For the better part of a century in the United States, exclusion, restriction, and fastidiousness were core values within the accepted best practices around zoning and development. While national trends seem to slowly be reversing course toward less aggressive regulation of uses and limitations on density, the built, legal, and economic environment in communities across the country strongly reflect this history. Even in places that actively seek to be bastions of progressive culture and policy, the legacy of older philosophies persists. And the most severe and obvious of these reflections is the current crisis of affordability in housing.
As a small town with a consciously welcoming culture adjacent to the state’s flagship university, Carrboro, NC, is emblematic of this wider trend. Despite broad community consensus on the need for affordable housing for all residents, housing prices have risen faster than median incomes for decades and new housing construction has been outpaced by population growth for just as long. Carrboro has not been idle in the face of this problem; many policy initiatives have been attempted to address the scarcity of affordable homes. But due to more significant dynamics within the town and the country, these solutions have consistently come up short either in design or implementation.
In an effort to explore and address this archetypical wicked problem, this project from 2021’s course on Zoning For Equity uses mapping, statistics, legal analysis, and investigative journalism to determine why affordable housing is so difficult to come by in an environment so seemingly amenable to its creation. Through the medium of ArcGIS StoryMap, Feel Free (To Be Cost Burdened) describes the background of Carrboro’s housing crisis, the most notable attempts that have been made to address it, and the trends and policies that continue to negate the impacts of those attempts. The StoryMap then goes beyond analysis by offering a suite of potential solutions, ranging from immediate and practical tweaks to Carrboro’s zoning code to grand reworkings of America’s conception of the relationship between property rights and human rights.
In addition to existing as a static artifact of research, Feel Free (To Be Cost Burdened)has entered the world of planning politics in its own right; Its creators presented it to both the Orange County Board of Health and the Carrboro Affordable Housing Advisory Board in early 2022. Hopefully, this project can be revisited and revised to reflect breakthrough successes in Carrboro’s fight for housing affordability in the near future.
Henry Read is a Master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning, with a focus on land use policy. He is fascinated with the minutia of development regulation and doesn’t understand why so many people think zoning is boring. He hopes to work in the public sector after graduation, and would like to be remembered as the guy who got your town to stop requiring bars to have customer parking and start planting native fruit trees in parks.
Edited by Jo Kwon
Featured image: Feel Free (To Be Cost Burdened) StoryMap
This memo provides a brief summary of the history and background of zoning laws, both federally and within the state of North Carolina, as well as the impacts of NC’s current exclusionary zoning status quo on housing affordability, economic opportunity and development, racial and class disparities, as well as its environmental consequences. This memo also addresses counter arguments raised by proponents of exclusionary zoning practices, and specific measures the NC General Assembly can take to eliminate exclusionary zoning within the state.
Background
“Zoning” broadly refers to the range of land-use regulations designed to restrict the types of buildings that can be built on certain parcels of land as well as their design, height, size, and use. The most common residential zoning in NC, as well as much of the United States, is R1 zoning. R1 zoning only permits low-density, single family detached homes. Outside of formal zoning, other regulations exist, including parking minimums, maximum height limits, setback requirements, and minimum lot sizes. All of these regulations often work to promote low-density, urban sprawl.
In contrast, “upzoning” refers to liberalizing existing zoning regulations to permit higher density construction and potentially mixed-use development. Other states, such as California, as well as many municipalities (including Portland, Oregon and Minneapolis, Minnesota), have implemented upzoning policies. Upzoning can look radically different from place to place, as some municipalities only permit the development of duplexes or additional dwelling units (ADUs), while others go further to allow much higher density construction in what were originally R1 areas.
The History of Zoning
Zoning laws began cropping up throughout the United States beginning in the early 1900s, with the first being passed by the Los Angeles municipal government in 1908. In 1923, the North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA) permitted local city governments to develop zoning codes, and by the end of the century, a dozen NC cities had adopted such codes.[i] Zoning was supported and strengthened by the 1926 Supreme Court case Euclid v. Ambler, which established that local governments’ policing powers also encompass zoning powers. Beginning in 1934, when the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) was created, residential zoning was solidified by federal influence as the standard method of improving property values and ensuring only “desirable” development was permitted. As suburbanization spread and the “Baby Boom” population growth increased population density, zoning laws became increasingly common. By 1960, the majority of NC cities and towns had implemented zoning policies.[ii]
Zoning in Modern North Carolina
Modern zoning codes in NC, as in much of the United States, tend to be long and complicated. Local zoning codes, even for small cities and towns, typically exceed 100 pages in length. Zoning has also become increasingly powerful, as legislative changes and constitutional rulings have expanded the permissible uses of zoning codes to include aesthetics and historic preservation.
