The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Arlington, Virginia Enacts "Missing Middle" Zoning Reform
The new policy isn't ideal. But it's an important deregulatory step in the right direction, making it easier to build new housing in response to growing demand.
Yesterday, Arlington County, Virginia (where I live) enacted "missing middle" zoning reform:
As housing stock locally and nationally has failed to keep up with demand, Arlington becomes the first locality in the D.C. region — and much of the East Coast — to loosen its zoning rules for more "missing middle" housing, an increasingly popular but often contested idea in urban planning. Governments both nearby and nationwide are weighing whether to follow suit with their own versions of a plan that had divided Arlington's 240,000 residents, who alternately said it would either diversify or destroy their neighborhoods.
In an October 2022 article in The Hill, I addressed the broader issues at stake in the Arlington "missing middle" fight and explained why people across the political spectrum have good reason to support this kind of zoning reform:
With housing demand booming over the last decade, the average price for a single-family home in Arlington has risen to some $1.2 million — unaffordable for most working and middle-class people. By abolishing single-family zoning restrictions, "missing middle" would greatly improve the situation, adding thousands of additional housing units to our stock. The fight over this issue is part of a broader nationwide struggle over affordable housing, property rights, and economic opportunity.
Arlington's housing crisis is microcosm of a broader national problem, under which zoning rules and other restrictions have priced millions of people out of areas where they could otherwise find valuable job and educational opportunities….
Exclusionary zoning disproportionately impacts the minorities and the poor, who are less likely to be able to afford expensive housing than affluent whites. Historically, restrictions like those currently in force in Arlington were often enacted for the specific purpose of keeping out Blacks and other non-whites. That's one reason why the Arlington NAACP supports Missing Middle. Liberalizing the construction of new housing is an under-appreciated common interest of racial minorities and the white working class….
Libertarians, conservatives and others who value property rights, also have good reason to support zoning reform. In Arlington and many other jurisdictions, zoning rules are the most severe constraints on owners' traditional ability to use their land as they see fit. Single-family zoning prevents them from building anything but one type of structure — even if the land could be more valuable and productive if used in a different way. Zoning restrictions are also a major constraint on economic growth and entrepreneurship of the kind that many on the political right seek to promote.
In that article, and in greater detail here, I also explained how zoning deregulation can benefit current homeowners in places like Arlington.
Arlington's new policy is by no means ideal. The version that passed only allows four or six unit buildings, as opposed to the maximum of eight in earlier versions of the proposal. The Washington Post notes some other limitations:
The zoning changes passed Wednesday make some concessions to critics: Starting July 1, the county will initially issue 58 permits annually for "missing middle" housing, which is called that because it falls into the "middle" of the scale between single-family houses and high-rise apartment buildings. An annual cap would be lifted in 2028.
Home builders will only be allowed to put the densest structures — with five or six units — on lots that are at least 6,000 square feet in most cases and 7,000 square feet in others, further limiting where they can actually go. All construction must also adhere to the same rules regulating height, lot coverage, floor area and setbacks of single-family houses.
It would be better to dispense with these restrictions and instead allow property owners to build any type of housing they want, unless it somehow poses a serious threat to public safety.
Nonetheless, this is still a big improvement over previous policies. As the Post notes, it's a milestone for the greater Washington, DC region that other jurisdictions in the area may imitate.
Zoning reform is an issue that unites progressives and libertarians, policy experts across the political spectrum, and also such disparate political leaders as California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, and Virginia's own Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin. It's also a rare issue where Youngkin has common ground with Arlington's very liberal county government. Of course, zoning deregulation also has "NIMBY" opponents on both right and left, including such figures as Donald Trump and various far leftists.
Hopefully, Arlington's new policy will create momentum for further progress, both here and elsewhere.
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
Bravo. Zoning has pernicious effects. All of us, liberal, conservative, libertarian should oppose bad zoning laws. Only our NIMBY tendencies work to override otherwise good sense policies.
"bad zoning laws"
Zoning "reforms" like this are just an attack on single family home ownership. Nothing "bad" about limiting a street or even an area to single family homes.
What role, if any, do deed restrictions play in all of this? In many places, certainly where I live, most residential property is burdened by deed restrictions limiting the property to a single family house of a square footage greater than an arbitrary minimum (usually the size of the smallest house the developer plans). Do (can) these types of zoning changes eliminate the restrictions imposed by deed.
More generally, what is the libertarian position on deed restrictions? After all, the buyer agrees to them when he or she purchases the land.
I would think the libertarian view would be that no deed restriction should survive the sale process. Anything else allows a non owner to exert control over a property that they have no ownership interest in.
Why would you think that would be the libertarian view?
Because no contract can or should exist in perpetuity without both parties having not only consent but an actual interest. Otherwise it concentrates control in a small few who have no actual risk exposure. It violates the core libertarian principal of property rights.
Arlington, huh? Probably hit real hard by the illegal immigration you encourage.
Arlington needs the same thing much of the rest of the country needs, single family homes that are attainable to regular middle and lower middle income families. If you look around almost all construction is for high end homes. There's plenty of demand for 1500-2000 sqft on a decent lot.
Teardown lots in my Arlington neighborhood start at 800K. The high-endedness of the home isn't the main issue. You could have a tiny bungalow that needs lots of repairs, it will still be at least 800K and if it's on a particularly desirable lot, even more.
SFHs are a waste of land. They're fine if the customer ends up paying the extra money that it needs to be sufficient (ie. higher prices for running sewage, water, electric, etc. etc.)
But what the US needs is just housing in general. Not everyone wants or needs a 1500-2000 sq ft house. Not to mention the gross inefficiencies of it compared to dense housing.
This is a need vs want thing. People don't need a single family residence with a yard and two-car garage. A lot of housing pressure could be covered by apartment/condos. Sure, people *want* the single family home with all the trappings, but land costs are generally too high.
San Francisco eliminated single-family zoning. My home was originally zoned R1. Now it can be a duplex with a limited use ADU. But even with that change, the city has been building below-market housing on public property to try and address unmet demand for middle class and poorer persons.
My neighborhood is zoned single family. It also bans overnight on-street parking. Allowing multi-family housing without requiring sufficient off-street parking will result in relaxation of the ban on on-street overnight parking. Allowing on street overnight parking is an invitation to homeless encampments.
Weird, because I've been parking on the streets overnight for roughly the last 36 years and have never had a homeless encampment outside my house.
I've lived in NYC for upwards of 15 years at this point. Plenty of on-street parking overnight; never noticed a homeless encampment outside my door.
Same for San Francisco. No homeless encampments on my street despite a significant amount of on-street parking, including double and triple-parked cars.
I wonder if increased housing results in decreased homelessness?
San Francisco is famously known for lack of homeless encampments.
And yet, the homeless encampments are not evenly distributed in a city with really bad parking everywhere and a notable homeless problem in only certain areas. It's almost like there's zero correlation between parking and homeless encampments.
Excellent. Hope it catches on.
How about land value taxes next? Plenty of space all over cities used up for useless parking that could be turned into great apartment or condo complexes.
You should buy the parking lots and build those apartments then. Sounds like a great public service and investment opportunity at the same time!
Building massive structures on small lots means neighbors' access to sunlight, especially during the Winter, will be limited. That might be especially problematic for homeowners with solar panels.