Statewide measures to change zoning at the local level have passed or are under consideration in several states. The aim is to allow a range of more affordable housing options and to create more equitable and sustainable communities. Opposition based on the tradition of local control over land use has been building, however. Find out more about current reform efforts below, and read our article The State of Local Zoning to learn more about the history of zoning and the reasons behind the push for reform.

Arizona. State representatives César Chávez (D) and Steve Kaiser (R) introduced a bill in 2022 allowing multifamily housing or increased single-family-home density on land zoned for agriculture or single-family homes. Following fierce opposition, the proposal was rewritten to establish a committee to study housing supply.

California. In 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill eliminating parking requirements near transit and legalizing mixed-income multifamily housing in all commercial areas. That followed the statewide legalization of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in 2016, and a 2021 measure allowing property owners to split a single-family home or lot into duplexes or fourplexes. Opponents have vowed to reverse that law through a ballot initiative.

Connecticut. A sweeping reform bill passed in 2021 forbids local zoning that caps the number of multifamily housing units or discriminates against lower-income residents, in a state where 90 percent of land is reserved for single-family homes as of right. The package also legalizes ADUs, caps minimum parking requirements, enforces affordable housing targets, and eliminates the terms “character,” “overcrowding of land,” and “undue concentration of population” as the legal basis for zoning regulations.

Maine. A package introduced in early 2022 would have created a state oversight board with the power to override local decisions about critical housing projects; it also would have eliminated caps on growth instituted by municipalities citing “overcrowding.” Those provisions were removed, leaving a law that allows ADUs on land zoned for single-family homes.

Maryland. A 2020 bill to increase housing density in higher-income areas that have a concentration of jobs and access to transit failed to progress, as did another measure requiring municipalities to allow ADUs. Baltimore has considered ending single-family-only zoning on its own.

Massachusetts. Under the MBTA Communities law passed in 2021 and signed by Governor Charlie Baker (R), multifamily housing at a density of 15 units per acre must be allowed by right near transit stations, or state funding for infrastructure and other projects will be withheld. Several communities have challenged the policy, and some have indicated willingness to forgo the funding rather than comply.

Montana. In late 2022, a housing task force appointed by Governor Greg Gianforte (R) recommended opening areas zoned for single-family homes to duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, and overhauling other restrictive local zoning regulations. The head of the organization representing Montana cities and towns called the effort “straight out of California.” The legislature is expected to consider related proposals this year.

Nebraska. A bill introduced in 2020 and intended to ban single-family-only zoning and allow fourplexes was replaced by a measure that requires only that cities and towns show they are working toward affordable housing.

North Carolina. Bipartisan legislation in 2021 called for allowing duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes in any residential zoning district with water and sewer service, and allowing ADUs. That proposal stalled after opposition from local jurisdictions.

Oregon. The first state in the country to ban single-family-only zoning, Oregon enacted a law in 2019 that requires most cities with populations over 1,000 to allow duplexes, and requires municipalities of 25,000 or more to allow townhouses, triplexes, and fourplexes.

Utah. A measure passed in 2022 leverages state funding for local zoning reform that makes it easier to build middle-income housing and transit-oriented development. In late 2022, the state legislature was also considering withholding state funds for communities that lack a housing master plan, and overriding local zoning and hearings processes to allow landowners to build affordable housing.

Virginia. Governor Glenn Youngkin (R), who has been critical of NIMBYism, released a plan in November that recommends linking state funding to local housing plans and investigating comprehensive zoning reform.

Washington. Legislation under consideration would allow greater density at transit stations and permit two-, three-, and four-family homes in areas now zoned for single-family homes.

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute, host of the Land Matters podcast, and a contributing editor to Land Lines.

Image: Accessory dwelling unit in Seattle. Credit: Sightline Institute via Flickr CC BY 2.0.

Making the case that antiquated rules governing development in the United States are driving up housing prices amid a growing affordability crisis, advocates for statewide zoning reform are seeking to build on recent successes from California to Connecticut. But statewide mandates are encountering resistance from those defending local control of land use, a system that has prevailed for a century.

While the rule changes being implemented or considered are at a technical level previously only familiar to urban planning professionals, they could have an outsized impact—and not just on the availability of housing. Zoning, its critics say, has also locked in racial segregation and perpetuated environmentally unsustainable land use patterns.

The changes in question include banning single-family-only zoning; allowing multifamily housing in more places, including adjacent to transit stops; reducing or eliminating costly minimum parking requirements; and lifting prohibitions on accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Efforts to reform zoning have gained momentum in part because the issue is surprisingly bipartisan, attracting supporters ranging from free market conservatives who favor streamlining government regulation to progressives concerned about homelessness and seeking to right racial wrongs.

Not only blue states along the coasts, but others regarded as red, such as Utah, are engaged in some type of zoning reform. In Virginia, Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin has been speaking out against NIMBYism, the “not in my backyard” opposition by established residents to new housing development. To address the rising costs residents face, he said shortly after taking office in 2022, “we must tackle the root causes: unnecessary regulation, overburdensome and inefficient local governments, restrictive zoning policies, and an ideology of fighting tooth and nail against any new development.”

The biggest driver of reform has been the lack of affordable housing, which is wreaking havoc with local economies. Home prices rose more than 20 percent nationwide from March 2021 to March 2022. In June 2022, Realtor.com reported that rents in the country’s 50 largest metro areas had jumped 26.6 percent since 2019, the latest in a string of record increases. According to the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, 30 percent of all U.S. households had unaffordable rent or mortgage payments in 2020, defined as exceeding 30 percent of monthly household income; a growing number of Americans spend half their income on housing. Workers often can’t live near their places of employment; outright homelessness is increasingly visible.

“Even people who are the beneficiaries of the California housing crisis, maybe folks who bought a home a few decades ago [and have seen their home values appreciate], they’re finding that their adult children can’t live within two or three hours of them. They’re finding that if they want to retire, they probably have to leave the state,” said M. Nolan Gray, author of Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It. Whether in California or Utah, Gray said, residents are confronting similar “housing affordability issues that are affecting the middle class—and they’re looking for solutions.”

Still, the effort to apply new standards statewide is facing fierce political opposition at the local level, where land use decisions have historically been made, and where the right to set zoning has been heavily guarded since higher levels of government granted that power a century ago. The resistance warns against “imperialistic rezoning from state capitals,” in the words of one critic, framing the mandates aimed at increasing housing supply as inappropriate state preemption.

Responding to those who oppose any change in local regulations for development, state lawmakers have watered down statewide reform efforts by adding opt-outs or removing penalties for noncompliance. In some cases, the stirrings of reform have been shut down entirely. In Nebraska, a bill requiring municipalities with over 5,000 residents to allow fourplexes and other “missing middle” housing was replaced by a measure requiring only evidence that local jurisdictions were working on creating more affordable housing. (See our state-by-state guide to recent reforms in a dozen states.)

