This piece cuts through the noise of housing debates by exposing a brutal irony: well-intentioned state mandates are often weaponized by localities to build exactly zero homes. Reason doesn't just report on a viral town meeting; it dissects how bureaucratic box-checking is actively strangling the housing supply in Massachusetts and Maine, proving that good intentions without market reality are the enemy of affordability.
The Art of the Paper Tiger
The article opens with a viral moment from Marblehead, Massachusetts, where a resident asked if the town was "being pricks" by upzoning a golf course that no one expects to ever be developed. Reason uses this to illustrate a systemic failure in the MBTA Communities Act. The piece argues that "if the state actually wants to build more homes, it needs to prick-proof its housing policy." This is a sharp, necessary reframing. It suggests that the problem isn't just local obstructionism, but a state law that invites obstructionism by relying on localities to voluntarily upzone land they don't want to develop.
The commentary highlights how the law's loopholes are being exploited with surgical precision. "One problem with Massachusetts' approach is that the state is leaving it up to anti-development localities to upzone themselves when they don't want to." This creates a scenario where compliance is performative. The editors note that the town's plan to zone a ritzy, $40,000 initiation-fee golf course for apartments is a classic evasion tactic, similar to how California localities have upzoned veterans' cemeteries to meet state quotas. The result is a policy that looks good on paper but produces nothing in reality.
"These kinds of games will be familiar to anyone who's observed California localities evading their state's housing goals by upzoning veterans' cemeteries and thriving businesses."
The piece goes further, detailing the specific regulatory hurdles that make development on the golf course impossible. It notes that the new district requires "minimum lot sizes of 27,000 square feet" and mandates that a third of the lot remain as open space. These rules, layered on top of the upzoning, ensure that no developer will ever break ground. Critics might argue that the state needs to balance local control with housing goals, but the evidence here suggests that without removing the ability to layer on these restrictive conditions, the law is doomed to fail.
The Self-Defeating Cycle of Portland
The argument shifts to Portland, Maine, where a city-commissioned report reveals that stricter inclusionary zoning is crushing development. Reason reports that the enhanced requirements "functioned as a marginal cost that works to push projects from narrowly feasible to more than narrowly infeasible." This is a critical distinction: the policy didn't just slow things down; it made them mathematically impossible.
The data is stark. Under the new rules, the number of projects subject to inclusionary zoning requirements fell by 55 percent. The piece points out that "only three projects subject to the new I.Z. requirements have been completed." This isn't just a market fluctuation; it's a direct result of policy. The report cited in the article concludes that "the current policy requires a level of cross-subsidy that the Portland market is presently unable to generate." This creates a paradox where the policy designed to create affordable housing is actually reducing the total number of units built, leaving everyone worse off.
"The issue is that the current policy requires a level of cross-subsidy that the Portland market is presently unable to generate. This creates a high risk of prolonged stagnation in the development pipeline."
The commentary notes that while market conditions like interest rates have worsened, the inclusionary zoning rules are the tipping point. The gap between break-even rents and affordable rents has widened to nearly $1,800 a month. A counterargument might suggest that we need to force developers to build affordable units regardless of cost, but the piece effectively demonstrates that when the math doesn't work, the units simply don't get built. The result is a policy that benefits no one.
The YIMBY Consensus and Its Limits
Finally, the article turns to a gubernatorial forum in California, where candidates from across the spectrum agreed on the need to build more housing. Reason observes that it is a "sign of the YIMBY victory in the war on ideas" that even liberal candidates are now arguing for slashing red tape. The piece notes that candidates like Katie Porter and Matt Mahan criticized "prevailing wage" requirements and impact fees, while others proposed bulk orders of manufactured housing.
However, the commentary points out that despite the rhetorical shift, the candidates are still stuck in old habits. When asked why housing is more expensive in California than in Texas, the answers ranged from a lack of subsidies to a lack of bulk manufacturing orders. The piece suggests that the real answer lies in the regulatory environment itself, which the candidates are only beginning to address. "For all the criticism of the ways California made housing too expensive, there was still a lot of buck-passing." This highlights a gap between the new consensus on the problem and the willingness to implement the truly radical solutions needed to fix it.
"The core of the argument is that the state could adopt simpler, more direct zoning reforms. Instead of telling towns they need to create a new zoning district where apartments will be allowed, the state could just pass a law saying apartments are allowed in commercial zones."
Bottom Line
The strongest part of this argument is its unflinching look at how policy design can be subverted by local interests, turning housing mandates into tools for stagnation. The piece's biggest vulnerability is its reliance on the assumption that removing local control is politically feasible, which remains a steep hill to climb. Readers should watch for whether states like Texas can sustain their momentum on commercial zoning reform, as that may be the only model that truly "prick-proofs" the system.