logo
Back to Basics

Back to Basics

Yahoo29-04-2025

Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week's newsletter takes a look at a few major housing developments in state legislatures. Stories include:
How a California transit-oriented development bill survived a crucial committee hearing, while a missing middle bill wasn't so lucky
Montana lawmakers continue to perform more miracles on zoning reform.
Washington legislators pass statewide rent control.
As the newsletter covered last week, two significant California housing bills, Senate Bill 79 and Senate Bill 677—which would respectively upzone land near transit and liberalize regulations on duplexes and starter homes—faced a make-or-break hearing before the Senate Housing Committee.
One made it, the other broke.
The committee rejected S.B. 677 and approved S.B. 79. The latter bill now heads to the state Senate's Local Government Committee.
The immediate practical implication is that any serious reforms to the state's signature missing middle housing regulations are a dead letter this year, while debates about whether or not to enable more transit-oriented development will continue.
The housing committee hearing itself included some tense, if exceedingly inside-baseball, drama.
S.B. 79 passed over the objection of Senate Housing Committee Chair Aisha Wahab (D–Hayward), who has repeatedly expressed skepticism about the ability of market-rate (i.e. unsubsidized) housing to ease California's housing shortage.
"Rolling the chair," as that is colloquially called, is considered an unusual and confrontational move.
When testifying in favor of S.B. 79, Sen. Scott Wiener (D–San Francisco), the author of that bill and S.B. 677, also spent a considerable amount of time criticizing the unusually negative committee report on S.B. 79.
This was a not-so-veiled swipe at Wahab, whose committee consultants prepared a report that included no recommendations for how to amend or improve S.B. 79, and instead just urged a simple "no" vote.
Wiener compared the report to a line from Marge Simpson's aunt (he meant mother), who says in one episode, "It hurts to talk, so I'll just say one thing: you never do anything right."
Wahab, during her own remarks at the housing committee hearing, spared no criticism of S.B. 79, which she said was unacceptable so long as it didn't include affordable housing mandates.
"Bypassing affordable units perpetuates socioeconomic segregation, which is de facto racial segregation," she said at the hearing.
While California's supply-side housing reformers can be happy that S.B. 79 did survive a hostile committee hearing, the nature of the debate is nevertheless a depressing reminder of just how little progress has been made conceptually on this issue.
In the state with one of the worst housing crises in the country, lawmakers are still having this very rudimentary discussion about whether enabling more housing production generally will lower housing costs.
This should be a no-brainer. Economic theory and real-world results from other, less regulated states make it abundantly clear that when more new housing is built, even when it's expensive "luxury" housing, average prices fall. The people who can't afford the newest, most expensive housing still benefit from falling rents on older, existing units.
The alternative idea that new housing has to be built as money-losing, below-market-rate housing in order for it to improve affordability is not just false, but gallingly so.
It's easy to see the absurdity of that position when it applies to any other good. Imagine a lawmaker arguing in the middle of a famine that new land can't be opened up for farming unless farmers are required to sell their crops at a loss.
That California legislators, let alone the chair of the state Senate's Housing Committee, still don't grok that very obviously true idea is equal parts alarming and sad.
On one of the most important issues facing California, legislators are still fighting over the basics.
The good news is that lawmakers in other states have in fact grokked the basics on housing.
In Montana, lawmakers have built on last session's housing reforms (the so-called "Montana Miracle") with the passage of a slew of bills that pare back local parking minimums and height limits, while capping impact fees charged on new housing developments.
The parking reform bill, House Bill 492 authored by Rep. Katie Zolnikov (R–Billings), prevents city zoning codes from requiring parking for child care facilities, assisted living facilities, affordable housing, and residential units under 1,200 square feet.
A second bill, S.B. 243 authored by Sen. Ellie Boldman (D–Missoula), would prevent local governments from setting height limits of fewer than sixty feet in downtown areas, industrial areas, and commercial clusters.
Those two bills pair well with a law enacted in 2023 that allows mixed-use and multifamily residential buildings in commercial zones.
While that bill ended explicit zoning bans on building apartments in downtown commercial areas, minimum parking requirements and height limits still made residential development practically infeasible.
With S.B. 243, a developer would have every right to convert a centrally located commercial lot into a six-story apartment building. Provided the units are all under 1,200 square feet, H.B. 492 would free them from any obligation to add parking—which is often a development killer on smaller lots.
"It's going to be a big deal. There are a lot of cities in Montana that maintain some pretty severe height limits. We should be building up," says Kendall Cotton, the president of the Frontier Institute, a Montana-based think tank.
Another notable bill, S.B. 133, eliminates local governments' ability to charge impact fees for landscaping and caps increases on impact fees to the producer price index's increase in commodity prices.
Montana's zoning reforms are notable both for their sweep and their simplicity. Contra the typical California zoning reform, Montana's bills are all a few pages long, and refreshingly free from endless carve-outs and caveats about labor standards and affordability mandates.
That leaves less room for local governments to exploit loopholes and makes the bills more intelligible and usable for developers.
State-level zoning preemptions are a pretty recent phenomenon in the Montana Legislature.
