https://www.huduser.gov/portal/node/add

Regulatory Barriers and Affordable Housing: Problems and Solutions

Highlights

• Research points to local zoning and regulations, lengthy permitting processes, and “not in my backyard” opposition as primary causes of restricted housing supply and rising housing prices.
• An insufficient supply of affordable housing contributes to homelessness, housing cost burdens, and reduced economic growth.
• Local communities in the United States have struggled to combat regulatory barriers, but state and local governments can adopt several promising approaches that can reduce barriers and increase the supply of affordable housing.

Speaking to the policy advisory board of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, HUD Secretary Ben Carson underscored “how vitally important it is to develop more affordable housing,” referencing the center’s findings that 21 million U.S. households are cost burdened — spending more than one-third of household income on housing expenses — and that 11 million of those households are severely cost burdened — spending more than one-half of household income on housing expenses.1 Affordability is a function of both income and housing costs, and the relative importance of each factor varies by location and market.2 Recently, important gains have been made in employment and wages, but these increases have been modest and in many markets have not kept up with increasing housing costs.3 As Secretary Carson emphasized in his speech, one aspect of the problem is an inadequate supply of new affordable housing. He suggested that, among other responses, HUD should “identify and incentivize the tearing down of local regulations that serve as impediments to developing affordable housing stock,” including “[o]ut-of-date building codes, time-consuming approval processes, restrictive or exclusionary zoning ordinances, unnecessary fees or taxes, and excessive land development standards [that] can all contribute to higher housing costs….”4

Although affordability challenges in some areas of the country result primarily from low incomes and poverty, in other areas, particularly those with strong job and population growth, a constrained housing supply generates affordability challenges. In the latter locations, regulatory barriers such as density limitations, height restrictions, parking requirements, lengthy permitting and approval processes, and “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) opposition are the primary reasons for housing supply restrictions and increased housing costs. Local governments can pursue various strategies and policy responses to address these barriers, and state governments can encourage and empower local governments to do so.

A carriage house unit is a type of accessory dwelling unit that allows multiple residences to share the same lot. Photo Courtesy of Catellus Development Corporation

The History and Purposes of Zoning

Land use zoning is the division of land into areas in which certain activities or uses, or certain building types, sizes, and features, are permitted or prohibited.5 In the United States, the authority for zoning comes from state governments rather than the federal government, and this authority is typically passed on to local municipal governments. In some “home rule” states, local governing bodies have wide latitude to innovate and implement land use policies, whereas other states require state-enabling legislation that specifically sanctions the policies available to the locality.6

Regulation of building construction and certain uses of private property to protect the public welfare date back to the late 19th century, as concerns rose about living conditions in growing cities. For example, in the 1890s, at least two U.S. cities — Chicago and Washington, DC — passed laws restricting building heights. Modern zoning practices — distinguished by the categorization of land use as residential, commercial, or industrial and the physical separation of those uses — emerged in the early 20th century. A 1916 New York City ordinance is generally considered to be the first comprehensive zoning law.7 Hirt calls the period of 1910 to 1930 a turning point during which “the United States changed from a place where the public control of private land and real-estate property consisted only of rudimentary nuisance and building laws to a place where practices related to private land, property, and construction were subject to tight public supervision in hundreds of municipalities around the country.”8 She argues that health and safety, welfare, convenience, prosperity, racial and class prejudices, and the protection of property values — especially those of single-family homes — all contributed to the emergence of zoning practices.9 The Supreme Court affirmed the legality of local zoning authority in 1926 in Euclid v. Ambler.10 Initially, most zoning was hierarchical, with residential use at the top of the hierarchy and industrial use at the bottom, meaning that residences could be built in industrial or commercial zones, but industrial or commercial buildings could not be built in residential zones. In the middle of the 20th century, flat zoning, in which buildings of any type could be built only in zones of the same type, became more common, and the zones themselves became larger.11 A proliferation of regulations in the 1970s began to restrict the elasticity of the housing supply and place upward pressure on development costs.12 Throughout the 20th century, zoning and other regulations have given preferential treatment to single-family detached homes, which are typically the most expensive type of housing, says Brookings fellow Jenny Schuetz. This preference presents a substantial obstacle to achieving the density needed for more affordable housing.13 Indeed, compared with the rest of the world, the United States is unique in its proportion of residential land designated for single-family detached homes and in the size of homes and lots.14

Overly restrictive land use regulations prevent communities from building housing at the density needed to promote affordability. Photo Courtesy of Catellus Development Corporation

