Podcast appearances and mentions of david schleicher

“Abundance,” the book I co-wrote with Derek Thompson, hit bookstore shelves a little over a month ago, and the response has been beyond anything I could have imagined. And it's generated a lot of interesting critiques, too, especially from the left. So I wanted to dedicate an episode to talking through some of them.My guests today are both on the left but have very different perspectives. Zephyr Teachout is a law professor at Fordham University and one of the most prominent voices in the antimonopoly movement. Saikat Chakrabarti is the president and co-founder of New Consensus, a think tank that has been trying to think through what it would take to build at Green New Deal scale and pace. And he is currently running to unseat Nancy Pelosi in Congress.I found this conversation wonderfully clarifying — both in the places it revealed agreement, and perhaps even more in the places it revealed difference.Mentioned:“How the Gentry Won: Property Law's Embrace of Stasis” by David Schleicher and Roderick M. Hills, Jr.“The High Cost of Producing Multifamily Housing in California” by Jason M. Ward and Luke SchlakeZephyr's Book Recommendations:The Promise of Politics by Hannah ArendtThe Populist Moment by Lawrence GoodwynListen, Liberal by Thomas FrankSaikat's Book Recommendations:Destructive Creation by Mark R. WilsonBad Samaritans by Ha-Joon ChangThe Defining Moment by Jonathan AlterThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find the transcript and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.htmlThis episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Rollin Hu and Jack McCordick. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, with Kate Sinclair and Mary Marge Locker. Our senior engineer is Jeff Geld, with additional mixing by Aman Sahota and Isaac Jones. Our executive producer is Claire Gordon. The show's production team also includes Marie Cascione, Annie Galvin, Elias Isquith, Marina King, Jan Kobal and Kristin Lin. Original music by Pat McCusker. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The director of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Part 1:We talk with Ethan Varian, reporter based in San Francisco.We discuss how wealthy individuals hire and retain private fire fighters. However, most of the fire fighters are hired by insurance companies for fire mitigation and prevention in high end homes. Coordination with local municipal fire fighters is required, but not always implemented.Part 2:We talk with David Schleicher, Professor of Property and Urban Law at Yale Law School.We discuss how property taxes are assessed, and how they are burdensome to homeowners. Property taxes are a wealth tax on an asset that are used to fund many things, including schools. However, the fairness is questionable, and many homeowners are objecting to this kind of taxation. Proposition 13 in California has distorted the housing market as a result. Property taxes in Texas are also problematic.  We discuss why this is. WNHNFM.ORG  productionMusic: David Rovics, "Time to Act", for Will Von Sproson

The year is 2025. Department of Government Efficiency dons Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have broken ground on their new taxpayer-funded palace, the architectural plans of which look suspiciously like a Cybertruck. HHS Secretary RFK Jr. has received a standing ovation from Congress after announcing that children will be given brain worms at birth instead of vaccines. Attorney General Matt Gaetz has just announced that people who successfully stand their ground will be mailed a sticker from DOJ. How did we get here? To help us break down the results of last week's elections, and to offer a sounding board to Sam and David's hot takes, joining the pod is New Yorker staff writer and political reporter Benjamin Wallace-Wells. We start off by discussing swing voters, the failures of the Democrats and the Harris campaign, and what the election results hint about the future of the Republican party. (FWIW, we recorded before the Hegseth/Gabbard/Gaetz nominations.)  We work through how the election was shaped by local concerns including perceptions of crime and disorder all the way to big international topics like the Russia-Ukraine war. Putting their heads together, Sam, David, and Wallace-Wells come up with a grand unified theory of local, national, and cultural politics in America today. Listen to find out everything you need to know about the election—and let us know if we got it right.   This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam “The Future Is Faction” by Steven M. Teles and Robert P. Saldin “Trump Is About to Face the Choice That Dooms Many Presidencies” by Oren Cass “The Improbable Rise of J. D. Vance” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells “This Is All Biden's Fault” by Josh Barro “The Failures of Urban Governance” by David Schleicher

Samantha Christensen, a long-time team member at Lowell Observatory, shares the exciting news about the grand opening of the Marley Foundation Astronomy Discovery Center in Flagstaff, Arizona. As Northern Arizona's first science center, the 40,000-square-foot facility offers a major upgrade with cutting-edge exhibits, interactive experiences, and an immersive space for astronomy enthusiasts of all ages. Samantha discusses the community's excitement, especially among educators, and highlights how this new center will serve not only Flagstaff but also underserved communities, including the nearby Navajo and Hopi reservations. About Samantha Christensen: Samantha Christensen leads Lowell Observatory's outreach team and oversees its programs. She is a principal member of the group designing the experiences guests will enjoy in Lowell Observatory's Astronomy Discovery Center, slated to open in 2024. Christensen, who began participating in Lowell's outreach programs at the age of four, officially joined the staff in 2009. Before stepping into her current role, she served as Educator, Supervisor, Education Coordinator, and Outreach Manager. She also spent several years working as a research assistant under the direction of Dr. David Schleicher. As Education Coordinator, Christensen designed and launched the Lowell Observatory Camps for Kids (LOCKs) – Preschool program and developed many of the lessons associated with the LOCKs – Elementary School camps. Christensen graduated magna cum laude from the University of Arizona with a B.S. in applied mathematics. Resources Mentioned: Marley Foundation Astronomy Discovery Center at Lowell Observatory Lowell Observatory's website: Lowell.edu Connect with Lowell Observatory: Website: Lowell.edu If you enjoyed this episode and would like to share, I'd love to hear it!  You can follow and share in the socials,  LinkedIn - @casualspacepodcast Facebook - @casualspacepodcast Instagram - @casualspacepodcast YouTube - @casualspacepodcast83 or email me at beth@casualspacepodcast.com. *Remember!!! You can send your story to space TODAY! The window for STORIES of Space Mission 03 is NOW OPEN! Send your story, for free, to www.storiesofspace.com   

In a Bad State: Responding to State and Local Budget Crises (David Schleicher) David Schleicher is the Walter E. Meyer Professor of Property and Urban Law at Yale Law School. He is the author of In a Bad State: Responding to State and Local Budget Crises. He also co-hosts the podcast Digging a Hole with YLS colleague Samuel Moyn. Appendices: David Schleicher: New York Times article The Queen Bee of Bidenomics and American Compass proposal On Infrastructure Financing. Greg Shill: Fire & Steam: How the Railways Transformed Britain by Christian Wolmar. Jeff Lin: Interstate: Highway Politics and Policy Since 1939 by Mark Rose and Raymond Mohl. Follow us on the web or on “X,” formerly known as Twitter: @denselyspeaking, @jeffrlin, @greg_shill, and @ ProfSchleich. Producer: Nathan Spindler-Krage The views expressed on the show are those of the participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the Federal Reserve System, or any of the other institutions with which the hosts or guests are affiliated.

