Housing affordability has become a high-profile issue in recent
years as sustained economic growth has pushed up housing prices in
cities across the nation. One often-overlooked factor affecting
affordability is the reduction in housing supply growth relative to
housing demand growth that stems from restrictive zoning and
land-use regulations. The extra costs and delays created by these
rules have stifled the development of single and multifamily
housing in many cities, which have combined with rising demands to
raise prices substantially.
Land-use regulation is an umbrella term for rules that govern
land development, and zoning is an important type of land-use
regulation (Appendix A). Zoning and land-use regulations control
the development of private land through use, density, design, and
historic preservation requirements. The volume of these regulations
has grown markedly over the decades in most U.S. cities. Local
governments impose the rules and then enforce compliance via
lengthy approval processes overseen by planning commissions or
local government administrators. These processes give officials
substantial discretionary power, which adds uncertainty to an
already costly process for developers and builders.
The growing number of rules and regulations on urban land use
has stemmed from well-intentioned efforts to promote public safety,
environmental objectives, and aesthetic goals for development. But
a major side effect of this growing volume of rules has been to
deter construction and reduce the supply of housing, including
multifamily and low-income housing. With reduced supply, many U.S.
cities suffer from housing affordability challenges.
The deleterious effects of this regulation extend beyond higher
housing prices: artificially inflating housing costs discourages
migration from rural or suburban areas to cities, which impedes
appropriate matching of workers and jobs while limiting the scope
of economies of scale and the scope of particular types of economic
activity. Thus, these regulations impede economically efficient
population density and population allocation.
This study reviews evidence on the effects of zoning and
land-use regulation in three related areas: housing supply, housing
affordability, and economic growth. The academic research on
property regulation indicates that increased regulation is
associated with a decline in supply, affordability, and growth. The
literature indicates the effects are large, with a recent study
suggesting that-because of regulation-economic growth declined by
50 percent and economic output declined by 8.9 percent between 1964
This paper then provides supporting evidence that regulations
have grown substantially over the decades and that the growth is
associated with rising home prices. I used a data set of
state-by-state court decisions on land use and zoning, which
provides fresh evidence for the link between regulations and
housing prices. My statistical results indicate that rising
land-use regulation is associated with rising real average home
prices in 44 states and that rising zoning regulation is associated
with rising real average home prices in 36 states. In general, the
states that increased the amount of rules and restrictions on land
use most have higher housing prices.
These are important results for national policy discussions
because the federal government provides more than $44 billion a
year in rental aid. And this federal aid may be discouraging states
from solving their own housing affordability problems. I examine
that issue by comparing state-by-state growth in zoning and
land-use regulations to the volume of federal aid received by each
state. The results indicate that relatively more federal aid flows
to states with restrictive zoning and land-use rules, perhaps
because those states have higher housing costs. Essentially, then,
federal aid is subsidizing burdensome local policies.
The study concludes, therefore, that policymakers can tackle
housing affordability problems at the state and local levels by
overhauling zoning and land-use rules. They can cap or reduce local
regulation, fast-track approval processes, and compensate property
owners for regulatory takings. Additional federal aid is not the
answer, and it may even undermine incentives for local governments
to make needed reforms.
Local planning and zoning regulation directs the design and
development of buildings, neighborhoods, and cities. These
regulations are contained in a zoning ordinance, which typically
determines the height, width, and architectural features of
development under its jurisdiction. It also determines landscaping,
character, and use of property.2 Sometimes, it determines that
the property has no permissible use at all.
This class of regulation is most recognizable by the colorful
zoning maps that often accompany it. Zoning maps separate property
into areas (or zones) where different types of development are
permitted or prohibited (Figure 1). The colors represent the
underlying properties’ allowable use (e.g., industrial,
single-family residential, retail/commercial, etc.) and associated
development requirements. The regulations apply to properties in
urban, suburban, and semirural areas.
Much of the power to regulate and oversee development is vested
in local entities. Planning boards are usually authorized by the
state legislature, and individual members are elected or appointed
locally. Planning boards are generally assisted by professional
government planning staff in producing planning documents. The
regulations contained in city plans are long term and
Figure 1: District of Columbia zoning map, August
Source “Summary Zoning Map-Ward 1,” District of
Columbia Office of Zoning, https://dcoz.dc.gov/.
Note: Map has been converted to black-and-white
for publication. The original was in color.
Implementation of plans is then overseen by planning boards,
zoning boards, and local professional government planners. Planning
boards can bargain with would-be developers and exact concessions
in exchange for approval. Zoning boards provide discretionary
oversight and review requests to grant exceptions to the official
plan for development.3
Professional government planners assist in the process.
