Scoring the Ride vs. Reading the Waves: Insights from Surfing Legends

As housing affordability reaches crisis levels across major cities worldwide, one policy mechanism has come under increasing scrutiny: exclusionary zoning. But is single-family zoning truly the root cause of the housing crisis, or is it merely the most visible and politically convenient target in a far more complex picture?

Context

In many American cities, upwards of 75% of residential land is zoned exclusively for single-family housing — making it illegal to build apartments, townhouses, or duplexes in the vast majority of residential neighborhoods. Housing economists have increasingly pointed to this restrictive land use policy as a primary driver of housing scarcity and soaring prices. Yet others argue that zoning is a symptom of deeper economic, racial, and political forces — not their cause.

Perspective: Jerusalem Demsas

Jerusalem Demsas, staff writer at The Atlantic and one of the sharpest voices on housing policy, makes a forceful case that exclusionary zoning is the central mechanism driving housing unaffordability. "We have made it illegal to build the kinds of homes that most people can actually afford on most of the land in our most desirable cities," she argues. "Everything else — the high rents, the long commutes, the displacement — flows from that fundamental policy choice."

Demsas emphasizes that the solution is straightforward in principle if not in practice: upzoning residential land to allow more housing types, in more places, at greater density. "The evidence is clear that where you allow more housing to be built, prices moderate. Cities that have deregulated their land use — like Minneapolis and Auckland — are already seeing results. This is not a mystery; it's a policy choice we keep choosing not to make."

Perspective: Richard Rothstein

Richard Rothstein, author of The Color of Law, situates the exclusionary zoning debate within its historical and racial context — arguing that single-family zoning cannot be understood or addressed without confronting its explicitly segregationist origins. "Exclusionary zoning was designed to keep Black families out of white neighborhoods. The housing crisis it has produced is not an unintended consequence — it is deeply continuous with that original intent," he states.

Rothstein argues that simply upzoning without addressing racial wealth gaps, discriminatory lending, and the legacy of redlining will not produce equitable outcomes. "If we deregulate zoning without complementary policies — including reparative investments in communities of color, anti-displacement protections, and affordable housing requirements — we risk simply accelerating gentrification rather than solving the housing crisis."

Perspective: M. Nolan Gray

M. Nolan Gray, city planner and author of Arbitrary Lines, offers a comprehensive critique of the entire zoning system — arguing that the problem extends far beyond single-family zoning to encompass the entire apparatus of land use regulation. "Single-family zoning gets the most attention because it's the most obviously absurd restriction, but it's embedded in a regulatory system that imposes minimum lot sizes, parking requirements, height limits, setback rules, and dozens of other constraints that collectively make housing production enormously expensive and slow," he explains.

Gray is skeptical of piecemeal zoning reforms that upzone residential areas while leaving other regulatory barriers intact. "You can eliminate the single-family zone and still have a dysfunctional housing market if you require massive parking lots, prohibit buildings above four stories, and impose years-long permitting processes. Real reform means rethinking the entire system, not just changing one layer of it."

Editorial Synthesis

Where Experts Agree

All three experts agree that exclusionary zoning has contributed significantly to housing unaffordability and must be part of any serious reform agenda. There is consensus that the status quo is untenable and that political resistance to zoning reform has come at enormous cost to housing affordability and economic mobility. Reform is necessary — the debate is about its scope and accompanying policies.

Where Experts Disagree

Demsas is most focused on zoning as the primary lever and most optimistic about upzoning as a sufficient response. Rothstein insists that racial equity must be central to any reform agenda and warns that deregulation without equity measures could worsen racial disparities. Gray argues for the most sweeping reform, targeting the entire regulatory system rather than single-family zoning specifically.

Why This Matters

The housing affordability crisis is not an abstract policy question — it shapes where people can afford to live, how long they commute, whether they can save for retirement, and whether their children will be able to remain in the communities where they grew up. Getting housing policy right — or failing to — will determine the economic geography of opportunity for generations.

The answer to whether exclusionary zoning is the housing crisis or just part of it matters less than the urgent need to act comprehensively — reforming land use, addressing racial inequity, and building the political will to prioritize housing abundance over the preferences of those who already have homes.