Three Think Tanks Release 600 Pages on a Problem That Affects Eleven People, Agree Only That Someone Should Write More Pages

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Three of Washington's most prestigious policy research institutions have each released major reports this month on the same narrow question of federal municipal zoning subsidy allocation — a mechanism so specific that the Congressional Budget Office's own glossary defines it with the phrase "see previous footnote" — and have reached conclusions so thoroughly contradictory that the only thing they share, besides a mutual citation of one another, is a unanimous declaration that the situation demands "urgent further research."

The reports, totaling 614 pages across three volumes, were produced by the Hargrove Institute for Responsible Governance, the Center for Applied Policy Futures, and an organization called the American Renewal Dialogue Forum, which lists its address as a WeWork in Rosslyn, Virginia. Combined, the three documents cite 847 sources, 34 of which are other think tank reports on the same subject. The policy in question currently affects an estimated eleven municipal planning offices, a number that two of the three reports describe as "a significant and underexamined constituency."

Executive Summary of the Executive Summaries

For the benefit of readers who lack the time, stamina, or existential tolerance to read 614 pages about zoning subsidy allocation, The Proceedings Today presents the following synthesis:

The Hargrove Institute (funded by the Castellan Family Foundation, whose founder made his fortune in commercial real estate) concludes that current federal zoning subsidy allocation is "structurally distortionary," "market-suppressive," and "in urgent need of reform toward a more flexible, private-sector-responsive framework." The report recommends eliminating the subsidy program entirely and replacing it with voluntary industry guidelines. It also recommends further research.

The Center for Applied Policy Futures (funded by the Meridian Progressive Trust, which was established by a technology billionaire who once described zoning laws as "the last frontier of civic justice") concludes that current federal zoning subsidy allocation is "chronically underfunded," "structurally inequitable," and "in urgent need of expansion toward a more federally coordinated, community-centered framework." The report recommends tripling the subsidy program and creating a new federal oversight body. It also recommends further research.

The American Renewal Dialogue Forum (funding sources listed as "a consortium of civic-minded donors," which the Forum's website describes in no greater detail) concludes that the current federal zoning subsidy allocation framework is "a nuanced and context-dependent mechanism whose outcomes vary significantly by jurisdiction, demographic composition, and implementation timeline." The report recommends neither expanding nor contracting the program until more data is available. It very strongly recommends further research.

All three reports were released within the same 72-hour window. None of their authors appear to have spoken to one another.

The Experts Weigh In (Combined Author Count: 47)

The three reports were produced by a combined 47 researchers, policy fellows, senior fellows, distinguished fellows, visiting fellows, and one individual listed as a "fellow emeritus," a title whose meaning no one at any of the three institutions could satisfactorily explain to this reporter.

Dr. Leonard Ashby, a Senior Fellow at the Hargrove Institute and lead author of its report, described the Center for Applied Policy Futures' findings as "ideologically predetermined" and "not reflective of the empirical literature," citing six studies. The Center for Applied Policy Futures' report cites four of those same six studies in support of the opposite conclusion.

"The data is quite clear," Dr. Ashby said, in a sentence that three separate think tanks have now used to introduce three mutually exclusive arguments.

Miranda Chu, Director of Research at the Center for Applied Policy Futures, described the Hargrove report as "a market-fundamentalist document dressed in the language of reform," before acknowledging she had not yet read it in full because it arrived the same morning her organization's own report went to the printer.

The American Renewal Dialogue Forum did not respond to requests for comment, as its listed phone number connects to a voicemail box that has not been set up.

Sidebar: A Note on Proportionality

The eleven municipal planning offices affected by federal zoning subsidy allocation serve a combined population of approximately 34,000 people. The 47 researchers who produced this month's three reports represent a ratio of roughly one policy expert per 723 affected residents — a figure that, for context, exceeds the researcher-to-subject ratio of most clinical drug trials. The combined budget of the three reports is not publicly disclosed, but the Hargrove Institute's 2023 annual report lists "major publications" as a line item of $2.3 million. Further research on this point is, presumably, forthcoming.

The Revolving Door, Oiled and Operational

What makes this particular convergence of contradictory expertise notable is not the disagreement — Washington think tanks disagree the way weather disagrees with picnics, reliably and without apology — but the degree to which all parties have managed to agree on the one point that guarantees their continued relevance.

"More research is urgently needed" is, in the think tank ecosystem, what "the check is in the mail" is in most other industries: a phrase whose sincerity is inversely proportional to how often it appears. It has featured in the concluding section of 23 of the last 30 major policy reports tracked by the Governance Accountability Project, including, somewhat poignantly, two reports on whether think tanks produce useful policy research.

Both of those reports concluded that more research was urgently needed.

Dr. Ashby, when asked whether the Hargrove Institute planned to produce a follow-up report, confirmed that a second phase of research was already in development, funded by a grant from the Castellan Family Foundation. It is expected to reach conclusions consistent with the first report, while recommending further research.

"The policy landscape is evolving," he said. "We have a responsibility to evolve with it."

The eleven affected municipal planning offices were not available for comment. Several of them, according to a footnote in the American Renewal Dialogue Forum's report, are not aware the subsidy program exists.

The Proceedings Today attempted to determine which of the three reports' recommendations, if any, had been read by a sitting member of Congress. We were referred to a committee. That committee referred us to a subcommittee. The subcommittee's mandate is currently under review.