In Massachusetts, the program known as MBTA Communities—signed by Republican Governor Charlie Baker in 2021—requires cities and towns to allow multifamily housing near transit stations by right, with a minimum density of 15 units per acre. But many communities have challenged that mandate—and have indicated they are prepared to do without the state funding that will be withheld if they don’t comply.

If the key to any public policy reform lies in implementation, that may be especially true with something as entrenched as local control over land use. States intent on reform must convince localities that changing zoning in targeted ways is achievable and will be beneficial. Technical assistance and education, facilitated by state agencies and nonprofit organizations, will help, said Massachusetts-based researcher Amy Dain, who has conducted research for the Lincoln Institute and has documented how suburban communities around Boston have erected a “paper wall” of bureaucracy that hobbles attempts by developers to build multifamily housing.

In the case of the MBTA Communities act, she said, “the state is giving cities and towns lots of flexibility in deciding how to draw districts [of greater density] and how to write the requirements. It’s at the local level that the sites for transit-oriented multifamily housing development are selected and the dimensional requirements for new housing are established.”

The success of statewide zoning reform in the future may well hinge on the promise of that kind of state-local collaboration.

THOUGH MANY CITIES have been masterfully planned and designed over the centuries, zoning is a 20th century phenomenon. The need for a framework of rules and regulations emerged as a reaction to explosive growth in U.S. cities after the turn of the century, concurrent with industrialization and the growth of manufacturing; massive immigration; and advances in technology, particularly in the transportation sector, including the streetcar, subway, and automobile.

The call for zoning was part of a progressive campaign to relieve congestion and to improve living conditions and public health—to make sure a tannery was not located right next door to a rooming house, for example. But it was also designed to control where immigrants and people of color could live. The first U.S. cities to create zoning included New York City and Berkeley, California, both circa 1916.

In 1923, the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act provided model legislation states could adapt to grant municipalities the power to dictate land uses. Drafted by a Department of Commerce committee that had been assembled by Herbert Hoover and included Frederick Law Olmsted, the enabling act was adopted by all 50 states. The landmark 1926 Supreme Court case Euclid vs. Ambler Realty, which saw a realty company sue for the right to develop land across several newly implemented zoning districts in an Ohio town, affirmed that zoning was a local responsibility, and indeed a police power to reduce conflicts and improve public health.

The result was that more than 30,000 local governments developed their own regulation of land uses and structures, including allowable height, bulk, floor-to-area ratios, lot sizes, and setbacks. A common approach was separating commercial, industrial, and residential uses, designating parcels by category in multicolored zoning maps that are still in use to this day. On the residential side, zones for single-family homes, often on large lots, were most prevalent; areas set aside for multifamily housing, including even two-family structures, were much smaller, if they existed at all.

Although communities used similar approaches, zoning became a highly decentralized system in which each jurisdiction developed particular rules in complicated formats. “Even for an expert, these zoning codes can be hard to read, and it’s nearly impossible to compare them to each other,” said Cornell University law professor Sara Bronin, who was part of a major zoning reform effort in Connecticut and is now leading the development of the National Zoning Atlas. That crowdsourced project is working to create a user-friendly, interactive zoning map of each state in the country.

ABOUT THE NATIONAL ZONING ATLAS

When Sara Bronin, now a Cornell University professor, first got involved in zoning reform in Connecticut, a clear need emerged: identifying what, exactly, the local land use regulations were in the state’s 169 cities and towns. Finding the answer took reviewing 2,622 zoning districts and more than 30,000 pages of text, and using spreadsheets, maps, and geographic information systems to organize everything. That exercise inspired Bronin and her small team of collaborators to launch a more ambitious project: documenting local zoning practices in all 50 states to create a National Zoning Atlas.

The aim of this crowdsourced project is to translate and standardize the country’s zoning codes, building an interactive online map that’s easy for the public to use and understand. The National Zoning Atlas seeks to help broaden participation in land use decisions, identify opportunities for zoning reform, and narrow an information gap that currently favors land speculators, institutional investors, and homeowners over socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. It will also illuminate regional and statewide trends and provide a resource for national planning efforts related to housing production, transportation infrastructure, and climate change.

A growing collaborative of researchers is currently working in 14 states, from New Hampshire to Hawaii. The team welcomes collaborators from all states. To learn more, visit www.zoningatlas.org.

The intensely local nature of zoning created another attribute that has helped effectively lock the rules in place: significant constituencies of established residents who refer to the rules to block new development. Zoning—as well as environmental regulations and, in some cases, historic preservation restrictions—was used as a shield in separated-use suburbs dominated by single-family zoning and in cities, where residents grew wary of redevelopment in tightly knit neighborhoods. Through the 1960s and 1970s, local neighborhood organizations grew stronger using veto power over a wide variety of redevelopment proposals, said Jacob Anbinder, who is writing a dissertation at Harvard about local control and community organizing.

The combination of complicated rules and staunch defenders made the system seem impenetrable. But some of the first challenges to the notion that zoning was sacrosanct—suggestions that local land use regulations had become calcified and obsolete—began emerging about 25 years ago, primarily on an environmental basis.

The smart growth and New Urbanism movements contended that the separation of uses was fostering environmentally damaging car dependence and had made mixed-use, walkable living arrangements essentially illegal.

“If you look at historical prezoning neighborhoods, the standard would be that you would have life’s daily necessities within walking distance,” said Gray. “You might have a corner grocery, you might have a corner barbershop, you might have a corner medical office, or at least cities could achieve densities such that transit would actually work. There was density high enough to be able to take a bus or even to take a train.

“Zoning makes all of that very difficult,” he said. “It really privileges the most environmentally inefficient land use patterns. It’s clear, when you look at the data, that many Americans actually want to live in an apartment, in a walkable neighborhood where they might not have a car—and zoning, in many cases, criminalizes that.”

In what might be described as an initial and more subtle attempt to get communities to reassess their zoning, planner promoting alternatives to sprawl introduced the idea of the “form-based code,” which reoriented zoning around the composition and massing of buildings, instead of focusing on the use and activities that go on inside. Others tried to help small and midsized cities make incremental adjustments that enabled more urban landscapes. “Meeting local governments where they are” was the mantra for the Project for Code Reform initiative launched by the Congress for the New Urbanism in 2016, said Lynn Richards, who was president of the organization at the time. “It was not intended as a full audit, but rather identifying the biggest little change a community could make to improve the regulatory environment in that place,” she said, adding that incremental changes were instituted in Michigan, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.

