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

2024 Election Results Under Scrutiny as Lawsuit Advances
2024 Election Results Under Scrutiny as Lawsuit Advances

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

2024 Election Results Under Scrutiny as Lawsuit Advances

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A legal case questioning the accuracy of the 2024 election is moving forward. The lawsuit, brought by SMART Legislation, the action arm of SMART Elections, a nonpartisan watchdog group, filed the lawsuit over voting discrepancies in Rockland County, New York. Judge Rachel Tanguay of the New York Supreme Court ruled in open court in May that the allegations were serious enough for discovery to proceed. Newsweek has contacted SMART Elections for comment via email. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images Why It Matters The lawsuit could renew debate about the 2024 election, though it won't change the outcome since Congress has certified the results declaring President Donald Trump the winner. It comes amid unconfirmed reports that voting machines were secretly altered before ballots were cast in November's election. The federally accredited testing lab, Pro V&V, that signed off on "significant" changes to ES&S voting machines—which are used in over 40 percent of U.S. counties—"vanished from public view" after the election, according to the Dissent in Bloom Substack. What To Know According to the complaint, more voters have sworn in legal affidavits that they voted for independent U.S. Senate candidate Diane Sare than the Rockland County Board of Elections counted and certified, contradicting those results. The complaint also cited numerous statistical anomalies in the presidential election results. They include multiple districts where hundreds of voters chose the Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, but none voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for president. Max Bonamente, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the author of the Statistics and Analysis of Scientific Data, said in a paper that the 2024 presidential election results were statistically highly unlikely in four of the five towns in Rockland County when compared with 2020 results. What People Are Saying Lulu Friesdat, the founder and executive director of SMART Legislation, said in a statement: "There is clear evidence that the Senate results are incorrect, and there are statistical indications that the presidential results are highly unlikely. "If the results are incorrect, it is a violation of the constitutional rights of each person who voted in the 2024 Rockland County general election. The best way to determine if the results are correct is to examine the paper ballots in a full public, transparent hand recount of all presidential and Senate ballots in Rockland County. We believe it's vitally important, especially in the current environment, to be absolutely confident about the results of the election." Max Bonamente said in a paper on the voting data from Rockland County: "These data would require extreme sociological or political causes for their explanation, and would benefit from further assurances as to their fidelity." Costas Panagopoulos, a professor of political science at Northeastern University, told Newsweek: "Statistical irregularities in elections should always be investigated, but the sources of such inconsistencies, which can include error or miscalculation, are not always nefarious. Still, scrutinizing election results can strengthen confidence in elections. Mistakes can happen. "In this case, the drop-off inconsistencies could reflect the idiosyncratic nature of the 2024 presidential election cycle. Alone, statistical comparisons to previous cycles cannot provide definitive proof of wrongdoing. "In any case, it does not appear that any of these inconsistencies would be sufficient to change the outcomes of any of the elections in question in New York state. That does not mean they should not be scrutinized, and any errors, if verified, should be corrected for the historical record. But there is not necessarily any need to invalidate any of these elections in these jurisdictions." What's Next The lawsuit is seeking a full, hand recount of ballots cast in the presidential and U.S. Senate races in Rockland County. A hearing has been scheduled for September 22.

Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit
Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit

