[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ZONED OUT: EXAMINING THE IMPACT
OF EXCLUSIONARY ZONING ON PEOPLE,
RESOURCES, AND OPPORTUNITY
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
AND INSURANCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 15, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 117-54
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-197 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PATRICK McHENRY, North Carolina,
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York Ranking Member
BRAD SHERMAN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York BILL POSEY, Florida
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
AL GREEN, Texas BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANDY BARR, Kentucky
JIM A. HIMES, Connecticut ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
BILL FOSTER, Illinois FRENCH HILL, Arkansas
JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio TOM EMMER, Minnesota
JUAN VARGAS, California LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia
AL LAWSON, Florida WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
MICHAEL SAN NICOLAS, Guam TED BUDD, North Carolina
CINDY AXNE, Iowa DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana
AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
RITCHIE TORRES, New York JOHN ROSE, Tennessee
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin
ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina LANCE GOODEN, Texas
RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania VAN TAYLOR, Texas
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York PETE SESSIONS, Texas
JESUS ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
Charla Ouertatani, Staff Director
Subcommittee on Housing, Community
Development, and Insurance
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Chairman
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York FRENCH HILL, Arkansas, Ranking
BRAD SHERMAN, California Member
JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio BILL POSEY, Florida
AL GREEN, Texas BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana
JUAN VARGAS, California JOHN ROSE, Tennessee
AL LAWSON, Florida BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Vice
CINDY AXNE, Iowa Ranking Member
RITCHIE TORRES, New York LANCE GOODEN, Texas
VAN TAYLOR, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
October 15, 2021............................................. 1
Appendix:
October 15, 2021............................................. 31
WITNESSES
Friday, October 15, 2021
Cashin, Sheryll, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law, Civil
Rights and Social Justice, Georgetown University............... 4
Gallo, Dora Leong, President and CEO, A Community of Friends..... 7
Hamilton, Emily, Senior Research Fellow, Urbanity Project,
Mercatus Center at George Mason University..................... 10
Kahlenberg, Richard D., Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation.... 5
Silverstein, Thomas, Associate Director, Fair Housing & Community
Development Project, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law............................................................ 8
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Cashin, Sheryll.............................................. 32
Gallo, Dora Leong............................................ 37
Hamilton, Emily.............................................. 43
Kahlenberg, Richard D........................................ 46
Silverstein, Thomas.......................................... 54
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Cleaver, Hon. Emanuel:
Written statement of the National Multifamily Housing Council
and the National Apartment Association..................... 81
Written statement of Prosperity Now.......................... 85
Written statement of Up for Growth Action.................... 87
ZONED OUT: EXAMINING THE IMPACT
OF EXCLUSIONARY ZONING ON PEOPLE,
RESOURCES, AND OPPORTUNITY
----------
Friday, October 15, 2021
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Housing,
Community Development,
and Insurance,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12 p.m., via
Webex, Hon. Emanuel Cleaver [chairman of the subcommittee]
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Cleaver, Velazquez,
Sherman, Beatty, Green, Vargas, Lawson, Axne, Torres; Hill,
Posey, Hollingsworth, Rose, Steil, and Taylor.
Ex officio present: Representative Waters.
Chairman Cleaver. The Subcommittee on Housing, Community
Development, and Insurance will come to order.
I now recognize myself for 4 minutes for an opening
statement, and then I will recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee for 5 minutes.
I am very much interested in this topic. I started out in
my political career as a member of the City Council of Kansas
City, and I served my second term on the City Council as the
Chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee, and, of course,
that is where I learned about how human beings act when you
start dealing with zoning.
Right now, we still have what we had back in the 1980s when
I chaired the Planning and Zoning Committee in Kansas City,
which is that everybody wanted everything that could be brought
into a city, just not near their own home, and that created all
kinds of problems, including problems of affordability. And
right now, the price of housing is a national crisis, and many
observers and experts believe this is worse than it has been at
any point in our history.
If you look at the data from the Census Bureau and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in August of
this year, the median sale price of new residential homes in
the United States was about $390,000. That is an all-time
national high. The price of housing has been pushed upwards,
with upward pressure on rents, and the dream of homeownership
has, of course, moved further and further away from the
majority of the people who are now not homeowners.
So across the entire country, we are having problems. And
if you look at our first responders, they can no longer afford
to live in the communities they protect, because far too many
teachers and firefighters and police officers cannot afford to
pay the real estate prices where they are living. Only one of
the country's largest 50 metro areas, Pittsburgh, requires less
than 30 percent of a starting teacher's salary for housing.
From an economic lens, the affordable housing crisis is a
supply-and-demand problem. The supply of housing, and
particularly affordable housing, has not kept pace with the
demand.
Data from the United States Census Bureau and HUD also
demonstrate that the most recent decade, extending from January
2010 through November 2019, saw fewer housing units started--
and this is terrible--than any any decade since at least the
1960's by a wide margin. And while the housing market is
desperately in need of more new homes, the development of new
homes in the lower end of the market, low-income and first-time
homebuyers, has become particularly grim.
We will get into this a lot more as we move along, but I
would like to now recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Hill, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Chairman Cleaver. And thanks for
convening this hearing. I appreciate the leadership of
Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry as well.
Local zoning practices, especially in our largest cities in
the country, are among the many government regulations that
make it more expensive to find a place to live in the United
States. In hearing after hearing in this committee, we have
heard how housing affordability is ultimately about housing
supply; there are simply more people who want to buy a home or
rent an apartment than there are homes available. The same
applies to the rental market.
Artificial barriers and certain local development policies
can make it even more difficult and expensive to build new
houses or apartments, impeding the kind of market-driven
behavior between buyers and sellers that could help bring the
cost of housing down.
Imposing new government mandates like inclusionary zoning
and rent control, or increasing Federal housing assistance to
subsidize down payments really doesn't do anything to address
that underlying supply-and-demand imbalance in many markets.
Instead, it shifts the costs of building new housing units to
residents through higher rents, taxes, and Federal subsidies.
Instead, I believe we should be looking at ways to
incentivize localities with high housing demand to produce more
units and make it easier and less expensive to build housing
across that development process, from permitting, to planning,
to construction. If homeownership is a bipartisan goal, then we
ought to be looking at how housing regulations are making
homeownership more unattainable for thousands of Americans in
both rural and urban areas.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today the ways
in which the Federal Government can help ease some of these
local regulatory and zoning barriers to lower the cost of
building new housing units, and address some of the root causes
related to housing supply.
I thank my friend from Kansas City for his leadership, and
I am proud, here in central Arkansas, to represent a market
where the median home price is $156,800. We are at about $101 a
square foot. Our property taxes are 0.68 percent. And so, we
invite all of America to move to central Arkansas where housing
is affordable, both for rental purposes and purchase purposes.
And, again, I think you do have to approach this--and you
know this from being a mayor, Mr. Chairman--about how it really
is essential to give access, and I thought your discussion
about different zoning characteristics on multifamily, small
board of scale versus single family owner, of course, was
constructive. But it is a complicated issue, and I look forward
to the testimony today.
I yield back.
Chairman Cleaver. Thanks for your information, Mr. Ranking
Member.
I will now recognize the Chair of the full Financial
Services Committee, Chairwoman Maxine Waters from California.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing. This is very important.
In America today, our ZIP Code preordains our access to
jobs, homeownership, affordable rent, and a child's access to
quality education. It began with enslaving, and later
segregating, my ancestors, stripping our indigenous brothers
and sisters from their land, and redlining people of color out
of homeownership, and it continues today with restrictive and
exclusionary zoning policies.
Communities across this country continue to use zoning and
local control as a dog whistle to preserve the racial
residential segregation which contributes to the undersupply of
housing. We must ensure that every family in America has access
to the communities of their choice.
I look forward to our expert witnesses for their testimony
today. Again, I thank you for holding this hearing, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
I yield back.
Chairman Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your
comments today.
We now welcome the testimony of our distinguished
witnesses: Sheryll Cashin, the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of
Law, Civil Rights and Social Justice at Georgetown University;
Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow from The Century
Foundation; Dora Leong Gallo, the president and CEO of A
Community of Friends; Thomas Silverstein, the associate
director of the Fair Housing & Community Development Project at
the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; and Dr.
Emily Hamilton, a senior research fellow and the co-director of
the Urbanity Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason
University.
Our witnesses are reminded that their oral testimony will
be limited to 5 minutes. You should be able to see a timer on
your screen that will indicate how much time you have left, and
a chime will go off at the end of your time. I would ask that
you be mindful of the timer, and quickly wrap up your testimony
if you hear the chime, so that we can be respectful of both the
witnesses' and the subcommittee members' time.
Ms. Sheryll Cashin, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SHERYLL CASHIN, CARMACK WATERHOUSE PROFESSOR OF
LAW, CIVIL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Ms. Cashin. Thank you very much.
