The key to
were greater than 4. By 1989, they exceeded 5.0.
(Eugene and Portland) homebuyers $70,000
Thanks to a major recession in the early 1990s,
to $90,000 per median-priced home.
keeping housing
they were still between 5 and 6 by 1999, but
Growth-management planning can pro-
affordable is
today they are mostly greater than 8. Prices
foundly change the character of the cities in
the availability
may be declining now, but—unless changes are
which it is practiced. By making housing unaf-
made—states such as Arizona, Florida, and
fordable, cities such as San Francisco, Portland,
of relatively
Oregon whose price-to-income ratios were 4 or
and Seattle have driven families with children
unregulated
more in 2006 can expect to have California’s
to suburbs where they can afford a single-fam-
price-to-income ratios in a decade or two.
ily home with a yard. In 2000, 26 percent of the
vacant land
Remedies for unaffordable housing will
nation’s population was under the age of 18.
outside city
require actions at the federal, state, and local
But only 14.5 percent of San Franciscans, 15.6
boundaries.
levels.
percent of Seattleites, and 21.1 percent of
Portlanders were under 18.57 Although Port-
• The
land’s 2000 population was twice what it was
federal government should revoke
in the 1920s, Portland schools educated fewer
requirements that all urban areas must
students in 2000 than in 1925.58
be represented by metropolitan planning
organizations. Congress should also re-
The result is that the central cities are
peal the comprehensive, long-range plan-
inhabited largely by young singles and child-
ning requirements found in federal
less couples. These people may be more will-
transportation and housing legislation.
ing to live in higher densities and to walk or
•
bicycle than older people or families with
States with growth-management laws
children, so planners believe that their plans
should repeal those laws and other states
are working to reduce driving and sprawl.
should avoid passing similar ones.
•
But in fact all they are doing is to separate the
Other state laws that give cities power to
population into those who are willing to live
control the rate of development of rural
in denser areas and to move to the central
areas, such as the California law creating
cities, from those who prefer low densities,
local agency formation commissions,
who move to the sometimes-distant suburbs.
should also be repealed. Instead, states
should insure that plenty of vacant land
is available to meet each region’s need
Conclusion
for housing and other land uses.
•
Local governments should resist efforts
by MPOs and other regional agencies to
As it is usually practiced, regional growth-
impose region-wide planning on their
management planning imposes huge costs
urban areas.
on homebuyers, renters, and businesses. Yet
•
it provides negligible benefits: it does little to
As far as possible, infrastructure should
reduce sprawl (if that can even be considered
be paid for by developers or property
a benefit), and its greatest social effect is to
owners through annual user fees and
sort urban areas into central cities largely
special service districts rather than
composed of young singles and childless
through up-front impact fees or general
couples and suburbs with high percentages
taxation.
of families with children.
The key to affordable housing is the avail-
Urban planners, of course, may oppose
ability of relatively unregulated vacant land for
these actions. Instead, they aspire to pass
housing and other urban purposes. The effects
growth-management laws in every state and
of denying homebuilders access to such devel-
impose growth-management plans on every
opable land appears to be an almost relentless
urban area. The predictable result will be
upward push of housing prices. In 1979, price-
increasingly unaffordable housing, declining
to-income ratios in coastal California cities
homeownership rates, and a growing disparity
16