The big issue in the November election in Arlington County in northern Virginia — where I live — is the county board’s proposal to legalize the construction of “missing middle” housing. Currently, some 80 percent of the county is zoned for single-family residences only. With housing demand booming over the last decade, the average price for a single-family home in Arlington has risen to some $1.2 million — unaffordable for most working and middle-class people. By abolishing single-family zoning restrictions, “missing middle” would greatly improve the situation, adding thousands of additional housing units to our stock. The fight over this issue is part of a broader nationwide struggle over affordable housing, property rights, and economic opportunity.
Arlington’s housing crisis is microcosm of a broader national problem, under which zoning rules and other restrictions have priced millions of people out of areas where they could otherwise find valuable job and educational opportunities. As a result, we have greatly reduced the productivity of our economy. Economists estimate that U.S. Gross Domestic Product could be as much as 36 percent higher than it actually is if major metropolitan areas with severely restrictive zoning, in recent decades, had kept rules no more constraining than the national average.
Exclusionary zoning disproportionately impacts the minorities and the poor, who are less likely to be able to afford expensive housing than affluent whites. Historically, restrictions like those currently in force in Arlington were often enacted for the specific purpose of keeping out Blacks and other non-whites. That’s one reason why the Arlington NAACP supports Missing Middle. Liberalizing the construction of new housing is an under-appreciated common interest of racial minorities and the white working class.
Sadly, opposition to zoning reform isn’t limited to bigots or to any one side of the political spectrum. Former President Barack Obama recently decried “NIMBY [not in my back yard] attitudes” and “regulations” that “make it very difficult to integrate communities and allow people to live close to where they work.” He emphasized that “[t]he most liberal communities in the country aren’t that liberal when it comes to affordable housing.”
Obama could have been referring to Arlington. The area is overwhelmingly liberal, with over 80 percent of voters supporting Biden in the 2020 election. “Black Lives Matter” signs are ubiquitous. Nonetheless, the county’s zoning rules effectively price out most Blacks, and Missing Middle has stimulated a strong NIMBY backlash. The situation is a test of the community’s progressive values. Do we really believe that Black lives matter — or do they only matter so long as not too many of them can move here? Do we really favor increasing opportunity for the disadvantaged, or not?
Libertarians, conservatives and others who value property rights, also have good reason to support zoning reform. In Arlington and many other jurisdictions, zoning rules are the most severe constraints on owners’ traditional ability to use their land as they see fit. Single-family zoning prevents them from building anything but one type of structure — even if the land could be more valuable and productive if used in a different way. Zoning restrictions are also a major constraint on economic growth and entrepreneurship of the kind that many on the political right seek to promote.
For these and other reasons, zoning reform is supported by a broad consensus of economists and housing experts across the political spectrum. Progress has been made in California, Oregon, and elsewhere. But much remains to be done, and Arlington could set a valuable example for our region, and beyond.
NIMBY sentiment is often driven by fears that new housing will harm current homeowners, like me. But liberalization can actually benefit current residents. Most obviously, we stand to gain from the increased economic growth and productivity new residents bring. In addition, letting people move to opportunity increases entrepreneurship and scientific innovation. A child born in a dysfunctional community is far more likely to grow up to be a scientist or entrepreneur if his or her family is able to move to a place with greater opportunities. The kid whose family moves into the duplex next door — made possible by zoning reform — might grow up to cure a disease that would otherwise have taken your life or that of one of your friends or family members.
Zoning reform can also benefit Arlington homeowners with children. My wife and I can afford to live here because I am a law professor and she’s a lawyer, putting our household income in the top 5 percent of U.S. the income distribution. But we would like our kids (ages 7 and 4) to be able to live here, if they wish, even if they choose less lucrative professions. Missing Middle can help make that possible.
The traditional NIMBY fear is that zoning reform will reduce the value of current homeowners’ land. But that may not be true in situations where a lot currently restricted to single-family housing would be more valuable if used for multi-family housing. If so, land values can rise, even as housing costs for new residents fall. That possibility is sufficiently plausible that some Missing Middle opponents claim it will lead current homeowners to have to pay more in property taxes, as land values rise. If that happens, the solution is not to bring back exclusionary zoning, but to cut property tax rates.
Missing Middle is no panacea. The current version of the proposal would only allow the construction of buildings with two to eight housing units in areas currently subject to single-family zoning. It also maintains current limits on building size and height. It would be better to drop these limitations, and allow largely unlimited housing construction, thereby driving down costs further, and opening up the area to more people. But Missing Middle is nonetheless a vast improvement over the status quo, allowing the construction of new housing for thousands of people. Progressives, libertarians, conservatives, and others all have good reason to support it.
Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University, and author of “Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom” and “The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain.”