In January 2026, three recently re-elected big-city mayors will begin their second terms: Baltimore’s Brandon Scott, Boston’s Michelle Wu, and Cleveland’s Justin Bibb. They entered office during a global pandemic, facing overlapping crises: rising living costs, a shrinking housing supply, and spikes in violent crime. Over four years, each mayor tackled these problems at their roots—loosening zoning barriers, accelerating development, and advancing public-safety strategies that drove down violent crime. Voters noticed, and rewarded these young mayors with their confidence once again.
These mayors did not rely on flashy announcements or demand-side shortcuts. Instead, they rewrote zoning codes, modernized permitting systems, and brought new investment capital into neighborhoods that needed it most. Their efforts stand in sharp contrast to recent federal proposals—including 50-year mortgages and portable loans—that ignore the core reality behind the housing crisis: America lacks the supply needed to meet demand. The national deficit now sits between 3 million and 4 million homes, according to investment analysts. Stretching mortgages across a lifetime will not build a single new unit, nor will experimenting with collateral types or raising loan limits for borrowers already priced out of the market.
Subscribe to Shelterforce
Sign up for our free newsletter and get our original reporting, new series, and more in your inbox.
Federal housing leaders should take a closer look at the cities where voters rewarded results. Baltimore, Boston, and Cleveland offer a blueprint for the policies that actually expand supply.
In Baltimore, Scott confronted decades of redlining and disinvestment with land-use reform. He signed legislation allowing single-family homes to be converted into duplexes and triplexes, expanding allowances for accessory dwelling units, and accelerating approvals for multiunit development. Baltimore backed these reforms with $7.5 million in new affordable-housing funds and additional support for community developers. This combination of zoning flexibility and capital produced tangible results: new multiunit construction, stabilization in blocks that had lost population, and improved access to safer and more affordable homes for working families. Several neighborhoods that saw new housing also experienced declines in violent crime, underscoring how targeted development can reinforce public safety.
Boston’s affordability pressures remain among the highest in the nation, consistently placing it in the top tier of expensive housing markets. Wu approached the issue by attacking bottlenecks directly. She streamlined permitting, eliminated parking minimums, and launched a modernization plan for public housing that increases unit counts while also improving older buildings. These reforms shortened development timelines and expanded the pipeline for mixed-income housing, signaling to builders that Boston intended to speed production rather than constrain it. In a region where demand far outpaces construction, reducing friction became one of the most powerful tools Wu deployed.
Cleveland, under Bibb, focused on aggressively unleashing development, housing the unhoused, and investing capital in innovative housing solutions like modern manufactured housing development communities. Bibb’s administration also combined federal pandemic recovery funds with bank financing and philanthropic capital to support infill development, multiunit housing, and the rehabilitation of vacant properties. In fact, under Bibb’s leadership, the city has created a pilot to build 5,000 manufactured homes in 10 years, increasing supply, bringing down high costs, and creating job opportunities for Clevelanders in the process.
Across these three cities, the pattern is clear: Leaders who increase flexibility through zoning reform, reduce friction by modernizing land use and permitting, and mobilize capital through public–private partnerships create the conditions for more housing. When supply increases, affordability improves, neighborhoods stabilize, and crime declines. These mayors prove that affordability is not a mystery; it is the predictable outcome of aligning land-use policy with investment.
This is the work Washington should be scaling—not mortgage experiments that stretch indebtedness across a lifetime without addressing the underlying shortage of homes. In fact, there is already longstanding bipartisan support for these approaches at the state and national level. Local leaders are addressing the structural issues. Federal policy should match that courage and clarity.
Instead of floating novel mortgage products, federal agencies should use their convening power to bring mayors, governors, lenders, developers, and community financial institutions together to push zoning modernization across the country. They can tie federal incentives to updated land-use policies, encourage density in job-rich areas, and align financing rules with the realities of modern development. When cities remove outdated zoning restrictions, developers build. The federal government should help cities accelerate that progress, not force them to navigate legacy systems alone.
Washington can also reshape affordability by expanding capital access for community-scale development. Congress and regulators have the authority to support community financial institutions that finance multiunit and mixed-income developments, expand New Markets Tax Credit projects that combine housing and retail, and strengthen multifamily products that allow smaller and mid-sized developers to compete. Each of these tools helps fill financing gaps that prevent new construction in neighborhoods where supply is needed most. When capital reaches local developers, new housing follows.
The housing crisis determines who gets to stay in cities, who builds wealth, and who has a stable future. The mayors that voters returned to office to finish the job understand that affordability begins with supply—and that supply grows when leaders take political risks, fix outdated systems, and partner with the communities they serve. Their re-election reflects not only political resilience but a policy roadmap.
Washington should follow their lead.
About the Author
Tags
Comments
2 thoughts on “Lessons for Washington from Three Mayors Whose Housing Strategies Won Them Second Terms”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Don’t forget Cleveland’s landmark lead safety advocacy (https://www.clashcle.org/what-is-clevelands-plan/history-of-lead-advocacy) which laid the foundation for Bibb’s Residents First Code initiatives and for his “executive orders” which raised the bar for landlord compliance with lead safety laws. Bibb was smart enough to listen to citizens.
Several of the zoning related bills introduced by Baltimore’s Mayor did pass, including the elimination of minimum parking requirements. But unfortunately, the bill allowing conversion of single family detached and rowhomes to small (2-4 unit) multifamily has not passed. Not surprisingly, It ran into opposition from some neighborhood leaders and is now stalled out.
I’d like to say the zoning reform initiative was accompanied by new money for creating affordable housing in formerly exclusionary neighborhoods. But that has yet to come to fruition. The $7.5 million cited in this article was a periodic award from the City’s existing Affordable Housing Trust Fund created by citizen referendum ten years ago. The City spends more in the form of tax credits ($37 million/year) to support market rate housing than affordable housing.
That doesnt mean nothing new is in the works on the housing front. The Mayor signed a community-lead bill of Inclusionary Housing requirements and accompanying tax credits into law in January 2025 (but is slow walking implementing regulations). The Mayor and Governor have adopted an unprecedented plan to issue over a billion in TIF bonds to address Baltimore’s vacant house crisis with a combination of demolition, rehabilitation and new construction. Hopefully, the stalled zoning bill will pass to help this vacant house initiative produce more housing. And ARP funds were used to buy hotels for Housing First approaches to homelessness. But Baltimore has a long way to go to make housing and elimination of the “Two Baltimores” a City priority.