Costs of Regulatory Barriers and NIMBYism

Evidence supports the contention that zoning and land use regulations increase housing prices (see “Exploring the Current State of Knowledge on the Impact of Regulations on Housing Supply”). Although researchers Joseph Gyourko and Raven Molloy note that “it is challenging to identify the effects of regulation,” they find that most studies, including their own, support the conclusion that “regulation appears to raise home prices, reduce construction, [and] reduce the elasticity of housing supply….”15 Over the past several decades, housing prices have increased even though construction costs have remained relatively flat. This relationship points to land prices as the driver behind rising housing prices. Geographic limitations can constrain the supply of land; in many cases, however, restrictions on land use and density cause an increase in land prices, which lead to a constrained supply of housing and, in turn, higher housing prices.16 Research suggests that more highly regulated jurisdictions tend to have higher housing prices, with regulations discouraging new development or making it less dense while making the housing that is built more expensive.17 Paula Munger, director of industry research and analysis for the National Apartment Association, finds a strong correlation, for example, between the severity of a city’s barriers to apartment construction and the percentage of households spending at least 35 percent of their income on rent.18 A study by the National Association of Home Builders estimates that government regulations account for nearly a quarter of the price of a home, with approximately 15 percent of the price attributable to land use regulations and 10 percent to regulations that apply after a builder has acquired land.19 A study of California development finds that each additional land use regulation reduces residential permits by an average of 4 percent, affecting both single-family and multifamily development.20

Regulations. Local land use regulations have accumulated in municipalities’ code and statute books over many decades. Although governments originally adopted each regulation for some rationale or purpose, those rationales may not apply to present conditions.21 In most cases, regulations are implemented to provide some benefit to existing homeowners, if not the general public. Although some basic public health and safety regulations are accepted as necessary and nonnegotiable, others exist in a gray area of tension between their public benefit and public cost — their negative impact on affordability. Localities must weigh these costs and benefits, which in some cases may be difficult to measure or compare in terms of monetary value. C.J. Gabbe categorizes regulations that can lead to higher housing costs, such as those that limit density, impose design standards, or shift cost burdens onto developers.22

Land use and zoning regulations may include explicit density restrictions; requirements for parking, setbacks, and side yards; minimum lot sizes; height limits; and open space requirements that limit the amount of housing that can be built, either through caps or by assigning space that could be used for housing to other uses. Builders typically want to maximize the number of units in a given tract of land; limitations reduce the profitability of development, which may discourage development in certain areas and result in fewer units built or higher rents for the units that are constructed.23 Jurisdictions with a preference for single-family detached housing may not even have zones that allow multifamily housing.24 In other cases, large minimum lot size requirements in certain zones severely restrict density, effectively excluding affordable housing. Research suggests that minimum lot size regulations have a particularly strong effect on limiting supply and increasing prices.25 Required parking can be both expensive to construct (costing up to thousands of dollars per surface spot or tens of thousands per underground spot) and take up land that could otherwise be used for greater housing density.26 Developers attempting to meet minimum parking requirements for high-density development often incur higher costs to construct structured parking, particularly if it is built underground. These added costs likely result in higher housing prices.27

Local regulations may include restrictive design guidelines and dwelling unit mix requirements. Localities may also have rules that prohibit accessory dwelling units or smaller units that would otherwise expand affordable residential options. Zoning that excludes manufactured housing also contributes to affordability challenges, because manufactured housing potentially offers a more affordable alternative to traditionally built housing without compromising building safety and quality.28

In addition, regulations such as flat impact fees shift cost burdens onto developers.29 Impact and other fees increase overall development costs and may influence builders’ decisions about where, how much, and at what price point to build.30

Permitting and Approvals. Beyond meeting the standards and requirements of local land use regulations, developers must go through permitting, review, and approval processes that can increase development costs. In addition to the hard costs for the permits themselves, permits may also lead to additional soft costs resulting from delays and uncertainty.31 Some of these processes also include forums for community input, which open developments to potential opposition. Abt Associates reports that in some cases, approvals can take years, while builders incur carrying costs such as interest payments. In addition to being lengthy, these processes can be complex and confusing, and they can differ widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction — a particular problem for builders who work in many different areas and have to learn the requirements for each. Even within a single jurisdiction, the permitting process may require interacting with several public agencies.32