I want to begin by associating myself with the comments of
Chairwoman Waters, and my comments are in that spirit. I have
spent nearly 3 decades grappling with U.S. segregation and how
it produces racial inequality. My most recent book, ``White
Space, Black Hood: Opportunity Hoarding and Segregation in the
Age of Inequality,'' reflects these decades of examination. It
argues that we have a system of residential castes in which
government overinvests and excludes in affluent White spaces
and disinvests and contains and, frankly, preys on people in
high-poverty Black neighborhoods.
These are the extremes of American residential castes, but
everyone who cannot afford to buy their way into high-
opportunity neighborhoods is harmed by this system. The poor
especially are systematically excluded from the opportunity for
social mobility, no matter how hard they work to escape.
Exclusionary zoning was first sanctioned by the U.S.
Supreme Court in 1926, in which it endorsed the idea that even
duplexes were, ``parasitic on single family homes and the
people who live there.'' In ensuing decades, thousands of new
suburban governments formed, enabling middle-class and upper-
class Whites to wield the zoning power to exclude certain types
of housing, particularly rental apartments, and, therefore,
exclude unwelcome populations.
Fast forward to today, and where high levels of Black
segregation persists, researchers have found that it was
actively promoted by zoning laws that restricted density, and
by high levels of anti-Black prejudice. According to a stunning
geographically-mapped analysis recently produced by The New
York Times, it is illegal on 75 percent of the residential land
in many American cities to build anything other than a detached
single-family home. That figure is even higher in many suburbs
and newer suburban belt cities.
A recent study released by an institute at UC Berkeley
found that we are getting worse. About 81 percent of large and
medium-sized metro areas were more segregated in 2019 than they
were in 1990. The most persistent type of neighborhoods today
are affluent White spaces and concentrated poverty
neighborhoods, and the boundaries of these neighborhoods is
hardening. That means it is harder to get into places of high
opportunity and, frankly, it is harder to get out of the hood.
The past and present of federally-backed segregation
policies inform the legal and moral case for congressional
action to disrupt exclusionary zoning. I cover that history
quickly in my written testimony.
Suffice it to say, intentional segregation of Black people
in the 20th Century shaped living patterns for everyone. The
infrastructure for maintaining segregation lives on: racial
steering by REALTORS; discrimination in mortgage lending;
exclusionary zoning; government-subsidized affordable housing
that concentrates poverty; local school boundaries that
encourage segregation; and continued resistance to racial
integration by many Americans.
So, in considering policy options, please first acknowledge
that the main reason exclusionary zoning persists is the vested
interests and expectations of people who live in poverty-free
havens. In so-called blue California where Democrats are in
charge, despite a grave housing and homelessness crisis, the
State was only able to take the baby step of opening single-
family neighborhoods to duplexes.
If Congress wants to disrupt nearly a century of
exclusionary zoning, serious pressure and accountability are
required. I recommend not just spending incentives to repeal
exclusionary zoning, but pressure on localities to adopt well-
designed, inclusionary zoning ordinances, the best example of
which is the highly successful mandatory ordinance of
Montgomery County, Maryland. This extremely diverse, wealthy
suburban county has no pockets of concentrated poverty, and
poor children have more access to well-integrated schools
because of it.
In conclusion, I recommend that Federal housing, community
development, and infrastructure funds should be conditioned on
localities adopting inclusionary zoning ordinances that
actually affirmatively further fair housing.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cashin can be found on page
32 of the appendix.]
Chairman Cleaver. Thank you very much, Ms. Cashin, for your
testimony.
Mr. Kahlenberg, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD D. KAHLENBERG, SENIOR FELLOW, THE CENTURY
FOUNDATION
Mr. Kahlenberg. Good afternoon, Chairman Cleaver,
Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Hill, and all of the members
of the subcommittee. Thank you for holding this important
hearing on exclusionary zoning. I am Richard Kahlenberg, a
senior fellow at The Century Foundation, where I conduct
research on housing and education policy.
It is my testimony that local zoning policies that prohibit
multifamily dwellings are driving up housing prices, fueling
racial and economic segregation, and limiting the opportunity
for millions of children and families to achieve the American
Dream. There is much that Congress can do to fix this,
including adopting a new economic fair housing act, which I
will discuss in a moment.
I call local exclusionary policies, ``the walls we don't
see,'' because they are less visible to the public than other
forms of discrimination. Most Americans today understand that
it was wrong for White mobs to scream at young Black children
trying to attend desegregated schools in the South in the
1960's. Many of us know the Norman Rockwell painting of Ruby
Bridges, a small Black child who had to be escorted by large
FBI agents to her elementary school in New Orleans because
White people objected to her presence based on the color of her
skin.
But in 2021, local governments continue to erect less-
visible walls that keep low-income and working-class families,
many of them families of color, from living in safe
neighborhoods with good schools.
As Professor Cashin noted, in most American cities zoning
laws prohibit the construction of relatively affordable homes,
duplexes, triplexes, quads, and larger family units on three-
quarters of residential land.
There are millions of modern-day Ruby Bridges whose lives
are hurt by exclusionary zoning. I interviewed, for example,
Kiara Cornelius, a low-wage single mother, who a few years ago
was living in South Columbus, Ohio, and was looking for better
schools, and a safer neighborhood for her kids. She told me
that she did not allow her children to walk to their
grandmother's house just a couple of blocks away because it was
dangerous to do so. She drove them instead.
Now, one might look at Ms. Cornelius's predicament and say
that her exclusion from better opportunities was simply a
reflection of the workings of the free market in housing, but
in the Columbus suburbs, bans on construction of duplexes and
triplexes and apartment buildings keep people like Ms.
Cornelius zoned out by government's fiat.
So, what can be done? In my written testimony, I discuss a
number of possible reforms, including the committee's Unlocking
Possibilities Program, which would represent one of the most
significant Federal efforts to curtail exclusionary zoning in
decades, and deserves strong support. But Federal carrots
should be supplemented by Federal sticks to add heft to the
effort at, by the way, a much more modest cost than incentive
programs.
In particular, Congress should create a private right of
action, comparable to the one found in the 1968 Fair Housing
Act, to allow victims of economically discriminatory government
zoning policies to sue in Federal Court, just as victims of
racial discrimination currently can. I call this proposal an
economic fair housing act. The original 1968 Fair Housing Act
was a monumental advance for human freedom and helped produce a
30-percent decline in Black/White segregation since 1970. But
at the same time, income segregation has more than doubled
during this period. Part of the problem, as Harvard's Michael
Sandel has noted, is that highly-educated elites may denounce
racism and sexism but are unapologetic about their negative
attitudes towards the less-educated.
Now, for important historical reasons, being a class snob
is not held in the same disrepute as being a racist. But in the
context [inaudible] Black families and working-class families
of all races are held in such low regard that the State is
somehow justified in sponsoring laws that make it illegal for
anyone to build the types of housing these families can afford.
An economic fair housing act would make it clear that
economic discrimination is wrong, whether or not it has a
disparate impact on people of color, but the act would also
reduce racial segregation by helping low-income plaintiffs of
color who now face stiff evidentiary burdens under disparate
impact law to prevail in court.
Once again, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
ways to reduce barriers that artificially separate Americans
and hurt our country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kahlenberg can be found on
page 46 of the appendix.]
Chairman Cleaver. Thank you very much.
Ms. Dora Leong Gallo, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DORA LEONG GALLO, PRESIDENT AND CEO, A COMMUNITY
OF FRIENDS
Ms. Gallo. Good afternoon, Chairman Cleaver, members of the
subcommittee, and Chairwoman Waters. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify today.
My name is Dora Leong Gallo, and I am the president and CEO
of A Community of Friends, a nonprofit affordable housing
development corporation based out of California. We have a very
specific mission of ending homelessness for people,
individuals, and families affected by mental illness.
In the past 33 years, we have completed 51 apartment
buildings throughout Los Angeles and Orange County, including 2
buildings in San Diego County, and currently, we operate 43
buildings housing over 2,500 individuals, including over 600
children.
As a nonprofit organization serving people with
disabilities, I have seen firsthand how government regulation
and control of land use, through a process called zoning, can
be used to both stimulate or slow down the development in
communities and/or use to exclude certain people in populations
from living in certain communities. And although local
governments' authority to regulate land use is granted by State
Governments, the development of affordable housing has
inherently been a local process. For decades, zoning was
controlled at the neighborhood level, but this trend has been
changing, given the crisis many communities face with lack of
affordable housing.
And in the context of building supportive housing to end
homelessness, A Community of Friends has often encountered
opposition from community members using zoning and
discretionary approvals to block housing for people
experiencing homelessness, who are disproportionately people of
color. For instance, in Los Angeles, 40 percent of those who
are homeless are Black, yet Black people make up only 9 percent
of L.A. County's population.
