ACE

Category: Housing and Transportation Policy

  • Pros and Cons of S.5446: The Electrifying Rural Transportation Act of 2024

    Pros and Cons of S.5446: The Electrifying Rural Transportation Act of 2024

    Background
    Electric vehicles (EVs) have gained significant traction in recent decades due to advances in battery technology, electric motor design, and increasing public receptivity. In the United States, EV sales rose from fewer than 160,000 units in 2016 to more than 1.39 million units in 2023. This surge has been driven largely by declining technology costs, making EVs more accessible to a broader population—including rural communities, which face unique transportation challenges such as long travel distances and low population density.

    S.5446 Key Provisions

    Introduced in December 2024 by Senator Peter Welch (D-VT), S.5446—the Electrifying Rural Transportation Act of 2024—sought to apply the benefits of EVs to address transportation and microtransit issues in rural areas. The bill’s primary objective was to allocate federal funds to rural communities that want to strengthen their transportation infrastructure with electric vehicles. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and failed to pass out of committee before the close of the 118th Congress. 

    S.5446 aimed to address rural transportation challenges through microtransit, a transportation system seen as a middle ground between private vehicles and mass public transportation. The bill text defined microtransit as a “technology-enabled public transportation model” allowing users to “request on-demand rides within a defined service area”. One example of microtransit is the St. Louis Metro’s partnership with Via, which allows commuters to hail buses for on-demand rides within a designated route. Typically, microtransit systems use smaller-capacity vehicles, such as minibuses, which are better suited to rural areas with lower ridership and greater distances between users. Given that microtransit systems are already being piloted across small towns to address transportation deserts and safety issues, the Act sought to incentivize the use of electric vehicles in such programs. 

    In accordance with the Department of Transportation’s Formula Grants for Rural Areas program, State lands with populations of under 50,000 people or Indian Tribes would have been eligible for Electrifying Rural Transportation funding if the bill had passed. Under S.5446, three categories of projects were eligible for federal funding: (1) the purchase of electric buses, other electric vehicles, and related charging infrastructure; (2) upgrades or renovations to existing facilities to support EV charging; and (3) certain operational costs, including online platforms for scheduling and driver retraining programs. 

    Arguments Against S.5446
    Despite the bill’s clear objectives, several challenges merit consideration. Chief among them are the costs associated with purchasing electric buses, constructing charging stations, and hiring qualified drivers. Furthermore, given that S.5446 was not written in complete language and did not receive mark-ups in committee, one is left to speculate on the proportion of the spending between federal and state contributors. The standard formula for federal grant matching of “capital projects” with similar scope and intent to S.5446 stipulates a 20% contribution by the state to match the 80% provided by the federal government. Thus, even with federal contributions, a substantial expenditure would still fall to the states seeking to implement an EV microtransit scheme.

    Another concern is the capacity of local electrical grids. EVs require direct current fast-charging (DCFC) stations to charge efficiently, which can put a substantial strain on power grids. In many rural areas, existing power grids are aging and susceptible to disruption from extreme weather, compounding the challenge.

    Beyond infrastructure, implementation involves navigating zoning laws and permitting processes, especially for constructing structures with high energy needs such as DCFC stations and vehicle depots. Rural areas may span multiple jurisdictions, including local governments and tribal lands, requiring coordination among various stakeholders. Additionally, community attitudes may present obstacles. Rural residents, who often depend heavily on gasoline-powered vehicles due to long travel distances, may be reluctant to adopt new technologies. For instance, while only 4% of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, they consume approximately 13% of the nation’s gasoline. The reliance on gasoline also supports local economies, including car repair shops that cater to vehicles subject to harsher road conditions. Studies show that this longstanding environment of gasoline consumption has substantially decreased the likelihood for EV adoption in rural areas, raising questions about the feasibility of S.5446. 

    Arguments for S.5446
    While the bill’s provisions face challenges, S.5446 also offers numerous potential benefits. EVs are more energy-efficient than internal combustion engine vehicles, consuming between 2.6 and 4.8 times less energy per mile. In rural settings, where larger vehicles are common and travel distances are longer, this translates into cost savings. Rural drivers currently spend about 44% more on gasoline than their urban counterparts. Maintenance costs are also lower for EVs, which have fewer moving parts and do not rely on combustible fuels; studies indicate maintenance costs for EVs are approximately 50% less than for traditional vehicles.

    In addition, EVs create no emissions as a by-product of their operation. Currently, the transportation sector contributes about 28% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, with ground vehicles accounting for over 80% of that total. Expanding EV usage, even in rural areas with small populations, could help reduce these emissions meaningfully.

    Beyond operational efficiencies and environmental gains, S.5446 addresses longstanding gaps in rural transportation. Traditional public transit systems are often financially unviable in rural settings due to low ridership and dispersed populations. Microtransit, especially when paired with EVs, offers a cost-effective alternative. This is particularly important for older, lower-income residents or those in zero-car households—populations found disproportionately in rural areas—who often lack access to any form of personal transportation. One relevant example is the METGo! program in Wise County, Virginia. METGo! is a publicly funded microtransit initiative that mirrors S.5446’s microtransit objectives, though it does not currently use EVs. Since its launch, METGo! has more than doubled rural transit ridership, highlighting the potential impact of such services. 

    Last, public opinion on adopting EVs in rural communities has been steadily uptrending despite these populations’ longtime reliance on gasoline-powered vehicles. In the general population, EV use is rising exponentially. Proponents of S.5446 argue that any step towards electrifying transit aligns with this trend in public opinion. 

    Conclusion
    The Electrifying Rural Transportation Act of 2024 represents a comprehensive legislative effort to extend EV benefits to rural communities through enhanced microtransit systems. By enabling access to federal funding for EV acquisition, charging infrastructure, facility upgrades, and operational support, S.5446 lays the groundwork for a new model of rural transit. While the bill faces logistical, financial, and public opinion-related hurdles, its potential to address efficiency, equity, and environmental concerns makes it a notable proposal in the evolving landscape of transportation policy. The bill has yet to be reintroduced in the current Congress, but it is likely that attempts to engineer solutions for rural transportation will remain at the forefront of related legislation for decades.

  • Understanding NYC’s “The City of Yes” Housing Opportunity

    Understanding NYC’s “The City of Yes” Housing Opportunity

    Introduction: The Affordable Housing Crisis

    New York City is the most populous city in the United States by a significant margin. With such a substantial population and continuous growth, the expansion of affordable housing in the city has been a critical policy area for the past few decades. In 2013, NYC’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development declared an affordable housing crisis. The root of this crisis has been attributed to median rent prices increasing at a faster rate than average renter’s income, as well as a growing discrepancy between housing supply and demand. In fact, the city’s planning department has found that over the past 40 years, job growth has exceeded that of housing growth (Fig. 1). This shortage has led to a significant increase in NYC’s rent burdened households, or households that must contribute over one third of their gross income to rent. 