For the most part, however, the status quo remained, even as public awareness of the role of zoning in perpetuating racial segregation grew, adding to concerns about its impact. Historical and demographic research around the country illustrated the damaging and lasting impacts of land use decisions in places from Los Angeles to Manchester, New Hampshire. Local governments that had been handed the responsibility of overseeing land use had failed to ensure equitable and sustainable communities, according to this critique, and were showing no signs of changing their ways.

“A century of decentralized and isolated local control of land produced unacceptable levels of racial and economic segregation, urban sprawl that contributed to the climate crisis, and an almost unassailable housing crisis,” wrote Lincoln Institute President George W. McCarthy in an essay in the October 2022 issue of Land Lines. “It is sometimes necessary for higher levels of government to supersede the decisions of lower levels of government to promote general welfare or address negative externalities that are artifacts of uncoordinated actions at lower levels.”

A FEW CITIES, including Minneapolis and Portland, have been in the vanguard, taking steps to ban single-family-only zoning, for example. A framework of incentives and penalties encouraging denser and more inclusive development has also been floated at the federal level under the Obama and Biden administrations.

The rationale for statewide standards, however, has become increasingly clear: to eliminate the patchwork of different policies and regulations within metropolitan regions. Some communities might allow ADUs, for example, while others prohibit them. A more uniform regulatory regime would level the playing field, reflecting actual homebuying and renting aspirations and making it possible to develop a responsive regional approach to issues like the current affordability crisis.

The zoning reform measures that have passed or are under consideration range from relatively small tweaks, such as legalizing ADUs or eliminating minimum parking requirements, to more significant preemptions that allow multifamily housing, whether two-, three-, or four-family townhomes or larger apartment buildings, in areas zoned exclusively for single-family homes.

California has been a leader, first legalizing ADUs statewide, then allowing duplexes and lot splits in single-family zones, and mixed-income multifamily housing in all commercial areas, while also eliminating minimum parking requirements at transit stations. Connecticut is close behind, with requirements that cities and towns “affirmatively further fair housing” in their zoning, promote diverse housing options, legalize ADUs, and cap minimum parking requirements. The state’s newly adopted guidelines also prevent towns from enacting zoning that discriminates by income, caps the amount of multifamily housing in a community, or charges unreasonable or different fees for multifamily affordable housing.

An additional notable feature in Connecticut is the removal of the terms “character,” “overcrowding of land,” and “undue concentration of population” from state law as legal bases for zoning regulations. In their place, the bill allows towns to consider only the “physical site characteristics” of a district.

Reformers aspire to dig deeper on the issue of process, which has been shown to hinder and discourage new development by making it prohibitively costly. Recommendations include a “shot clock” limiting the length of the permitting process, and exemptions from lengthy review for small or mid-sized projects that clearly don’t have a major environmental impact.

OTHER STATES MULLING ZONING REFORM have included elements from the California and Connecticut reforms. But a pattern has emerged in which lawmakers propose tough measures—disallowing single-family-only zoning, for example—and then, in the face of opposition, prescribe milder reforms, such as lifting prohibitions on renting out carriage houses or apartments over garages.

Lawmakers appear to be responding to a predictable backlash against state mandates, which is premised on the basis that jurisdictions should not be subjected to blanket requirements that don’t fully consider local conditions.

Aaron Renn, a conservative urban analyst and contributing editor for City Journal, said he is “generally supportive of zoning liberalization as a tool to address housing supply shortages,” but is wary of putting states in control of local land use decisions because of the perceived risk that it will lead to one-size-fits-all policies. He expressed concern that state-level advocates of reform “argue that in most cases the upzoning won’t mean wholesale replacement of single-family homes with apartment buildings, but they won’t countenance any limits,” like putting a cap on the number of fourplexes in a neighborhood, and he worries that terms like “transit corridor” aren’t clearly defined.

Kimberly Fiorello, a Republican state representative for the Connecticut towns of Stamford and Greenwich, put it more bluntly, warning against the zoning reform package that was ultimately adopted by the state.

“Handing over local zoning control to ‘experts’ in Hartford should be an affront to anyone who believes in self-government and the right to private property,” she wrote in 2020, when zoning reform efforts led by state officials and the nonprofit coalition Desegregate Connecticut began gaining momentum. Fiorello and other Republicans even called at one point for a state constitutional amendment “to permit municipalities to enact and enforce zoning restrictions without regional or state interference.”

Preemption, in this case overriding local government, has been established as precedent in the area of housing and withstood legal challenges. In Massachusetts, Chapter 40B overrides local zoning to fast-track projects if 25 percent of the proposed units are affordable, in communities where the affordable housing stock is less than 10 percent. The landmark Mount Laurel case, first decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1975, similarly required cities and towns to add their “fair share” of affordable housing as a priority that trumps local land use restrictions. In California, municipalities that don’t meet affordable housing goals are subject to the “builder’s remedy,” wherein developers can propose any housing project and it is automatically approved.

States pursuing meaningful reform thus must strike a balance between forcing compliance through penalties and other means, and supporting cities and towns more gently through the implementation process, assuring them they remain in control as they open up to more housing.

“Zoning has endured because it is embraced by local communities and local people. Planners should work to hold on to that enthusiasm, to give local communities local control, while supporting the myriad efforts to address the shortcomings of zoning in its current form,” said Harvey M. Jacobs, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and Radboud University Nijmegen, in the Netherlands.

“Do localities need a nudge? Yes. Will they like it? No,” said Jacobs, who has conducted research with the Lincoln Institute on public policy and property rights. He predicts “somewhat of a cat-and-mouse game, between state-imposed standards and local implementation.”

IN THE MEANTIME, cities are acting on their own, with or without state mandates. The list of places approving reforms is growing, from communitywide upzoning in Walla Walla, Washington, to the approval of ADUs and elimination of parking requirements in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Cambridge, Massachusetts, recently joined the growing list of communities doing away with parking minimums.

Advocates are hoping to build on that momentum, relying in part on data analysis following implementation. Understandably, since this wave of reform efforts is relatively recent, there are few studies that show changes in zoning directly result in more housing affordability or other desirable outcomes.

An analysis of rents for freshly authorized ADUs by the Southern California Association of Governments showed the small-scale housing in five Los Angeles–area counties was affordable to those earning 80 percent of area median income and lower—although in many cases no rent was charged at all, as family members moved in to relieve overcrowding. “That’s essentially affordable housing production at scale and at no cost to the taxpayer,” said Gray, the Arbitrary Lines author. “That’s all just because of removing some of these zoning barriers to ADUs.”

Two working papers by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University determined that zoning that allows multifamily housing is associated with substantially larger population shares of Black and Hispanic residents than zoning for single-family housing—a combined nine percent higher in Greater Boston, and 21 percent in the Twin Cities metro area.