Powering the growing electricity demand from data centers represents one of the fastest-growing energy needs in the utility sector these days. The DC suburbs and the Northern Virginia, known as "Data Center Alley," has become among the nation's most notable hubs for these massive facilities. Joining the Energy Central Power Perspectives Podcast to dive into what it means to provide power to these facilities popping up at an increasing rate, while still keeping the traditional ratepayers happy with reliable and affordable power, is David Schleicher, President and CEO of NOVEC (Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative). Listen in as David shares with podcast host Jason Price and producer Matt Chester the details of how NOVEC is adapting to this rapid expansion while continuing to meet the expectations of its traditional residential and commercial customers. He also shares insights into NOVEC's strategies for maintaining reliability, promoting energy efficiency, and integrating renewable energy sources, all while staying true to the cooperative's mission. Whether you're interested in the future of data centers, energy management, or cooperative utilities, this episode offers a deep dive into the evolving landscape of energy distribution. Key Links: Post on Energy Central with Full Episode Transcript: https://energycentral.com/o/energy-central/episode-177-powering-data-center-alley-david-schleicher-president-ceo-northern David Schleicher's Energy Central Profile: https://energycentral.com/member/profile/david-schleicher-0 Ask a Question to Our Future Guests: Do you have a burning question for the utility executives and energy industry thought leaders that we feature each week on the Energy Central Power Perspectives Podcast? Do you want to hear your voice on a future episode? Well starting in 2024, we're offering you that opportunity! Head to this link where you can leave us a recorded message, including a question you're eager to have answered on a future episode of the podcast. We'll listen through them, pick out the right guests in our upcoming lineup to address them, and you'll hear yourself as a part of the conversation! Energy Central on SpeakPipe: www.speakpipe.com/EnergyCentralPodcast

Americans love local government. In a December 2023 Pew Research survey, 61 percent of respondents had a favorable view of their local government while 77 percent had an unfavorable view of the federal government. But behind this veneer of goodwill is a disturbing truth: Local government is driving a housing crisis that is raising rents, lowering economic mobility and productivity, and negatively impacting wages.  Host Jerusalem Demsas talks to Atlantic deputy executive editor Yoni Appelbaum and Yale Law professor David Schleicher about how local government is fueling the housing crisis. Get more from your favorite Atlantic voices when you subscribe. You'll enjoy unlimited access to Pulitzer-winning journalism, from clear-eyed analysis and insight on breaking news to fascinating explorations of our world. Subscribe today at TheAtlantic.com/podsub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Remote Work and City Decline: Lessons From the Garment District (Clay Gillette) Clay Gillette is the Max E. Greenberg Professor of Contract Law at New York University School of Law. He is the author of Remote Work and City Decline: Lessons from the Garment District, 15 Journal of Legal Analysis 201 (2023). Appendices: Clay Gillette: the book In a Bad State (by David Schleicher), work by Joan Didion, TV shows Borgen, Fauda, Shtisel, and The Beauty Queen of Jerusalem, and the movie Oppenheimer. Greg Shill: the novel A Confederacy of Dunces, the New Yorker short story series Sell Out, and the TV show Rough Diamonds. Jeff Lin: journal articles Networking off Madison Avenue and The Curley Effect: The Economics of Shaping the Electorate, and Trees? Not in My Backyard. (Jerusalem Demsas) in the Atlantic. Follow us on the web or on Twitter/X: @denselyspeaking, @jeffrlin, @greg_shill. The hosts are also on Bluesky at @jeffrlin and @gregshill. Producer: Courtney Campbell The views expressed on the show are those of the participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the Federal Reserve System, or any of the other institutions with which the hosts or guests are affiliated.

This episode of Hub Dialogues features Sean Speer in conversation with Yale law professor David Schleicher about his fascinating, new book, In a Bad State: Responding to State and Local Budget Crises.The Hub Dialogues (which is one of The Hub's regular podcasts) feature The Hub's editor-at-large, Sean Speer, in conversation with leading entrepreneurs, policymakers, scholars, and thinkers on the issues and challenges that will shape Canada's future at home and abroad. The episodes are generously supported by The Ira Gluskin And Maxine Granovsky Gluskin Charitable Foundation and the Linda Frum and Howard Sokolowski Charitable Foundation.If you like what you are hearing on Hub Dialogues consider subscribing to The Hub's free weekly email newsletter featuring our insights and analysis on key public policy issues. Sign up here: https://thehub.ca/free-member-sign-up/. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

David Schleicher on the Campbell Conversations.

How are state and local governments faring post-COVID? It's a pretty different picture than what we're seeing with the federal budget deficit. States enjoyed generous federal aid and surprisingly strong tax collections during the pandemic. In 2021, state governments were flush — sometimes, they even made responsible choices, making deposits into their pension funds and building up their rainy-day funds to extremely high levels. Other states committed to new programs and spending. Now it's a mixed bag. To talk about how the states are managing all of that, I talked to Yale Law School professor David Schleicher, an expert on state and local government finance, for a wide-ranging conversation about how states have (and have not) learned the lessons of their budget crises from the Great Recession, and how they're adjusting to once-again lean times.Visit joshbarro.com for a transcript of this episode and to sign up for my newsletter. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.joshbarro.com/subscribe

This week we're joined by Yale Law professor David Schleicher to talk about his new book, In a Bad State: Responding to State and Local Budget Crises. We chat about how historic fiscal crisis shape similar responses today and how infrastructure funding plays out in the United States. Also I mention an article on insurance during the show. You can find that one here. Also, for Stitcher users that want to switch to another podcatcher and need the RSS feed, here's the url: https://feeds.libsyn.com/49347/rss OOO Follow us on twitter @theoverheadwire Follow us on Mastadon theoverheadwire@sfba.social Support the show on Patreon http://patreon.com/theoverheadwire Buy books on our Bookshop.org Affiliate site!  And get our Cars are Cholesterol shirt at Tee-Public! And everything else at http://theoverheadwire.com

David Schleicher, professor at Yale Law School, joins Andrew to talk about struggling cities and states. How can we avoid moral hazards? Why do we see NIMBYism? Why is local reform so difficult? And why is it nearly impossible to turn vacant offices into residential apartments? Watch this episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/WkCOrv6alUI Follow David Schleicher: https://amzn.to/42GWuhq | https://law.yale.edu/david-n-schleicher | https://twitter.com/ProfSchleich Follow Andrew Yang: https://twitter.com/andrewyang | https://andrewyang.com To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As Punxsutawney Phil to winter are we to summer; and today, we celebrate a very special end-of-season episode. Sam is joined by guest co-host Noah Rosenblum, Assistant Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, to discuss work by our very own David Schleicher. David's new book, In a Bad State: Responding to State and Local Budget Crises, which is both a romp through the American history of state and local debt as well as a mirror-for-princes for bankruptcy judges and administrators, all while standing at a parsimonious 171 pages, is out today. David first introduces his concept of the fiscal trilemma: that when responding to state and local budget crises, the American federal government must choose between bailing out state local and governments, imposing austerity measures, or letting them default. This framework opens up a wide-ranging conversation from infrastructure financing, where we discuss the Erie Canal and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to the value-added tax, where David argues that the European tax system is a third way between AEI and Brookings. Oh, and because we're a legal theory podcast, there's lots of discussion of history, the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Supreme Court as a bunch of political hacks, and how the Great Recession and COVID have changed the political and legal landscape of public finance. Listen to this pod, buy David's book, have a wonderful summer, and we'll see you back in the fall. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political Divide by Jonathan Rodden “The Dilemma of Odious Debts” by Mitu Gulati, Lee C. Buchheit, and Robert. B. Thompson Courthouse Architecture, Design and Social Justice edited by Kristy Duncanson and Emma Henderson The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli

