Customer Reviews

Growth Management and Affordable Housing: Do They Conflict? (James A. Johnson Metro)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The basic message of most essays in this book is that growth management and inclusionary zoning simply don't matter as much as their vigourous critics suggest: that neither program does much good or much harm.

For example, one of the earliest essays compares Montgomery County, Maryland (which has a growth management policy that preserves some of the county's farmland, and which also has inclusionary zoning) with Fairfax County, Va. (which is much less restrictive as to both issues), and concludes that affordability problems existed at a roughly similar rate in both counties.

Similarly, another essay evaluates Oregon's urban growth boundary and its affect on housing prices in Portland, and concludes that Portland has not become more expensive any faster than other western cities with conventional zoning. (Although as William Fischel points out in a reply to that essay, a city with no zoning at all would be cheaper than either Portland OR other heavily zoned cities).

One small quibble: the essays betrayed lots of confusion about what the ultimate goal of national housing policy should be. For example, one response to the Portland essay (Fischel's) complains that prices are too high in the West- while another reply suggests that Oregon's policies might actually reduce home values by trying to urbanize essentially suburban areas.

Government housing policy is afflicted by the same confusion - on the one hand, government funnels money into housing in order to increase affordability, but on the other hand government restricts development in order to bid up housing prices. We as a culture cannot decide whether we want expensive housing to protect existing homeowners or less expensive housing to protect the people who aren't homeowners.