NC is somewhat unique compared to other states in that the state-level government has a considerable amount of power over localities, even when it comes to local zoning codes. In NC, local governments have no inherent power, all of their power is derived and permitted by the state government. The state government has granted broad authority to local governments to develop zoning laws; however, the state government also has a considerable history of interfering in local zoning conflicts.[iii] Attempts by Cabarrus County to zone based on school county were struck down by the NC’s Supreme Court on the grounds that the state-granted zoning authority did not explicitly include the ability to zone according to “efficient and adequate” provision of public facilities.
The NC state government also outlines strict procedures regarding the enactment and enforcement of local zoning laws. All rezoning attempts require a public hearing, two public hearing notices (with the exact dates specified), a review and comment period for the planning board, specifications for how many city council members must approve for a rezoning ordinance to pass, and a public statement explaining why rezoning is reasonable and within the public interest.
Housing Affordability
The connection between land-use policies and housing costs is hotly debated; however, there is compelling evidence that exclusionary zoning increases the costs of housing. At a theoretical level, exclusionary zoning restricts the supply of land that is available for construction, which — by extension — reduces the supply of housing. The argument follows that, if developers could build multifamily apartments without these supply constraints, housing stock would better match demand and prices would go down.
The empirical data on this relationship is broad and varied. Rothwell (2008) finds that upwards of 20% of the variation in metropolitan housing growth is attributable to anti-density regulation, and that these same regulations inflate housing prices during demand shocks.[iv] Quigley and Raphael (2003) find that every additional land-use regulation in California increases the prices of owner-occupied housing by 4.5% and increases the price of rental housing by 2.3%.[v] Glaeser and Gyourko (2005) exploits gaps between housing and construction costs to determine the role that land-use regulations play in increased housing costs in several metropolitan areas in the US.[vi] They argue that these regulations play a significant role in the inflation of housing costs, especially in New York City. Ihlanfeldt (2003) conducts a broad review of the literature on the association between land-use regulations and housing costs and finds mixed but compelling evidence that exclusionary zoning increases the cost of housing.[vii]
Upzoning is not a substitute for affordable housing policies targeted at low-income households; however, upzoning will be a necessary prerequisite for developing the affordable housing supply we need. These restrictive zoning laws often create the legal support for “NIMBY” (not-in-my-backyard) activism that opposes affordable housing construction on the grounds that these developments violate existing zoning regulations.
Racial Equity
This history of residential zoning is deeply tied to racial segregation. Zoning laws have historically been used to lock Black and other non-white populations out of economically dynamic areas, justified by white property owners arguing that the presence of Black residents would lower property values. Further, white urbanites feared the demographic changes that happened during the Great Migration, which motivated the implementation of explicitly racialized zoning laws. White homeowners used privately-held, government-supported covenants to prohibit homes in their neighborhood from ever being sold or rented to Black families.[viii] Even after the practice was legally prohibited in 1948, local white community members found extralegal ways to exclude non-white families. Their tactics included intimidation, threats, and even violence and firebombings of Black residences, all of which were overlooked by local authorities.[ix]
Although explicit racial segregation by law is no longer allowed, modern zoning restrictions still act as a form of de facto segregation. Single family zoning artificially inflates the costs of housing and prohibits alternative forms of housing to be constructed. This type of zoning is prevalent in economically prosperous suburbs, but the high housing costs lock out low-income families, who are often disproportionately Black or Brown. Even without racist intentions, single family zoning has racially disparate impacts. These impacts are not small, either. Economic opportunity research from Raj Chetty’s Moving to Opportunity study finds that moving low-income families to wealthier neighborhoods increases the likelihood of college attendance for children and increases children’s future earnings by 31%.
Beyond locking low-income people of color out of economic opportunity, single family zoning promotes environmental and public health inequalities. The history of toxic land-uses being permitted primarily near low-income, Black communities is well-documented.[x],[xi] This system is bolstered by a zoning policy that excludes large swaths of the local population from wealthier (and, by extension, healthier) communities. This inequity has serious impacts on the long-term health outcomes for low-income Black and Brown families. Racial minorities in the US have higher rates of asthma, lead exposure, certain cancers, and a wide range of other health problems related to environmental factors.[xii]
Environmental Impacts
Single-family zoning promotes and upholds inefficient land uses that incentivize urban sprawl. This sprawl has a wide range of environmental impacts, including impacts on water usage, energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and wildlife habitats. Suburban households, compared to both urban and rural households, produce the most carbon emissions.[xiii] Without legalizing denser urban environments, global climate change mitigation goals cannot be met.
