What Success Looks Like for NC's Housing Executive Order
State agencies are key to implementing Gov. Stein's vision.
Hopefully you all had a chance to skim my take on Governor Stein’s Executive Order 36: “Increasing Housing Opportunities for All North Carolinians.” But if not, the tl;dr is: North Carolina is growing, we need more housing, the Governor gets it, and this EO has potential!
That last part is what I want to discuss today. This EO is just the first step, and its level of impact hinges on how agencies implement it. As I mentioned last month, I saw firsthand how this process typically worked under Governor Cooper for this type of EO: the Governor’s team and agency policy leads work together to craft a policy vision, draft the EO language, and then collaborate to implement that vision through changes to policies and programs controlled by each agency. However, the final result of that effort is highly dependent on a few factors:
1. How much internal buy-in within agencies is there for the policy change?
Yes, state executive agencies report to the Governor, who appoints agency leaders, but these leaders — particularly those that may not have come directly from internal ranks — rely on permanent civil servants throughout state agencies for guidance. And they should! Many of these folks were there before this administration and will be there after, doing the work, executing an already long list of priorities with limited resources.
However, this can mean that sometimes new top-down directives and processes are looked at with wariness, out of completely legitimate concerns about overstretching or reallocating these limited resources. If a new policy initiative is grown internally and/or agency staff are excited about it, ideas will naturally be more ambitious, face less skepticism, and progress more efficiently. But if seen as just another new task being forced upon staff without a clear articulation of how they fit into the vision, it’s going to take a little more pressure, time (often unavoidably at the expense of other important problems), and high-level engagement to drive things forward. This makes cross-cutting challenges like housing and land use policy that don’t “live” anywhere at the state level (outside of the NC Housing Finance Agency’s important, but limited financing mandate) particularly difficult to tackle.
I could see agencies needing a little extra pressure to really dig deep here.
2. How many internal resources have been allocated to overseeing EO implementation and where is it prioritized?
Building off the previous point, once an EO goes out, Governor’s Office staff must devote limited time to coordinating with agencies, tracking progress, and pushing things forward. The problem is that new stuff happens! As famed philosopher Mike Tyson once said: “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”, and no matter how well any administration plans, they’re going to get punched in the mouth. In this case, the appointment of a new Senior Advisor on Housing with the bandwidth to focus on this issue gives me confidence that once that punch comes, this EO at least won’t be forced to the back burner, at least not for too long.
3. How often is the Governor’s Office and agency leadership hearing about it from the outside?
A truth about governing that seems very simple, but I didn’t fully appreciate is this: it is not enough to have internal support for a policy idea. For any initiative to be prioritized at the level necessary to make real progress, political staff must be hearing about it.
The fact that Governor Stein even put forward this EO shows that he knows “housing” is a salient issue. However, as you all know, knowing that “we need more housing” is not the same as knowing that we need the deep and complex reforms to build more supply in high-demand areas, more diverse home types, and the multi-modal and pedestrian infrastructure required for greater incremental density to be practical in the long-run.
This is where housing advocates and the broader CITYBUILDER community can make an impact.
Believe me when I tell you that calling the Governor’s Office main line and voicing support for a new policy or asking about progress makes a big difference. There is always someone answering the phone (when I worked there it was a wonderful woman named Gwen who has more patience than I could ever dream of), tallying how many people call about various issues and relaying to staff when something in particular gets a lot of attention.
Of course this is not the only way to advocate, but the main takeaway is that elected officials are not going to spend the necessary time and political capital on issues that they don’t think are important to their constituents.
What Success Looks Like (To Me At Least)
I spent some time last fall digging into specific ways that agencies could complement priority legislative and local solutions, and really shift how we build in North Carolina. Listed below are some of these recommendations, and specific items that, I think, folks should be pushing for.
NC Department of Transportation
NCDOT is the most consequential in terms of its direct impact on the built environment. NCDOT now operates and maintains over 80,000 miles of roadway, second only to Texas in total miles, with many state highways intersecting urban and suburban communities across the state. The agency also has quite impactful driveway design and permitting authorities that shape the placement and design of schools, homes, and local businesses. As you can imagine, vehicle management and marginal congestion improvements are often prioritized over walkability and considerations for pedestrian improvements.
Transportation decisions shape the feasibility of community design, and the impact of NCDOT decisions on local communities does not stop at large highway or light rail projects — it influences every aspect of building.
Below is a list of reforms that NCDOT can and should be pushed to adopt under current authorities:
#1: Adopt a Context Classification System for roadway design as part of the North Carolina Roadway Design Manual. This should be modeled after Florida DOT’s first in the nation standards creating specific roadway design guidelines based on surrounding land use, including narrower lanes as well as more robust pedestrian and multi-modal considerations in urban and suburban areas. Crucially, this system requires highway engineers to justify wider lane size and increased capacity expansions rather than forcing them to justify reductions and other traffic calming measures as is currently required.