Discrimination against people with mental illness is
repeatedly couched in land use terms. This housing project is
too dense. It is too out of character with the neighborhood. It
has insufficient parking and will generate traffic. Cities
frequently bow to the pressure to preserve the status quo,
leading to continued discriminatory practices and continuing
the racial inequities in housing.
California's environmental review process further
challenges supportive housing projects. California has the
California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, which was
intended to analyze and mitigate the environmental harm of
public projects. But it has been weaponized over the past
decade to delay or stop affordable and supportive housing
projects that require government approvals.
Twice in 2018, A Community of Friends faced legal
challenges on environmental grounds for 2 supportive housing
projects for veterans that we proposed, even when, on one
project, only 49 units were proposed in a site zoned for over
100 units. We prevailed in both lawsuits, but the result was an
almost 4-year delay on each project, a significant increase in
costs as funding commitments were deobligated and construction
costs increased, and dozens of homeless individuals and
families, including veterans, were not able to access this
affordable housing with onsite supportive services that the two
projects could have provided.
The Federal Government has a role to play in zoning reform.
HUD should continue researching regulatory barriers and
advancing solutions to overcome them. HUD's Regulatory Barriers
Clearinghouse is a valuable resource for identification of
barriers and solutions to housing productions and preservation.
HUD should also continue its implementation of
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation and develop
programs using a carrot-and-stick approach to ensure compliance
with this provision of the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
Congress also has a pivotal role to play. The Build Back
Better plan pending before Congress includes the Unlocking
Possibilities Program, which was previously mentioned. This
grant program will incentivize local governments to improve
housing strategies, reform zoning practices, and streamline
local regulations. It will be particularly useful to small
communities that may lack the resources capacity to conduct
housing needs assessments and to develop those concrete steps
necessary to eliminate barriers to produce affordable housing
and advance fair housing.
Additionally, Congress should propose legislation or
regulations that link Federal funding to Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing rules, consider Federal legislation to
prohibit State and local governments from putting roadblocks in
the way of increasing affordable housing and fostering
inclusive communities, and make rental assistance universally
available to households in need and to prohibit source-of-
income discrimination.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gallo can be found on page
37 of the appendix.]
Chairman Cleaver. Thank you, Ms. Gallo. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Thomas Silverstein, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS SILVERSTEIN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FAIR
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
Mr. Silverstein. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters, Chairman Cleaver, Ranking Member Hill,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today regarding the harmful impact of exclusionary
zoning, as well as strategies for mitigating those harms.
My name is Thomas Silverstein, and I am the associate
director of the Fair Housing & Community Development Project at
the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The Lawyers'
Committee is a national civil rights organization created at
the request of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 to mobilize
the private bar to confront issues of racial discrimination.
Exclusionary zoning is a widespread practice that plays a
significant role in the perpetuation of residential racial and
economic segregation, and the housing affordability crisis.
Although high-cost, coastal metropolitan areas garner the
lion's share of the attention in conversations about
exclusionary zoning, it is a nationwide problem, and some of
the country's most extreme zoning restrictions are found in
suburban jurisdictions in the Midwest and the Deep South.
When we talk about exclusionary zoning, it is important
that we be precise in our language. Although the roots of
modern zoning are unquestionably in early 20th Century attempts
to segregate communities, not all zoning restrictions are
exclusionary in practice. Indeed some, such as provisions that
prevent heavy-polluting industrial facilities from being sited
near homes, can be salutatory.
For others, including residential density restrictions, the
context matters. Essentially, if such restrictions are
preventing low-income people of color from moving to an area
with high housing costs, then those restrictions are
exclusionary. If, however, notwithstanding similar
restrictions, an area is racially and ethnically diverse and
housing costs are within reach for low-income households, those
same restrictions are not perpetuating exclusion in practice.
This distinction has ramifications for the policy debate
about zoning at the Federal, State, and local levels. Working
in collaboration with a broad coalition of civil rights,
community organizing, and affordable housing groups brought
together by the Alliance for Housing Justice, we developed a
set of eight principles to guide Federal action around
exclusionary zoning.
We recommend that Federal action: one, focus on areas that
are actually exclusionary; two, require an equity analysis to
increase impact and avoid unintended consequences; three,
prioritize the development of deed-restricted affordable
housing, including units for extremely low-income households;
four, evaluate municipalities' lending and land-use actions
holistically; five, protect tenants from displacement; six,
ensure that historically-disinvested communities of color have
equitable access to Federal funds; seven, identify funding
sources that will actually incentivize meaningful change; and
eight, obligate municipalities to maintain data and report on
their progress.
Most of the recent proposals for Federal action around
exclusionary zoning have involved carrots rather than sticks,
and for such proposals, these principles are particularly
important. With that said, a more forceful approach may be
warranted due to the fact that the municipalities with the most
exclusionary zoning are among those least likely to currently
receive or to heavily rely upon Federal funds.
Because zoning regulation and indeed residential
construction activity are forms of economic activity that
clearly have significant effects on interstate commerce,
Congress' power to act is, likewise, clear.
Additionally, the Federal Government has a strong interest
in stopping exclusionary zoning from underlining both the
efficiency and the efficacy of its investments in affordable
housing development.
While Congress determines how to address the problem of
exclusionary zoning comprehensively, Congress should urge the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), to make better use of their
existing powers. HUD, through both its Fair Housing Act
enforcement role, and its power as a grant administrator, can
already take action to reduce exclusionary zoning by filing
Secretary-initiated discrimination complaints, and by holding
up localities' block grant funds over dubious civil right
certifications, including those involving Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing.
DOJ has a special statutorily-defined role in investigating
and bringing enforcement action under the Fair Housing Act to
end exclusionary zoning. The DOJ is more powerfully-situated
than are private plaintiffs to bring suit because it does not
face the same barriers to establishing standing. Although there
have been several successful lawsuits challenging exclusionary
zoning over the years, standing doctrine has been the primary
reason why such cases have not been more frequent and is,
therefore, the reason why the Fair Housing Act has not had as
much of a deterrent effect as it should.
And the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and
the Alliance for Housing Justice stand ready to serve as
resources to the subcommittee as it contemplates Federal action
to address the critical problem of exclusionary zoning.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Silverstein can be found on
page 54 of the appendix.]
Chairman Cleaver. Thank you very much.
And now, Dr. Hamilton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF EMILY HAMILTON, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, URBANITY
PROJECT, MERCATUS CENTER AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
Ms. Hamilton. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, Chairman
Cleaver, Ranking Member Hill, and members of the subcommittee.
I am Emily Hamilton, a senior research fellow at the
Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where I am co-
director of the Urbanity Project.
My remarks today will focus on three points:
First, as this committee's leadership and other witnesses
have said, local zoning rules needlessly increase the cost of
housing for millions of Americans.
Second, a Federal grant program targeted at the right
localities can help alleviate these problems.
And third, a Federal grant program can only succeed if
funds are disbursed on the basis of housing market outcomes.
To my first point on zoning and housing affordability, many
local rules limit the amount of housing that can be built, and
increase the cost of housing that is permitted. These rules are
typically codified in a municipality zoning code. They include
apartment bans, requirements that each new house sit on a large
lot, and minimum parking requirements. Such rules increase the
cost of building housing, particularly in places where land is
expensive.
Under current zoning policies, half of American renters are
rent-burdened. For many families, there is too little left for
other necessities once rent is paid. The percentage of renters
who are rent-burdened has increased over the past decades,
reflecting the rising cost of exclusionary zoning.
To my second point on the importance of targeting the right
jurisdiction for reform, Members of Congress from both parties
have introduced bills in the House and the Senate intended to
reduce exclusionary zoning, reflecting a growing bipartisan
consensus on the need for land-use reform.
Several proposals to date would target reform among
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) grantees.
Unfortunately, CDBGs do not reach all of the localities that
enforce zoning codes. In particular, many suburbs in high-wage
regions where reform is most urgently needed are not
entitlement communities. In order to effectively encourage
zoning reform, any new program Congress considers creating
should include all of the localities that enforce zoning rules
as eligible grantees.
And now, my final point on the importance of rewarding
jurisdictions based on housing market outcomes. A successful
zoning reform program must reward localities for the right
outcomes, namely, permitting abundant housing construction. A
proposal recently considered by this committee would, instead,
fund planning exercises for potential reforms to exclusionary
zoning. Sadly, past experience shows that plans to improve
housing affordability often sit on local government shelves
without actually leading to any zoning changes or to new
housing.
Other recent proposals in Congress would, instead, reward
localities for adopting specific policies intended to improve
housing affordability, such as increasing the amount of land
where multifamily housing could be permitted, or reducing
parking requirements.
Although this approach is better, it still does not
necessarily reward localities for actually making more housing
feasible to build if, as often happens, localities make housing
that appears legal to build on paper, difficult to build in
practice.
