The role of homeowners in curbing housing development, leading to shortages and lack of affordability, is a dominant explanation for tightened regulation and limited housing supply in high-demand areas. This paper shows that homeowners can also play the opposite role, as pro-development stakeholders. Original research based on permitting data, a survey of owners and analysis of planning objections from Israel shows that the self-interest of owners does not necessarily lead them to oppose development. Indeed, when owners stand to directly reap the gains of densification they are very likely to embrace landowner preferences, demanding redevelopment and further upzoning of their buildings. The paper makes two contributions. One is theoretical: elaborating conditions that shape homeowners’ interests and the politics of planning. The other is policy-relevant: highlighting a politically feasible path for densifying high-demand neighborhoods and regions.
AalbersManuel. 2016. The Financialization of Housing: A Political Economy Approach. London: Routledge.
2.
Aharon GutmanMeiravPrawerNoa. 2018. “"You Want to Maximize Your Financial Gain. What About Mine?” Analysis of National Outline Plan No. 38 as a Planning Deal.” Planning15 (2): 17–39.
BarkerKate. 2004. Review of Housing Supply: Delivering Stability: Securing Our Future Housing Needs: Final Report: Recommendations. HM Treasury London.
5.
BeenVicki. 2018. “City NIMBYs.” Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law33 (2): 217–50. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/26895803
6.
BeenVickiMadarJosiahMcDonnellSimon. 2014. “Urban Land-Use Regulation: Are Homevoters Overtaking the Growth Machine?” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies11 (2): 227–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12040
7.
BonikowskiBartDiMaggioPaul. 2016. “Varieties of American Popular Nationalism.” American Sociological Review81 (5): 949–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416663683
8.
Center for Economic and Social Research. 2020. “Statistical Yearbook 2020.” Tel Aviv Yafo Municipality.
9.
ChettyRajHendrenNathanielKlinePatrickSaezEmmanuel. 2014. “Where Is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics129 (4): 1553–623. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju022
10.
ChristudasonAlice. 2010. “Legal Framework for Collective Sale of Real Estate in Singapore: Pot of Gold for Investors?” Journal of Property Investment & Finance28 (2): 109–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635781011024854
11.
DehringCarolyn A.DepkenCraig A.IIWardMichael R.. 2008. “A Direct Test of the Homevoter Hypothesis.” Journal of Urban Economics64 (1): 155–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2007.11.001
12.
EasthopeHazelHudsonSarahRandolphBill. 2013. “Urban Renewal and Strata Scheme Termination: Balancing Communal Management and Individual Property Rights.” Environment and Planning A45 (6): 1421–35. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4598
13.
EinsteinKatherine Levine. 2021. “The Privileged Few: How Exclusionary Zoning Amplifies the Advantaged and Blocks New Housing—and What We Can Do About It.” Urban Affairs Review57 (1): 252–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087419884644
14.
EinsteinKatherine LevineGlickDavid M.PalmerMaxwell. 2019. Neighborhood Defenders: Participatory Politics and America’s Housing Crisis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
FischelWilliam A. 2001a. The Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation, School Finance, and Land-Use Policies.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
FischelWilliam A. 2015. Zoning Rules!: The Economics of Land Use Regulation. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
18.
FischelWilliam A. 2017. “The Rise of the Homevoters: How the Growth Machine Was Subverted by OPEC and Earth Day.” In Evidence and Innovation in Housing Law and Policy, 13–37. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
FloridaRichard. 2017. The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities Are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class-and What We Can Do About It. New York: Basic Books.
20.
FreemarkYonah. 2020. “Upzoning Chicago: Impacts of a Zoning Reform on Property Values and Housing Construction.” Urban Affairs Review56 (3): 758–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087418824672
21.
FreemarkYonah. 2021. “Doubling Housing Production in the Paris Region: A Multi-Policy, Multi-Jurisdictional Response.” International Journal of Housing Policy21 (2): 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2019.1682233
22.
GanongPeterShoagDaniel. 2017. “Why Has Regional Income Convergence in the US Declined?” Journal of Urban Economics102: 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2017.07.002
23.
GevaYinnonRosenGillad. 2018. “The Regeneration Deal: Developers, Homeowners and New Competencies in the Development Process.” Geoforum96: 10–20.
24.
GevaYinnonRosenGillad. 2022. “A Win-Win Situation? Urban Regeneration and the Paradox of Homeowner Displacement.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space54 (1): 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X211050079
25.
GlaeserEdwardGyourkoJoseph. 2018. “The Economic Implications of Housing Supply.” Journal of Economic Perspectives32 (1): 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
GyourkoJosephMolloyRaven. 2015. “Regulation and Housing Supply.” In Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Vol. 5, 1289–337. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
28.
GyourkoJosephSaizAlbertSummersAnita. 2008. “A New Measure of the Local Regulatory Environment for Housing Markets: The Wharton Residential Land Use Regulatory Index.” Urban Studies45 (3): 693–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098007087341
29.
HagenaarsJacques A.McCutcheonAllan L.. 2002. Applied Latent Class Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30.
HailaAnne. 2017. “Institutionalization of ‘the Property Mind.’.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research41 (3): 500–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12495
31.
HankinsonMichael. 2018. “When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism.” American Political Science Review112 (3): 473–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000035
32.
HennigChristianLiaoTim F.. 2013. “How to Find an Appropriate Clustering for Mixed-Type Variables with Application to Socio-Economic Stratification.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics)62 (3): 309–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9876.2012.01066.x
33.
