Direct Democracy and Land Use Policy: Exchanging Public Goods for Development Rights

Abstract

To counter the power of pro-development interests, growth opponents in American communities have increasingly turned to the institutions of direct democracy. This study analyses the effects of one type of direct democracy-voter requirements for new development-on municipal growth. Analysing data from a sample of California communities, we consider the impact of voter requirements on the land use process and outcomes. We find that—in general-voter requirements fail to stop new development; property owners and developers can and do adapt to the constraints created by these direct democracy institutions. We also find, however, that voter requirements change the land use process in important ways. Specifically, they change the way developers interact with interest groups in the community and force developers to compensate current residents for enduring some of the negative aspects of growth.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baldassare, M. (2000) PPIC statewide survey: special survey of San Diego County. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

Baldassare, M. (2001) PPIC statewide survey. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

Balint, K. (1998) County approves giant 4S ranch project, San Diego Union-Tribune 5 November, pp. B-1: 2, 4; B-8: 3, 5.

Berhman, J. (1999) Preview offered of San Elijo Hills Park, San Diego Union-Tribune 3 December, pp. B-2: 2, 3; B-3: 1.

Bowler, S. AND Donovan, T. (1998) Demanding Choices. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Broder, D. (2000) Democracy Derailed. New York : Harcourt.

Calavita, N. (1992) Growth machines and ballot box planning: the San Diego case, Journal of Urban Affairs, 14(1), pp. 1-24.

Caves, R.W. (1992) Land Use Planning. New-bury Park, CA: Sage.

City Of San Diego (1993) General Plan and Progress Guide. San Diego, CA.

10.

Coase, R.H. (1960) The problem of social cost, Journal of Law and Economics, 3, pp. 1-44.

11.

County Of San Diego (1986-1998 ) Ballot Pamphlet. San Diego, CA.

12.

Donovan, T. and Neiman, M. (1992) Community social status, suburban growth and local government restrictions on residential development, Urban Affairs Quarterly, 28, pp. 323-336.

13.

Dubin, J.A. , Kiewiet, D.R. and Noussair, C. (1992) Voting on growth control measures: preferences and strategies, Economics and Politics, 4, pp. 191-213.

14.

Durkee, M.P. , Jacobson, M.T. , Wood, T.C. and Zischke, M.H. (1990) Land-use Initiatives and Referenda in California. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books .

15.

Fischel, W.A. (2001) The Homevoter Hypothesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

16.

Gerber, E.R. (1999) The Populist Paradox. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

17.

Gerber, E.R. and Lupia, A. (1999) Voter competence in direct legislation elections , in: S. Elkins and K. Soltan (Eds) Citizen Competence, pp. 147-160. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.

18.

Jonas, A.E.G. and Wilson, D. (1999) The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

19.

Ladd, E.C. and Bowman, K.H. (1995) Attitudes toward the Environment Twenty-Five Years after Earth Day. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

20.

Logan, J.R. and Zhou, M. (1989) Do suburban growth controls control growth?, American Sociological Review, 54, pp. 461-471.

21.

Lupia, A. (1994) Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections, American Political Science Review, 88, pp. 63-76.

22.

Mcmenamy, D. (1999) Development targeted propositions. Undergraduate Dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego.

23.

Molotch, H. (1976) The city as a growth machine, American Journal of Sociology, 82(2), pp. 309-330.

24.

POLLING REPORT (2001) (available at: www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm).

25.

Renner, T. (2002) Local initiative and referendum in the United States . Washington, DC: Initiative and Referendum Institute (www.iandrinstitute.org ).

26.

Ristine, J. (1985) Proposition A to jam built up areas? Impact of slow growth measure debated, San Diego Union-Tribune, 31 October, pp. B-1: Ed. 5, 6; B-5, Ed. 4.

27.

Smith, D. (1998) Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy . New York: Routledge.

28.

Weisberg, L. (1987) Project that stirred vote on growth is back, San Diego Union-Tribune, 12 October, p. B-1.

29.

Weisberg, L. (1996) North city approvals buoy developers, San Diego Union-Tribune, 7 November, pp. B-5: 1, 6, 7, 8; B-10: 3.