When Danny Tenenbaum, a former Democratic legislator from Missoula, introduced a fourplex bill in the 2021 session, it didn't make it out of committee.
But that defeat was followed by Gov. Greg Gianforte assembling a bipartisan task force in 2022 to look at ways to increase housing supply in the state.
A number of recommendations from that task force, including preemption of local restrictions on duplexes and accessory dwelling units, managed to pass with the governor's backing in 2023.
Now that lawmakers are more used to the idea of state-level preemption, it's easier to build support for subsequent bills, says Tenenbaum.
"Once we passed a few bills and got people used to voting yes to putting some sideboards on what regulations local governments can impose, that made it a lot easier to bring other bills that set further limits on what red tape cities can use to slow down and block housing development," he tells Reason.
Having passed the Legislature, Montana's housing reforms go to the governor for a signature. Once transmitted to his desk, Gianforte will have 10 days to sign them.
Tenenbaum wrote a comprehensive rundown of all the bills that have passed the Montana Legislature this session for the Sightline Institute. Read Reason's interview with Gianforte about housing reform here.
The slow, steady rehabilitation of rent control continued this past week, with the Washington Legislature giving final approval to a bill that caps annual rent increases to the lesser of 7 percent plus inflation or 10 percent.
As Oregon Public Broadcasting reports, the bill faced opposition from both the legislature's Republican minority and some moderate Democrats who expressed credible fears that capping rents would reduce home construction.
Those moderates briefly succeeded in raising the rent increase cap to 10 percent plus inflation. But this was then cut back down to 7 percent. The bill passed on the last day of the state's legislative session.
Washington follows the example of its southern neighbor, Oregon, which in 2019 passed the country's first state-level rent control law. California followed suit later that year.
Washington's bill includes a number of moderating provisions, including an exemption for buildings that were built in the last 12 years and two-, three-, and four-unit buildings when the owner lives on site. The bill also allows vacancy decontrol, meaning landlords can raise rents an unlimited amount on vacant units.
This makes Washington's bill relatively more modest than some legacy local rent control policies as exist in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York, where rent increases are typically capped at one or two percent a year.
That's not to say that it's costless. Economic theory and academic research are clear that to the degree that rent control suppresses rents, it will also suppress housing construction and/or housing quality.
Today's moderate rent control policy can also become tomorrow's strict rent control policy.
In 2019, New York drastically tightened longstanding rent stabilization policies covering New York City. The policy has certainly helped to suppress rents.
New data from the New York Apartment Association, an advocacy group for property owners, show continually falling rental incomes, falling maintenance spending, and a sharp increase in financially distressed properties following the 2019 reforms.
California is currently considering a bill to slash its own state-wide rent cap from 5 percent plus inflation to 2 percent plus inflation, and expand controls to many single-family homes and condominiums.
Like dozens of states around the country, Washington had sworn off rent control. There were no state-level controls, and state law prohibited localities from adopting their own policy—always a sore spot for Seattle socialists.
Washington's rent control bill leaves the prohibition on local rent control laws in place. Provided Gov. Bob Ferguson signs it, it'll join the movement to rehabilitate a once radioactive policy.
Over at Commentary, Seth Mandel covers a contentious zoning fight in Linden, New Jersey, where the town's Orthodox Jewish community is objecting to new rules limiting the size of homes on smaller lots.
The town's Jewish residents argue that limiting the size of homes is a ban on the kinds of large family-sized homes that Orthodox Jews with large families require.
Mandel's article details additional zoning restrictions seemingly aimed at the Jewish community, including Linden continually expanding minimum lot sizes for houses of worship until none could be built in the town.
That latter restriction would seem to be an easy target for a lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that protects religious land uses from local and state land use regulations.
Other Orthodox communities in New Jersey, with the aid of the U.S. Justice Department, have filed successful RLUIPA lawsuits against their towns' zoning restrictions.
What stands out in the Linden case is that the zoning restrictions being deployed to allegedly exclude the Jewish community are hardly unique. Towns and cities across the country maintain egregious minimum lot size requirements, excessive regulations on small lot development, and more.
Historically, zoning laws were used to exclude certain types of people. Today, their aim is a more general exclusion of people and businesses. That's a little less noxious than outright racial or religious discrimination. It's hardly inclusive.
Read Reason's voluminous past coverage of zoning laws tripping up religious land uses.
The U.S. Supreme Court mulls taking up a challenge to Los Angeles' COVID-era eviction restrictions.
Over at City Journal, the Cicero Institute's Devon Kurtz argues that the Trump administration was right to shutter the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness.
New York's mayoral candidates are warming to freezing rents at rent-stabilized buildings, reports Politico.
Bay Area homeowners sue the city of Belvedere, saying the city has fined them $250,000 over permitting violations they claim were in fact the city bureaucracy's fault, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
Ned Resnikoff in The Nation on how YIMBYs are the real class warriors
The post Back to Basics appeared first on Reason.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New York legislature passes medical aid in dying bill
New York legislature passes medical aid in dying bill