Instead of rewarding localities for promising to permit
more housing eventually or for adopting policies that may not
result in more housing construction on the ground, Congress
could, instead, adopt a competitive grant program that ranks
localities according to their housing market outcomes. Such a
program would reward growth, with the most exclusionary
localities receiving nothing.
My colleague and I have developed one formula that could
enable such a program by ranking high-demand localities
primarily according to their rate of housing construction, and
lower-demand localities primarily according to the prices of
their new construction.
In conclusion, the particulars of a grant program intended
to encourage zoning reform would need to be debated, but a
successful program must reward the correct metric in the
correct jurisdictions, actual housing market outcomes in the
localities that enforce zoning rules.
Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hamilton can be found on
page 43 of the appendix.]
Chairman Cleaver. Thank you, Ms. Hamilton, and I would like
to thank all of the witnesses.
I now recognize the distinguished Chair of the Full
Committee, Chairwoman Maxine Waters.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I do have a question for Professor Cashin.
Your recent book, ``White Space, Black Hood,'' focuses on
Black/White residential segregation. When it comes to
exclusionary zoning, should the focus be broader to include,
for example, economic class and other racial and ethnic groups
who are disproportionately locked out of housing opportunities?
In many communities, the U.S. Census racial distinction of,
``other,'' has been growing over the years and the residential
[inaudible]--
Ms. Cashin. I think I got the essence of the chairwoman's
question, if you would like me to address what I heard.
Chairman Cleaver. Let's wait just a second or 2 just to--
she froze, so maybe they will get it. I want to make sure she
can hear your response, if possible.
Well, we can move on and come back.
Chairwoman Waters. Why can't they hear me?
Chairman Cleaver. We can now.
Chairwoman Waters. Okay. Thank you.
Professor Cashin, I don't know if you heard my question.
Let me give it to you again.
Ms. Cashin. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. Your recent book, ``White Space, Black
Hood,'' focuses on Black/White residential segregation, but
when it comes to exclusionary zoning, should the focus be
broader to include, for example, economic class and other
racial and ethnic groups who are disproportionately locked out
of housing opportunities? In many communities, the U.S. Census
racial distinction of, ``other,'' has been growing over the
years, and the residential segregation between White
individuals and those who racially identify as, ``other,'' has
also been growing. What does this tell us about modern trends
in residential segregation, and how policymakers should be
viewing these issues?
Ms. Cashin. The short answer, Madam Chairwoman, is yes, all
groups can and should benefit from disrupting exclusionary
zoning and putting serious pressure, particularly on high-
opportunity neighborhoods, to adopt inclusionary zoning
ordinances where they actually build their fair share of
affordable housing. But the title of my book and my analysis
really underscores that the residential system of separate and
unequal neighborhoods that we have was born of anti-Black
prejudice, born of containing the more than 6 million great
migrants who left the South.
And so, it took 7 decades to create this structure,
heavily-sponsored and initiated by the Federal Government. The
containment of Black people, and the fear of Black people, is
why we have persistent residential segregation.
And I think we just have to be honest in acknowledging that
history, acknowledging what we are up against in trying to
disrupt it.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
I had a conversation recently with a Member of Congress. I
have a big housing bill inside the reconciliation bill, and in
that, I have dedicated a significant amount of money for
vouchers. And he said, ``You should not have that much money
for vouchers because they can't spend them. There are not
enough places for them to even acquire, and so you should
reduce the amount.'' I said, ``No, we are going to build more
affordable housing in the National Housing Trust Fund.''
So what we are basically facing, I think, is where are they
going to be able to build this additional housing, because of
what we are talking about here today. And I think I have
targeted about $36 billion for the National Housing Trust Fund
in order to build more affordable units. But the question
becomes, are we going to be stymied in our efforts to build
more affordable housing because of this residential zoning
discrimination?
Ms. Cashin. God bless you. I hope you prevail, Madam
Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Waters. I am listening to you very carefully,
and you are absolutely right. The government created this
discrimination, and we have the opportunity to undo it. And it
is going to take courage and it is going to take pressure on
the locals and all of the homeowners' associations that
organize around making sure that they are not exercising, ``Not
in My Backyard (NIMBY).'' And so, it is going to be a lot of
work. And, of course, we are going to be accused of trying to
disregard residential neighborhoods where people have invested,
and that all of these people coming in from the outside, people
who don't look like us just cannot come to our neighborhoods.
I will tell you, when you are in these fights, they turn
the tables on you and us, and they call us racist. And so, it
is going to be a lot of work.
Thank you for being here today. And thank you for all of
your knowledge on this subject. I appreciate you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Cashin. Thank you.
Chairman Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from
Little Rock, Arkansas, Mr. Hill.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for the
subcommittee, and it is an excellent panel with a lot of good
perspective, and I am grateful for everybody's participation.
Ms. Hamilton, I was very interested in your study and your
formula idea, and your research shows how local zoning and
regulatory decisions can raise the cost of new housing that I
addressed in my opening statement. In the Baltimore-Washington
region, for example, your research shows a price increase of 1
percent per year in localities that have adopted inclusionary
zoning policies.
Can you explain that and give us some background, please?
Ms. Hamilton. Thank you, Ranking Member Hill. I appreciate
the question.
I am not optimistic about the potential for inclusionary
zoning to solve the problems of exclusionary zoning. Typically,
inclusionary zoning relies on density bonuses that localities
provide to developments that include below-market-rate units.
The problem with using inclusionary zoning as a solution to
exclusionary zoning is that the tool that gives these density
bonuses their value is exclusionary zoning itself. Without
underlying exclusionary zoning, inclusionary zoning would be a
clear tax on new housing construction, and taxing what we are
trying to see in more abundance is not the right policy. It can
never undo the harms of exclusionary zoning.
And as you said, I have studied inclusionary zoning in the
Baltimore-Washington region. Montgomery County, Maryland, is
often rightfully heralded as potentially the greatest success
of inclusionary zoning, but even there, less than 4 percent of
the housing stock is made up of inclusionary zoning units.
So, this policy has never been proven to be a tool that can
provide anywhere near enough housing abundance for those
households who need it.
Mr. Hill. Thank you. And I think that is a key point.
You also mentioned, I think, a good point--and Chairman
Cleaver and I have talked about CDBG issues before, as the
committee is considering some things there--about entitlement
cities that obviously get a direct CDBG allocation, but a lot
of suburban cities, or peripheral counties to an urban area
don't. They typically get CDBG passthroughs maybe from a State
Government, and I say maybe.
Can you talk about how your formula would adapt for that,
for somebody who is not an entitlement city?
Ms. Hamilton. That is correct. I would argue that instead,
the correct universe of localities that should be eligible for
a Federal carrot to reform exclusionary zoning should be all of
the localities that are in the building permit survey conducted
by the Census Bureau and HUD. Those are all of the localities
that currently engage in land use planning and issue building
permits, whereas CDBGs exclude, in particular, high-wage
suburbs of high-wage regions. And this problem is the most
acute in the northeast.
Mr. Hill. Yes, that is something that came out in our CDBG
hearing, where we had this pre-1940 housing stock issue that
dates from the 1970's in the CDBG formula, which really doesn't
reflect reality. At the time, we were looking at 1930 and 1940
data, because we wanted to offer poorer cities some ability to
improve housing stock. I get that. But now, we are 50 years
later, and it seems to me a rule like that would absolutely be
prejudiced against a city like Los Angeles, for example, whose
1940 housing stock wouldn't reflect one iota to its 2021
housing stock. So, that is very interesting.
What cities do you think do a good job in getting housing
practices to bring new developers, new users of land bank
properties in urban areas? Do you have a city in mind that has
done a good job there?
Ms. Hamilton. That is not my favorite approach. Instead, I
would highlight localities that have engaged with exclusionary
zoning across broader areas of land, for example, Seattle's
urban villages approach to up-zoning or minimum lot sizes in
Houston.
Thank you.
Mr. Hill. Good. Thank you so much. That was very
interesting, and I appreciate all of our panelists.
Chairman Cleaver, I yield back to you. And, again, I have
to put in my bid for no more online hearings. We were disrupted
listening to our leader, the Gary Gensler hearing was a
disaster, and the markup was challenging. So I want to urge my
colleagues to support going back to in-person hearings.
Thank you so much. And I yield back.
Chairman Cleaver. Thank you, Ranking Member Hill.
The Chair now recognizes the esteemed Representative from
New York, Ms. Velazquez.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this important hearing on exclusionary zoning.
I would like to address my first question to Mr.
Silverstein. Residents and homeowners in the neighborhoods of
East New York that I represent have been working with
community-based organizations to form a community land trust.
First, can you explain how community land trusts enable
local residents to take ownership of buildings and homes in
order to keep their neighborhoods affordable?
And, second, can you please explain the importance of
having community land trusts in place prior to any up-zoning to
mitigate the risk of speculation and gentrification?
Mr. Silverstein. Thank you, Congresswoman Velazquez.
