California housing crunch: Is the answer to end single-family zoning?
| Sacramento, Calif.
The history of single-family zoning in America stretches back more than a century to what today ranks as one of the bluest cities in one of the country鈥檚 bluest states.
Now famous as a bastion of liberal politics, the Northern California enclave of Berkeley established a first-of-its-kind policy in 1916 that prohibited multifamily housing on residential land. City planners at the time cast the regulation as a to protect neighborhoods from 鈥渢he intrusion of the less desirable and floating renter class.鈥澛�
The restrictions served to segregate minority tenants from white homeowners, and in the ensuing decades, as cities and suburbs coast to coast followed Berkeley鈥檚 example, single-family zoning contributed to California鈥檚 and the country鈥檚 affordable housing shortage and a rise in homelessness. In the San Francisco Bay Area 鈥� a constellation of 101 municipalities that includes Berkeley and is beset by some of the country鈥檚 highest housing prices and rents 鈥� of residential land allows for multifamily development.
Why We Wrote This
A portfolio of answers may be needed to fix America鈥檚 shortage of affordable housing. But increasingly, cities see the removal of exclusionary zoning as a key step 鈥� one that could also combat racial segregation.
Last month Berkeley officials a plan to redress the lasting effects of its century-old rule and alleviate the city鈥檚 housing crunch, vowing to eliminate single-family zoning by the end of next year.
The proposed policy could enable the building of duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in neighborhoods across the city, where half the residential land remains under single-family zoning and median rent for a one-bedroom apartment tops $2,000. Advocates suggest that the change would increase housing density and, by spreading the additional units throughout the city, create more living options for lower- and middle-income residents.
The Berkeley proposal arrived a month after the Sacramento City Council voted to of abolishing single-family zoning in California鈥檚 capital, which has confined multifamily dwellings to 30% of the city鈥檚 residential land. Officials in San Diego, San Jose, and South San Francisco are exploring similar alternatives as the state attempts to address a housing deficit estimated at .
The push to revitalize the so-called missing middle of housing 鈥� and unwind the legacy of exclusionary zoning and other discriminatory housing policies 鈥� has gained momentum since Minneapolis became the nation鈥檚 to jettison single-family zoning in 2018. Oregon lawmakers banned the policy in much of the state in 2019, and last year Portland officials approved a comparable measure to nurture multifamily housing.
University of California, Berkeley Othering & Belonging Institute; New York Times; Sightline Institute
础尘别谤颈肠补鈥檚听聽proscribe anything other than single-family housing on about three-fourths of residential property. Reform advocates fault the constraints on multifamily dwellings, in part, for the country鈥檚 affordable housing gap of 7 million units, including 1.3 million in California, where recent legislative proposals to聽聽statewide have faltered.
Opponents of efforts to remove or loosen single-family zoning rules claim聽would alter the character of neighborhoods, hurt property values, and accelerate gentrification. A coalition of groups in Minneapolis, citing聽, has sued the city over its plans to increase housing density.
Officials in Berkeley view such criticisms as misplaced, pointing out that ending exclusionary zoning would neither prevent the building nor authorize the demolition of single-family homes 鈥� a pair of common misperceptions. They further assert that the reforms would foster incremental change 鈥� much of the new housing would involve converting existing homes into duplexes and the like 鈥� and help the Bay Area meet a state mandate to add 441,000 housing units by 2031.
Beyond practical considerations, supporters emphasize the symbolism of rooting out a policy planted in the poisoned soil of discrimination. During a recent public discussion on Berkeley鈥檚 proposal, City Councilmember Ben Bartlett gave voice to that centurylong grievance.
鈥淲e cannot ignore that from the onset, zoning鈥檚 sole purpose was to segregate by race, to the detriment of people of color,鈥� he said.
