打印

作者

Jessica Trounstine

来源

URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW,Vol.59,Issue1,P.

语言

英文

关键字

作者单位

摘要

The 1926 Supreme Court decision Euclid versus Ambler upheld the right of cities to use their police powers to regulate how and where development would occur within their borders. In his opinion, Justice Sutherland famously described the apartment house as, “often a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district.” Today, many communities throughout the United States appear to agree with Justice Sutherland's assessment. Virtually every city in the United States bans multifamily homes in at least some neighborhoods, and in many cities most residential land is restricted to single family homes (Badger and Bui 2019). This is the case even though many metropolitan areas are facing skyrocketing housing costs and increased environmental degradation that could be alleviated by denser housing supply. Some scholars have argued that an unrepresentative set of vocal development opponents are the culprits behind this collective action failure. Yet, recent work suggests that opposition to density may be widespread. In this research note, I provide evidence that preferences for single-family development are ubiquitous. I provide evidence that communities seek to block apartment buildings as a way to prevent a host of perceived negative outcomes from befalling their community.I use a conjoint survey experiment to investigate the attributes of development that are most (and least) likely to be selected by a representative sample of residents from metropolitan areas in the United States. Estimates of marginal means from the conjoint reveal that respondents have a strong preference for single-family homes and a clear dis-preference for apartments, even after accounting for the racial and income makeup of the proposed development. I explore potential demographic differences in priorities over development attributes. While I identify some variation, the overall picture that emerges is that all subgroups prefer single-family development. Then, I investigate the rationale behind these preferences. Relative to single family homes, apartments are viewed as decreasing property values, increasing crime rates, lowering school quality, increasing traffic, and decreasing desirability.Development PreferencesOne of the most significant policy making arenas for local governments is land use regulation. In regulating the uses of land, cities can dictate what (if anything) gets built, where it gets built, what the buildings look like, and the quality of the buildings. Starting in the 1970s municipalities began to use land use regulations more forcefully to limit and exclude development (Been 2018; Elmendorf 2019; Fischel 2001).Scholars have endeavored to determine who opposes development and to theorize about their reasons for doing so. Cross-sectional survey data reveals that housing consumers prefer “suburban developments with large lots and wide streets,” (Myers and Gearin 2001). Some research links land use regulation and the share of low-income residents and residents of color in a community. A lack of poor and/or minority residents is taken as prima fascia evidence of exclusion. Pendall (2000) shows that communities that restrict residential development to fewer than eight units per acre, have lower amounts of rental housing and lower shares of Black and Latino residents than communities that do not restrict density. Bates and Santerre (1994) find that restrictive residential zoning is more likely in cities that abut a central city with a large share of poor residents. Pogodzinski and Sass (1994) find that communities with higher median incomes are more likely to have minimum lot size requirements for residential development. They conclude from this evidence that exclusionary zoning is likely a tool used by higher income residents to maintain economic homogeneity. Consistent with these findings, Rothwell and Massey (2010) and Trounstine (2018) show that when suburbs restrict the density of development, metropolitan areas have higher levels of income segregation. Yet, the intent behind these strategies is difficult to uncover with aggregate, observational data because the outcome (restricting development to low density housing) is consistent with several possible motivations, including a preference for single-family development.Other research is focused on residents’ attitudes toward development. Pendall (1999) reviews letters voicing concerns over specific development projects in the Bay Area and finds that multifamily projects and those containing affordable units generated more objection than did single-family developments and market rate proposals. Analyzing minutes from planning and zoning board meetings, Einstein, Glick and Palmer (2020) find that community participants overwhelmingly opposed new housing. They show that these objectors were more likely to be male, longtime residents, voters, homeowners, and older than the general public. Trounstine (2020) finds that neighborhoods with more homeowners, wealthy, and White residents are more likely to vote for development restriction. Tighe (2012) demonstrates that negative race and class stereotypes are correlated with opposition to affordable housing. So, the research seems clear that higher socio-economic status residents, who are the most vocal and active participants in local politics, generally oppose higher density development.However, while advantaged residents may dislike development more intensely, it is not clear that making the process more representative would increase development of multifamily housing. Indeed, Hankinson and Magazinnik (2020) show that in segregated cities where electoral rules expand representation for minority neighborhoods, new housing supply decreased overall, and particularly decreased in neighborhoods that gained representation. Other scholars have shown that both renters and homeowners, and liberals and conservatives dislike spatially concentrated higher density development (Hankinson 2018; Marble and Nall 2019).We still have more to learn about how development preferences vary across subgroups and whether high density development serves as a proxy for other features of development (such as the racial or poverty composition of the residents). I use new experimental survey data to reveal that the preference for single family development is widespread. I find no significant differences in the likelihood of selecting single-family developments by race, partisanship, education, income, political participation, age, or housing density at the zip code level. I do find that the preference for single-family development is stronger among people who live in suburbs as opposed to central cities, ideological conservatives as opposed to liberals, people who currently live in single-family homes compared to apartment dwellers, respondents with larger families, and homeowners versus renters. However, all subgroups prefer single-family housing to apartments.