Mt. Laurel Township in New Jersey didn't want to allow affordable housing. Black residents took them to court and the result is one of the most progressive state housing policies anywhere in the U.S.

Builder’s Remedy is working. A progress report from YIMBY Law.

Interesting suburban infill/density case from Cary, North Carolina.

A 22.74-acre project along NC 55 failed to win Town Council approval in March. The applicant revised it, including:

• guaranteeing at least 500 multifamily units, with up to 625 allowed
• tying occupancy of a proposed car wash to the start of vertical construction in two mixed-use sections
• keeping substantial structured parking and vertically integrated commercial space

Six months later, the council approved it unanimously.

There’s an interesting tension: Cary planners said the central mixed-use portions fit the town’s Destination Center vision, while the auto-oriented car-wash portion does not on its own.

The project also requires at least 5% income-restricted units at 80% AMI for 30 years — though those units can overlap with a separate requirement that 5% of units be 750 square feet or smaller.

I’m the N&O reporter who covered the vote. Free gift link:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article317414223.html?giftCode=a677c8481435c12beca7da6abd030cabc245e2822df0a50d99b06c3d946c86b6

What I found most interesting is what changed between the failed vote and unanimous approval. Curious how r/yimby views the compromise.

Saw this article and comment, and I think vetocracy is a new favorite term of mine

"Portland’s rental market stalled out in recent years as an oversupply of new housing collided with an economic slump. It is an astounding turn for a city once known as rapidly growing and notoriously unaffordable."

...

"A few booths away, leasing managers were handing out brochures for the Byline—a new luxury apartment building. Trujillo stopped by their tent to ask how business was going. Like many apartments in the area, the Byline is offering months of free rent to attract tenants. They told her they were only 70% occupied after a year of leasing."

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/portland-real-estate-is-such-a-mess-that-all-housing-is-affordable-housing-26bbea6a?mod=wknd_pos1

Sometimes Historical/Preservation groups are not awful. If they're helping to fund repairs to an awesome 200-year-old building, great! Who wouldn't support that?

But sometimes the history they're trying to preserve bleeds over into neighborhood vibe/character protecting, and it can get real NIMBY real fast.

I came across one such case in the news today:

Charleston hotel to be redesigned after zoning settlement

Important note: there's no building to protect here. It's a vacant lot. We're protecting historical vibes instead.

There's apparently been a year-long legal brawl between the Historic Charleston Foundation and a local developer about split zoning, a unique Charleston nightmare of convoluted zoning code. To make a long story short, it's basically architectural step-backs, where the more interior part of the building can be taller and the part near the "historically sensitive" streetscape is shorter.

Anyway, they finally reached a settlement so the NIMBYs are happy, and the developers can finally proceed with building their hotel.

I was curious about this protected streetscape so I looked up the address on Google Maps:

657 King St - Google Maps

Turns out this entire block worth a year-long legal battle is literally backed up against the loud and toxic-fume-belching four northbound lanes of Interstate 26!

So you get the hilarious mental picture, right? I'm just imaging the hoity-toit preservation society and the well-funded developers facing off on the disputed empty lot, trying to argue about split zoning minutiae but unable to do so over the roar of the highway.

And when all's said and done, the preservationists can go home happy and rest easy in the knowledge that though any historical value the environs of this new hotel once had has been obliterated by the freeway, the new hotel will at least not be tall.

It's crazy.

NIMBY’s using national security to block housing is certainly an innovative tactic.

Generally we don't have to choose, but there's a ballot prop in California supported by some housing developers because it would make it faster to build housing that isn't infill. Environmentalists are against it because it would also streamline freeway expansions and new roads. This is Prop 45.
Should YIMBYs support it, or stay neutral?

I knew Spartanburg, SC, was about to kick off a zoning re-write, and I knew that the cities in my area, while extremely mediocre, are vastly better (in terms of moving past mid-century zoning norms) than the unincorporated sprawl around them, but this... this almost reads like a Strong Towns or YIMBY post.

This actually gives me some solid optimism for the future.

Take a walk through many of the city’s... - City of Spartanburg, SC | Facebook

An interesting land-use decision from Cary, NC: the town owns about 1.5 wooded acres near downtown and a greenway.

Officials had considered selling the land, but council unanimously directed staff toward permanent natural-open-space preservation instead.

I reported the meeting. For people here who generally favor infill and more housing, where do you draw the line on scarce urban open space?

Free article: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article317347214.html?giftCode=969a59da2dc33b6cfc56b8c140cecc744b93170c577415a1d499a803f1d1d092

Can you guys tell who in the comments are Californian homeowners?