Austin’s lesson is cumulative. The city made it easier to build apartments near jobs and transit, eased rules for accessory dwelling units, reduced and then largely eliminated parking mandates, used density bonuses to trade added height for income-restricted housing and backed affordable projects with bond funding.

Zoning reform is no longer an abstract policy discussion; it is increasingly tied to state legislation with direct implications for local decision-making. Even where there is agreement that more housing is needed, there is less consensus on how to achieve it or how quickly changes should occur.

The reforms do not eliminate neighborhood participation. They attempt to limit its ability to function as a veto. New York’s voters chose to preserve community feedback while limiting its ability to function as a veto.

Treating zoning as outside federal policy debates misses an important opportunity. If federal housing policy helped entrench land-use systems that limit housing supply, it can also encourage reform.

Washington may finally be aligning around the idea that housing affordability depends on building more homes.