#2: Adopt a statewide 20% reduction target for vehicle miles traveled per capita and incorporate a proposed project’s impact towards achieving this goal into project scoring. Several states across the country already have similar targets. This would help focus investment decisions on systems that are more conducive to needed housing reforms.
#3: When “incorporating all components Complete Streets guidance into project design” as outlined in the EO, NCDOT should explicitly outline a hierarchy of components to be incorporated if a project does not physically allow for all elements. Additionally, it should be explicitly outlined that within urban and certain suburban area classifications and below certain targeted speeds (typically <40 mph), reducing the size and number of lanes should be considered before the elimination of any complete street component unless a roadway is explicitly exempted due to unique circumstances such as heavy freight traffic or other extraordinary, publicly documented considerations.
#4: Reform the Strategic Transit Prioritization (SPOT) Process voting procedures to ⅔ majority rather than current unanimous voting structure for high-level funding allocations by project type where the agency has discretion.
For context: The SPOT process is how NCDOT allocates flexible funding not bound by statute to highway projects (typically around 10% of overall funding levels). Currently, the internal requirement of unanimity across all voting members results in the repeated adoption of outdated allocations that set aside additional highway funding — beyond the 90% already allocated — to satisfy a minority of (predominantly highway engineer) holdouts.
#5: Reform Strategic Transportation Investment (STI) scoring to capture a more comprehensive suite of project costs and benefits along with their impacts on local communities. The EO calls on NCDOT to “explore metrics for transportation project impacts on community connectivity, housing availability, and local economic benefits and to collaborate with local planning organizations and community-based organizations to support transit-oriented development, locally driven housing development, and local connectivity”.
A bit of background here: STI scores are the metrics used to evaluate and prioritize projects submitted by local governments and regional planning organizations for NCDOT consideration.
Specific reforms include:
Incorporate modeled impacts of induced demand into a project’s congestion reduction and freight benefit scores.
Create a new point category for a project’s impact on state VMT reduction targets and other strategic multi-modal initiatives (post-adoption of reform #2 listed above).
Rebalance the currently over-indexed value of localized congestion reduction in project scoring and consider dynamic system-wide safety and congestion mitigation benefits for local and regional public transportation projects as part of project scoring. Projects should be credited for local impacts as well as a proportional share of regional impacts if part of a larger planned system.
Create a new scoring category that incorporates compatibility with local priorities for communities surrounding the project location — include potential impacts to land values, local tax revenue, community connectivity, and the economic benefits or costs seen by local communities.
Incorporate bonus points for projects in locations that have adopted VMT-reducing land-use and resilient design reforms (e.g. parking, zoning, minimum lot sizes, other reforms targeted at incremental density improvements) into congestion mitigation scoring as these reforms will amplify benefits in those locations, particularly for public transit and multi-modal investments.
#6: Explore new partnerships with local governments to pursue federal USDOT public financing for transit-oriented development projects through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program, particularly along planned S-Line and future expanded Charlotte to Raleigh, Asheville, Winston-Salem, and Wilmington passenger rail routes. This work should build on the impressive “S-Line Mobility Hub” Program run by the NCDOT Integrated Mobility Division.
#7: Introduce a new “community roadway” classification for state highways in urban areas, complete with multi-modal considerations and lower vehicle capacity assumptions. Core considerations on whether a current highway should instead be a “community roadway” should include design speeds (35 mph or lower, unless a designated freight corridor should not receive highway or greater classification); surrounding land use; and whether the classification is compatible with local transportation plans.
#8: Partner with the NC Department of Public Instruction to create revised driveway and roadway standards. Develop new alternative site development guidelines for small-site urban public-school locations (current base guidelines almost entirely assume large-site, car-centered, suburban locations for new schools) that encourage walkability, increased childhood activity, and independence.
NC Department of Commerce
The Department of Commerce facilitates local economic growth through infrastructure grants, business recruitment and incentive programs, planning assistance, and data-driven research. Commerce conducts labor market analyses, publishes vital economic statistics for policymakers, and connects communities to resources that improve their competitiveness.
Housing unaffordability and increasing commute times are consistently noted as drags on employers’ ability to hire and retain employees throughout the state. Incorporating requirements and incentives for local governments to enact substantive changes to their land use and housing policies as part of various economic development investments would be entirely within the mission of the Department and in line with this executive order.
#1: Create an internal “Division of Housing” modeled after the Washington Department of Commerce’s Growth Management Services that can oversee the integration of housing and land use considerations across all NC Commerce programs and initiatives, coordinate with local governments, and create resources and share best practices across the state.
