Courts in the neighboring states of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania have taken divergent approaches to local exclusionary zoning, which entails land use regulations restricting the development of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Using difference-in-differences regression models, we assess whether this variation has affected the availability of townhome and apartment units. We also validate the use of unit type as a proxy for occupant income. We find that New Jersey’s approach was associated with increases in the stock of townhome and apartment units relative to suburban jurisdictions in New York State, but not Pennsylvania.
AngristJoshua D.PischkeJörn-Steffen. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2.
BesleyTimothyCaseAnne. 2000. “Unnatural Experiments? Estimating the Incidence of Endogenous Policies.” The Economic Journal, 110(467): 672–694.
3.
BrattRachel G.VladeckAbigail. 2014. “Addressing Restrictive Zoning for Affordable Housing: Experiences in Four States.” Housing Policy Debate, 24(3): 594–636.
4.
BruecknerJan K.KimHyun-A.2003. “Urban Sprawl and the Property Tax.” International Tax and Public Finance, 10(1): 5–23.
5.
CameronA. ColinTrivediPravin K.2010. Microeconometrics Using Stata. College Station: Stata Press.
6.
CameronA. ColinTrivediPravin K.2013. Regression Analysis of Count Data. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CardDavidKruegerAlan B.1993. “Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.” American Economic Review, 84(4): 772–793.
8.
CowanSpencer M.2006. “Anti-Snob Land Use Laws, Suburban Exclusion, and Housing Opportunity.” Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(3): 295–313.
9.
DanielsonMichael N.1976. The Politics of Exclusion. New York: Columbia University Press.
10.
DillerPaul A.SullivanEdward J.2018. “The Challenge of Housing Affordability in Oregon: Facts, Tools, and Outcomes.” Journal of Affordable Housing, 27(1): 183–231.
11.
DillmanKeri-NicoleFisherLynn M.2009. “The Role of Private-Sector Developers in Challenges to Local Land Use Regulations.” In Property Rights and Land Policies, edited by IngramGregory K.HongYu-Hung, 384–412. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
12.
DiverColin S.1979. “The Judge as Political Powerbroker: Superintending Structural Change in Public Institutions.” Virginia Law Review, 65(1): 43–106.
FischelWilliam A.2011. “The Evolution of Zoning Since the 1980s: The Persistence of Localism.” In Property in Land and Other Resources, edited by ColeD. H.OstromE., 288–293. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
15.
FischelWilliam A.2015. Zoning Rules! The Economics of Land Use Regulation. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
GodschalkDavid R.BrowerDavid J.1978. “Beyond the City Limits: Regional Equity as an Emerging Issue.” Urban Law Annual, 15: 159–198.
21.
GraddyElizabeth A.BosticRaphael W.2010. “The Role of Private Agents in Affordable Housing Policy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(suppl. 1): i81–i99.
22.
HaarCharles M.1996. Suburbs Under Siege: Race, Space, and Audacious Judges. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
23.
HaarCharles M.1997. “Judges as Agents of Social Change: Can the Courts Break the Affordable Housing Deadlock in Metropolitan Areas?” Housing Policy Debate, 8(3): 633–650.
ImbensGuido W.WooldridgeJeffrey M.2009. “Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation.” Journal of Economic Literature, 47(1): 5–86.
27.
KirpDavid L.DwyerJohn P.RosenthalLarry A.1995. Our Town: Race, Housing, and the Soul of Suburbia. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
28.
LamarMarthaMallachAlanPayneJohn M.1989. “Mount Laurel at Work: Affordable Housing in New Jersey, 1983–1988.” Rutgers Law Review, 41(4): 1197–1278.
29.
LensMichael C.MonkkonenPaavo. 2016. “Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income?” Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(1): 6–21.
30.
LipmanWynona M.1986. “The ‘Fair’ Housing Act?” Seton Hall Legislative Journal, 9(3): 569–574.
31.
MallachAlan.1986. “The Tortured Reality of Suburban Exclusion: Zoning, Economics, and the Future of the Berenson Doctrine.” Pace Environmental Law Review, 4(1): 37–130.