    Fig 1: NYC Planning COY Story Maps

    The City of Yes 

    In an effort to address the housing crisis in tandem with other key issues, New York’s municipal government introduced a 3-part plan titled “The City of Yes” in June 2022 to update NYC’s zoning code. The three main components of the plan are carbon neutrality, economic opportunity, and housing opportunity. Each component of “The City of Yes” has operated on its own timeline and faced several rounds of revision to gain approval from the city council. The first initiative, “The City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality,” promotes decarbonization efforts through a streamlined clean energy transition and building modernization. The initiative supports NYC’s effort to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and was adopted on December 6, 2023. Following this, the city focused on “The City of Yes for Economic Opportunity” which was passed by the council on June 6, 2024. The general goal of this initiative is to lift zoning barriers that prevent businesses from finding physical spaces and to support growing industries. Last, “The City of Yes for Housing Opportunity” (COYHO), was most recently passed on December 5, 2024. COYHO amends NYC’s zoning code to increase housing availability by a small amount in each neighborhood. With these focus areas combined into a holistic zoning plan, “The City of Yes” attempts to modernize NYC’s zoning code to sustainably address the housing crisis while bolstering the economy.

    Key Provisions of the COYHO

    Focused specifically on housing access, the final COYHO zoning amendments have authorized the creation of 82,000 new housing units within the next 2 decades accompanied by a $5 billion investment in infrastructure. The city largely sorts residence districts into two categories: low or moderate and high-density. Low-density districts (zoned R1-R5) are characterized by lower building heights, yards, and far distances from central business districts. Moderate and high density districts (zoned R6-R10) typically have bulky, dense buildings and residences are located in close proximity to central business districts. The COYHO contains separate provisions for low-density housing, medium- and high-density housing, and parking areas, along with other actions to support housing conversions. 

    • Low-density districts:
      • Transit-oriented development: In an effort to increase the amount of housing close to public transit stations, low-density residential sites located within a half mile of transit can develop three- to five-story apartment buildings.
      • Town center zoning: Reauthorizes the development of housing above businesses in all low-density areas. Under this provision, two to four stories of apartments can be built above a commercial ground floor.
      • Accessory dwellings: Accessory dwelling units, such as garage conversions or basement apartments, are now permitted in one and two-family homes with some case-by-case restrictions. 
      • Affordability incentive: Housing projects with 50 units or more can take advantage of the transit-oriented development provision if at least 20% of the units are permanently affordable at 80% of the area’s median income.
    • Medium- and high-density districts:
      • Universal affordability preference: Permits buildings to add 20% more units if the added units are permanently affordable to households that earn 60% of the area’s average median income. Replaces a previous policy known as voluntary inclusionary housing that only applied to a small portion of medium and high-density districts. 
    • Parking areas:
      • Parking zone system: Establishes a three-zone system to reduce previous rules that required new housing developments to include parking areas. In zone 1 areas, largely Manhattan and Long Island City, parking mandates are nearly eliminated. In outer transit zones, or zone 2 areas, parking mandates are reduced in areas near public transit stations. Zone 3 areas, or areas beyond outer transit zones that have a greater dependence on cars, have largely retained their parking mandates with a few exceptions. (Fig. 2)

    Fig 2: NYC Planning COYHO

    • Other:
      • Housing conversions: Other provisions allow certain non-residential buildings like offices to be converted into housing, reduce restrictions on converting underused university campus structures to housing, and permit more buildings to contain small and shared apartment units. 

    As such a large plan, COYHO will also alter living conditions for many residents. As a result, the policy has been met with considerable debate 

    Arguments in Favor of the COYHO

    The most prominent argument in support of the COYHO is that it will expand affordable housing in NYC, countering the ongoing housing crisis. Proponents of the COYHO point to the fact that NYC’s vacancy rate of 1.4% is significantly lower than the recommended percentage and historically low for NYC itself, representing a lack of housing supply and growing demand. They point to provisions of the COYHO that directly incentivize affordable housing supply such as the universal affordability preference in middle and high-density areas. In a written testimony, New York University’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy argues that the COYHO’s provisions to incentivize mixed-income housing developments will not only meet the growing demand, but also reduce rent growth in surrounding areas. Other supporters echo this idea, citing similar rezoning policies in Portland and Minneapolis that increased supply and in turn led to lower rent costs for existing housing units. 

    Supporters of the COYHO also applaud the policy’s expansion of housing across the city rather than in concentrated areas. They argue that in order to significantly increase housing stock, housing reform must be holistic and cannot be focused on only a few communities. With its broad scope from low to high-density housing units, proponents believe the COYHO meets these demands. Supporters contend the policy’s wide scope will increase geographic mobility and “relief for New Yorkers across the income spectrum”.  

    Beyond housing, many supporters cite the COYHO’s potential for economic growth. They highlight that by incentivizing different types of housing developments – from mixed commercial-residential buildings to small houses – the policy will generate jobs for a variety of contractors. A study conducted by the Regional Planning Association estimated that when fully implemented, the policy could create 15,000 to 30,000 new jobs with $1.1 to 2.1 billion in annual earnings. Others add that the COYHO will help retain low- and middle-class households in NYC and revitalize small businesses. 

    Enhanced environmental sustainability is another commonly-cited perk of the COYHO. Transit-oriented development is a major component of the plan that seeks to reduce car usage and promote public transportation. The transportation sector is the second highest emitter of greenhouse gases in NYC, with the majority of the emissions coming from passenger vehicles. Opting for public transportation over passenger vehicles can reduce emissions by up to 2/3rds per passenger. With more housing near public transportation and reduced parking mandates under the COYHO, supporters argue the plan can incentivize public transportation use and thus promote sustainability. 

    Opponents to the COYHO

    Critics assert that the COYHO does not adequately address the affordability component of NYC’s housing crisis. While many agree that the plan incentives the production of housing, they contend that increased housing alone does not fully address affordability. The universal affordability preference, the COYHO’s central affordability incentive, is criticized for being unlikely to increase affordable units in areas with increased demand for luxury housing. COYHO has also been criticized for its definition of affordable housing. When asked about COYHO, Bertha Lewis, president of the Black Institute, responded, “Any time you call affordable a $3,000 studio then what are we really doing?” 

    Opponents also dispute the claim that NYC lacks housing capacity for its residents. They cite census figures demonstrating since 2010, the number of housing units in Manhattan has increased past the number of households by over 10%. This contributes to their argument that an overstated emphasis on increased housing supply as prescribed by the COYHO is not the best course of action for addressing the housing crisis. They argue that the crisis must be framed as a shortage of affordable housing, not housing in general, and that stronger affordability incentives are necessary to achieve the policy’s intended effect. 

    Outer-borough residents living in more residential areas such as Queens and the Bronx also have concerns that the plan may impact their lifestyle. Many outer-borough residents live in low-density areas, where the COYHO intends to lift restrictions that keep housing density low. Paul Graziano, a prominent opponent of the COYHO and urban planner from Queens, is concerned that the policy will drastically change the makeup of neighborhoods and overwhelm outer-borough communities. Many residents who choose to live in low-density areas have done so because they enjoy the reduced crowding and space that come with single-family neighborhoods. With the potential introduction of apartments in areas such as Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island, residents are concerned that family homes and quiet neighborhoods will be disrupted. In fact, following the adoption of the revised COYHO plan, city planner Graziano and community members raised over $70,000 to sue the city in an attempt to block or delay the plan. 

    Conclusion

    With housing shortages across five boroughs and over eight million constituents at play, finding solutions to the housing crisis has proven challenging for NYC policymakers. The COYHO, a policy years in the making, aims to address the affordable housing crisis by shifting zoning laws, incentivizing affordability, and reducing parking mandates. While proponents highlight the policy’s potential to create economic relief and housing mobility, many outer-borough, lower-density district residents find it difficult to support a plan that may lead to increased housing congestion in their neighborhoods. As the COYHO goes into effect, many are waiting to see whether the provisions achieve their goal of increasing housing affordability in the nation’s largest city.

