We have spoken before, here and here, about so-called "use-it-or-lose-it entitlements".
The catalyst behind this idea -- and it is just an idea at this stage, at least here -- is the belief that too many developers are sitting idle on zoned land. And they're allegedly doing this because they believe it will be worth more tomorrow.
Why bother building anything when you can instead just wait and make money that way?
To counteract this speculative force, some believe that one answer is to just strip land of its zoning entitlements if it's not used within a certain period of time (right now it lasts forever). I get why this is sometimes proposed, but my response to this has consistently been: it's a terrible idea.
It is a terrible idea because developers are generally always incentivized to move as quickly as possible. And it is a terrible idea because every now and then a period in the cycle will arrive where, it's not that developers don't want to build, it's that many/most can't.
And guess what? Right now is one of those times.
One of the things that cities often try and stamp out is speculation. Homes should not sit empty (enter vacant home tax). Storefronts should not sit empty (enter vacant commercial tax). And development land should not sit undeveloped. To correct this latter problem, one idea that is sometimes floated around is "use-it-or-lose-it" zoning.
The way it works today in, I believe, most cities, is that if you do a site-specific rezoning on a property -- and secure additional density -- you get those special permissions forever. If you want to wait 100 years before starting construction, you are technically entitled to do that. Of course, in the interim, no new housing is actually being created. It's all just on paper.
The idea with "use-it-or-lose-it" entitlements is that -- instead of these permissions lasting forever -- they would expire after a certain period of time, which would mean that the entire rezoning process would need to be done all over again. These take time (at least a few years) and cost money (it's in the millions). And so it has been suggested that this would incentivize developers to not sit on entitled land.
While I do understand where this line of thinking is coming from, let me make a few points:
Generally speaking, most developers don't just sit on entitled land for fun. They need things to happen, and to happen quickly, so that value can be realized. If there is a problem of too many developers not actually building, it could be a sign that there are other market factors impacting feasibility.
There is nothing wrong with rezoning a property and then "flipping it out" to another developer. This is often viewed negatively. But some developers only rezone properties and some developers only buy zoned sites. These can be different phases of the value chain. A rezoning can take years and millions of dollars, and so sometimes developers don't have the wherewithal or desire to do both.
A use-it-or-lose-it approach unfairly punishes developers during market cycles and bear markets, like the one we are experiencing right now. There is no way to predict when the next global pandemic will hit, when construction costs might surge 40%, and when the fed could start rapidly increasing rates to calm inflation. Maybe waiting out the storm is all you can do.
If you're building condominium housing in our market, you generally need pre-sales in order to secure a construction loan. Let's call it 70% pre-sold. What happens if this takes longer than expected? And what happens if you sell 50%, your site-specific rezoning expires, and then you have to restart the entire process? At this point and in this current market environment, you would likely have to cancel the entire project and reboot it.
Timing is important. To give a specific project example, we had planned to launch condominium pre-sales for our One Delisle project in the fall of 2020. And we were ready to do that. But sentiment didn't feel right. Too pandemic-y still, and so we waited until the spring of 2021. This turned out to be the right decision. But what would have happened had we had this timing gun to our head? (Truthfully, it always feels like there's a timing gun to our head.)
I have written about this before, but go-to-market strategies are changing in this current environment. It is taking longer to start sales and construction because, among other things, developers are spending more time trying to pin down their construction costs. Would rezoning expiries take all of this into consideration and adjust accordingly?
Finally, if one is going to do something like force developers to pull all of their building permits within X months of receiving zoning approvals -- or else suffer the consequences -- then everything required to get there should also have a maximum timeline associated with it. In other words, cities would also need to do things like commit to issuing permits within Y months of receiving a submission -- or else. It's only fair that this cuts both ways. But just to be very, very clear, I do not think this is a good idea.
What I am broadly saying is that (1) development is a pain in the ass and (2) developers are already heavily incentivized to move quickly and make things happen. It is not uncommon for projects to take 5-10 years from site acquisition to completion. And a lot of unexpected things can happen during that time period. Hopefully losing your entitlements doesn't become one of them.