Bronin, who is leading the National Zoning Atlas effort at Cornell, said research she is about to publish found that simply eliminating minimum parking requirements could enable the creation of thousands of additional units of housing in 15 Connecticut cities. The greatest potential was in Bridgeport, the state’s largest city, which eliminated its minimum parking requirements for housing in 2022. “We’re hopeful that will unlock new investment in Bridgeport, which is pretty close to New York City and, like several of the large Connecticut cities, is struggling economically—but that one single reform has a lot of promise for the creation of new housing, which in turn will drive down prices,” Bronin said.

Though there are conflicting studies, some research suggests that increasing housing supply, even at the high end, can ultimately have a downward impact on rents and home prices. The growing consensus among policy makers and economists is that adding different types of housing across a broad region will be beneficial in the long run.

In that sense, those clamoring for even incremental zoning reform are faced with a challenge akin to climate change, which would continue even if all emissions could be halted tomorrow. Market conditions won’t change quickly, but acting now, the argument goes, will set the stage for a less disastrous lack of affordability in the future.

The case can be made on the basis of that long-term economic viability, said Dain, referring to the Massachusetts mandate for upzoning in areas around transit stations. “This isn’t really a technical change, it’s a major adaptive effort for the whole region—to make sure people will all have homes and that the region grows in a sustainable, resilient way.”

Bronin agrees that modifying rules established long ago can lead to big-picture payoffs—even as that is a complicated message to convey, since zoning has for such a long time remained unseen in the background.

“Zoning is the most significant regulatory power of local government,” she said. “It not only governs where we can put housing and factories and parks and shops—it actually has significant impacts on the economy, and even, I think, the very structure of our society.” Recalling the multiyear reform effort in Connecticut, she noted that “when we started . . . we knew that there was a place in the public conversation for zoning and the time was right to link reform of our outdated zoning laws with much better social and economic outcomes that would be beneficial to Connecticut as a whole.

“I think we surprised people in the traction that it gained and the allies that it gained,” she said, noting that Connecticut is known as “the land of steady habits.” Because that culture ultimately opened up to change, she said, she has hope for the reform attempts underway in other places: “I’m pretty optimistic about these efforts.”

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute, host of the Land Matters podcast, and a contributing editor to Land Lines.

Image: A protester urges Connecticut lawmakers to “keep zoning local” in 2021, shortly before the state passed comprehensive zoning reform legislation. Credit: Kassi Jackson, Hartford Courant/Tribune News Service.

Related Content

 Land Matters Podcast: The Quest for Zoning Zen

Where should new multifamily housing go? This is a fundamental question facing 175 communities across eastern Massachusetts as they work to implement a new law intended to address the region’s housing shortage. The law requires cities and towns served by Greater Boston’s public transit agency, the MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority), to enact zoning that allows multifamily housing near transit.  

If history is any indication, communities will seek to locate new housing away from existing residential neighborhoods. In recent decades, the largest portion of new housing in Greater Boston has been built in isolated areas on municipal and metropolitan peripheries. As an example, the town of Wellesley approved the construction of a 262-unit complex called The Nines—separated from almost all of the town by Interstate 95 and located on a spit of land tucked between the highway, state Route 9, and the Charles River. The towns of Needham and Stoneham permitted similar “across the interstate” developments, and other examples abound. 

The next largest portion of residential permitting has come in commercial areas.  As “smart growth” caught on in the new millennium, many cities and towns added one or two small- or medium-sized multifamily buildings to their downtowns. These properties are very close to residential neighborhoods, but not right in them. Zoning for mixed-use developments along decaying strip mall corridors has also been gaining support. Thus, we see projects on Newton’s Needham Street, Bedford’s Great Road, Salem’s Highland Avenue, Swampscott’s Vinnin Square, and many other less-than-loved “stroads.”  

For many communities, preserving the status quo of existing neighborhoods has been an explicit priority, even as the housing crunch has intensified. A few years ago, the city of Weymouth rezoned a commercial corridor for mixed-use multifamily housing, drawing the zoning district surgically to avoid development near existing residential neighborhoods. Wellesley’s 2018 Draft Unified Plan explains that participants in public meetings saw commercial, office, and industrial areas as the most acceptable locations for multifamily housing; not residential districts. In fact, my review of local master plans across 100 cities and towns showed no movement to upzone residential neighborhoods, other than by allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which appear to have relatively popular support.  

Given the political resistance to changing residential neighborhoods, developing housing in other areas is not without merit. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council, the regional planning agency, recently analyzed more than 3,000 strip malls and shopping centers across Greater Boston, and estimated that such sites could accommodate 124,000 new homes. Between those areas and various office parks and industrial lands, Greater Boston could raise enough residential towers and townhouses to end bidding wars, giving renters and buyers the upper hand, without changing existing residential neighborhoods.   

However, the strategy of rezoning exclusively commercial and industrial areas assumes that the only goal is housing production. Metropolitan growth policy also needs to consider transportation, the environment, local economies, quality of life, and equity.  

The transit-oriented development (TOD) paradigm at the heart of Massachusetts’s new MBTA Communities Zoning Law imagines a region defined by a network of walkable, dense hubs that are well-connected by roads, walkways, bike lanes, bus lanes, train lines, and ferry routes. Under this scenario, people will spend less time in traffic; convenient region-wide mobility will be accessible to all residents, including those without cars; carbon emissions will go down; more people will have access to the region’s best opportunities; and our collective well-being and resilience will improve.  

One of Greater Boston’s most prominent strengths is that it was built as a network of urban villages well connected by trains and streetcars before automobiles began dominating urban design. The framework for the vision of well-connected “great neighborhoods” is already on the ground. The metropolitan area is crisscrossed with village centers and downtowns that contain pharmacies, libraries, restaurants, cafes, civic institutions, schools, playgrounds, public greens, quirky shops, and transit stops.  

If we write off as unchangeable all residential neighborhoods adjacent to these great hubs, then we make it harder to achieve the combined goals of an abundance of housing and sustainable, equitable settlement patterns. There is great demand in Greater Boston for “missing middle” housing that fits between single family-houses-with-yards and bigger apartment/condo complexes. For development of smaller scale multifamily housing to serve many people and make a difference in the market, it has to be allowed in more places.  

The project to create more housing in the Boston area will involve a combination of strategies, including significantly more building on main streets and the currently car-oriented corridors that radiate out from them; continued building on some isolated parcels on municipal edges; and incremental increases in density near connected, walkable hubs—i.e., in existing residential neighborhoods. Significant development on isolated parcels and strip mall corridors should be accompanied by infrastructure redesign to create connected, walkable hubs.   