#2: Develop a list of key priority supply-side housing and land use reforms for local governments to boost economic competitiveness and allow for a small percentage of relevant large infrastructure development funds to be utilized by local governments for local housing and land use planning that incorporates these reforms. Resources should be in the form of model ordinances that could easily be introduced and adopted at the local level, and include, at least, the following:
Elimination of mandatory parking requirements for new developments and redevelopments (hopefully H162 will take care of this one!).
Zoning reform to allow duplexes, triplexes, and small multifamily homes within greater amounts of residentially zoned areas.
Expanded density flexibility and the elimination of proxy density restrictions — reduced FAR, increased height allowances, increased maximum lot coverage percentages, allowance of lot subdivisions, multiple housing units per plat, etc.
Reduced minimum lot sizes.
Accessory dwelling unit flexibility
Allowance of residential development in commercially zoned areas
Reduced setback requirements.
Stormwater management requirements that are solely based on impervious surfaces and water quality/flooding impacts, not home type.
#3: Develop suggested pre-approved site plans for local governments to adopt as part of their ordinance planning processes. Early NC actors like Durham’s EHC and Raleigh’s preapproved ADU designs should be used as examples as well as others from across the country.
#4: Integrate considerations for local housing and land use policies into evaluation criteria and competitiveness factors for the One North Carolina Fund. Considerations should include available local housing supply, presence of prioritized local policies that allow for housing supply to absorb new residents, and the average expected commute times for new employees.
#5: Provide competitive advantages across programs for projects in locations that adopt key priority housing and land-use reforms.
#6: Incorporate considerations for locally accessible workforce housing into Megasite and Selectsite Readiness Program site analysis guidance.
#7: Introduce non-traditional housing design and construction (ADUs, cottage courts, rowhouses, duplex/triplexes, etc.), workforce housing on public lands, and allowances for faith-based housing initiatives as new workforce priorities for consideration by the NCWorks Commission and Golden Leaf Foundation.
NC Department of Environmental Quality
NCDEQ does not play as direct of a role in housing supply related issues as NCDOT or Commerce. Its most direct connections include stormwater management in key protected watersheds, state funding for floodplain management, and community resilience planning for severe storm events. Successful engagement from NCDEQ on this issue would ensure that its programs work to disincentivize further development into vulnerable areas while making it easier to advance incremental density improvements and more diverse home options. Suggested reforms include:
#1: Direct the newly formed NCDEQ State Resilience Office to incorporate the following as updates to the Resilient Planning Communities Guide as resilience improvement strategies:
Prioritize local housing and land-use policies that encourage increased incremental density improvements and lower construction costs in non-hazard-prone areas.
Stormwater Credit Trading Programs to allow for increased levels of infill housing in areas that are safe to build.
In lieu fee stormwater management options in concert with local regional retention ponds and other stormwater capture facilities modeled after Tallahassee’s Blueprint Intergovernmental Agency, Capital Cascades Program, and Missing Middle Handbook.
Local multimodal and pedestrian improvement projects that support reduced car-dependency, improved freedom of mobility, and increased housing options in areas safe for development.
#2: Ensure that stormwater management requirements in targeted watersheds are housing-type agnostic for residential dwellings and instead based solely on impervious surface areas. NCDEQ should ensure that homes built under the residential building code (single-family and 1-2 story multi-family) do not face any additional state stormwater management requirements based solely on housing type and only face requirements based on a project’s impervious surface and watershed impacts.
#3: Explore the feasibility of providing technical assistance to local governments interested in expanding stormwater credit trading systems by leveraging the Nutrient Offset ILF Program, the Department’s experience with local mitigation credit banks, and other in lieu fee-based credit trading programs across the country to provide guidance.
#4: Integrate bonus points into project scoring across competitive grant programs for stormwater projects in locations that adopt land use reforms that incentivize incremental density improvements.
#5: Quantify the per-unit emissions intensity of multifamily residential buildings in North Carolina compared to single-family homes under current building code requirements as part of the North Carolina Greenhouse Gas Inventory, and quantify overall per capita carbon emissions intensity by census tract to inform statewide sustainable community design. Previous work completed by the Rocky Mountain Institute and a soon to be published report completed by the World Resources Institute New Urban Mobility Alliance in partnership with NCDOT can be used as guidance.
In Conclusion
As I said at the beginning of my piece: This Executive Order is just the first step. But if implemented with strong internal buy-in and sufficient resources, EO36 could meaningfully increase North Carolina’s housing supply and contribute to more walkable cities and towns across the state.
Conor Mulderrig is an Independent Clean Energy, Housing, and Transportation Policy Consultant in Durham, NC. Previously he served as Climate Change Policy Advisor to Governor Roy Cooper where he worked to advance cleaner buildings, transportation systems, and land use reforms. He also served as Special Advisor for Clean Energy Deployment and Resilience at the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Resilience Liaison to the Governor’s Recovery Office for Western North Carolina, and most recently was an Infrastructure Fellow for Arnold Ventures Philanthropies.
 | A guest post by
|