While the US unemployment rate is near a record low and $5 trillion in federal pandemic aid continuing to support the economy, American cities are enjoying healthy budget surpluses as COVID-19 recedes. But many of the underlying contributors to municipal distress and bankruptcy in the 2010s—underfunded pensions, deteriorating infrastructure, and population loss among them—still pose threats to many cities' long-term fiscal health. Our panel of experts includes Rob Dubow, director of finance, City of Philadelphia; Heather Gillers, reporter, the Wall Street Journal; Stephanie Miner, former mayor, Syracuse, New York, and director, the Volcker Alliance; Richard Ravitch, former lieutenant governor, New York, and director, the Volcker Alliance; and David Schleicher, professor, Yale Law School. Notable Quotes: “Things could have been much much worse with that ARP funding. We would have had to make even more painful cuts, and those cuts would have been not only bad for the city, but bad for the entire region because we are the economic engine for the region.” - Rob Dubow “You have this pretty significant expense as Chicago and other cities start to go and weather this next period where you have a possible recession. You have the impact of remote work on city revenues, you have the expiration of the federal stimulus aid that was handed out during COVID. So that's sort of a new chapter in a lot of ways.” - Heather Gillers “Have the same crises facing them once again. And they're the crisis of, whether you say legacy costs or unfunded liabilities, both pensions and something that nobody really wants to talk about because it is so hugely immense, which is retiree health care. When I was facing this after the Great Recession, Dick Ravich said to me, ‘Kid, it's not that hard. You either have to cut your expenses or increase your revenues. That's how you balance a budget.' But of course, it is extremely difficult.” - Stephanie Miner “We've been living through this period of flush state and local budgets, and we're about to see a real turn. We can use that to look forward, but we can also use that to look backward to say, ‘How good of a boom did we have, and how does that set us up for the coming difficulties?'” - David Schleicher Be sure to subscribe to Special Briefing to stay up to date on the world of public finance. Learn more about the Volcker Alliance at: volckeralliance.org Learn more about Penn IUR at: penniur.upenn.edu Connect with us @VolckerAlliance and @PennIUR on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn Special Briefing is published by the Volcker Alliance, as part of its Public Finance initiatives, and Penn IUR. The views expressed on this podcast are those of the panelists and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Volcker Alliance or Penn IUR.

In a Bad State The world of sovereign debt research has long given short shrift to insights that might be gained from the study of sub sovereign debt. In this episode, we talk to David Schleicher of Yale Law about his new book "In a Bad State" about the federal government's responses to various local debt crises over the past two centuries. Turns out that there are lots of lessons to be learned from the fascinating world of US state and muni debt. Producer: Leanna Doty

MI senior fellows Eric Kober and Michael Hendrix discuss the housing market in New York City. They're joined by Rebecca Baird-Remba of Commercial Observer and David Schleicher of Yale Law School. Find the transcript of this conversation and more at City Journal.

MI senior fellows Eric Kober and Michael Hendrix discuss the housing market in New York City. They're joined by Rebecca Baird-Remba of Commercial Observer and David Schleicher of Yale Law School.

Dylan Matthews and Jerusalem Demsas are joined by Nick Buttrick (@NickButtrick), a psychologist at Princeton, to talk about interstate mobility in the US (or the lack thereof). They talk about why it is so hard to move; why some of those reasons, Jerusalem argues, are arbitrary; and what an immobile population means for American culture.   References: Jerusalem's article about why it's so hard to move in America Nick Buttrick's research: The cultural dynamics of declining residential mobility A paper from David Schleicher called Stuck! The Law and Economics of Residential Stagnation   Research from the Brookings Institution: US migration still at historically low levels NBER paper: The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade Hosts: Dylan Matthews (@dylanmatt), senior correspondent, Vox Jerusalem Demsas (@jerusalemdemsas), policy reporter, Vox Credits: Sofi LaLonde, producer and engineer Libby Nelson, editorial adviser Amber Hall, deputy editorial director of talk podcasts Sign up for The Weeds newsletter each Friday: vox.com/weedsletter  Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Constitutional Law for NIMBYs? The guests discuss the National League of Cities' Principles of Home Rule for the 21st Century, which two of them (Nestor Davidson and Richard Schragger) helped draft and the third (David Schleicher) has criticized as "Constitutional Law for NIMBYs." Nestor Davison is the Walsh Professor of Real Estate, Land Use, and Property Law and the Faculty Director of the Urban Law Center at Fordham Law School. Richard Schragger is the Bowen Professor of Law and Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law at UVA Law School. David Schleicher is Professor of Law at Yale Law School and host of the Digging a Hole podcast. In addition to the National League of Cities' Principles of Home Rule for the 21st Century, the papers at the heart of the conversation are Do Local Governments Really Have Too Much Power? (by Nestor and Richard) and Constitutional Law for NIMBYs (by David). Appendices: Nestor Davison: City-Wide Effects of New Housing Supply: Evidence From Moving Chains by Cristina Bratu, Oskari Harjunen, and Tuukka Saarimaa Supply Shock Versus Demand Shock: The Local Effects of New Housing in Low-Income Areas by Brian Asquith, Evan Mast, and Davin Reed Richard Schragger: The Last Black Man in San Francisco (movie) David Schleicher: Survival of the City: Living and Thriving in an Age of Isolation by Edward Glaeser and David Cutler State Capture: How Conservative Activists, Big Businesses, and Wealthy Donors Reshaped the American States and the Nation by Alexander Hertel-Fernandez Greg Shill: Sky-High Vaccination Rates and Zero Taxes Make Dubai a Pandemic Boom Town (in The Wall Street Journal) Jeff Lin: I Changed My Mind About Rent Control by Jerusalem Demsas From Samurai to Skyscrapers: How Historical Lot Fragmentation Shapes Tokyo by Junichi Yamasaki, Kentaro Nakajima, and Kensuke Teshima Follow us on the web or on Twitter: @denselyspeaking, @jeffrlin, @greg_shill, @davidson_nestor, @RichSchragger, and @ProfSchleich, and check out David's hit podcast (with Samuel Moyn) Digging a Hole: The Legal Theory Podcast. Producer: Schuyler Pals. The views expressed on the show are those of the participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the Federal Reserve System, or any of the other institutions with which the hosts or guests are affiliated.

