Coconut Trees, Price Controls, and Demand Subsidies
Plus: Gainesville shrinks minimum lot sizes, a Colorado church can keep providing shelter to the homeless, and Berkeley considers allowing small apartments everywhere.

Happy Tuesday and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. For the past couple of weeks, I've been trying to refocus the newsletter away from presidential politics and back on the state and local stuff that really matters. And for the past couple of weeks, they keep dragging me back in like Michael Corleone.
Our stories this week will have some local-level developments, including:
- Gainesville, Florida, famous for eliminating and then reimposing single-family-only zoning, has passed minimum lot size reform.
- Berkeley, California, the birthplace of single-family zoning, is considering allowing low-rise multifamily development everywhere.
- A federal judge has stopped Castle Rock, Colorado, from enforcing its zoning code against a local church that's been offering temporary shelter to the homeless.
But, since we have a new presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, our lead story will look at the housing policy implications of a possible President Kamala Harris.
A Complicated Coconut Tree of Demand Subsidies and Price Controls
We can glean a pretty good understanding of what a Kamala Harris White House might do on housing policy because she's been in the White House for the past three-and-a-half years.
As President Joe Biden's vice president, Harris' housing policy record is effectively Biden's housing policy record. Which is to say, it's not great.
You are reading Rent Free from Christian Britschgi and Reason. Get more of Christian's urban regulation, development, and zoning coverage.
The Biden-Harris White House has certainly said all the right things about the need to remove regulatory barriers to new housing supply to bring housing costs down. Harris' name has appeared on many of its pro-supply statements.
However, the administration's efforts to incentivize state and local deregulation with federal grant programs have been a big flop thus far. It's also tightened federal fair housing and environmental regulations that likely drive up the costs of housing construction. Its fiscal agenda of tariffs and big spending increases has increased the costs of finance and materials needed to build homes too.
Harris' pre-vice-presidential housing record isn't much better. She left a pretty sparse housing policy record during her eight years as California's attorney general—an office that theoretically has a lot of power to force NIMBY local governments to plan for new housing.
In fairness, prior to current Attorney General Rob Bonta—and a suite of new YIMBY laws giving his office more power and direction—California attorney generals generally didn't do much of anything to crack down on NIMBY localities. Harris isn't remarkable for being absent on this issue. Her absence is nonetheless evidence that she's not been a leader on the issue either.
Harris did take a keener interest in housing policy as a senator and 2020 presidential candidate, although the policies she put forward tended to be overly complicated, Rube Goldberg-style contraptions that ignored removing supply barriers in favor of subsidizing demand.
Harris' campaign trail plan for closing the racial homeownership gap called for spending $100 billion on downpayment assistance for individuals who'd lived for the past ten years in a low-or-moderate income census tract, made less than $50,000 (or $75,000 in a high-cost area), and were purchasing a principal residence worth $300,000 or less.
That's a lot of moving parts for a policy that ultimately few people would qualify for and does nothing to address the most serious barrier to homeownership for people of all races: regulatory limits on the construction of new homes.
As a senator, Harris' main housing policy initiative was her Rent Relief Act—a bill that would have given people refundable tax credits to cover the rent they paid in excess of 30 percent of their income.
This benefit was means-tested: those earning up to $100,000 could get a tax credit worth 25 percent of the rent they paid in excess of 30 percent of their income, people making up to $75,000 could get a tax credit worth 25 percent of the rent they paid in excess of 30 percent of their income, and so on. People in subsidized government housing, where rents are capped at 30 percent of one's income, would get a tax credit worth one month's rent.
That's a confusing table of benefits whose main effect would likely be to inflate prices. Landlords could more comfortably raise rents on tenants, knowing that much of the cost increase would be absorbed by taxpayers.
Since the bill gave lower-income tenants a larger tax credit (people earning up to $25,000 could get tax credits worth all the rent they paid in excess of 30 percent of their income), rents in lower-income neighborhoods would likely rise the most under the bill.
