For decades, community land trusts (CLT) have been used by non-profits to provide home owner to low income families. Under a CLT, ownership of a house and the land it sits are separated. The CLT retains ownership of the land and provides a long-term lease to the home-owner. By separating ownership, land costs aren’t reflected in the price of the house. The homes are sold at below-market rates, and the owners agree to pre-determined limits on the price they can receive when they sell in the future. The goal is to keep the house affordable for low-income families far into the future. While CLTs can provide housing stability, they also restrict the homeowners ability to benefit from appreciation of the property. Houston’s CLT limits the increase to 1.25 percent annually, so a home purchased for $75,515 today could be sold for $103,285 in thirty years. CLTs won’t build wealth as quickly or significantly as more traditional purchase arrangements. But for a low-income family, CLTs can be a step towards improving the family’s financial situation.
Citizens often complain about rules and directives forced upon them from Washington or their state capital. They want local control. The ongoing debate over single-family zoning and similar land-use regulations is an example. To illustrate this, in an opinion piece titled “Top-Down Control Over Regulation Disregards Protection at Local Level,” the author attacks a bill being considered by North Carolina legislators that would essentially abolish single-family zoning in the state. After declaring that he is a “big believer in the importance of property rights,” he goes on to state, “In order to strike a proper balance between the public interest and private property rights, regulatory authority should be exercised at the local level.” The author wants us to believe that local control offers citizens some kind of undefined protection. What he wants to protect is the ability of local officials to dictate how individuals can use their property. In truth, legislation like that being considered in North Carolina offers true protection for individual rights by restoring a little freedom to property owners.
A report from the Brookings Institute argues that single-family zoning has been a primary factor in the high cost of housing in the Boston area. And the cost is particularly high near commuter rail stations. The authors note that, near rail stations in the Boston area, there are an average of 2.8 homes per acre. The authors state, “This isn’t a market outcome—it’s a sign that zoning is preventing housing markets from working.” The authors call for the state to relax zoning laws within a half mile of rail stations. While this would be a small step in the right direction, it does nothing to address housing affordability beyond a half mile. The problems caused by zoning will just appear a little further from the rail stations.