We're back with more state, local, and urban issues -- maybe Sam has become a full convert! In this week's episode, we're joined by renowned urban economist Edward Glaeser, the Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics and the Chairman of the Department of Economics at Harvard University. We begin by discussing The Survival of the City, Professor Glaeser's new book written with David Cutler. In just over half an hour, we get through several topics. How will cities adapt to pandemics, will work-from-home continue as it currently exists, and will insider groups continue to dominate local politics? What does the future of work look like in cities; will we ever approach the post-work urban future that Keynes described? Beyond exploring these questions, we also discuss how cities can and should think about race and inequality, both through administration and legislation. All of this and more in less time than it takes to commute on most U.S. subways (and find out why that is while you're listening)! Referenced Readings: Ken Auletta, The streets were paved with gold, (1980). Eric Bosio, Simeon Djankov, Edward Glaeser, & Andrei Shleifer, “Public Procurement in Law and Practice,” NBER Working Paper, (2020) Leah Brooks & Zachary Liscow, “Infrastructure Costs,” (2020) Edward Glaeser, Triumph of the City (2012). Edward Glaeser & David Cutler, Survival of the City (2021). Edward Glaeser & Andrei Shleifer, “The Curley Effect: The Economics of Shaping the Electorate,” The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, (2005). Tracy Gordon & David Schleicher, “High costs may explain crumbling support for US infrastructure,” Urban Wire (2015). John Maynard Keynes, “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren,” (1930).

This week, we have an all-star duo in Daniel B. Rodridguez, the Harold Washington Professor of Law at Northwestern Law School, and Miriam Seifter, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School! Much to David's joy, we get Sam deep into the muck of state and local government law. We begin by talking about Daniel and Miriam's new projects -- The SLoG Law Blog and The State Democracy Research Initiative. Sam then asks our guests which issues in state and local government law they're thinking about right now. We discuss ongoing battles of state legislatures stripping power from governors, how states and localities are using COVID-related federal aid, and state constitutional law. As part of the conversation, we also get into institutional design of state and local governments and how these institutions promote or hinder majoritarianism. Referenced readings: Daryl J. Levinson and Richard H. Pildes, “Separation of Parties, Not Powers,” The Harvard Law Review, (June 2006). David Schleicher, “The Beginning of the End of the Progressive Era in State Constitutional Law?” SLoG Law Blog, (September 17, 2017). Miriam Seifter, “Gubernatorial Administration,” Harvard Law Review (March 4, 2017).

Season 3 is here! In the first episode, John Fabian Witt, Allen H. Duffy Class of 1960 Professor of Law at Yale Law School, joins host David Schleicher to interview host Sam Moyn on his new book Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War. In the book, Sam interrogates efforts to make war more humane and the ramifications of this shift. We also discuss the chronology of when the American state began to craft more humane war; the risks that making any practice, such as war or driving cars, more humane might help legitimate it; and whether appeals toward making war humane are recent phenomena or cyclical occurrences. There's also a sharp debate over methodology in legal history, for all you methodology heads out there, and some stern questions about what exactly Sam has against passion fruit panna cotta. You join our new podcast newsletter for episode updates and a chance to win merch on our website: DiggingAHolePodcast.com. Referenced Readings, listed below, are available at our website. Will Smiley & John Fabian Witt, To Save the Country: A Treatise on Martial Law, (2019). Justin Desautels-Stein & Samuel Moyn, On the Domestication of Critical Legal History, 60 History & Theory 2 (June 9, 2021). Samuel Moyn, Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Revived War (2021).

Jerusalem Demsas is a policy reporter for Vox and joins David on Macro Musings to discuss the state of housing in America and its implications for policy. Specifically, Jerusalem and David discuss the current state of the housing market, whether there is a housing bubble, how the housing shortage creates avenues for discrimination, the dynamics of racism in the US housing market, the impact of zoning laws, and much more.   Transcript for the episode can be found here: https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/tags/macro-musings   Jerusalem's Twitter: @JerusalemDemsas Jerusalem's Vox archive: https://www.vox.com/authors/jerusalem-demsas   Related Links:   *Housing Constraints and Spatial Misallocation* by Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20170388   *Is There a Housing Bubble?* by Jerusalem Demsas https://www.vox.com/22464801/housing-bubble-market-crash-supply-shortage-great-recession   *Stuck! The Law and Economics of Residential Stagnation* by David Schleicher https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/stuck-the-law-and-economics-of-residential-stagnation   *The Housing Shortage Makes Housing Discrimination Much Easier* by Jerusalem Demsas https://www.vox.com/2021/5/26/22453293/housing-supply-shortage-discrimination-real-estate-cover-letters   *America's Racist Housing Rules Really Can Be Fixed* by Jerusalem Demsas https://www.vox.com/22252625/america-racist-housing-rules-how-to-fix   *The Fight Over Housing Segregation is Dividing one of America's Most Liberal States* by Jerusalem Demsas https://www.vox.com/22335749/housing-prices-connecticut-segregation-zoning-reform-democrats-adu-parking-minimum   *Why Does it Cost so Much to Build Things in America* by Jerusalem Demsas https://www.vox.com/22534714/rail-roads-infrastructure-costs-america   David's blog: macromarketmusings.blogspot.com David's Twitter: @DavidBeckworth

This is my question: can we YIMBY harder? Many people are awakening to the enormous costs of restrictive municipal land use and zoning. But what can we do about it? Most assume that restrictive zoning and skyrocketing housing costs are local issues that require local solutions. But as my guest, David Schleicher, makes clear, that's not really true. A few superstar cities choking off housing supply has huge national implications. It creates massive distortions in labor markets and patterns of interstate labor mobility. This has left us a lot poorer than we'd be if our most productive cities were more relaxed about zoning. But as David points out in his terrific paper, “Stuck: The Law and Economics of Residential Stability,” these distortions also screw up the effectiveness of federal macroeconomic policy, which does additional damage to growth. I'm writing a paper about this stuff and I've actually become more rather than less confused about why the federal government can't directly intervene to remedy a problem that has immense national implications. That's why I wanted to talk to David, my favorite YIMBY law professor. If anybody would know, it'd be him. Along the way we talk about the weirdness of American single-family residential zoning, the “homevoter hypothesis,” and whether the pandemic means that telecommuting is here forever. David Schleicher is Professor of Law at Yale Law School, a New Yorker, and a hell of a nice guy.Readings“Stuck: The Law and Economics of Residential Stability” by David Schleicher“Planning an Affordable City,” by Roderick Hills and David Schleicher “City Unplanning,” by David Schleicher The Homevoter Hypothesis by William FischelZoning and Property Rights by Robert Nelson“Suburban Growth Controls: An Economic and Legal Analysis,” by Robert Ellickson Segregation by Design by Jessica TrounstineZoned in the USA by Sonia Hirt“America’s racist housing rules really can be fixed” by Jerusalem Demsas“Federal Grant Rules and Realities in the Intergovernmental Administrative State: Compliance, Performance, and Politics” by Eloise Passachoff—© Model Citizen Media, LLC 2021 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit modelcitizen.substack.com