Although the bulk of zoning and land-use planning happens at the
local level, federal and state incentives can play a role. For
example, federal and state governments often provide grant money in
return for compliance with specific objectives. The National Flood
Insurance Program provides an example.4 In some cases, federal and
state regulations may interact with local planning processes to
make regulations more restrictive or exclusionary. Federal
environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act,
have broadened local residents’ veto power in the planning
Planning and zoning regulations have been adopted widely, and
nearly all properties in urban, suburban, and semirural areas are
subject to such regulations. As a result, they control what
planners call the “built environment,” or the manmade environments
where people live, work, and play. Many features that residents
take for granted in cities-from the number of parking spaces at the
mall to the location of the nearest grocery store-are a result of
this comprehensive, long-term planning.
It wasn’t always true that zoning had such broad jurisdiction.
Comprehensive zoning and land-use planning were mostly unknown in
America prior to the 20th century. Property rights remained intact,
and the courts adjudicated disputes between landowners.
Invention of the automobile and adoption of bus transportation
Neighborhood traffic became increasingly difficult to control.
Communities could not isolate their homes from people or uses they
would like to keep out. Los Angeles is generally credited with the
first large-scale municipal zoning and land-use regulation,7 adopted in 1908-the same year
the Model T was introduced.
Zoning spread quickly. By 1926, 68 additional cities had adopted
it.8 Two years later,
the Supreme Court issued a ruling supporting zoning as an
expression of police power.9 Perhaps encouraged by the
ruling, another 1,246 municipalities adopted zoning in the 10 years
between 1926 and 1936.
Controlling neighborhood traffic and development and protecting
home values have always been important objectives. But over the
course of a century, zoning has become the tool for a broader range
of goals. Modern zoning ordinances often aim to protect the
environment and farmland. They also endeavor to improve public
safety; create aesthetically pleasing, dynamic urban environments;
and ensure plentiful low-cost housing-all while allowing
communities to control their property tax base.10 Unfortunately, many of
zoning’s stated objectives conflict with each other.
Effects of Land-Use Regulation
Governments adopt land-use regulations for a variety of
well-intentioned purposes, but the effects are not all positive.
The regulations complicate or prohibit housing development, which
reduces supply. Basic economic theory suggests that if demand is
rising, then housing prices will increase the most in cities where
supply is the most constrained by such regulations.
Empirical research across U.S. cities suggests that, indeed,
zoning rules reduce supply, which in turn increases prices.
Economist Jonathan Rothwell indicates that “roughly 20 percent of
the variation in metropolitan housing growth can be explained
through density regulations,” and that “anti-density regulation
inflates prices in the face of demand shocks.”11 Economist Jenny Schuetz
suggests that zoning regulations decrease the number of building
permits issued, especially for apartments and condominiums.12
Zoning regulations restrict supply in many ways. Minimum lot
size requirements, for example, reduce the density of housing and
thus the overall supply. One study for Boston found that each
additional acre of minimum lot size requirement is associated with
a 50 percent drop in building permits.13 Building height restrictions
also limit supply. And some cities directly limit supply by capping
the annual number of building permits.
Zoning ordinances also impose design requirements on housing,
which can increase costs because of the need to use more expensive
building materials. Like most zoning regulations, design
requirements can also increase the duration and uncertainty of the
development process, which in turn raises costs. Design
requirements may increase the cost of materials for
The total number of regulations seems to matter. A study by John
Quigley and Steven Raphael estimated that each regulation in
Californian cities is associated with a 4.5 percent increase in the
cost of owner-occupied housing and a 2.3 percent increase in the
cost of rental housing.14 A broad review of the
academic literature by Keith Ihlanfeldt found the evidence strongly
suggests that zoning regulation increases the cost of housing
within suburban communities.15 Research on urban markets
found similar results.
