Federal Money Intended for Zoning Reformers Ends Up in NIMBY Clutches
The White House is giving $1.5 billion in INFRA grants to entities that either don't approve new housing or are actively opposed to making it easier to build.

The White House made a big splash in May 2022 when it announced that its Housing Supply Action plan would use competitive transportation grant programs to reward jurisdictions that remove regulatory barriers to new housing construction.
The $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, enacted in November 2021, also dramatically boosted funding for these grant programs—giving the feds a lot more carrots with which to reward governments for removing red tape on new development.
But as the grant awards from these retooled transportation grant programs trickle out, there's little evidence the money is going to reformist jurisdictions.
Late last week, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced the recipients of $1.5 billion in grants from the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) program—one of five grant programs the administration said would be used to encourage zoning reforms.
Of the 26 INFRA grant awards this cycle, 19 are going to state transportation departments or port authorities that don't set zoning regulations or issue residential building permits. These bureaucracies can't be incentivized to change regulations they don't have any power over in the first place.
And the few INFRA recipients that do approve building permits don't appear to have been on the cutting edge of zoning reform. Some are actively fighting reform.
Rural Carver County, Minnesota, received a $10 million grant to widen a two-lane road into a four-lane highway. The county's most recent comprehensive plan calls for protecting its "unique and rural agricultural character" from new commercial and residential development.
Flagstaff, Arizona, received a $32.4 million grant to build pedestrian safety improvements. Officials there recently argued against the need to lower impact fees for new development and a more permissive zoning code to address an estimated 7,000-unit shortage of homes.
"We're looking for units that are affordable. Market units do not deliver that," the city's director of community development told the Arizona Mirror earlier this month.
New York City received a $110 million grant to build electric charging stations and refrigerated warehouses at the city's Hunts Point Terminal Produce Market. This is despite the city underbuilding housing for the last decade and actively adopting an "inclusionary zoning" policy that actively disincentivizes new housing construction.
Some of the projects funded in this latest INFRA grant cycle fit with transportation priorities many urbanist zoning reformers would like to see. That includes a $104 million award to the Michigan Department of Transportation to convert a stretch of interstate highway in Detroit to a slower-speed boulevard.
But Detroit is probably one of the few cities in the country with too much housing. It had a 18 percent vacancy rate in 2020.
In short, none of the INFRA grants appear to be going to high-growth areas that are proactively making housing development easier.
It was a similar story with $2.2 billion in RAISE grants awarded last month, another one of the programs the Biden administration said it would retool to encourage zoning reform. Few of the awards appeared to have much to do with zoning. One of the largest RAISE awards went to San Francisco, which is currently being investigated by California's state government for shooting down new housing in violation of state law.
Emily Hamilton, a senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, says there are inherent limits to the executive branch trying to bootstrap zoning reform incentives to existing transportation grant programs.
"If federal policy makers want to use grants as a tool to really encourage local zoning reform, what they would need to do is create a grant that is specifically intended to do that, not intended to achieve many other objectives at the same time," she told Reason last month.
An ideal version of that program would be available to all jurisdictions that permit housing, she says. It would also reward cities and counties for housing market outcomes (i.e., building more lower-cost housing), not policy proposals they plan to implement at a later date.
Creating such a program will require congressional action, says Hamilton. Lawmakers have proposed creating dedicated zoning reform programs. None have made it very far in the legislative process, however.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
so, graft.
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded me to take the (afr-02) opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
.....
——————————>>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
If they are trying to make Biden look competent and responsive and appeal to moderates and independents, before the mid terms, I've seen worse ideas.
Nice article, Christian.
You know, it's almost as though central planning always works out terribly, and our urban built environment would improve if people were just allowed to do what is best for themselves and their property.
Or, to put it in more lefty-progressive-friendly terms, allow it to develop organically.
>"We're looking for units that are affordable. Market units do not deliver that," the city's director of community development told the Arizona Mirror earlier this month.
This is the attitude of people with a central planning mindset.
Something costs $10. We don't think $10 is affordable, we wanted something that costs $5, so you can't build your $10 things.
Where do you expect to get the $5 thing?
As I suspected, the federal government can't even give money away.
On the other hand. I am sure all the grant recipients are fine upstanding democrat voters.
If federal policy makers want to use grants as a tool to really encourage local zoning reform, what they would need to do is create a grant that is specifically intended to do that, not intended to achieve many other objectives at the same time," she told Reason last month...Creating such a program will require congressional action
Well I certainly agree that whatever happens has to originate from Congress not the exec branch. But the worst possible approach is yet more freaking money for carrots. Subsidies and distortions for housing have created most of the housing problem here - including the perceived benefits that drive homeowners to become really constipated about restricted zoning.
The solution is - STICKS. Not carrots. Legislation that prohibits all federal transportation/infrastructure funding (which includes muni bond bailouts) within say 2-4 miles of any single-family zoning. For rural areas, within 10-15 miles of any 'agricultural zoning'
Just to illustrate how dramatic stick-based funding would be. A Denver map showing zones - R1 - pale yellow - is single-family residential. There is not one inch in this city - or any surrounding suburbs - that would qualify for federal transportation/infrastructure funds. The same applies to every single city in the US - including Houston if you include 'private covenant' zoning restrictions.
That is as it should be since the very existence of R1 zoning over huge swathes of urban land distorts all maintenance/development spending towards inefficient anti-productive projects. The federal government - whether taxpayer or future generations - should not be deliberately wasting money that way. And you don't have to be 'libertarian' to think that. Just someone who views that spending from a mildly fiduciary responsibility perspective
I don't know how many more tears I can spill for the poor bastards who believe the same shit over and over again and elect the same assholes over and over again and are shocked when all of the Biden Bucks end up in the hands of his grifter buddies.
Normal parameters still better than mean tweets.
"That includes a $104 million award to the Michigan Department of Transportation to convert a stretch of interstate highway in Detroit to a slower-speed boulevard."
Okay. That's just nuts.
From what I understand, it's falling down and expensive to restore, and doesn't have enough potential traffic to justify that price, but still too much traffic to just block it off permanently. So, a downgrade.
Like the West Side Highway (Miller Elevated Highway) in Manhattan. An early elevated urban highway, literally falling down, it wasn't up to contemporary specs anyway, and then there was a plethora of plans ranging from grandiose to functional as to what to replace it with, most with a lot of redevelopment piggybacked on. Fortunately for the taxpayer, a temporary bare-bones solution became permanent.
Detroit has been dying for over 40 years, with most everyone but welfare clients and welfare pimps gone. When something falls down, we should:
1) Ask if it's needed at all?
2) Is it _really_ needed?
3) Only if absolutely necessary, build a replacement - but smaller, simpler, cheaper, because there will never be as many people to use it as when it was first built.
Between HyR's coverage of housing reform and comments here, plus the fact that politics dictate complicated change proposals, I'm left scratching my head about whether any particular proposal is good or bad on net.
We need a stronger YIMBY movement.
Federal spending (by Democrats) has the opposite effect of the (alleged) intention. When has it ever been different?