This is my question: can we YIMBY harder? Many people are awakening to the enormous costs of restrictive municipal land use and zoning. But what can we do about it? Most assume that restrictive zoning and skyrocketing housing costs are local issues that require local solutions. But as my guest, David Schleicher, makes clear, that's not really true. A few superstar cities choking off housing supply has huge national implications. It creates massive distortions in labor markets and patterns of interstate labor mobility. This has left us a lot poorer than we'd be if our most productive cities were more relaxed about zoning. But as David points out in his terrific paper, “Stuck: The Law and Economics of Residential Stability,” these distortions also screw up the effectiveness of federal macroeconomic policy, which does additional damage to growth. I'm writing a paper about this stuff and I've actually become more rather than less confused about why the federal government can't directly intervene to remedy a problem that has immense national implications. That's why I wanted to talk to David, my favorite YIMBY law professor. If anybody would know, it'd be him. Along the way we talk about the weirdness of American single-family residential zoning, the “homevoter hypothesis,” and whether the pandemic means that telecommuting is here forever. David Schleicher is Professor of Law at Yale Law School, a New Yorker, and a hell of a nice guy.Readings“Stuck: The Law and Economics of Residential Stability” by David Schleicher“City Unplanning,” by David SchleicherThe Homevoter Hypothesis by William FischelZoning and Property Rights by Robert Nelson“Suburban Growth Controls: An Economic and Legal Analysis,” by Robert EllicksonSegregation by Design by Jessica TrounstineZoned in the USA by Sonia Hirt“America’s racist housing rules really can be fixed” by Jerusalem Demsas“Federal Grant Rules and Realities in the Intergovernmental Administrative State: Compliance, Performance, and Politics” by Eloise Passachoff—© Model Citizen Media, LLC 2021

Matt and Dara are joined by Vox Politics and Policy Fellow Jerusalem Demsas to talk about how to take on America's housing problem, exclusionary and discriminatory zoning restrictions, message against NIMBYs, and ultimately, to sue and destroy the suburbs. Then, research is analyzed that confronts the effects of rising prescription drug prices on patient behavior. Resources: "America's racist housing rules really can be fixed" by Jerusalem Demsas, Vox (Feb. 17, 2021) "How to convince a NIMBY to build more housing" by Jerusalem Demsas, Vox (Feb. 24, 2021) "How George Floyd's death is fueling a push for affordable housing in mostly White parts of D.C." by Paul Schwartzmann, Washington Post (March 1, 2021) "Homeowners and Opposition to Housing Development" by William Marble and Clayton Nall (Feb. 6, 2020) "HUD can't fix exclusionary zoning by withholding CDBG funds" by Jenny Schuetz, Brookings (Oct. 15, 2018) "Stuck! The Law and Economics of Residential Stability" by David Schleicher, Yale Law Journal (Vol. 127, 2017) The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together, by Heather McGhee (2021) White paper Hosts: Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias), Slowboring.com Dara Lind (@DLind), Immigration Reporter, ProPublica Jerusalem Demsas (@JerusalemDemsas), Politics and Policy Fellow, Vox Credits: Erikk Geannikis, Editor and Producer As the Biden administration gears up, we'll help you understand this unprecedented burst of policymaking. Sign up for The Weeds newsletter each Friday: vox.com/weeds-newsletter. The Weeds is a Vox Media Podcast Network production. Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a contribution to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts About Vox Vox is a news network that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Follow Us: Vox.com Facebook group: The Weeds Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Leah and Kate are joined by David Schleicher and Sam Moyn, cohosts and creators of “Digging A Hole,” a legal theory podcast. They discuss Supreme Court reform and why none of them were invited to join the court reform commission. 

Professor David Schleicher of Yale University discusses how land use and zoning laws impact affordable housing.

Today, Alec plunges into the politics of real estate with two guests. The first is David Schleicher of Yale Law School, whose expertise is Land Use. He gets to the heart of gentrification and continuously surprises Alec with one idea after another through their riveting conversation. Later in the show, Alec talks with Elizabeth Kim, Gothamist Senior Editor and real estate correspondent for Gothamist, the New York-focused news website. She and Alec discuss “retail blight,” the hollowing-out of the ground-level boutiques that define New York neighborhoods. These conversations were recorded before the Coronavirus hit New York City.

David Schleicher is a professor at Yale Law School, and as a returning guest to Macro Musings, he joins to talk about the historical role that the federal government has played in responding to state and local budget crises, including the municipal trllemma it faces. This trilemma says the federal government can only avoid two of the three following harms: (1) moral hazard for state budgets; (2) worsening recessions; (3) reducing future state and local infrastructure investment. Specifically, they discuss this trilemma as well as its implications for the COVID-19 crisis.   Transcript for the episode can be found here: https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/tags/macro-musings   David’s Twitter: @ProfSchleich David’s Yale profile: https://law.yale.edu/david-n-schleicher   Related Links:   *Stuck! The Law and Economics of Residential Stagnation* by David Schleicher https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/stuck-the-law-and-economics-of-residential-stagnation   *Hands On! Part I: The Trilemma Facing the Federal Government During State and Local Budget Crises* by David Schleicher https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3649278   *David Schleicher on Local and State Regulation and Declining Mobility* by Macro Musings https://macromusings.libsyn.com/58-david-schleicher-on-local-and-state-regulation-and-declining-mobility   *The Future of Remote Work* by Adam Ozimek https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3638597   *States Continue to Face Large Shortfalls Due to COVID-19 Effects* by Elizabeth McNichol and Michael Leachman https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/states-continue-to-face-large-shortfalls-due-to-covid-19-effects   David’s Twitter: @DavidBeckworth David’s blog: http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/

Just Joe and Christian, lumbering into season 2, talking about tipping and fraud in the gig economy, bar exam fiascos, legal scholarship, and fireworks. Andy Newman, DoorDash Changes Tipping Model After Uproar From Customers (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/nyregion/doordash-tip-policy.html?action=click&module=inline&pgtype=Article) Donna Hershkowitz, The State Bar of California, Statement on July 2019 Bar Exam Release of General Topics (http://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News-Events/News-Releases/statement-on-july-2019-bar-exam-release-of-general-topics) Oral Argument 61: Minimum Competence (https://oralargument.org/61) (guest Derek Muller) The Weeds (https://www.vox.com/the-weeds), Vox's podcast for politics and policy, the episode Dysfunctional Federalism with David Schleicher is accessible within their player or, obv, in your podcast app

Yale law professor David Schleicher joins Matt to talk about why state and local politics don’t work anymore. Join the Weeds Facebook group! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Karin speaks with lawyer David Schleicher about his argument that in 2020 the Democrats should aim to nominate a female candidate. We dig into the role of misogyny in voter choice, the changing role of women in the Democratic coalition, and whether we can make structural changes to support female participation at all levels. We also do a news recap including Corey Booker's entry to the race, Kamala Harris's kickoff, the independent run of former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, the end of the government shutdown and more.  --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/democratically/message

Episode 183: West Coast Model (guest Chris Elmendorf) Why is housing so expensive in major West Coast and northeastern cities? Not just more than you might want to pay, but, often, prohibitively expensive with little sign of new supply in areas people want to live. Chris Elmendorf joins us to explain this problem and the limited effectiveness of two types of solutions, the Northeastern and West Coast models. Drawing on the intergovernmental approach of the Voting Rights Act, Chris argues that a strong state role in reviewing the regulatory activities of local governments, if done in the right way, could be the way forward. And it points to a dramatic rethinking of how land use law should be made and what problems it should try to solve. This show’s links: Chris Elmendorf's faculty profile (https://law.ucdavis.edu/faculty/elmendorf/) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=345940) Christopher Elmendorf, Beyond the Double Veto: Land Use Plans As Preemptive Intergovernmental Contracts (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3256857) William Fischel, The Homevoter Hypothesis (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674015951) Roderick Hills, Jr. and David Schleicher, Planning an Affordable City (https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-1/planning-an-affordable-city/) Robert Ellickson, Suburban Growth Controls: An Economic and Legal Analysis (https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol86/iss3/1/) About Senate Bill 827 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Senate_Bill_827) Text of Senate Bill 828 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB828) Special Guest: Chris Elmendorf.