As they consider different development scenarios that meet the requirements of the MBTA Communities zoning law, leaders and residents will need to weigh the politics and pros and cons of dense zoning in commercial and industrial areas, against zoning for small-scale multifamily housing in neighborhoods. Their deliberations will be part of a larger national debate about how regions should grow. 

Many people will be anxious about the possibility of multifamily development next to their homes. They’ll worry about traffic and parking, property values, architecture, noise, privacy, and all sorts of things. But we could just as well associate new housing with the chocolate chip cookies the future residents might bake for block parties, the leadership they might take on local issues, and the purple pansies they might plant out front in big happy planters. We could think of the joy, stability, and safety that new neighbors will gain in, and contribute to, our neighborhoods.  

Humans are perhaps wired to protect against threats more than to revel in visions of possibility, but we are also well equipped to plan ahead, together. We should plan for a just and sustainable future with abundant housing in wonderful, connected neighborhoods—and reform local zoning accordingly. 

Amy Dain is an independent consultant in public policy research and writing. Her focus is on urban and suburban planning and housing policy. She has conducted research for the Lincoln Institute on zoning and approval processes for multifamily housing in the Greater Boston area. 

Image: Construction in downtown Lynn, Massachusetts. Credit: Amy Dain.

Esta entrevista, que se ha editado por motivos de espacio, también está disponible como pódcast de Land Matters.

O

riginario de Vermont y elegido por primera vez en 2012, Miro Weinberger ejerce su cuarto período como alcalde de Burlington, Vermont. Asistió a Yale y a la Escuela de Gobierno Kennedy de Harvard, y trabajó en Habitat for Humanity antes de fundar su propia empresa de desarrollo de viviendas asequibles. También es atleta a medio tiempo; juega como receptor en una liga amateur de béisbol para mayores de 35 años.

Hace tiempo que Vermont es un sitio progresista con una población dedicada a las medidas medioambientales, ya sea energía solar o eólica, vehículos eléctricos o prácticas agrícolas sostenibles. En 2014, Burlington, la capital y agente del cambio, en donde surgió Bernie Sanders (que fue alcalde entre 1981 y 1989), se convirtió en la primera ciudad en obtener el 100 por ciento de su energía a partir de fuentes renovables, un objetivo que se había planteado en 2004. Ahora, Weinberger y otros dirigentes siguen trabajando sobre esas bases y se comprometen a hacer que la energía, el transporte y el sector constructor dejen de usar combustible fósil.

ANTHONY FLINT: Cuéntenos sobre este objetivo ambicioso de ser una ciudad con energía de cero emisiones netas para 2030. ¿Cómo será y cuáles son los pasos para cumplir la meta? 

MIRO WEINBERGER: Como resultado de décadas de compromiso con la creación de construcciones eficientes y la climatización, Burlington, como comunidad, usa menos electricidad en 2022 que la que consumía en 1989, a pesar de la proliferación de dispositivos electrónicos nuevos y demás. . . suena excepcional y lo es. Si le resto del país hubiese seguido nuestros pasos, hoy en día tendríamos alrededor de 200 plantas energéticas a base de carbón menos. 

Cuando nos convertimos en una ciudad con electricidad 100 por ciento renovable en 2014, había mucho interés en cómo Burlington lo había logrado. Después de hablar con equipos de filmación de Corea del Sur y Francia, y de responder muchísimas preguntas sobre cómo lo habíamos logrado, llegué a la conclusión de que fue por dos grandes motivos. En primer lugar, la voluntad política. En segundo lugar, teníamos un departamento de electricidad municipal que tenía mucha experiencia técnica y que podía hacer que la transformación a fuentes renovables fuese asequible. 

En pocas palabras, definimos las cero emisiones netas como el no uso de combustibles fósiles, o el uso de combustibles fósiles con cero emisiones netas, en tres sectores. En el sector eléctrico ya lo logramos. Eso equivale al 25 por ciento del objetivo total. Los otros sectores son el transporte y el térmico, es decir, cómo calefaccionamos y refrigeramos nuestros edificios.

La estrategia más importante es la electrificación. Electrificar todos los autos y los camiones con base aquí en Burlington. Cambiar los sistemas de calefacción y refrigeración a distintas tecnologías eléctricas; es probable que la más común sea la de las bombas de calor de clima frío.

Por último, para redondear la estrategia, buscamos implementar un sistema energético por distrito que capture el calor residual [de la planta de biomasa de la ciudad] y lo use para calefaccionar algunos de los edificios institucionales principales. También estamos haciendo modificaciones en la red de transporte para que el transporte activo represente un mayor porcentaje de los viajes en vehículos y así reducir el uso de combustible fósil. Esas son las estrategias principales planificadas. 

AF: ¿Hay algún componente que le haya parecido más complejo en cuanto a aplicarlo en toda la ciudad? 

MW: En general, estoy bastante conforme con el progreso que hicimos. De hecho, en la primera actualización de 2021, descubrimos que estábamos encaminados para cumplir esta meta increíblemente ambiciosa de dejar de usar combustibles fósiles para 2030.

Aunque debo admitir que parte de eso se debe, como todos sabemos, a que 2020 fue un año excepcional en el que las emisiones provenientes del transporte se redujeron drásticamente por la pandemia. Recibimos una medición nueva hace poco y vimos un aumento, por lo que no estamos tan encaminados luego de dos años como lo estábamos [luego] de uno. Ese aumento que se produjo aquí en Burlington fue de alrededor de un cuarto del aumento de las emisiones a nivel nacional. Es decir, tuvimos un aumento del 1,5 por ciento después de la pandemia, mientras que las emisiones aumentaron un seis por ciento en el resto del país. Hemos notado un aumento muy rápido en la adopción de las bombas de calor y los vehículos eléctricos en los últimos dos años desde que propusimos incentivos a los que llamamos estímulos verdes al principio de la pandemia. 

Sin embargo, a veces siento que estamos peleando con una mano atada atrás de la espalda, porque la electrificación y las tecnologías renovables luchan en desventaja. Hoy en día, el costo de quemar combustibles fósiles no se refleja correctamente en la economía. Tenemos que encontrar la forma de ponerle un precio al carbono. El hecho de que no lo tenga es lo que evita que progresemos. Cuando lo logremos, y sé que lo haremos porque es inevitable que demos con la política correcta, al igual que otras jurisdicciones en todo el mundo, creo que tendremos viento a favor para poner en marcha todas estas iniciativas. Será de gran ayuda para todo lo que estamos intentando hacer.

AF: Quiero asegurarme de estar entendiendo bien. ¿Quiere que todos en Burlington tengan vehículos eléctricos para 2030? ¿Estamos hablando de una ampliación a escala y adopción de este tipo? 