  • New York City’s Congestion Pricing Program: Key Insights and Tradeoffs

    New York City’s Congestion Pricing Program: Key Insights and Tradeoffs

    For the second year in a row, New York City ranked as the world’s most congested urban area, with at least half a million vehicles entering the central business district of the Manhattan borough on a typical weekday. On January 5th, 2025, a congestion tolling program was enacted to curb these rising traffic issues. On February 19, NYC’s congestion tolling program received national attention after Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sent a letter to Governor Kathy Hochul claiming the program, formerly approved by the federal government in 2023, was not aligned with federal law. President Trump later posted that congestion pricing in NYC was “dead”, reigniting controversy about the program. Recently, the Federal Highway Administration issued a letter stating that the NYC Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has until March 21st, 2025 to cut its congestion pricing program entirely. 

    Background: What is Congestion Pricing?

    Congestion pricing is a transportation efficiency measure that imposes a high toll during rush hours and a lower toll on off-peak hours. Given that most drivers during rush hour periods are not commuters, congestion pricing policies encourage non-essential travelers to use public transportation options or travel during different hours. These policies are enacted with the aim of easing road congestion and creating more efficient traffic flow.

    New York City’s Congestion Toll Program was authorized in 2019 under the Traffic Mobility Act and passed as part of the city’s Fiscal Year 2019 Executive Budget. After a lengthy period of federal environmental assessment and public outreach, the Federal Highway Administration approved the program in 2023. It was enacted on January 5th, 2025.

    The congestion tolls apply to a designated “congestion relief zone”. The zone encompasses the central business district of Manhattan at or below 60th Street and the entryways beside the Hugh L. Carey Tunnel leading from Queens, Brooklyn, and New Jersey. Travelers pay a daily toll, and can exit and enter multiple times that day without additional charges. During the “peak period” – 5am to 9pm on weekdays and 9am to 9pm on weekends – the entry toll is $9 with EZ Pass and $13.50 by mail for passenger and small commercial vehicles. Motorcycles pay slightly less, while larger vehicles like trucks pay more. During “off-peak” hours, the base toll is $2.25, with similar vehicle-based variations in price. Rideshare services pay a per-ride surcharge instead of the daily toll.

    congestion relief zone sq.png

    Congestion Relief Zone

    Arguments In Favor

    The central argument in favor of the congestion toll policy is that it reduces travel times at peak hours. The program is estimated to decrease commuter traffic by 13 percent, and has already had a noticeable impact. According to the MTA, trip times across river crossings and in the Central Business District decreased within the first 20 days of the program’s implementation. One month after implementation, subway ridership increased 13.1% compared to the same month last year, fatal traffic accidents decreased by 44%, and overall commute times have decreased 10% to 30% depending on the area. At the one-month point, MTA data showed over one million fewer vehicles driving in the congestion zone. These benefits have already been perceived by commuters; a recent study of metropolitan NYC residents shows that nearly 60% approve of the program, and that 75% of participants who regularly commute to Manhattan’s Central Business District have noticed less traffic since the policy was implemented. 

    Proponents of the congestion toll also argue that it will raise the necessary revenue to fulfill the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s $15 billion capital budget shortfall to support infrastructural improvements. Projected to raise approximately $500 million annually, the congestion toll will be funneled largely toward subway and bus systems – improving public railway networks and preventing future maintenance delays. One such project is the Interborough Express, a proposed Brooklyn-to-Queens railway with connections to 17 subway lines, 50 bus routes, and the Long Island Rail Road. The program is also estimated to save New Yorkers $20 billion in excess congestion costs through reduced fuel expenditures and increased efficiency in the movement of people and goods. 

    Supporters also highlight reduced emissions as a benefit of the toll program, pointing to a 2020 study that suggests congestion pricing policies improve air quality by reducing particulate matter pollutants by 17.5%. They argue that this reduction in pollutants, paired with investments in public transit, could lower child asthma exacerbations, other respiratory illnesses, and adverse birth outcomes such as preterm birth and low birth weight. 

    While some residents argue that the policy creates a significant financial burden for low-income commuters, supporters dispute these financial concerns. They highlight that those who commute via private transportation have an approximately 32 percent higher median income than those who take public transit. They also point to the policy that allows commuters who make less than $60,000 annually and rely on private vehicles to receive a tax credit proportional to their toll payments. Those who make less than $50,000 are eligible for the Low-Income Discount Plan, a 50% reduction after 10 trips in a month.

    Arguments In Opposition

    Critics argue that the new program will disproportionately burden small businesses and vendors with new costs. They contend that suppliers will begin including a congestion surcharge on their invoices, initiating a ripple effect of increased prices that will ultimately be shouldered by small vendors and customers. Vendors who travel into the Congestion Zone for night markets or festivals will face an extra charge which some argue will drive down attendance at these events. Opponents stress that while large businesses can adjust their business models to account for the increased transportation costs, small businesses often operate with very thin margins such that even a $25 per day increase in costs could leave them in the red. 

    Opponents also argue that the program fails to acknowledge the lack of efficient public transit alternatives to private vehicles, creating barriers for commuters who regularly cross boroughs. This argument stems from a lawsuit filed by seven teachers in the NYC teachers union who assert that the toll is “regressive and discriminatory” and will be shouldered by essential workers including teachers, first responders, and sanitation workers. Several teachers in the suit reported searching for jobs closer to home to avoid choosing between a congestion toll or an hours-long public transit commute. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy also filed suit against New York’s implementation of the program, citing a “financial strain on hardworking New Jerseyans”. While a main aim of the congestion tolling program is to increase use of public transit options, a majority of Queens and Northern Bronx participants in a 2018 transit survey say that public transit is getting worse. Farther commuters, such as those from the Rockland County area, also say they do not have adequate public transportation infrastructure to avoid the congestion toll.

    Another major concern regarding the program’s implementation is health impacts on Bronx residents. Community members argue that the toll program will redirect traffic to the South Bronx, increasing local pollution and exacerbating asthma cases. Research shows that asthma is disproportionately concentrated in the Bronx, with 17% of children under age 3 being diagnosed, compared to 11% in NYC. Critics contend that the congestion pricing program is one example in a long history of discrimination towards low-income outer-borough residents, with one South Bronx resident stating, “It’s benefitting one affluent area of the city that we live in, but then our area just suffers worse air quality because of it.”

    Other critics argue that the program is cruel for older and disabled people who live in the congestion tolling zone, given that many have mobility constraints which make it difficult to use public transit regularly.. 

    Recent Developments: Federal Opposition

    While the core arguments for and against NYC’s congestion pricing have remained fairly stagnant since the program was proposed in 2007, a new addition to this debate emerged on February 19th when Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sent a letter to New York Governor Kathy Hochul rescinding federal approval of the program. The letter argues that the Federal Highway Authority lacked the authority to approve a mandatory tolling program in 2023, that the current NYC tolling program does not align with the federal Value Pricing Pilot Program under which it was approved. The MTA immediately challenged the Department of Transportation’s order, stating that the administration’s efforts were “unlawful” and that the decision should be voided. NY Governor Kathy Hochul responded to the Trump administration’s attempts to shut down the local program, stating, “This is an attack on our sovereign identity, our independence from Washington.” While the city was given a deadline of March 21st, 2025 to end the program, NYC government officials and MTA executives seem prepared to continue tolling past that date in the absence of a court order. 

