Thread by @CSElmendorf

THREAD: A Tale of Two States

(and executive branch preemption of municipal barriers to infill housing, like parking minimums)

1/n

Oregon's LCDC just crushed minimum parking requirements for small infill projects (duplex, triplex, 4plex). @California_HCD has not done same. Why not?

2/n

Statutory authority is pretty similar. Oregon: cities may not impose "unreasonable costs or delay" on development of "middle housing." CA: cities' housing plans must "remove constraints" to "housing for all income levels" "where appropriate & legally possible"

3/n

@California_HCD has issued weak guidelines about parking as a potential constraint, but nothing like Oregon's new regs.

hcd.ca.gov/community-deve…

4/n

I read lots of CA housing plans & agency correspondence, found no evidence of state effort to crack down on parking minimums or other constraints, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…. New state auditor report also finds HCD has failed to control constraints, auditor.ca.gov/reports/2020-1….

5/n

Why is Oregon doing better? My best guess: LCDC has rulemaking authority, HCD for the most part does not. Plus, CA (inanely) requires nonbinding agency guidance that makes policy to go through very cumbersome rulemaking process. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

6/n

So it's legally tough for HCD to tell cities ex ante what it expects to see in terms of constraint removal. But w/o setting clear expectations up front, it's politically tough for HCD to reject a city's housing plan b/c it doesn't do enough to remove constraints.

7/end