Abstract
It is often contended that support for local limitations on residential development results from the demands of the affluent, who wish to ensure limited access to their communities. This contention, along with alternative explanations of local growth-control support, are examined. The article explores empirical dimensions of support for elect orally induced control of residential development. A major finding, which utilizes a discriminant function analysis of a random sample survey of registered voters, is that under some circumstances there may be no relationship between measures of affluence or socioeconomic status and support for limiting residential development. In addition, the findings reveal the possible existence of substantial, wide-based support for protection of the local environment that is related to a commitment to the role of government in maintaining local amenities and services. The article concludes with an analysis of local growth control as an issue that significantly defines the agenda of suburban politics and the concerns of a broad spectrum of American citizens.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.