HilberChristian ALRobert-NicoudFrédéric. 2013. “On the Origins of Land Use Regulations: Theory and Evidence from US Metro Areas.” Journal of Urban Economics75: 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2012.10.002
34.
HilberChristian ALVermeulenWouter. 2016. “The Impact of Supply Constraints on House Prices in England.” The Economic Journal126 (591): 358–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12213
HoogheMarcOserJenniferMarienSofie. 2016. “A Comparative Analysis of ‘Good Citizenship’: A Latent Class Analysis of Adolescents’ Citizenship Norms in 38 Countries.” International Political Science Review37 (1): 115–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512114541562
37.
HsiehChang-TaiMorettiEnrico. 2015. “Why Do Cities Matter? Local Growth and Aggregate Growth.” Kreisman Working Papers Series in Housing Law and Policy No. 30.
38.
HuiEddie CMWongJoe TYWanJanice KM. 2008. “A Review of the Effectiveness of Urban Renewal in Hong Kong.” Property Management26 (1): 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/02637470810848877
39.
KimJinuBrandMichaelLeeHyun-SooParkMoon-Seo. 2013. ““The Role of Construction Companies in the Reconstruction Process of Apartment Buildings in Korea.” In Proceedings of the Nineteen Annual Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society Conference. Melbourne, Australia.
La CavaGianni. 2016. “Housing Prices, Mortgage Interest Rates and the Rising Share of Capital Income in the United States.” BIS Working Paper No. 572.
42.
LanzaStephanie T.CooperBrittany R.. 2016. “Latent Class Analysis for Developmental Research.” Child Development Perspectives10 (1): 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12163
43.
LiaoFelix HaifengFarberStevenEwingReid. 2015. “Compact Development and Preference Heterogeneity in Residential Location Choice Behaviour: A Latent Class Analysis.” Urban Studies52 (2): 314–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014527138
44.
LumSau KimSimLoo LeeMalone-LeeLai Choo. 2004. “Market-Led Policy Measures for Urban Redevelopment in Singapore.” Land Use Policy21 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(03)00046-2
ManginJohn. 2014. “The New Exclusionary Zoning.” Stanford Law & Policy Review25 (1): 91–120.
47.
ManvilleMichaelMonkkonenPaavoLensMichael. 2020. “It’s Time to End Single-Family Zoning.” Journal of the American Planning Association86 (1): 106–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1651216
48.
MargalitTaliaKempAdriana. 2019. “The Uneven Geographies of Post-Political Planning: Objections to Urban Regeneration Projects in Peripheral and Central Israeli Cities.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space51 (4): 931–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18819003
49.
MargalitTaliaMualamNir. 2020. “Selective Rescaling, Inequality and Popular Growth Coalitions: The Case of the Israeli National Plan for Earthquake Preparedness.” Land Use Policy99: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105123
50.
McGregorMichaelSpicerZachary. 2016. “The Canadian Homevoter: Property Values and Municipal Politics in Canada.” Journal of Urban Affairs38 (1): 123–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12178
51.
MizeTrenton D. 2019. “Best Practices for Estimating, Interpreting, and Presenting Nonlinear Interaction Effects.” Sociological Science6: 81–117. https://doi.org/10.15195/v6.a4
52.
Ortalo-MagnéFrançoisPratAndrea. 2014. “On the Political Economy of Urban Growth: Homeownership Versus Affordability.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics6 (1): 154–81. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.6.1.154
53.
Planning and Construction subcommittee. 2015a. Protocol 15-11. Tel Aviv Yafo Municipality.
54.
Planning and Construction subcommittee. 2015b. Protocol 15-19. Tel Aviv Yafo Municipality.
55.
Planning and Construction subcommittee. 2014. Protocol 14-18. Tel Aviv Yafo Municipality.
56.
QuigleyJohn M.RaphaelSteven. 2005. “Regulation and the High Cost of Housing in California.” American Economic Review95 (2): 323–28. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282805774670293
57.
Raz-DrorOfferCostNoam. 2017. Housing National Strategic Plan for the Years 2017-2040.Israel: The National Economic Council.
RognlieMatthew. 2016. “Deciphering the Fall and Rise in the Net Capital Share: Accumulation or Scarcity?” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity2015 (1): 1–69. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2016.0002
60.
ShoagDaniel. 2019. Removing Barriers to Accessing High-Productivity Places.” The Hamilton Project 2. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Shoag_PP_web_20190128.pdf
61.
The 2nd Subcommittee for Objections. . 2017. Protocol 1252. Tel Aviv Planning District.
62.
VermuntJeroen K.MagidsonJay. 2016. Technical Guide for Latent Gold 5.1. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc.
63.
WhittemoreAndrew H.BenDorTodd K.. 2019. “Exploring the Acceptability of Densification: How Positive Framing and Source Credibility Can Change Attitudes.” Urban Affairs Review55 (5): 1339–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087418754725
64.
YangDaniel You-RenChangJung-Che. 2018. “Financialising Space Through Transferable Development Rights: Urban Renewal, Taipei Style.” Urban Studies55 (9): 1943–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017710124
65.
YoderJesse. 2020. “Does Property Ownership Lead to Participation in Local Politics? Evidence from Property Records and Meeting Minutes.” American Political Science Review114 (4): 1213–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000556
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.