Harris has also been a steady proponent of rent control. She praised Oregon for adopting the nation's first state-level rent controls in 2019 and endorsed Biden's recent calls for a nationwide cap on rent increases.
For its wonky reputation, housing policy really isn't that complicated. Regulations controlling what types of housing can be built where reduces production, increases prices, and limits consumer choice. Price controls make this all worse.
Rather than focus on simple supply-side solutions, Harris has leaned into ultra-complicated demand-side subsidies and rent control. That's hardly encouraging.
Gainesville Back to Posting Gains
This past week the City Commission of Gainesville, Florida, provisionally passed reforms to the city's land use code, shrinking the amount of land new homes need to consume in single-family neighborhoods.
The reforms, which passed on first reading by a 4-3 vote on Thursday, shrink minimum required lot sizes down to 3,000 square feet in a new, consolidated single-family district. The current zoning code requires minimum lot sizes of 4,300 to 8,500 square feet across four different single-family districts.
"The goal is to reduce the cost of buying or renting a single-family home in the city of Gainesville—trying to find a way to expand the amount of homes and diversity homes," says City Commissioner Bryan Eastman, who championed the reforms. By reducing the amount of land new homes require, the hope is that builders will be able to construct more affordable starter homes, he says.
Gainesville's adoption of single-family homes is notable given the city's recent history of taking one step forward and then one step back with zoning reform.
In late 2022, the city passed a slew of reforms that shrank minimum lot sizes in single-family zones and allowed property owners to build up to three units per property.
The city was promptly sued by the state of Florida under the interesting theory that allowing more housing everywhere inappropriately entrusted the free market to provide affordable housing and intruded on the state's ability to set affordable housing policy.
In the face of that lawsuit and concerted neighborhood opposition, a new city commission voted to repeal those reforms on its first day in office in January 2023.
Eastman voted against the repeal; he's been arguing for a more modest zoning reform that will still get new units built. He points to the results of minimum lot size reform in places like Houston, Texas—where minimum lot size reductions kicked off a boom in townhome construction—as a proof-of-concept.
With the caveat that we're working with small sample sizes, minimum lot size reductions have been more successful at goosing housing production than reforms that eliminate single-family-only zoning while leaving minimum lot sizes intact.
Under the latter reforms, builders have to absorb the cost of tearing down existing single-family homes in order to build slightly larger duplexes and triplexes—housing typologies that are harder to finance and market in addition to being more expensive to build.
Few of those conversions end up "penciling out," so few duplexes and triplexes end up being built.
By requiring less land per home, minimum lot size reform meanwhile makes it cheaper and easier to build single-family homes—the cheapest type of housing to build, and the easiest to finance and market.
If that's the trade-off Gainesville is making, it's probably a wise one.
A Provisional Win for Good Samaritans in Colorado
It's a tale as old as time—a local church offers shelter to the poor and indigent on its property only to have local zoning officials try to shut it down.
Such was the case in Castle Rock, Colorado, where the local The Rock church offered temporary shelter to the homeless in the form of two trailers on its property. The city contended this was a zoning violation and brought enforcement actions against the church.
With the help of the First Liberty Institute, a public interest law firm, the church sued the city in federal court in May, arguing that its ability to offer temporary shelter to the homeless is protected by the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
As Reason's Patrick McDonald reported yesterday, a federal court has since sided with the church. This past Friday, it issued a preliminary injunction preventing the city from enforcing its zoning code against the church's temporary housing ministry while the lawsuit plays out.
The Birthplace of Single-Family-Only Zoning Considers a Citywide Upzoning
New York City pioneered the nation's first comprehensive zoning code in 1916. Berkeley, California, went a step further that year by passing the nation's first ordinance allowing no more than one home per lot to be built in the city's Elmwood neighborhood.
Single-family-only zoning has caught a lot of flak in recent years for walling off whole areas of cities to more housing production and commercial activity. Now Berkeley is trying to make up for its checkered land-use history.
Reports KQED:
On Tuesday, July 23, the council will consider a proposal that Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín called "one of the largest up-zonings in California." It would go beyond what state officials allowed in a landmark 2021 law legalizing duplexes and instead permit small apartment buildings, no more than three stories high, that could range from as few as two large apartments to as many as 12 or more smaller ones depending on the size of the property.