NIMBYism. NIMBY opposition can take many forms, including public pressure on elected officials, such as members of a city council, who may have authority over funding applications or other approvals that developers need to start building or to make a project financially viable. To foster public participation, many localities have formalized venues and processes for community input. Community opposition can thwart projects, reduce a project’s density, or cause delays that create uncertainty and add costs for developers who often have little financial flexibility.33 Fischel explains that a residential zone might allow construction of single-family homes and duplexes “as of right” or without requiring a review and approval, whereas multifamily housing in the same zone might require a special exception by the zoning board that is presumed to be granted if certain criteria are met. But, Fischel continues, “one of the specific criteria is often that the use not adversely affect the ‘character of the neighborhood,’ which often invites open-ended discussion and negotiation with established residents of the neighborhood.”34

Land use rules are largely determined, directly or indirectly, by existing homeowners desiring to keep their property values high, and the potential beneficiaries of looser restrictions do not (yet) live or vote in those jurisdictions.35 Strong NIMBY opposition in places of opportunity may have the overall effect of reducing the amount of newly constructed affordable housing built in these areas.36 Developers want community involvement, says Munger, but community opposition can disrupt the timing of complicated financing and planning processes, ultimately resulting in higher development costs and higher rents.37 Developers tend to use formal or informal public information sessions to try to address community concerns and overcome opposition, but such efforts can be costly and time consuming.38

Land use regulations and NIMBYism not only increase the costs of individual developments but can also incur broader social and economic costs. A restricted supply of affordable housing increases the number of cost-burdened households and contributes to homelessness and housing insecurity, which in turn affect residents’ health, education, and employment, among other things. A dearth of affordable housing options, particularly in markets experiencing population growth, can also displace existing residents as a tight housing supply with few affordable alternatives pushes rents higher. Exclusionary zoning and NIMBYism also keep affordable housing out of places of opportunity, restricting the potential benefits for low-income households that would ultimately benefit the economy and society as a whole. Evidence also suggests that such restrictions suppress economic growth. Research by Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti models the costs to aggregate U.S. economic growth from the misallocation of labor caused by housing supply restrictions in centers of productivity. They find that from 1964 to 2009, constraints on the supply of new housing reduced economic growth by more than 50 percent.39 Although Glaeser and Gyourko estimate a smaller impact on economic growth, they nevertheless find that land use restrictions significantly lower national output.40

Local Strategies and Policy Responses

Local jurisdictions can address zoning and regulations, permitting and approval processes, and NIMBYism through various policies and strategies, including general approaches as well as responses that target specific barriers. As a start, says Lisa Sturtevant, senior visiting fellow at the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI’s) Terwilliger Center for Housing, local communities can review their existing policies, many of which were written decades ago, to ensure that they still apply under current conditions. She cites parking ratios as an example of regulations that may reflect dated assumptions about automobile use in places that have since expanded public transit options or where residents have different needs and preferences for how they use cars.41 A systematic review may reveal many requirements that should be revised or repealed to better reflect a community’s current housing needs.

Another general approach that communities can take is to establish by-right development, meaning that proposed developments that meet zoning requirements are administratively approved without public hearings or local legislative approval. This policy could be tied to other desirable goals such as encouraging transit-oriented development or increasing affordability. Similarly, adopting form-based codes can reduce NIMBY opposition by “putting the argument up front,” says Sturtevant. A locality can invite substantial community input into code requirements, adopt those requirements, and subsequently allow buildings that meet those standards to proceed without additional reviews subject to community input.42 Localities can also coordinate all of the public hearings required for the various permits and approvals of a single development so that they are held together.43

Local governments can also address specific regulatory barriers. Reducing minimum parking requirements, for example, can free up land for development, permit greater density, and reduce development costs. The drawback, and likely associated pushback from residents, is that reducing the number of parking spaces may inconvenience residents with cars and increase traffic congestion. Parking reductions, however, can be targeted to situations in which the negative effects will be minimized. The city of Seattle, for example, reduces minimum parking requirements by up to 50 percent for developments in multifamily zones that are within 1,320 feet of a street with frequent transit service.44

Localities can also streamline or expedite permitting processes. In some cases, governments can offer faster approvals as an incentive to develop projects that meet desirable goals such as increasing affordability. The city of San Diego, for example, expedites permitting for projects meeting specified standards of sustainability or affordability. The program also allows certain deviations from standard regulations. Developers do pay additional fees to participate in the program; however, the city waives those extra fees for projects that are 100 percent affordable. In addition to the fees, developers participating in the program must be prepared for several reviews and applications up front.45 Communities such as Denver, Colorado; Leesburg, Virginia; and Goodyear, Arizona, have set up one-stop administration of permitting to consolidate and streamline processes to the benefit of developers. Short of a one-stop system, localities can proactively improve interagency coordination among all the entities responsible for permitting within a jurisdiction.46

