Are D.C. Housing Reforms Revolutionary or Just Reluctant?

Washington, D.C.’s housing scene is getting a workout these days, with debates swirling around whether its recent boom is fueled by proactive government planning or just a happy accident. In a recent discussion sparked by Brian Shearer from the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator, claims have emerged suggesting that D.C. might not be the shining example of grassroots YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) reforms everyone thinks it is. Instead, it could just be a case of government stepping in to make things happen—like a parent finally deciding it’s time to clean up their kid’s messy room.

While D.C. has had its recent housing wins, Shearer argues that cities like Houston, which traditionally have taken a more hands-off approach to zoning, might actually have a more impressive long-term track record when it comes to housing production. Can you imagine Houston being overshadowed by D.C. in anything? In this case, it seems the numbers don’t lie—Houston’s been churning out housing at a faster clip overall, which raises eyebrows about D.C.’s self-proclaimed victory.

What’s really curious is the mixed bag of various zoning reforms. Shearer highlights that middle housing reforms in D.C. have produced minimal impacts, showing that just changing zoning isn’t a magic bullet. It’s almost like adding sprinkles to a cake that’s already too dry—looks good but doesn’t really make a difference. So, the true takeaway? Maybe a little less red tape and a bit more belief in free-market dynamics could lead to the housing boom that everyone’s hoping for. What do you think—could cities benefit from going full libertarian on housing policy?

About the Author

View All Posts