But Lori Droste said there's no guarantee the measure will pass. The former Berkeley city council member spearheaded the city's effort to first study and then implement a plan to encourage so-called "missing middle housing."
"I'll be on pins and needles until then," she said. "I think we have a real opportunity to be history makers."
Quick Links
- California Forever, the company behind plans to build a new city in Solano County, California, has pulled a ballot initiative making the necessary zoning changes for the new city from the county's November ballot. Instead, the company and county officials jointly announced that the two parties would produce an environmental impact report and development agreement before seeking approval for the full project in 2026.
- A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by property owners in Summit, Colorado, challenging the city's restrictions on short-term rentals.
- New reports show that builders are pulling permits for far fewer single-family homes and apartments compared to this time last year.
- The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has announced the availability of $40 million in grant funds for non-profits and government entities providing legal assistance to tenants facing eviction. Taxpayer-funded legal service providers have been criticized by landlord groups for deliberately gumming up housing courts, and stretching out routine non-payment cases for a year or more.
- New York's rent stabilization law continues to crash property values of rent-stabilized buildings to rustbelt town levels.
- The Manhattan airport that could have been:
Nobody has ever cooked harder than the folks that proposed the Manhattan Airport.
And when I say "cooked", I mean meth. pic.twitter.com/xffcWke8wD
— YIMBYLAND (@YIMBYLAND) July 21, 2024
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
You gotta be kidding us!
"Might" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
The idea that this administration has any real principles beyond power is a joke.
The idea that Kamala had any input to any actions of this administration shows a serious lack of observation.
The idea that there's any continuity of policies from one month to the next, or one year to the next, or one administration to the next, shows an incredible naivete about politics.
Koch is apparently getting behind Cackles. So the word has gone out to his henchmen at Reason to prop her up.
Everyone in the media will be hurrying up putting on their Baghdad Bob outfits
There seems to be a concerted effort to simp for Kamala vs the coverage of Trump and Vance. Obviously Reason writers have not held the Dems to the same standard as Trump over the last, I don't know, 4+ years that I've been reading the articles. But to try to make Trump sound more like a war hawk than Biden or Kamala is pure gaslighting. The assassination attempt on Trump got one article posted that day, and I think just one the next day (Sunday). Joe's dropping out of the race gets something like 7 articles in 24 hours. Now the attempts to treat Kamala in a positive light. Are they setting themselves up to "reluctantly and strategically" tell us they are voting for Kamala in Nov.?
I have my issues with Trump and Vance as they are not libertarians, and are in favor of some certainly non-libertarian policies. But contrast that with a Biden, or, now a Kamala administration for the next four years, and that's not a hard choice.
It's not a hard choice, unless you want to be the beloved of the DC establishment. Lose all that access to scumbag politicos? The horror!
Anyone seriously considering voting for Kamala Harris has something other than facts behind them. She is objectively, the worst candidate in 50 years. There's a reason that she constantly repeats the line about being unfettered by the past. Her past is a thousand pound Albatross.
Yes, but that simping is done reluctantly and strategically. Gotta keep the cocktail party invites coming, you know,
Berkeley, California, the birthplace of single-family zoning, is considering allowing low-rise multifamily development everywhere.
Get out before crime skyrockets and property values plummet.
Also, just on general principle.
What about food trucks?
And speaking of trucks, maybe some genius YIMBY can figure out how to combine free housing with exciting ethnic food on wheels, perhaps like tiny, portable B&Bs.
Harris' policy will be the follow through of Obama's policy: Build 100 unit subsidized apartment buildings in single family home communities, not to help the poor, but to make the middle class hurt from the increased traffic and super crowded schools.
Or she may follow the Canadians and suggest that single family homes have too many "vacant" bedrooms and begin a campaign to have homeowners "voluntarily" surrender their bedrooms to random homeless vagrants.
No matter what path she chooses, most Americans will be significantly worse off.