Community land trusts are a critical tool for producing and
preserving long-term affordable housing. In a community land
trust, typically for a period--the land is owned by the
community land trust, which is an entity itself, usually a
nonprofit, and subject to a 99-year ground lease. Individual
units, which could be apartments or they could be single-family
homes, it can vary based on the context, would be occupied by
residents and subject to affordability restrictions. And this
99-year ground lease structure can allow for the gradual
accumulation of some home equity by residents so that wealth is
built, but it also doesn't allow for unlimited accumulation in
order to guard against speculation and rapidly increasing
housing costs.
And actually, the House Financial Services markup for the
Build Back Better reconciliation bill includes significant
funding for community land trusts.
Ms. Velazquez. That is great.
Mr. Silverstein. When you have zoning proposals to increase
density in low-income communities of color either in a
localized way or as part of the broader-based, re-zoning plan,
you can, as an intended or unintended consequence, rapidly
increase land values and home values in that neighborhood
running the risk of displacement. That is part of why it is
important to prioritize these up-zoning efforts in higher-
income areas. But if land is placed in a community land trust
prior to re-zoning, then that 99-year ground lease structure
provides a check against speculation and rapidly increasing
prices, so that longtime community residents have the
opportunity to benefit from the new investment that may be made
in their communities, especially in places like East New York.
Ms. Velazquez. Okay. Great. Thank you.
And how can we, here at the Federal level, help encourage
more communities and neighborhoods to form community land
trusts?
Mr. Silverstein. Absolutely. Thank you, Congresswoman
Velazquez.
I think there are a few key pieces. The first piece is
funding. Certainly, additional funding for community land
trusts is vital to the effort to grow a community land trust
model, as well--and I am not an expert on this issue in
particular, but through the Government-Sponsored Enterprises
(GSEs) and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), there may
be some financing barriers that are more difficult for
community land trusts or other shared equity models to navigate
than for more traditional types of affordable housing, making
it easier for community land trusts to access financing.
And also, there is the question of the availability of
land, so encouraging local governments to, for instance, deed
tax foreclosed properties or other surplus land to a community
land trust would be an important step to take as well.
And then, of course, as is consistent with the subject of
this whole hearing, you need the zoning to be appropriate for
the type of housing, and even some small business development
that the community land trust is seeking to engage in.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Cleaver. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the distinguished Mr. Posey for 5
minutes.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for holding this hearing.
To say I am very disappointed to hear one of our witnesses
stereotype and blame REALTORS for creating a problem by
steering is offensive and not accurate. REALTORS, of which I am
one, adhere to a very strict code of ethics, a very strong code
of ethics. If they don't do that, they are not REALTORS. I
would ask the witness who made that statement if she would like
to communicate with me offline and to provide me with some
evidence of the steering that she claims was caused by
REALTORS.
Dr. Hamilton, I really like your concept of rankings. How
would you rate programs that provide incentives for affordable
housing within low- to moderate-income neighborhoods compared
to those programs that rely on zoning reform and relocating
families to new neighborhoods?
Ms. Hamilton. Representative Posey, thank you for the
question.
I would argue that both pieces are important. On the one
hand, exclusionary zoning reform is the first step toward
allowing more abundant, lower-cost housing to be built; but on
the other hand, that is not a sufficient policy to help the
country's lowest-income households in the near term in
particular. So, I think certainly subsidies to those lowest-
income households that can be used in those households'
neighborhoods of choice are appropriate. But I would err on the
side of granting beneficiaries the most freedom in determining
where they would like to live that best meets their own needs
and pointing out that any subsidies will go further in
localities where exclusionary zoning is not a serious burden
relative to those localities where it is a burden.
Mr. Posey. Very good. Thank you.
What should our priorities be if we want to have the most
impact and accessibility to affordable housing?
Ms. Hamilton. The barriers to housing construction vary
widely across the country. In a dense old city, the most
important barriers are very different than in a fast-growing
suburb; but across the country as a whole, I would argue that
minimum lot size reform is the most important reform to
permitting more lower-cost housing to be built quickly. Parts
of the country have lot size reforms that are severely out of
line with what the market is currently providing. In New
England, in particular, it is not uncommon to see 2-, or even
5-acre lot-size requirements.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Most simply put, making housing more
affordable depends on lowering the costs of constructing new
houses?
Ms. Hamilton. That is right.
Mr. Posey. Market prices of housing are determined at the
new housing margin of the market. What should we do to reduce
the cost of building new and single-family housing?
Ms. Hamilton. Most importantly, addressing the regulatory
barriers that without doing so, more Federal funding will
simply increase the cost of the existing housing stock, without
permitting that funding, as well as private funding to housing
to go toward lower costs and a more abundant housing supply.
Mr. Posey. We all want to assess the accessibility,
especially low- to moderate-income families. Tell us what your
research suggests are the best strategies to make affordable
housing available for the lowest-income families.
Ms. Hamilton. I mentioned Houston as a potential model
earlier. No locality in the U.S. does everything right in land
use regulation, I would argue. But Houston has a lot of lessons
to teach other localities. They are widely recognized for
permitting abundant green field development, which is true;
but, additionally, Houston permits multifamily housing at a
high rate. It has no areas of the City where local regulations
prevent multifamily housing, and its minimum lot size reform
that I mentioned earlier has resulted in the construction of
tens of thousands of new townhouses, which are relatively
affordable relative to single-family development in some of its
highest-demand neighborhoods.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. I really appreciate your detailed
answers.
And I see my time is about to expire, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you again. I yield back.
Ms. Hamilton. Thank you.
Chairman Cleaver. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the esteemed gentleman from
Houston, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate
the opportunity to be heard.
I do live in Houston, and we do not have zoning in Houston,
Texas, and while that can benefit a good many people, it also
has a downside to it. I happen to have had the opportunity to
serve as a judge of a small claims court, and we had persons
who have had, unfortunately, structures erected on property
near their homes that was not suitable. And when you don't have
zoning, you then have restrictive covenants, and getting those
covenants enforced can be quite challenging, especially for a
person with a modest income.
I am interested in hearing from some of our panelists about
these restrictive covenants that are not enforceable. I am
talking about those that can benefit a person, if you have one.
In a good many places, the covenants are not enforceable
because they have not been honored over the years and, as a
result, you can't enforce the covenant.
So, who would like to be the first to say a word about this
problem that we have when we don't have zoning, and we cannot
enforce covenants because of a lapse of activity over the
years?
Ms. Hamilton. Representative Green, I will offer a brief
answer, since I have mentioned Houston. Certainly, Houston has
seen the emergence of restrictive covenants, particularly in
its single-family neighborhoods, in the absence of local
zoning.
Certainly, zoning does have benefits for those who don't
want to see change in their neighborhoods as land prices rise
and demand for housing increases as well. I would argue,
though, that these benefits of zoning are outweighed by
zoning's costs in terms of housing affordability and
opportunities for people to live in the neighborhood or region
of their choice.
Mr. Green. You mention the lot size, and you mention that
in Houston, we have done well with lot sizes. Since I live
here, I guess my best evidence would be by experiences and what
I have seen. Explain to me what you mean by the lot sizes in
Houston, because I see still large acreage for single homes.
Ms. Hamilton. Thank you, Representative.
In 1998, Houston reduced the minimum lot size for
development within its I-610 inner loop from 5,000 square feet
down to 3,500 square feet and, in some cases, down to 1,400
square feet, when specific requirements are met.
And this has resulted in the construction of detached and
attached townhouses in many of the city's neighborhoods,
particularly those neighborhoods closest to downtown job
centers. This has helped provide a lower-cost type of housing
construction relative to large-lot single-family developments.
Private covenants may remain a barrier to townhouse
construction in plenty of parts of the City, but the reform
that local policymakers implemented has, nonetheless, resulted
in the construction of tens of thousands of new units that
would have been impossible to build otherwise.
Mr. Green. Since I have a bit of time left, and we have had
a lot of excellent questions, I am going to go a little bit
offline with this question.
I see a lot of people just outside my window in my
congressional office who have made their home the overpass.
There are efforts afoot to relocate people from the overpasses,
and there is always a movement to place them in a certain area
if at all possible.
What have you seen across the country in terms of helping
people to move from the overpasses to someplace that we would
call a home? How is that working?
Ms. Hamilton?
Ms. Hamilton. Thank you again, Representative.
I would point out that homelessness is not highest in the
parts of the country where poverty is highest. It is instead
highest in parts of the country where exclusionary zoning rules
are most binding. Subsidies and other interventions for
homeless individuals are needed to help them in the near term,
but, again, zoning is a relevant component.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Chairman Cleaver. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Steil for 5 minutes.
Mr. Steil. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate everybody being on the call and at the hearing here
today.
I think we have had a lot of good dialogue here about what
is really driving up the costs and how we get Americans into
housing and, in particular, what the role of zoning is in
adjusting these costs. We often see that several of our biggest
cities, Democratic-controlled cities, across the United States
have really strict zoning rules and regulations that seem to be
driving up the costs.
