The other two respondents have carefully articulated many objections to David Imbroscio’s essay, responding to its arguments on its own terms. Rather than another point-by-point response, I offer a counternarrative that looks toward the future. In my view, ending exclusionary zoning (EZ) is an important element in a campaign to avoid some of the suffering low-income people in the United States will experience as the global climate emergency becomes increasingly acute, the national population ages, and the entrenched power of right-wing libertarians sustains inequality. Parochial actions like EZ will further complicate responses to these challenges. My response argues that for these reasons, Imbroscio’s essay is neither ethical nor logical.
BarbourElisaDeakinElizabeth A.2012. “Smart Growth Planning for Climate Protection: Evaluating California’s Senate Bill 375.” Journal of the American Planning Association78 (1): 70–86.
BrooksLeahLutzByron. 2016. “From Today’s City to Tomorrow’s City: An Empirical Investigation of Urban Land Assembly.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy8 (3): 69–105.
4.
BurchellRobert W.LowensteinGeorgeDolphinWilliam R.GalleyCatherine C.DownsAnthonySeskinSamuelStillKatherine GrayMooreTerry. 2002. “Costs of Sprawl 2000.” Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 74. Washington, DC: National Research Council, Transportation Research Board.
5.
ChapmanNancyLundHollie. 2004. “Housing Density and Livability in Portland.” In The Portland Edge: Challenges and Successes in Growing Communities, edited by OzawaConnie P., 206–29. Washington, DC: Island Press.
6.
EwingReid H.PendallRolfChenDonald D. T.2002. Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America.
7.
FultonWilliam B.PendallRolfNguyenMaiHarrisonAlicia. 2001. Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ across the US. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
8.
GoodmanLauriePendallRolfZhuJun. 2015. “Headship and Homeownership.” Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, edited by PachauriRajendra K.MylesR. Allen]. IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
11.
KirpDavid L.DwyerJohn P.RosenthalLarry A.1995. Our Town: Race, Housing, and the Soul of Suburbia. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
12.
LibertyRobert L.2002. “Abolishing Exclusionary Zoning: A Natural Policy Alliance for Environmentalists And Affordable Housing Advocates.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review30:581–603.
13.
McKenzieEvan. 1994. Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government. New Haven: Yale University Press.
14.
PendallRolf. 1999. “Do Land-use Controls Cause Sprawl?” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design26 (4): 555–71.
15.
PendallRolf. 2008. “From Hurdles to Bridges: Local Land-use Regulations and the Pursuit of Affordable Rental Housing.” In Revisiting Rental Housing, edited by RetsinasNicolas P.BelskyEric S., 224–73. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
PendallRolfPuentesRobertMartinJonathan. 2006. “From Traditional to Reformed: A Review of the Land Use Regulations in the Nation’s 50 Largest Metropolitan Areas.” Brookings Institution. https://trid.trb.org/view/790550.
18.
PikettyThomasSaezEmmanuel. 2014. “Inequality in the Long Run.” Science344 (6186): 838–43.
19.
RothsteinRichard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing.