David Schleicher of Yale University and Todd Zywicki of George Mason University discuss the text, history, and future of this contested amendment. New essays are now available on the Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution. Read about the 17th Amendment, the 20th Amendment, the 24th Amendment, and the 25th Amendment. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was edited by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

David Schleicher of Yale University and Todd Zywicki of George Mason University discuss the text, history, and future of this contested amendment. New essays are now available on the Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution. Read about the 17th Amendment, the 20th Amendment, the 24th Amendment, and the 25th Amendment. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was edited by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

David Schleicher is an Associate Professor of Law at Yale Law School and is an expert in election law, land use, local government law, urban development, transportation, and local regulation of the sharing economy. He joins the show to discuss his new journal article, “Stuck! The Law and Economics of Residential Stability,” which argues that government regulations, such as occupational licensing and land-use laws, have led to a significant decline in inter-state mobility. Schleicher describes the negative macroeconomic implications of this trend and explains how we can reverse it. David’s blog: http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/ David Schleicher’s Yale profile: https://law.yale.edu/david-n-schleicher David Beckworth’s Twitter: @DavidBeckworth David Schleicher’s Twitter: @ProfSchleich Related links: “Stuck! The Law and Economics of Residential Stability” by David Schleicher https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2896309

What follows is an edited transcript of my conversation with Emily Hamilton about land use regulations' effects on affordable housing. Petersen: My guest today is Emily Hamilton. She is a researcher at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Emily, thanks for being on Economics Detective Radio. Hamilton: Thanks a lot for having me. Petersen: So, Emily recently wrote a paper titled "How Land Use Regulation Undermines Affordable Housing" along with her co-author Sanford Ikeda. The paper is a review of many studies looking at land use restrictions and it identifies four of the most common types of land use restrictions. Those are: minimum lots sizes, minimum parking requirements, inclusionary zoning, and urban growth boundaries. So Emily, could you tell us what each of those restrictions entail? Hamilton: Sure. So, starting off with the first, minimum lots sizes. This is probably what people most commonly associate with zoning. It's the type of Euclidian zoning that separates residential areas from businesses and then within residential areas limits the number of units that can be on any certain size of land. And this is the most common tool that makes up what is sometimes referred to as Snob Zoning, where residents lobby for larger minimum lots sizes and larger house sizes to ensure that their neighbors are people who can afford only that minimum size of housing. Petersen: So it keeps the poor away, effectively. Hamilton: Exactly. And then parking requirements are often used as a tool to ensure that street parking doesn't get too congested. So when cars first became common, parking was really crazy where people would just leave their car on the street, maybe double parked, or in an inconvenient situation near their destination. And obviously as driving became more and more common and that was just an untenable situation and there had to be some sort of order to where people were allowed to park. But street parking remained typically free or underpriced relative to demand. So, people began lobbying for a parking requirement that would require business owners and residential developers to provide parking that was off streets so that this underpriced street parking remained available. But that brought us to today where we often have just mass seas of parking in retail areas and residential areas, which are paper focuses on. Parking substantially contributes to the cost of housing, making it inaccessible in some neighborhoods for low income people and driving up the cost of housing for everyone who has been using the amount of parking that their developer was required to provide. Petersen: So that's one where you can really see the original justification. And it makes sense, if you have a business and a lot of people are parking and it spills over onto the street then maybe that's an externality. And it seems reasonable for you to have to provide parking for the people who come to your business, especially if a lot of them are driving there. But we push that too far, is what I'm hearing. Hamilton: Exactly. Yeah, it does seem reasonable but the argument in favor of parking requirements tends to ignore that business owners have every incentive to make it easy to get to their business. So, in many cases there's not necessarily an externality because the business owner providing the parking has the right incentive to provide enough to make it easy for their customers to get there. The externality really comes up when we think about street parking and Donald Shoup---probably the world's foremost expert on parking---has made the argument that pricing street parking according to demand is a real key in getting parking rules right. Petersen: So, on to the next one. What is inclusionary zoning? Hamilton: Inclusionary zoning is a rule that requires developers to make a certain number of units in a new development accessible to people at various income levels. Often inclusionary zoning is tied with density bonuses. So, a developer will have the choice to make a non-inclusionary project that is only allowed to have the regular amount of density that that lot is zoned for. Or, he can choose to take the inclusionary zoning density bonus which will allow him to build more units overall including the inclusionary unit and additional market-rate units. Typically, units are affordable to people who are making a certain percentage of the area median income, so people who might not have low income but who are making not enough to afford a market rate unit in their current neighborhood. Petersen: Okay, so that's sort of forcing developers to build affordable units that they then will probably lose money on, so that they can build the market rate units that they can make money on. Hamilton: Exactly. That's how cities make inclusionary zoning attractive to developers is by giving them that bonus that can allow them to build more market rate housing. In other cities, however, inclusionary zoning is required for all new developments so it really varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction how it's implemented. Petersen: So the fourth land use restriction you mention is urban growth boundaries. What are those? Hamilton: So Oregon is the most famous example in the US of implementing an urban growth boundary. And what it is, is basically a state law that requires each city to set up a boundary around its edges, where for a certain amount of time no housing can be built outside of that boundary. And the idea is to gradually expand the city's footprint over time to allow the suburbs to expand a little further, but to restrict that suburban development using the boundary for some time period. Other examples like London's urban growth boundary I believe are permanent, so there are certain areas that can never be developed. Petersen: So I believe we have something like this in Vancouver. We have farmland in the metro Vancouver area which---for context this area is one of the most overheated high-priced housing markets in the world---and we have this land that's just zoned for farms. And a lot of the time people don't even bother to plant crops, they're just holding the land for the day when eventually it can be rezoned into housing. So I looked it up before we went on and some of these plots are $350,000 an acre, which of course is not reflective of just how productive they are as farmland but of how productive they would be when they are eventually rezoned. Hamilton: Exactly. Yes, very similar to Oregon's program. And a lot of empirical studies have been done on Portland's growth boundary because researchers can easily look at the block that are selling on either side of the boundary to see whether or not it's affecting land prices and several studies have found a very clear effect of the boundary in driving up the price of the land. Petersen: And in Vancouver, the city is very reluctant to rezone. So, people are constantly applying and being denied but you know it's like winning the lottery having your bit of useless farmland rezoned to super high value housing. And people are just holding on to those dead lands in the hopes of winning that lottery which is kind of---it's a bizarre outcome. Hamilton: It is. And urban growth boundary supporters often frame it as environmental regulation that's going to protect this open space. While encouraging people to live in more dense and transit and walkable friendly neighborhoods, but it's not as if Portland is free of other types of zoning rules. So at the same time it has this urban growth boundary