MW: Básicamente, sí. Eso es lo que necesitaríamos para cumplir el objetivo. Eso o inversiones de compensación que nos ayuden a lograrlo, pero nos tomamos con mucha seriedad el hecho de hacer todo lo posible para lograr esta transformación lo más rápido posible. 

Hace un año entró en vigencia una ordenanza de zonificación en la que se establece que las edificaciones nuevas en Burlington no pueden usar combustibles fósiles como fuente primaria de calefacción. No prohibimos el combustible fósil porque nos pareció muy oneroso y porque la tecnología no está lista para eso. Reglamentar la fuente primaria de calefacción puede reducir el impacto de las construcciones nuevas en un 85 por ciento. En las últimas semanas, el estado aprobó un cambio en nuestro estatuto que nos permite ir más allá y establecer reglamentaciones nuevas para todas las construcciones en Burlington. 

Para la próxima asamblea municipal en marzo, queremos tener lista una ordenanza nueva para someter a votación, que fijará requi-sitos para la transformación de los sistemas mecánicos de las construcciones más grandes, tanto nuevas como existentes, cuando lleguen al final de su vida útil. Por ejemplo, cuando las calderas se rompan, tendremos una estrategia mediante nuestra empresa de servicios públicos que ofrecerá incentivos generosos, y también implementaremos normas reglamentarias que requerirán una transformación.

AF: Quiero saber más sobre los servicios públicos. Mencionó Burlington Electric y, por supuesto, también está Green Mountain Power. ¿Qué tan importantes son, dado que las empresas de servicios públicos de otros lugares parecen desconfiar de las energías renovables y podrían llegar a dificultar la transición? 

MW: Debo decir que una década en un cargo público lidiando con estos problemas me ha hecho un defensor acérrimo del control público de la energía. El departamento de electricidad fue una gran parte de todo el trabajo que describí de los últimos 30 años. Creo que es más difícil para los municipios, los pueblos y los alcaldes que no tienen su propio servicio de electricidad. Hay cosas que cualquier comunidad local puede hacer para colaborar y, cuando es necesario, ejercer presión pública sobre las empresas de servicios públicos, que usualmente deben responder ante una autoridad reglamentaria pública. Creo que hay formas de hacer que otras empresas de servicios públicos hagan lo mismo que está haciendo Burlington Electric. En Vermont, es emocionante escuchar que la otra empresa de servicios públicos que fue muy innovadora, Green Mountain Power, es una empresa de servicios controlada por inversores.

Si nos acercamos al objetivo de cero emisiones netas, significará que estaremos vendiendo mucha más electricidad que ahora. Creemos que será al menos un 60 por ciento más que hoy en día. Ahora, cuando alguien compra un vehículo eléctrico y lo carga en Burlington, si lo hacen de noche, podemos venderles energía fuera del horario de mayor demanda de manera que la empresa de servicios públicos obtiene más ganancias. Económicamente es muy bueno. Por eso podemos ofrecer estos incentivos muy generosos: cada vez que ponemos otro vehículo eléctrico o una bomba de calor en funcionamiento, es una nueva fuente de renta para la ciudad. En su mayoría, estos incentivos se autofinancian con esa renta nueva. Me parece que seguir este camino es una buena jugada económica.

AF: Vermont se convirtió en un destino muy popular para los refugiados climáticos más adinerados que compran suelo y construyen viviendas. ¿Cuáles son las ventajas y las desventajas de esto? 

MW: Tiene razón, hay muchos refugiados climáticos aquí. También los hay de la pandemia. El mercado de viviendas está bajo mucha presión, y ese es el aspecto negativo. Hace mucho que hay una crisis aguda de viviendas, pero ahora la situación está peor que nunca. El lado positivo es que quizás fuerce a Vermont a considerar seriamente establecer reglas para el uso del suelo a nivel local y estatal que posibiliten la construcción de más viviendas.

Se necesitan más viviendas de manera urgente. Es un aspecto que debemos mejorar y creo que habrá beneficios medioambientales si lo hacemos. Para mí, más gente viviendo en una ciudad ecológica como Burlington es una buena compensación para el medio ambiente.

AF: ¿Tiene otras estrategias en mente para hacer que Burlington, como ciudad ecológica, sea o siga siendo asequible? Burlington tiene un fideicomiso de suelo comunitario exitoso, ustedes fomentan las viviendas accesorias, hay zonificación inclusiva. . . ¿Qué sigue? 

MW: Tenemos mucho trabajo por hacer en cuanto a las ordenanzas de zonificación y la reforma de uso del suelo a nivel estatal. En este momento, en Vermont, muchos proyectos buenos, ecológicos, de eficiencia energética en áreas habitadas, deben pasar por procesos de permisos de uso del suelo a nivel local y estatal. Estos procesos son casi redundantes y enlentecen todo, aumentan el costo y crean muchas oportunidades para que surjan obstrucciones. Hay mucho trabajo por hacer y estamos enfocados en ello. Actualmente, estamos trabajando en tres esfuerzos principales de mejora de la zonificación y se está debatiendo mucho la reforma de la Ley 250 [ley de uso y desarrollo del suelo de Vermont] a nivel estatal. 

AF: Por último, ¿qué consejo les daría a los dirigentes de otras ciudades para que tomen acciones climáticas similares, en especial en lugares que no están tan preparados como Burlington? 

MW: Cuando hablo con otros alcaldes al respecto, intento dejar en claro que esta es un área en la que el liderazgo político [y la voluntad de la comunidad] puede tener un gran impacto. Cuando asumí, casi no había energía solar en Burlington. Esa fue nuestra prioridad y cambiamos algunas reglas sobre los permisos. Hicimos que fuese más fácil para los consumidores instalar paneles solares en sus viviendas.

La empresa de servicios públicos aportó lo suyo y, en pocos años, nos convertimos en una de las ciudades del país con más energía solar per cápita. Ahora estamos en el puesto n.º 5 a nivel nacional. En un momento, éramos la única ciudad de la costa este entre las primeras 20, y eso no es casualidad. Es porque tomamos la decisión de enfocarnos en ese tema y hacer un cambio. Se puede lograr un gran impacto. 

En un momento en el que la emergencia climática es una amenaza existencial, en un momento en el que claramente el gobierno federal está paralizado y no puede impulsar cambios, y en el que muchos gobiernos estatales están en la misma situación, los alcaldes y las ciudades pueden demostrar progresos en el terreno. Creo que, cuando lo hacemos, le demostramos a la gente lo que es posible.

Anthony Flint es miembro sénior del Instituto Lincoln, conduce el ciclo de pódcasts Land Matters y es editor colaborador de Land Lines. 

Fotografía: Burlington, Vermont. Crédito: Denis Tangney Jr. via iStock/Getty Images.

