Advertisement

Inclusionary Housing Policies, Stigma Effects and Strategic Production Decisions

  • W. Keener Hughen
  • Dustin C. ReadEmail author
Article

Abstract

Inclusionary housing policies enacted by municipal governments rely on a combination of legal mandates and economic incentives to encourage residential real estate developers to include affordable units in otherwise market-rate projects. These regulations provide a means of stimulating the production of mixed-income housing at a minimal cost to the public sector, but have been hypothesized to slow development and put upward pressure on housing prices. The results of the theoretical models presented in this paper suggest that inclusionary housing policies need not increase housing prices in all situations. However, any observed impact on housing prices may be mitigated by density effects and stigma effects that decrease demand for market-rate units. The results additionally suggest real estate developers are likely to respond to inclusionary housing policies by strategically altering production decisions.

Keywords

Affordable housing Inclusionary zoning Residential development Mixed-income development 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Belk College of Business at UNC Charlotte for the faculty development grant awarded to support this research and Dr. Richard Buttimer for his comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Anderson, S. T., & West, S. E. (2006). Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36, 773–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bento, A., Lowe, S., Knapp, G. J., & Chakraborty, A. (2009). Housing market effects of inclusionary zoning. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 11(2), 7–26.Google Scholar
  3. Brunick, N. (2004a). The inclusionary housing debate: the effectiveness of mandatory programs over voluntary programs. Zoning Practice, American Planning Association, 9.04, 2–7.Google Scholar
  4. Brunick, N. (2004b). Inclusionary zoning: proven success in large cities. Zoning Practice, American Planning Association, 10.04, 2–13.Google Scholar
  5. Bulan, L., Mayer, C., & Somerville, C. T. (2006). Irreversible investment, real options, and competition: evidence from real estate development. Journal of Urban Economics, 65(3), 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capozza, D. R., & Helsley, R. W. (1990). The stochastic city. Journal of Urban Economics, 28(2), 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capozza, D. R., & Li, Y. (1994). The intensity and timing of investment: the case of land. The American Economic Review, 84(4), 889–904.Google Scholar
  8. Capozza, D. R., & Li, Y. (2002). Optimal land development decisions. Journal of Urban Economics, 51(1), 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Childs, P. D., Ott, S. H., & Riddiough, T. J. (2002). Optimal valuation of claims on noisy real assets: theory and an application. Real Estate Economics, 30, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clapp, J. M. (1981). The impact of inclusionary zoning on the location and type of construction activity. Real Estate Economics, 9(4), 436–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clapp, J. M., Bardos, K. S., & Wong, S. K. (2012). Empirical estimation of the option premium for residential redevelopment. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42(1–2), 240–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham, C. (2007). Growth controls, real options and local development. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(2), 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Das, A. (2010). Can inclusionary zoning be an effective and efficient housing policy? Evidence from Los Angeles and Orange County. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32(2), 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellen, I. G., Schwartz, A. E., Voicu, I., & Schill, M. H. (2006). The external effects of place-based subsidized housing. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36, 679–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellen, I. G., Schwartz, A. E., Voicu, I., & Schill, M. H. (2007). Does federally subsidized rental housing depress neighborhood property values? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(2), 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellickson, R. C. (1981). The irony of inclusionary zoning. Southern California Law Review, 54, 1167–1216.Google Scholar
  17. Funderburg, R., & MacDonald, H. (2010). Neighbourhood valuation effects from new construction of low-income tax credit projects in Iowa: a natural experiment. Urban Studies, 47(8), 1745–1771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geoghegan, J. (2006). The value of open spaces in residential land use. Land Use Policy, 19(1), 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Green, R. K., Malpezzi, S., & Mayo, S. K. (2005). Metropolitan-specific estimates of the price elasticity of supply of housing, and their sources. The American Economic Review, 95(2), 334–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grenadier, S. R. (1996). The strategic exercise of options; Development cascades and overbuilding in real estate markets. Journal of Finance, 51(5), 1653–1679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grenadier, S. R. (1999). Information revelation through option exercise. Review of Financial Studies, 12, 95–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joseph, M., & Chaskin, R. (2010). Living in a mixed-income development: resident perceptions of the benefits and disadvantages of two developments in Chicago. Urban Studies, 47(11), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Majd, S., & Pindyck, R. S. (1987). Time to build, option value, and investment decisions. Journal of Financial Economics, 18, 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Malpezzi, S., & Maclennan, D. (2001). The long-run price elasticity of supply of new residential construction in the United States and the United Kingdom. Journal of Housing Economics, 10(3), 278–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mayer, C. J., & Somerville, C. T. (2000). Land use regulations and new construction. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 30(6), 639–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nirider, L. H. (2008). In search of refinement without exclusiveness: inclusionary zoning in Highland Park, Illinois. Northwestern University Law Review, 102(4), 1919–1952.Google Scholar
  27. Ott, S. H., Hughen, W. K., & Read, D. C. (2012). Optimal phasing and inventory decisions for large scale residential development projects. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 45(4), 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Read, D. C. (2009). The structure and potential economic effects of inclusionary zoning ordinances. Real Estate Issues, 34(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  29. Schuetz, J., Meltzer, R., & Been, V. (2009). 31 flavors of inclusionary zoning: comparing policies from San Francisco, Washington, DC and Suburban Boston. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(4), 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schuetz, J., Meltzer, R., & Been, V. (2011). Silver bullet or Trojan horse? The effects of inclusionary zoning on local housing markets in the United States. Urban Studies, 48(2), 297–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwartz, A., & Tajbakhsh, K. (1997). Mixed-income housing: unanswered questions. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 3(2), 71–92.Google Scholar
  32. Towe, C. A., Nickerson, C. J., & Bockstael, N. (2008). An empirical examination of the timing of land conversions in the presence of farmland preservation programs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(3), 613–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Turner, M. A. (2005). Landscape preferences and patterns of residential development. Journal of Urban Economics, 57(1), 19–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Varady, D. P., Raffel, J. A., Sweeney, S., & Denson, L. (2005). Attracting middle-income families in the Hope VI public housing revitalization program. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang, K., & Zhou, Y. (2006). Equilibrium real options exercise strategies with multiple planers: the case of real estate markets. Real Estate Economics, 34(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams, J. T. (1991). Real estate development as an option. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 4, 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams, J. T. (1997). Redevelopment of real estate. Real Estate Economics, 25(3), 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations