Land Use Zoning and Low Income Housing

cawacko

Well-known member
Good article on how well to do neighborhoods keep poorer people out through zoning laws and regulations. Would be interesting to hear from the perspective of those who think deregulation is evil and/or savage their thoughts here. You deregulate the market by allowing more development which allows more people into better neighborhoods etc.




How land use regulations are zoning out low-income families


Social mobility and geographical mobility have historically gone hand-in-hand in America: people move to places with greater opportunity. But such moves have become steadily more difficult, in part because of the growing regulation of land use. Zoning ordinances that limit density are a particular problem, reducing the availability of affordable housing.

The rise of land use regulation

The number of court cases mentioning “land use” (an innovative measure of regulation used in a Hutchins Center working paper by Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag) has risen steadily:

CCF_20160816_Reeves_1

Nobody, including the authors, thinks that this is a perfect measure—although it does correlate well with other common benchmarks, like the Wharton Index of Regulation and the measure produced by the American Institute of Planners. Ganong and Shoag show that the movement of less-skilled workers to higher-growth areas has not risen in recent years, a break with the historical pattern:

CCF_20160816_Reeves_2

Why? Regulation seems to be a big part of the answer. The Hutchins paper complements earlier economic analyses, including a study published last year by Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti which estimates that the U.S. economy is 14 percent smaller as a result of constraints on housing development.



Zoning as a class barrier



Zoning also exacerbates inequality. As Jason Furman, chairman of the CEA puts it:


“While land use regulations sometimes serve reasonable and legitimate purposes, they can also give extra-normal returns to entrenched interests at the expense of everyone else…Zoning regulations and other local barriers to housing development [can] allow a small number of individuals to capture the economic benefits of living in a community, thus limiting diversity and mobility.”

By using local government powers to zone out lower-income families, upper middle class Americans protect the value of their homes. (Federal policy helps, of course, by regressively supporting richer home owners through mortgage interest deductions.)

Zoning and educational inequality


NIMBYism is motivated by a rational desire to accumulate financial capital by enhancing home values. But for parents, it is also about helping their children accumulate human capital by controlling access to local schools. According to Jonathan Rothwell, there is a strong link between zoning and educational disparities. Homes near good elementary schools are more expensive: about two and half times as much as those near the poorer-performing schools. But in metropolitan areas with more restrictive zoning, this gap is even wider. Loosening zoning regulations would reduce the housing cost gap and therefore narrow the school test-score gap by 4 to 7 percentiles, Rothwell finds.

Zoning is one form of “opportunity hoarding” that sharpens the divisions between ordinary and upper middle class Americans (a theme I develop in my forthcoming book, Dream Hoarders). There are hopeful signs that state legislators are waking up to this problem. Two separate bills in the Massachusetts state legislature, for example, would have required towns to create more multi-family zoning districts, though both died in the session that ended this July. Given the powerful vested interests involved in exclusionary zoning, reform will require some serious political determination.


https://www.brookings.edu/2016/08/16/zoning-as-opportunity-hoarding/
 
Deregulate= take away regulations that hamper me, keep those that hamper my competitors......
 
How does that work in terms of housing?
Usually in the favor of the most powerful interests, that is those able to twist regulations to favor themselves..

Often the argument is more or less reg but less regs favor those powerful interest as much as more:dunno:
 
Usually in the favor of the most powerful interests, that is those able to twist regulations to favor themselves..

Often the argument is more or less reg but less regs favor those powerful interest as much as more:dunno:

If three cities reduce regulations that prevent new development is it only the powerful that can build? SF for instance has a number of non profit developers. Non profits can be big as well of course but most here aren't.

And as the article points out all these restrictions benefit current home owners who tend to be richer. Loosening those regulations up benefit the people who aren't
 
If three cities reduce regulations that prevent new development is it only the powerful that can build? SF for instance has a number of non profit developers. Non profits can be big as well of course but most here aren't.