32.
MallachAlan.2008. “Challenging the New Geography of Exclusion: The Mount Laurel Doctrine and the Changing Climate of Growth and Redevelopment in New Jersey.” In Mount Laurel II at 25: The Unfinished Agenda of Fair Share Housing, edited by SattinTimothy N. Castano and Dale, 21–44. Princeton: Policy Research Institute for the Region, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University.
33.
MallachAlan.2011. “The Mount Laurel Doctrine and the Uncertainties of Social Policy in a Time of Retrenchment.” Rutgers Law Review, 63(3): 849–866.
34.
MansonStevenSchroederJonathanVan RiperDavidRugglesSteven. 2017. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 12.0 [Database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
35.
MarantzNicholas J.DillonHarya S.2018. “Do State Affordable Housing Appeals Systems Backfire? A Natural Experiment.” Housing Policy Debate, 28(2): 267–284.
36.
MitchellJames L.2004. “Will Empowering Developers to Challenge Exclusionary Zoning Increase Suburban Housing Choice?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(1): 119–134.
NolonJohn R.1986. “A Comparative Analysis of New Jersey’s Mount Laurel Cases with the Berenson Cases in New York.” Pace Environmental Law Review, 4(1): 3–35.
39.
PayneJohn M.1997. “Politics, Exclusionary Zoning and Robert Wilentz.” Rutgers Law Review, 49: 689–712.
40.
QuigleyJohn M.RaphaelSteven. 2004. “Is Housing Unaffordable? Why Isn’t It More Affordable?” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(1): 191–214.
41.
RiceTerry.1995. “1994–95 Survey of New York Law: Zoning and Land Use.” Syracuse Law Review, 46: 951–998.
42.
RosenbergGerald N.2008. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?, 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
RowanKatrin C.2007. “Anti-Exclusionary Zoning in Pennsylvania: A Weapon for Developers, a Loss for Low-Income Pennsylvanians.” Temple Law Review, 80: 1271–1304.
44.
RyanRobert S.1981. Pennsylvania Zoning Law and Practice. Philadelphia: G.T. Bisel Co.
45.
SchillMichael H.2005. “Regulations and Housing Development: What We Know.” Cityscape, 8(1): 5–19.
46.
SchmidtStephanPaulsenKurt. 2009. “Is Open-Space Preservation a Form of Exclusionary Zoning? The Evolution of Municipal Open-Space Policies in New Jersey.” Urban Affairs Review, 45(1): 92–118.
47.
SilversteinThomas.2015. “Overcoming Land Use Localism: How HUD’s New Fair Housing Regulation Can Push States to Eradicate Exclusionary Zoning.” University of Baltimore Journal of Land and Development, 5: 25–58.
48.
SolinskiJulie M.1998. “Affordable Housing Law in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut: Lessons for Other States.” Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law, 8(1): 36–80.
49.
SpanHenry A.2001. “How the Courts Should Fight Exclusionary Zoning.” Seton Hall Law Review, 32: 1–107.
50.
StahlKenneth A.2018. “‘Yes in My Backyard’: Can a New Pro-Housing Movement Overcome the Power of NIMBYs?” Zoning and Planning Law Report, 41(3): 1–16.
SterkStewart E.1992. “Environmental Review in the Land Use Process: New York’s Experience with SEQRA.” Cardozo Law Review, 13: 2041–2096.
53.
TarlockA. Dan.1988. “Remedying the Irremediable: The Lessons of Gautreaux.” Chicago-Kent Law Review, 64: 451–478.
54.
US Census Bureau. 2008, January21. Census of Population and Housing, 1980 [United States]: Summary Tape File 3A. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. Accessed November 18, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08071.v1.
WilliamsNormanTaylorJohn M.2011. American Land Planning Law: Land Use and the Police Power, rev. ed. St. Paul: Thomson/West.
63.
WishNaomi B.EisdorferStephen. 1997. “Impact of Mount Laurel Initiatives: An Analysis of the Characteristics of Applicants and Occupants.” Seton Hall Law Review, 27(4): 1268–1337.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
