Chris Elmendorf

A good idea, especially if coupled with repeal of the current safe harbor for SMD elections. (A bill to repeal that safe harbor passed a decade ago but was vetoed by Jerry Brown.)

Looking forward to joining @alecstapp.bsky.social
and Steve Teles at @ucriverside.bsky.social
for this Abundance event on Friday.

myadv.ucr.edu/forms/spp-10...

Three cheers to Flagstaff for––as of a few minutes ago––becoming the first city in Arizona (and maybe the entire southwest?) to legalize fourplexes on every residential lot citywide.

And congrats to Flagstaff for Affordable Housing & @azneighborhood.bsky.social for leading the charge!

Agree that locals should have a say, just not an absolute veto.

I agree that there's a role for state-level permitting for "normal" projects, i.e., those which comply with applicable zoning & development standards, but the regime would be very different (and arguably isn't necessary, given laws like the HAA and SB 423).

Scale -> incentive for transportation innovation + internalization of agglomeration externalities. Which gives @caforever.bsky.social an incentive build densely, which normal greenfield developers lack.

I'm concerned about this too and think it should be part of any state permitting framework.

Incredible op-ed from 2 absolute legends. Localities should not have veto power over projects of state or regional concern. That's a classic collective action problem

And it's especially harmful when it prevents great and ambitious projects like California Forever from being built

No city or county should have an absolute veto over such projects.

CA already recognizes this principle in the energy context. It's time to extend it to housing.

2/2

Contributor: Clear a path for sweeping urban experiments such as California Forever As some states have tried with clean energy projects, California should empower a state official to approve important large developments without giving counties and cities a veto.

My op-ed w/ Ed Glaeser in today's @latimes.com argues that CA needs a state-level permitting framework for housing projects of statewide significance, like
@caforever.bsky.social.

1/2

www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...

NEW PAPER w/ @cselmendorf.bsky.social & @jkalla.bsky.social:

An under-appreciated reason why voters oppose dense new housing, especially in less-dense neighborhoods: they think it looks ugly and want to prevent that, even in other neighborhoods.

Some of what we think is NIMBYism might not be!

@cselmendorf.bsky.social told me about this paper last week and I think it's a paper that every developer should force their architects to read.

👀 Since 2018, 15 major foundations have donated "$260 million ... to nonprofits across California that have actively opposed pro-housing legislation"

Professor Chris taught me that the Bay Area Council was in the 90’s the sponsor of what is now known as the Builders’ Remedy!

The Housing Strategy That Has California NIMBYs in a Corner

This is a great article from @conordougherty.bsky.social on the Builder's Remedy. The only detail I would've added is that @cselmendorf.bsky.social told the world about the Builder's Remedy in a tweet thread on **New Year's Day** because that's how hard that man is working to get homes built.

More thoughts here on possible solutions to rent control advocates' credible commitment problem. I appreciate the thoughtful engagement from @bharathhariharan.bsky.social & @nealemahoney.bsky.social.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/19912...

The Housing Strategy That Has California NIMBYs in a Corner

"One way or the other, the answer was going to be yes."

Great reporting by @conordougherty.bsky.social on the resuscitation of California's builder's remedy.

www.nytimes.com/2025/11/20/b...

"One way or the other, the answer was going to be yes."

Great reporting by @conordougherty.bsky.social on the resuscitation of California's builder's remedy.

The Housing Strategy That Has California NIMBYs in a Corner

This great story is a testament to the invaluable work of @cselmendorf.bsky.social on California's builders remedy: www.nytimes.com/2025/11/20/b...

The Housing Strategy That Has California NIMBYs in a Corner

The posting-to-policy pipeline is real, at least when @cselmendorf.bsky.social wields his pen. We love to see it! Deepest sympathies to the oppressed homeowners in Beverly Hills...
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/20/b...

New York tried it 50 years ago

New results on how feelings toward developers shape housing policy preferences, and what can change those feelings (w/ downstream effects on policy preferences).

threadreaderapp.com/thread/19900...

On rent @nealemahoney.bsky.social & @bharatramamurti.bsky.social's case for "temporary" price controls, threadreaderapp.com/thread/19901...

The thing about state and local government pension reform (boring, unpopular) is that it can enable lots of stuff that’s interesting and popular.

Fantastic profile of @scottwiener.bsky.social in @motherjones.com.

www.motherjones.com/author/adam-...

it's nuts that most cities don't have an office of economic analysis and that the state housing agency doesn't do economic analysis

Presumably so

I’ve found the impulse to “break up the massing” to be a received wisdom of planners regardless of the frontage width or any other considerations such as construction quality and maintainability.

The fact that it was identified as basically unsupported by public so early is even worse somehow.

Please do. I fear he’s passed away.

Cross-posting my discovery of the day. This guy could have been the Shoup of design review.

He's was a random architect working from home in Bernal Heights. Never had a faculty position.

He churned out scores of academic papers and one great book.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/19873...