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

New York legislature passes medical aid in dying bill

Jun. 10—ALBANY — The New York state legislature has passed a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide, a program supporters are calling "medical aid in dying." On Monday evening, with just a few days left for voting for the scheduled legislative session, the state Senate voted to pass its copy of the legislation. The state Assembly passed it earlier this year, and the bill now awaits Gov. Kathleen C. Hochul's decision to sign, veto or amend the legislation. Under the terms of the bill, people with a terminal illness who have an estimated six months or less before their disease will kill them can ask their physician for a prescription for life-ending drugs, which they can take home and consume on their own. The legislation has some protections, requiring a physician to evaluate the patient's ability to make decisions and refer them for psychiatric evaluation if there are questions over capacity. Patients have to make an oral and written request for the life-ending drugs, and the request be witnessed by two adults who are not closely related to the patient or likely to benefit after their death. It also permits medical professionals to recuse themselves from requests for medically assisted suicide, ordering them to refer requests they refuse to other doctors. Supporters of the bill say it will give New Yorkers suffering from terminal illnesses a safe, humane way to end their lives. They point to cases where terminally ill people have chosen to stop eating or drinking or chosen to end their lives in other, not legally sanctioned ways. Opponents of the bill raise concerns over the message it sends to sick people, that they should choose death rather than fight for their health, as well as practical concerns over whether the medication that would be prescribed could be a health hazard if not properly stored. They also expressed concerns over the bill's approach to how the death will be recorded. Under the bill's terms, someone who takes advantage of the program would have their cause of death listed as their terminal illness, not the ingestion of life-ending drugs. They also raised concerns over the lack of post-dispensation tracking for the lethal drugs, raising concerns they could be misused. The bill has circulated in Albany for nearly a decade, going most years without a floor vote in either chamber. Just last year, it lacked majority support in the Senate, but a successful lobbying effort this year pushed it to approval in the Assembly and now in the Senate. Debate stretched into Monday evening, with detractors in the Senate expressing concern. Sen. Steven D. Rhoads, R-Nassau, questioned why the bill doesn't include a specific requirement that doctors review a patient's medical records before prescribing the medication. "There is nothing in the bill that requires that," he said during floor debate. But proponents of the bill said it's a meaningful step towards medical autonomy and the right to choose — Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, D-Manhattan, the Senate sponsor of the bill, said that some identified gaps in the bill will be filled in the regulation-crafting process with the state Department of Health, which will be tasked with overseeing the implementation and authorization necessary to allow New York doctors and pharmacies to dispense these lethal medications. The lobbying isn't over yet. A major opponent of the bill, the New York State Catholic Conference, took to the halls of the Capitol on Monday in a last-ditch effort to kill the bill's chances in the Senate. Their effort was unsuccessful, but they've continued to push the governor to reject the bill. Sen. Mark C. Walczyk, R-Sackets Harbor, said in a statement that he was sad to see the bill pass. "I have tremendous sympathy for those with terminal illnesses and respect families who face end-of-life decisions," Walczyk said in a statement. "This legislation lacks critical protections for the vulnerable, structurally incentivizes suicide, and devalues human life. We need only look at the examples of states and nations that have promoted this policy. Instead of providing an option for individuals to end their lives, we should focus on improving health care for the vulnerable and enhancing hospice and palliative care for the terminally ill to ensure that every New Yorker has access to compassionate support during their most vulnerable moments, rather than offering a misguided solution that encourages despair."

