The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin Seeks to Expand Housing by Curbing Zoning
The move is a step in the right direction. It also highlights how the issue cuts across ideological lines.

Over the last few months, Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin has made a push to try to liberalize zoning and other land-use regulations that block the construction of new housing in the state. In August, Youngkin told a state Senate committee that "[t]he cost to rent or buy a home is too expensive," and emphasized that "[w]e must tackle root causes behind this supply and demand mismatch; unnecessary regulations, overburdensome and inefficient local governments, restrictive zoning policies, and an ideology of fighting tooth and nail against any new development."
More recently, in November, he put out a "Make Virginia Home" plan, which seeks to promote land-use deregulation in a wide variety of ways, thereby curbing "NIMBY" ("not in my backyard" restrictions on housing construction). Adam Millsap has a helpful summary of Youngkin's potential initiatives in the City Journal:
To make housing more affordable, policymakers must boost supply relative to demand, while holding everything else, including interest rates, constant. The press release announcing Youngkin's Make Virginia Home plan acknowledges the supply problem, promising to "promote increasing the supply of attainable, affordable, and accessible housing across the Commonwealth." That's a worthy goal; achieving it is another matter.
Research shows that the primary culprits behind high state and local housing costs are restrictive zoning and land-use regulations that artificially limit the housing supply. Youngkin's plan is short on details, but it explicitly mentions establishing guardrails for local zoning and land-use review processes. The state would impose deadlines to stop local governments from slow-rolling approvals; such delays impose big costs on developers and make otherwise attractive projects financially infeasible.
The plan also calls to investigate comprehensive reforms of Virginia's land-use and local zoning laws. But action, not study, is needed. Youngkin should consider allowing duplexes and triplexes by right, as in Minneapolis; making it easier to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs), as in California; and ending minimum parking requirements, as in Buffalo and other cities. Virginia could also prevent local governments from restricting housing by putting limits on local minimum-lot sizes, height restrictions, setbacks, and density requirements…..
Make Virginia Home also hints at permitting and other regulatory reforms, such as streamlining environmental review and making it easier for developers to meet mandated wetlands and stream-mitigation requirements….
In addition to reforming, streamlining, and even eliminating some land-use regulations via state preemption, Youngkin's plan also mentions an incentive to encourage localities to make such reforms on their own. Specifically, it calls for creating "reasonable linkages" between discretionary state funds and local government housing policies. In essence, discretionary state funding would flow to localities that liberalize land-use regulations. Local governments could still erect barriers to new housing, but they'd risk losing money.
Finally, the plan mentions building codes, an underappreciated factor behind high housing prices. Today's codes too often focus on marginal safety improvements, showing no concern for the higher costs of compliance. Some simple reforms would help.
As Millsap notes, Youngkin's proposals are steps in the right direction, but most are also vague and unclear. It is absolutely true that "action, not study, is needed."
At the same time, it is notable that one of the nation's most prominent GOP governors is backing "YIMBY" ("Yes in my backyard") zoning reform. His support highlights the way the issue of zoning reform cuts across ideological lines. Economists and housing experts across the political spectrum decry exclusionary zoning because it increases housing costs, cuts millions of people off from jobs and educational opportunities, reduces economic growth and innovation, and particularly harms the poor and racial minorities. But both sides of the political spectrum also have strong strains of NIMBYism.
When Youngkin attacks NIMBYism, he sounds a lot like Barack Obama, who recently decried "NIMBY attitudes" and "regulations" that "make it very difficult to integrate communities and allow people to live close to where they work." The measures Youngkin is considering are similar to those recently enacted in liberal blue states, such as Oregon and California. A recent Virginia Mercury article that dubbed Youngkin the state's "YIMBY-in-Chief" compared him to liberal California Democrats, who have recently pushed through major zoning reforms.
Previous Virginia efforts at zoning deregulation came primarily from the left, and often faced right-wing opposition. Such right-wing NIMBYism is far from limited to Virginia. During the 2020 election, Donald Trump tried to rally support by claiming that exclusionary zoning is needed to protect white middle-class neighborhoods against an influx of the poor and minorities.
On the other hand, there is also a long history of left-wing NIMBYism. Obama wasn't wrong when he said in June that "[t]he most liberal communities in the country aren't that liberal when it comes to affordable housing." In Virginia, that sensibility is very much present where I live, in overwhelmingly liberal Arlington County, as shown in the opposition to the County government's "missing middle" housing initiative.
Like its right-wing counterpart, left-wing NIMBYism is partly driven by homeowners' fears that housing deregulation would degrade the quality of their communities. Both also are often influenced by the economically illiterate, but widespread, view that new housing construction actually increases housing costs, rather than reduces them.
