Single-family zoning: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 01:36, 26 November 2024

Zoning map of Winnipeg (1947); single-family zoning highlighted in yellow

Single-family zoning is a type of planning restriction applied to certain residential zones in the United States and Canada in order to restrict development to only allow single-family detached homes. It disallows townhomes, duplexes, and multifamily housing (apartments) from being built on any plot of land with this zoning designation.^[1]^[2]

It is a form of exclusionary zoning,^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] and emerged as a way to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods.^[1]^[3]^[5] Single-family zoning both increases the cost of housing units and decreases the supply.^[7] In many United States cities, 75% of land zoned for residential uses is zoned single-family.^[2]

Beginning in the late 2010's and early 2020's many cities across the United States have started looking at reforming their land-use regulations, particularly single-family zoning, in attempts to solve their housing shortages and reduce the racial inequities which arise from housing segregation.^[8]^[9] These upzoning efforts would not require that new housing types be built in a neighborhood, it merely allows for flexibility in options. For example, changing a single family zoning district to a multifamily residential zoning district would not mandate single family detached homes be converted, nor would it prohibit new single family homes, it would just allow owners of those single family detached homes to subdivide their property, or owners of empty lots to build something other than a single family home.^[8]

In the late 2010s and early 2020s, multiple states including California and Oregon as well as cities like Minneapolis and Charlottesville, Virginia have signed bills, made proposals, or started investigations to effectively eliminate single-family zoning. This includes requiring cities to approve two units and under certain conditions up to four units on single-family lots for example.^[10]^[11]^[12]

History

According to multiple sources, single-family zoning originated in 1916 in the Elmwood neighborhood of Berkeley, California, as an effort to keep minorities, specifically a Black dancehall and Chinese laundries, out of white neighborhoods.^[1]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[8]^: 1 Real estate developer Duncan McDuffie was one of the early proponents of single-family zoning in this neighborhood of Berkeley to prevent a dance hall owned by a Black resident from moving into houses he was trying to sell. He worried that families of color moving into the neighborhood would decrease the desirability of the neighborhood and decrease property values. By advocating for single-family zoning, McDuffie and other developers at the time were attempting to price out social groups whom they deemed to be less desirable for the neighborhood.^[1] This makes single-family zoning one of many exclusionary zoning policies intended to limit who was able to afford living in a certain neighborhood. The goal of limiting certain neighborhoods to only single-family homes meant that only families who could afford to buy an entire house could live in the neighborhood. There was not the option to subdivide housing so that families who could not afford to buy the whole property could live in smaller units.^[13]

After the US Supreme Court's 1917 decision in Buchanan v. Warley, which declared explicit race-based zoning statutes unconstitutional, the court in 1926 decided in Euclid v. Ambler that it was a legitimate use of the police power of cities to ban apartment buildings from certain neighborhoods, with Justice George Sutherland referring to an apartment complex as "a mere parasite" on a neighborhood.^[14]^[15] This enabled the spread of single-family zoning as a means to keep poor and minority people out of white neighborhoods.^[14]^[15]^[16] In many cases, homeowners and neighborhood associations adopted covenants to prevent homes in their neighborhood from being sold to buyers of color. Restrictive covenants were legal until a 1948 Supreme Court decision in Shelley v. Kraemer made them unenforceable, though they continued to be included on deeds until the 1968 Fair Housing Act deemed that illegal as well.^[6]^[17]

"Single-family zoning became basically the only option to try to maintain both race and class segregation," - Jessica Trounstine (associate professor of political science at the University of California, Merced)^[16]

Sonia Hirt, professor of landscape architecture and urban planning at the University of Georgia, states that "In the early 1900s, the racially and ethnically charged private restrictions of the late nineteenth century were temporarily overshadowed by the rise of municipal zoning ordinances with the same explicit intent."^[13] Hirt says single-family zoning is a uniquely American phenomenon: "I could find no evidence in other countries that this particular form — the detached single-family home — is routinely, as in the United States, considered to be so incompatible with all other types of urbanization as to warrant a legally defined district all its own, a district where all other major land uses and building types are outlawed."^[15]

Statistics

In many United States cities, 75% of land zoned for residential uses is zoned single-family,^[2] and across the state of California as a whole, that number is greater than 66%.^[8]

Effects

Property values

Because this type of zoning reduces the amount of land available for new housing, it pushes development into poor, minority communities or to land beyond the borders of the city.^[2]^: 1 Local public employees like teachers, firefighters, and police officers are often priced out of feasibly living in the communities they serve—even in municipalities that require these workers to do so.^[18] These cases are the most consistent exception to these policies that are "acceptable" to affluent residents. Housing developments in these areas designed to be affordable are frequently only granted an exception to zoning rules on the condition that they gave priority to those either living or working there. Even then, local concerns over affordability for existing town residents and public employees often fails to effect changes in zoning laws or the approval of new, denser, more-affordable developments due to local resistance. However, evidence suggests that larger, more heterogenous suburbs are more responsive to calls for change, likely due to an already-existing local population harmed by these policies.^[18]

According to Andrew Whittemore, a professor of city and regional planning at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, one effect stems from the belief that higher density housing in neighborhoods decreases housing values, and that one role of the government is to keep homeowner's house values high, and because cities have prioritized single-family homeowners above other groups, this has turned city planners into wealth managers when city planners should be concerned with using zoning to prevent harm.^[2]^: 1 Sonia Hirt supports this, stating, "In the United States, private profit as a result of zoning ordinances that preserved and enhanced 'investment values' was not only fully expected, it was a major zoning goal."^[13]

This effect is furthered by the unique reliance of Americans on homeownership and the value of such properties in securing a long-term, stable quality of life according to Monica Prasad, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University. She says that homeownership is a "lynchpin for the long-term distribution of resources," working in many ways as a replacement for the welfare state.^[19] The monetary value of the home is key not only for its own sake, but also for the quality of the education it provides access to. Additionally, home equity credit lines have become a key way for Americans to bear the cost of crises, like covering medical debt. Given the far reaching impacts of home value, this creates a natural incentive for homeowners and the government that likely influences policies seeking to protect property values to be as widely implemented and defended across the country as they are.

Increases housing costs and decreases housing supply

Single-family zoning both increases housing costs and decreases the number of available units by reducing the number of units that can be built on a piece of land.^[7] As an example, an old, run-down, single family home on a typical lot in Washington, DC, would sell for about $1 million, but if it were legal for a developer to build a three-story, six unit condominium building on that lot, those units would sell for about $600,000; which is 40% less per unit and 500% more units.^[7]

Racial segregation

In the 1970s, the American suburb became a new battleground for civil rights advocates.^[18] The standard American suburb was zoned to limit dense housing and rarely encouraged housing developments attainable for less affluent groups. Activists and scholars argue that these policies were borne out of racist motivations—fears of increased crime and property value degradation, as well as the preservation of "community character" were core rationales of suburbanites for these policies.^[18] These fears align with some of the driving cultural forces behind White Flight and suburbanization, with industrialization making cities more dangerous.

According to Sonia Hirt, zoning for detached single family homes in the suburbs provided upwardly mobile Whites more space to raise children in, and prevented the "moral corruption" that more diverse cities risked.^[20] Additionally, surrounding these homes with more like them prevented the existence of adjacent businesses that might bring types of people—primarily ethnic minorities and the poor—to the suburbs that these residents wanted to avoid. Since those excluded by these policies inherently could not afford to live in these communities, they lacked the franchise and political capital to secure enough influence to change these policies. Scholars argue that the economic segregation of living spaces deprives those in poor locales of economic opportunity and condemns them to being stuck in areas of concentrated poverty. At the same time, suburban residents get separated from racially-diverse urban areas and thus feel a decreased sense of responsibility for the issues contained there.^[18]

A 2020 study from UC Berkeley stated "The greater proportion of single-family zoning, the higher the observed level of racial residential segregation."^[1]^[21]

Political culture

According to Sonia Hirt, zoning, as opposed to centralized city planning favored by most other countries, grew popular in the US because of the opposition to state intervention prevalent in American politics.^[20] Zoning limits the need for bureaucrats by creating broad land-use guidelines for the private market to follow, rather than directing specific developments under centralized planning. Additionally, arbitration of disputes is largely left up to judicial system, a more popular institution among Americans, rather than through municipal officials.

Other academics highlight how the nature of zoning undermines the neoliberal values often seen as fundamental to the US. William Fischel, an economics professor at Dartmouth College, asserts that, from the outset of zoning policy, the protection of single-family homes from "incompatible" land use nearby was "paramount."^[22] While many suburbanites would identify the class mobility represented by a move out to the suburbs as a manifestation of success in the free market, they sought legal protection of their neighborhoods from commercial or high-density residential developments. He notes that early legal court cases regarding zoning policies led to anti-regulation judges ruling strongly in favor of empowering zoning laws.

Rezoning efforts (2018-present)

In the late 2010s, cities across the nation have started looking at reforming their land-use regulations, particularly single-family zoning, in attempts to solve their housing shortages and reduce the racial inequities which arise from housing segregation.^[8]^[9]

A growing concern over "missing middle housing" developed in the United States housing market. This term refers to options in between renting apartments and buying a single family detached home on an entire lot. "Middle" housing options like this include duplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and cottage court apartments which could provide options for lower and middle income individuals who cannot afford single family homes.^[8] Advocates for getting rid of single family zoning argue that by allowing housing options outside of only single family homes, more people would be able to stay in their cities without being priced out or relying on a shrinking supply of affordable units.^[7]

Ending single family zoning is a controversial topic. Many residents and NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) advocates do not want development to increase the density of their neighborhood of exclusively single family homes. Some argue that having apartments will decrease the value of their single family homes. Some argue that upzoning initiatives will increase effects of gentrification by increasing the housing costs in that area. Their argument is that homeowners will have a higher incentive to sell their properties at even higher rates because buyers or developers might be willing to pay more for houses they know they can convert into multiplexes.^[23] Those who are proponents of ending single family zoning call themselves YIMBYs (Yes in my Backyard) as a counter-movement to NIMBY sentiments. They argue that more housing is the answer to the housing shortage, so they see the increase in density of their neighborhood as justified.^[24]

United States

California

State-level

Prior to 2021, across the State of California as a whole, almost 66% of all residences were single-family homes and almost 75% of all developable land was zoned exclusively for single-family.^[8]^[25]

In September 2021, governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 9, which effectively eliminated single-family-only zoning, requiring cities to approve two units and under certain conditions up to four units on single-family lots.^[10]^[11]^[12] This law is expected to have minimal impact on neighborhoods, as experts estimated that it is only cost effective for 5% of single-family owners to upgrade their property. A study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley estimated that this new law could potentially result in 700,000 new housing units statewide, about 20% of the homes necessary to alleviate the housing shortage of 3.5 million homes.^[26]^[25]

Cities

In January 2021, the city council of Sacramento voted to permit up to four housing units on all residential lots to help the city reduce its housing shortage and to achieve equity goals by making neighborhoods with good schools accessible to people who cannot afford to purchase homes there.^[27]^[28]

In February 2021, the City Council of Berkeley, California, voted unanimously to allow fourplexes in all neighborhoods, with Vice Mayor Lori Droste saying that this is "necessary as a first step in undoing a history of racist housing policies."^[4]^[5]^[29]

San Francisco, where almost 75% of all land zoned residential allows only single-family homes or duplexes, is scheduled in 2021 to discuss a proposal to allow fourplexes on corner lots, and any lot within half a mile from a train station.^[30]^[31] David Garcia, policy director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, said that a proposal to allow fourplexes everywhere would be a more equitable proposal, and that research shows that the housing shortage is so large that limiting new housing to specific areas would not sufficiently address the shortage.^[30]^[31]

Idaho

In June 2023, Boise City Council unanimously approved a rewrite of the city's zoning code that allowed duplexes and cottage court homes on most of the city's residential land. Small portions of the city were excluded from the upzoning. The new code took effect on December 1, 2023.^[32]

Maine

In April 2022, the Maine Legislature passed LD 2003, requiring cities and towns to increase housing density.^[33] It requires municipalities to allow additional units on lots zoned for single-family homes, and to allow at least one accessory dwelling unit on lots with existing single-family homes, hence ending single family zoning in Maine. The Governor signed the bill in April 2022 and it went into effect July 27, 2022.

Maryland

In October 2024, the Anne Arundel County Council passed Bill No. 72-24, the Housing Attainability Act, legalizing missing middle housing in certain areas zoned for single-family homes.^[34] The bill legalizes triplexes, fourplexes, multiplexes, and stacked townhouses, which were not previously defined in the zoning code. The bill is set to take effect on July 1, 2025.

Minnesota

In 2018, Minneapolis became the first major city in the US to end single-family zoning (which had covered almost 75% of their residential land), by allowing duplexes and triplexes in every neighborhood, as well as higher-density housing along transit lines.^[14]^[16]^: 1 By allowing triplexes in all neighborhoods their intention is to give all people opportunity to move to neighborhoods with good schools or jobs, as well as to increase affordability, reduce displacement of lower-income residents, and increase both the economic and racial diversity of neighborhoods.^[14]^: 1^[35]^[36]^[9]

Oregon

On July 2, 2019, the State of Oregon passed House Bill 2001, requiring medium cities (more than 10,000 people) to allow duplexes in areas zoned for single-family homes and large cities (more than 25,000 people or more than 1,000 people if they are in the Portland metropolitan area) to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage court apartments, and townhouses in areas zoned for single-family homes. It went into effect on July 30, 2021, for medium cities and will go into effect July 30, 2022, for large cities. Almost 70% of the state (approximately 2.8 million people) lives in a city affected by the bill, and most of those live in a city affected by the provisions for large cities.^[37]^[38]^[39]

Texas

In December 2023, Austin, Texas' city council voted to allow up to three homes on every lot, effectively ending single-family zoning in the city.^[40]

Virginia

In August 2021, Charlottesville, Virginia's planning commission started investigating the idea of reducing some of their exclusionary zoning rules (particularly single-family zoning) to allow for more housing affordability, where working-class Black residents have been disproportionately displaced to surrounding communities.^[41]

Washington

On April 21, 2023, the State of Washington Senate passed HB 1110, which banned single-family zoning in medium to large cities statewide.^[42] The bill was signed into law by governor Jay Inslee on May 8, 2023.