    Conclusion and Future ProspectsWhile the initial results of NYC’s congestion pricing toll show promising outcomes, pending lawsuits and federal opposition suggest an uncertain future for the program. While other major U.S. cities such as Washington D.C. and Chicago are considering similar programs, implementing such comprehensive transportation reforms will take years of planning and budgeting. As the first of its kind in the nation, NYC’s congestion pricing program will serve as a case study in the successes, drawbacks, and overall feasibility of U.S. congestion tolling in the years to come.

  • Pros and Cons of the FLY Act: The Debate on Airport Security and Accessibility

    Pros and Cons of the FLY Act: The Debate on Airport Security and Accessibility

    Introduction

    Security systems in U.S. airports changed significantly after the terror attacks on 9/11. Before the attacks, airport security officers were mostly hired from the private sector, and airport security systems used outdated alarm systems and low-quality video monitors. Additionally, non-flyers – or airport visitors who were not ticketed passengers  – could go through security and wait at the gates without a boarding pass. In the wake of 9/11, former President Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which established the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and implemented new security protocols for airports. These included more thorough screenings for all passengers and baggage, stricter policies on carry-on liquid, and more accurate X-ray visualizations in security lines. Post-9/11 security measures also limited who can pass certain checkpoints at the airport; under the new security systems, only ticketed passengers can go through security and wait at the boarding gates area. This policy remains in place today, with very few exceptions. 

    After a few decades of these strict security enforcements, some advocates – specifically flyers with disabilities – have started to call for more lenient treatment of non-ticketed guests in the case that a passenger requires a caregiver to help navigate the air travel system. 

    What is H.R. 6565?

    Legislative efforts to make the air travel process more accessible have increased over the years. The Fast Lane for Youths Act (H.R. 6565), or the FLY Act, was introduced by Representative Gregory W. Steube [R-FL-17] during the 118th Congress. The bill states that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) should work with the TSA to allow up to two expedited gate passes for ​​caregivers, parents, and guardians who already qualify for TSA PreCheck to help minors or passengers who require assistance to their flights. The FLY Act allows caregivers to join their passenger in a pre-check security line as opposed to the regular security line, and requires they be given a gate pass to accompany their passenger to the boarding gate. 

    Arguments in Favor

    Public opinion seems to signal support for the FLY Act’s provisions. Today, 88% of Americans believe that airlines should improve accommodations for travelers with disabilities. Additionally, poor airport experiences are not limited to vulnerable passengers; 32% of all passengers say “airports’ busy and chaotic nature adds to their stress.” Proponents argue that the FLY Act will reduce stress for all travelers by ensuring high-need passengers, including children flying alone, are supported with proper accompaniment as they prepare to board their flights. They also argue that the Act is one step toward equity for disabled flyers, a population that regularly faces unnecessary barriers to air travel. 

    Supporters also see the Act as a necessary intervention to standardize gate pass policies nationwide. While the standard policy is to prohibit non-flyers from accessing airport gates, cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, Tulsa, Seattle, and New Orleans have introduced their own gate pass policies. These programs have varying application timelines, hours of entry, and maximum daily slots depending on the airport, which proponents say risks confusing passengers. Supporters of the FLY Act argue that the bill will promote nationwide consistency in gate pass eligibility requirements, making it easier for flyers to understand the system and plan accordingly. 

    Arguments Against

    Critics of the FLY Act cite increased costs as a reason for their skepticism. With more people waiting in the pre-check lane under the FLY Act, opponents argue that airports will face increased demand for staffing coverage to meet the rise in security line foot traffic. Airports with gate pass programs have already had to meet the staffing demand for increased volumes of non-ticketed guests who are able to shop and dine airside. Critics point out that this would be especially challenging given the TSA’s high staff turnover rates and struggles to hire new employees. They also argue that hiring more staff leads to higher operational costs for airports, which may trickle down to costs for passengers.   

    Since the FLY Act will expand access to boarding gates for non-flyer caregivers nationwide, opponents also emphasize the potential for security breaches. They point to an increase in stowaway incidents – situations in which people without tickets sneak onto planes during boarding –  that has already raised concerns over airport integrity and access across checkpoints. Overall, they argue that increasing the number of unticketed passengers in gate areas increases the risk of stowaways and thus presents a threat to national security. 

    Conclusion

    As airport passenger volume returns to pre-pandemic levels, legislators hope to balance the potential rewards of accessibility and standardization with potential risks in security and cost. Since the bill remained stuck in committee at the close of the 118th Congress, the bill will need to be reintroduced before it can be considered for a vote in today’s legislature. 

  • Pros and Cons of Highway Expansion

    Pros and Cons of Highway Expansion

    Prior to the completion of the interstate highway system in the United States, the nation’s infrastructure was marred with safety issues that spurred supply chain delays, posed hazards to travelers, and compromised national defense. The US highway system was built in the 1950s to overcome these problems. Highways were dubbed “arteries of commerce” in recognition of their critical role in supporting the American economy. Today, America’s highway system is faced with a new problem: increasing congestion, even outside of normal rush hour traffic.

    While development of the U.S. interstate highway system has largely stagnated, the nation’s economy has continued to grow and contribute to traffic. Without additional transportation capacity, congestion will continue to increase, diminishing productivity and increasing transportation costs. Congestion on interstate highways has two main sources: lack of capacity for traffic and suboptimal operation of infrastructure. To resolve these issues, the federal government has proposed several funding projects to reduce congestion. Highway expansion, or adding lanes to existing highways, is one possible solution that has attracted recent debate over its potential impacts on safety, the economy, and the environment. 

    Pros of Highway Expansion

    Proponents of highway expansion argue that increasing roadway capacity will address the first source of congestion and lead to critical economic benefits. Highway infrastructure plays an essential role in national supply chains, moving goods and services such as groceries and medical supplies. Proponents cite research that suggests the economic benefits of the U.S. highway system far outweigh construction and maintenance costs. For example, the average annual construction and maintenance cost for 10 miles of highway is $1.9 to $6.5 million, while the annual economic benefits total $10 to $20 million. 

    Proponents of highway expansion also contend that expanding highways improves commuter satisfaction. Commuter satisfaction declines dramatically as commute length increases. Supporters argue that adding new lanes to roads can reduce congestion and decrease driving times, leading to improved commuter satisfaction and productivity. 

    Finally, proponents argue that expanding the existing highway system is a more efficient means of decreasing congestion than investing in public transportation, another commonly proposed solution. Proponents argue that investments into public transit do not yield the same economic benefits as highway expansion. They also emphasize that increasing public transit capacity is unlikely to relieve highway congestion to the same degree as highway expansion, due to urban sprawl that makes it difficult for public transit to connect suburban areas. Thus, they argue that transit users would still likely have to drive for parts of their journeys, causing inefficiency and having little to no effect on congestion. 

    Cons of Highway Expansion

    The primary argument against highway expansion involves the concept of induced demand. Induced demand theorizes that expanding highway capacity will cause an increase in traffic, as the added lanes cause more people to use the roads. One study using national highway data supported this theory, finding that “added lane mileage can induce significant additional travel”. Therefore, critics argue that highway expansion projects might increase traffic and congestion rather than reducing it. 

    Moreover, critics of highway expansion argue that induced demand will result in more cars on the road at once, which can increase accident frequency. They refute the idea that more lanes will create more space and less accidents, citing research that suggests that greater highway capacity is not associated with fewer accidents. Critics of highway expansion claim that increased urbanization and motorization has led to more road fatalities, and reducing the share of travel in private cars is a better method to prevent roadway deaths. 