And I think it is something that we don't spend enough time
looking at and thinking about, when you look at the cost of
housing in New York City and Los Angeles, and what the role of
local regulation is on this, and what role these demand-side
subsidies would have inside the overall cost of housing in the
context of not really addressing the supply-side issue in many
of our nation's largest cities, again, in particular, New York
City and Los Angeles, which both have supply-side constraints
on housing, often through local zoning requirements, coupled
with some of the highest housing costs in the United States of
America.
Ms. Hamilton, as you may know, the Majority has passed
about $300 billion in new housing spending through this
committee, and most of the money would go towards demand-side
subsidies. And, based on today's conversation, it seems pretty
clear that the core problem that we are facing in the market is
really this supply-side issue. In many places, supply is tight
and limited by overbearing regulations that make this housing
development uneconomical or, in some cases, actually
impossible.
Could you give us some insight into what would happen if
the Federal Government just throws billions and billions of
dollars more into the market on the demand side with limited
supply?
Ms. Hamilton. Thank you, Representative Steil.
Certainly, that is a very real concern about expanding
current Federal housing subsidies, is that, in particularly the
most exclusionary regions, those subsidies will simply increase
the cost of a relatively fixed stock of housing rather than
leading to overall abundance and the opportunity for more
people to live in the location of their choice.
There are examples where we see Federal subsidies working
well, leading to the construction of low-cost multifamily
housing, from which the beneficiaries are intended to benefit,
and that is a positive outcome. But it is not the norm, due to
local exclusionary zoning rules. And it is not--
Mr. Steil. Ms. Hamilton, this format is just terrible. I
can't wait until we are in person again for all of our
hearings. But let me dive in on that, because I think what you
are bringing up is really important.
There is a great study out there from 2018 which shows that
regulations can add up to $93,000 of costs on a home, where a
single-family home price is now maybe just under $400,000 in
the median. And, effectively, all of these regulations and
zoning function almost like a new tax on new housing, which
moves us in the wrong direction.
And one of the things I don't think we discuss enough is,
who is footing the bill for this, right? Are certain groups
uniquely impacted by what I call NIMBYism of all of these local
zoning rules and regulations?
Ms. Hamilton. Yes. Low-income households are those who are
most burdened with the cost of exclusionary zonings. And to the
extent that additional subsidies will increase the price of
market-rate housing, which is what the vast majority of
Americans of all income levels live in, additional--
Mr. Steil. So, is it fair to say that some of our biggest
Democrat-run cities that are putting in all of these
regulations and controlling the supply are actually clobbering
the low-income households? That is your take on this?
Ms. Hamilton. Certainly.
Mr. Steil. Yes. It is mine too. It is one of the big
frustrations that I have here, is we only look at increasing
demand-side money, spending taxpayer dollars from all across
the nation, and really not addressing the supply-side issue in
some of our biggest Democratic-run cities.
You share that frustration, it sounds like, Ms. Hamilton.
Ms. Hamilton. I do. Thank you.
Mr. Steil. Could you maybe just add a little more, in
particular on what we could be doing on the zoning side as it
relates to this government funding, if you would?
Ms. Hamilton. I would support a flexible grant program that
gives our local policymakers wide freedom in what they spend
the grant money on--that is nonetheless defensible purposes.
Because the purpose of these grants is to encourage regulatory
reform, not to fund specific programmatic outcomes.
Mr. Steil. I appreciate that.
Cognizant of my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you
holding today's hearing, and I will yield back.
Chairman Cleaver. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
Let me just make a correction for the record.
In 2019, Newsday published the, ``Long Island Divided''
series. It was an exhaustive, 3-year investigation into racial
discrimination in home buying on Long Island. And they deployed
actors to conduct fair lending testing, which involved the use
of hidden cameras. Many of you may have seen this on TV. They
recorded meetings with real estate agents. And this is one of
the many fair housing testing investigations.
And it confirmed longstanding findings over the decades
showing that in nearly a quarter of the tests--24 percent--
agents directed Whites and minorities into different
communities through house listings that had the earmarks of
steering--the ``unlawful sorting of homebuyers based on race or
ethnicity.'' That is a direct quote.
The Chair now recognizes the eminent Representative from
Ohio, Mrs. Beatty.
Mrs. Beatty. First of all, let me say good afternoon, and
thank you, Chairman Cleaver, and thank you, Ranking Member
Hill.
My first question is for Ms. Cashin. Historically, zoning
has been used by city and local governments as a tool to
segregate Americans. And that segregation got us into parts of
towns that were known as Black neighborhoods or wealthy
neighborhoods or even Jewish neighborhoods, et cetera. Remnants
of racial and ethnic discrimination persist in cities today and
communities all around the country. And that is what we are
hearing today.
And from these discriminatory zoning and segregation
policies of the past, the Civil Rights Act has outlawed
intentional discrimination. But how do our current zoning
policies and other local housing ordinances remain a tool for
discrimination and segregation, in your opinion?
Ms. Cashin. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question.
Racial exclusionary zoning was struck down by the Supreme
Court. So, obviously, even though many exclusionary zoning
ordinances, when they were passed, were animated by anti-Black
prejudice and continue to be, they use racially neutral tools
to exclude people who cannot buy very expensive, large-lot,
large homes.
You can zone, particularly in newer communities, only for
large-lot, expensive housing. You can require certain types of
materials. You can have nothing in your zoning code that
provides for multifamily living, not even market-rate
apartments, right? And, now, all of these ostensibly racially
neutral things disproportionately exclude people of color.
Mrs. Beatty. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Silverstein, while zoning reform and redevelopment can
expand housing opportunities for low- and middle-income
Americans, if the right safeguards are not in place and the
right incentives are not in place, it can exacerbate the lack
of affordable housing and lead to gentrification.
What are some of the things that the Federal and local
government [inaudible] affordable instead of building more
luxury condos like we are seeing in Washington, D.C., and here
in Columbus, Ohio?
Mr. Silverstein. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,
Congresswoman Beatty.
I think there are a few pieces of this. First, to the
extent that localities are taking on zoning reform specifically
in response to Federal incentives or requirements--and Congress
is designing those Federal incentives and requirements--it
should be clearly baked in that the purpose of the zoning
reform is to increase the supply of deed-restricted affordable
housing.
That does not mean that there wouldn't be any market-rate
housing, some of which may be luxury housing produced as a
result in addition, in the context of a mixed-income
development. There is certainly a place for that, and those
market-rate units could help cross-subsidize affordable housing
units in addition to being paired with a subsidy. But,
basically, at the level of policy design, you absolutely want
to make sure that your overriding purpose is on creating more
affordable housing.
Second, there is an enforcement side to this. If a
jurisdiction is engaging in targeted up-zoning that is
predictable, and is likely to cause displacement, that, just as
much as exclusionary zoning, raises questions about Fair
Housing Act compliance. HUD and DOJ have an enforcement role to
play in looking at those types of practices. And, certainly,
that is something that I think you can--
Mrs. Beatty. I am going to have to interrupt, because my
time is almost up, but I get the gist of it, and I want to
thank you.
As we look at Build Back Better, in light of what most of
the folks have said who have testified, and also from the
questions from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, a lot
of this confirms what Chairwoman Waters has been saying: We
need to make sure that, as a top priority, housing is well-
funded in these packages that we are going back on the House
Floor and we are voting for. We must not cut those dollars. We
must include housing at the highest amount in both of our bills
when we come back on reconciliation and infrastructure.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Cleaver. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the notable Representative John
Rose for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rose. Chairman Cleaver, and Ranking Member Hill, thank
you for holding this hearing. And thank you to our witnesses
for your time and your expertise on this Friday afternoon.
The supply of homes for sale at the end of August 2021
totaled 1.29 million units, down 1.5 percent from July, and
down 13.4 percent from August of last year, according to the
National Association of REALTORS.
Housing supply is failing to keep up with the demand, and
it is resulting in dramatically higher prices for homes.
Therefore, it is critical that we have affordable housing
options for families across the nation.
In Tennessee's Sixth Congressional District, which I
represent, 12.9 percent of total occupied housing units are
manufactured homes. Manufactured housing is the most affordable
homeownership option available nationwide for minorities,
underserved and low-income borrowers. According to U.S. Census
data, 90 percent of new homes under $75,000 are manufactured
housing.
Dr. Hamilton, many cities and towns ban manufactured homes
as a permitted use in residential zones and relegate them to a
special overlay zone in one small area of the community. This
often eliminates affordable homeownership in areas of
opportunity in that community.
At the Federal level, how can we encourage communities to
expand zoning, including manufactured homes, to increase
affordability, especially in areas of opportunity near good-
paying jobs, high-quality schools, and other amenities?