Canada

Gentle densification has been proposed in cities including Edmonton, where zoning laws have been unchanged for over 60 years. Upzoning would allow for different forms of development with greater density and height including semi-detached, row housing, backyard houses, and three-storey apartments. The proposed revisions help to idealize the 15-minute city concept.^[43] In October 2022, Ontario announced up to three units could be built on a residential property, known as More Homes, Built Faster Act, which would also prevent municipalities from setting restrictions to limit expansion.^[44] In May 2023 Toronto approved new zoning laws to accommodate up to four unit multiplexes in neighbourhoods across the city to ease its exclusionary zoning policy, starting with a new height limit of 10 metres to allow for at least three storeys.^[45]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Baldassari, Erin; Solomon, Molly (October 5, 2020). "The Racist History of Single-Family Home Zoning". NPR. Archived from the original on November 14, 2020. Single-family zoning makes it illegal for a community to build anything other than a single home on a single lot. That means no apartment buildings, condos or duplexes.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Badger, Emily; Bui, Quoctrung (June 18, 2019). "Cities Start to Question an American Ideal: A House With a Yard on Every Lot - Townhomes, duplexes and apartments are effectively banned in many neighborhoods. Now some communities regret it". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on August 3, 2020. Retrieved April 10, 2021. Today the effect of single-family zoning is far-reaching: It is illegal on 75 percent of the residential land in many American cities to build anything other than a detached single-family home.
^ ^a ^b ^c Hansen, Louis (March 1, 2021). "Is this the end of single-family zoning in the Bay Area? San Jose, Berkeley, other cities consider sweeping changes". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on March 4, 2021. Retrieved April 10, 2021. Single-family zoning, a form of exclusionary zoning, traces its roots in the U.S. to Berkeley in 1916, when city leaders sought to segregate white homeowners from apartment complexes rented by minority residents. It's become the default policy in cities and suburbs across the country.
^ ^a ^b ^c Ruggiero, Angela (February 24, 2021). "Berkeley to end single-family residential zoning, citing racist ties". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on March 3, 2021. Retrieved April 10, 2021. Berkeley is thought to be the birthplace of single-family residential zoning; it began in the Elmwood neighborhood in 1916, where it forbade the construction of anything other than one home per lot. That has historically made it difficult for people of color or those with lower incomes to purchase or lease property in sought-after neighborhoods, city officials said. ... Even after racial discrimination such as redlining — refusing home loans to those in low-income neighborhoods — was outlawed, it continued in the form of single-family zoning, he said.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Yelimeli, Supriya (February 24, 2021). "Berkeley denounces racist history of single-family zoning, begins 2-year process to change general plan - Council unanimously approved a resolution that will work toward banning single-family zoning". Berkeleyside. Archived from the original on March 1, 2021. Droste and co-authors pointed out in the resolution that Berkeley was the first city in the United States to enact single-family zoning in 1916 in Droste's district, the Elmwood. This combined with discriminatory lending practices, redlining and the Berkeley Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance of 1973 to create deeply segregated neighborhoods.
^ ^a ^b Demsas, Jerusalem (February 17, 2021). "America's racist housing rules really can be fixed". Vox. Archived from the original on July 19, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Schuetz, Jenny (January 7, 2020). "To improve housing affordability, we need better alignment of zoning, taxes, and subsidies". Brookings. Archived from the original on July 12, 2021. Retrieved July 12, 2021.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Baldassari, Erin (March 13, 2021). "Facing Housing Crunch, California Cities Rethink Single-Family Neighborhoods". NPR. Archived from the original on March 31, 2021. It's part of a growing movement of cities across California, and the country, to rethink traditional single-family neighborhoods as way to tackle high housing costs and redress decades of racial segregation in housing. ... In California, more than two-thirds of all residential land is dedicated solely to single-family homes.
^ ^a ^b ^c Willis, Haisten (June 27, 2019). "As cities rethink single-family zoning, traditional ideas of the American Dream are challenged". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 17, 2020. Retrieved April 24, 2021. But urban planners in Minneapolis say they hope the plan will lead to a more walkable, more affordable, more environmentally friendly and more inclusive city thanks to higher density and an added supply of housing stock.
^ ^a ^b Plachta, Ari (August 19, 2021). "Sacramento fight looms over plan to split single-family lots". The Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on September 16, 2021. Retrieved September 16, 2021.
^ ^a ^b "Governor Newsom Signs Historic Legislation to Boost California's Housing Supply and Fight the Housing Crisis". September 16, 2021. Archived from the original on September 16, 2021. Retrieved September 16, 2021.
^ ^a ^b Dougherty, Conor (August 26, 2021). "After Years of Failure, California Lawmakers Pave the Way for More Housing". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 16, 2021. Retrieved September 16, 2021.
^ ^a ^b ^c Barber, Jesse (March 12, 2019). "Berkeley zoning has served for many decades to separate the poor from the rich and whites from people of color". Berkeleyside. Archived from the original on July 12, 2021. Retrieved July 12, 2021.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Grabar, Henry (December 7, 2018). "Minneapolis Confronts Its History of Housing Segregation - By doing away with single-family zoning, the city takes on high rent, long commutes, and racism in real estate in one fell swoop". Slate. Archived from the original on December 31, 2018. Single-family home zoning was devised as a legal way to keep black Americans and other minorities from moving into certain neighborhoods, and it still functions as an effective barrier today. ... The U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-based zoning in 1917, but nine years later, found it constitutional for a Cleveland suburb to ban apartment buildings. The idea that you could legislate out not just gritty industrial facilities but also renters spread rapidly. In concert with racism in real estate, police departments, and housing finance, single-family zoning proved as effective at segregating northern neighborhoods (and their schools) as Jim Crow laws had in the South.
^ ^a ^b ^c Fox, Justin (January 19, 2020). "News Analysis: How we got single-family home zoning and why it is under attack in the U.S." Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on April 22, 2021. Retrieved June 27, 2020. ... the landmark 1926 Supreme Court decision that established the legality of zoning asserted that "very often the apartment house is a mere parasite."
^ ^a ^b ^c Mervosh, Sarah (December 13, 2018). "Minneapolis, Tackling Housing Crisis and Inequity, Votes to End Single-Family Zoning". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 13, 2018. Retrieved April 23, 2021. Single-family neighborhoods rose to prominence across the country after the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1917 that zoning based on race was unconstitutional. "Single-family zoning became basically the only option to try to maintain both race and class segregation," said Jessica Trounstine, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Merced, who has studied segregation. In addition, generations of racial disparities in wealth accumulation, exacerbated by federally backed lending practices that discriminated against African-Americans, meant that most homeowners were white. "So if you make a particular part of the city homeowners only, then you essentially make that neighborhood restricted to whites," Ms. Trounstine said.
^ Watt, Nick; Hannah, Jack (February 15, 2020). "Racist language is still woven into home deeds across America. Erasing it isn't easy, and some don't want to". CNN. Archived from the original on October 2, 2020. Retrieved July 27, 2021. The federal government in 1934 endorsed such segregation by refusing to underwrite mortgages for homes unless a racial covenant was in place. Then in 1948, following activism from black Americans, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled these covenants unenforceable. Still, racial covenants continued to be written, enforced with threats of civil legal action. Finally, two decades later -- in 1968 -- the federal Fair Housing Act finally outlawed these covenants altogether.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Danielson, Michael N. (1976). "The Politics of Exclusionary Zoning in Suburbia". Political Science Quarterly. 91 (1): 1–18. doi:10.2307/2149156. ISSN 0032-3195. JSTOR 2149156.
^ Prasad, Monica (2013). The Land of Too Much: American Abundance and the Paradox of Poverty. De Gruyter. p. 229. ISBN 978-0-674-06781-3. OCLC 853258753.
^ ^a ^b Hirt, Sonia A. (2014). Zoned in the USA: the Origins and Implications of American Land-Use Regulation. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-5471-4. OCLC 1042029757.
^ Menendian, Stephen; Gambhir, Samir; Gailes, Arthur (August 11, 2020). "Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 5". UC Berkeley Othering & Belonging Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2020. We then describe how restrictive land use policies, and especially single-family zoning, reinforces and promotes racial residential segregation by showing the correlation between different types of segregation and single-family zoning. ...excessive single-family zoning does not allow cities to provide enough housing for people, or the density needed to make shelter affordable and reduce sprawl, which exacerbates greenhouse gas emissions. It contributes to both economic and racial segregation.
^ Fischel, William A. (February 2004). "An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for its Exclusionary Effects". Urban Studies. 41 (2): 317–340. Bibcode:2004UrbSt..41..317F. doi:10.1080/0042098032000165271. ISSN 0042-0980.
^ Davis, Jenna (July 15, 2021). "The double-edged sword of upzoning". Brookings. Archived from the original on July 19, 2021. Retrieved July 19, 2021.
^ Yglesias, Matthew (December 27, 2019). "The telling conservative backlash to a Virginia zoning reform proposal, explained". Vox. Archived from the original on July 12, 2021. Retrieved July 12, 2021.
^ ^a ^b Dillon, Liam (September 3, 2021). "The big change coming to California neighborhoods". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on September 18, 2021. Retrieved September 18, 2021. Nearly two-thirds of all the residences in California are single-family homes. And as much as three-quarters of the developable land in the state is now zoned only for single-family housing, according to UC Berkeley research. ... Indeed, UC Berkeley researchers recently found that it would make financial sense for property owners of only about 5% of the state's 7.5 million single-family lots to add more homes on their property.
^ Angst, Maggie (September 17, 2021). "What California's new SB9 housing law means for single-family zoning in your neighborhood - Experts say the vast majority of properties and neighborhoods will not be affected". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on September 18, 2021. Retrieved September 18, 2021. Will this law put a dent in California's housing shortage? A recent study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley estimated that just 5.4% of the state's current single-family lots had the potential to be developed under Senate Bill 9, making the construction of up to 714,000 new housing units financially feasible. That's only a fraction of the 3.5 million new housing units Gov. Newsom wants to see built by 2025.
^ Clift, Theresa (January 19, 2021). "Sacramento moves forward with controversial zoning change designed to address housing crisis". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on January 31, 2021. The Sacramento City Council took a step Tuesday toward becoming one of the first cities in the country to eliminate traditional single-family zoning. The change, for which the council unanimously signaled support, would allow houses across the city to contain up to four dwelling units. City officials said the proposal would help the city alleviate its housing crisis, as well as achieve equity goals, by making neighborhoods with high-performing schools, pristine parks and other amenities accessible for families who cannot afford the rising price tags to buy homes there.
^ "Sacramento moves toward becoming one of 1st U.S. cities to eliminate single-family zoning". KTLA. January 20, 2021. Archived from the original on April 22, 2021. Retrieved April 15, 2021.
^ Ravani, Sarah (February 25, 2021). "Berkeley vows to end single-family zoning by end of 2022: 'Right the wrongs of our past'". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on April 14, 2021. Retrieved April 14, 2021.
^ ^a ^b Baldassari, Erin (February 16, 2021). "California Cities Rethink the Single-Family Neighborhood". KQED. Archived from the original on April 18, 2021. Retrieved April 20, 2021.
^ ^a ^b Knight, Heather (January 30, 2021). "S.F. supervisor's creative proposal: Make it hard to build McMansions, easier to build small apartments". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on April 18, 2021. Retrieved April 20, 2021. He actually thinks Mandelman would have a better chance of ensuring equity if he followed Sacramento's path and allowed fourplexes everywhere. Then large parts of the west side that have been frozen in time would finally have to carry their weight, alleviating the crush on the east side. ... "There's a lot of research on the need to increase housing supply in all in-fill areas, not just near transit," Garcia said. "San Francisco has some robust transit, but certainly not to the degree where limiting new housing to those areas is going to have as big of an impact as we need to address the full shortage."
^ "Boise City Council unanimously approves the zoning code rewrite". ktvb.com. June 15, 2023. Retrieved December 27, 2023.
^ "Housing Legislation LD 2003". Retrieved August 17, 2024.
^ "Bill No. 72-24". Retrieved October 10, 2024.
^ Trickey, Erick (July 11, 2019). "How Minneapolis Freed Itself From the Stranglehold of Single-Family Homes - Desperate to build more housing, the city just rewrote its decades-old zoning rules". Politico. Archived from the original on April 22, 2021. Retrieved April 22, 2021. Minneapolis just did away with the rules that gave single-family homes a stranglehold on nearly three-quarters of the city.
^ Thompson, Megan (November 23, 2019). "How Minneapolis became the first to end single-family zoning". PBS. Archived from the original on March 26, 2021. Retrieved April 22, 2021. To help address a housing shortage, Minneapolis became the first large American city to end single-family zoning, the rules that restrict certain neighborhoods to single-family homes. Now, buildings with up to three units can be built on any residential lot. Leaders hope this, and other plans, will add new units, create density and remedy segregation. ... In Minneapolis, which is about 60 percent white, almost three quarters of the city's residential property was zoned for single-family homes.
^ Wamsley, Laurel (July 1, 2019). "Oregon Legislature Votes To Essentially Ban Single-Family Zoning". NPR. Archived from the original on June 30, 2022. Retrieved June 30, 2022.
^ "Oregon Strikes Exclusive Single-Family Zoning, But Effects May Take Years". opb. Archived from the original on June 27, 2022. Retrieved June 30, 2022.
^ "Department of Land Conservation and Development : Housing Choices (House Bill 2001) : Urban Planning: State of Oregon". www.oregon.gov. Archived from the original on June 30, 2022. Retrieved June 30, 2022.
^ Sanders, Austin (December 8, 2023). "After Long Day of Testimony, Council Votes to End Single-Family Zoning". The Austin Chronicle. Retrieved December 27, 2023.
^ Robertson, Campbell (August 1, 2021). "A Fight Over Zoning Tests Charlottesville's Progress on Race - Four years after a white supremacist march, the Virginia city is reconsidering its housing and zoning rules". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 9, 2021. Retrieved August 9, 2021. Propelled by research showing that single-family zoning restrictions have roots in discrimination and consequences in soaring housing prices and more segregated neighborhoods, Charlottesville is joining communities across the country in debating whether to ease these restrictions.
^ "Washington State Legislature".
^ "Small apartments could replace your neighbour's house in draft of Edmonton's zoning rewrite". edmontonjournal. November 23, 2022. Archived from the original on November 23, 2022. Retrieved December 6, 2022.