    Critics also argue that highway expansion may cause environmental degradation through increased pollution and emissions. They contend that the government could invest in transportation solutions such as electric vehicle lanes and public transit networks instead of putting resources towards long-term lane addition projects. These alternative investments could improve safety, address health concerns, reduce emissions, and result in increased climate resilience. 

    Finally, opponents of highway expansion point to the harmful socio-economic impacts of building highways. Historically, many highways displaced businesses and communities, with a disproportionate impact on communities of color. For example, the construction of Interstate 496 in the 1950s displaced a middle-income, African-American neighborhood in Lansing, Michigan. More recent highway expansion projects have similar harmful effects on surrounding communities. The Texas Department of Transportation’s plan to expand a section of Interstate 35 in Austin, for example, is expected to displace more than 100 homes and businesses.  

    Does Highway Expansion Actually Induce Demand?

    Although many opponents highlight induced demand as a key reason to avoid highway expansion, proponents argue that there are some nuances to consider. The first is that induced demand is a gradual process, as expanding highways will provide at least short-term relief from congestion. Furthermore, some experts argue that induced demand is not a logical argument against highway expansion because highway users have already accounted for congestion when they choose to utilize a road. With more roadway capacity, more highway users are able to travel and gain better access to farther locations.

    Additionally, it is important to note that induced demand assumes that demand for roads is essentially infinite. Some view this assumption as valid because lessened traffic may encourage urban sprawl and drive up demand for more highways as new towns are developed. Others disagree with this assumption and argue that demand is never infinite, as there is a limit to the number of drivers in an area.

    Alternative Solutions

    While the debate surrounding highway expansion continues, recent years have brought attention to several alternative solutions to congestion. For example, rather than adding lanes, road diets involve re-designing a portion of existing lanes to accommodate other transportation methods such as bicycles, public transit, or pedestrians. Road diets rest on the idea that eliminating lanes of traffic increases public safety and increases mobility for other types of road users. Another proposed solution is congestion pricing, which charges road users a variable toll depending on the time of day. Some believe this would counter the effect of induced demand by motivating drivers to seek out other forms of transportation. However, congestion pricing is a form of regressive taxation, which would have a disproportionate impact on low-income commuters.  
    Other recent projects have attempted to mitigate the harmful effects of highway infrastructure. For example, construction for the Park at Penn’s Landing is in progress over I-95 in Philadelphia. This greenspace aims to reconnect the city to the Delaware river, with projected economic, environmental, and social benefits. Additionally, the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program, created by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021, provides grants to projects that aim to mitigate highway infrastructure’s impacts on mobility, equal transportation access, and transportation development. These examples demonstrate an increased focus on long-term sustainability and resilience in transportation infrastructure.

  • Transportation Funding Debate: Key Facts and Insights

    Transportation Funding Debate: Key Facts and Insights

    Introduction

    Transportation infrastructure is the physical framework that supports the movement of people and goods across a country. This framework includes roads, highways, bridges, airports, public transit systems, and more. Building and maintaining efficient transportation infrastructure is essential for a strong economy, from stocking grocery store shelves to work commutes. However, transportation infrastructure in the United States has fallen into disrepair. In 2021, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the United States a C- for its infrastructure, and in 2020, 32% of urban roads were in unsatisfactory condition. Overall, there is a widely-established need for improved transportation infrastructure in the U.S., yet addressing this problem requires a discussion of how funding should be divided between state and federal authorities. The way transportation is funded influences people’s interactions with infrastructure, such as their demand and travel behaviors, because various funding methods have different effects. 

    Arguments in Favor of State-Level Funding

    Proponents of increased state-level funding argue that the states should be responsible for reversing the decline of transportation infrastructure in the U.S., since states have more than one way to source funding for projects. States typically pay for infrastructure projects either by borrowing funds or through taxes and fees. Overall, states pay for around 36% of transportation infrastructure projects in the U.S. Thirty percent of transportation infrastructure is funded through state borrowing. The borrowing method has been shown to have greater benefits for bigger projects, as the costs of large investments are spread out over several years. Alternatively, state taxes and fees – including gasoline taxes and road tolls – pay for 6% of transportation infrastructure in the U.S. The share of local government spending on public transit is increasing, but the share of local government spending on roads is declining. 

    Historically, infrastructure development was reserved as a state responsibility. The federal government has expanded its role in this area in recent decades, specifically with grants-in-aid programs. Through these programs, states receive federal funds with requirements attached that dictate how the funds should be spent.  Critics argue that these regulatory controls are causing the federal government to micromanage state activities with no apparent benefit, and that grants-in-aid programs should thus be phased out.  

    Generally, proponents of state funding for transportation infrastructure argue that states are better positioned to understand and address the unique needs of their area. They point to evidence that state highway maintenance spending is critical for improving the quality of roads and bridges since states can tailor spending to local conditions. Additionally, proponents of increased state funding argue that federal infrastructure funding encourages overspending. They say that federal policymakers aim to maximize subsidies for their states, and consequently may not consider the efficiency and effectiveness of the funded programs. For example, supporters of state funding believe that the Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act, which directed federal funds towards several infrastructure projects, had a questionable return on investment. They posit that if states were instead given the autonomy to fund infrastructure projects, each dollar spent would have a greater effect on infrastructure improvement since states are not allowed to run deficits like the federal government.

    Arguments in Favor of Federal Funding

    The federal government traditionally funds transportation infrastructure through the aforementioned grants to states, and covers about one-fourth of highway and transit spending in the U.S. This money is sourced primarily from individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, and payroll taxes. 

    Proponents of increased federal funding argue that federal backing generates more trust and buy-in from involved parties, from lenders to transit agencies. They claim that this enhanced buy-in encourages larger research and development budgets, supports domestic manufacturing, helps deliver projects faster due to increased lender trust, and improves infrastructure quality due to more reliable maintenance of materials. 

    Moreover, supporters argue that federal funding is more equitable than state level funding due to its revenue sources. Federal revenue sources rely on progressive taxation models such as income taxes; these tax wealthier people at higher rates than lower-income people. On the other hand, state funding relies on regressive taxation, such as sales and fuel taxes; these tax everyone at the same rate. Regressive taxation systems take a larger share of low-income people’s resources, and are thus inequitable. Because of this, proponents of federal transportation funding hold that using federal funding is the only way to spread the tax burden of large transportation projects equitably. 

    Others argue that federal funding promotes long-term sustainability in transportation projects, with respect to both durability and climate consciousness. Due to its larger budget, proponents claim the federal government is able to prioritize long-term benefits over band-aid fixes. Additionally, supporters emphasize that states tend to be less consistent in funding long-term projects, so federal funding prevents infrastructure in lower-income states from falling behind infrastructure in higher-income states. 

    Conclusion

    As the government works to modernize American transportation infrastructure, the debate over funding revolves around the principles of federalism, as both states and the federal government will ultimately contribute to building and maintaining infrastructure. Each level of government’s share of responsibility and control greatly impacts the quality of American infrastructure. As this issue evolves, it is important to consider the ramifications of each infrastructure project and its funding sources on local communities.