Construction of Folsom & Dore Apartments, which houses 130 low-income individuals, including those with a history of homelessness, benefited from reduced parking requirements. Luke Thomas, courtesy of the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation

Orlando, Florida, offers numerous incentives for developers of affordable housing and for developers who make in-lieu contributions to the city’s trust fund for low- and very low-income housing. Developers meeting these criteria may be eligible for federal or state funds, reduced or waived impact fees, density bonuses, alternative development standards, and expedited permitting. Each of these incentives can potentially reduce development costs or, in the case of a density bonus, increase the revenue and profitability of a development.47

Zoning and regulations can be loosened to allow multifamily housing, manufactured housing, homes with footprints that are significantly smaller than average, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and garage or basement rental units, all of which can expand affordable housing options. The California state legislature has adopted statutory changes to encourage construction of ADUs and increase the supply of affordable housing (see “States Reduce Regulatory Barriers for Affordable Housing”).

Cottage housing, modestly sized homes on smaller lots that are either used as infill development or clustered with other cottage homes around a common area, can increase the density of single-family detached housing.48 A handful of cities such as Kirkland and Lakewood in Washington have adopted codes or ordinances to allow cottage housing.49 Another strategy is to allow tandem housing — two detached homes on a lot.50 To foster greater density and affordability, the city of Portland has allowed lot sizes that are less than 36 feet wide on which developers can build homes with preapproved “permit-ready” plans. This approach combines zoning rules that encourage density with a streamlined approval process to provide a dual incentive to builders.51

Some jurisdictions have relaxed parking requirements for housing located near public transit. Arina P Habich / Shutterstock.com

Some cities have implemented inclusionary zoning (IZ), requiring developments of a certain size to include units with affordability restrictions, typically in exchange for density bonuses. In some instances, as in the Orlando case mentioned above, developers can pay in-lieu fees (to support affordable housing construction) or build affordable units offsite. Research shows that these options can be effective in creating affordable units while avoiding some of the likely costs and controversies from building the affordable units onsite.52 IZ policies have produced a modest number of affordable units.53 Some critics argue that IZ is ultimately counterproductive. Calder, for example, argues that, as with other land use regulations, IZ requirements weaken economic incentives for development.54 One study that compares jurisdictions with IZ to those without concludes that IZ increases the prices of single-family homes and reduces their average size, but it also increases multifamily construction.55 Another study, however, finds no statistically significant adverse effect on housing supply in markets with IZ.56 Noting that it is difficult to generalize the many studies of IZ in particular locations at particular times, Sturtevant concludes that “the most highly regarded empirical evidence suggests that inclusionary housing programs can produce affordable housing and do not lead to significant declines in overall housing production or to increases in market-rate prices.”57 She says that the effectiveness of IZ ultimately is determined by local conditions and implementation.58 Williams suggests that, in particular, localities need flexibility to adjust to changing market conditions.59 Local governments can evaluate the tradeoffs of such policies to determine whether they result in a net benefit.

A Role for States

States have authority over zoning, which they typically grant to local governing bodies. States, however, can set parameters and encourage certain practices. Bratt and Vladeck note three categories of state interventions to address land use and zoning policies that exclude affordable housing: a statewide affordable housing goal that applies to all jurisdictions, a fair-share mandate that allocates affordable housing according to need, and a statewide requirement that local communities include a housing element in their comprehensive plans.60 A recent ULI housing policy report identifies strategies for states and local communities to increase their supply of affordable housing by reducing barriers related to land use and other regulations. The report’s authors view the state’s authority over land use policies and their resources for supporting localities in planning as underutilized and potentially significant levers for expanding housing choice and opportunities.61

The ULI report offers five specific, complementary strategies that states can pursue to reduce barriers to an expanded housing supply. First, states can require local and regional housing needs assessments that could prompt communities to be more thoughtful about land use policies.62 Sturtevant says that combining planning for housing with that for schools and other services may help localities better understand and address housing needs.63 Second, states can support local communities by providing technical assistance and financial incentives to implement zoning frameworks that encourage denser development. Third, they can reduce regulatory barriers and streamline processes that increase development costs. Fourth, states can empower localities to align their own resources to create incentives for development, which may require states to grant these localities additional flexibility or authority to deploy their resources more effectively.64 For example, Washington state gave local jurisdictions the power to exempt developers that build multifamily housing from property taxes for 8 to 12 years when they meet certain criteria. For developers to get the benefit for 12 years, the property must allocate 20 percent of its units to low- or moderate-income residents. As of 2016, the policy had resulted in more than 7,000 affordable units in Seattle.65 Finally, states can authorize localities to combat or moderate NIMBY opposition to new development.66

