Homes or harvest: Legislature mulls housing, farmland crises

The Georgia General Assembly is mulling options to preserve the state’s critical farmland, but in doing so, they may have to determine whether they want to prioritize fixing the housing crisis or meeting vague land conservation goals.

Evidence of this comes from a recent legislative hearing.

The Senate Study Committee on the Preservation of Georgia’s Farmlands met on July 30th and is tasked with “studying the conditions, needs, issues, and problems related to the preservation of Georgia’s farmlands and recommending any action or legislation,” according to a Senate press release.

This is an important and worthwhile goal, especially in the face of concerning land use trends, and to the study committee members’ credit, they are entertaining a wide variety of perspectives. However, at the inaugural hearing, much of the blame for diminishing farmland acreage fell on low-density housing development. If lawmakers’ buy this argument, then they may seek to curtail further development, which will only exacerbate our already smoldering housing crisis.

“Since 1974, 2.6 million acres of [agricultural] land […] have been converted to another land cover,” Katherine Moore, President of Georgia Conservancy, exclaimed at the hearing. “The vast majority of that development is in fact low-intensity and the vast majority of that is […] residential.” She continued, “The expansion of low-density residential is one of [agricultural] land’s biggest threats.” I don’t doubt that millions of acres have been converted, although I believe there is plenty of blame to go around, which I presume the Georgia Conservancy would freely admit.

What worries me is that low-density housing development could become a scapegoat for dwindling farmland as rural land becomes sacrosanct. If this comes to fruition, then the logical conclusion would be to grow government to centrally plan communities by limiting rural and low-density residential development and promoting only high-density walkable cities.

In the name of climate change, land conservation and so forth, some of these proposals have been enacted elsewhere. They seek to funnel throngs of people into densely packed and supposedly walkable urban areas, but not so fast. Not everyone wants to live in big city, high-rise condos and share walls with loud strangers, nor do we want to walk to the office or grocery store in Georgia’s searing heat and oppressive humidity. Some people prefer the solitude of single-family homes on a quiet rural patch of land and driving into the city.

To be clear, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with living in large walkable cities and condominiums. I’ve spent plenty of time in overseas cities that have embraced this model. Some prefer it, but others don’t; That’s my point. Instead of attempting to prescribe land use and over-regulate development, we could simply let consumer demand guide the market. It can also find the delicate balance of farmland to low and high-density housing based on consumer needs, but disregarding market signals and attempting to limit housing development would be devastating.

Georgia is in the midst of an acute housing crisis—made worse by government policies, including perpetuating building moratoriums and excessive red tape—and desperately needs more housing tailored to what consumers want. As it stands, Georgia is expected to grow by some 2 million people in the next 25 years or so, but ensuring there is enough housing supply for this influx will prove challenging.

Since the Great Recession, developers built far too few homes, and demand in Georgia has surged. Just since 2019, average home prices in Georgia have skyrocketed from around $250,000 to nearly $390,000, and there is only a three-month supply of homes available for sale. A six-month supply is considered representative of a healthy market.

Agriculture is obviously incredibly important in Georgia where the industry generates many billions of dollars a year and feeds a growing population, but policymakers need to balance agricultural needs with housing needs. We need to build more, a lot more, and there’s space to do it responsibly. Georgia comprises around 38 million acres and farmland covers nearly 10 million.

While the Senate study committee’s primary focus is obviously on farmlands, Georgia’s housing needs ought to also inform their recommendations. Throwing up new regulations and limitations on a fledgling industry will not solve the housing shortage. Instead, it will help ensure that it remains an ongoing problem, and lawmakers will be right back where they started: at the scene of another crisis.