which limits the housing supply and drives up costs. This doesn’t just worsen the housing crisis and keep people from moving into high-opportunity neighborhoods; it also holds back the broader economy. Exclusionary zoning hampers workforce mobility, making it harder for people to relocate for better jobs, which stifles innovation and adaptability. It even affects environmental sustainability by pushing housing further from city centers, leading to more sprawl, car dependence, and pollution. If we want a thriving economy that truly supports people from all walks of life, we need to rethink zoning policies that limit affordable housing options and restrict who gets access to opportunity.

Exclusionary zoning also raises important constitutional concerns. The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment states that when the government takes private property for public use, it must provide just compensation. However, the courts have not generally interpreted it this way. In the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., the Supreme Court ruled that zoning is a valid use of government power, meaning most zoning laws are not considered a “‘taking‘” under the Fifth Amendment. This decision effectively shielded exclusionary zoning from constitutional challenges related to property rights and compensation. Some legal scholars argue that exclusionary zoning, by severely limiting how property owners can use their land, constitutes a form of regulatory taking. These restrictions not only reduce property values but also infringe on the right to use and enjoy property, a fundamental principle of property law that dates back to the founding of the United States. Property owners are often left without compensation for the reduced value and restricted use of their land due to zoning regulations, raising questions about the constitutionality of such laws.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Euclid, which upheld zoning as a valid exercise of police power, allowed municipalities to continue using zoning laws to regulate land use. However, the ruling has faced increasing scrutiny for enabling local governments to impose regulations that exclude low-income and minority families from certain neighborhoods. Critics argue that Euclid not only empowered local governments to classify land by its use but also entrenched socioeconomic divides by making housing unaffordable in desirable areas.

The economic implications of exclusionary zoning are vast. Economists Gilles Duranton and Diego Puga found that eliminating zoning restrictions in major urban areas could increase the U.S.’s GDP by nearly 8%, largely by allowing people to move to areas where they would be more productive. Zoning restrictions limit mobility, preventing individuals from accessing better jobs and educational opportunities. Zoning laws that limit the density and type of housing in a given area can also drive up housing prices, effectively pricing out many lower-income families from accessing affordable housing.

Although public meetings play a central role in determining zoning policies and housing development decisions, they aren’t always effective in addressing the broader needs of communities. These meetings often allow outside actors, business stakeholders, and activists with specific agendas to dominate the conversation, excluding the very communities most affected by zoning restrictions. In practice, these meetings are typically attended by well-established homeowners and residents with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, which can exacerbate inequalities, especially among communities of color. For instance, a study in Boston revealed that 95% of participants at public meetings were white, despite the city’s diverse population, and a majority of comments opposed new housing developments—reflecting the interests of those who may wish to keep lower-income and minority families out of their neighborhoods. Opposition often stems from those living near proposed projects, amplifying “Not In My Backyard” sentiments that hinder inclusive development and sometimes delay project approvals even when official recommendations are positive. 

A better approach would be to establish clearer property rights and limit the scope of local government intervention in routine housing decisions. By defining what types of property developments are allowed “by right,” we could reduce the number of minor projects subjected to these meetings, reserving public hearings only for proposals that significantly impact neighboring properties. While public meetings may be intended as a democratic tool, they often disadvantage renters, low-income individuals, and people of color, as they’re held at inconvenient times and lack accommodations for those with transportation or childcare needs. By default, zoning policies become shaped by a narrow subset of the population, perpetuating a cycle where more privileged groups influence decisions that disproportionately harm marginalized communities.

Beyond limiting access to housing, zoning laws have also contributed to environmental injustices. Low-income communities and neighborhoods of color are often targeted as sites for hazardous waste facilities, landfills, and other polluting industries. Zoning laws regulating industrial and residential uses have historically placed these harmful developments in poorer areas, while wealthier communities are largely shielded from these hazards. This has led to higher rates of pollution and health problems in low-income areas, perpetuating environmental racism and contributing to long-term health disparities.

While zoning was originally intended to protect communities from industrial encroachment, its unequal application has created toxic environments in some neighborhoods while safeguarding others. For example, in Cancer Alley, Louisiana, petrochemical plants were established in predominantly Black communities, exploiting these areas due to perceived lower political resistance. Over time, lower property values in such areas have attracted more low-income residents, including other marginalized groups, further embedding these communities within high-risk, polluted environments. The combined impact of living near such facilities, with limited access to healthcare and services, has only deepened the disparities faced by these communities.

The modern complexity of zoning lies in its dual role: on one hand, it protects communities from harmful industrial encroachment, but on the other, it limits access to affordable housing and perpetuates segregation. This creates a challenging dilemma for urban planners and policymakers. How do we balance the need to protect communities while ensuring equitable access to housing and opportunity?

The constitutional implications of exclusionary zoning should not be ignored. By restricting property owners‘’ ability to develop their land and denying affordable housing to those who need it most, zoning laws may infringe upon property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. At the same time, reforming zoning laws too hastily could leave communities vulnerable to unchecked development and environmental degradation.

The solution lies in reforming zoning laws to strike a balance between protecting communities from harmful developments and ensuring that all residents—regardless of income—have access to affordable housing and opportunity. This might involve loosening zoning restrictions in wealthier areas to allow for more multi-family and affordable housing, ensuring that enough housing is built in desirable areas so that costs stay low, and even making it possible for low-income residents to live farther from industrial zones. Allowing more density in many, though not all, parts of town, including clusters of rental apartments in suburban neighborhoods, could further increase affordable options while still preserving the character of different areas.

The challenge for policymakers and urban planners is finding the right balance: protecting communities’ health and safety while also making space for economic growth and housing opportunities that work for everyone, no matter their income or background. Housing supply must meet demand, and zoning must avoid uses that could disrupt communities. Public meetings are a key part of this, but they need to be structured so that a handful of activists don’t speak louder than the larger community.

This means that planners and local officials have to be mindful of the people who don’t show up to these meetings—often those who are low-income, renters, or people of color, who feel the impact of restrictive zoning the most. We need a clear system of property rights that lays out what can be done “by right” without needing a public meeting, so those meetings can be reserved for projects that really impact the neighborhood.

It’s time for urban planners, policymakers, and community organizations to step up and create a fair and practical zoning system. Instead of sticking with outdated, restrictive policies, we need to make changes that reflect the real needs of all our communities. Only then can we start building neighborhoods where everyone has a fair shot at opportunity and stability and where zoning isn’t a barrier to growth but a tool for a more inclusive future.

The post Dividing Lines: Understanding the tradeoffs in modern zoning and its impact on communities appeared first on Reason Foundation.