CNBC

timean hour ago

  • CNBC

Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit

As Senate Republicans debate President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill", a lesser-known provision from the House-approved package could make it harder to claim a low-income tax credit. If enacted as written, the House measure in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would require precertification of each qualifying child for filers claiming the so-called earned income tax credit, or EITC, starting in 2028. Under current law, taxpayers claim the EITC on their tax return — including Schedule EIC for qualifying children. The provision aims to "avoid duplicative and other erroneous claims," according to the bill's text. But policy experts say the new rules would burden eligible filers, who may forgo the EITC as a result. The measure could also delay tax refunds for those filers, particularly amid IRS cutbacks, experts say. More from Personal Finance:Job market is 'trash' right now, career coach says — here's whyWhat a 'revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investorsWhat Trump's plan to slash Pell Grant to lowest level in a decade means for you "You're going to flood the IRS with all these [EITC] documents," said Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "It's just not clear how they're going to process all this information." Holtzblatt, who has pushed to simplify the EITC for decades, wrote a critique of the proposed precertification last week. "This is not a new idea, but was previously considered, studied and rejected for very good reasons," Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University Law, wrote about the proposal in late May. Studies during the George W. Bush administration found an EITC precertification process reduced EITC claims for eligible filers, Leiserson wrote. During the study, precertification also yielded a lower return on investment compared to existing EITC enforcement, such as audits, he wrote. One of the key benefits of the EITC is the tax break is "refundable," meaning you can still claim the credit and get a refund with zero taxes owed. That's valuable for lower earners who don't have a tax bill, experts say. To qualify, you need "earned income," or wages from work. The income phase-outs depend on your "qualifying children," based on four IRS tests. "Eligibility is complicated," and residency requirements for qualifying children often cause errors, said Holtzblatt with the Tax Policy Center. For 2025, the tax break is worth up to $8,046 for eligible families. You can claim the maximum EITC with adjusted gross income up to $61,555 for single filers and $68,675 for married couples filing jointly. These phase-outs apply to families with three or more children. As of December 2024, about 23 million workers received the EITC for tax year 2022, according to the IRS. But 1 in 5 eligible taxpayers don't claim the tax break, the agency estimates. Nine Democratic Senators last week voiced concerns about the House-approved EITC changes in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. If enacted, the updates would "further complicate the EITC's existing challenges and make it more difficult to claim," the lawmakers wrote. Higher earners are more likely to face an audit, but EITC claimants have a 5.5 times higher audit rate than the rest of U.S. filers, partly due to improper payments, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. The proposed EITC change, among other House provisions, still need Senate approval, and it's unclear how the measure could change. However, under the reconciliation process, Senate Republicans only need a simple majority to advance the bill.

'One Big Beautiful Bill' harms more than it helps, says Miami archbishop
'One Big Beautiful Bill' harms more than it helps, says Miami archbishop

Miami Herald

timean hour ago

  • Miami Herald

'One Big Beautiful Bill' harms more than it helps, says Miami archbishop

The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed in the U.S. House and is now in the Senate. Senators have a critical opportunity to reshape or amend some of the bill's provisions before moving it forward. Doing so is imperative, as the bill passed by the House contains real and substantial threats to the promotion of the common good and the protection of human life and dignity. Many across the political spectrum object to the bill's enormous spending, arguing it will add to the already unsustainable national debt. One of the most problematic areas is its doubling down on an enforcement-only approach to immigration, which needlessly adds to this debt. This sweeping legislation allocates $24 billion for immigration enforcement and $45 billion for detention — including the detention of families — a 400% increase from current funding levels, according to Dominican Life USA, which has broken down the immigration costs. It also proposes $100 million to expedite the removal of unaccompanied children. Additionally, the bill would impose prohibitive fees on immigrant families: $8,500 for family reunification with an unaccompanied child, $1,000 to request asylum, which does not exist now, and $550 for a work permit that must be renewed every six months. These draconian measures undermine both financial logic and moral responsibility. The administration has already effectively regained control of the border and is aggressively removing and deporting 'bad actors' — those who commit serious felonies after entering the country. However, as employers in agriculture, healthcare and service industries can attest, the majority of immigrants are honest, hardworking individuals who are simply seeking a better future for their families. Most undocumented immigrants are not criminals. Many have temporary protections, such as TPS (Temporary Protected Status), parole, or pending asylum applications. Some — including Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans — entered under special humanitarian visas. Others arrived legally on student or visitor visas and later fell out of status by overstaying their visas. DREAMers, brought to the U.S. as children, have only been granted 'deferred departure' and still have no pathway to legal permanent residence. Rather than spend billions on mass deportation efforts targeting people who are already contributing positively to our nation, it would be both more financially prudent and morally just to halt enforcement-only policies and expand legal pathways to permanent status for non-criminal immigrants. The U.S. is currently facing labor shortages in many industries, including healthcare, services and agriculture. Removing immigrant workers will only worsen these shortages. While the administration enforces the laws, Congress makes the laws — and has the power to change them. Congress could revise the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to be less expensive, more economically advantageous and better aligned with our values by eliminating wasteful spending on enforcement and including a stay on deportations of non-criminal immigrants. Otherwise, this legislation will fund a mass deportation campaign that could tear apart families, disrupt industrie, and undermine communities. Long-term residents with U.S.-citizen children — people who work, pay taxes and enrich our culture — will be forced out. That does not serve the long-term interests or moral foundations of our country. Thomas Wenski is the archbishop of Miami.

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