Affordable housing is a growing crisis in the United States, and while some local officials are finally stepping up to address the problem, a few are running into an obstacle: residents in some communities vehemently oppose efforts to spur more housing development and are ready to do whatever it takes to stop it.
In places such as Arlington County, Virginia, that fight has resulted in contentious meetings and even lawsuits—all aimed at stopping the county’s plan to encourage the development of denser housing in pockets of the municipality. As a judge hears arguments from both sides in one of those lawsuits this week, Arlington’s battle prompts an interesting, but tricky question: what happens when some residents vehemently object to efforts to address housing shortages, even when the policies and reforms could benefit everyone?
While every American has the constitutional right to make their views known and petition the government to address perceived violations of law or alleged damages, it’s important to acknowledge that many of these policy reforms are having great success, allowing more people to live out a significant part of the American Dream. More importantly, they’re giving property owners more freedom to use their land as they see fit—opening up more housing availability, new potential revenue streams, opportunities to use their property to assist those in need, and the chance to create successful home businesses.
California, Maine, Washington, and several other states and municipalities have passed various reforms in recent years, and a growing body of research shows that some of those reforms are working. For instance, in Minneapolis, research from Pew indicates the city has been able to keep its rent growth at lower levels compared to the rest of Minnesota because its various reforms allowed Minneapolis to add more housing at a faster rate, helping it to absorb rising demand. Houston, Texas, is another city where land-use reforms are producing positive results, without changing the character of neighborhoods or displacing certain populations (two complaints detractors often cite when arguing against reforms).
Arlington County is trying to replicate these successes. In March of last year, Arlington County leaders approved changes to the county’s zoning code that allowed “missing middle” housing, such as duplexes and triplexes, to be built on lots previously zoned for only single-family homes. The changes came with a series of limitations and were adopted after years of public engagement. Yet, it still didn’t appease some residents, who are suing the county to stop officials from issuing permits. Others are placing covenants on their properties so new “missing middle” housing can never be built on them.
Minneapolis and Houston show that these reforms can have incredibly positive results with few, if any, negative impacts. But at the Institute for Justice, we believe communities shouldn’t just stop at making policy changes to enable housing development. We believe local governments should embrace more inclusionary land-use rules, so Americans have more freedom to use their properties as they see fit.
That way people like Robert Calacal can rent out his RV hookup to Chasidy Decker so he can earn extra money to pay off his mortgage and she can enjoy homeownership at a more affordable level. Or the Dunckel family can use their property as a sanctuary for neglected and special needs farm animals. Or Bianca King could use her home as a daycare to give families in the neighborhood access to affordable childcare. Right now, Bianca, Robert, Chasidy, and the Dunckels must sue the government to enjoy the freedom to use their properties, peacefully and productively, as they see fit—but it shouldn’t have to come to that.
So, what happens when some residents vehemently object to efforts to address housing reform even when those efforts could benefit everyone? In the short term, localities like Arlington might have to weather backlashes, and even lawsuits, from residents who oppose change. But in the long term, reforming zoning codes and making other policy changes will produce more housing and give Americans more opportunities to prosper.
Tell Us About Your Case
The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public interest law firm. Our mission is to end widespread abuses of government power and secure the constitutional rights that allow all Americans to pursue their dreams. IJ has represented individuals who faced retaliatory code enforcement for public comments they made, were arrested for posting jokes about their local police departments on social media, or had baseless lawsuits filed against them because of their criticisms of government officials. If you feel the government has abused your constitutional rights, tell us about your case. Visit https://staging.ij.org/report-abuse/.
About the Institute for Justice
Through strategic litigation, training, communication, activism, legislative outreach and research, the Institute for Justice advances a rule of law under which individuals can control their destinies as free and responsible members of society. IJ litigates to secure economic liberty, educational choice, private property rights, freedom of speech and other vital individual liberties, and to restore constitutional limits on the power of government.