En el esfuerzo cada vez más urgente de disminuir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero y ralentizar el daño que produce el cambio climático, los gestores de políticas y los planificadores locales cumplen una función fundamental. La buena noticia es que hoy en día tienen acceso a más datos que nunca. Sin embargo, analizarlos, clasificarlos y comprenderlos puede ser un gran desafío.  

Un conjunto nuevo de herramientas tecnológicas ayuda a capturar datos relacionados con las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero municipales, los organiza de manera que sean sencillos de comprender y hace que sean accesibles para los dirigentes municipales.

En Minneapolis–St. Paul, el Consejo Metropolitano de Twin Cities trabaja en un nuevo esfuerzo ambicioso para apoyar las decisiones climáticas locales. Según la Agencia de Protección Medioambiental, las emisiones per cápita de Minnesota en 2016 estaban apenas por encima del promedio nacional de 16 toneladas métricas de dióxido de carbono por persona. Desglosar los detalles detrás de ese número puede ser complejo. Simplificarlo es uno de los objetivos principales del Consejo, que es un cuerpo regional que gestiona políticas, y actúa como agencia de planificación y proveedor de servicios, incluidos transporte y vivienda asequible para una región de siete condados, que cuenta con 181 gobiernos locales.

La herramienta de planificación de escenarios de gases de efecto invernadero del Consejo Metropolitano, que lleva tres años en desarrollo y estará disponible más adelante este año, surgió del trabajo que realizó el Consejo con el objetivo de fomentar la habitabilidad, la sostenibilidad y la vitalidad económica regionales, pero, básicamente, pueden utilizarla todas las municipalidades de los Estados Unidos.

Curiosamente, el proceso comenzó con la creación de un equipo de socios, incluidos varios académicos de renombre (de la Universidad de Princeton, la Universidad de Texas en Austin y la Universidad de Minnesota) que estudian distintos aspectos del cambio climático y organizaciones sin fines de lucro del sector privado, lo que “posibilitó el acceso a la ciencia y la innovación que solo puede brindar la academia, combinadas con la sabiduría práctica del gobierno”, dice Mauricio León, investigador sénior del Consejo Metropolitano.

Entre las tareas de León, se incluye el registro de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero de la región de Twin Cities, por lo que está familiarizado con las complejidades de medir las emisiones en el presente y buscar la forma de proyectar esos datos en diferentes escenarios en el futuro. El Consejo notó que este puede ser un desafío que consume tiempo y recursos para los gobiernos locales. Esto condujo a la idea de crear una aplicación web que toma como punto de partida bases de datos existentes y que puede ajustarse según las estrategias de políticas específicas.

León y una de las socias académicas del Consejo, Anu Ramaswami, profesora de ingeniería civil y medioambiental en Princeton e investigadora principal del proyecto, destacan que las asociaciones entre el sector público y el académico no son frecuentes. “Es algo casi único”, dice Ramaswami, que trabajó con distintas ciudades durante años, pero muy pocas veces en un proyecto que servirá a una gran cantidad de municipalidades y gobiernos locales.

En cuanto a los procesos, dice ella, los científicos y los gestores de políticas formularon las preguntas relevantes y, luego, crearon el modelo juntos. Los colaboradores identifican conjuntos de datos relacionados con las fuentes principales de emisiones. Por ejemplo, en el área de Twin Cities, alrededor del 67 por ciento de las emisiones directas provienen de “energía estacionaria”, como la electricidad y el gas natural que se usan en los hogares y edificios, mientras que el 32 por ciento proviene del transporte. El equipo también identificó las estrategias y políticas de reducción y compensación más prometedoras, como regulaciones, incentivos económicos, inversiones públicas y usos del suelo (parques y áreas verdes), entre otras. Con tres áreas o módulos centrales: la construcción de infraestructura energética, de transporte y verde, la aplicación está diseñada para mostrarles a los gestores de políticas los posibles resultados de varias estrategias de mitigación. El marco general se ajusta al objetivo de los gobiernos locales de neutralizar las emisiones para 2040, una meta a la que aspira el Consejo Metropolitano.

En la demostración conceptual preliminar de la herramienta durante la conferencia Consorcio para la Planificación de Escenarios (CSP, por su sigla en inglés) del Instituto Lincoln a principios de este año, León mostró cómo diferentes tipos de comunidades, desde ciudades hasta áreas rurales, tienen diferentes efectos y opciones de estrategias. Por ejemplo, una ciudad tiene muchas opciones de transporte que no están disponibles en una comunidad rural. Los gestores de políticas que usan la herramienta también pueden tener en cuenta otros factores claves, como las implicaciones en la igualdad de las estrategias de reducción de los gases de efecto invernadero que podrían tener un impacto en algunos segmentos de una comunidad más que en otros. “Esta herramienta se puede usar para crear una cartera de estrategias según los valores de cada uno”, explica León.

Con objetivos similares pero un enfoque distinto, el Consejo de Planificación del Área Metropolitana (MAPC, por su sigla en inglés) de Boston presentó una herramienta localizada de inventario de gases de efecto invernadero varios años atrás. La herramienta del MAPC se enfoca menos en los escenarios futuros y más en brindar datos y aproximaciones de referencia precisos y específicos de cada comunidad sobre los impactos de varias actividades e industrias. Guiada en parte por un marco de inventario de gases de efecto invernadero desarrollado por World Resources Institute, C40 Cities y CLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, busca medir las emisiones directas e indirectas de una municipalidad.

Jillian Wilson-Martin, directora de Sostenibilidad en Natick, Massachusetts, dice que la herramienta del MAPC recopila los datos y estima los impactos sobre las emisiones de automóviles, la calefacción hogareña, el cuidado del jardín y otros factores que sería difícil obtener para un pueblo en forma individual. Esto ayudó a Natick a medir las fuentes principales de emisiones, que es el punto de partida para diseñar las estrategias de reducción. En conjunto con las compensaciones, el pueblo busca reducir sus emisiones netas de nueve toneladas métricas per cápita a cero para 2050. “Será más fácil para las comunidades pequeñas sin presupuesto para cuestiones de sostenibilidad acceder a esta información importante, lo que les permitirá ser más eficaces”, dice Wilson-Martin.

Si bien el MAPC brinda recursos de guía y capacitación a las 101 ciudades y pueblos que sirve en el este de Massachusetts, es tarea del dirigente de cada municipalidad decidir cómo miden el inventario de emisiones locales y cómo pueden usar ese dato para la planificación. Esto puede limitar los usos de la predicción específica, pero tiene otra ventaja, dice Tim Reardon, director de Servicios de Datos del MAPC. “Lo valioso de tener una herramienta adaptada de manera local es que permite obtener la credibilidad y la aceptación de las partes interesadas a nivel local”, explicó Reardon en la conferencia CSP. También dijo que, si bien los datos generales que no aplican a una comunidad en particular pueden generar cierto desinterés, los datos locales bajan la crisis climática mundial a la realidad y facilitan la conversación sobre lo que debe suceder a nivel local para garantizar un futuro resiliente.