  • Pros and Cons of the New York City Rent Stabilization Act

    Pros and Cons of the New York City Rent Stabilization Act

    Background

    The New York City Rent Stabilization Act, established in 1969, primarily involves two key stakeholder groups: landlords and tenants, with a particular focus on middle and low-income residents of New York City. This act institutes a rent stabilization system, which is a form of rent regulation designed to control the annual increases in rent that landlords can charge and to offer various protections to tenants. Some of these protections include:

    1. Decreased Rents for Lack of Services and Repairs: If landlords fail to provide required services or carry out necessary repairs, tenants may be eligible for a reduction in rent.
    2. Prohibition of Tenant Harassment by Landlords: The act makes it illegal for landlords to harass tenants. This includes behaviors such as making threats, attempting to force tenants to vacate, or other forms of intimidation.
    3. Right to Lease Renewal: Tenants are granted the right to renew their lease, assuming they have complied with legal obligations and lease terms.

    These measures are intended to maintain affordability and stability in the housing market, especially for those in lower income brackets, and to protect tenants from potential exploitation or unfair treatment by landlords.

    Rent stabilization and rent control are both forms of rent regulation, but they operate differently. The key distinction lies in their approaches to managing rent levels:

    • Rent Control: This system typically sets a maximum base rent for each unit. In New York City, rent control applies primarily to buildings constructed before 1947. Under rent control, the maximum rent is established and can only be increased under certain conditions, often related to maintenance and improvements or changes in the cost of living.
    • Rent Stabilization: Instead of setting a maximum rent, rent stabilization involves pre-determined annual rent increases, which are decided by the Rent Guidelines Board. These increases are meant to balance the rights and needs of tenants with those of landlords. In New York City, rent stabilization typically applies to buildings constructed before 1974.

    As of 2021, New York City had about 16,400 rent-controlled apartments, which are generally fewer in number and more strictly regulated. In contrast, there were approximately 1,048,860 rent-stabilized apartments, which account for a significant portion of the city’s rental housing. Both systems aim to regulate rent to ensure affordability, but they cater to different types of housing and have distinct regulatory frameworks.

    The Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) of 2019 brought about substantial amendments to New York’s rent regulation laws, including the Rent Stabilization Act. This act extends the ability for other parts of New York State to adopt the rent stabilization system, provided certain housing emergency conditions exist, broadening the scope of tenant protections beyond New York City. It also imposes new limits on the charges landlords can levy for apartment and building improvements, aiming to prevent excessive rent hikes that burden tenants. Furthermore, the HSTPA increases the notice period landlords must give before evicting tenants, offering more time for tenants to find alternative housing or respond to the eviction. Another significant change is the repeal of provisions that permitted landlords to raise rents substantially on vacant apartments and the deregulation of luxury apartments. This ensures that more apartments remain under rent regulation. Perhaps the most impactful change is the removal of the sunset provision in rent regulation laws. Previously, these laws were subject to periodic renewal and justification, creating a degree of uncertainty. With the sunset provision removed, rent regulation laws, including rent stabilization, become permanent fixtures, ensuring long-term stability and predictability in the housing market.

    Arguments in Favor 

    Supporters of the Rent Stabilization Act and its amendments argue that they provide essential protections for lower-income tenants in New York City, especially considering the affordable housing crisis. A key point in their argument is that more than a third of the city’s households struggle to keep up with living costs, which often results in landlords having more power and resources compared to tenants. The 1969 Rent Stabilization Act is seen as a counter to this imbalance by restricting landlords’ ability to evict tenants or raise rents unjustly, thereby fostering a more equitable relationship between residents and landlords.

    Proponents also make an economic case, asserting that the benefits of reduced inequality and increased stability, outcomes of the rent stabilization system, contribute positively to the economy. They argue that these changes offer “net welfare gains” by providing insurance in the labor market, meaning that in times of employment instability, access to affordable housing remains more secure. A 2021 Columbia Business School study supports this, finding that rent regulation’s enhancement of housing affordability significantly benefits low-income households.

    Supporters also address the common counterargument that rent regulation harms the economy by reducing housing supply. They contend that local conditions and market cycles play a more influential role in affecting housing supply than rent regulation. Furthermore, advocates suggest that without rent regulation, homelessness in New York City would likely surge, as landlords would be inclined to continually raise rents, catering to higher-income individuals. This concern is heightened by the current homelessness crisis, with over 48,000 people relying on the city’s shelter system each night. Therefore, rent regulation is seen as a critical measure to prevent further escalation of this crisis.

    The constitutionality of the Rent Stabilization Act, particularly in relation to the 5th Amendment’s “takings clause,” is a pivotal point of contention in the debate surrounding rent regulation. The “takings clause” asserts that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation. Supporters of the Act argue that it does not contravene this constitutional provision. They point out that the law does not completely strip landlords of their property rights or their ability to profit from their investments. For instance, evictions are still legally permissible under certain conditions, such as lease violations or non-payment of rent by tenants. This aspect is seen as ensuring that landlords retain essential control over their properties. Furthermore, the Act provides mechanisms for landlords to seek higher rents through what is known as an Alternative Hardship application. This provision allows landlords who are not achieving a fair return on their investment to apply for permission to increase rents. Proponents argue that this feature of the law offers a balance between protecting tenants from exorbitant rent increases and ensuring that landlords can make a reasonable return on their properties.

    Arguments in Opposition

    One key economic concern is that rent stabilization discourages housing turnover. They argue that tenants in rent-stabilized apartments are less likely to move, even if they can afford to or have the desire to do so, leading to reduced housing availability. Citing a study using 1990 Census data from New York City, opponents note that a significant proportion of renters occupy units that don’t match their needs because rent stabilization discourages moving. This situation is seen as contributing to decreased turnover and supply in the housing market.

    Another economic argument is that rent stabilization acts as a deterrent to new development. Developers may be hesitant to invest in new projects if they believe they will not make sufficient returns due to rent regulation. A case study from the Bay Area suggests that stricter rent control laws led to a notable loss of rental supply in San Francisco, supporting this viewpoint.

    Additionally, opponents argue that rent stabilization can result in poorer housing quality. They claim that reduced rental income under rent stabilization limits landlords’ ability to perform necessary building repairs and maintenance, consequently leading to a decline in housing standards for residents in rent-stabilized apartments.

    Legally, many landlords and critics contend that rent stabilization violates the “takings clause” of the 5th Amendment. They argue that by requiring landlords to allow certain tenants to renew their leases, the law infringes upon the landlords’ right to exclude individuals from their property. This, they claim, constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation, as the “takings clause” prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without adequately compensating the property owner.

    Looking Ahead

    The Rent Stabilization Act’s legal journey has recently escalated to the federal level, with opponents challenging the Act in the Federal Appeals Court, where it was upheld. The plaintiffs are now appealing to the Supreme Court, bringing forth critical questions for the highest court in the United States to consider. The Supreme Court is tasked with determining whether the Act has a rational basis and if it aligns with the 5th Amendment’s “Taking Clause.”

    As this case progresses to the Supreme Court, voters are faced with important considerations. Does the Rent Stabilization Act effectively improve access to housing and improve tenant protections for lower-income New Yorkers or is that goal outweighed by potential negative impacts on the economy?

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision will have significant implications not only for the legal standing of the Rent Stabilization Act but also for the broader conversation around housing policy, tenant rights, and property ownership in the United States. Voters and policymakers alike must consider the balance between protecting low-income tenants and maintaining a healthy, dynamic housing market.

