User:Taylork21/Single-family zoning/Bibliography

Single family zoning originated in the Elmwood neighborhood of Berkeley, California. Real estate developer at the time, Duncan McDuffie was one of the early proponents of single family zoning in this neighborhood of Berkeley to prevent a dance hall owned by a Black resident from moving into houses he was trying to sell. He worried that families of color moving into the neighborhood would decrease the desirability of the neighborhood and decrease property values. By advocating for single family zoning, McDuffie and other developers at the time were attempting to price out social groups whom they deemed to be less desirable for the neighborhood.

In many cases, homeowners and neighborhood associations adopted covenants to prevent homes in their neighborhood from being sold to buyers of color. Restrictive covenants were legal until a 1948 Supreme Court decision and further clarified in the 1968 Fair Housing Act.

This makes single family zoning one of many exclusionary zoning policies intended to limit who was able to afford living in a certain neighborhood. The goal of limiting certain neighborhoods to be only single family homes meant that only families who could afford to buy an entire house could live in the neighborhood. There was not the option to subdivide housing so that families who couldn’t afford to buy the whole property could live in smaller units.

In recent years there has been a growing concern over the “missing middle” of housing in the United States housing market. This term refers to options in between renting apartments and buying a single family detached home on an entire lot. “Middle” housing options like this could include duplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and cottage court apartments which would provide options for lower and middle income individuals who cannot afford single family homes. Advocates for getting rid of single family zoning argue that by allowing housing options outside of only single family homes, more people would be able to stay in their cities without being priced out or relying on a shrinking supply of affordable units.

Ending single family zoning is a controversial topic. Many NIMBY advocates (Not in My Backyard) do not want development to increase the density of their neighborhood of exclusively single family homes. Some argue that having apartments will decrease the value of their single family homes. Other NIMBY advocates argue that upzoning initiatives will increase effects of gentrification by increasing the housing costs in that area. Their argument is that homeowners will have a higher incentive to sell their properties at even higher rates because buyers or developers might be willing to pay more for houses they know they can convert into multiplexes. Those who are proponents of ending single family zoning call themselves YIMBYs (Yes in my Backyard) as a counter-movement to NIMBY sentiments. They argue that more housing is the answer to the housing shortage, so they see the increase in density of their neighborhood as justified.

These upzoning efforts would not require that new housing types be built in this neighborhood, it merely allows for flexibility in options. For example, changing a single family zoning district to a multifamily residential zoning district would not mandate single family detached homes be converted, it would just allow owners of those single family detached homes to decide if they want to subdivide their property.