What people are thinking is to do it at the state level (California, Oregon). There are no restrictions on what states can do relative to cities. (In other words, if a city can do it a state can too, cities are entirely creatures of the state, there is no real 'federalism' below the state level.)

This HUD effort would be more minor, something like removing some zoning restrictions in order to get federal dollars. The existing political entities (probably cities) would then have to pass those rules to get the money.

> There are no restrictions on what states can do relative to cities.

Just because the restrictions on this are not in the federal Constitution doesn't mean they don't exist; just as the federal Constitution has rules on State-Federal power balance, State constitutions often have rules on State-local power balance.

State Constitutions are usually procedurally easier to amend than the federal one, though, so, the barriers, though real, are smaller.

Are the State governments the problem here though? From what I(not American) can tell the issue seems to be more that local residents have a surprising(to me) amount of political control over zoning on the municipal level. I guess this is all part of the American approach to the distribution of power and there are certainly good sides to this, but it also means that NIMBYs can have so much control by voting for the mayor that supports their issues.

Cities are legally an extension of the states, so states could take control over the process, but you're right, as far as I know municipalities (cities, counties, townships) have almost total control over zoning standards (at least here in Michigan).

Which means there are about 1500 separate zoning standards (they are largely the same, but a wind energy project might have to work with 2 or more townships to get permitting).

I wonder about a state law creating a new type of township that is totally subordinate to the county (dissolving all functions of the township). Would it be a good thing? What are the pitfalls, etc.

Plenty of states have the concept of unincorporated land.

But states can just decide. They usually leave it to the cities, but all they have to do is pass legislation and it will override all the city rules.

It's tough politics for state legislatures to say "fuck you, cities, we're centralizing control in {Austin,Springfield,Albany}". They will essentially only do it if they are fearful of challenges in the next election by big money. In other words, states tend only to take over traditionally local issues when local government passes some ordinance odious to industry (see fracking in PA, Uber/Lyft background checks in Austin, etc.)

NIMBY's have practically all of the power with zoning laws in Seattle. They have all of the money as well. We have a crazy amount of SFH right now when we have a housing crisis.

It's not like housing would become more affordable anyway, Seattle only builds luxury housing for the rich (and they're having a hard time filling these units!).

> It's not like housing would become more affordable anyway, Seattle only builds luxury housing for the rich (and they're having a hard time filling these units!).

They only build luxury housing because housing supply is restricted and the rich can outbid the poor for that restricted development.

And no, they aren't having a hard time filling units.

>And no, they aren't having a hard time filling units.

Seattle Times says otherwise.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/free-amazo...

That's like saying I'm having a hard time becoming a billionaire. Of course I am...but that in no way implies I'm having a tough time paying my bills.

Building housing for the rich has a displacing effect. Either they are locals and their old place goes to sale or rent or they no longer displace existing residents. And absent sweetheart deals incoming rich with their increased tax revenues should allow the city to upgrade public transit, build public housing or other solutions. But it is up to the city to solve their problems.

Apparently in Boston contrary to concerns luxury high rises didn't act as gentrification locuses but stemmed its tide in other areas instead.

Houses are generally built for/by the richer class. Then in a few tens of years the rich build a new house and sell the old one to someone poor.

Even if it were handled at the state level you'd see a big improvement with municipalities playing games to get "the wrong sort of people" to more to the next town over.

You could easily make an argument that lack of proper zoning in California has resulted in people moving elsewhere and that invokes the interstate commerce clause.

Someone moving to another state is not interstate commerce.

> The constitution limits the authority of what the Federal government can do in the US

I wish. If that was true I'd be much happier with politics than I am.

Your response only makes sense if the there are no constitutionally enforced limits on the powers of the federal government vs. state governments. The Medicare portion of the ACA being struck down by the Supreme Court is a notable counterexample to your comment. The check on federal powers may not go as far as you like but laughing in response to the comment that was made is in poor taste.

> The Medicare portion of the ACA being struck down by the Supreme Court is a notable counterexample to your comment.

Except that, AFAICT, didn't happen. (Though there is a current challenge to the Constitutionality of the Medicare changes, among other things.)

You may be thinking of the mandatory (for continued state participation in Medicaid) expansion of Medicaid portion of the ACA being made optional rather than mandatory by the Supreme Court.

Of course, one could argue that is an example that is arbitrary and, while it certainly evidences judicial limits, is hard to connect to it's Constitutional pretext, as it explicitly requires that both pre-expansion Medicaid are post-expansion Medicaid are Constitutional federal programs, but that Congress is somehow barred from replacing one with the others except by consent of the individual participating state.

I didn't mean any disrespect, but fair enough. Edited my original comment.