Firstly, single-family zoning promotes the construction of large housing units, while actively prohibiting the construction of smaller housing units. The range of zoning regulations includes not only what type of housing gets constructed, but also minimum lot requirements, setback requirements, and parking minimums, all of which further encourage the use of more space. This increased lot size and house size per household increases the per capita carbon emissions of individuals.
Urban sprawl, especially in the United States, has also promoted urban design that necessitates individual car ownership. Transportation accounts for 29% of US carbon emissions, making it one of the biggest contributors to climate change.[xiv] In the US, much of this is driven by car dependency. Simply switching to electric vehicles, while certainly beneficial, is also not sufficient to address climate change concerns. The infrastructure needed to maintain car-centric design requires the extensive use of asphalt, energy-intensive batteries, and large swaths of land dedicated to parking and roads. Instead, allowing for denser development would encourage individuals to choose less energy and land-intensive transportation options, such as walking, bicycles, e-bikes, or public transit.
Climate change should be of utmost concern to the state of NC. Our coastlines are uniquely vulnerable to increased rates of natural disasters and increasingly intense storms. Hurricane Matthew killed 26 NC residents and cost NC $1.5 billion.[xv] Hurricane Florence in 2018 killed 15 NC residents and resulted in $22 billion in damages.[xvi] As these types of weather events become increasingly common and more severe, NC needs to take preventative measures by decreasing our carbon footprint. Fundamentally changing our urban design to become more dense and incentivizing alternative transportation methods is one of the most important tools that we have for combating climate change.
Population Growth
NC has seen the sixth largest population increase over the last decade, with most of this increase attributable to net migration from other states.[xvii] The State Demographer projects that 84% of population growth over the next nine years will be from net migration. Much of this population growth is driven by the placement of high profile companies in NC’s two major urban centers: Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham.
The geography of NC’s population is also shifting, causing further pressure to build more housing in urban centers. More and more individuals are living in urban areas, much of this change driven by inmigration. The state of NC should target Wake County, Durham County, Mecklenburg County, Guilford County, and Forsyth County to a.) propel the construction of new units to accommodate newcomers and b.) preserve existing affordable housing to prevent gentrification and displacement.
Arguments for Exclusionary Zoning
One concern is that upzoning will not meaningfully address the need for affordable housing.[xviii] The housing that would primarily be permitted would be market-rate, and therefore not accessible to the poorest members of the community. Upzoning is not enough, and as such, my proposal ties upzoning legislation from the NC state government to directives for local governments to substantially increase their housing costs based on market studies. Furthermore, my proposal includes affordable housing mandates based on local needs. Upzoning is a necessary prerequisite for creating the housing abundance NC needs in the coming years.
An additional concern over upzoning is a fear of gentrification. The research on the role of upzoning in gentrifying urban centers is mixed.[xix] However, urban economic research indicates that a “filtering” effect occurs over time.[xx], [xxi] As new, market-rate housing units are constructed, the older housing in the area becomes more affordable and prevents displacement by directing wealthier individuals to these new units. This is not a complete solution for the problems of affordable housing, however, it can still provide increasing housing affordability for middle class individuals and potentially reduce demand for lower-income units.
The Policy Solution
To address the above problems facing NC, I recommend that the NC General Assembly pass Senate Bill 349 alongside two amendments: 1.) require local governments to tie housing construction to market study predictions of demand, and 2.) require all private developers to set-aside 10% of units as affordable housing units for those making 50% AMI.
Implementing this policy is a necessary and meaningful first step to pushing NC into the future. These reforms will increase housing affordability as well as the supply of affordable housing, allowing more households to access economic opportunities in NC’s urban centers. These reforms will also act to reduce NC’s carbon footprint, moving NC away from car-centric infrastructure to more dense, sustainable development. Finally, removing these exclusionary zoning ordinances is a necessary step towards racial equity and expanding economic opportunity to all.
[x] Taylor, D.E. (2014). Toxic communities : environmental racism, industrial pollution, and residential mobility. New York University Press: New York, NY.
[xi] Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. Liveright Publishing: New York, NY.
[xii] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on Community-Based Solutions to Promote Health Equity in the United States; Baciu A, Negussie Y, Geller A, et al., editors. (January 2017). Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US), The State of Health Disparities in the United States.
Elijah Gullett is a fourth-year undergraduate student majoring in Public Policy with minors in Urban Studies and Environmental Justice. His academic interests include fair and affordable housing, sustainable development, and LGBTQ+ urban life.