Tesla could lose billions in revenue as Trump administration weighs eliminating a key regulatory credit loophole
Tesla could lose billions in revenue as Trump administration weighs eliminating a key regulatory credit loophole

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Tesla could lose billions in revenue as Trump administration weighs eliminating a key regulatory credit loophole

Senate Republicans are proposing the elimination of penalties for not abiding by certain fuel efficiency standards. These penalties would render regulatory credits, an incentive for auto companies to abide by the standards, essentially useless. Tesla relies on these credits for a chunk of its revenue, racking up $2.67 billion from them in 2024. As Tesla stock sputters following CEO Elon Musk's feud with President Donald Trump, the EV maker is facing yet another threat from the administration. Republicans are doubling down on efforts to weaken carbon emission standards for the auto industry, which have provided opportunities for companies producing eco-friendly vehicles, such as Tesla, to receive and sell regulatory credits for profit. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation proposed last week eliminating penalties for companies not meeting certain economy fuel standards set to mitigate carbon emissions. The proposal is included in the committee's portion of Trump's sweeping budget bill. After Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were introduced in 1975 as a means of setting standards for fuel efficiency, a credits program emerged following lobbying efforts from auto companies looking to be paid to produce lower emission vehicles. Auto companies that produce a certain amount of energy-efficient cars are given a number of credits, depending on how eco-friendly their manufactured vehicles are. Companies are required to have a certain number of credits annually. While Tesla is able to easily attain these credits as a producer of cars that don't run on gas, other manufacturers, like Ford and Stellantis, are not. Therefore, they buy credits from Tesla, who can sell those credits for practically 100% profit. The Senate committee's proposal would eliminate certain CAFE penalties, rendering the need to have credits useless, Chris Harto, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, told Fortune in an email. 'It also would essentially turn the CAFE standards into nothing more than a reporting requirement with no consequences for automakers who fail to improve the efficiency of the vehicles they sell,' he said. The committee argued the provision would 'modestly' bring down the cost of cars by eliminating CAFE penalties. These CAFE credits have been a boon for Tesla, which has been battered by CEO Musk's controversial involvement in—and departure from—the Trump administration. The EV-maker made $2.76 billion from regulatory credits in fiscal 2024 and $595 million in the first quarter of 2025, according to earnings reports. Tesla reported $420 million in net income the same quarter, meaning without the regulatory credit, the company would not have been profitable. 'A key element of Tesla's profitability has been its ability to generate credits because it makes zero emissions, and sell those credits to more polluting car companies like GM and Ford and Stellantis—primarily gas-guzzlers that don't really want to make clean cars,' Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Fortune. 'By taking away these credits, they're taking away a key element of Tesla's profitability,' he added. Tesla did not respond to Fortune's request for comment. The Senate committee's proposal is one of several efforts by the Trump administration to cut auto sustainability standards. Last month the Senate passed legislation blocking a California effort to ban gas-powered vehicles and mandate sales of only zero-emission cars and light trucks by 2035. The bill, should it be signed by the president, would take a $2 billion bite out of Tesla's revenue, according to JPMorgan analysts. Also in Trump's massive budget bill is the elimination at the end of this year of tax credits up to $7,500 for buyers of certain Tesla and other EV models, which would cost $1.2 billion of Tesla's full-year profit, the analysts calculated. Tesla's credit headaches extend across the Atlantic Ocean. Regulatory credits are common in Europe and Asia, and the European Union, for example, gives credits to European automakers who sell a certain number of zero-emission cars. But as Tesla sales crater overseas—including falling by 49% in April—the EV maker may not be able to reach the number of sales necessary to gain credits. As of April, Tesla—grouped with Ford and Stellantis in a manufacturing pool to achieve the EU's emission standards—are still short of the target, according to a report from the International Council on Clean Transportation. Poor sales could jeopardize Tesla's ability to rack up credits. 'If things go bad for Tesla and they don't sell enough cars this year, they might not have enough credits for what they promised Stellantis and the others,' ICCT managing director Peter Mock told Politico in March. 'Tesla is under pressure.' This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOGE's Supreme Court victory is a huge loss for Americans' privacy
DOGE's Supreme Court victory is a huge loss for Americans' privacy