^ "Ontario announces sweeping housing changes that allow three units on one property". Toronto. October 25, 2022. Archived from the original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 6, 2022.
^ Cook, Dustin (May 10, 2023). "Toronto city council approves up to four-unit multiplexes in all neighbourhoods". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved July 25, 2023.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Short description|Residential planning classification}}
+{{multiple issues|
 {{update|date=September 2021}}
-{{use mdy dates|date=December 2021}}
+{{Globalize|2=USA|date=November 2023}}
+{{Use mdy dates|date=October 2023}}}}
 [[File:Zoning-maps-winnipeg-9370554-o.jpg|thumb|Zoning map of [[Winnipeg]] (1947); single-family zoning highlighted in yellow]]
 '''Single-family zoning''' is a type of [[Zoning|planning restriction]] applied to certain [[residential zones]] in the United States and Canada in order to restrict development to only allow [[single-family detached homes]]. It disallows [[Townhouse|townhomes]], [[Duplex (building)|duplexes]], and [[Multifamily residential|multifamily housing]] (apartments) from being built on any plot of land with this zoning designation.{{ r | KQED | NYT_2019-06-18 }}
-It is a form of [[exclusionary zoning]],{{r | SJMN_2021-03-01 | SJMN_2021-02-24 | BS_1| VOX 2021-02-17}} and emerged as a way to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods.{{r | KQED | SJMN_2021-03-01 | BS_1 }} Single-family zoning both increases the cost of housing units and decreases the supply.{{r | Brookings_2020}} In many United States cities, 75% of land zoned for residential uses is zoned single-family.<ref name="NYT_2019-06-18">{{Cite news | last1=Badger | first1=Emily | last2=Bui | first2=Quoctrung | date=2019-06-18 | title=Cities Start to Question an American Ideal: A House With a Yard on Every Lot - Townhomes, duplexes and apartments are effectively banned in many neighborhoods. Now some communities regret it. | language=en-US | work=[[The New York Times]] | url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html | issn=0362-4331 | quote=Today the effect of single-family zoning is far-reaching: It is illegal on 75 percent of the residential land in many American cities to build anything other than a detached single-family home. | access-date=April 10, 2021 | archive-date=August 3, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200803174003/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html | url-status=live }}</ref>
+It is a form of [[exclusionary zoning]],{{r | SJMN_2021-03-01 | SJMN_2021-02-24 | BS_1| VOX 2021-02-17}} and emerged as a way to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods.{{r | KQED | SJMN_2021-03-01 | BS_1 }} Single-family zoning both increases the cost of housing units and decreases the supply.{{r | Brookings_2020}} In many United States cities, 75% of land zoned for residential uses is zoned single-family.<ref name="NYT_2019-06-18">{{Cite news | last1=Badger | first1=Emily | last2=Bui | first2=Quoctrung | date=June 18, 2019 | title=Cities Start to Question an American Ideal: A House With a Yard on Every Lot - Townhomes, duplexes and apartments are effectively banned in many neighborhoods. Now some communities regret it. | language=en-US | work=[[The New York Times]] | url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html | issn=0362-4331 | quote=Today the effect of single-family zoning is far-reaching: It is illegal on 75 percent of the residential land in many American cities to build anything other than a detached single-family home. | access-date=April 10, 2021 | archive-date=August 3, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200803174003/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html | url-status=live }}</ref>
-Around 2020 many cities across the United States have started looking at reforming their land-use regulations, particularly single-family zoning, in attempts to solve their housing shortages and reduce the racial inequities which arise from [[housing segregation in the United States|housing segregation]].{{ r | NPR_2021-03-13 | WaPo_Minneapolis }} These upzoning efforts would not require that new housing types be built in a neighborhood, it merely allows for flexibility in options. For example, changing a single family zoning district to a multifamily residential zoning district would not mandate single family detached homes be converted, nor would it prohibit new single family homes, it would just allow owners of those single family detached homes to subdivide their property, or owners of empty lots to build something other than a single family home.{{ r | NPR_2021-03-13 }}
+Beginning in the late 2010's and early 2020's many cities across the United States have started looking at reforming their land-use regulations, particularly single-family zoning, in attempts to solve their housing shortages and reduce the racial inequities which arise from [[housing segregation in the United States|housing segregation]].{{ r | NPR_2021-03-13 | WaPo_Minneapolis }} These upzoning efforts would not require that new housing types be built in a neighborhood, it merely allows for flexibility in options. For example, changing a single family zoning district to a multifamily residential zoning district would not mandate single family detached homes be converted, nor would it prohibit new single family homes, it would just allow owners of those single family detached homes to subdivide their property, or owners of empty lots to build something other than a single family home.{{ r | NPR_2021-03-13 }}
-In the late 2010s and early 2020s, states including [[California]] and [[Oregon]] as well as cities like [[Minneapolis]] and [[Charlottesville, Virginia]] have signed bills, made proposals, or started investigations to effectively eliminate single-family zoning. This includes requiring cities to approve two units and under certain conditions up to four units on single-family lots for example.{{ r | sb-9-la-times | dougherty-tweet | sb-9-nyt }}
+In the late 2010s and early 2020s, multiple states including [[California]] and [[Oregon]] as well as cities like [[Minneapolis]] and [[Charlottesville, Virginia]] have signed bills, made proposals, or started investigations to effectively eliminate single-family zoning. This includes requiring cities to approve two units and under certain conditions up to four units on single-family lots for example.{{ r | sb-9-la-times | dougherty-tweet | sb-9-nyt }}
 == History ==
-According to multiple sources, single-family zoning originated in 1916 in the [[Elmwood, Berkeley, California|Elmwood neighborhood of Berkeley, California]], as an effort to keep minorities, specifically a Black dancehall and Chinese laundries, out of white neighborhoods.<ref name=KQED >{{ cite news | url=https://www.kqed.org/news/11840548/the-racist-history-of-single-family-home-zoning | title=The Racist History of Single-Family Home Zoning | last1=Baldassari | first1=Erin | last2=Solomon | first2=Molly | newspaper=[[NPR]] | date=2020-10-05 | access-date= | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201114004918/https://www.kqed.org/news/11840548/the-racist-history-of-single-family-home-zoning | archive-date=2020-11-14 | url-status=live | pages= | quote=Single-family zoning makes it illegal for a community to build anything other than a single home on a single lot. That means no apartment buildings, condos or duplexes. }}</ref><ref name=SJMN_2021-03-01 >{{cite news | url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/01/is-this-the-end-of-single-family-zoning-in-the-bay-area/ | title=Is this the end of single-family zoning in the Bay Area? San Jose, Berkeley, other cities consider sweeping changes | last=Hansen | first=Louis | newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] | date=2021-03-01 | quote=Single-family zoning, a form of exclusionary zoning, traces its roots in the U.S. to Berkeley in 1916, when city leaders sought to segregate white homeowners from apartment complexes rented by minority residents. It’s become the default policy in cities and suburbs across the country. | access-date=April 10, 2021 | archive-date=March 4, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210304070329/https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/01/is-this-the-end-of-single-family-zoning-in-the-bay-area/ | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=SJMN_2021-02-24 >{{cite news | url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/24/berkeley-to-end-single-family-residential-zoning-citing-racist-ties/ | title=Berkeley to end single-family residential zoning, citing racist ties | last=Ruggiero | first=Angela | newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] | date=2021-02-24 | quote=Berkeley is thought to be the birthplace of single-family residential zoning; it began in the Elmwood neighborhood in 1916, where it forbade the construction of anything other than one home per lot. That has historically made it difficult for people of color or those with lower incomes to purchase or lease property in sought-after neighborhoods, city officials said. ... Even after racial discrimination such as redlining — refusing home loans to those in low-income neighborhoods — was outlawed, it continued in the form of single-family zoning, he said. | access-date=April 10, 2021 | archive-date=March 3, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210303035139/https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/24/berkeley-to-end-single-family-residential-zoning-citing-racist-ties/ | url-status=live }}</ref>{{ r | BS_1 }}{{ r | NPR_2021-03-13 | p=1 | q=Single-family zoning — the rules that restrict development to one home per lot — got its start in 1916 in Berkeley, Calif. The rules were enacted as a way to block a Black-owned dancehall and Chinese-owned laundries from certain neighborhoods. }} Real estate developer [[Duncan McDuffie]] was one of the early proponents of single-family zoning in this neighborhood of Berkeley to prevent a dance hall owned by a Black resident from moving into houses he was trying to sell. He worried that families of color moving into the neighborhood would decrease the desirability of the neighborhood and decrease property values. By advocating for single-family zoning, McDuffie and other developers at the time were attempting to price out social groups whom they deemed to be less desirable for the neighborhood.{{ r | KQED }} This makes single-family zoning one of many exclusionary zoning policies intended to limit who was able to afford living in a certain neighborhood. The goal of limiting certain neighborhoods to only single-family homes meant that only families who could afford to buy an entire house could live in the neighborhood. There was not the option to subdivide housing so that families who could not afford to buy the whole property could live in smaller units.<ref name=B-side_1>{{cite web|last=Barber|first=Jesse|title=Berkeley zoning has served for many decades to separate the poor from the rich and whites from people of color|url=https://www.berkeleyside.org/2019/03/12/berkeley-zoning-has-served-for-many-decades-to-separate-the-poor-from-the-rich-and-whites-from-people-of-color|date=2019-03-12|website=Berkeleyside|language=en-US|access-date=July 12, 2021|archive-date=July 12, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210712054149/https://www.berkeleyside.org/2019/03/12/berkeley-zoning-has-served-for-many-decades-to-separate-the-poor-from-the-rich-and-whites-from-people-of-color|url-status=live}}</ref>
+According to multiple sources, single-family zoning originated in 1916 in the [[Elmwood, Berkeley, California|Elmwood neighborhood of Berkeley, California]], as an effort to keep minorities, specifically a Black dancehall and Chinese laundries, out of white neighborhoods.<ref name=KQED >{{ cite news | url=https://www.kqed.org/news/11840548/the-racist-history-of-single-family-home-zoning | title=The Racist History of Single-Family Home Zoning | last1=Baldassari | first1=Erin | last2=Solomon | first2=Molly | newspaper=[[NPR]] | date=October 5, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201114004918/https://www.kqed.org/news/11840548/the-racist-history-of-single-family-home-zoning | archive-date=November 14, 2020 | url-status=live | pages= | quote=Single-family zoning makes it illegal for a community to build anything other than a single home on a single lot. That means no apartment buildings, condos or duplexes. }}</ref><ref name=SJMN_2021-03-01 >{{cite news | url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/01/is-this-the-end-of-single-family-zoning-in-the-bay-area/ | title=Is this the end of single-family zoning in the Bay Area? San Jose, Berkeley, other cities consider sweeping changes | last=Hansen | first=Louis | newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] | date=March 1, 2021 | quote=Single-family zoning, a form of exclusionary zoning, traces its roots in the U.S. to Berkeley in 1916, when city leaders sought to segregate white homeowners from apartment complexes rented by minority residents. It's become the default policy in cities and suburbs across the country. | access-date=April 10, 2021 | archive-date=March 4, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210304070329/https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/01/is-this-the-end-of-single-family-zoning-in-the-bay-area/ | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=SJMN_2021-02-24 >{{cite news | url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/24/berkeley-to-end-single-family-residential-zoning-citing-racist-ties/ | title=Berkeley to end single-family residential zoning, citing racist ties | last=Ruggiero | first=Angela | newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] | date=February 24, 2021 | quote=Berkeley is thought to be the birthplace of single-family residential zoning; it began in the Elmwood neighborhood in 1916, where it forbade the construction of anything other than one home per lot. That has historically made it difficult for people of color or those with lower incomes to purchase or lease property in sought-after neighborhoods, city officials said. ... Even after racial discrimination such as redlining — refusing home loans to those in low-income neighborhoods — was outlawed, it continued in the form of single-family zoning, he said. | access-date=April 10, 2021 | archive-date=March 3, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210303035139/https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/24/berkeley-to-end-single-family-residential-zoning-citing-racist-ties/ | url-status=live }}</ref>{{ r | BS_1 }}{{ r | NPR_2021-03-13 | p=1 | q=Single-family zoning — the rules that restrict development to one home per lot — got its start in 1916 in Berkeley, Calif. The rules were enacted as a way to block a Black-owned dancehall and Chinese-owned laundries from certain neighborhoods. }} Real estate developer [[Duncan McDuffie]] was one of the early proponents of single-family zoning in this neighborhood of Berkeley to prevent a dance hall owned by a Black resident from moving into houses he was trying to sell. He worried that families of color moving into the neighborhood would decrease the desirability of the neighborhood and decrease property values. By advocating for single-family zoning, McDuffie and other developers at the time were attempting to price out social groups whom they deemed to be less desirable for the neighborhood.{{ r | KQED }} This makes single-family zoning one of many exclusionary zoning policies intended to limit who was able to afford living in a certain neighborhood. The goal of limiting certain neighborhoods to only single-family homes meant that only families who could afford to buy an entire house could live in the neighborhood. There was not the option to subdivide housing so that families who could not afford to buy the whole property could live in smaller units.<ref name=B-side_1>{{cite web|last=Barber|first=Jesse|title=Berkeley zoning has served for many decades to separate the poor from the rich and whites from people of color|url=https://www.berkeleyside.org/2019/03/12/berkeley-zoning-has-served-for-many-decades-to-separate-the-poor-from-the-rich-and-whites-from-people-of-color|date=March 12, 2019|website=Berkeleyside|language=en-US|access-date=July 12, 2021|archive-date=July 12, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210712054149/https://www.berkeleyside.org/2019/03/12/berkeley-zoning-has-served-for-many-decades-to-separate-the-poor-from-the-rich-and-whites-from-people-of-color|url-status=live}}</ref>