Edited by Cameron McBroom-Fitterer
Featured image: Redlining map in Durham, NC. Courtesy of National Archives and Records Administration.
Earlier this year, a cohort of students (myself included) from the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC skipped class in the middle of the week to go to the beach. However, it was for a good reason–the 2019 North Carolina Planning Conference. Every year, the North Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA) has a conference in a different city in the state. This year, the conference was held in Wilmington from October 8th to the 11th. The overarching inspiration for the conference was “Envisioning Opportunity in the Face of….”
Given the impact of Hurricane Florence and other weather events on coastal communities in North Carolina, natural hazards resilience was a major focus. The keynote speaker of the conference was Jim Schwab, a former manager of APA’s Hazards Planning Center. However, given the multi-faceted nature of the planning world, natural hazards resilience was only one of many diverse subjects covered. As such, there were presentations on everything from “Zoning and the Opioid Crisis” to “Creating Delight: Artsy Alleys, Plazas and Streetscapes, and Santa Houses.” There was even a presentation by the Carolina Planning Journal. Authors from the 44th volume (Changing Ways, Making Changes) discussed their pieces, which was facilitated by Natalie Swanson.
Because so many concurrent sessions were offered over the four days of the conference, it was impossible to attend every presentation. However, there were a few notable standouts from Thursday which hopefully provide a fair representation of the conference.
Equitable Engagement and the Durham Beltline
This presentation by Aidil Ortiz and Laura Stroud focused on the community engagement efforts surrounding the Durham Beltline project. The Durham Beltline, as proposed, is a 1.76 mile multi-use path built along an abandoned rail bed corridor that would connect portions of North Durham to Downtown. However, many of the neighborhoods adjacent to the Beltline are formerly redlined communities which are still suffering from chronic lack of investment. The presenters were quick to point out that trails and parks are not agnostic nor apolitical and often quicken gentrification. One quote in particular stood out strongly: “Communities that have been underserved need to be super-served.” Both presenters emphasized the importance of understanding the historical context of a place and using tools such as redlining maps to determine which areas need extra investment. They also stressed the importance of civic education about planning documents such as the Beltline Master Plan.
Historical tools such as this redlining map from Durham should still be actively used to assess what areas need to be “super-served.” Photo Credit: WUNC North Carolina Public Radio
Lightning Round Session: 5 Small Zoning Changes That Make a Big Difference
This presentation by Nate Baker of Clarion Associates gave an extremely practical overview of how small tweaks in zoning policy can be used to create more walkable, vibrant, and successful places. For example, one proposed zoning change was to have maximum parking requirements instead of minimum parking requirements. Nate provided a case study to demonstrate the ease in which this can be done.
In 2015, the city of Graham enacted this change through a revision of the wording in their ordinance. Another proposed change was to ensure right-sized connectivity and block length standards. Many of the pre-WWII ear neighborhoods that are associated with walkability have block lengths of 200 to 300 feet. Blocks in modern subdivisions range from 1200 to 5000 feet, making walking extremely difficult. Many cities have adopted connectivity indexes, which help measure how well street networks connect destinations.
Nate also mentioned simple design standards, simple green building standards, and new zoning districts such as potential modifications. All of these proposed changes can act as a catalyst towards more complex and politically difficult zoning policy changes.
Downtown Parking: Less is More, If It’s Managed
Although parking is not always perceived as a riveting topic, it is one of the most central issues which planners face. The first presenter, Timothy Tresohlavy of Stantec, emphasized that “parking is personal.” Many people believe that parking is an innate right, and even the suggestion of parking restrictions can elicit anger and frustration. Timothy also acknowledged that excessive and unmanaged parking is usually at odds with walkable, enjoyable environments. He summarized this with the following quote from Rollin Stanley, the former planning director of Montgomery County, Maryland: “No place is worth caring about that doesn’t have a parking problem.” Timothy’s main focus was on the importance of data collection through field work, focus groups, and surveys, saying: “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.”
Next, Ellen Hoj discussed her work around downtown parking reform in the city of Wilson. In an attempt to revitalize downtown and attract more mixed-use development, the city decided to reform its parking. The city completed a comprehensive parking study in 2015. Recently, the city has seen some short term successes such as identifying a lead department to manage parking, deterring on street parking by downtown employees, and reviewing and modifying vehicular parking signs for clarity. Through the process, Ellen identified a few key suggestions. She emphasized the importance of getting buy in from all departments on the front end so there is a clear initial vision on how to manage parking. Next, she said to argue for greater resources, especially human capital, from the city or other agencies to combat parking issues. Finally, she implored the audience to challenge legacy thinking with data and to have a thick skin when dealing with the inevitable emotions that will arise.
