In 1926, the Supreme Court ruled that the village of Euclid, Ohio could legally ban apartment buildings from neighborhoods reserved for single-family homes. The case wasn't about fire codes or building safety. It was about keeping out "undesirable" neighbors—a polite term for immigrants, minorities, and anyone who couldn't afford a detached house. Justice Sutherland, writing for the majority, compared apartments to "a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard." That decision made exclusionary zoning constitutional, and we've been living with the consequences ever since.

The Legal Architecture of Scarcity

Roughly 75% of residential land in American cities is now zoned exclusively for single-family homes. Not duplexes. Not townhomes. Not small apartment buildings. Just detached houses on individual lots, usually with mandatory yards and parking spaces.

This isn't a market outcome. It's a legal mandate. Cities that adopted single-family zoning before 1930 showed segregation rates 25% higher than late adopters by 1970. Between 1900 and 1940, single-family zoning increased racial segregation by 50%. The system was designed to exclude, and it worked exactly as intended.

The financial mechanics make the problem worse. Parking requirements add $30,000 to $60,000 per housing unit—not to house people, but to store their cars. Regulatory barriers increase overall housing costs by 10% to 35%, and in many cases prevent construction entirely. We've built a legal fortress around low-density neighborhoods, then wondered why housing is expensive and scarce.

When Politicians Choose Talking Over Building

Illinois faces a shortage of 142,000 homes today and needs to add 227,000 units by 2030 just to meet demand. Pennsylvania will be short 185,000 homes by 2035, with more than half its housing stock over 50 years old. From 2017 to 2023, Pennsylvania issued permits to increase housing by just 3.4%, while households grew by 5.1% and the national average hit 7.5%.

In February 2026, Governor JB Pritzker proposed the BUILD plan, which would legalize duplexes, triplexes, four-flats, and accessory dwelling units statewide. The tiered approach allows four units on lots between 2,500 and 5,000 square feet, six units on mid-sized lots, and eight units on parcels larger than 7,500 square feet. It's the most aggressive state-level zoning reform proposal in the Midwest.

Governor Josh Shapiro countered with a $1 billion Critical Infrastructure Fund for Pennsylvania, calling for the state to "go big" rather than "tinker." The rhetoric is bold. The substance is mostly bonds and task forces.

Indiana introduced House Bill 1001, which would declare single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes, and ADUs as permitted uses by right—no public hearings required. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce backed it as "workforce policy," arguing that housing costs directly affect business recruitment and retention.

All three governors are Democrats with national ambitions. All three face the same political calculation: fixing housing requires upsetting people who vote in primaries and show up at city council meetings.

Why Minneapolis Built Less Than Expected

When Minneapolis eliminated single-family zoning, urbanist reformers celebrated. Permits for small apartment buildings doubled from 2018 to 2021. But total housing production remained modest because other restrictions—height limits, lot coverage rules, setback requirements—still applied. Legalizing duplexes doesn't matter if the duplex can only be 30 feet tall, must sit 25 feet from the street, and can't cover more than 40% of the lot.

The reforms that actually moved the needle were different. After Minneapolis legalized accessory dwelling units in 2015 and eliminated parking requirements near transit the same year—then citywide in 2021—housing permits doubled from 2015 to 2020. Parking reform proved more effective than zoning reform because it reduced costs directly.

The lesson isn't that zoning reform doesn't work. It's that zoning reform alone isn't enough. You need to attack the entire regulatory apparatus: parking mandates, height restrictions, lot coverage limits, setback requirements, discretionary review processes. Anything that gives neighbors veto power over what someone else builds on their own property.

The Homeowner Veto

Brad Cole, CEO of the Illinois Municipal League, captured the standard objection: "Zoning and land use decisions are best made locally." This sounds reasonable until you realize it means "people who already own houses should decide whether anyone else gets to build one."

Existing homeowners benefit from scarcity. When housing supply can't keep up with demand, property values rise. The family with three bathrooms and a two-car garage has a financial incentive to block the duplex next door. Homeowners associations function as zoning laws with personal grudges, blocking ADUs, multi-family conversions, and anything that might increase density.

The objections rotate predictably: too tall, blocks sunlight, causes traffic, changes neighborhood character, attracts the "wrong people," reduces property values, stresses infrastructure. The specific complaint doesn't matter. The goal is always the same: stop construction.

This creates a political trap. The people who benefit from housing scarcity vote in local elections. The people who need more housing—young families, service workers, recent college graduates—often don't live in the jurisdiction yet. Politicians respond to the voters in front of them, not the ones locked out.

What Actually Works

The solution isn't complicated. Legalize duplexes and four-plexes everywhere. Eliminate parking minimums. Allow accessory dwelling units by right. Upzone near transit. Streamline approval processes. Tax vacant land. Break HOA veto power over development.

Colorado, Washington, Texas, Florida, California, and Connecticut have all passed versions of these reforms, often with bipartisan support. The politics cross traditional party lines because the housing shortage affects everyone: conservatives who care about property rights and market efficiency, liberals who care about affordability and climate impact, businesses that need workers, parents who want their kids to stay nearby.

The environmental case is straightforward. Single-family suburbs generate higher greenhouse gas emissions per person than dense neighborhoods. Restrictive zoning encourages sprawl, car dependence, and increased air pollution. Zoning-induced sprawl correlates with higher rates of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory illness. Low-income neighborhoods suffer heat island effects from lack of green space and tree cover.

Housing policy is climate policy. It's public health policy. It's economic policy. And right now, it's failing because the legal framework makes it illegal to build what people need where they need it.

Courage Over Committees

This is one of the most solvable crises in modern policy. We don't need new technology. We don't need trillion-dollar federal programs. We need state legislatures to override local zoning codes and legalize normal buildings in normal places.

The alternative is more task forces, more community listening sessions, more pilot programs, and more PowerPoints. Politicians love these options because they look like action without requiring political courage. Talking about housing is safe. Fixing it means telling homeowners that their neighborhood will change, and that their property values might not double again in the next decade.

Pritzker, Shapiro, and other governors eyeing national office have elevated housing reform as a priority issue. Whether they'll actually override local control and face down homeowner opposition remains to be seen. The legal tools exist. The question is whether anyone will use them.