-After the [[US Supreme Court]]'s 1917 decision in [[Buchanan v. Warley]], which declared explicit race-based zoning statutes unconstitutional, the court in 1926 decided in [[Euclid v. Ambler]] that it was a legitimate use of the [[Police power (United States constitutional law)|police power]] of cities to ban apartment buildings from certain neighborhoods, with Justice [[George Sutherland]] referring to an apartment complex as "a mere parasite" on a neighborhood.{{ r | Slate_2018-12 | singleFamilyLAT }} This enabled the spread of single-family zoning as a means to keep poor and minority people out of white neighborhoods.<ref name=Slate_2018-12 >{{ Cite news | url=https://slate.com/business/2018/12/minneapolis-single-family-zoning-housing-racism.html | title=Minneapolis Confronts Its History of Housing Segregation - By doing away with single-family zoning, the city takes on high rent, long commutes, and racism in real estate in one fell swoop. | last=Grabar | first=Henry | date=December 7, 2018 | work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] | language=en | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181231133242/https://slate.com/business/2018/12/minneapolis-single-family-zoning-housing-racism.html | archive-date=2018-12-31 | url-status=live | quote=Single-family home zoning was devised as a legal way to keep black Americans and other minorities from moving into certain neighborhoods, and it still functions as an effective barrier today. ... The U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-based zoning in 1917, but nine years later, found it constitutional for a Cleveland suburb to ban apartment buildings. The idea that you could legislate out not just gritty industrial facilities but also renters spread rapidly. In concert with racism in real estate, police departments, and housing finance, single-family zoning proved as effective at segregating northern neighborhoods (and their schools) as Jim Crow laws had in the South. }}</ref>{{ r | singleFamilyLAT | NYT_Minneapolis }} In many cases, homeowners and neighborhood associations adopted [[racial covenant|covenants]] to prevent homes in their neighborhood from being sold to buyers of color. Restrictive covenants were legal until a 1948 Supreme Court decision in [[Shelley v. Kraemer]] made them unenforceable, though they continued to be included on deeds until the [[1968 Fair Housing Act]] deemed that illegal as well.<ref name="VOX 2021-02-17">{{cite news|last=Demsas|first=Jerusalem|date=2021-02-17|title=America's racist housing rules really can be fixed|url=https://www.vox.com/22252625/america-racist-housing-rules-how-to-fix|access-date=2021-07-19|work=Vox|language=en|archive-date=July 19, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210719221611/https://www.vox.com/22252625/america-racist-housing-rules-how-to-fix|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=CNN_2020-02-15 >{{cite news | url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/15/us/racist-deeds-covenants/index.html | title=Racist language is still woven into home deeds across America. Erasing it isn't easy, and some don't want to | last1=Watt | first1=Nick | last2=Hannah | first2=Jack | newspaper=[[CNN]] | date=2020-02-15 | quote=The federal government in 1934 endorsed such segregation by refusing to underwrite mortgages for homes unless a racial covenant was in place. Then in 1948, following activism from black Americans, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled these covenants unenforceable. Still, racial covenants continued to be written, enforced with threats of civil legal action. Finally, two decades later -- in 1968 -- the federal Fair Housing Act finally outlawed these covenants altogether. | access-date=July 27, 2021 | archive-date=October 2, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201002031328/https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/15/us/racist-deeds-covenants/index.html | url-status=live }}</ref> <blockquote> "Single-family zoning became basically the only option to try to maintain both race and class segregation," - Jessica Trounstine (associate professor of political science at the [[University of California, Merced]])<ref name=NYT_Minneapolis >{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/minneapolis-single-family-zoning.html | title=Minneapolis, Tackling Housing Crisis and Inequity, Votes to End Single-Family Zoning | last=Mervosh | first=Sarah | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=2018-12-13 | quote=Single-family neighborhoods rose to prominence across the country after the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1917 that zoning based on race was unconstitutional. "Single-family zoning became basically the only option to try to maintain both race and class segregation," said Jessica Trounstine, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Merced, who has studied segregation. In addition, generations of racial disparities in wealth accumulation, exacerbated by federally backed lending practices that discriminated against African-Americans, meant that most homeowners were white. "So if you make a particular part of the city homeowners only, then you essentially make that neighborhood restricted to whites," Ms. Trounstine said. | access-date=April 23, 2021 | archive-date=December 13, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181213122616/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/minneapolis-single-family-zoning.html | url-status=live }}</ref> </blockquote>
+After the [[US Supreme Court]]'s 1917 decision in [[Buchanan v. Warley]], which declared explicit race-based zoning statutes unconstitutional, the court in 1926 decided in [[Euclid v. Ambler]] that it was a legitimate use of the [[Police power (United States constitutional law)|police power]] of cities to ban apartment buildings from certain neighborhoods, with Justice [[George Sutherland]] referring to an apartment complex as "a mere parasite" on a neighborhood.{{ r | Slate_2018-12 | singleFamilyLAT }} This enabled the spread of single-family zoning as a means to keep poor and minority people out of white neighborhoods.<ref name=Slate_2018-12 >{{ Cite news | url=https://slate.com/business/2018/12/minneapolis-single-family-zoning-housing-racism.html | title=Minneapolis Confronts Its History of Housing Segregation - By doing away with single-family zoning, the city takes on high rent, long commutes, and racism in real estate in one fell swoop. | last=Grabar | first=Henry | date=December 7, 2018 | work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] | language=en | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181231133242/https://slate.com/business/2018/12/minneapolis-single-family-zoning-housing-racism.html | archive-date=December 31, 2018 | url-status=live | quote=Single-family home zoning was devised as a legal way to keep black Americans and other minorities from moving into certain neighborhoods, and it still functions as an effective barrier today. ... The U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-based zoning in 1917, but nine years later, found it constitutional for a Cleveland suburb to ban apartment buildings. The idea that you could legislate out not just gritty industrial facilities but also renters spread rapidly. In concert with racism in real estate, police departments, and housing finance, single-family zoning proved as effective at segregating northern neighborhoods (and their schools) as Jim Crow laws had in the South. }}</ref>{{ r | singleFamilyLAT | NYT_Minneapolis }} In many cases, homeowners and neighborhood associations adopted [[racial covenant|covenants]] to prevent homes in their neighborhood from being sold to buyers of color. Restrictive covenants were legal until a 1948 Supreme Court decision in [[Shelley v. Kraemer]] made them unenforceable, though they continued to be included on deeds until the [[1968 Fair Housing Act]] deemed that illegal as well.<ref name="VOX 2021-02-17">{{cite news|last=Demsas|first=Jerusalem|date=February 17, 2021|title=America's racist housing rules really can be fixed|url=https://www.vox.com/22252625/america-racist-housing-rules-how-to-fix|access-date=July 19, 2021|work=Vox|language=en|archive-date=July 19, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210719221611/https://www.vox.com/22252625/america-racist-housing-rules-how-to-fix|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=CNN_2020-02-15 >{{cite news | url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/15/us/racist-deeds-covenants/index.html | title=Racist language is still woven into home deeds across America. Erasing it isn't easy, and some don't want to | last1=Watt | first1=Nick | last2=Hannah | first2=Jack | newspaper=[[CNN]] | date=February 15, 2020 | quote=The federal government in 1934 endorsed such segregation by refusing to underwrite mortgages for homes unless a racial covenant was in place. Then in 1948, following activism from black Americans, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled these covenants unenforceable. Still, racial covenants continued to be written, enforced with threats of civil legal action. Finally, two decades later -- in 1968 -- the federal Fair Housing Act finally outlawed these covenants altogether. | access-date=July 27, 2021 | archive-date=October 2, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201002031328/https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/15/us/racist-deeds-covenants/index.html | url-status=live }}</ref> <blockquote> "Single-family zoning became basically the only option to try to maintain both race and class segregation," - Jessica Trounstine (associate professor of political science at the [[University of California, Merced]])<ref name=NYT_Minneapolis >{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/minneapolis-single-family-zoning.html | title=Minneapolis, Tackling Housing Crisis and Inequity, Votes to End Single-Family Zoning | last=Mervosh | first=Sarah | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=2018-12-13 | quote=Single-family neighborhoods rose to prominence across the country after the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1917 that zoning based on race was unconstitutional. "Single-family zoning became basically the only option to try to maintain both race and class segregation," said Jessica Trounstine, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Merced, who has studied segregation. In addition, generations of racial disparities in wealth accumulation, exacerbated by federally backed lending practices that discriminated against African-Americans, meant that most homeowners were white. "So if you make a particular part of the city homeowners only, then you essentially make that neighborhood restricted to whites," Ms. Trounstine said. | access-date=April 23, 2021 | archive-date=December 13, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181213122616/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/minneapolis-single-family-zoning.html | url-status=live }}</ref> </blockquote>
-[[Sonia Hirt]], professor of landscape architecture and urban planning at the [[University of Georgia]], states that "In the early 1900s, the racially and ethnically charged private restrictions of the late nineteenth century were temporarily overshadowed by the rise of municipal zoning ordinances with the same explicit intent."{{ r | B-side_1 }} Hirt says single-family zoning is a uniquely American phenomenon: "I could find no evidence in other countries that this particular form — the detached single-family home — is routinely, as in the United States, considered to be so incompatible with all other types of urbanization as to warrant a legally defined district all its own, a district where all other major land uses and building types are outlawed."<ref name="singleFamilyLAT">{{cite news |last1=Fox |first1=Justin |title=News Analysis: How we got single-family home zoning and why it is under attack in the U.S. |url=https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-19/single-family-zoning-us |access-date=27 June 2020 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=19 January 2020 |quote=... the landmark 1926 Supreme Court decision that established the legality of zoning asserted that "very often the apartment house is a mere parasite." |archive-date=April 22, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422041704/https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-19/single-family-zoning-us |url-status=live }}</ref>
+[[Sonia Hirt]], professor of landscape architecture and urban planning at the [[University of Georgia]], states that "In the early 1900s, the racially and ethnically charged private restrictions of the late nineteenth century were temporarily overshadowed by the rise of municipal zoning ordinances with the same explicit intent."{{ r | B-side_1 }} Hirt says single-family zoning is a uniquely American phenomenon: "I could find no evidence in other countries that this particular form — the detached single-family home — is routinely, as in the United States, considered to be so incompatible with all other types of urbanization as to warrant a legally defined district all its own, a district where all other major land uses and building types are outlawed."<ref name="singleFamilyLAT">{{cite news |last1=Fox |first1=Justin |title=News Analysis: How we got single-family home zoning and why it is under attack in the U.S. |url=https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-19/single-family-zoning-us |access-date=June 27, 2020 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=January 19, 2020 |quote=... the landmark 1926 Supreme Court decision that established the legality of zoning asserted that "very often the apartment house is a mere parasite." |archive-date=April 22, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422041704/https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-19/single-family-zoning-us |url-status=live }}</ref>
 == Statistics ==
@@ Line 34: / Line 37: @@
 == Effects ==
-=== Property Value ===
+=== Property values ===
-Because this type of zoning reduces the amount of land available for new housing, it pushes development into poor, minority communities or to land beyond the borders of the city.{{r | NYT_2019-06-18 | p=1 | q=Single-family zoning leaves much land off-limits to new housing, forcing new supply into poorer, minority communities or onto undeveloped land outside of cities. }} Local public employees like teachers, firefighters, and police officers are often priced out of feasibly living in the communities they serve—even in municipalities that require these workers to do so.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Danielson |first=Michael N. |date=1976 |title=The Politics of Exclusionary Zoning in Suburbia |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2149156 |journal=Political Science Quarterly |volume=91 |issue=1 |pages=1–18 |doi=10.2307/2149156 |jstor=2149156 |issn=0032-3195}}</ref> These cases are the most consistent exception to these policies that are “acceptable” to affluent residents. Housing developments in these areas designed to be affordable are frequently only granted an exception to zoning rules on the condition that they gave priority to those either living or working there. Even then, local concerns over affordability for existing town residents and public employees often fails to effect changes in zoning laws or the approval of new, denser, more-affordable developments due to local resistance. However, evidence suggests that larger, more heterogenous suburbs are more responsive to calls for change, likely due to an already-existing local population harmed by these policies.<ref name=":0" />
+Because this type of zoning reduces the amount of land available for new housing, it pushes development into poor, minority communities or to land beyond the borders of the city.{{r | NYT_2019-06-18 | p=1 | q=Single-family zoning leaves much land off-limits to new housing, forcing new supply into poorer, minority communities or onto undeveloped land outside of cities. }} Local public employees like teachers, firefighters, and police officers are often priced out of feasibly living in the communities they serve—even in municipalities that require these workers to do so.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Danielson |first=Michael N. |date=1976 |title=The Politics of Exclusionary Zoning in Suburbia |journal=Political Science Quarterly |volume=91 |issue=1 |pages=1–18 |doi=10.2307/2149156 |jstor=2149156 |issn=0032-3195}}</ref> These cases are the most consistent exception to these policies that are "acceptable" to affluent residents. Housing developments in these areas designed to be affordable are frequently only granted an exception to zoning rules on the condition that they gave priority to those either living or working there. Even then, local concerns over affordability for existing town residents and public employees often fails to effect changes in zoning laws or the approval of new, denser, more-affordable developments due to local resistance. However, evidence suggests that larger, more heterogenous suburbs are more responsive to calls for change, likely due to an already-existing local population harmed by these policies.<ref name=":0" />
-According to Andrew Whittemore, a professor of city and regional planning at the [[University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill]], one effect stems from the belief that higher density housing in neighborhoods decreases housing values, and that one role of the government is to keep homeowner's house values high, and because cities have prioritized single-family homeowners above other groups, this has turned city planners into wealth managers when city planners should be concerned with using zoning to prevent harm.{{r | NYT_2019-06-18 | p=1 | q=Cities have typically prioritized single-family homeowners above other groups, with the old belief that dense housing hurts their property values, said Andrew Whittemore, a professor of city and regional planning at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Evidence supporting that belief is mixed, but Mr. Whittemore suggests it’s the wrong thing to focus on. "Why is it the job of a government to see that a housing unit accumulates as much value as possible?" he said. "I think the purpose of zoning is to prevent harm. Planners shouldn’t be wealth managers. But they effectively are in every municipality in the country." }} Sonia Hirt supports this, stating, "In the United States, private profit as a result of zoning ordinances that preserved and enhanced 'investment values' was not only fully expected, it was a major zoning goal."{{r | B-side_1 }}