Historically, of course, exclusionary zoning was often driven by white fears that African-Americans or other unpopular minorities might move into the area. Such attitudes have waned in recent years, but have not completely disappeared.
Hopefully, Youngkin's support will help move the ball on zoning reform in Virginia. We badly need it! More generally, I hope more people across the political spectrum will come to see that cutting back on zoning can create enormous benefits for both would-be movers and current homeowners in areas that now have tight land-use restrictions. If people as varied as Obama and Youngkin can see the light and come together on this issue, there may be some cause for optimism.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Land zoning reform is just about impossible as long as current property owners fear declining property values from building more supply by relaxing land zoning restrictions. Too many property owners follow taxi medallion owners in thinking that because government restrictions boosted the value of their property, removing restrictions and lowering their property value is an unconstitutional taking.
I predict very little actual reform. Even allowing duplexes is a long shot. I was amazed the California legislature actually passed that reform.
I totally get the rationale behind additional construction. But I *HATE* the idea of doing away with requirements for parking spots. In my opinion (based on a half-century of buying and renting in the Los Angeles and San Diego areas) there is absolutely nothing that destroys a neighborhood like having insufficient parking in residential areas. The quality of life plummets, and it makes any driving trip a nightmare upon your return. Makes it incredibly difficult for friends to visit...it just sucks.
But put me down as an enthusiastic YIMBY for all the other suggestions.
"Destroys a neighborhood" = "Having to search a little bit for parking"?
Here in NYC, it is very hard to find parking in many parts of the city. Many of these places are some of the city's most attractive neighborhoods. The neighborhoods aren't "destroyed"; indeed, they're thriving.
What you mean is that the lack of a parking surplus means that you (sometimes) have to internalize the cost of parking.
NYC has a good public transit system. Realistically speaking, it's one of the best (if not the best) in the country. You can actually not need to have a car.
Most other cities aren't like that. The public transit is OK at best. It can maybe get you to and from work. But outside the city trips, or other stuff? Doesn't really work, or it takes 3 times as long as driving.
Listen, you condescending piece of shit, I know full well how most of this country’s poorly-planned cities work, and your “point” about public transportation is completely irrelevant.
I was responding to someone who asserted that the lack of parking “destroyed” a neighborhood. I can’t think of a single place I’ve ever lived - including sprawled out, car-first cities - where the lack of street parking was synonymous with a place being a “bad neighborhood.” These are always thriving, desirable places to live - hence, the glut of cars. The bad neighborhoods always seemed to have plenty of places to leave your car, unattended, for free. Alternative transportation had nothing to do with it.
I am quite familiar with the struggle. For a time, I owned a car in a large city and parked it for free on the street. I was loath to move it, precisely because it was so easy to lose the spot. Even so, my neighborhood was anything but “destroyed.” It was a lovely apartment, overlooking a small park, in a walkable neighborhood.
Santamonica is, I presume, speaking from that particular car first mentality that is distinctive to Southern California - where driving has been elevated from a necessity to a lifestyle.
Parking is very tight where I live, and will probably get tighter, yet real estate prices have been rising nicely.
Of course, it's urban, so a lot of errands can be handled by walking, and there is decent transit.
Tell me when there's a Trailer Park on Martha's Vineyard
Needed and not supplied: an economist’s comprehensive analysis of the consumer economics touted but unenumerated. How much can the average home buyer expect to save? How many new housing units will this policy build, where? Compare that to how many new units would be required to lower housing prices even slightly, say 10%. The result will not be encouraging. For still less encouragement, project the analysis forward, to see what happens to prices after the build-out is over. Or just look at housing prices now, in Manhattan.
Nevertheless, as a thought experiment, with economists’ information in hand, modify the proposed law. Do whatever other stuff right wing ideology demands, but also require a price ceiling for new housing at 90% of the current median, no exceptions, neighborhood by neighborhood. In short, sell this policy with a consumer satisfaction guarantee.
Know what that would do? It would kill the market. Developers would flee Virginia. And if that didn’t happen, present property owners would be after Youngkin with pitchforks.
So get that analysis done, to make it clear to everyone that this is not even intended as a well-reasoned proposal to supply more affordable housing. It is instead a developers’ dream act. Right wing politicians never met a real estate developer they wouldn’t serve first, ahead of all but their biggest donors. Stuff like gutting environmental protections gives the game away. This is a prosperity-for-developers proposal, not a lower-housing-costs proposal.
Finally, make it a point to notice. Virginia is glutted with affordable housing already. Want a nice house in Virginia that costs half-or-less what you would pay in Arlington or Falls Church? Go over the mountains. Prices there are low because not so many want to live where those houses are, far from well-paying jobs.
