Growth controls and related regulations have been blamed for slowing economies and creating housing shortages and praised for preserving the environment. At first glance, these measures appear to challenge the priorities of the growth machines that dominate most urban governance. By analyzing a series of Southern California jurisdictions, the authors explain how growth takes place even under tight controls. Growth controls do not significantly limit development but, rather, enable local officials to generate higher public benefits from the growth that occurs. The specific conditions of growth under growth control help reveal how urban growth works in a more environmentalist era.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing . 1991. "Not in my back yard": Removing barriers to affordable housing. Washington, DC: Department of Housing and Urban Development.
2.
Alford, R. , and R. Friedland. 1985. Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state, and democracy. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
3.
Alterman, R. , ed. 1988. Private supply of public services: Evaluation of real estate exactions, linkage, and alternative land policies. New York: New York Univ. Press.
4.
Appelbaum, R. P. , and P. Shapiro. 1983. Analysis of the downtown retail revitalization project. A report filed with the City Redevelopment Agency, Santa Barbara, CA.
5.
Baldassarre, M. , and W. Protash. 1982. Growth controls, population growth and community satisfaction. American Sociological Review47 (June): 339-346.
6.
Bauman, G. , and W. H. Ethier. 1987. Development exactions and impact fees: A survey of American practices. Law and Contemporary Problems50 (1): 51-63.
7.
Brodkin, E. Z.1990. Implementation as policy politics. In Implementation and the policy process, edited by D. J. Palumbo and D. J. Calista, 107-110. New York: Greenwood.
8.
Capek, S. M. , and J. I. Gilderbloom. 1992. Community versus commodity: Tenants and the American city. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
9.
Carnoy, M. , and D. Shearer. 1980. Economic democracy: The challenge of the 1980s. White Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
10.
Clavel, P.1986. The progressive city: Planning and participation, 1969-1984. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press.
11.
City focus, inland empire: Corona . 1991. Inland Empire Business Journal (January): 54.
12.
Come join Mother Nature for walk in new preserve . 1990. Santa Barbara News Press, 10 February, B-1.
13.
Community Environmental Council . 1987. Monitoring: The missing link in effective land-use decision-making. Santa Barbara, CA: Author.
14.
Council on California Competitiveness . 1992. California's jobs and future. Report to the State of California Office of Planning and Research, 23 April, Sacramento, CA.
15.
Dalton, K.1989. Water settlement OK'd. Santa Barbara News Press, 9 June, A-1.
16.
Deakin, E. 1988. Growth controls and growth management: A summary and review of empirical research. Paper presented at University of California, Los Angeles Extension conference, "The growth controversy in California: Searching for common ground,"Manhattan Beach, CA, 16-17 June.
17.
DeLeon, R. E.1992a. The urban regime: Progressive politicians in San Francisco. Urban Affairs Quarterly27 (4): 555-579.
18.
DeLeon, R. E.1992b. Left coast city: Progressive politics in San Francisco, 1975-1991. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
19.
Developer to build around landmark . 1990. Santa Barbara News Press, 26 January, B-1.
20.
Domhoff, G. W.1978. Who really rules?: New Haven community power re-examined. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
21.
Edelman, M.1964. The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.
22.
Elkin, S.1987. City and regime in the American republic. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.
23.
Feagin, J.1983. The urban real estate game. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
24.
Friedland, R. , F. Piven, and R. Alford. 1978. Political conflict, urban structure, and the fiscal crisis. In Comparing urban policies, edited by D. Ashford, 175-225. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
Fulton, W. B. 1985. Development agreements in Santa Monica. Master's thesis, Department of Architecture and Planning, University of California, Los Angeles.
26.
German, B.1990. Winning at the polls: New rules for the 90's. Builder27 (June): 46-48.
27.
Glickfeld, M. , and N. Levine. 1992. The new land use regulation "revolution": Why California's local jurisdictions enact growth control and management measures. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
28.
Glickfeld, M. , L. Graymer, and K. Morrison. 1987. Trends in local growth control ballot measures in California. Journal of Environmental Law6:111-158.
29.
Good neighbor policy . 1990. Los Angeles limes, 22 April, K-1.
30.
Gottdiener, M.1983. Some theoretical issues in growthcontrol analysis. Urban Affairs Quarterly18 (4): 565-569.
31.
Hamilton, R. , and Szanton, Inc.1982. Office development in Santa Monica: The municipal fiscal and housing impact. Report to the city of Santa Monica, CA.