+According to Andrew Whittemore, a professor of city and regional planning at the [[University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill]], one effect stems from the belief that higher density housing in neighborhoods decreases housing values, and that one role of the government is to keep homeowner's house values high, and because cities have prioritized single-family homeowners above other groups, this has turned city planners into wealth managers when city planners should be concerned with using zoning to prevent harm.{{r | NYT_2019-06-18 | p=1 | q=Cities have typically prioritized single-family homeowners above other groups, with the old belief that dense housing hurts their property values, said Andrew Whittemore, a professor of city and regional planning at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Evidence supporting that belief is mixed, but Mr. Whittemore suggests it's the wrong thing to focus on. "Why is it the job of a government to see that a housing unit accumulates as much value as possible?" he said. "I think the purpose of zoning is to prevent harm. Planners shouldn't be wealth managers. But they effectively are in every municipality in the country." }} Sonia Hirt supports this, stating, "In the United States, private profit as a result of zoning ordinances that preserved and enhanced 'investment values' was not only fully expected, it was a major zoning goal."{{r | B-side_1 }}
-This effect is furthered by the unique reliance of Americans on homeownership and the value of such properties in securing a long-term, stable quality of life according to Monica Prasad, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University. She says that homeownership is a “lynchpin for the long-term distribution of resources,” working in many ways as a replacement for the welfare state.<ref>{{Cite book |first=Monica |last=Prasad |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/853258753 |title=The Land of Too Much : American Abundance and the Paradox of Poverty. |date=2013 |publisher=De Gruyter |isbn=978-0-674-06781-3 |pages=229 |oclc=853258753}}</ref> The monetary value of the home is key not only for its own sake, but also for the quality of the education it provides access to. Additionally, home equity credit lines have become a key way for Americans to bear the cost of crises, like covering medical debt. Given the far reaching impacts of home value, this creates a natural incentive for homeowners and the government that likely influences policies seeking to protect property values to be as widely implemented and defended across the country as they are.
+This effect is furthered by the unique reliance of Americans on homeownership and the value of such properties in securing a long-term, stable quality of life according to Monica Prasad, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University. She says that homeownership is a "lynchpin for the long-term distribution of resources," working in many ways as a replacement for the welfare state.<ref>{{Cite book |first=Monica |last=Prasad |title=The Land of Too Much: American Abundance and the Paradox of Poverty. |date=2013 |publisher=De Gruyter |isbn=978-0-674-06781-3 |page=229 |oclc=853258753}}</ref> The monetary value of the home is key not only for its own sake, but also for the quality of the education it provides access to. Additionally, home equity credit lines have become a key way for Americans to bear the cost of crises, like covering medical debt. Given the far reaching impacts of home value, this creates a natural incentive for homeowners and the government that likely influences policies seeking to protect property values to be as widely implemented and defended across the country as they are.
 ==== Increases housing costs and decreases housing supply ====
@@ Line 47: / Line 50: @@
 === Racial segregation ===
-In the 1970s, the American suburb became a new battleground for civil rights advocates.<ref name=":0" /> The standard American suburb was zoned to limit dense housing and rarely encouraged housing developments attainable for less affluent groups. Activists and scholars argue that these policies were borne out of racist motivations—fears of increased crime and property value degradation, as well as the preservation of “community character” were core rationales of suburbanites for these policies.<ref name=":0" /> These fears align with some of the driving cultural forces behind White Flight and suburbanization, with industrialization making cities more dangerous.
+In the 1970s, the American suburb became a new battleground for civil rights advocates.<ref name=":0" /> The standard American suburb was zoned to limit dense housing and rarely encouraged housing developments attainable for less affluent groups. Activists and scholars argue that these policies were borne out of racist motivations—fears of increased crime and property value degradation, as well as the preservation of "community character" were core rationales of suburbanites for these policies.<ref name=":0" /> These fears align with some of the driving cultural forces behind White Flight and suburbanization, with industrialization making cities more dangerous.
-According to Sonia Hirt, zoning for detached single family homes in the suburbs provided upwardly mobile Whites more space to raise children in, and prevented the “moral corruption” that more diverse cities risked.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Hirt |first=Sonia A. |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1042029757 |title=Zoned in the USA : the Origins and Implications of American Land-Use Regulation |publisher=Cornell University Press |year=2014 |isbn=978-0-8014-5471-4 |oclc=1042029757}}</ref> Additionally, surrounding these homes with more like them prevented the existence of adjacent businesses that might bring types of people—primarily ethnic minorities and the poor—to the suburbs that these residents wanted to avoid. Since those excluded by these policies inherently could not afford to live in these communities, they lacked the franchise and political capital to secure enough influence to change these policies. Scholars argue that the economic segregation of living spaces deprives those in poor locales on economic opportunity and condemns them to being stuck in areas of concentrated poverty. At the same time, suburban residents get separated from racially-diverse urban areas and thus feel a decreased sense of responsibility for the issues contained there.<ref name=":0" />
+According to Sonia Hirt, zoning for detached single family homes in the suburbs provided upwardly mobile Whites more space to raise children in, and prevented the "moral corruption" that more diverse cities risked.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Hirt |first=Sonia A. |title=Zoned in the USA: the Origins and Implications of American Land-Use Regulation |publisher=Cornell University Press |year=2014 |isbn=978-0-8014-5471-4 |oclc=1042029757}}</ref> Additionally, surrounding these homes with more like them prevented the existence of adjacent businesses that might bring types of people—primarily ethnic minorities and the poor—to the suburbs that these residents wanted to avoid. Since those excluded by these policies inherently could not afford to live in these communities, they lacked the franchise and political capital to secure enough influence to change these policies. Scholars argue that the economic segregation of living spaces deprives those in poor locales of economic opportunity and condemns them to being stuck in areas of concentrated poverty. At the same time, suburban residents get separated from racially-diverse urban areas and thus feel a decreased sense of responsibility for the issues contained there.<ref name=":0" />
-A 2020 study from UC Berkeley stated "The greater proportion of single-family zoning, the higher the observed level of racial residential segregation."{{r | KQED }}<ref name="Berkley_B">{{cite web | url=https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-5 | title=Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 5 | last1=Menendian | first1=Stephen | last2=Gambhir | first2=Samir | last3=Gailes | first3=Arthur | work=UC Berkeley Othering & Belonging Institute | date=2020-08-11 | access-date= | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201101035303/https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-5 | archive-date=2020-11-01 | url-status=live | pages= | quote=We then describe how restrictive land use policies, and especially single-family zoning, reinforces and promotes racial residential segregation by showing the correlation between different types of segregation and single-family zoning. ...excessive single-family zoning does not allow cities to provide enough housing for people, or the density needed to make shelter affordable and reduce sprawl, which exacerbates greenhouse gas emissions. It contributes to both economic and racial segregation. }}</ref>
+A 2020 study from UC Berkeley stated "The greater proportion of single-family zoning, the higher the observed level of racial residential segregation."{{r | KQED }}<ref name="Berkley_B">{{cite web | url=https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-5 | title=Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 5 | last1=Menendian | first1=Stephen | last2=Gambhir | first2=Samir | last3=Gailes | first3=Arthur | work=UC Berkeley Othering & Belonging Institute | date=August 11, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201101035303/https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-5 | archive-date=November 1, 2020 | url-status=live | pages= | quote=We then describe how restrictive land use policies, and especially single-family zoning, reinforces and promotes racial residential segregation by showing the correlation between different types of segregation and single-family zoning. ...excessive single-family zoning does not allow cities to provide enough housing for people, or the density needed to make shelter affordable and reduce sprawl, which exacerbates greenhouse gas emissions. It contributes to both economic and racial segregation. }}</ref>
-=== Political Culture ===
+=== Political culture ===
 According to Sonia Hirt, zoning, as opposed to centralized city planning favored by most other countries, grew popular in the US because of the opposition to state intervention prevalent in American politics.<ref name=":1" /> Zoning limits the need for bureaucrats by creating broad land-use guidelines for the private market to follow, rather than directing specific developments under centralized planning. Additionally, arbitration of disputes is largely left up to judicial system, a more popular institution among Americans, rather than through municipal officials.
-Other academics highlight how the nature of zoning undermines the neoliberal values often seen as fundamental to the US. William Fischel, an economics professor at Dartmouth College, asserts that, from the outset of zoning policy, the protection of single-family homes from “incompatible” land use nearby was “paramount.”<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fischel |first=William A. |date=February 2004 |title=An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for its Exclusionary Effects |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/0042098032000165271 |journal=Urban Studies |language=en |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=317–340 |doi=10.1080/0042098032000165271 |issn=0042-0980}}</ref> While many suburbanites would identify the class mobility represented by a move out to the suburbs as a manifestation of success in the free market, they sought legal protection of their neighborhoods from commercial or high-density residential developments. He notes that early legal court cases regarding zoning policies led to anti-regulation judges ruling strongly in favor of empowering zoning laws.
+Other academics highlight how the nature of zoning undermines the neoliberal values often seen as fundamental to the US. William Fischel, an economics professor at Dartmouth College, asserts that, from the outset of zoning policy, the protection of single-family homes from "incompatible" land use nearby was "paramount."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fischel |first=William A. |date=February 2004 |title=An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for its Exclusionary Effects |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/0042098032000165271 |journal=Urban Studies |language=en |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=317–340 |doi=10.1080/0042098032000165271 |bibcode=2004UrbSt..41..317F |issn=0042-0980}}</ref> While many suburbanites would identify the class mobility represented by a move out to the suburbs as a manifestation of success in the free market, they sought legal protection of their neighborhoods from commercial or high-density residential developments. He notes that early legal court cases regarding zoning policies led to anti-regulation judges ruling strongly in favor of empowering zoning laws.
-== Rezoning efforts (2018-present)==
+== Rezoning efforts (2018-present) ==
 In the late 2010s, cities across the nation have started looking at reforming their land-use regulations, particularly single-family zoning, in attempts to solve their housing shortages and reduce the racial inequities which arise from housing segregation.{{ r | NPR_2021-03-13 | WaPo_Minneapolis }}
-A growing concern over "[[missing middle housing]]" developed in the United States housing market. This term refers to options in between renting apartments and buying a [[single family detached home]] on an entire lot. "Middle" housing options like this include [[Duplex (building)|duplexes]], fourplexes, [[townhouses]], and cottage court apartments which could provide options for lower and middle income individuals who cannot afford single family homes.{{ r | NPR_2021-03-13 }} Advocates for getting rid of single family zoning argue that by allowing housing options outside of only single family homes, more people would be able to stay in their cities without being priced out or relying on a shrinking supply of affordable units.<ref name=Brookings_2020>{{cite web|last=Schuetz|first=Jenny|date=2020-01-07|title=To improve housing affordability, we need better alignment of zoning, taxes, and subsidies|url=https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/to-improve-housing-affordability-we-need-better-alignment-of-zoning-taxes-and-subsidies/|access-date=2021-07-12|website=Brookings|language=en-US|archive-date=July 12, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210712060659/https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/to-improve-housing-affordability-we-need-better-alignment-of-zoning-taxes-and-subsidies/|url-status=live}}</ref>
+A growing concern over "[[missing middle housing]]" developed in the United States housing market. This term refers to options in between renting apartments and buying a [[single family detached home]] on an entire lot. "Middle" housing options like this include [[Duplex (building)|duplexes]], fourplexes, [[townhouses]], and cottage court apartments which could provide options for lower and middle income individuals who cannot afford single family homes.{{ r | NPR_2021-03-13 }} Advocates for getting rid of single family zoning argue that by allowing housing options outside of only single family homes, more people would be able to stay in their cities without being priced out or relying on a shrinking supply of affordable units.<ref name=Brookings_2020>{{cite web|last=Schuetz|first=Jenny|date=January 7, 2020|title=To improve housing affordability, we need better alignment of zoning, taxes, and subsidies|url=https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/to-improve-housing-affordability-we-need-better-alignment-of-zoning-taxes-and-subsidies/|access-date=July 12, 2021|website=Brookings|language=en-US|archive-date=July 12, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210712060659/https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/to-improve-housing-affordability-we-need-better-alignment-of-zoning-taxes-and-subsidies/|url-status=live}}</ref>
