I'm excited to share a new @UCLALewisCenter report, published in partnership with @TernerHousing, exploring some of the tradeoffs involved in the use of inclusionary zoning (IZ) policies to meet affordable housing goals. ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-p… I'm interested in this topic because there's a lot of pressure to meet affordable housing goals but limited tools for doing so. IZ is often seen as a solution, but the challenges of studying IZ empirically leave policymakers with very little guidance on how to think about it.

In this episode of the UCLA Housing Voice Podcast we talk about shared- and limited-equity homeownership programs, and the difficulties participants face when they want to move from subsidized housing into the private market: lewis.ucla.edu/2023/01/11/41-… Shared-equity homeownership programs work by offering low- or moderate-income buyers a discount or assistance with their home purchase. But when and if they sell, they usually need to pay the money back or sell at a below-market price.

The most ambitious goal I've heard for social/public housing in LA is that it make up 20% of housing by 2050, meaning 80% would still be market housing in 30 years. You're committing housing malpractice if you don't have a realistic plan for improving affordability for that 80%. Especially when that 20% goal is far from guaranteed, and more like 95% of people live in market housing today.

Santa Monica, ever the innovator, is breaking new ground in the field of blocking new homes by appropriating the language of social justice. This proposed initiative would require developers to pay up to 2.7 times the prevailing wage, which is of course completely infeasible. Here's a link to the full proposal. If you wanted to build a 170-unit project that was 40% below-market — something that even under current rules and 1.0x prevailing wage is impossible without public subsidies — you've gotta pay 1.6x prevailing wage. santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileO…

This is better zoning map than you're likely to find anywhere in the U.S. Multifamily zones on the left, single-unit-only on the right. Dark blue is the least dense MF zone, permitting up to 3 units on a ~4300 sq ft lot. Pink allows 5 stories with unlimited density.

https://twitter.com/YaleCowles/status/1549842309482790913

Here's a table of land use regulations for each zone:

I've gotten more and more supportive of tenant protections and less and less supportive of "value capture" policies. I don't think a city can make itself more affordable by relying on value capture policies. They're basically a tool for maintaining the status quo.

https://twitter.com/mnolangray/status/1513029118505357315

All else equal, inclusionary zoning policies without any offsetting development bonuses almost certainly make things worse in the long run. I used to be very pro-density bonus, but now I'm ambivalent, though I still lean in support.

I don't use @metrolosangeles much these days because I work from home, but I swear that at least half the time I ride they waste at least 15-30 minutes of my time compared to what their schedule says. In this case, @metrolosangeles just fucked over our whole train. We stood here waiting for 15 minutes for it to leave, then they sent the other one off instead. Literally over 100 people left on this train and they're all absolutely furious. My movie tickets are now void.

Yesterday we published our latest episode, highlighting research from UCLA prof. Adam Millard-Ball. This study shows that building less parking *causes* less driving and car ownership; it's not just people without cars selecting into homes with fewer/zero spaces.

https://twitter.com/UCLALewisCenter/status/1504136380384903171

This was a selection bias problem that's dogged parking research for decades: Do people drive less because they live in buildings that don’t provide parking, or do they live in buildings that don’t provide parking because they drive less? AMB's work gives us a definitive answer.

New @UCLALewisCenter publication! It's about broad upzoning—increasing housing capacity on many parcels, in many neighborhoods, all at once—and how this strategy can increase housing production and density *without* substantially increasing land values. lewis.ucla.edu/research/build… First: I've gotta give credit to @DanielStrTowns for beating me to the punch on writing about the concept of "broad upzonings." His article is much shorter, and absolutely worth your time. Fortunately our works are complementary rather than redundant! strongtowns.org/journal/2022/1…

Despite being extremely tame by European standards, this design feels very "busy" for the US. And that's good! It's underappreciated how much a sort of messy / overwhelming street design can improve safety. People generally drive more safely in uncertain conditions. Note: I'm not a traffic engineer and I'm sure there are cases where this doesn't hold true, where "busy" or "messy" designs make things more dangerous. But roundabouts are a good example: lots of people find them unpleasant or uncomfortable, but they're quite safe as a result.

wtf i like this tho

Governments regulate housing markets, and some places have much worse outcomes than others. I really don't understand how some people, often those living in places with the worst outcomes, have so much faith that increased govt control of housing will lead to something better. Personally, I think the government should play a bigger role in the housing market. I believe in the power of govt to do good things. But if your govt can't even regulate the market for somewhat better outcomes, why assume it can take far more responsibility and be successful?

The latest UCLA Housing Voice Podcast episode is out—give it a listen & subscribe! This time we interview @planning_mkim about different approaches to value capture, a really important topic with a lot of nuance to explore. This was a fun one. lewis.ucla.edu/2021/08/18/08-… The paper we focus on is titled "Negotiation or Schedule-Based? Examining the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Public Benefit Exaction Strategies of Boston and Seattle," which can be found here: tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

Yet another case of a property owner filing a development application and having someone maliciously file a historic preservation application on their behalf, against their will. This time, a former Chili Bowl of such great historic value that it's currently a sushi restaurant. The opening to this letter is pretty 🔥🔥 though. clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/202…

I have a new paper at the @UCLALewisCenter! This one's pretty wonky, but I hope it helps illuminate how the timing of fees and other development costs really matters — a dollar paid today is very different from a dollar paid 3 or 5 years from now. lewis.ucla.edu/research/reduc… The gist of the paper is this: Many development fees are paid early, at building permit issuance, with equity or debt. By the time devs recoup that expense they might be paying back 150% of that amount to their investors or lenders. This makes it more expensive to build housing.

Americans are set to buy 170+ million new cars between now and 2030. At an average cost of around $38K, that's about $6.5 trillion—before accounting for gas (or electricity), insurance, repairs, etc. Imagine what people could do with that money if we made driving optional. 1/ Right now most people feel they have no realistic alternative but to buy a car, and our politicians are doing virtually nothing to change that. Their inaction is going to cost us trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, and, ultimately, our planet's ecosystem. 2/

Quick thread: I strongly support Ellis Act reform. We should compensate tenants much better than we do today when they're displaced to build higher-density housing, and that new housing should be held to minimum standards of affordability -- otherwise why redevelop at all?

https://twitter.com/davideryu/status/1143562203343097857

The goal of Ellis Act reform shouldn't be to stop redevelopment, but to discourage it where the difference between existing bldgs and future projects isn't that great. Replace a duplex with 40 units including 6 affordable? Awesome. Replace 20 units with the same? Not so much.