Ms. Hamilton. Thank you, Representative Rose. I certainly
agree on the importance of manufactured homes as one piece of
the solution to permitting abundant low-cost housing.
Some States have taken an approach of requiring their
localities to permit manufactured homes on all residential lots
across the State, Nebraska being one example. But I would argue
that State policy or Federal policy intended to increase the
availability of manufactured homes needs to go further,
addressing rules like minimum lot-size requirements that make
manufactured homes often not make sense, when the differential
between the lot and the cost of the house is too large to be a
logical market outcome.
Mr. Rose. You mentioned the size of the lot. And I want to
ask a follow-up question, but let me stay on point here for a
second.
Statute requires HUD, when allocating grant money like CDBG
or HOME Program funds to communities, to ensure those
communities have manufactured housing considered as part of
their affordable housing plans. HUD has not utilized this part
of the law, and many communities exclude manufactured housing
in their zoning plans. This eliminates a potential rich source
of affordable homeownership for many parts of the country.
How can HUD compel communities to include manufactured
housing in their comprehensive housing plans?
Ms. Hamilton. HUD could certainly go further to act on that
language. But I would argue that real change must come from
Congress and members of this committee changing the statutes
that HUD works with to provide them with more teeth to compel
local zoning reform.
Mr. Rose. Very good.
I mentioned that I want to get your opinion on a
situation--we see a lot of people moving to Tennessee from
higher-cost areas like California and the Northeast. And one of
the land use planning issues that is maybe particular to
Tennessee, although maybe other rural States face this, is that
in Tennessee, you can avoid local planning commissions if the
lot sizes that you subdivide property into are 5 acres or
larger.
Tennessee has another curiosity--they require a 50-foot
access strip to a public road. And it creates a situation where
we are seeing some very difficult subdivisions happening, where
you have these 50-foot strips making their way back into larger
tracts of property.
Have you seen that problem? And what is your opinion about
the long-term implications of this land that is divided into
these very narrow strips for access purposes, and for purely
meeting the zoning requirement?
Ms. Hamilton. Representative, that is an excellent example
of the interaction of the many regulations that local
governments enforce sometimes leading to outcomes that just
don't make sense and constrain housing construction as a
result. That is why I would focus on rewarding housing-market
outcomes rather than specific policy changes.
Mr. Rose. Thank you.
I see that my time has expired, Mr. Chairman, so I yield
back.
Chairman Cleaver. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the celebrated Representative from
California, Mr. Vargas, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I love to
celebrate any party we celebrate.
I want to thank you and the ranking member, Mr. French
Hill, a good friend, and especially Chairwoman Maxine Waters,
because I think that this is a very, very important issue, the
affordability of housing, but it is also a very complicated
one, just to be frank.
I was on the San Diego City Council for about 7 years, and
I sat on two committees mostly: the Public Safety Committee;
and the Land Use and Housing Committee. And on the Land Use and
Housing Committee, I got to know a little bit about San Diego
and how it is built.
Every city is different, but basically we are constrained
by--you can't go south because it is a different country; it is
Mexico. You can't go west because it is the ocean. East,
interestingly, you bump into mountains, and it is very
difficult and expensive to build into mountains. And going
north, you hit Camp Pendleton, which is a military base, and we
like it and we don't want to change that. We need to train our
Marines there.
So you are really constrained in this area, and almost all
of the available land for development is used. Now, you have to
have density, and I think density is very, very important. That
is where, of course, zoning comes in.
But we have had some experiments here that have gone very
badly. For example, I think everyone tried to do the right
thing back in the 1960s and said, the center part of the city,
an area that was a little bit older, with housing that was over
50-years-old, we are going to allow for the change in zoning,
and allow up to 6 units in a single-family neighborhood. And,
of course, they thought it would be a great idea because it was
fairly close to the downtown, there were transportation
quarters there, and there was also housing, but the housing was
dilapidated. It needed some changes because it was 50-years-
old. But they thought it was a good idea.
What happened was, instead, you got a lot of people who
came in and did what they called the, ``Huffman Six-Pack.''
They bought the single-family house, they basically scraped it,
and they built the ugliest possible square box with six units
there. In the front, instead of having grass and a place to
park, it was all cement, and you just simply parked your car.
And it destroyed those neighborhoods. It really did.
I was on the Public Safety Committee, and I can tell you
that most of the problems that we had in those neighborhoods
was what came out of those Huffman Six-Packs. So, they changed
the zoning again not to allow that, which was too bad, because
I think it really was the character of what they built--not the
density, but what they built. They built it as cheaply and as
badly as they possibly could just to squeeze money out of it.
Now, we are building areas with much more density than
that, much more than six units, and it is done right. They
don't just scrape the front yard. You had one area; you park
underneath the building. You go up a number of spaces. It is
more expensive to build like that, but it is a better building.
Anyway, I mention that because it is not so easy just to
simply change, and it is not always racism either.
Interestingly, in this neighborhood, most of the people are
people of color. So, they are not against people of color
moving in. They are just saying, don't build, like they built
before, those Huffman Six-Packs. It destroyed the neighborhood.
Does anyone have a comment on that?
Because, again, I believe in density. I think density is
good. But you can't just build the crappiest possible building
there, because it does destroy those neighborhoods.
How about Professor Cashin? Any comment on that?
Ms. Cashin. Can you hear me?
Mr. Vargas. Yes. Absolutely.
Ms. Cashin. Okay. Part of the reason why I support strongly
encouraging communities to adopt their own inclusionary zoning
ordinance is that it can be tailored to their individual
circumstances. In the process of doing that, hopefully all of
the constituencies in the community get to participate in
shaping what that looks like. It is not for the Federal
Government to say what it should look like.
But the point is that communities, and, yes, including a
lot of Democrat-run cities, need to get going on a vision of
inclusion, where people of all colors, races, and economic
circumstances can live together more densely and more
affordably.
I love the idea of creating more micro-housing, and
allowing manufactured housing to come in. But strongly
incentivizing, enforcing Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
(AFFH), putting pressure on localities to innovate and build
cities and communities of the future that include and work for
everyone.
Mr. Vargas. My time is up. And I agree with you. The only
thing is, I think the product is important too, what you build.
Because if you build a crappy building, that does, in fact,
create problems for everybody, especially if you want to create
more density.
And, again, Vienna is one of the most dense places in the
world, and it is the most livable city. Density is good; it
just has to be done right.
Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cleaver. The gentleman yields back.
The acclaimed Floridian, Mr. Lawson, is now recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you for having this hearing. And I want to thank the panel for
being here today. It is a very important issue.
In only 12 counties in America can a full-time worker
earning State or Federal minimum wage afford a one-bedroom
home. According to this report, in no State at all can a person
earning minimum wage afford a two-bedroom apartment.
[inaudible] Have another detrimental effect, delaying
homeownership, long the symbol of the American Dream.
In my district in Duval County, in order to afford a
moderate two-bedroom home, renters need to earn $18.62 an hour.
That is $10.53 more than the State minimum wage and about $2
more than what the average renter in Jacksonville earns.
Ms. Gallo, putting the minimum-wage issue aside, how can
localities better encourage development to increase the
production of affordable units targeting extremely low-income
households?
Ms. Gallo. Thank you for the question.
This is the reason why demand programs are just as
important as supply. Because the income level for many
communities is exactly as you quoted in the, ``The Gap'' report
from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which many of
us read and assess and develop programs from and recommend
policies to.
Supply and demand are both complicated issues, and you
cannot address one without the other. What you are referring to
is when people's incomes are so low, there have to be programs
to provide opportunities for people to pay just 30 percent of
their income for rent. So, the voucher program is critically
important.
At the same time, there needs to be programs to increase
the production of housing so that supply is not so constrained
that the cost continues to go up. And that is where--I think
one of the Members talked about it--billions of dollars going
to construction is absolutely necessary.
The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program is one very key
program that can facilitate the development of affordable
housing for people at the extremely low-income housing level.
In fact, over its history, it has developed millions--I think
it is 3 million--units across the country.
So, I would encourage the Members of Congress to continue
to pay attention to those programs. There are various proposals
before you that would increase the allocation of tax credits to
develop extremely low-income housing. And then, keep the focus
on the Housing Voucher Program and being able to provide those
vouchers universally to everyone who needs them.
Mr. Lawson. Okay. Thank you very much.
And, as a follow-up, Mr. Silverstein, can zoning reform
alone resolve affordability and equity concerns?
Mr. Silverstein. Thank you, Congressman Lawson.
No, zoning reform on its own cannot resolve the
affordability crisis, and it certainly can't do so in a way
that centers racial equity.
Zoning reform is one critical piece of a broader strategy.
It has to be strategic and targeted in how zoning reform is
crafted. And it also has to be paired with actual investments
in subsidized housing, such as those included in the Build Back
Better reconciliation package.