When states adopt zoning parameters or requirements that preempt those of local governments, they can help facilitate development that may be unpopular with existing residents but that ultimately benefits the state and local economies.67 States can also coordinate state-local and interjurisdictional requirements to streamline processes and reduce paperwork for developers.68 Developers may have to prepare applications and meet requirements for multiple jurisdictions (for example, at the state level and the local level) with different standards instead of a simpler, uniform framework.69

Conclusion

Evidence suggests that regulatory barriers and NIMBY opposition are significant factors in affordable housing challenges, particularly in markets with strong job and population growth. Housing supply restrictions contribute to high rates of housing cost burdens, homelessness, displacement, and housing instability. Broader implications include spatial mismatch of housing and jobs that depress economic output and growth and exclude low-income households from areas of opportunity. Generally, local communities in the United States have struggled to combat regulatory barriers effectively. However, state and local governments can take numerous approaches to shape zoning and regulation in a way that increases the housing supply and drives down prices to better meet the housing needs of their communities.

1. Dr. Ben Carson. 2018. Speech to the Policy Advisory Board of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University Winter Meeting, Washington, DC, 31 January (www.hud.gov/press/speeches_remarks_statements/Speech_013118). Accessed 5 February 2018.
2. Interview with Lisa Sturtevant, 22 February 2018.
3. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2017. “America's Rental Housing 2017,” 4; Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2018. “The Employment Situation—March 2018,” 6 April press release; Sewin Chan and Gita Khun Jush. 2017. “2017 National Rental Housing Landscape: Renting in the Nation's Largest Metros,” NYU Furman Center, 3, 20.
4. Carson.
5. William A. Fischel. 2015. Zoning Rules! The Economics of Land Regulation, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 28.
6. The latter group are commonly referred to as “Dillon's rule” states. Sonia A. Hirt. 2014. Zoned in the USA: The Origins and Implications of American Land-Use Regulation, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 34.
7. Hirt, 34–5.
8. Ibid., 133.
9. Ibid., 120–1.
10. Ibid., 34.
11. Ibid., 34–5, 39–40.
12. Matthew Resseger. 2013. “The Impact of Land Use Regulation on Racial Segregation: Evidence from Massachusetts Zoning Borders,” Harvard University; Joseph Gyourko and Raven Molloy. 2015. “Regulation and Housing Supply,” Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics 5B, 1289.
13. Interview with Jenny Schuetz, 3 January 2018.
14. Hirt, 22–3.
15. Gyourko and Molloy, 1289, 1293.
16. Ibid., 1297.
17. Sanford Ikeda and Emily Washington. 2015. “How Land-Use Regulation Undermines Affordable Housing,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 7.
18. National Apartment Association. 2017. “United States Needs 4.6 Million New Apartments By 2030 or It Will Face A Serious Shortage,” Units Magazine, June.
19. Paul Emrath. 2016. “Government Regulation in the Price of a New Home: Special Study for Housing Economics,” National Association of Home Builders, 1.
20. Kristoffer Jackson. 2016. “Do land use regulations stifle residential development? Evidence from California cities,” Journal of Urban Economics 91, 45.
21. Edward Glaeser. 2017. “Reforming land use regulations,” Brookings Series on Market and Government Failures, 24 April.
22. C.J. Gabbe. 2015. “Looking Through the Lens of Size: Land Use Regulations and Micro-Apartments in San Francisco,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 17:2, 224–5.
23. Interview with Jenny Schuetz.
24. Rachel G. Bratt and Abigail Vladeck. 2014. “Addressing Restrictive Zoning for Affordable Housing: Experiences in Four States,” Housing Policy Debate 24:3, 594.
25. Mercatus Center at George Mason University. n.d. “How Land-Use Regulation Undermines Affordable Housing,” Mercatus Center Research Summary, 2.
26. The White House. 2016. “Housing Development Toolkit,” 16.
27. Ikeda and Washington, 13.
28. Daniel R. Mandelker. 2016. “Zoning Barriers to Manufactured Housing,” The Urban Lawyer 48:2, 233–4.
29. Gabbe.
30. Interview with Paula Munger, 22 February 2018.
