I read Peter Ryner’s April 12 op-ed, “Zoning won’t solve Maine’s housing crisis — and zoning didn’t create it,” with interest. His central assertion, “Zoning … is neither the source nor the solution to Maine’s housing problems” is incorrect and not supported by his argument. Many cities, towns and villages in Maine could not be rebuilt today. Most buildings in these places are “non-conforming,” i.e., they don’t meet current zoning regulations.

In many instances, municipalities have applied suburban building standards to their traditional town centers. Requiring a half-acre lot in the center of a town or village doesn’t just prevent the “warehousing” of people, as Mr. Ryner frets, it prevents the building of anything at all. Not only are most towns not adding housing to their historic centers but, as housing is lost, it’s not being replaced. This is bad and we should address the problem: outdated zoning regulations.

Maine’s recent law permitting accessory dwelling units statewide was a good step in the right direction. Still, we must do better. Allowing, and encouraging, the “thickening up” of the historic centers of our cities and towns would be a great place to start. Eliminating minimum lot sizes, shifting to a focus on form rather than use or density and, perhaps, eliminating zoning requirements altogether around transit hubs would all be good next steps.

Zoning reform is not a panacea, however any meaningful expansion of housing opportunity will require at the hard look at the constraints zoning imposes.

Brian Banton
Topsham