A dedicated team of developers and researchers is pressing for acknowledgment after working tirelessly on a housing data platform that is rapidly gaining traction among local governments and housing advocates. This initiative aims to tackle one of the most pressing issues facing many American cities: housing affordability.
The lead developer took to Twitter to voice a straightforward request: “Please edit this Collin and give the right people credit. We put everything we have into this.” This comes after a publication failed to mention key contributors responsible for creating and refining this system. Their efforts provide vital insight into the complex world of housing policy amid the ongoing struggles with zoning regulations and affordability.
The heart of this project is a comprehensive database designed to shed light on how local zoning codes and land use policies influence housing availability. By aggregating public records, geographic data, and planning documents, it creates a detailed, block-by-block overview of the housing landscape, allowing users to explore how government actions shape housing supply. The platform also distinguishes between single-family and multifamily zoning, tracks permitting results, and identifies obstacles to new construction.
Notably, the database reveals the significant impact of discretionary approvals on housing availability. Preliminary findings indicate that in numerous jurisdictions, over 70% of units in larger developments need some form of planning variance or conditional use permit. This requirement often delays projects for months or even years, driving up costs. In one California area, for instance, the average timeline for multifamily project permits exceeded 24 months. Furthermore, more than 40% of proposed projects were either downsized or abandoned altogether during this time.
The implications of this data are profound as housing affordability continues to reach crisis levels in major urban areas. Pressure is mounting on the Biden administration and Congress to dismantle regulatory hurdles that elevate housing prices. This dataset not only delivers solid data but also illuminates who coordinates these barriers and how persistent they remain. It highlights patterns showing that wealthier neighborhoods often have more zoning objections than mixed or lower-income areas.
The developers’ goal was to bring transparency and factual analysis to a debate often clouded by political rhetoric. As one developer pointed out, “It’s not about attacking individual cities. It’s about seeing what’s really happening when we talk about housing production—and who actually controls what gets built.”
Analysts are already leveraging this data to pinpoint differences between cities that embrace new housing initiatives and those that resist change amid public claims to the contrary. For example, despite legal mandates intended to spur development, some affluent Californian cities are failing to meet their state-imposed housing goals. In one case, a municipality managed to issue fewer than ten multifamily permits the previous year while simultaneously fighting off low-income housing projects.
On the flip side, other municipalities have taken proactive steps by eliminating single-family zoning and incorporating this data-driven approach to streamline housing approvals. Some jurisdictions have reportedly cut average permitting time by up to 30% through these efforts, adjusting zoning regulations in alignment with actual infrastructure needs, rather than relying on outdated criteria.
Policymakers at the federal and state levels are taking notice of this project. Senior advisors at the Department of Housing and Urban Development are reviewing it as a potential foundation for future grant programs linked to zoning reforms and metrics on housing production. In some states, like Oregon and New York, lawmakers are contemplating legislation that would require local governments to track and report similar housing pipeline data to qualify for infrastructure funding.
This project stands out not just for its precision but also for the dedication that went into it. Developers meticulously examined thousands of municipal codes, validated building permit applications, and created land use maps on a block-by-block basis. “We didn’t rely on third-party reports. We built it all ourselves,” a contributor stated. “A lot of it was done during nights and weekends. We just believed people needed to see the truth in black and white.”
The issue of credit in media coverage highlights a critical frustration within the data and policy community. The individuals involved in this meticulous work often go unrecognized when it comes to influence or attribution. The request for proper credit is not merely an issue of pride; it emphasizes the importance of transparency regarding who creates these vital tools and the problems they are intended to address.
As an advisor closely tied to the initiative remarked, “This wasn’t just a research project. It’s a tool to change the conversation.” It underscores the risk of losing sight of the essential truths that data can reveal when attention shifts to headlines and superficial narratives.
Many supporters of the platform express hope for its wider adoption, which could standardize the reporting of housing pipeline obstacles nationwide. If cities with populations over 50,000 were obligated to disclose how many housing projects are stalled after set periods, taxpayers would better understand which jurisdictions efficiently supply housing and which ones are hesitant to act, often attributing delays to external issues like construction costs or interest rates.
The developers maintain that their motivation stems from a commitment to fostering clarity. “Local rules shape what can be built. And most people have no idea how those rules actually work or how they choke off housing before it even gets proposed,” one researcher articulated. “This platform was designed to put that information in the public’s hands—no spin, no filters.”
However, for transparency to be effective, it must also involve recognizing the contributions of those behind the tools. The emphasis on proper attribution mirrors broader themes of accountability in the policy arena. As the original tweet pointed out, “We put everything we have into this.” In a landscape where data drives reforms, failing to acknowledge the true authors not only risks undermining the integrity of the work but threatens the trust necessary to navigate the urgent challenges ahead.
"*" indicates required fields