31. Paul Emrath. n.d. “How Government Regulation Affects the Price of a New Home,” National Association of Home Builders, 1.
32. Abt Associates. 2015. “Development Process Efficiency: Cutting Through the Red Tape,” National Association of Home Builders, 1, 7.
33. Corianne Payton Scally and J. Rosie Tighe. 2015. “Democracy  in Action?: NIMBY as Impediment to Equitable Affordable Housing Siting,” Housing Studies 30:5; Interview with Lisa Sturtevant.
34. Fischel, 38.
35. Edward Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko. 2018. “The Economic Implications of Housing Supply,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 32:1, 5, 27.
36. Interview with Lisa Sturtevant.
37. Interview with Paula Munger.
38. Scally and Tighe.
39. Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti. 2017. “Housing Constraints and Spatial Misallocation.”
40. Glaeser and Gyourko, 5.
41. Interview with Lisa Sturtevant.
42. Ibid.
43. Abt Associates, 12.
44. City of Seattle Municipal Code Title 23 – Land Use Code, Subtitle III – Land Use Regulations, Chapter 23.54 Quantity and Design Standards for Access, Off-Street Parking, and Solid Waste Storage. Section 020 – Parking Quantity Exceptions.
45. City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2018. “Expedite Program for Affordable, In-Fill Housing & Sustainable Buildings,” Information Bulletin 538, May.
46. Abt Associates, 7–9.
47. City of Orlando. "Incentives for Affordable Housing Development" (www.cityoforlando.net/housing/developmentincentives/). Accessed 16 February 2018.
48. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Kirkland, Washington: Cottage Housing Ordinance” (www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_102011_2.html). Accessed 19 April 2018.
49. Municipal Research and Services Center. “Cottage Housing” (mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Planning/Specific-Planning-Subjects,-Plan-Elements/Cottage-Housing.aspx). Accessed 28 February 2018.
50. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Regulatory  Barriers Clearinghouse. 2008. “Zoning for Affordability,” Breakthroughs 7:6.
51. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Portland, Oregon: Living Smart Program” (www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_101711_1.html). Accessed 19 April 2018.
52. Douglas R. Porter and Elizabeth B. Davison. 2009. “Evaluation of In-Lieu Fees and Offsite Construction as Incentives for Affordable Housing Production,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 11:2, 27–59.
53. Jenny Schuetz, Rachel Meltzer, and Vicki Been. 2011. “Silver Bullet or Trojan Horse? The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets in the United States,” Urban Studies 48:2, 297–329.
54. Vanessa Brown Calder. 2017. “Zoning, Land-Use Planning, and Housing Affordability,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 823, 18 October.
55. Antonio Bento, Scott Lowe, Gerrit-Jan Knapp, and Arnab Chakraborty. 2009. “Housing Market Effects of Inclusionary Zoning,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 11:2, 7.
56. Vinit Mukhija, Lara Regus, Sara Slovin, and Ashok Das. 2010. “Can Inclusionary Zoning Be an Effective and Efficient Housing Policy? Evidence from Los Angeles and Orange Counties,” Journal of Urban Affairs 32:2, 229–52.
57. Lisa A. Sturtevant. 2016. “Separating Fact from Fiction to Design Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs,” Center for Housing Policy, 1.
58. Ibid.
59. Stockton Williams, Ian Carlton, Lorelei Juntunen, Emily Picha, and Mike Wilkerson. 2016. “The Economics of Inclusionary Development,” Urban Land Institute, Terwilliger Center for Housing, 19.
60. Rachel G. Bratt and Abigail Vladeck. 2014. “Addressing Restrictive Zoning for Affordable Housing: Experiences in Four States,” Housing Policy Debate 24:3, 596–7.
61. Stockton Williams, Lisa Sturtevant, and Rosmarie Hepner. 2017. “Yes in My Backyard: How States and Local Communities Can Find Common Ground in Expanding Housing Choice and Opportunity.” Urban Land Institute, 4–5.
62. Ibid., 7.
63. Interview with Lisa Sturtevant.
64. Williams et al., 7.
65. Ibid., 15–6.
66. Ibid., 7.
67. Interview with Lisa Sturtevant.
68. Andrew Jakabovics, Lynn M. Ross, Molly Simpson, and Michael Spotts. 2014. Bending the Cost Curve: Solutions to Expand the Supply of Affordable Rentals, Urban Land Institute, Terwilliger Center for Housing, 22.
69. Ibid., 20.

Evidence Matters Home              Next Article