Upward Mobility May Begin In a Smaller Backyard

See  How to Stop the Affluent From Rigging the Housing Market. NY Times editorial. Excerpt:

"The median house [in Massachusetts] costs almost $700,000, the third highest among states."

"The main reason is that Massachusetts has not built enough to keep up with its growing population and economy. Its municipalities tightly limit new home construction through a combination of onerous zoning and permitting rules."

"When it comes to housing policy, the state of Massachusetts is often a bystander, allowing town governments to impose classic “not in my backyard” policies."

"Many of the country’s strongest job markets are in coastal regions that have refused to build enough new housing." 

"The initiative [a ballot initiative to override stifling local housing rules] would prevent many towns from setting needlessly large minimums for lot sizes and effectively blocking the construction of middle-class homes."

"many Massachusetts towns require house lots to be at least 20,000 square feet, which is larger than most midsize supermarkets, like Trader Joe’s. Nationwide, only about one-fifth of homes are built on such large plots."

"The initiative would create a statewide minimum of 5,000 square feet, which is about the size of a basketball court, and bar towns from setting their own standards."

"The initiative would create a statewide minimum of 5,000 square feet, which is about the size of a basketball court, and bar towns from setting their own standards."

"Yet if the United States has any chance to reduce wealth inequality, increase economic mobility and help more people achieve the American dream, it needs significantly more housing. Blue states like Massachusetts need to be part of the solution."

"Andrew Mikula, the leader of the initiative, estimates that it would allow the construction of a few thousand new homes each year. That is far from enough new housing to meet demand, but it is a meaningful step. It should be accompanied by other changes, including allowing the construction of more multifamily homes, such as duplexes, and apartments. Other places, including Austin, Texas; Minneapolis; and Raleigh, N.C., have kept home prices down by allowing more multifamily homes than Massachusetts does."

"Unfortunately, the anger over high housing prices has also raised the possibility that Massachusetts voters will approve a different ballot proposal this fall that would be counterproductive: statewide rent control. It might sound like a solution, but it would discourage construction and renovations. Artificially low rents make it harder for developers to recoup the costs of building. Rent control has not solved the housing problems in New York City, and it will not solve them in Massachusetts. The national pattern is clear. The way to bring down housing costs is to increase housing supply. The initiative to create a statewide lot-size minimum would help accomplish this."

"Democrats . . . should address the largest cost for many families and stay true to the long progressive tradition that prioritizes upward mobility. They must bring down the high price of housing in the states they govern."