32.
Heskin, A.1983. After the battle is won: Political contradictions in Santa Monica. Graduate School of Architecture and Planning, University of California, Los Angeles. Typescript.
33.
Hotel developer seeks ballot help . 1990. Santa Monica Outlook, 5 May, A-1.
34.
Hunter, F.1953. Community power structure: A study of decision makers. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.
35.
Huntington, S. P.1952. The marasmus of the ICC: The commission, the railroads and the public interest. Yale Law Journal61:467-509.
36.
Janczyk, J. T. , and W. C. Constance. 1980. Impacts of building moratoria on housing markets within a region. Growth and Change11:11-19.
37.
Landis, J. 1992. Do growth controls work?: An evaluation of local growth control programs in seven California cities. California Policy Seminar, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
38.
Lategola, A. R. 1992. Who's giving to whom?: An analysis of local campaign contributions and competing development interests in Santa Barbara, California. Master's thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara.
39.
Logan, J. , and H. Molotch. 1987. Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
40.
Logan, J. , and M. Zhou. 1989. Do suburban growth controls control growth?American Sociological Review54 (3): 461-471.
41.
Lowi, T. J.1969. The end of liberalism. New Haven, CT: Norton.
42.
March, J. G. , and J. P. Olsen. 1976. Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
43.
Martin, H.1991. Eight cities repeatedly overstep growth limits set by law. Los Angeles Times, 25 August, B 1.
44.
Mazmanian, D. , and P. Sabatier. 1983. Implementation and public policy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
45.
McConnell, G.1966. Private power and American democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
46.
Molotch, H.1976. The city as a growth machine. American Journal of Sociology82 (2): 309-330.
47.
Neiman, M.1990. Growth control project: The mosaic of intentions propelling regulation of residential development. University of California, Riverside. Typescript.
48.
Nelson, A. C.1986. Using land markets to evaluate urban containment programs. APA Journal52 (2): 156-171.
49.
Popper, F. J.1981. The politics of land-use reform. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press.
50.
Pressman, J. L. , and A. Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
51.
Residents have designs on open space . 1990. Santa Barbara News Press, 22 July, B-1.
Rose, J. G.1979. Legalfoundations of land use planning. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
54.
Rubin, H. J.1989. Symbolism and economic development work: Perceptions of urban economic development practitioners. American Review of Public Administration19 (3): 233-247.
55.
Scott, W. R.1987. Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. 2d ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
56.
Sharp, K.1993. A battle rages down by the sea. Los Angeles Times, 5 May, A3, A19.
57.
Smith, M. P.1989. The uses of linked-development policies in U.S. cities. In Regenerating the cities: The UK crisis and the US experience, edited by M. Parkinson, B. Foley, and D. R. Judd, 85-99. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
58.
Snyder, T. P. , and M. A. Stegman. 1988. Paying for growth: Using developmentfees tofinance infrastructure. Chapel Hill: Urban Land Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
59.
Stone, C.1976. Economic growth and neighborhood discontent: System bias in the urban renewal program of Atlanta. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.
60.
Stone, C.1981. Community power structure—A further look. Urban Affairs Quarterly16 (4): 505-515.
61.
Stone, C.1989. Regime politics: Governing Atlanta 1946-1988. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
62.
Study says 400 rooms needed for Hyatt profit . 1988. Santa Barbara News Press, 28 July, A-8.
63.
Swanstrom, T.1985. The crisis of growth politics: Cleveland, Kucinich and the challenge of urban populism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press.
64.
Unger, J. S.1990. Linkage fees: Development exactions for social investment. Economic Development Commentary14 (2): 11-20.
65.
Vogel, R. K. , and B. E. Swanson. 1989. The growth machine versus the antigrowth coalition: The battle for our communities. Urban Affairs Quarterly25 (1): 63-85.
66.
Walker, R. A. , and M. K. Heiman. 1981. Quiet revolution for whom?Annals of the Association of American Geographers71 (1): 67-83.
67.
Walton, J.1992. Western times and water wars: State, culture, and rebellion in California. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
68.
Warner, K. , and H. Molotch. 1992. Growth control: Inner workings and external effects. California Policy Seminar, University of California, Berkeley.
69.
Weston, I. P.1990. Parker to seek change of venue on suit. Santa Barbara News Press, 27 April, B-1.
70.
Whitt, J. A.1982. Urban elites and mass transportation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
