
The recovery in home building in the midst of so much economic damage has been as welcome as it is unprecedented (and, honestly, a little surprising in its intensity). And if, as we hope, it's sustained, it will lead us back to housing’s biggest challenge: obtaining entitlements and approvals for new housing. While there are myriad reasons why this is so difficult and getting worse by the day, perhaps the industry has an opening to push for improvements in community participation.
Developers and builders constantly face entrenched local opposition, which packs planning commission meetings and council chambers. It’s easier to mobilize NIMBYs who believe they will be negatively affected by new projects than it is to rally those who might someday directly or indirectly benefit from those same projects. So, opponents will always be more vociferous and motivated, in part because that group often has more time to make their voices heard and make themselves appear to be the majority even when they are not.
The primary beneficiaries of new housing—and, in theory, supporters of housing—are more nebulous. Someone will buy or rent new homes and, as nearly all builders have experienced, they’ll be grateful for the opportunity, especially recently, given the lack of housing supply. But the home builders don’t know upfront who those potential beneficiaries/supporters are, other than a generic profile of the consumers they are targeting. Worse yet, they typically don’t know about potentially suitable communities during the approval processes, and the associated public hearings in which they could participate. We know that even those who would never choose a particular location or home type, but would buy or rent somewhere else, would benefit from less feverish competition for the locations and homes in which they are interested, if more building is allowed.
It’s made worse by a persistent negative feedback loop: Those who would benefit are often not voters in the jurisdiction and/or tend to be younger and more stretched for their time. It’s pretty hard to get young working parents who want and need more housing options to find child care so they can go sit in city council chambers during evening hours, just to have the opportunity to stand at a lectern to speak for their allotted three minutes while being intimidated by angry opponents (who are typically older, more established homeowners). It’s a big ask.
But perhaps now, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have an opportunity to balance the scales and create a more inclusive process. Planning commission and city/county approvals have been virtual on Zoom and other platforms since the pandemic started. As a planning commissioner, I think the process has worked surprisingly well. For public input it’s great. Those who wish to speak log in, and, rather than sit in an audience for hours waiting, they can multitask at home while on mute, waiting their turn.
It’s got to be easier to ask a mom or dad to speak in favor of housing if they can log into a meeting, multitask, help the kids, etc., while waiting their turn to speak. Additionally, those with transportation or physical mobility challenges gain frictionless access to public hearings. If we could combine this participation flexibility with sending out hearing notices to those who would/could benefit from the project—those in rental communities in adjacent jurisdictions, etc.—we could have a more open, fair process. Getting more participation from those new housing can help. In the end, giving access to normally voiceless people expands participatory politics in housing beyond those that currently dominate the process: the NIMBYs.
It’s not a cure-all, but we’ve got to find a way to give a voice to those who need housing and are de facto excluded from the public process. A start is to make the process of their input a lot more painless and practical than it is now by convincing our public officials to maintain the ability of public input by video after the current crisis has mercifully passed. It won’t completely level the playing field, but it’s a start.