it also has a lot of traditional zoning rules that limit the potential to build up while the growth boundary is limiting the potential to grow out. So it's coming from both directions. Petersen: So, just how costly do economists think these regulations are? What kind of estimates do they have? Hamilton: So, I think some of the most compelling estimates look at the macroeconomic effect of these rules. Because typically the most binding zoning rules are also in the most productive cities, where there's the highest level of demand for people to live. Because these are where the best jobs are as well as the best urban amenities, a lot of people want to live here. One study looking at this macroeconomic effect found that the three most productive cities which are New York, San Francisco, and San Jose---I should clarify; this is just looking at the effective growth within US---if those three cities lowered the burden of their land use regulation to that of the median American city it could result in a 9% increase in the level of US GDP. So, these rules are having just an enormous effect on economic growth. Not to mention the very substantial effect they have for individuals and making it difficult or impossible for people to afford to live in their desired location. Petersen: So, you know, San Francisco that's where Silicon Valley is. And so we think of it as a place with super high productivity---tech workers working at Google---and yet with their housing market being one of the most restricted. So not only is there the loss from the housing market itself, that you could sell a lot of housing there and that would increase GDP by itself, but also there are people living in less productive areas doing less productive jobs, who could come and work for Google. But they can't because they've been priced out of the market. Is that where most of the effect comes from? Hamilton: That's right. Yeah, I think the effect is also certainly at that top-end of the market where we're seeing all kinds of blog posts and articles about a person making six figures at Facebook who can't afford the Bay area. So those people might choose to go live in say Denver, or Austin, or a city that still has plenty of great jobs but isn't as productive as San Francisco or San Jose. But then we also see this down the income spectrum, where people who are in the service industry, say waiting tables, could make much more in San Francisco then they can in Houston, or wherever they happen to live. But their quality of life is much better in some of less productive cities because of the cost of housing and other areas of consumption that higher real estate costs drive up. Petersen: One thing I've heard about a lot of these Californian coastal cities---I think it was Palo Alto---where not a single member of the Palo Alto Police Department lives in Palo Alto because you just can't live there on a policeman's salary, so they all have to commute in every day and then commute out every night. Hamilton: Yeah, and for some of these hugely important needed services it just makes the quality of life of the people in those industries so much worse than it would be if they could afford to live closer to their job. Petersen: Right. So, to summarize the labor market mobility of the United States in general has been greatly restricted by these land use restrictions. Even though the land use restrictions are local, this has an effect on the national economy. Hamilton: Exactly right. And we can see this in the data where income convergence across areas of the country has greatly slowed down since the 1970's when these rules really started taking off. Petersen: You argue that the costs of these restrictions fall primarily on low-income households so can you talk through how that happens? Hamilton: Sure. It happens in two ways. First off, you have the low income people who are living in very expensive cities and these people might have to endure very long commutes---you talked about the police officer in Palo Alto who can't live anywhere near his job. Not that police officers are low income, but just as an example that illustrates the point. Or they have to live in very substandard housing, perhaps a group house that's just crammed with people maybe even illegally, in order to afford to live anywhere near where they're working. Petersen: Yeah, I was going to say I thought those group houses were illegal from these very same land use regulations, but I guess people get around it. Hamilton: Yeah, a lot of US cities have rules about the number of unrelated people who can live in a house. And certainly those rules are sometimes broken. That, I think, is clear to anyone who's spent time in an expensive city. You know, people have to live in these less than ideal conditions and waste too much of their time commuting in order to make that work. But the unseen version of it is the person who lives in a low-income part of the country and would like to improve their job opportunity and quality of life by moving to somewhere more productive, but they simply can't make it work so they stay in that low-income area without meeting their working potential. Petersen: There was a study by David Autor---I think I cited it in a previous episode and got the author name wrong but it's definitely David Autor---and it was looking at the shock, the trade shock that hit United States when it opened up trade with China in the early 2000's. And it basically showed that a lot of parts of the country just never recovered. So, if you worked in particular industries---I think the furniture industry was one that was basically wiped out---and if you worked in a town next to a furniture factory and that was your job, not only did you lose your job, you lost all the value in your home because the one industry in the town is gone. And you can't afford to move to one of the booming industries like Silicon Valley or in another part of the country because they've so greatly restricted the elasticity of their housing supply. And that's not all, Autor's paper basically just shows that it took a very long time to recover from the shock and a lot of places didn't recover at all. But I really think that housing is part of that picture if you're trying to figure out why the US economy can't respond to shocks like it used to in the 20th century. That has to be a big part of the picture. Hamilton: Definitely. And that trend, as far as people being able to leave these depressed or economically stagnant areas, this also comes out in the income's convergence as we talked about earlier. Petersen: So, the other part of that, I saw in your paper, was not only are poor people hurt but rich people who already own homes have seen those home prices rise. So it's affecting inequality at both ends of the spectrum, correct? Hamilton: Right, Bill Fischel at Dartmouth has done a lot of work on why it is that people lobby so hard in favor of rules that restrict development. And he terms it as the Homevoter Hypothesis, where people who own homes have a huge amount of their wealth tied up in their home and so they are in favor of rules that protect that asset and prevent any shocks such as a huge amount of new development that could result in a decline in their homes value. I think you talked about that in your episode with Nolan Gray on trailer parks. Petersen: Yeah, we talked about William Fischel's Homevoter Hypothesis. So the essence of that is that people vote in local elections, and they lobby to restrict the supply of housing in their neighborhood, and that increases their wealth by, you know, increasing the land values in that area. How do you deal with that when there's such an entrenched special interest everywhere to push up land prices? Hamilton: I think that's the hugely difficult problem. And at the same time as we have the challenges with the Homevoter system that Fischel plays out, we have a lot of federal policies that encourage homeownership as not just a good community-building tool but also as an investment. So people are programmed by the federal government to see their house as an investment in spite of economic challenges that it presents. David [Schleicher]---a law professor at Yale---has done some really interesting work on ways that institutional changes could limit the activity of homeowners and lobbying against new development. One of his proposals is called a Zoning Budget. And under a zoning budget, municipalities would have to allow a certain amount of population growth each year. So, they could designate areas of a city that are going to only be home to single family homes, but within some parts of the city, they would have to allow building growth to accommodate a growing population. Petersen: How would that be enforced, though? Hamilton: It would have to be a state law, or perhaps a federal law, but I think much more likely a state law that would mandate that localities do that. Massachusetts recently passed a law that requires all jurisdictions within the state to allow at least some multifamily housing. So it's kind of a similar idea. The state government can set a floor on how much local government can restrict development. Petersen: So, what I'm hearing is that different levels of government have different incentives with respect to restrictions. So, at the lowest level if I'm just in a small district or municipal area and I can restrict what my neighbors build on their