-Ending single family zoning is a controversial topic. Many residents and [[NIMBY]] (Not in My Backyard) advocates do not want development to increase the density of their neighborhood of exclusively single family homes. Some argue that having apartments will decrease the value of their single family homes. Some argue that upzoning initiatives will increase effects of gentrification by increasing the housing costs in that area. Their argument is that homeowners will have a higher incentive to sell their properties at even higher rates because buyers or developers might be willing to pay more for houses they know they can convert into multiplexes.<ref>{{cite web|last=Davis|first=Jenna|date=2021-07-15|title=The double-edged sword of upzoning|url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/07/15/the-double-edged-sword-of-upzoning/|access-date=2021-07-19|website=Brookings|language=en-US|archive-date=July 19, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210719232300/https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/07/15/the-double-edged-sword-of-upzoning/|url-status=live}}</ref> Those who are proponents of ending single family zoning call themselves [[YIMBY]]s (Yes in my Backyard) as a counter-movement to NIMBY sentiments. They argue that more housing is the answer to the housing shortage, so they see the increase in density of their neighborhood as justified.<ref>{{cite web|last=Yglesias|first=Matthew|date=2019-12-27|title=The telling conservative backlash to a Virginia zoning reform proposal, explained|url=https://www.vox.com/2019/12/27/21039043/ibrahim-samirah-virginia-single-family-zoning|access-date=2021-07-12|website=Vox|language=en|archive-date=July 12, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210712061928/https://www.vox.com/2019/12/27/21039043/ibrahim-samirah-virginia-single-family-zoning|url-status=live}}</ref>
+Ending single family zoning is a controversial topic. Many residents and [[NIMBY]] (Not in My Backyard) advocates do not want development to increase the density of their neighborhood of exclusively single family homes. Some argue that having apartments will decrease the value of their single family homes. Some argue that upzoning initiatives will increase effects of gentrification by increasing the housing costs in that area. Their argument is that homeowners will have a higher incentive to sell their properties at even higher rates because buyers or developers might be willing to pay more for houses they know they can convert into multiplexes.<ref>{{cite web|last=Davis|first=Jenna|date=July 15, 2021|title=The double-edged sword of upzoning|url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/07/15/the-double-edged-sword-of-upzoning/|access-date=July 19, 2021|website=Brookings|language=en-US|archive-date=July 19, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210719232300/https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/07/15/the-double-edged-sword-of-upzoning/|url-status=live}}</ref> Those who are proponents of ending single family zoning call themselves [[YIMBY]]s (Yes in my Backyard) as a counter-movement to NIMBY sentiments. They argue that more housing is the answer to the housing shortage, so they see the increase in density of their neighborhood as justified.<ref>{{cite web|last=Yglesias|first=Matthew|date=December 27, 2019|title=The telling conservative backlash to a Virginia zoning reform proposal, explained|url=https://www.vox.com/2019/12/27/21039043/ibrahim-samirah-virginia-single-family-zoning|access-date=July 12, 2021|website=Vox|language=en|archive-date=July 12, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210712061928/https://www.vox.com/2019/12/27/21039043/ibrahim-samirah-virginia-single-family-zoning|url-status=live}}</ref>
 === United States ===
-==== Minnesota ====
-In 2018, [[Minneapolis]] became the first major city in the US to end single-family zoning (which had covered almost 75% of their residential land), by allowing duplexes and triplexes in every neighborhood, as well as higher-density housing along transit lines.{{ r | Slate_2018-12 }}{{ r | NYT_Minneapolis | p=1 | q=In a bold move to address its affordable-housing crisis and confront a history of racist housing practices, Minneapolis has decided to eliminate single-family zoning, a classification that has long perpetuated segregation. The Minneapolis City Council voted last Friday to get rid of the category and instead allow residential structures with up to three dwelling units — like duplexes and triplexes — in every neighborhood. Minneapolis is believed to be the first major city in the United States to approve such a change citywide. }} By allowing triplexes in all neighborhoods their intention is to give all people opportunity to move to neighborhoods with good schools or jobs, as well as to increase affordability, reduce displacement of lower-income residents, and increase both the economic and racial diversity of neighborhoods.{{ r | Slate_2018-12 | p=1 | q=Opening up Minneapolis’ wealthiest, most exclusive districts to triplexes, the theory goes, will create new opportunities for people to move for schools or a job, provide a way for aging residents to downsize without leaving their neighborhoods, help ease the affordability crunch citywide, and stem the displacement of lower-income residents in gentrifying areas. }}<ref name=Politico_2019-07-11 >{{cite news | url=https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/11/housing-crisis-single-family-homes-policy-227265/ | title=How Minneapolis Freed Itself From the Stranglehold of Single-Family Homes - Desperate to build more housing, the city just rewrote its decades-old zoning rules. | last=Trickey | first=Erick | newspaper=[[Politico]] | date=2019-07-11 | quote=Minneapolis just did away with the rules that gave single-family homes a stranglehold on nearly three-quarters of the city. | access-date=April 22, 2021 | archive-date=April 22, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422035747/https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/11/housing-crisis-single-family-homes-policy-227265/ | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=PBS_ >{{cite news | url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-minneapolis-became-the-first-to-end-single-family-zoning | title=How Minneapolis became the first to end single-family zoning | last=Thompson | first=Megan | newspaper=[[PBS]] | date=2019-11-23 | quote=To help address a housing shortage, Minneapolis became the first large American city to end single-family zoning, the rules that restrict certain neighborhoods to single-family homes. Now, buildings with up to three units can be built on any residential lot. Leaders hope this, and other plans, will add new units, create density and remedy segregation. ... In Minneapolis, which is about 60 percent white, almost three quarters of the city's residential property was zoned for single-family homes. | access-date=April 22, 2021 | archive-date=March 26, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210326060613/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-minneapolis-became-the-first-to-end-single-family-zoning | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=WaPo_Minneapolis >{{cite news | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/as-cities-rethink-single-family-zoning-traditional-ideas-of-the-american-dream-are-challenged/2019/06/25/8312a512-4ca3-11e9-93d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html | title=As cities rethink single-family zoning, traditional ideas of the American Dream are challenged | last=Willis | first=Haisten | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=2019-06-27 | quote=But urban planners in Minneapolis say they hope the plan will lead to a more walkable, more affordable, more environmentally friendly and more inclusive city thanks to higher density and an added supply of housing stock. | access-date=April 24, 2021 | archive-date=December 17, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201217203552/https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/as-cities-rethink-single-family-zoning-traditional-ideas-of-the-american-dream-are-challenged/2019/06/25/8312a512-4ca3-11e9-93d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html | url-status=live }}</ref>
 ====California====
+{{Seealso|California housing shortage}}
 =====State-level=====
-Prior to 2021, across the [[California|State of California]] as a whole, almost 66% of all residences were single-family homes and almost 75% of all developable land was zoned single-family.<ref name=NPR_2021-03-13 >{{ cite web | url=https://www.npr.org/2021/03/13/973770308/facing-housing-crunch-california-cities-rethink-single-family-neighborhoods | title=Facing Housing Crunch, California Cities Rethink Single-Family Neighborhoods | last=Baldassari  | first=Erin | work=[[NPR]] | date=2021-03-13 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210331194917/https://www.npr.org/2021/03/13/973770308/facing-housing-crunch-california-cities-rethink-single-family-neighborhoods | archive-date=2021-03-31 | url-status=live | pages= | quote=It's part of a growing movement of cities across California, and the country, to rethink traditional single-family neighborhoods as way to tackle high housing costs and redress decades of racial segregation in housing. ... In California, more than two-thirds of all residential land is dedicated solely to single-family homes. }}</ref>{{ r | LAT_2021-09-03 }}
+Prior to 2021, across the [[California|State of California]] as a whole, almost 66% of all residences were single-family homes and almost 75% of all developable land was zoned exclusively for single-family.<ref name="NPR_2021-03-13">{{cite web |last=Baldassari |first=Erin |date=March 13, 2021 |title=Facing Housing Crunch, California Cities Rethink Single-Family Neighborhoods |url=https://www.npr.org/2021/03/13/973770308/facing-housing-crunch-california-cities-rethink-single-family-neighborhoods |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210331194917/https://www.npr.org/2021/03/13/973770308/facing-housing-crunch-california-cities-rethink-single-family-neighborhoods |archive-date=March 31, 2021 |work=[[NPR]] |pages= |quote=It's part of a growing movement of cities across California, and the country, to rethink traditional single-family neighborhoods as way to tackle high housing costs and redress decades of racial segregation in housing. ... In California, more than two-thirds of all residential land is dedicated solely to single-family homes.}}</ref>{{r | LAT_2021-09-03 }}
-In September 2021, governor [[Gavin Newsom]] signed [[California Senate Bill 9 (2021)|Senate Bill 9]], which effectively eliminated single-family-only zoning, requiring cities to approve two units and under certain conditions up to four units on single-family lots.<ref name="sb-9-la-times">{{cite web|url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-19/showdown-sacramento-plan-split-single-family-lots-housing|date=August 19, 2021|title=Sacramento fight looms over plan to split single-family lots|website=[[The Los Angeles Times]]|first=Ari|last=Plachta|access-date=September 16, 2021|archive-date=September 16, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210916234257/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-19/showdown-sacramento-plan-split-single-family-lots-housing|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="dougherty-tweet">{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/16/governor-newsom-signs-historic-legislation-to-boost-californias-housing-supply-and-fight-the-housing-crisis/|title=Governor Newsom Signs Historic Legislation to Boost California's Housing Supply and Fight the Housing Crisis|date=September 16, 2021|access-date=September 16, 2021|archive-date=September 16, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210916234256/https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/16/governor-newsom-signs-historic-legislation-to-boost-californias-housing-supply-and-fight-the-housing-crisis/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="sb-9-nyt">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/business/california-duplex-senate-bill-9.html|date=August 26, 2021|title=After Years of Failure, California Lawmakers Pave the Way for More Housing|website=[[The New York Times]]|first=Conor|last=Dougherty|access-date=September 16, 2021|archive-date=September 16, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210916234256/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/business/california-duplex-senate-bill-9.html|url-status=live}}</ref>  This law is expected to have minimal impact on neighborhoods, as experts estimated that it is only cost effective for 5% of single-family owners to upgrade their property. A study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley estimated that this new law could potentially result in 700,000 new housing units statewide, about 20% of the homes necessary to alleviate the [[California housing shortage|housing shortage]] of 3.5 million homes.<ref name=SJMN_2021-09-17 >{{cite news | url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/17/what-californias-new-sb9-law-means-for-single-family-zoning-in-your-neighborhood/ | title=What California's new SB9 housing law means for single-family zoning in your neighborhood - Experts say the vast majority of properties and neighborhoods will not be affected | last=Angst | first=Maggie | newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] | date=2021-09-17 | quote=Will this law put a dent in California’s housing shortage? A recent study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley estimated that just 5.4% of the state’s current single-family lots had the potential to be developed under Senate Bill 9, making the construction of up to 714,000 new housing units financially feasible. That’s only a fraction of the 3.5 million new housing units Gov. Newsom wants to see built by 2025. | access-date=September 18, 2021 | archive-date=September 18, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210918012830/https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/17/what-californias-new-sb9-law-means-for-single-family-zoning-in-your-neighborhood/ | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=LAT_2021-09-03 >{{cite news | url=https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2021-09-03/essential-california-single-family-zoning-changes-essential-california | title=The big change coming to California neighborhoods | last=Dillon | first=Liam | newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] | date=2021-09-03 | quote=Nearly two-thirds of all the residences in California are single-family homes. And as much as three-quarters of the developable land in the state is now zoned only for single-family housing, according to UC Berkeley research. ... Indeed, UC Berkeley researchers recently found that it would make financial sense for property owners of only about 5% of the state’s 7.5 million single-family lots to add more homes on their property. | access-date=September 18, 2021 | archive-date=September 18, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210918012831/https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2021-09-03/essential-california-single-family-zoning-changes-essential-california | url-status=live }}</ref>
+In September 2021, governor [[Gavin Newsom]] signed [[California HOME Act|Senate Bill 9]], which effectively eliminated single-family-only zoning, requiring cities to approve two units and under certain conditions up to four units on single-family lots.<ref name="sb-9-la-times">{{cite web |last=Plachta |first=Ari |date=August 19, 2021 |title=Sacramento fight looms over plan to split single-family lots |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-19/showdown-sacramento-plan-split-single-family-lots-housing |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210916234257/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-19/showdown-sacramento-plan-split-single-family-lots-housing |archive-date=September 16, 2021 |access-date=September 16, 2021 |website=[[The Los Angeles Times]]}}</ref><ref name="dougherty-tweet">{{cite web |date=September 16, 2021 |title=Governor Newsom Signs Historic Legislation to Boost California's Housing Supply and Fight the Housing Crisis |url=https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/16/governor-newsom-signs-historic-legislation-to-boost-californias-housing-supply-and-fight-the-housing-crisis/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210916234256/https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/16/governor-newsom-signs-historic-legislation-to-boost-californias-housing-supply-and-fight-the-housing-crisis/ |archive-date=September 16, 2021 |access-date=September 16, 2021}}</ref><ref name="sb-9-nyt">{{cite web |last=Dougherty |first=Conor |date=August 26, 2021 |title=After Years of Failure, California Lawmakers Pave the Way for More Housing |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/business/california-duplex-senate-bill-9.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210916234256/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/business/california-duplex-senate-bill-9.html |archive-date=September 16, 2021 |access-date=September 16, 2021 |website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>  This law is expected to have minimal impact on neighborhoods, as experts estimated that it is only cost effective for 5% of single-family owners to upgrade their property. A study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley estimated that this new law could potentially result in 700,000 new housing units statewide, about 20% of the homes necessary to alleviate the [[California housing shortage|housing shortage]] of 3.5 million homes.<ref name="SJMN_2021-09-17">{{cite news |last=Angst |first=Maggie |date=September 17, 2021 |title=What California's new SB9 housing law means for single-family zoning in your neighborhood - Experts say the vast majority of properties and neighborhoods will not be affected |newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/17/what-californias-new-sb9-law-means-for-single-family-zoning-in-your-neighborhood/ |url-status=live |access-date=September 18, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210918012830/https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/17/what-californias-new-sb9-law-means-for-single-family-zoning-in-your-neighborhood/ |archive-date=September 18, 2021 |quote=Will this law put a dent in California's housing shortage? A recent study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley estimated that just 5.4% of the state's current single-family lots had the potential to be developed under Senate Bill 9, making the construction of up to 714,000 new housing units financially feasible. That's only a fraction of the 3.5 million new housing units Gov. Newsom wants to see built by 2025.}}</ref><ref name="LAT_2021-09-03">{{cite news |last=Dillon |first=Liam |date=September 3, 2021 |title=The big change coming to California neighborhoods |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2021-09-03/essential-california-single-family-zoning-changes-essential-california |url-status=live |access-date=September 18, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210918012831/https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2021-09-03/essential-california-single-family-zoning-changes-essential-california |archive-date=September 18, 2021 |quote=Nearly two-thirds of all the residences in California are single-family homes. And as much as three-quarters of the developable land in the state is now zoned only for single-family housing, according to UC Berkeley research. ... Indeed, UC Berkeley researchers recently found that it would make financial sense for property owners of only about 5% of the state's 7.5 million single-family lots to add more homes on their property.}}</ref>
