Why Democrats Need Better Housing Policies
Strict height restrictions in San Francisco are a major driver of the city's housing crises. There are real negative effects of not building sufficient housing, just as there exist dangerous repercussions for unregulated construction. Photo by MEJones.
Political parties are not just responsible for formulating policy positions but also attempt to frame policies in ways that resonate with values citizens hold closely. In framing political issues, parties construct a narrative and establish an argument for why voters should care about a particular issue. The Democratic Party has yet to frame the housing crisis across blue cities in the U.S. in a way that speaks to the magnitude of the issue and mobilizes citizens. Although the Democratic Party champions progressive climate policies, and roughly ninety percent of registered Democrats consider climate change a substantial problem facing the U.S., the flawed housing systems in blue cities threaten to undermine the legitimacy of Democrats’ pro-environment narrative.
How is the housing crisis related to climate change? Studies reveal that climate change has worsened the housing crisis, but housing policies are also negatively affecting the environment. San Francisco offers a relevant case-study of the broken housing system and its negative impacts on the environment–a microcosm for the larger issue facing blue cities across the country.
Many proposed building projects in San Francisco ultimately fail because they do not pass environmental reviews. To obtain a permit to build, developers must submit environmental impact reports. Although these reviews are crucial for protecting natural habitats and preserving ecological environments, there is something to be said about prioritizing short-term environmental concerns over the long-term negative environmental effects of opposing new housing projects. These regulations force more housing projects to take place outside of city centers which directly lengthens commute times, and compels deforestation. Although these environmental reviews are necessary for preserving and protecting certain areas, it is also important to remember that there are real negative effects of not building, just as there exist potential negative effects of unregulated construction.
Why can’t we just build more?
In San Francisco, building codes are the primary obstacle to building more low-income housing in these areas of high economic opportunity. These building codes are drafted by municipal-level governing bodies, which are ironically primarily composed of progressives.
Specifically, strict height restrictions in San Francisco are a major driver of the city's housing crises. Most districts in the city have height restrictions of 40 feet, roughly 2-3 stories. These restrictions serve a dual set of functions: they prevent people’s views from being obstructed, and they keep housing prices high. The fact that housing policy is largely decentralized should in theory make it easier for Democrats to alter building codes and housing policies in blue cities, yet this assumes that they have an incentive to do so.
Surprisingly, a study by the Journal of Economics found that cities with growing liberal populations show lower new housing permit growth rates. The journal concludes that this is motivated by the financial incentives to oppose any construction that could cause housing prices to depreciate—which low income housing chiefly threatens. To overcome the economic incentive to oppose new construction, progressives must work to frame the negative environmental consequences of not building as outweighing these aesthetic and financial concerns. Until this is achieved, the Democratic Party will continue to undermine its purported commitment to the environment and equitable housing.
In the short term, Democrats must find ways to build more high-density housing in areas with the most employment opportunities, specifically in areas with easy access to high-quality public transportation. Expanding low-cost public transit in the Bay Area should also be a key concern for Democrats. Specifically, public transportation must be made more accessible in areas outside the city center, for workers with lengthy commutes. Additionally, cities should consider adopting more inclusionary zoning measures to increase the supply of affordable housing and diversify affluent neighborhoods. Policies such as this will be most effective if paired with an overall increase in the number of new housing projects, which can be facilitated by rethinking building rules and regulations at the local level.
The Issue of Extreme Commuting
In recent years, as housing prices in San Francisco have risen, low and middle income residents have been forced to live farther away from the urban center, where the most high-paying job opportunity is concentrated.
The housing crisis in the Bay Area has been accompanied by an increase in the number of extreme commuters–workers who travel 90 minutes to work–one way. Roughly five percent of commuters in San Francisco fall into this category of extreme commuters, disproportionately affecting women of color. In total, more than 40% of workers in San Francisco live outside the city and must commute to work. These figures are unsurprising when one examines the complete disjunction between income levels and rent in the city. The median annual income in San Francisco is roughly 55,000 USD, and the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is 3,500 a month, or 42,000 a year.
This is a matter of economic equity, and also constitutes a racial and environmental issue. A 2020 study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the transportation sector is the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the U.S. Considering the Democratic Party's professed commitment to environmental policies, one might expect a more concerted effort to build more housing near the city center, and thus cut down on the amount of time people spend in their vehicles. No such unified building efforts exist, and the issue is further exacerbated by the fact that as one moves farther from the city center public transportation becomes less available.
Inequitable Housing: A Continuous Problem
Democrats must wrestle with a history of inequitable housing policy in order to address the current housing crisis and its harmful environmental consequences. Historically, in blue cities such as San Francisco, LA, and New York, local governments have assisted private developers in profit-driven redevelopment programs. This history of privatizing low-cost housing at the local level has been a catalyst for the current housing crisis across blue cities, particularly the affordable housing crisis
This issue is certainly not confined to San Francisco. In LA for example, Democrats have pursued a type of trickle-down housing policy for decades. The lack of efficient monitoring of such policies has made LA’s housing and climate crisis worse. Overall, the Democratic Party would benefit from a more unified environmental narrative and sub-national housing policies that took environmental concerns more strongly into consideration. Profit-maximizing efforts by private developers must be offset at the local level by more comprehensive planning efforts that take the environment and matters of equity more seriously into account.
Emily Swan (BC ‘24) is a Staff Writer for CPR studying Political Science and English.