property, that really affects my home price and that's the main thing that I'm going to lobby for at that level of government. But if I had to go all the way to the state government to try to push up house prices in my neighborhood, it wouldn't go so well. The state government has incentives to allow more people to live within their boundaries. Is that the gist of it? Hamilton: Yeah, that's right. It's easy to imagine a mayor of a fancy suburban community who simply represents his constituents' views that the community already has enough people, you know, life there is good and so nothing needs to change. But, I don't think that you'd find a Governor that would say "Our state doesn't need any more people or economic growth." So the incentives are less in favor of homeowners, local homeowners, the further up you go from the local to state jurisdiction. Petersen: Right. I guess a big issue is that the people who would like to move somewhere but live somewhere else don't get to vote in that place's elections or in their ballot measures. And so there's this group that has an interest in lower housing costs because they might move to your city or your town, if they could afford it, but they're not represented politically in that city or town and so they can't vote for more housing and lower prices. But then when you go to the whole state level and people are mobile within a state, those people do have a say or they are represented and pricing them out of the places they'd like to live really is bad for politics, bad for getting their votes. Hamilton: Right. So the Palo Alto police officer can't vote to change Palo Alto's policies but he can vote to change California policy. Petersen: Right, because he still lives within California. So one of the other policy recommendations I saw in your paper is tax increment local transfers or TILTs. What are they and how can they impact land use restrictions? Hamilton: That's another idea that comes from David Schleicher and I think it's another really interesting concept. The idea behind TILT is that a new development increases the property tax base within a jurisdiction. So, if you have a neighborhood, say a block full of single family homes that is allowed to be sold to a developer in order to build a couple of large apartment buildings, each apartment is going to be less expensive than the previous single family homes, but overall the apartment buildings will contribute more to property tax. And the idea behind a TILT is that part of this tax increment---which is the difference between the new tax base and the previous smaller tax base---could be shared with neighbors to the new development to kind of buy off their support for the development. So, those people who are in some sense harmed by the new buildings, whether in terms of more traffic or a change in their neighborhood's character, also benefit from the new building financially. So they're more likely to support it. Petersen: So economists talk about Potential Pareto Improvements, where you have a situation where some people are made better off while other people are worse off, but you could have a transfer to make everyone better off. And what I'm hearing with TILTs is you actually do that transfer, you actually pay off the losers with some of the surplus you get from the winners. So everyone can be better off when you make this overall beneficial change. Hamilton: Exactly. And sometimes communities do use community benefit as a tool to try to get developers to share their windfall and build a new project with the neighborhood. So they might say, "you can build an apartment building here, but you also have to build a swimming pool that the whole neighborhood can use at this other location," and in a way that achieves the end goal of buying off community support for new development. But it also drives up the cost of the new housing that the developer can provide. So TILTs have the advantage of keeping the cost of building the same for the developer, but still sharing that financial windfall of the new development with a broader group of people. Petersen: Yeah, I really like these policy recommendations. It would be so easy to just say "land use restrictions are bad, let's not have those anymore." But these really have an eye to the political structures that we currently have and towards making progress within the structure we have. So I like that approach to policy or to policy recommendations. I think economists should maybe do that more often. Hamilton: Yeah, looking for a win-win outcome. Petersen: The one other one that I don't think we've talked about is home equity insurance, which sounds like a business plan more than a policy proposal. But how can home equity insurance help to reduce the costs of land use restrictions? Hamilton: That proposal also came from Bill Fischel a couple of decades ago following on his work of the Homevoters theory. He proposed the idea that the reason home owners are so opposed to new development is often because they have so much of their financial wealth tied up in this house that they're not just opposed to a loss in their investment, but even more so, opposed to risk. So they want the policies that they see will limit the variance in their home equity and he proposed home equity insurance as a financial goal that could lower this threat and provide homeowners with a minimum amount of equity that they would have regardless to the new development. I think it's a really interesting concept but it's unclear, would this be a private financial product? Obviously the market isn't currently providing it, or would it be some kind of government policy? And while I do think it's very interesting, I think that we should be somewhat leery of new government policies that promote homeownership as a financial wealth building tool. Petersen: Well, the funny thing is that usually with insurance, if you have fire insurance you want to minimize the moral hazard of that, you don't want people to say: "Well I've got fire insurance so I don't have to worry about fires anymore." But with this, you sort of want that, you have insurance on the value of your home and then actually your goal is to make people less worried about the value of their home so that they will be okay with policies that reduce it. It's almost the opposite of what you want with insurance most of the time. In this case you want to maximize moral hazard. Hamilton: Yeah that's a great point and I think that's why it could only be a government product. Petersen: Right. Because if the private sector was providing home price insurance to homeowners then the company that provided the insurance would now have an incentive to lobby against upzoning the neighborhood. Hamilton: Exactly. Yeah it would create a new a new group of NIMBYs. Petersen: Yeah, at first I thought 'Oh great!', well this is something that we can just do, without the government. You can just get a bunch of people together, who have an interest in making cities more livable and they can provide this financial asset. But that seems like there are problems with it that are hard to overcome within the private sector. So overall do you think the tide might be turning on the NIMBYs? Are people becoming more aware of this issue and of land use restrictions and their effects on housing prices? Hamilton: I do think awareness is growing. There's a group popping up called YIMBY which stands for "Yes In My Backyard" as opposed to the suburban NIMBY to say "Not In My Backyard" to any sort of new development. And these YIMBY groups are gaining some traction in cities like San Francisco and lobbying in favor of new development to counter the voices that oppose new development. I am somewhat pessimistic, I have to say, just because from a public choice standpoint the forces in favor of land use regulations that limit housing are so powerful. But in spite of my pessimism, I'm seeing since the time that I started working on this issue several years ago, much more coverage of the issue from all kinds of media outlets, as well as much more interest in on-the-ground politics from people who aren't in the typical homeowner category. Petersen: Yeah, and I am hopeful too. But I often see people blame other factors for high home prices. They blame the speculators. The speculators are always the ones that are pushing up home prices. And rarely, I think, do people blame restrictions, although the YIMBY movement is a happy exception to that. Hamilton: Yeah, I think way too often real estate developers are framed as the enemy in these debates because they're the ones who make money off building new housing. But it's really the regulations that are to blame both for the inordinate profits that developers can make in expensive cities, and for the high costs of housing. Petersen: Do you have any closing thoughts about land use restrictions? Hamilton: I think that it's just really important to try to spread the message about the costs that these regulations have. Not just for low-income people but for the whole country and world economic growth. That's obviously a cause that I would think everyone would be behind: creating opportunity for people to live in the most productive cities where they can contribute the most to society and to the economy. Petersen: My guest today has been Emily Hamilton. Emily, thanks for being part of Economics Detective Radio. Hamilton: Thanks a lot for having me.