The resurgence of state land use planning in the 1980s has again stimulated debate over the virtues of centralized land use control. Unfor tunately, the debate rages with little empirical evidence on substantive is sues. This paper examines the rela tionship between state land use planning and inclusionary zoning in Oregon, and explores whether state planning fosters inclusionary zoning. The paper suggests that state plan ning in Oregon indeed fosters a lim ited form of inclusionary zoning. Be cause state planning occurs in a different political environment than local planning, the paper suggests, state land use planning differs sub stantively from local planning. Fur ther, to the extent that similar politi cal forces operate in other states, state land use planning offers the potential of overcoming a major obstacle to providing low-income housing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Babcock, R.1966. The Zoning Game: Municipal Practices and Policies . Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press.
2.
Babcock, R., and Bosselman F.1973. Exclusionary Zoning: Land Use and Housing in the 1970s . New York: Praeger Publishers .
3.
Barnes, W.R.1987. A Time to Build Up: A Survey of Cities about Housing Policy . Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities.
4.
Black, T., and Dunau F.1981. The Effect of Regulation on Residential Land Prices . Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
5.
Beaton, C.R.1982. An Examination of Relationships Between Land Use Planning and Housing Costs in Oregon, 1970-1980 Focusing on the Urban Growth Boundary . Unpublished manuscript.
6.
Bosselman, F., and Callies D.1972. The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office .
7.
Capozza, D., and Helsley R.1989. The fundamentals of land prices and urban growth . Journal of Urban Economics26:295-306.
8.
Davis, O.1963. Economic elements of municipal zoning decisions . Land Economics39:375-86.
9.
DeGrove, J.1985. Land, Growth, and Politics. Chicago : Planners Press.
10.
DeGrove, J.M. and Stroud N.1980. Oregon's State Urban Strategy. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
11.
—. 1987. State land planning and regulation: innovative roles in the 1980s and beyond. Land Use Law39(3):3-8.
12.
deHaven-Smith, L.1984. Regulatory theory and state land use regulation : implications from Florida's experience with growth management. Public Administration Review44(5):414-20.
13.
ECO-Northwest and David J. Newton Associates.1990. Department of Land Conservation and Development's Growth Management Project, Phase 1: Methodology. Eugene, Oreg. Unpublished manuscript.
14.
Ervin, D.E.; Fitch J.B.; Godwin R.K.; Shepherd W.B.; and Stoevener H.1977. Land Use Control: Evaluating Economic and Political Effects , Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger .
15.
Fischel, W.1985. The Economics of Zoning Laws: A Property Rights Approach . Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
Fischel, W.1989. Centralized control: Do we want a double-veto system ? Journal of the American Planning Association55(2):205-206.
17.
Fleming, A.1988. Mandatory inclusionary housing as a local option in Florida . Environment and Urban Issues15(3):8-11.
18.
Frieden, B.1979. The Environmental Protection Hustle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
19.
Godwin, K., and Shepherd, B.1975. State land use policies: Winners and losers. Environmental Law5:703-25.
20.
Greenfield, M. and de Kroon-Rahman, L.1982. The Impact of Oregon's Land Use Planning Program on Housing Opportunities in the Portland Metropolitan Region. Portland, Oreg.: 1000 Friends of Oregon.
21.
Hopperton, R.J.1980. A new phase of the quiet revolution. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest32(3):7-9.
22.
Heiman, M.1988. The Quiet Evolution: Power, Planning, and Profits in New York State. New York: Praeger .
23.
Johnson, M. B., ed. 1982. Resolving the Housing Crises: Government Policy, Decontrol and the Public Interest. San Francisco: Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research.
24.
Joint Center for Housing Studies.1989. The State of the Nations's Housing 1989. Cambridge, Mass. : Joint Center for Housing Studies.
25.
Knaap, G.J.1982. The Price Effects of an Urban Growth Boundary: A Test for the Effects of Timing. Eugene, Oreg.: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
26.
—. 1985. The price effects of urban growth boundaries in metropolitan Portland, Oregon. Land Economics61(1):26-35.
27.
—. 1990. The political economy of growth management: lessons from Oregon. Review of Regional Studies. 19(1):1-7.
28.
Knaap, G.J., and Nelson A.C. Forthcoming.The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land Use Planning from Oregon . Cambridge, Mass.: The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy .
29.
Land Conservation and Development Commission.1976. Statewide Goals and Guidelines. Salem , Oreg.
30.
Leonard, J.1983. Managing Oregon's Growth: The Politics of Development Planning. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.
31.
Linowes, R., and Allensworth D.1975. The States and Land Use Control. New York.: Praeger.
32.
Lowi, T.1969. The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority. New York: Norton.
33.
Mallach, A.1984. Inclusionary Housing Programs: Policies and Practices . New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
34.
Mills, E.1979. Economic Analysis of Urban Land-Use Controls. In Current Issues in Urban Economics, eds. P. Mieszkowski and M. Straszheim, Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins.
35.
Morgan, T.1984. Exclusionary Zoning: Remedies under Oregon's land use planning program. Environmental Law14:779-829.
36.
Nelson, A.C.1988. An empirical note on how regional urban containment policy influences an interaction between greenbelt and ex-urban land markets . Journal of the American Planning Association54(2):178-84.
37.
Nourse, H.1977. The Political Economy of Land Use Regulation. Unpublished manuscript.
38.
Plotkin, S.1987. Keep Out: The Struggle for Land Use Control. Berkeley: University of California Press .
39.
Popper, F.1981. The Politics of Land Use Reform. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press.
40.
—. 1988. Understanding American land use regulation since 1970: A revisionist interpretation. Journal of the American Planning Association54(3):291-301.
41.
Portland Homebuilders Association.1980. Real Estate Report for Metropolitan Portland, Oregon. Portland, Oreg.: Portland Real Estate Report.
42.
Rohse, M.1988. Land-Use Planning in Oregon. Corvallis, Oreg.: Oregon State University Press.
43.
Rosenbaum, N.1976. Land Use and the Legislatures: The Politics of State Innovation . Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute .
44.
Rubin, J.; Seneca, J.; and Stotsky J.1990. Affordable Housing and Municipal Choice. Land Economics66(3):325-340.
45.
Schwartz, S., and Johnston, R.1983. Inclusionary Housing ProgramsJournal of the American Planning Association49(1):3-21.
46.
Sidor, J.1984a. Affordable Housing and Land Supply and Development: The State Role. Washington, D.C.: Council of State Community Affairs Agencies.
47.
—. 1984b. Influencing Land Supply and Land Development for Affordable Housing: Massachusetts, California, and Oregon. Washington, D.C.: Council of State Community Affairs Agencies.
48.
Walker, R., and Heiman, M.1981. Quiet revolution for whom? Annals of the Association of American Geographers71(1):67-83.