  • Pros and Cons of Oregon’s Senate Bill 608 (Statewide Rent Control)

    Pros and Cons of Oregon’s Senate Bill 608 (Statewide Rent Control)

    Background

    Oregon’s Senate Bill 608 passed in 2019 and established statewide rent regulation. The legislation includes a seven percent cap on rent increases (plus inflation) in a given year as well as specific tenant protections, such as limits on no-cause evictions. SB 608 is often described as “statewide rent control,” but the law resembles rent stabilization more than rent control because it limits the percentage rent can increase over time (rent stabilization), as opposed to a maximum base rent (rent control). Rent stabilization and rent control are two different forms of the larger category of rent regulation, but discussions around this topic tend to use the term “rent control” when referring to either topic. 

    Oregon’s statewide rent regulation aims to address rising rents which have led to a housing affordability crisis. In Portland, Oregon, median rents rose by 30 percent between 2011 and 2019 (including inflation). Incomes are not rising at the same rate as Oregon’s State Government reported in 2016 that “¾ of renters with extremely low incomes are paying more than 50% of their income in rent.” Those most impacted by this legislation include Oregon renters, especially middle to low income tenants, and landlords across the state. Recipients of government-subsidized rent are exempt from this law.

    Arguments in Favor

    Those in favor argue that rent regulation reduces landlords’ “disproportionately high profits” which disadvantage lower-income residents and create an unequal relationship between landlords and tenants. Supporters argue that the law balances the relationship between landlords and tenants through restrictions on no-cause evictions at the end of a lease. These no-cause evictions occur when a tenant, at the end of their lease, is asked to leave without having violated any terms of the lease, but SB 608 now requires a landlord to renew leases and only evict for a breach of contract or specific circumstances, such as when a landlord wants to move into the property themselves. UC Berkeley’s Haas Institute released a brief on rent stabilization that described the physical and social benefits to housing stability and reduced risk of eviction, including improved graduation rates, social relationships, and health.  

    Supporters also claim that SB 608 benefits Oregon’s rental housing market because increased accessibility raises the demand and the range of people who are able to enter the market. For instance, a 2019 study on the impact of rent control in San Francisco found that residents living in rent controlled properties were 4.5 times more likely to remain living in San Francisco, rather than being displaced outside of San Francisco. As described in more detail below, opponents counter this argument by stating that this increase in demand creates a lack of supply, leading to less accessibility overall.

    Proponents commend Oregon’s law for making the housing market more inclusive to lower socio-economic statuses and marginalized groups. One way the legislation accomplishes this is through mandating that private landlords accommodate lower-income individuals and families, rather than relying mostly on the government to provide affordable housing options. SB 608 includes groups in the rental housing market that have historically been marginalized from the market. Housing affordability is an issue with multiple dimensions, and people of color have historically been disproportionately impacted. This is because the many issues which collectively create the racial wealth gap result in lower incomes for people of color. In turn, issues like housing affordability, while not explicitly racial, can have an outsized effect on racial minorities. The San Francisco rent control study mentioned above found that the benefits of rent control were stronger for racial minorities, “preventing minority displacement from San Francisco.”

    Arguments in Opposition

    A common argument from opponents is that SB 608 creates a harmful imbalance between rental housing supply and demand. The argument claims landlords will make lower returns on their investments despite spending similar amounts on construction. As a result, supply decreases because landlords and developers will potentially have less incentive to continue to build and manage new properties. Further, this lowered supply combined with higher demand has the potential to result in lower quality of housing overall because renters will have less leverage when it comes to requesting repairs and amenities. The 2018 San Francisco study on rent control found that “impacted landlords reduced the supply of available rental housing by 15 percent,” supporting the argument that rent regulation can negatively impact rent housing supply. SB608 does not apply to new construction for 15 years, which Oregon’s lawmakers believed would prevent rent regulations from lowering new housing development. Additionally, research in New Jersey and Washington D.C. “found no significant relationship between rent control and new housing construction.”

    In addition, opponents claim that lack of housing supply is the root of Oregon’s housing crisis in the first place. Instead of implementing statewide rent regulation to address demand, those not in favor of SB 608 believe Oregon needs to address its housing crisis by increasing their housing supply to improve the market. This could include expanding construction of lower-priced buildings and changing zoning laws to better accommodate lower-income individuals and families. Part of the reasoning is that if demand is rising while supply does not increase to the same extent, prices will rise overall. Since many opponents claim that housing supply is the source of Oregon’s housing crisis, they argue that addressing demand is not the solution. 

    Looking Ahead

    Oregon has recently introduced revisions to their statewide rent regulations. On July 6, 2023, Oregon’s Governor Kotek signed a new bill (SB 611) into law, which states that annual rent increases cannot exceed ten percent with inflation. In the previous legislation, there was no limit on how much inflation could affect rent increases. Thus, this revision ensures that despite how high inflation is in a given year, rent increases will remain stabilized. 

    Oregon was the first state to implement statewide rent control, but will other states in the U.S. do the same? California implemented statewide rent control in 2020 not long after Oregon’s SB 608 passed. While Oregon and California are the only two states at the moment with statewide regulations, many stakeholders are wondering how Oregon and California’s actions will influence other states.

  • Pros and Cons of Expanding Wildfire-Resistant Housing Initiatives

    Pros and Cons of Expanding Wildfire-Resistant Housing Initiatives

    California Assembly Bill 38, signed into law by Governor Newsom in 2019, addresses the issue of home fire safety by enhancing the resilience of housing communities located in high fire severity zones. AB-38 requires the Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to develop and administer a home hardening initiative to retrofit and create defensible space for homes in environmentally and socially vulnerable communities.

    AB-38 also specifies the prioritization of home hardening in communities made further vulnerable due to factors such as age, health, and mobility. Financial assistance—up to $40,000 per home—is also available for low- and moderate-income residents in such communities. San Diego, Shasta, and Lake Counties in Southern California were prioritized as pilot areas for this program.

    Current Wildfire-Resilience Policies & Allocation

    The current policies and allocation of funds by the California government to address the threat of wildfires on housing primarily focus on coniferous forest management rather than home hardening measures. For instance, the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Plan for 2023-2024 includes an allocated budget of $12 million for home hardening, $5 million for defensible space initiatives, and $192 million for wildfire fuel breaks in coniferous forests. However, the popularity of home hardening is on the rise, as new studies show that 86% of building losses caused by wildfires in California occur within areas designated as the wildlife-urban interface (WUI). The WUI is the zone of transition between unoccupied land and human development, and pilot communities such as Dulzura are designated as both high fire hazard zones and as part of California’s WUI. 

    Arguments in Favor of Expanding Home Hardening Initiatives

    Advocates for the expansion of state-sponsored home hardening initiatives cite the promotion of equitable climate justice for underprivileged communities. The individual cost of implementation for different home hardening tactics poses a significant financial burden, especially for homeowners with limited resources. Low-income Americans already bear a disproportionate burden when dealing with the effects of extreme weather events, as underprivileged populations are more likely to seek housing that is more affordable, and thus riskier. Legislation such as AB-38 will help locals who may not be able to afford fire-resistant restorations without outside financial assistance.

    To establish affordable home hardening programs, the state would have to bear upfront costs. Proponents believe that the benefits of upfront investment outweigh the potential costs of fire damage in highly vulnerable areas. Given that the financial assistance program mandated by AB-38 was written largely in response to the devastation of the 2018 Camp Fire in Northern California, proponents of the legislation cite the $18-billion cost in damages caused by the Camp Fire as impetus for home hardening. The migration of residents from high-risk areas exacerbates the housing affordability crisis, underscoring the need for innovative climate adaptation planning.

