Pennsylvanians want to make it easier to build housing, but the politics are complicated, new polls show

As housing affordability debates have heated up across the United States, a rash of recent polls has shown the complex politics surrounding the issue.

“Collectively, the big things they find are that at least some people are OK with the idea of housing in the abstract, but they really don’t like it if it’s proposed next to them,” said Katherine Levine Einstein, associate professor of Boston University.

A new poll paid for by the Welcoming Neighbors Network, a housing policy advocacy organization, surveyed 801 registered voters across Pennsylvania to test the strength of their message against the popularity of hyperlocal land use control. They also canvassed an additional 109 Black voters in Philadelphia.

The poll comes in the midst of a zoning battle brewing in Harrisburg over a series of bills that would, in part, override some local housing construction controls to make building easier.

The effort is backed by bipartisan politicians and a coalition of groups across the ideological spectrum, but it is opposed by the formidable Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors.

The Welcoming Neighbors Network poll is unusual — Einstein couldn’t name any others — in that it queried voters about local control vs. housing construction. Municipal governments wield enormous influence over development across the United States, with many local politicians enjoying near total control over zoning policy and other land use regulations.

The poll showed a strong majority of the respondents in favor of building more homes quickly over preserving local government control over development.

When broken down by political affiliation, the proposition proved most popular among Democrats (68% in favor) and Black voters in Philadelphia (78% in favor) while getting less support from Republicans (52%) and independents (53%).

The Welcoming Neighbors Network poll seeks to test alternative messaging in the face of prevalent not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) sentiment to housing proposals, which often provokes fierce resistance that convinces local politicians to make it harder to build.

“One of the assumptions underlying our project is that if you’re asking about state action, you’re reducing the potency of [NIMBY concerns],” said Jon Geeting, senior adviser for the smart-growth group 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania, which is part of the coalition that paid for the poll.

“[Given that frame] more people are willing to concede that it would be good for the state to try to solve this collective action problem, even if you maybe asked every single one of those people, ‘Should they build a house right behind you?’ I don’t know what the answer is going to be,” said Geeting.

But the politics of state preemption of local land use laws are tricky. Another recent poll from the progressive pollster Navigator found that few respondents considered local government at fault for housing affordability challenges in the United States.

Instead almost 40% of respondents said that the federal government was most responsible for housing prices, when, in fact, questions of what gets built and where have largely been delegated to localities. State government also received far more blame than local representatives.

“People in general trust their local government more than the federal government, and generally more than the state government, too,” Einstein said. “That makes it really tricky because we know one of the most effective policy solutions to onerous local land use regulations is state level preemption. It’s an accountability nightmare.”

Still, zoning reform and development boosting efforts are being pursued in some states. In high-cost states like California and New York, legislatures have been wracked by regular conflicts over such issues.

Pennsylvania is relatively new to the debate, but as home prices have spiked in some areas legislators in both parties have taken note.

Of the policy options polled by Welcoming Neighbors Network, the most popular proved to be “streamlining permitting.” (It was the only option where a majority of respondents said they “strongly supported” the idea.) That finding echoes a poll on housing policy conducted last year by the Pew Charitable Trusts, which also found that 89% of Pennsylvanians supported “simplified, faster permitting.”

“I see why Josh Shapiro is out there talking about this all the time,” said Geeting. “Pennsylvanians, they love permitting reform.”

Other popular ideas included converting commercial buildings to residential uses and allowing housing around offices. So-called accessory dwelling units — think in-law suites and rentals in a basement or above a garage — were also broadly popular. Those ideas, along with building more homes near transit, received supermajority support in Pew’s polling of Pennsylvanians.

Other ideas that have gained widespread attention in recent years, such as eliminating single-family only zoning or reducing the minimum size of a lot where a home is allowed, proved less popular although they largely still won majority support in the Welcoming Neighbors Network framing.

Opponents of the state preemption of local land use laws cast doubt upon the new poll’s findings, arguing that most such efforts massage their language to generate responses amenable to their causes.

“Our only concern is that a local community ought to be able to decide what works for them, as opposed to some bureaucrat from out of town that’s never set foot in the community,” said Dave Sanko, executive director of the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors.

Sanko noted that the zoning reform bills in the Pennsylvania House were scheduled for committee in late May but were not brought up for a vote. He says there are plentiful examples of local governments choosing to make zoning changes themselves, highlighting current efforts in Allentown.

He also pointed out that by the annual Census estimates, Philadelphia has lost over 50,000 residents since 2020 and that many other parts of the state have long been in population decline.

“Other areas are growing because folks have left Philadelphia and moved out to suburban communities where there are lower taxes and lower crime and safer communities,” Sanko said. “I don’t think any urban planner ought to be trying to force people to live in high-density, high-crime, high-cost communities.”