Terner Center Blog: No Limits

Land Use Politics, Housing Costs, and Segregation in California Cities

Posted on by Jonathan Rothwell

This paper is part of a working paper series that utilizes the Terner Center California Residential Land Use Survey to assess the implications of California’s state and local policies for housing. Read the full paper here.

By Jonathan Rothwell, PhD, Gallup

It is striking that, at a time when a lack of housing affordability is a highly salient issue for the public and elected representatives, California uses its land so inefficiently. While less than a quarter of the land in the state’s municipalities is zoned for multifamily housing, more than half is set aside for single-family detached homes. Density is closely related to housing affordability, and in California, communities dominated by single-family homes on large lots have seen housing prices soar. 

Drawing on data from the Terner Center California Residential Land Use Survey, I examine the relationship between anti-density zoning regulations--namely, single-family zoning and large minimum lot sizes--and housing prices. I unpack how land use and the political context that underpins opposition to development relate to racial and occupational segregation. I find that: 

Anti-density zoning and local opposition to housing predicts higher prices.

Municipalities with a higher share of land zoned for single-family detached homes and larger minimum lot size requirements had more expensive and larger homes than municipalities with less stringent zoning standards in the same metropolitan area. 

Political opposition also predicts housing costs. Cities and counties where residents and officials supported new housing have significantly lower rents and lower home values than unsupportive communities. Opposition predicts delays for projects, even those that meet local codes. I found that such delays are also associated with higher home values.

Cities and counties with more educated and white residents are more likely to experience opposition to new housing, which can stymie projects that meet local standards.

When comparing cities and counties that fell into the highest and lowest tiers of support for housing, the least supportive areas had higher shares of non-Hispanic Whites (49% compared to 34%) and residents over 25 with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (43% compared to 22%). 

While political opposition to development is not correlated with anti-density zoning, a lack of local support for housing can restrict supply in other ways. Higher levels of opposition significantly increases the probability of delays for single- and multifamily projects of 5 or more units. 

Areas that reported the strongest public opposition were also more likely to link opposition and public meetings to delays for new projects, and those areas were also 10% less likely to have loosened their zoning laws in the past 5 years than areas with the most support.

Cities and counties that are dominated by single-family zoning are more racially segregated. 

After controlling for key factors, areas dominated by land zoned for single-family detached homes are more likely to contain higher shares of White residents and lower shares of Black and Hispanic residents. Larger minimum lot size requirements also predict a lower proportion of Hispanic residents, but were not significantly related to Black population shares. Citizen opposition to development also predicts the exclusion of Black and Hispanic residents.

The data suggest that restrictive zoning results in segregation by raising housing costs. After controlling for median home price, zoning ceases to be a significant predictor of the area’s share of population that is Black or Hispanic. 

Jurisdictions that rely on anti-density zoning exclude blue-collar workers.

Communities with a high proportion of land zoned for single-family detached homes and with higher lot size requirements are both significantly less likely to house blue-collar workers. Conversely, political support for development strongly predicts an increased share of blue-collar workers. Restrictive jurisdictions like Palo Alto would have to double their share of workers in blue-collar occupations to equal the average for its larger metropolitan area.

Segregated residential patterns are not inevitable, but zoning helps perpetuate them.

My working paper contributes to a body of research that suggests local land use regulation and opposition to housing development explains some of the variation in housing costs and segregation. However, my analysis cannot identify causation, in part because local zoning is not randomly constructed.

Some scholars postulate that zoning was developed in the 1920s in the United States in response to political demands to deal with negative externalities, to reduce political competition for elites, and limit their economic and social interaction with immigrants and Black migrants.(1) If so, the absence of restrictive zoning would result in communities that are more balanced and integrated by race and class, as suggested by this analysis.

The share of land allocated to single-family detached as opposed to other uses is consistently associated with higher prices and segregated populations, as are minimum lot size requirements, and planner assessments of political support for development. These results can be regarded as additional evidence that high housing costs and segregated residential patterns are not an inevitable outgrowth of housing markets but emerge from the political economy of housing regulations.

 

(1) Trounstine, J. (2018). Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press); Rothwell, J. (Forthcoming 2019). A Republic of Equals: A Manifesto for a Just Society (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).