And I would say quickly on one point, the investment in
Housing Choice Vouchers is not, strictly speaking, just a
demand-side measure. Most new affordable housing that is built
to reach extremely low-income households includes Housing
Choice Vouchers that have been project-based.
So, I don't think that we should buy into a strict
dichotomy between Housing Choice Vouchers as a demand-side
program and the other investment as being supply-side. Housing
Choice Vouchers can play on both sides of that line.
Mr. Lawson. Okay.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cleaver. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the notable New Yorker, Mr.
Torres.
Mr. Torres. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The United States has been and continues to be zoned for
segregation. Exclusionary zoning produces and perpetuates
housing segregation by race and class, which in turn produces
and perpetuates school segregation by race and class.
Ours is a nation that preaches equal opportunity but often
practices segregation. And the research of Professor Raj Chetty
has persuasively shown that ZIP Code is often destiny, and that
where you live often determines your opportunity and mobility.
My first question is about one of the most egregious forms
of exclusionary zoning, single-family zoning. This question is
for Sheryll Cashin and Thomas Silverstein, and it is a yes-or-
no question. Is single-family zoning a violation of the Fair
Housing Act?
Ms. Cashin. I am going to say, ``yes.'' I would have to
explain why, but I am going to say, ``yes,'' and leave you your
time, sir.
Mr. Torres. Mr. Silverstein, your opinion?
Mr. Silverstein. I am going to say, ``often,'' and I would
have to explain why.
Mr. Torres. Okay.
Ms. Hamilton, your testimony and your exchange with
Congressman Steil, in my opinion, set up a false choice between
housing supply and housing subsidy. It is not an either/or
proposition. We need greater housing supply to ensure a
sufficient quantity of housing, and we need a greater housing
subsidy to ensure sufficient affordability of housing.
The Build Back Better Act envisions an historic expansion
of Section 8 vouchers, which would make housing units
affordable that would otherwise be unaffordable to the lowest-
income Americans.
So, we disagree on the question of housing subsidy, but I
have a question regarding housing supply. You have spoken about
the need for land use reform through incentives. I am
admittedly skeptical about the effectiveness of incentives. It
seems to me that an exclusive community that is determined to
remain exclusive is unlikely to be swayed by incentives.
So, what reason is there to think that incentives would be
effective at effectuating the kind of land use reform necessary
for addressing the affordability crisis?
Ms. Hamilton. Thank you, Representative. I agree that
incentives are not sufficient to encourage local zoning reform,
particularly because the problem is most severe in high-tax-
base localities where these Federal grants are going to be
least effective.
For that reason, I think any program that does use
incentives must be designed in order to be as effective as
possible, recognizing that ultimately, reforms must come from
the local or State levels, in some cases, rather than relying
on the Federal purse strings.
Mr. Torres. It seems to me the proper response to
exclusionary zoning is not incentives, but the proper response
is robust enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.
I have a question for Mr. Kahlenberg. I admire your
research on segregation. And, in the time of gentrification and
speculation, there is an understandable concern that more
development would likely lead to displacement rather than
desegregation. In your opinion, how do we best structure
development to ensure desegregation instead of the displacement
that many fear?
Mr. Kahlenberg. Thank you for the question, Congressman
Torres. I have two thoughts on that issue.
First of all, I think there is good evidence that
exclusionary zoning, in general, causes more gentrification and
displacement. That is to say, when individuals who might
purchase a home in a middle-class neighborhood cannot afford to
because of exclusionary zoning, that leads them to choose to go
into a neighborhood that is gentrifying and, thereby, displace
people who are living there. So, that is part of the issue.
The other is that I think we have learned from California
and elsewhere that zoning reform that only provides up-zoning
without protections for individuals who may face displacement
is wrong, and it is politically unfeasible as well.
And so, I would agree with Professor Cashin, who has
emphasized the importance of exclusionary measures when there
is an area that is being up-zoned, and associated measures to
make sure that there is not expansive displacement.
Mr. Torres. Is there a locality that you feel represents
the right model of affordable and sustainable and equitable
development?
Mr. Kahlenberg. I think we are still searching for that
perfect model.
Mr. Torres. Okay.
I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Torres.
Before I begin my questioning, I want to place into the
record a letter from the National Multifamily Housing Council,
without objection. And this letter is dated October 15, 2021.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
I would like to just have a quick conversation with two of
our witnesses, Mr. Kahlenberg and Ms. Gallo.
Can you, in just a few words, speak to me please about the
difference between segregation and gentrification? Either one,
or both of you.
Ms. Gallo. Segregation is what we have been talking about
in terms of the consequences of zoning practice throughout this
country, when you are deliberately creating situations where
people, particularly people of color and lower-income people,
cannot live in certain areas and the decisions to allow that to
happen are essentially sanctioned through policies and
programs. So, zoning is one practice where you have certain
people not being able to live somewhere because of, for
instance, the single-family zoning conversation.
Gentrification happens when we have people displaced from
communities who have traditionally lived there for a long time,
and it happens from up-zoning practices that are not done
correctly. Gentrification is when neighborhoods start to change
from a predominantly low-income community to one that has
higher prices for homes, both rental and sales, and causes the
people who live there to no longer afford to live there.
That is my layman's definition, practicing affordable
housing development.
Chairman Cleaver. Mr. Kahlenberg?
Mr. Kahlenberg, are you still with us?
Well, let's continue this. As I mentioned, I chaired the
Planning and Zoning Committee when I was on the city council in
Kansas City. And one of the problems that just drives me crazy
is, we have an historic west side which has been primarily an
Hispanic area for 100 years--in fact, we have an Hispanic
community center, the Guadalupe Center, that has been there for
100 years--but, all of a sudden, most Hispanics cannot live
there anymore because of what has happened with the
gentrification. And only the long-timers can afford to still
live in that neighborhood.
And so, I am obviously necessarily concerned, when you look
at minorities' rate of homeownership, and compare Black and
Brown homeownership with White homeownership, which is
exploding at about 75 percent.
The Urban Institute has recommended that policymakers
create more opportunities for affordable homeownership and
reform local zoning laws. Land use policies need to be
reformed, building codes that inhibit affordability housing and
development. And we need to create a means of reducing the
racial homeownership gap.
But I don't know if any of those things we did can halt it
if people, Mr. Kahlenberg, are moving in and they have a
significant income level over the existing residents. So what
is that? Is that segregation, financial segregation, or is it
still gentrification, as Ms. Gallo mentioned?
Mr. Kahlenberg. I apologize, Chairman Cleaver. I have been
having connectivity issues, so I am not sure that I got all of
the question.
But the question of gentrification and displacement is a
central one. I think we want to see some movement where there
are neighborhoods where there is going to be a nice and healthy
economic mix, but we have to have those protections in place to
make sure that there is not displacement.
But I apologize, because I didn't get most of your
question.
Chairman Cleaver. I get excited about some areas in Kansas
City, Missouri, that are now becoming diversified; they are
racially mixed. But many of the homeowners in those areas are
saying to me, ``Look, we are going to get priced out of here,
it is just a matter of time.'' And they are saying, ``This is
going to become another segregated neighborhood, and we will
have to move out of here. Because the people who are moving in
have higher incomes, and they are moving in, and rehabbing the
older homes.''
And I am not sure that there is a zoning law that can touch
this issue. So, I am looking for the housing intelligentsia to
give me the solution to this issue.
Mr. Kahlenberg. I would say that Philadelphia is one of the
leaders on this issue, where they are taking steps to make sure
that there are supports for those who were longtime residents
in the community that are not displaced. So, that is one model
to look at.
Ms. Gallo. And I would add, the community land trust
conversation we had earlier is something that should be pursued
in areas that are facing gentrification.
Chairman Cleaver. Okay.
We appreciate all of the witnesses. Thank you very much for
providing us with, I think, some tremendously important
information.
Let me now recognize, before I close the hearing out, the
ranking member, Mr. Hill.
Mr. Hill. Chairman Cleaver, thank you. This has really been
an interesting hearing. I thought it was an excellent give-and-
take discussion, so thanks for holding it.
I just had a quick question before we wrap up, since we are
not able to see each other in person. We haven't had a hearing
on the oversight of the secondary mortgage market, particularly
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, since December of 2018. I wanted to
put that on your radar and see if you would agree with me to
perhaps urge our Full Committee Chair that we do that.
Chairman Cleaver. Yes, we actually need to do that,
especially now that there is a new head of the Federal Housing
Finance Agency (FHFA). So, I think it would be a good time for
us to have that hearing.
Mr. Hill. Thank you. And I yield back to my friend.
Chairman Cleaver. We will talk with you about that later.
I would like to thank again all of the witnesses, and thank
the distinguished ranking member.
The Chair notes that some Members may have additional
questions for these witnesses, which they may wish to submit in
writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions
to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record.
Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in
the record.
If there are no other questions or important people coming
forth, the eminent Members of Congress are now dismissed for
lunch. This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
October 15, 2021
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]