The Hill

time38 minutes ago

  • The Hill

DOGE's Supreme Court victory is a huge loss for Americans' privacy

The six justices comprising the far-right majority on the Supreme Court just radically endorsed a sweeping intrusion into the privacy of hundreds of millions of Americans by the Department of Government Efficiency or 'DOGE,' without so much as the pretense of a justification. One must seriously wonder what their endgame really is, because it's not about upholding the law. With the exception of a reference to the Treasury Department, the Constitution says nothing about federal agencies. Congress creates them pursuant to its Article I powers to legislate. But Congress did not pass any legislation creating the Department of Government Efficiency. It was declared into existence by President Trump via executive order when he took office in January. What's more, for the real federal agencies that Congress actually creates, Article II of the Constitution mandates that their officers — the agency heads or 'secretaries' — must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. The outgoing 'head' of DOGE, Elon Musk, was neither. Congressionally created agency heads are also confined to the job descriptions established under a governing statute for each particular agency. For DOGE, Trump directed the actual federal agencies to create 'DOGE Teams' to 'coordinate their work' with Musk and to 'advise their respective Agency Heads on implementing the President's DOGE Agenda.' This kind of uber-power over agencies is constitutionally unprecedented. The point of mandating Senate confirmation of agency heads is of course to enable elected representatives of the people to gather information about a candidate's qualifications and possible disqualifying characteristics, such as conflicts of interest that would make it difficult or impossible for an officer to neutrally exercise the duties of their office. According to an April report from Senate Democrats, Musk and his companies faced upwards of $2.37 billion in legal liability stemming from 65 pending or potential federal investigations, regulations and litigation across 11 agencies relating to his companies — including Tesla, SpaceX and Neuralink. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reported in February that Musk would simply 'excuse himself' if a conflict of interest arose. That cynical strategy failed. In firing tens of thousands of federal employees, including over a dozen inspectors general, Musk managed to muck around with numerous agencies that regulate him — such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is now nearly defunct, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This is grossly inappropriate self-dealing. A lawsuit filed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees complained that Musk's DOGE team members were violating a slew of federal laws, including the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Social Security Act, the Tax Revenue Act of 1976 and the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014. The Privacy Act protects citizens' sensitive data unless government access is 'for a necessary and proper purpose' and mandates that 'adequate safeguards' be in place 'to prevent misuses of this information.' Information cannot even be shared between agencies without the consent of the people whose personal data is implicated. In April, a federal judge in Maryland agreed that Trump's unfettered data-collection effort was legally dubious, finding that the pretense that it was necessary to detect 'fraud, waste and abuse' was not enough to overcome the myriad statutory protections for individual Americans' private data. The judge issued an order temporarily enjoining DOGE from harvesting unlimited amounts of information from the Social Security Administration — which may include birth dates, addresses, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers, tax return information, bank account information, credit card numbers, employment and wage histories, citizenship and immigration records, and detailed medical records. Trump's executive order requires agencies to give the DOGE teams 'full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.' The lawsuit is thus a standoff between Trump's roving DOGE snoops and the rule of law itself. In a terse order issued without full briefing or oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts — on behalf of the six conservative justices in the majority — sided with DOGE, reversing the district court's temporary injunction and allowing Musk's minions to access a treasure trove of personal data while the district court's decision is on appeal. Normally, when a district court issues an order, that order holds while it is appealed (absent some finding of exceptional circumstances). In this case, DOGE was positioned to possibly get what it wants down the line, either from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit or from the Supreme Court in due course, while the case makes its way through the system. In the meantime, the status quo of keeping statutory protections in place for regular Americans would stand — just like it has under every president before Trump. Instead, Roberts found that it is DOGE — not the American people — that would irreparably suffer if the legal questions are given time to percolate on appeal. DOGE gets the goods immediately. If the plaintiffs manage to secure a ruling affirming the district court on appeal many months from now, thus undoing the Supreme Court's stay, the damage will already have been done. The data is already breached. There is no longer a remedy. To justify his decision, Roberts properly cited the four-part test for granting a temporary stay of an injunction: Trump must show that he will likely win under the various federal laws that otherwise protect the data, that he'd be irreparably damaged without a stay, that the stay will not 'substantially injure' other parties (like Americans who want their personal data to remain secure) and that a stay is in the broader public interest. The wrinkle is that Roberts didn't bother to actually analyze any of these factors. He just summarily concluded they were satisfied. Too bad for the plaintiffs — and too bad for the American people, whose personal data is now in the hands of DOGE and anyone else it cares to share it with. Roberts simply reasoned that the DOGE team must get access to the records 'for those members to do their work.' In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that 'the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The majority nonetheless is 'jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process.' Since the landmark 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court's job has included holding the other branches of government accountable to federal statutes. By baldly eschewing its constitutional role while hiding behind a veneer of legitimacy, today's conservative majority is much like DOGE, the entity it put above the law: a fake. Kimberly Wehle is author of the book 'Pardon Power: How the Pardon System Works — and Why.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store