WIH does the federal government have to do with "housing"?
And the only thing you can tell regarding Harris' possible efforts is that they will include inappropriate cackling.
The answer is in the form of a question: "What would a cop do?"
Shoot a dog?
As for the Manhattan Airport: the land alone would cost 100 billion dollars even with eminent domain. That part of Manhattan has more political connections than a thousand Barack Obamas. The structure is infinitely more complicated than the California High Speed Rail and with the usual cost overruns would easily get to half a trillion dollars.
That's not YIMBY, that's YIKES!!!
Literally every policy Harris proposes is a result of electing an "enfeebled president". Change my mind.
Front page above-the-fold story: Woman who married well endorses Kamala Harris for president.
Why is the guy on the left wiping his teeth with his shirt and why are his balls blurred out?
1. Don't know.
2. That's the blurred head of a person in the foreground due to focal distance / aperture choice.
>"However, the administration's efforts to incentivize state and local deregulation with federal grant programs have been a big flop thus far.
Maybe we should stop demanding the federal government mess with local governments? We are, after all, a libertarian magazine, right?
We have a problem where the residents of NIMBY coastal enclaves vote for mass immigration but refuse to allow any new construction in their neighborhoods. That leaves everyone who didn’t vote for it having to choose between banning construction as well and pricing their own children out of their honetowns, or allowing massive construction and becoming a third world country. That’s because those same NIMBYs also used the federal government to ban private housing discrimination (which they hypocritically do themselves indirectly via zoning).
I say the feds tie immigration levels to how many many new homes are built in places that voted for it.
So we can expect more of these $165M housing for the homeless? Taxpayers are funding a new high-rise building in Los Angeles where homeless people will enjoy skyline views, a cafe, a gym, and an art studio, not to mention the free rent. This modern tower for the homeless includes a TV in each apartment, a gym, an art room, a soundproofed music room, a computer room with a library, a TV lounge, a courtyard, and a cafe that will host movie nights. There are also six common balconies, four of which have dog runs. Residents will be from Skid Row where they will go from homeless to living large.
https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/housing/2024/06/20/los-angeles--19-story-tower-for-homeless-housing-in-skid-row
Elected officials and developer Weingart Center held a ceremony Wednesday morning to celebrate the grand opening of the complex, which will provide 228 studios, 50 fully furnished one-bedroom apartments, a fitness center, computer lab, laundry facilities, a music room and more. About 40 of these income-based units are reserved for veterans.
The development, called Weingart Tower 1, will also provide services such as assistance with employment and education, counseling on finances and budgeting, as well as health and wellness classes.
"This is not just a building," Kevin Murray, a retired state senator and CEO of Weingart Center, said during the ceremony. "This is about people and this is about giving people dignity ... everybody deserves a good, well-designed environment."
Residents are expected to start moving in at the end of July, according to the center.
LA Mayor Karen Bass noted the project came before she was elected, but the development did benefit from her Executive No. 1, which streamlines and fast tracks affordable housing projects such as the Weingart Tower 1.
The $165 million project received funding from Proposition HHH — approved by voters in 2016 to support housing projects — and $56 million in state tax credits. Each unit cost just under $600,000.
According to a report in 2022 from LA City Controller Kenneth Mejia, housing projects funded with Prop HHH have cost between $450,000 to nearly $837,000 per unit. Overall, the city has spent more than $1.1 billion in HHH funding toward housing projects.
This is about people and this is about giving people dignity
Beware anyone who says things like that. Those types blow past marxism and into full-on communism.
Many years ago my great-grandfather owned a single-family home that had been converted into a tri-plex. He lived in one unit of it and rented out the other two. ... More than four decades later my sister rented one of those other two units. ?Question: What does it take to remodel a single family home to convert it to duplex or triplex?
"However, the administration's efforts to" ... armed-theft the citizens ... to BRIBE "state and local deregulation" ... "have been a big flop thus far."
When will idiot people wake-up and realize it's not about results it's about 'armed-theft'. D.C. is the richest area in the USA and produces ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.