For a full discussion on the trade-off between efficiency and equity, see OkunArthur M., Equality and Efficiency: The Big Trade-off (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1975).
2.
California Health and Safety Code, Section 41056(d).
3.
California Public Resources Code, Sections 27000 et. seq., and, for an excellent law review article, see DouglasPeter, “Coastal Resources Planning and Control: The California Approach,”Environmental Law, p. 741. Also see Southern California Law Review (1976), pp. 710–784, for a collection of comments on the California Coastal Plan. The California Legislature in late August 1976 enacted SB 1277, AB2948 and AB400 which added Public Resources Code Sections 30,000 et. seq. That legislation, although similar, differs from the coastal plan sections cited below. However, we believe the original plan more accurately reflects the view of public managers, rather than legislators, and is therefore more appropriate for discussion here.
4.
California Public Resources Code, Sections 27300 (planning) and 27400 (permits).
5.
OrrDaniel, “Income Distributive Consequences,” in The California Coastal Plan: A Critique (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1976), pp. 39–50.
6.
DeaconShapiro, “Private Preferences for Collective Goods Revealed Through Voting Referenda,”American Economic Review (1975), pp. 943–955.
7.
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, Appeal No. 103-73.
8.
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, Appeal No. 178-74.
9.
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, California Coastal Plan (Sacramento: Documents and Publications Branch, 1975).
10.
Ibid., pp. 125–126.
11.
WeinbergNorman, “Real Estate and Dr. Burns' Brave New World,”Real Estate Review (1976), pp. 24–25.
12.
For a more detailed discussion, see BoboBenjamin F., “The Effects of Land Use Controls on Low-Income and Minority Groups: Court Actions and Economic Implications,” in No Land Is An Island (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1975), pp. 93–99.
13.
Other illustrious examples can be found in Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 336 A. 24 713. Opinion by Justice Frederick W. Hall (Filed March 24, 1975); Robert Warth, et al., v. Ira Seldin, 495 F.2d 1187 (2d Cir., 1974), cert. granted, 42L. Ed. 47 (1974); and Oakwood at Madison, Inc., et al. v. The Township of Madison, et al., 320 A. 2d 223 (1974).
14.
Golden v. The Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y. 2nd 359, 285 N.E. 2nd 291 (1972).
15.
See Bobo, op. cit.
16.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 297 F. 307, 313 (N.D. Ohio 1926).
17.
See 42 U.S.C. 5301. The need for economic integration in housing is supported by researchers such as Charles M. Haar and Demetrius S. Iatridis, Housing the Poor in Suburbia: Public Policy at the Grass Roots (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1974); and RubinowitzLeonard S., Low-Income Housing: Suburban Strategies (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1974).
18.
See 42 U.S.C. 5301 (a)(1) and FranklinHerbert M.FalkDavidLevinArthur, In-Zoning (Washington, D.C.: The Potomac Institute, Inc., 1974), p. 63.
19.
See 42 U.S.C. 5301 (c)(6); FranklinHerbert M., op. cit.
20.
California Coastal Plan (Section 126, 1975), p. 156.
21.
Ibid. (Section 126b).
22.
Franklin, op. cit., p. 94.
23.
For detailed statements on these ordinances, see KlenenThomas, “Inclusionary Ordinances–Policy and Legal Issues in Beginning Private Developers to Build Low Cost Housing,”UCLA Law Review (1974), pp. 1439–1448.