    Finally, home hardening not only protects homes and residents, but also safeguards firefighters and first responders by reducing the risk of homes becoming ignition sources. Additionally, if homes are more immune to ignition, firefighters can focus on containing and extinguishing wildfires, leading to improved overall efforts.

    Critiques Against Expanding Home Hardening Initiatives

    While there is general consensus on the need for stronger structures in the face of exacerbated climate change, critics argue that home-hardening initiatives like retrofitting are not as effective as allowing developers to construct new, higher-quality housing in the WUI. Given advancements in building codes and materials, it is easier to incorporate resilience measures during the construction process, as upgrading existing infrastructure entails working within the limitations of that infrastructure. Developers advocate for building new, climate-resilient housing in the WUI in place of older houses that require home hardening.

    In addition to concerns about retrofitting, critics highlight the unintended consequences that defensible space requirements may have on the natural environment. Defensible space and extensive vegetation removal can disrupt ecosystems, potentially leading to ecosystem imbalance or loss of habitat for wildlife.

    Furthermore, though legislation such as AB-38 is meant to make fire-resilient housing more accessible, there is no guarantee that homeowners will comply with the optional home hardening procedures. Enforcing home hardening requirements can be challenging, particularly in cases where homeowners fail to maintain their properties adequately, prompting the need for additional resource-intensive inspections and monitoring.

    Climate Adaptation & Future Developments

    The expansion of home hardening initiatives reflects a shift in focus within legislation towards adapting to the changing environment rather than solely mitigating its effects. Adaptation itself has become a contentious topic. Proponents of wildfire-adaptive legislation argue that it is a necessary response to the foreseeable effects of climate change, and that the allocation of government funds towards fire resilience should move away from prevention strategies that involve logging or cutting down forests and instead endorse adaptation measures. On the other hand, too heavy of an emphasis on adaptation may divert attention away from the impetus to prevent further environmental degradation. Critics argue that focusing legislation on home hardening rather than prioritizing actions such as imposing sanctions on large corporations that exacerbate climate change may be self-serving on the part of the government.

    The pilot program will commence in the summer of 2023, with Dulzura being the first community to start implementing adaptive housing measures. The program will expand to the communities of Potrero during the fall of 2023, and Campo during the fall of 2024. As home hardening measures are further implemented across California, officials will have a better understanding about how adaptation efforts will shape climate resilience, and whether other counties will follow San Diego’s lead in implementing similar measures.

  • How is Green Gentrification Furthering Disparities in Urban Renewal?

    How is Green Gentrification Furthering Disparities in Urban Renewal?

    Green Gentrification Overview 

    Gentrification occurs when wealthier, often white residents move into an existing low income urban district, displacing marginalized communities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cites three key aspects of gentrification:

    1. Rising property values and rental costs;
    2. New construction, upgrading, or renovation of residential areas; 
    3. Turnover in the local population, including changes in the racial or ethnic composition. 

    When the protection and cleanup of brownfields, locally undesirable land uses (LULUs), other vacant and derelict land (VDL), or the introduction of urban green spaces and gardens instigates this trend, it is called environmental, or green, gentrification. 

    A brownfield is an expanse of land that may contain a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. There are about 450,000 brownfields in the U.S. today. Locally undesirable land uses include nuclear waste disposal sites, toxic waste dumps, incinerators, smelters, airports, freeways, and other sources of environmental, economic, or social degradation. Vacant and derelict land is property where industry once existed but became obsolete due to abandonment by absentee landlords, or brownfields. Attractive green spaces are amenities like parks and community gardens. They also include revitalization projects that incorporate higher quantities of natural vegetation, fields, and flowers in urban spaces. Renewing these spaces or introducing attractive green spaces without anti-displacement measures has displaced underserved residents from their newly improved communities, which some have referred to as environmental racism. Displacement caused by environmental gentrification manifests in three forms.

    1. Direct Displacement forces residents to move because of rent increases and building renovations.
    2. Exclusionary Displacement happens when housing choices for low income residents are limited.
    3. Displacement pressures are created when supports and social services low-income families rely on disappear from the neighborhood. 

    Causes of Green Gentrification

    In the 1930s, the Federal Housing Administration enforced a series of racially discriminatory lending practices (known as redlining). These made it harder for Black Americans to purchase homes and accumulate wealth, so individuals from lower income and minority communities relocated to urban, inner-city areas where housing options were affordable. 

    These areas often bordered brownfields, VDLs, or LULUs. Over the years, public and private interest in revitalizing these areas has increased. Redeveloping brownfields increases local tax bases, facilitates job growth, and improves the environment. Similarly, LULU rehabilitation can drive up local real estate prices while improving sanitation conditions for minority communities. As a result, developers have begun capitalizing on VDLs and other land in communities of color. Low cost land is often transformed into luxury residential units and projects with green amenities to attract affluent consumers market. 

    The EPA’s Brownfield and Land Revitalization Program, created in 1995, incentivizes local governments to invest in cleaning up and redeveloping these areas to initiate urban renewal projects through grants issued by the EPA. The program’s initiatives focus on environmental cleanup and conservation practices for areas with heavy environmental devastation (which are predominantly located in or surrounding communities of color). However, these policies focus on their projects’ environmental and economic benefits and often do not consider consequences for existing residents which leaves marginalized residents vulnerable to displacement. 

    Problems and Effects of Green Gentrification

    When low income populations are priced out of their neighborhoods, there is a high risk of eviction. Hispanic and Black renters experience eviction at higher rates than white renters. Evictions have been correlated with intensified poverty conditions, declining credit scores, lower earnings in adulthood, and lower life expectancy. Displacement by green gentrification prevents residents of color from benefiting from the improved environmental and infrastructural conditions. White residents, who are overrepresented in green urban spaces, are often the only ones who experience their benefits. Environmental gentrification can alter a city’s makeup and lifestyle through changing demographics and declining racial diversity. 

    Possible Policies and Solutions

    Some city planners and administrations advocate for legislation that restricts developers and landlords from dramatically increasing housing costs following urban renewal projects. On the other hand, others argue to allow more unrestricted development to avoid interfering with local economies and potentially stunting economic growth. 

    The “Just Green Enough” plan attempts to achieve environmental remediation while avoiding gentrification by revitalizing urban space with smaller projects. In this way, the development is “just enough” to cultivate the benefits of sustainability and green space while still prioritizing the community’s needs and avoiding displacement. These projects include building smaller parks coupled with affordable housing. This politically moderate solution does not deter the development of urban green spaces, but does try to adjust it to avoid the possibility of displacement. However, there is evidence that suggests it is just as likely for property values to rise in neighborhoods in close proximity to small-scale projects as larger ones, indicating that this solution may not be as effective at discouraging gentrification, which is a challenge in and of itself. 

    One alternative is a Community Land Trust (CLT)–community owned land which regulates housing prices and keeps them affordable for long periods of time. This housing is only sold to low-income families, who receive a modest return on their investment due to their “shared equity.” Philadelphia created a CLT in 2010 to combat growing housing prices in the city, and manages 36 rent-to-own townhomes with plans to build 75 more.

    The most recent federal legislation pertaining to green gentrification was the Opportunities Zones (OZ) Act (2017). This act allows investors to receive tax benefits for developing ZIP codes that governors within each state have identified as needing investment. To qualify as an OZ, the area must have a poverty rate of at least 20 percent. While it promotes investment in struggling areas, the act does not include anti- displacement measures.