-====Cities====
+===== Cities =====
+In January 2021, the city council of [[Sacramento, California|Sacramento]] voted to permit up to four housing units on all residential lots to help the city reduce its housing shortage and to achieve equity goals by making neighborhoods with good schools accessible to people who cannot afford to purchase homes there.<ref name="SacBee_1">{{cite news |last=Clift |first=Theresa |date=January 19, 2021 |title=Sacramento moves forward with controversial zoning change designed to address housing crisis |newspaper=[[The Sacramento Bee]] |url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article248544635.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210131051034/https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article248544635.html |archive-date=January 31, 2021 |quote=The Sacramento City Council took a step Tuesday toward becoming one of the first cities in the country to eliminate traditional single-family zoning. The change, for which the council unanimously signaled support, would allow houses across the city to contain up to four dwelling units. City officials said the proposal would help the city alleviate its housing crisis, as well as achieve equity goals, by making neighborhoods with high-performing schools, pristine parks and other amenities accessible for families who cannot afford the rising price tags to buy homes there.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=January 20, 2021 |title=Sacramento moves toward becoming one of 1st U.S. cities to eliminate single-family zoning |url=https://ktla.com/news/california/sacramento-moves-toward-becoming-one-of-1st-u-s-cities-to-eliminate-single-family-zoning/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422153426/https://ktla.com/news/california/sacramento-moves-toward-becoming-one-of-1st-u-s-cities-to-eliminate-single-family-zoning/ |archive-date=April 22, 2021 |access-date=April 15, 2021 |website=KTLA |language=en-US}}</ref>
-In January 2021, [[Sacramento, California|Sacramento]] voted to permit up to four housing units on all residential lots to help the city reduce its housing shortage and to achieve equity goals by making neighborhoods with good schools accessible to people who cannot afford to purchase homes there.<ref name=SacBee_1 >{{ cite news | url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article248544635.html | title=Sacramento moves forward with controversial zoning change designed to address housing crisis  | last=Clift | first=Theresa | newspaper=[[The Sacramento Bee]] | date=2021-01-19 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210131051034/https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article248544635.html | archive-date=2021-01-31 | url-status=live | quote=The Sacramento City Council took a step Tuesday toward becoming one of the first cities in the country to eliminate traditional single-family zoning. The change, for which the council unanimously signaled support, would allow houses across the city to contain up to four dwelling units. City officials said the proposal would help the city alleviate its housing crisis, as well as achieve equity goals, by making neighborhoods with high-performing schools, pristine parks and other amenities accessible for families who cannot afford the rising price tags to buy homes there. }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=2021-01-20|title=Sacramento moves toward becoming one of 1st U.S. cities to eliminate single-family zoning|url=https://ktla.com/news/california/sacramento-moves-toward-becoming-one-of-1st-u-s-cities-to-eliminate-single-family-zoning/|website=KTLA|language=en-US|access-date=April 15, 2021|archive-date=April 22, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422153426/https://ktla.com/news/california/sacramento-moves-toward-becoming-one-of-1st-u-s-cities-to-eliminate-single-family-zoning/|url-status=live}}</ref>
+In February 2021, the City Council of [[Berkeley, California]], voted unanimously to allow fourplexes in all neighborhoods, with Vice Mayor Lori Droste saying that this is "necessary as a first step in undoing a history of racist housing policies."{{r | SJMN_2021-02-24 }}<ref name="BS_1">{{Cite news |last=Yelimeli |first=Supriya |date=February 24, 2021 |title=Berkeley denounces racist history of single-family zoning, begins 2-year process to change general plan - Council unanimously approved a resolution that will work toward banning single-family zoning. |language=en-US |work=[[Berkeleyside]] |url=https://www.berkeleyside.com/2021/02/24/berkeley-denounces-racist-history-of-single-family-zoning-begins-2-year-process-to-change-general-plan |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210301140957/https://www.berkeleyside.com/2021/02/24/berkeley-denounces-racist-history-of-single-family-zoning-begins-2-year-process-to-change-general-plan |archive-date=March 1, 2021 |quote=Droste and co-authors pointed out in the resolution that Berkeley was the first city in the United States to enact single-family zoning in 1916 in Droste's district, the Elmwood. This combined with discriminatory lending practices, redlining and the Berkeley Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance of 1973 to create deeply segregated neighborhoods.}}</ref><ref name="SFC_1">{{Cite news |last=Ravani |first=Sarah |date=February 25, 2021 |title=Berkeley vows to end single-family zoning by end of 2022: 'Right the wrongs of our past' |language=en-US |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-vows-to-end-single-family-zoning-by-the-15976115.php |url-status=live |access-date=April 14, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414224934/https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-vows-to-end-single-family-zoning-by-the-15976115.php |archive-date=April 14, 2021}}</ref>
+[[San Francisco]], where almost 75% of all land zoned residential allows only single-family homes or duplexes, is scheduled in 2021 to discuss a proposal to allow fourplexes on corner lots, and any lot within half a mile from a train station.{{r | KQED_2021-02-16 | SFC_2021-01-30 }}  David Garcia, policy director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at [[UC Berkeley]], said that a proposal to allow fourplexes everywhere would be a more equitable proposal, and that research shows that the [[San Francisco housing shortage|housing shortage]] is so large that limiting new housing to specific areas would not sufficiently address the shortage.<ref name="KQED_2021-02-16">{{cite news |last=Baldassari |first=Erin |date=February 16, 2021 |title=California Cities Rethink the Single-Family Neighborhood |newspaper=[[KQED Inc.|KQED]] |url=https://www.kqed.org/news/11860308/why-just-allowing-fourplexes-wont-solve-californias-housing-affordability-crisis |url-status=live |access-date=April 20, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418201704/https://www.kqed.org/news/11860308/why-just-allowing-fourplexes-wont-solve-californias-housing-affordability-crisis |archive-date=April 18, 2021}}</ref><ref name="SFC_2021-01-30">{{cite news |last=Knight |first=Heather |date=January 30, 2021 |title=S.F. supervisor's creative proposal: Make it hard to build McMansions, easier to build small apartments |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/S-F-supervisor-s-creative-proposal-Make-it-15910055.php |url-status=live |access-date=April 20, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418160054/https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/S-F-supervisor-s-creative-proposal-Make-it-15910055.php |archive-date=April 18, 2021 |quote=He actually thinks Mandelman would have a better chance of ensuring equity if he followed Sacramento's path and allowed fourplexes everywhere. Then large parts of the west side that have been frozen in time would finally have to carry their weight, alleviating the crush on the east side. ... "There's a lot of research on the need to increase housing supply in all in-fill areas, not just near transit," Garcia said. "San Francisco has some robust transit, but certainly not to the degree where limiting new housing to those areas is going to have as big of an impact as we need to address the full shortage."}}</ref>
-In February 2021, the City Council of [[Berkeley, California]], voted unanimously to allow fourplexes in all neighborhoods, with Vice Mayor Lori Droste saying that this is "necessary as a first step in undoing a history of racist housing policies."{{ r | SJMN_2021-02-24 }}<ref name=BS_1>{{ Cite news | date=2021-02-24 | title=Berkeley denounces racist history of single-family zoning, begins 2-year process to change general plan - Council unanimously approved a resolution that will work toward banning single-family zoning. | last=Yelimeli | first=Supriya | url=https://www.berkeleyside.com/2021/02/24/berkeley-denounces-racist-history-of-single-family-zoning-begins-2-year-process-to-change-general-plan | work=[[Berkeleyside]] | language=en-US | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210301140957/https://www.berkeleyside.com/2021/02/24/berkeley-denounces-racist-history-of-single-family-zoning-begins-2-year-process-to-change-general-plan | archive-date=2021-03-01 | url-status=live | quote=Droste and co-authors pointed out in the resolution that Berkeley was the first city in the United States to enact single-family zoning in 1916 in Droste’s district, the Elmwood. This combined with discriminatory lending practices, redlining and the Berkeley Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance of 1973 to create deeply segregated neighborhoods. }}</ref><ref name=SFC_1>{{Cite news | last=Ravani | first=Sarah | date=2021-02-25 | title=Berkeley vows to end single-family zoning by end of 2022: 'Right the wrongs of our past' | url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-vows-to-end-single-family-zoning-by-the-15976115.php | access-date=2021-04-14 | work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] | language=en-US | archive-date=April 14, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414224934/https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-vows-to-end-single-family-zoning-by-the-15976115.php | url-status=live }}</ref>
+==== Idaho ====
-[[San Francisco]], where almost 75% of all land zoned residential allows only single-family homes or duplexes, is scheduled in 2021 to discuss a proposal to allow fourplexes on corner lots, and any lot within half a mile from a train station.{{ r | KQED_2021-02-16 | SFC_2021-01-30 }}  David Garcia, policy director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at [[UC Berkeley]], said that a proposal to allow fourplexes everywhere would be a more equitable proposal, and that research shows that the [[San Francisco housing shortage|housing shortage]] is so large that limiting new housing to specific areas would not sufficiently address the shortage.<ref name=KQED_2021-02-16 >{{cite news | url=https://www.kqed.org/news/11860308/why-just-allowing-fourplexes-wont-solve-californias-housing-affordability-crisis | title=California Cities Rethink the Single-Family Neighborhood | last=Baldassari | first=Erin | newspaper=[[KQED Inc.|KQED]] | date=2021-02-16 | access-date=April 20, 2021 | archive-date=April 18, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418201704/https://www.kqed.org/news/11860308/why-just-allowing-fourplexes-wont-solve-californias-housing-affordability-crisis | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=SFC_2021-01-30 >{{cite news | url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/S-F-supervisor-s-creative-proposal-Make-it-15910055.php | title=S.F. supervisor's creative proposal: Make it hard to build McMansions, easier to build small apartments | last=Knight | first=Heather | newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] | date=2021-01-30 | quote=He actually thinks Mandelman would have a better chance of ensuring equity if he followed Sacramento’s path and allowed fourplexes everywhere. Then large parts of the west side that have been frozen in time would finally have to carry their weight, alleviating the crush on the east side. ... "There’s a lot of research on the need to increase housing supply in all in-fill areas, not just near transit," Garcia said. "San Francisco has some robust transit, but certainly not to the degree where limiting new housing to those areas is going to have as big of an impact as we need to address the full shortage." | access-date=April 20, 2021 | archive-date=April 18, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418160054/https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/S-F-supervisor-s-creative-proposal-Make-it-15910055.php | url-status=live }}</ref>
+In June 2023, [[Boise, Idaho|Boise]] City Council unanimously approved a rewrite of the city's zoning code that allowed duplexes and cottage court homes on most of the city's residential land. Small portions of the city were excluded from the upzoning. The new code took effect on December 1, 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-06-15 |title=Boise City Council unanimously approves the zoning code rewrite |url=https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/local-boise-city-council-unanimously-approves-zoning-code-rewrite/277-e0032e24-d752-4335-a806-8293b8a1f5ba |access-date=2023-12-27 |website=ktvb.com |language=en-US}}</ref>
-==== Virginia ====
+==== Maine ====
+In April 2022, the [[Maine Legislature]] passed LD 2003, requiring cities and towns to increase housing density.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Housing Legislation LD 2003 |url=https://smpdc.org/ld2003|access-date=17 August 2024 }}</ref> It requires municipalities to allow additional units on lots zoned for single-family homes, and to allow at least one accessory dwelling unit on lots with existing single-family homes, hence ending single family zoning in [[Maine]]. The Governor signed the bill in April 2022 and it went into effect July 27, 2022.
-In August 2021, [[Charlottesville, Virginia]]'s planning commission started investigating the idea of reducing some of their exclusionary zoning rules (particularly single-family zoning) to allow for more housing affordability, where working-class Black residents have been disproportionately displaced to surrounding communities.<ref name=NYT_2021-08-01 >{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/01/us/charlottesville-va-zoning-affordable-housing.html | title=A Fight Over Zoning Tests Charlottesville's Progress on Race - Four years after a white supremacist march, the Virginia city is reconsidering its housing and zoning rules. | last=Robertson | first=Campbell | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=2021-08-01 | quote=Propelled by research showing that single-family zoning restrictions have roots in discrimination and consequences in soaring housing prices and more segregated neighborhoods, Charlottesville is joining communities across the country in debating whether to ease these restrictions. | access-date=August 9, 2021 | archive-date=August 9, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210809042820/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/01/us/charlottesville-va-zoning-affordable-housing.html | url-status=live }}</ref>
+==== Maryland ====
+In October 2024, the [[Anne Arundel County]] Council passed Bill No. 72-24, the Housing Attainability Act, legalizing missing middle housing in certain areas zoned for single-family homes.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Bill No. 72-24 |url=https://www.aacounty.org/county-council/legislation/bill-no-72-24|access-date=10 October 2024 }}</ref> The bill legalizes triplexes, fourplexes, multiplexes, and stacked townhouses, which were not previously defined in the zoning code. The bill is set to take effect on July 1, 2025.
