- Establishing by-right development
- Taxing vacant land or donate it to non-profit developers
- Streamlining or shortening permitting processes and timelines
- Eliminate off-street parking requirements
- Allowing accessory dwelling units
- Establishing density bonuses
- Enacting high-density and multifamily zoning
- Employing inclusionary zoning
- Establishing development tax or value capture incentives
- Using property tax abatements
The list is pretty good. Although, it should come with a caveat: The message is targeting urban areas with at least one transit corridor and a healthy land value to match. These healthy land values tend to inspire strategic investments by the developers to capture the value that already exists and has a momentum of growth and social allure (think the most sought after parts of Seattle, Portland, San Fran, NYC, Washington DC, or San Diego). The difference in suburbia there is still the need to evolve (at least in identified opportunity areas), and therefore the suburbs need to partner with developers who are trying to build equity in the long run, being strategic with the roll-out of the investment, carefully staging the phasing of a development to adapt with the evolving landscape.
For more, see the report for yourself here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Housing_Development_Toolkit%20f.2.pdf
I'll break down the urban vs. suburban context and how these strategies need to take careful consideration of the context prior to implementing the toolkit. This will also serve as the start of the barriers to sustainable development, as there is a lot of overlap between that and the toolkit here. But, importantly, there are also important differences as I see them.