Want a policy to actually cut housing prices in Arlington? Cut the federal pay scale, and get rid of the lobbyists. People pay fortunes to live near DC, because in DC they can make fortunes to pay for the houses. That is the long and the short of it. Youngkin’s proposal is just a politician’s scheme to cut his developer pals in on the loot.
I do not question Somin’s sincerity, by the way. In this instance Somin is being sincerely suckered.
I guess an economist's comprehensive analysis wasn't needed at all! Lathrop already knows the answer!
Once again, a note on, "NIMBY." That is a term of invective.
Heedless users of, "NIMBY," intend to shame targets who do nothing worse than try to fend off uncompensated loss, inflicted by public policy, with an eye to advantage others. Those others will reap only benefits, and suffer no share of the costs.
Count yourself a little bit morally corrupt if you use, "NIMBY." If you are positioned to reap some of the benefits, count yourself more than a little bit corrupt.
That's because NIMBYites are bad people who deserve condemnation and shaming.
What an arrogant Twit you are.
They are selfish basically defonitoonally.
Where do you live Nieporent? Are you within 10 miles of a major airport? If you are, the FAA can with the stroke of a pen deliver to you a right-at-the-control-tower experience, forever. You can enjoy one flight a minute, nearly 24 hours a day, passing about 1,800 feet from your bedroom, give or take. It might be as little as 1,300 feet if you are about 4 miles from a runway end, or much less if you are closer.
For the FAA to do that is legal, entirely within their unappealable jurisdiction—and not even under the political control of state or local governments, nor any part of the national government either, except congress itself (by law, not even the president can intervene).
Any legal challenge you might attempt will not even get into court. No judge will let someone put him in a position to second-guess the FAA on what they will describe as a necessary safety measure.
Under FAA regulations, your property will thereafter be classified as, "unsuitable for residential use," although no one will take any action to bar your residence, or to prevent you from selling the property to someone else for whatever value it has left.
And if you so much as utter a peep of protest, thousands of folks who fear the same fate, but are delighted it fell on you instead of on them, will scream NIMBY at you.
Pretty much all of that seems untoward to me. The NIMBY part is an outrage.
And by the way, if it decides to do it, with another similar action the FAA can later double the annual number of flights over your home. Under FAA regulations, that would not even be an action significant enough to demand an environmental impact report.
According to Google maps, no. I'm within 11 miles of one. (Though that's to the center of the airport; if you measure from the boundaries, it's a bit closer, obviously.) But where I grew up was about 8 miles, I think.
Also, not clear why you're talking about airports when the topic is housing construction.
NIMBY came up. I responded.
This seems a bit… hyperbolic.
The vast majority of Queens and Brooklyn are within the ten-mile radius you describe, of two of the area’s major airports. While you can certainly experience frequent airplane noise if you’re under the final descent paths of the plane traffic, you have to be quite close to the paths to notice it, really. It seems like the more serious issue caused by the plane traffic is the air pollution.
The helicopter traffic in Manhattan and along Long Island during the summer is probably more disruptive.
SimonP — You misunderstood what I said. I did not say that everyone within a 10 mile radius was notably affected. I said that the FAA at its discretion could reroute traffic to deliver intolerable noise to people under certain flight paths, pretty much anywhere within 10 miles of most major airports.
As a practical matter, approach noise can be highly intrusive to residents out to a bit less than a mile from an extended runway alignment. Inherently louder departure noise spreads farther, but except within 3 or 4 miles of the airport it has less ground effect because departing aircraft climb quickly. The worst affected areas tend to be near locations where multiple arrival or departure paths cross each other.
Helicopters are indeed another source of well-justified noise complaints. People who live near their customary bases of operation do find them a trial. But helicopters operate notably less frequently, and emit less noise, than do jet transports.
Your impressions are apparently founded on residence pretty far from runway ends, or well to the side of customary alignments used by big jets. One-per-minute runway operations, extending for many hours at a time, are pretty much a norm at major airports. With multiple runways in operation simultaneously, overall arrival and departure rates can be higher. Do you know any urban area where helicopters operate so frequently, or make the kind of noise it takes to keep a half-million-pound aircraft aloft?
>uncompensated loss, inflicted by public policy, with an eye to advantage others.
Yea, NIMBY is the political/policy opposite of Kelo / eminent domain. It should be the libertarian default.
You think that the "libertarian default" should be that someone who doesn't own a piece of property should be able to tell someone who does what to do with the latter's own property?
Lathrop, once again you are correct. Fourty-eight years ago I made a choice regarding where to invest in housing. I could have chosen the big city “across the street” but I knew its voter base was was more interested in “freebies” extorted form the successful than fairly sharing the cost of civic improvements. They succeeded very well.