And as the article points out all these restrictions benefit current home owners who tend to be richer. Loosening those regulations up benefit the people who aren't

The power can be to build or not build as they see their best interests served..

Usually that is how it plays out-more houses, higher supply, lower price-Elk Grove.. (small town city council doing the bidding of the developers)

Fewer homes, more restrictions=higher prices-Davis, ca.
 
The power can be to build or not build as they see their best interests served..

Usually that is how it plays out-more houses, higher supply, lower price-Elk Grove.. (small town city council doing the bidding of the developers)

Fewer homes, more restrictions=higher prices-Davis, ca.

That's the whole point of the article. But it's not the builders choosing not to build. They're chomping at the bit to develop. It's city counsels and the NIMBY's in the neighborhoods who prevent it.
 
Good article on how well to do neighborhoods keep poorer people out through zoning laws and regulations. Would be interesting to hear from the perspective of those who think deregulation is evil and/or savage their thoughts here. You deregulate the market by allowing more development which allows more people into better neighborhoods etc.




How land use regulations are zoning out low-income families


Social mobility and geographical mobility have historically gone hand-in-hand in America: people move to places with greater opportunity. But such moves have become steadily more difficult, in part because of the growing regulation of land use. Zoning ordinances that limit density are a particular problem, reducing the availability of affordable housing.

The rise of land use regulation

The number of court cases mentioning “land use” (an innovative measure of regulation used in a Hutchins Center working paper by Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag) has risen steadily:

CCF_20160816_Reeves_1

Nobody, including the authors, thinks that this is a perfect measure—although it does correlate well with other common benchmarks, like the Wharton Index of Regulation and the measure produced by the American Institute of Planners. Ganong and Shoag show that the movement of less-skilled workers to higher-growth areas has not risen in recent years, a break with the historical pattern:

CCF_20160816_Reeves_2

Why? Regulation seems to be a big part of the answer. The Hutchins paper complements earlier economic analyses, including a study published last year by Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti which estimates that the U.S. economy is 14 percent smaller as a result of constraints on housing development.



Zoning as a class barrier



Zoning also exacerbates inequality. As Jason Furman, chairman of the CEA puts it:


“While land use regulations sometimes serve reasonable and legitimate purposes, they can also give extra-normal returns to entrenched interests at the expense of everyone else…Zoning regulations and other local barriers to housing development [can] allow a small number of individuals to capture the economic benefits of living in a community, thus limiting diversity and mobility.”

By using local government powers to zone out lower-income families, upper middle class Americans protect the value of their homes. (Federal policy helps, of course, by regressively supporting richer home owners through mortgage interest deductions.)

Zoning and educational inequality


NIMBYism is motivated by a rational desire to accumulate financial capital by enhancing home values. But for parents, it is also about helping their children accumulate human capital by controlling access to local schools. According to Jonathan Rothwell, there is a strong link between zoning and educational disparities. Homes near good elementary schools are more expensive: about two and half times as much as those near the poorer-performing schools. But in metropolitan areas with more restrictive zoning, this gap is even wider. Loosening zoning regulations would reduce the housing cost gap and therefore narrow the school test-score gap by 4 to 7 percentiles, Rothwell finds.

Zoning is one form of “opportunity hoarding” that sharpens the divisions between ordinary and upper middle class Americans (a theme I develop in my forthcoming book, Dream Hoarders). There are hopeful signs that state legislators are waking up to this problem. Two separate bills in the Massachusetts state legislature, for example, would have required towns to create more multi-family zoning districts, though both died in the session that ended this July. Given the powerful vested interests involved in exclusionary zoning, reform will require some serious political determination.


https://www.brookings.edu/2016/08/16/zoning-as-opportunity-hoarding/

It's unfortunate when regulations are misused, and abused. It is unfortunate that more people don't speak up and have allowed this to happen.
 
That's the whole point of the article. But it's not the builders choosing not to build. They're chomping at the bit to develop. It's city counsels and the NIMBY's in the neighborhoods who prevent it.

The power is w/ the ppl......... For now anyway...
 
Back
Top