Burlington May Have to Listen to Market Principles

The City of Burlington has long faced a housing shortage, although few have produced cohesive plans to solve it without alienating the private market. The way forward for Burlington must include a dual-mode approach containing existing not-for-profit work, with reinvigorated and incentivized market priced housing to meet its unit development goals.

Starting under progressive Mayor Bernie Sanders, the city started efforts to maintain the affordability for renters and owners in the Old North End back in 1984. Notably with the creation of the first municipally funded land trust, now known as the Champlain Housing Trust.

The history of the CHT is long and successful, providing permanently affordable homes for many Burlingtonians. Although the current market conditions now exceed what CHT can realistically operate within. High land prices have pushed CHT into less developed pastures like the South End where land prices are still low compared to the Old North End.

The mayor’s office has often stated the shortage of units that faces the city is large. Although the good news for the city is the predilection for renting among the younger generations compared to preferences for home ownership held by generations prior.

The by-right legalization of Middle Housing in 2024 was a touted as a large step forward by the Mulvaney-Stanek administration, although the policy has yet to bear many fruit. Since the implementation of the policy, only 16 units have been permitted for upzoning on seven parcels with only a handful of units holding tenants today.

Comparing this to other cities rapid development after the implementation of similar policies, we must ask the question. Why does Burlington develop at a snail’s pace?

There are many factors, but when policy outcomes diverge from intent, the explanation often lies in regulations and incentives. While Burlington may shut its eyes and plug its ears when it comes to such economic pontificates, there are certain problems too large for the small and budget-strained City and State to solve. Rather, a partnership must be materialized between the public and small-scale private sectors.

Burlington’s regulatory environment is often chaotic and bloated for housing development, with the zoning bylaws being almost 500 pages long.

The limitation of middle housing developments to four units inhibits density infill from reaching its full potential. Incentives also lack for small developers: with no tax breaks, shielding from property tax hikes, and lengthy regulations, it provides little interest in redevelopment, creating a stagnant supply.

The way to solve many of these issues can come from policies already in place elsewhere. Edmonton, Alberta, has made up to eight units of housing legal on most single-family lots and eased regulatory burdens on small projects like infill. This lowers the cost and time required to construct new supply, making it approachable for more homeowners to become small-time landlords. Fraternally progressive cities like Seattle and Portland have enacted similar reforms to immense success.

Limiting the building to large developers often leads to higher prices and a captive market compared to many small-developers competing in price and bringing costs down for residents. Small-market landlords also allow for personal connection, and more flexibility compared to corporate landlords, ranking higher in tenant satisfaction.

Inclusionary zoning laws continue to affect small housing developments. This prevents profitable operation for small developers who are often older citizens wishing to downsize and pocket extra monthly income.

On top of the unit increase, Burlington should also consider a future where inclusionary zoning is duly slackened with an expansion of middle housing. IZ laws provide the least amount of supply in 5–8-unit buildings, proving most effective in medium to large scale developments where larger developers can afford the extra cost and regulatory burden.

Providing tax breaks, waiving permitting fees for small developers, and providing property tax shielding for homeowners who choose to upzone would also increase the supply of units. Bringing in homeowners as participants rather than obstacles would drastically change the stigma around density.

Neighborhoods with high infill rates should also be considered for street redevelopment projects to improve transit access and sustainable, car-free transportation, like bike lanes and larger sidewalks with stripped-down parking. This is crucial for Burlington to reach its vast climate goals and continue being a leader for sustainability in New England.

To combat neighborhood concerns, middle housing also leads to lower car ownership rates and lower burdens on municipal water and waste systems compared to single-family ownership.

The Mulvaney-Stanek administration may wonder why their existing efforts do not correlate with results. The answer is clear; legalization de jure does not always lead to legalization de facto. While the whole solution is a large and multipronged approach. The deregulation of small-scale development should be considered as one part of the larger Burlington housing plan.

Burlington has always been a forward-looking entity. A progressive bastion of successful policy implementation and a leader of large-city reforms on a small-city scale, just like Mayor Sanders did 40 years ago with CHT. Middle housing is a next step for Burlington to embrace the ideas of larger cities to solve its small city problems, to make Burlington more affordable once more.