Many local governments face the challenge of addressing the shortage of affordable housing. This study examines the effectiveness of incentives and construction alternatives available from Southern California cities and those used by developers to address the need for affordable housing, using a survey research method. The results suggest that while density bonus ranks highest among the incentives available from cities, other incentives—design flexibility, subsidies, and fast-track processing—contribute considerably but were not available from many cities. Because few municipalities can offer subsidies, planners might offer no-cost incentives such as design flexibility and fast-track processing to encourage inclusionary housing.
BasoloV.1999. “The Impacts of Inter-city Competition and Inter-governmental Factors on Local Affordable Housing Programs.” Housing Policy Debate10 (3): 659–88.
2.
BasoloV.ScallyC.2008. “State Innovations in Affordable Housing Policy. Lessons from California and New Jersey.” Housing Policy Debate19 (4): 741–74.
3.
BentoA.LoweS.KnaapG.ChakrabortyA.2013. “Housing Market Effects of Inclusionary Zoning.” In The Affordable Housing Reader, edited by TigheJ. R.MuellerE. J., 438–51. New York: Routledge.
4.
BlackwellD. H.2011. “The Density Bonus Law: Has Its Time Finally Arrived?” California Real Property Journal29 (4): 13–20.
5.
BrattR.1989. Rebuilding a Low-Income Housing Policy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
CalavitaN.GrimesK.1998. “Inclusionary Housing in California: The Experience of Two Decades.” Journal of the American Planning Association64 (2): 150–69.
9.
CalavitaN.MallachA., eds. 2010. Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective: Affordable Housing, Social Inclusion, and Land Value Recapture. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
California Coalition for Rural Housing and Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. 2003. “Inclusionary Housing in California: 30 Years of Innovation.” http://www.calruralhousing.org/?page_id=110 (accessed December 2, 2010).
California Planning Roundtable. 1993. Myths and Facts about Affordable Housing and High Density Housing. Sacramento: California Department of Housing and Community Development.
CurtinD. J.Jr.TalbertC. T.2007. Curtin’s California Land Use and Planning Law. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press.
20.
DavidsonM.DolnickF., eds. 2004. A Planners Dictionary. Chicago: American Planning Association.
21.
GalsterG. C.2008. “U.S. Housing Scholarship, Planning, and Policy Since 1968.” Journal of The American Planning Association74 (1): 5–16.
22.
GardeA. M.2008. “City Sense and Suburban Design: Planners’ Perceptions of Emerging Suburban Form.” Journal of the American Planning Association74 (3): 325–42.
23.
GardeA. M.SaphoresJ. D.MatthewR.DayK.2010. “Sustainable Neighborhood Development: Insights from Southern California.” Environment and Planning B37 (3): 387–407.
24.
GardeA. M.2012. “America’s Suburban Counties Growing in a Similar Way? Insights from Neighborhood-Scale Projects in Southern California.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research29 (2): 91–112.
25.
GoetzE.1993. Shelter Burden: Local Politics and Progressive Housing Policy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
26.
HolmS.1979. “A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure.” Scandinavian Journal of Statistics6 (2): 65–70.
MallachA.1984. Inclusionary Housing Programs: Policies and Practices. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
31.
McClureK.2008. “Deconcentrating Poverty with Housing Programs.” Journal of the American Planning Association74 (1): 90–99.
32.
MuellerE. J.SchwartzA.2008. “Reversing the Tide: Will State and Local Governments House the Poor as Federal Direct Subsidies Decline?”Journal of the American Planning Association74 (1): 122–35.
33.
MukhijaV.RegusL.SlovinS.DasA.2010. “Can Inclusionary Zoning Be an Effective and Efficient Housing Policy? Evidence from Los Angeles and Orange Counties.” Journal of Urban Affairs32 (2): 229–52.
34.
PorterD. R.DavisonE. B.2009. “Evaluation of In-Lieu Fees and Offsite Construction as Incentives for Affordable Housing Production.” Cityscape11 (2): 27–59.
35.
RyanS.EnderleB. E2012. “Examining spatial patterns in affordable housing: the case of California density bonus implementation.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment27:413–25.
36.
SchuetzJ.MeltzerR.BeenV.2009. “31 Flavors of Inclusionary Zoning: Comparing Policies from San Francisco, Washington DC, and Suburban Boston.” Journal of the American Planning Association75 (4): 1–16.
37.
SchwartzA. F.2010. Housing Policy in the United States, 2nd ed.New York: Routledge.
Southern California Association of Governments. 2012a. 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Los Angeles: Southern California Association of Governments.