A menudo, en los debates sobre la planificación de escenarios de gases de efecto invernadero, “hay cierta sensación de que esto es demasiado complejo incluso para pensar en ello”, concuerda León. La herramienta web simple del Consejo tiene como objetivo contradecir ese argumento. Está diseñada para mostrar en forma gráfica y sencilla los diferentes niveles de emisiones que se obtendrían si se adoptaran diversas tácticas específicas, y compararlos con el escenario futuro si se mantiene la situación actual.

Un beneficio de contar con una herramienta tan asequible, agrega Ramaswami, es que fomenta una participación más amplia y “permite que surjan más oportunidades de creatividad”. De hecho, dice que el proyecto de Twin Cities tuvo un efecto similar en sus socios académicos: “Se necesitan un tipo de mentalidad científica y un grupo de investigación diferentes” para trabajar directamente con municipalidades y responder a opciones de políticas reales. Cuando la herramienta esté disponible, también se publicará la investigación académica relacionada que realizaron Ramaswami y el resto de los socios académicos del grupo.

León sabe que la aplicación tendrá sus limitaciones y que, en última instancia, las políticas internacionales y federales de mayor alcance tendrán un mayor impacto total que cualquier iniciativa local, pero cualquier cosa que impulse la participación es importante, agrega. La aplicación web está diseñada para alentar a las municipalidades de todos los tamaños a interactuar con los cálculos y los números que recopiló el equipo del proyecto, lo que significa que no tendrán que cargar sus propios datos. “Es muy fácil”, dice León, “y no hay excusa válida para que no la usen”.

Rob Walker es periodista; escribe sobre diseño, tecnología y otros temas. Es el autor de The Art of Noticing. Publica un boletín en robwalker.substack.com. 

Fotografía: En Minneapolis, el metro ligero es una opción de transporte neutro en carbono. Las agencias de planificación regional en Twin Cities y el área metropolitana de Boston ayudan a los dirigentes municipales a acceder a datos sobre las emisiones de carbono y comprenderlos. Crédito: Wiskerke vía Alamy Stock Photo.

Local property taxes and state aid each have flaws, but a thoughtful combination of these two revenue sources is the most effective recipe for funding a high-quality K–12 education for  all students, according to a new Policy Focus Report published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 
 
In Rethinking the Property Tax–School Funding Dilemma, authors Daphne A. Kenyon, Bethany Paquin, and Andrew Reschovsky explain how local property taxes foster civic engagement and provide stable funding, while state aid is critical in reducing disparities among school districts caused by differing levels of property wealth and differences in the money needed to provide high-quality education. 
 
The report explains the advantages of the property tax compared to other local taxes and demonstrates how states can adopt policies to address criticism of the property tax. A well- designed system of state aid can offset differences in per-pupil property values and in the costs of providing quality education. State-funded property tax credits can reduce economic hardships for taxpayers facing high property tax burdens, especially those with low incomes. And unjustified differences in property tax bills among owners of similar properties can be addressed through more frequent and accurate assessments. The authors explain why the majority of states still fail to provide all students an adequate education and recommend policies to strengthen both funding sources with the specific goal of improving student outcomes. 

Five state-level case studies illustrate the practical nuances of state education finance and property tax policies and offer important lessons for policy makers. California’s Proposition 13 limited property taxation and accelerated a shift toward state funding at the expense of local control and student academic performance. A more modest property tax limit in Massachusetts proved more flexible and, combined with targeted state aid and robust accountability standards, has not impeded strong academic results. 

South Carolina’s implementation of a local-for-state tax swap in 2007, which fully exempted homeowners from paying local school property taxes and increased reliance on the sales tax to fund education, demonstrated how unreliable sales taxes can be in an economic downturn. Despite a long history of school funding litigation, Texas still relies heavily on property taxes to fund its schools. Failure to continually adjust its state funding formula for rising costs and property values has led to higher property tax burdens on homeowners. Last, in Wisconsin, the state’s property tax revenue limit restricts school districts’ ability to increase spending, and the state equalization aid formula does not account for differences in school districts’ needs and costs. 

“As a former state education official, I would have loved to have had a report like this to help me get up to speed on the critical issues around school finance policy,” said Carrie Conaway, former chief strategy and research officer at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and senior lecturer at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education. “The report provides a very clear explanation of the role played by the property tax in funding public education and describes the complex issues involved in designing effective state aid systems. Anyone involved in or interested in school funding policy will benefit from reading this report.”  

“A perennial target in state education finance legislation, the property tax remains a much-discussed and asked-about topic in my work with state legislatures,” National Conference of State Legislatures Senior Fellow Daniel G. Thatcher agreed. “This report will guide policy conversations about how to improve the sustainability, stability, and fairness of property tax systems, and also in education finance systems writ large.”  

Rethinking the Property Tax–School Funding Dilemma offers specific reforms that state governments—as well as localities—can make to balance revenue needs, funding realities, and other considerations. Notably, states must resist calls to stop using local property taxes to fund schools while also improving the equity and efficiency of their property tax systems.  

The authors also recommend that states maintain sufficient “rainy day funds” to draw upon when state tax revenues decline and that they target more local aid toward schools that require additional support to provide their students with an adequate education. Finally, the federal government also has a role to play in supplementing funding in low-spending states according to need, as well as in helping remedy learning losses from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“Understanding the relationship between local property taxes and state school aid is critical for understanding how public schools are funded,” said Lawrence O. Picus, professor of education finance and policy at the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. “This Policy Focus Report provides concise guidance about the use of property taxes and the importance of state funds to equalize disparities in property tax revenues for schools. It is a must-read for anyone interested in, or part of, the school finance policy process, and an excellent introduction for those who want to dig deeper into these relationships.”  

While specific reforms will necessarily vary across different states and localities, the authors stress that targeting state education funding is essential in closing equity gaps and overcoming the persistent effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and their disproportionate impact on students of color, English-language learners, and disabled students.  

Equally important is a well-functioning property tax system that avoids overly burdensome restrictions while offering “circuit breakers” and other forms of targeted relief to homeowners in need. Ultimately, the authors offer readers the tools for “overcoming the shortcomings of both funding sources, enabling state school funding systems to give all students an adequate, quality education equitably and efficiently.” 

The report is available for download on the Lincoln Institute’s website: https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/rethinking…

Allison Ehrich Bernstein is principal at Allative Communications.

Image by kali9 via Getty Images.