Demystifying Development Math

Posted on by David Garcia

For many, the way that housing is built can be mysterious: a developer acquires the land and wins city approval, then at some point construction workers break ground, and eventually the new housing becomes a reality. But what about all of the steps in between? What factors go into whether or not something gets built? And what does it even mean to make a project “pencil”?  If you’ve ever found yourself wondering about these and other real estate finance questions, then our latest Terner Center publication is for you. In our new brief “Making It Pencil: The Math Behind Housing…


Residential Impact Fees in California

Posted on by Terner Center for Housing Innovation

As California continues to grapple with the devastating effects of the housing crisis, more attention is being paid to the rising cost of building new homes. The median home value in California has almost reached $550,000,(1) reflecting both the limited supply of homes as well as the high cost of development. In some cases, the cost of building affordable housing in California has topped $600,000 per unit, or more. Strapped for revenue, localities are increasingly turning to development fees to fund vital public services. In an effort to uncover paths to lower the cost of housing, the Terner Center has…


California’s Rent Cap Debate: Something’s Gotta Give

Posted on by Carol Galante

The Terner Center for Housing Innovation first became involved in discussions around rent control policy in California leading up to Proposition 10, the ballot initiative in 2018 (ultimately defeated) that would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, the statewide framework put in place by the state legislature in 1995 to set limitations on local rent control ordinances. History tells us that the debate over Costa-Hawkins itself was a divisive and hard-fought battle. It’s no surprise that stakeholders and policymakers are having a difficult time finding a path forward today. In May 2018, after research and meetings with a variety…


California Needs to Build More Apartments

Posted on by Jenny Schuetz and Cecile Murray

This paper is part of a working paper series that utilizes the Terner Center California Residential Land Use Survey to assess the implications of California’s state and local policies for housing. Read the full paper here. California needs to build more apartments. By Jenny Schuetz, PhD, the Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program and Cecile Murray, MSCAPP, University of Chicago So much ink has been spilled over California’s persistently high housing costs that it has become a cliché. Nearly everyone agrees that high costs are a substantial problem – not just for families struggling to pay rent, but also for companies trying to attract and retain workers, and for…


Comparing Perceptions and Practice: Why Better Land Use Data Is Critical to Ground Truth Legal Reform

Posted on by Moira O’Neill, Giulia Gualco-Nelson, and Eric Biber

This is the third installment in a working paper series that utilizes the Terner Center California Residential Land Use Survey to assess the implications of California’s state and local policy for housing. The working paper series is published jointly by the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®’s Center for California Real Estate and the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. This paper series will examine a number of topics related to land use regulation; from the feasibility of ADU production to trends in segregation. Read the full paper here. Comparing Perceptions and Practice: Why Better Land Use Data Is Critical…


No Place Like Zone: Two Ways California Policymakers Can Encourage Housing Affordability Through the Opportunity Zone Program

Posted on by Terner Center

Ever since the federal government launched the Opportunity Zone (OZ) program, many questions about the potential benefits and drawbacks have been raised. The program has been touted as a potential game changer for economic development in distressed communities, and has enjoyed bipartisan support. But at the same time, the relative ambiguity of the program’s requirements and its broad applicability have left many to wonder if Opportunity Zones will actually lift up the communities it was billed as serving, or mostly prove to be a windfall to investors. As some critiques of this new program have noted, without specific guidelines that push…


Regulating ADUs in California: Local Approaches & Outcomes

Posted on by Deirdre Pfeiffer

This is the second installment in a working paper series that utilizes the Terner Center California Residential Land Use Survey to assess the implications of California’s state and local policy for housing. The working paper series is published jointly by the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®’s Center for California Real Estate and the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. This paper series will examine a number of topics related to land use regulation; from the feasibility of ADU production to trends in segregation. Read the full paper here. Regulating ADUs in California: Local Approaches and Outcomes By Dr. Deirdre Pfeiffer, Associate…


New Amendments to SB 50 Change Approach to Identifying “Sensitive Communities”

On April 24, SB 50 went before the Senate Governance and Finance committee. While it passed the committee 6-1, the resulting amendments made significant changes to the bill. Some of the biggest changes include what is essentially a carve out for smaller counties like Marin and Santa Barbara as well as a reduction in the number of bus stops that would meet the “high quality” transit requirements.[1] In this blog, we focus on a third major change: the definition and implementation of the “sensitive communities” provision in the proposed law. The goal underlying the “sensitive communities” provision in the bill…


Calibrating Policy to Ensure Success—An Analysis of Assembly Bill 1485

Posted on by Terner Center

The 2019 California legislative session has been a busy one for housing thus far. Dozens of bills have been introduced that aim in some way to alleviate the ongoing housing challenges across the state. It seems likely that this year’s package of housing bills could rival the 2017 housing package, depending on how upcoming committee hearings and negotiations progress. Some of the bills proposed so far could have significant impacts on our ability to build new housing. To this point, it is critically important to understand how to ensure new policies can achieve their goal of facilitating more housing development…