Restrictive zoning limits the supply of affordable housing
As a member of the East Washington Borough Council, I get to hear the concerns of residents. In the last few months, a group of residents who live on Lemoyne Avenue have been asking the council to change the zoning on that street from R2 to R1. R means only residential properties are allowed, the 1 means only one unit per property – single-family homes. R2 allows single-family dwellings or duplexes.
Lemoyne Avenue is one of the nicest streets in the area, with a variety of mostly large homes built in the early 1900s, a brick street with stone curbs, and many large trees. Intermixed within these single-family homes are a few that have been converted to apartments, and a few newer buildings designed and built as apartments. What sparked the concern of the residents is that there are a few single-family homes that have deteriorated, and word was that one of them was going to be converted into apartments. The R2 zoning would allow it to be converted to a duplex.
As an urban historian who had a previous career developing housing in low-income communities, one of the visible indicators of urban decline after World War II was grand old houses being cut into overcrowded apartments that were often very inexpensive and allowed to continue to decline, often leading to abandonment. Slumlords could make money by collecting rent while spending little money on upkeep. High income tax rates and tax laws that allowed investors to convert personal income into capital gains meant investors could make money in reduced taxes, even if the value of the building declined. Fortunately, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated the tax shelters that contributed to urban decline, so that’s less of a problem today.
But the reason these areas declined was not zoning that allowed them to be subdivided, but rather the lack of demand for the large homes and the problems that plagued many urban school districts, which contributed to that lack of demand. Fortunately, the demand for homes on Lemoyne Avenue remains strong.
Restrictive zoning segregates communities by income, is one of the major causes of urban sprawl and limits the supply of affordable housing. It causes the most problems in areas where there is a lot of growth, because it restricts supply, driving up the price of existing housing. Most communities have minimum lot sizes, which combined with single-family zoning, can prevent low- or even moderate-income people from moving into a community. When a vacant lot costs a few hundred thousand dollars and is only allowed to have one house on it, that house will not be affordable to most people. Without the zoning restrictions, building an apartment building on that lot would allow the land costs to be shared among many tenants, making it possible for less wealthy people to move into the community.
Nationally, there is a movement to reduce restrictive zoning; Minneapolis, for example, eliminated the R1 classification in 2021, so without getting permission from a zoning board, property owners can build up to two units on any residential lot. This allows the construction of an Accessible Dwelling Unit (ADU), such as the conversion of a garage to a “granny flat” that allows aging parents to live close to their grown children as they age.
There are 37 single-family homes on the three blocks in question, with six properties with apartments on them; there are 43 apartments in those six buildings. So while the vast majority of the properties are single family, more than half the dwelling units are apartments. Most are one bedroom. If the area had been zoned R1 at the beginning, many fewer people would be living on the street.
One of the things I like about Lemoyne Avenue is that it has a lot of variety; it is not a community where every house is the same and occupied by the same demographic. Even if Lemoyne Avenue were to be zoned R1 now, it would not be part of the housing problem caused by exclusionary zoning, because it already has many affordable housing units. On the other hand, neither is there much of a market for converting existing homes on Lemoyne Avenue into apartments. The property that sparked concern is being renovated as a single-family home.
The residents who favor the zoning change are doing what every civics class says they should do – respectfully petitioning the local government. As a local government official, I appreciate that they do not rant and talk about how stupid and incompetent we are, which is how some people communicate with local officials. But the problem is that other people who would be affected by the decision don’t have a voice. People who might want to live on Lemoyne Avenue if there were more available units, aren’t petitioning the borough. Neither are the investors who might build more housing, because the work they would have to put in can’t be justified by any potential profits. There is currently a movement in a number of states, including California, Arizona and Texas, to take zoning out of the hands of local government and move it to the state level so that broader considerations are part of the discussion.
Philosophically there are two arguments against exclusive zoning. On the conservative side, why should anyone other than the property owner get to decide what they do with their property? On the liberal side, exclusionary zoning prevents the construction of affordable housing and contributes to economic segregation. In the grand scheme of things, since the population of Southwestern Pennsylvania has been declining, there is not the demand for new housing in this area as there is elsewhere, so changing the classification to R1 won’t have much immediate impact.
I understand why the residents of Lemoyne Avenue want to keep the neighborhood just as it is, but is it fair to prevent changes in the future?
Kent James is a member of East Washington’s borough council.