+==== Minnesota ====
+In 2018, [[Minneapolis]] became the first major city in the US to end single-family zoning (which had covered almost 75% of their residential land), by allowing duplexes and triplexes in every neighborhood, as well as higher-density housing along transit lines.{{ r | Slate_2018-12 }}{{ r | NYT_Minneapolis | p=1 | q=In a bold move to address its affordable-housing crisis and confront a history of racist housing practices, Minneapolis has decided to eliminate single-family zoning, a classification that has long perpetuated segregation. The Minneapolis City Council voted last Friday to get rid of the category and instead allow residential structures with up to three dwelling units — like duplexes and triplexes — in every neighborhood. Minneapolis is believed to be the first major city in the United States to approve such a change citywide. }} By allowing triplexes in all neighborhoods their intention is to give all people opportunity to move to neighborhoods with good schools or jobs, as well as to increase affordability, reduce displacement of lower-income residents, and increase both the economic and racial diversity of neighborhoods.{{ r | Slate_2018-12 | p=1 | q=Opening up Minneapolis' wealthiest, most exclusive districts to triplexes, the theory goes, will create new opportunities for people to move for schools or a job, provide a way for aging residents to downsize without leaving their neighborhoods, help ease the affordability crunch citywide, and stem the displacement of lower-income residents in gentrifying areas. }}<ref name=Politico_2019-07-11 >{{cite news | url=https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/11/housing-crisis-single-family-homes-policy-227265/ | title=How Minneapolis Freed Itself From the Stranglehold of Single-Family Homes - Desperate to build more housing, the city just rewrote its decades-old zoning rules. | last=Trickey | first=Erick | newspaper=[[Politico]] | date=July 11, 2019 | quote=Minneapolis just did away with the rules that gave single-family homes a stranglehold on nearly three-quarters of the city. | access-date=April 22, 2021 | archive-date=April 22, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422035747/https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/11/housing-crisis-single-family-homes-policy-227265/ | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=PBS_ >{{cite news | url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-minneapolis-became-the-first-to-end-single-family-zoning | title=How Minneapolis became the first to end single-family zoning | last=Thompson | first=Megan | newspaper=[[PBS]] | date=November 23, 2019 | quote=To help address a housing shortage, Minneapolis became the first large American city to end single-family zoning, the rules that restrict certain neighborhoods to single-family homes. Now, buildings with up to three units can be built on any residential lot. Leaders hope this, and other plans, will add new units, create density and remedy segregation. ... In Minneapolis, which is about 60 percent white, almost three quarters of the city's residential property was zoned for single-family homes. | access-date=April 22, 2021 | archive-date=March 26, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210326060613/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-minneapolis-became-the-first-to-end-single-family-zoning | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=WaPo_Minneapolis >{{cite news | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/as-cities-rethink-single-family-zoning-traditional-ideas-of-the-american-dream-are-challenged/2019/06/25/8312a512-4ca3-11e9-93d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html | title=As cities rethink single-family zoning, traditional ideas of the American Dream are challenged | last=Willis | first=Haisten | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=June 27, 2019 | quote=But urban planners in Minneapolis say they hope the plan will lead to a more walkable, more affordable, more environmentally friendly and more inclusive city thanks to higher density and an added supply of housing stock. | access-date=April 24, 2021 | archive-date=December 17, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201217203552/https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/as-cities-rethink-single-family-zoning-traditional-ideas-of-the-american-dream-are-challenged/2019/06/25/8312a512-4ca3-11e9-93d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html | url-status=live }}</ref>
 ==== Oregon ====
-On July 2, 2019, the [[Oregon|State of Oregon]] passed [[House Bill 2001]], requiring medium cities (more than 10,000 people) to allow duplexes in areas zoned for single-family homes and large cities (more than 25,000 people or more than 1,000 people if they are in the [[Portland metropolitan area, Oregon|Portland metropolitan area]]) to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage court apartments, and townhouses in areas zoned for single-family homes. It went into effect on July 30, 2021 for medium cities and will go into effect July 30, 2022 for large cities. Almost 70% of the state (approximately 2.8 million people) lives in a city affected by the bill, and most of those live in a city affected by the provisions for large cities.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Wamsley |first=Laurel |date=2019-07-01 |title=Oregon Legislature Votes To Essentially Ban Single-Family Zoning |language=en |work=NPR |url=https://www.npr.org/2019/07/01/737798440/oregon-legislature-votes-to-essentially-ban-single-family-zoning |access-date=2022-06-30 |archive-date=June 30, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220630083310/https://www.npr.org/2019/07/01/737798440/oregon-legislature-votes-to-essentially-ban-single-family-zoning |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Oregon Strikes Exclusive Single-Family Zoning, But Effects May Take Years |url=https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-single-family-zoning-law-effect-developers/ |access-date=2022-06-30 |website=opb |language=en |archive-date=June 27, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220627064800/https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-single-family-zoning-law-effect-developers/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Department of Land Conservation and Development : Housing Choices (House Bill 2001) : Urban Planning : State of Oregon |url=https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Pages/Housing-Choices.aspx |access-date=2022-06-30 |website=www.oregon.gov |archive-date=June 30, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220630083153/https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Pages/Housing-Choices.aspx |url-status=live }}</ref>
+On July 2, 2019, the [[Oregon|State of Oregon]] passed [[House Bill 2001]], requiring medium cities (more than 10,000 people) to allow duplexes in areas zoned for single-family homes and large cities (more than 25,000 people or more than 1,000 people if they are in the [[Portland metropolitan area, Oregon|Portland metropolitan area]]) to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage court apartments, and townhouses in areas zoned for single-family homes. It went into effect on July 30, 2021, for medium cities and will go into effect July 30, 2022, for large cities. Almost 70% of the state (approximately 2.8 million people) lives in a city affected by the bill, and most of those live in a city affected by the provisions for large cities.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Wamsley |first=Laurel |date=July 1, 2019 |title=Oregon Legislature Votes To Essentially Ban Single-Family Zoning |language=en |work=NPR |url=https://www.npr.org/2019/07/01/737798440/oregon-legislature-votes-to-essentially-ban-single-family-zoning |url-status=live |access-date=June 30, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220630083310/https://www.npr.org/2019/07/01/737798440/oregon-legislature-votes-to-essentially-ban-single-family-zoning |archive-date=June 30, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Oregon Strikes Exclusive Single-Family Zoning, But Effects May Take Years |url=https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-single-family-zoning-law-effect-developers/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220627064800/https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-single-family-zoning-law-effect-developers/ |archive-date=June 27, 2022 |access-date=June 30, 2022 |website=opb |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Department of Land Conservation and Development : Housing Choices (House Bill 2001) : Urban Planning: State of Oregon |url=https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Pages/Housing-Choices.aspx |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220630083153/https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Pages/Housing-Choices.aspx |archive-date=June 30, 2022 |access-date=June 30, 2022 |website=www.oregon.gov}}</ref>
+==== Texas ====
+In December 2023, [[Austin, Texas]]' city council voted to allow up to three homes on every lot, effectively ending single-family zoning in the city.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Sanders |first=Austin |date=December 8, 2023 |title=After Long Day of Testimony, Council Votes to End Single-Family Zoning |url=https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2023-12-08/after-long-day-of-testimony-council-votes-to-end-single-family-zoning/ |access-date=2023-12-27 |newspaper=The Austin Chronicle |language=en-US}}</ref>
+==== Virginia ====
+In August 2021, [[Charlottesville, Virginia]]'s planning commission started investigating the idea of reducing some of their exclusionary zoning rules (particularly single-family zoning) to allow for more housing affordability, where working-class Black residents have been disproportionately displaced to surrounding communities.<ref name="NYT_2021-08-01">{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/01/us/charlottesville-va-zoning-affordable-housing.html | title=A Fight Over Zoning Tests Charlottesville's Progress on Race - Four years after a white supremacist march, the Virginia city is reconsidering its housing and zoning rules. | last=Robertson | first=Campbell | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=August 1, 2021 | quote=Propelled by research showing that single-family zoning restrictions have roots in discrimination and consequences in soaring housing prices and more segregated neighborhoods, Charlottesville is joining communities across the country in debating whether to ease these restrictions. | access-date=August 9, 2021 | archive-date=August 9, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210809042820/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/01/us/charlottesville-va-zoning-affordable-housing.html | url-status=live }}</ref>
 ==== Washington ====
-On April 21, 2023, the [[Washington|State of Washington]] Senate passed HB 1110, which will ban single-family zoning in medium to large cities statewide.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1110&Initiative=false&Year=2023}}</ref> The bill is awaiting signature from governor [[Jay Inslee|Jay Inslee]].
+On April 21, 2023, the [[Washington (U.S. state)|State of Washington]] Senate passed HB 1110, which banned single-family zoning in medium to large cities statewide.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1110&Initiative=false&Year=2023 | title=Washington State Legislature }}</ref> The bill was signed into law by governor [[Jay Inslee]] on May 8, 2023.
 === Canada ===
-Gentle [[densification]] has been proposed in cities including [[Edmonton]], where zoning laws have been unchanged for over 60 years. Upzoning would allow for different forms of development with greater density and height including semi-detached, row housing, backyard houses, and three-storey apartments. The proposed revisions help to idealize the [[15-minute city]] concept.<ref name="edmontonjournal 2022">{{cite web | title=Small apartments could replace your neighbour's house in draft of Edmonton's zoning rewrite | website=edmontonjournal | date=2022-11-23 | url=https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/small-apartments-could-replace-your-neighbours-house-in-draft-of-edmontons-zoning-rewrite | access-date=2022-12-06 | archive-date=November 23, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221123143233/http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/small-apartments-could-replace-your-neighbours-house-in-draft-of-edmontons-zoning-rewrite | url-status=live }}</ref> In October 2022, [[Ontario]] announced up to three units could be built on a residential property, known as ''More Homes, Built Faster Act'', which would also prevent municipalities from setting restrictions to limit expansion.<ref name="Toronto 2022">{{cite web | title=Ontario announces sweeping housing changes that allow three units on one property | website=Toronto | date=2022-10-25 | url=https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-announces-sweeping-housing-changes-that-allow-three-units-on-one-property-1.6123676 | access-date=2022-12-06 | archive-date=December 6, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206104938/https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-announces-sweeping-housing-changes-that-allow-three-units-on-one-property-1.6123676 | url-status=live }}</ref>
+Gentle [[densification]] has been proposed in cities including [[Edmonton]], where zoning laws have been unchanged for over 60 years. Upzoning would allow for different forms of development with greater density and height including semi-detached, row housing, backyard houses, and three-storey apartments. The proposed revisions help to idealize the [[15-minute city]] concept.<ref name="edmontonjournal 2022">{{cite web | title=Small apartments could replace your neighbour's house in draft of Edmonton's zoning rewrite | website=edmontonjournal | date=November 23, 2022 | url=https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/small-apartments-could-replace-your-neighbours-house-in-draft-of-edmontons-zoning-rewrite | access-date=December 6, 2022 | archive-date=November 23, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221123143233/http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/small-apartments-could-replace-your-neighbours-house-in-draft-of-edmontons-zoning-rewrite | url-status=live }}</ref> In October 2022, [[Ontario]] announced up to three units could be built on a residential property, known as ''More Homes, Built Faster Act'', which would also prevent municipalities from setting restrictions to limit expansion.<ref name="Toronto 2022">{{cite web | title=Ontario announces sweeping housing changes that allow three units on one property | website=Toronto | date=October 25, 2022 | url=https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-announces-sweeping-housing-changes-that-allow-three-units-on-one-property-1.6123676 | access-date=December 6, 2022 | archive-date=December 6, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206104938/https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-announces-sweeping-housing-changes-that-allow-three-units-on-one-property-1.6123676 | url-status=live }}</ref> In May 2023 Toronto approved new zoning laws to accommodate up to four unit multiplexes in neighbourhoods across the city to ease its exclusionary zoning policy, starting with a new height limit of 10 metres to allow for at least three storeys.<ref name="Cook 2023 y392">{{cite web | last=Cook | first=Dustin | title=Toronto city council approves up to four-unit multiplexes in all neighbourhoods | website=The Globe and Mail | date=May 10, 2023 | url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-toronto-city-council-approves-up-to-four-unit-multiplexes-in-all/ | access-date=July 25, 2023}}</ref>
 ==References==
@@ Line 105: / Line 122: @@
 ==Further reading==
 * {{cite book |last1=Hirt |first1=Sonia A. |title=Zoned in the USA: The Origins and Implications of American Land-Use Regulation |date=2014 |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=978-0-8014-5305-2}}
-* {{Cite book |last=Gray |first=M. Nolan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WWlnEAAAQBAJ |title=Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It |date=2022-06-21 |publisher=Island Press |isbn=978-1-64283-254-9 |language=en}}
+* {{Cite book |last=Gray |first=M. Nolan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WWlnEAAAQBAJ |title=Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It |date=June 21, 2022 |publisher=Island Press |isbn=978-1-64283-254-9 |language=en}}
+{{US housing by state}}
 [[Category:Zoning in the United States]]
 [[Category:Affordable housing]]

v t e Housing in the United States by state or territory
States	Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Non-states	American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands Washington, D.C.
Related topics	Architecture Economy Eviction Home ownership Homelessness California San Francisco Bay Area Colorado Florida Housing discrimination Housing insecurity California San Francisco Silicon Valley Mortgage industry Organizations Policy Homestead Acts Right to housing Slum clearance Subsidized housing Racism Segregation Squatting Zoning Missing middle housing NIMBY Parking mandates Single-family zoning YIMBY