Overall, the conference was a great experience. For myself and several other DCRP students, this was the first planning conference that we had attended. Through the presentations, we had ample exposure to topics both within our specializations and in other fields. We also had the chance to interact with a wide variety of professionals working in state government, local government, non-profits, and the private sector. Additionally, in our free time, we got to explore downtown Wilmington, walk along the River Walk, and try new places to eat and drink such as Front Street Brewery. For those who are looking to attend a useful planning conference, I highly recommend the NC-APA conference.
DCRP students enjoying a free evening at Front Street Brewery in downtown Wilmington. Photo Credit: Luke Lowry
Featured Image: Cape Fear River from the Wilmington Convention Center. Photo Credit: Luke Lowry.
About the author: Luke Lowry is a first-year master’s candidate in the Department of City and Regional Planning with a specialization in Transportation. He is particularly interested in pedestrian and bicycle planning as a means to increase equity and create vibrant communities. A lifelong resident of North Carolina, he enjoys spending time in the mountains near his hometown. He also enjoys reading, staying active, and finding new coffee shops to fuel his caffeine addiction. Luke received his undergraduate degree in Mechanical Engineering from UNC Charlotte.
Planners who aren’t familiar with their local airport can easily overlook the facility. Here is what you should know:
Our aviation system is expansive: At any given time, there are around 7,000 aircraft in the air over the U.S. which are being served by airports of varying sizes and roles. Only 12 percent of the public airports that receive federal funding are primary commercial service airports, meaning that our aviation system is largely composed of facilities mainly used by general aviation aircraft.
Photo Credit, Delta Airport Consultants, Inc.
The airport was probably here first: Many airports in the U.S. have existed since the 20s, 30s or 40s. Over time, many communities have allowed incompatible land uses to encroach into areas around their airport, often resulting in the airport being villainized for operating as it was established to do.
The average citizen contributes very little to the airport: Around 3,300 airports in the US receive federal funding through the FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Eligible projects receive from 75% to 95% of project cost from the federal government; the remainder is paid for by the state transportation or aviation department and the locality. Federal AIP funds come from user fees and fuel taxes, not tax dollars from the general public. The same is often true for the state funding match.
Federally-obligated airports must have an approved development plan: Airports who accept AIP funds are obligated to keep their Airport Layout Plan (ALP) up to date. The ALP, a product of the master planning process, depicts the proposed development plan over a 20-year period and beyond. Planners should take into account the 20-year and “Beyond 20 Years” phases of development when making land use decisions. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to projects depicted on the ALP.
Airspace and Safety Basics: There are myriad airspace surfaces and FAA-established design standards; two of the most often cited are the 14 CFR Part 77 “imaginary” surfaces, and the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The Part 77 surfaces protect airspace and should be incorporated into the local zoning ordinance to prevent heights and land uses that would interfere with pilot visibility and safety (for example, tall cell towers or reflective solar panels). Remember that the approach path extends well beyond the boundaries of airport property.
The RPZ is a trapezoidal area off of each runway end. For their protection, no people or property can locate within the RPZ. FAA recommends that airports own the land within each RPZ.
FAA Form 7460-1 is required by law for development proposed in proximity to any public-use airport. These should all be tied to the local permit review process to prevent incompatible projects from being approved.
Conceptual Drawing of Selected Airspace Surfaces, Delta Airport Consultants, Inc.
A well-equipped airport is an economic development engine: The airport is a utility, and the user wants to come and go as safely and as efficiently as possible. Generally, lower visibility minimums make an airport more attractive to potential businesses, corporate visitors, and tourists. As the visibility improves, the RPZ on each runway end expands, meaning that the airport must secure more land to ensure pilots have adequate margins of error for takeoff and landing.
Land Use Compatibility is the Responsibility of the Locality: Zoning is arguably the most powerful tool to protect airspace and prevent land use incompatibility. Planners should discourage noise sensitive uses like residential from locating near an operating airport. Industrial, manufacturing, and some commercial uses are a better fit. When making land use decisions for your community, take into account the “Beyond 20 Year” phase of development on the ALP. If the airport plans to extend the runway in Year 21 through a future high-density residential area, compatibility issues are sure to follow.
About the Author: Mary Ashburn Pearson, AICP, is an airport planner and environmental Project Manager at Delta Airport Consultants, Inc. She lives in Richmond, Virginia.