Now the City has rent “control” which has sent the developers rushing into my suburb seeking to destroy my investment by filling every vacant space with tastelessly designed apartment complexes. The city may gain property taxes but those of us who invested in quiet, wooded neighborhoods with curving streets, no traffic, no on street parking, and two (2) serious crimes in 48 years will see the value of our investmemt drop like a rock even if our particular neighborhood has lots too small for quadraplexes (is that possible?).
I am thinking that maybe the kind of deed covenants popular in gated communities might gain consent from 90% of we neighbors in my small, socially equal neighborhood.
WE vote here. The developers don’t. We NIMBYs elect the Council.
Ultimately votes count more than dollars in white envelops.
Zoning is the quintessential local issue, so the strategy of having the state government provide incentives vs. mandating requirements is a smart one.
One thing I would urge all zoning commissions do is to make it much easier for homeowners to cordon off a portion of their homes and renovate it so it can be rented out. In my Virginia city, this can be done very easily by the elderly, but if you’re not old enough, you’re out of luck. The fact is, it’s the younger people who need this, both as homeowners looking to share the astronomical costs of buying a home, and as renters who need inexpensive places to live.
Having a renter is certainly no more of an impact than having adult children living at home. We could vastly increase the supply of less expensive housing and help promote home ownership. It's a win-win.
Most zoning allows for residential within zones that allow industrial. There are areas within the commute to DC that are very undesirable and therefore cheaper.
Build there.
But of course the people who want cheap housing also want to live in a nice neighborhood, even if it destroys the property values of those already living there.
Oh so true.
The developers seek profit only. After all, in my metro area they all* live in gated comminities with rock solid Deed Covenants or HOA contracts. THEY are at no risk, we are.
Oh, and kudos to Governor Youngkin for taking this on. This is a great thing to work on because it affects everyone, it's a totally solvable problem, and it will benefit the state for many years to come. It's a hard nut to crack, but that just makes it all the more worth doing.
Ilya, I don't know whether you're being obtuse, or if you're just trying to spin Youngkin's statement so that it is supportive of a point you've been making.
But I think an informed read of Youngkin's statement is that it is geared more towards inducing sprawl and cutting protective local environmental regulations. I think that's going to be the conservative policy prescription for dealing with high housing prices, and it'll be paired with unsustainable highway construction projects to serve these far-flung exurban communities he wants to build.
One can always count on the Volokh Conspiracy to provide a fraction of the information needed to reach a reliable conclusion.
I live in Houston which famously has never had zoning and is proud of it and the lack of it results in some really uncomfortable situations.
Bars next door to houses. Sky scrapers wedged into external corners of neighborhoods where the homeowners have zero hope op privacy.
A couple of years ago an industrial plant that was located immediately adjoining a residential neighborhood suffered a powerful explosion at 4 in the morning. One man in the neighborhood was killed, maybe twenty were injured, and nearly 50 people were rendered homeless for the intermediate term because their homes were rendered unlivable.
There’s probably some middle ground somewhere, but the absolute absence of zoning really doesn’t work.
Absence of zoning destroys potential value. Exhibit A is Georgetown, in Washington, DC. There was zoning there even in the 1950s. But there was also a godawful rendering plant grandfathered in. The stench that plan emitted kept pretty much all of Georgetown a noisome slum until the plant shut down. Shortly thereafter, a bunch of black former-slum-dwellers who owned that real estate found themselves rich.
Then why didn't anyone buy the plant, tear it down, and replace it with more lucrative uses?
It's history Nieporent. Historical counterfactuals are pointless.
That's not how it works.
Nieporent, whatever ideological argument your comment was intended to advance, we already know for sure that this is not an example to support it. It happened. It's done. It is never going to come out otherwise.
Maybe because they couldn't capture a lot of the gain. The buyer could build some houses on the plant site of course, but most of the gain from the plant going away accrued to its neighbors.
Our governor sucks, but this seems good.
Quite a range of takes already. Guess it's a case of whose ox is gored.
It would seem like that to you. You’re an idiot.
The reason the Governor's proposal is strong on rhetoric and slight on details is that this egregious politician wants credit for addressing the problem but his cowardice prevents him from making a serious effort that would alienate some of the electorate.
This man campaigned in one persona, and changed that persona once he was in office. The Governor is simply a normal potical hack, and to celebrate his statements without demanding details is just plain wrong.
Oh, spare me. If a Dem politician had said the exact same things as Youngkin, you’d have been singing his praises. You’re just being a partisan hack, speaking of hacks.
You are a champion at funding hypothetical hypocrisy.
All this will do is provide another boon to developers. It will not reduce housing costs, it will not suddenly or otherwise result in multi-family housing being built in “more desirable” locations, but it will reinforce and strengthen NIMBY-ism. Particularly in the tony neighborhoods anti-zoning folk like the conspirators reside. The only affect will be that people with fewer/few resources will have even less say and less recourse re: development in their areas.