Regulatory costs hit some U.S. cities harder than others. Edward
Glaeser and coauthors estimated that zoning rules pushed up the
cost of apartments in Manhattan, New York; San Francisco,
California; and San Jose, California, by about 50 percent.16 A study by Salim Furth found
that residents of high-cost coastal cities would pay 20 percent
less in homeownership costs and 9 percent less in rent if cities
adopted zoning regulations typical of the rest of the
Areas of the country with the strongest economic growth have
some of the costliest zoning and land-use rules. Cities such as San
Jose have rising incomes and excellent opportunities for workers,
but they have severe housing affordability problems. Lower-skilled
workers cannot afford the high housing costs in such heavily
regulated cities, and so they get stuck in lower-cost areas that
have fewer job opportunities.18 Thus, land-use zoning is
contributing to a sort of geographical segregation by
income.19 Many studies
find that zoning is a regressive policy because the costs fall
disproportionately on low-income households.20
The overall effect of land-use regulations on the U.S. economy
may be quite large. If workers cannot afford to live in places
where they can put their skills to the best use, U.S. productivity
will suffer. A study by Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti
estimated that the mismatch between regional labor supply and job
opportunities caused by land-use rules had the effect of reducing
U.S. economic output by 8.9 percent.21
New Evidence on the Effects of Land-Use Regulation
This section provides supporting evidence that land-use
regulations have grown substantially and that the growth is
associated with rising home prices. Quantifying the volume and
effects of zoning and land-use regulation is difficult. I use a
data set of state appellate court decisions that include the words
“land use” or “zoning” as a proxy for regulation and run two
parallel analyses: one for land use and one for zoning.22
The number of court decisions on land use or zoning is a good
proxy for regulation because important land-use and zoning
decisions are usually challenged in court. Daniel Shoag and Peter
Ganong note that “[land use] rules are often controversial and any
such rule, regardless of its exact institutional origin, is likely
to be tested… . This makes court decisions an omnibus measure,
which captures many different channels of restrictions on new
Figure 2: Land-use regulation growth over time: national
Source Unpublished dataset generously provided by
Daniel Shoag of the Harvard Kennedy School. Copy in author’s
Figure 3: Zoning regulation growth over time: national
Source Unpublished dataset provided by Daniel
Shoag of the Harvard Kennedy School. Copy in author’s files.
The data show that land-use and zoning court cases have
increased substantially nationally, as shown in Figures 2 and 3.
For example, there were 157 percent more land-use cases in 2010
than there were in 1980. There were 82 percent more zoning cases in
2010 than in 1980. In other words, the number of land-use cases
more than doubled and the number of zoning cases nearly doubled
over three decades.24
The U.S. population grew 37 percent during the same period. This
suggests that zoning and land-use regulation have grown
substantially in real terms.
Land-use regulation also grew in all 50 states, as measured by
associated court cases, and zoning regulation grew in all states.
The annual quantity of new land-use and zoning regulation continues
to grow in a majority of states.25
The trouble with rising regulation is that it creates barriers
to new housing supply and thus often raises housing prices. Using
the court case data, I examined the relationship between housing
prices and land-use regulations across the states. I averaged the
price and regulation data over a recent 10-year period-2000 to
2010-and performed a simple regression to estimate the strength of
Figure 4 shows home prices are lower in states with fewer
land-use regulations. The figure shows the fitted line from the
regression, which is highly statistically significant.26 The states with the greatest
volume of land-use regulations have the highest housing prices.
Separately, I examined this relationship for individual states.
In 44 of 50 individual states, rising annual land-use regulation is
associated with rising real average home prices over a 35-year
Figure 4: Land-use regulation and home prices rise
together: national (2000-2010)
Source Morris A. Davis and Jonathan Heathcote,
“The Price and Quantity of Residential Land in the United States,”
Journal of Monetary Economics 54, no. 8 (2007): 2595-620.
Case data was provided by Daniel Shoag of the Harvard Kennedy
School; copy in author’s files.
Zoning regulation is also linked to home prices. Figure 5 shows
home prices are lower in states with fewer zoning regulations. The
figure shows the fitted line from the regression that estimates the
relationship. The relationship is statistically
states with the greatest volume of zoning regulations have higher
housing prices, on average.
Overall, 36 of 50 individual states show rising zoning
regulation is associated with rising home prices over a 35-year
Regulation is not the only factor responsible for changes in
home prices. Geographic constraints, immigration, unemployment
rates, consumer confidence, technological advances, marriage
patterns, and location-specific amenities also affect the price of
housing. Still, Figures 4 and 5 suggest that zoning and land-use
regulations are important.
Figure 5: Zoning regulation and home prices rise
together: national (2000-2009)
Source Morris A. Davis and Jonathan Heathcote,
“The Price and Quantity of Residential Land in the United States,”
Journal of Monetary Economics 54, no. 8 (2007): 2595-620.
Case data was provided by Daniel Shoag of the Harvard Kennedy
School; copy in author’s files.
The relationship between regulation and home prices is important
for public policy because regulation reduces housing affordability,
and housing affordability is a major objective of a variety of
federal, state, and local government programs.
The federal government spent almost $200 billion to assist
Americans in renting or buying homes in 2015.29 The Department of Housing and
Urban Development spends about $50 billion per year, much of which
is devoted to improving housing affordability. Despite this, the
number of U.S. households that are considered
their housing has increased or remained constant over time (Figure
Figure 6: U.S. share of cost-burdened households is not
Source “American Housing Survey of the United
States-Complete Set of Tables and Standard Errors,” U.S. Census
Joint Center for Housing Studies estimates are provided by Joint
Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. Copy of data in
The outlook for severely cost-burdened households31 is not better. Aside from a
small decline around the time of the financial crisis,32 the percentage of severely
cost-burdened households has increased over time. In its most
recent report, the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard
University projected that the percentage of severely cost-burdened
households will increase 11 percent by 2025.33
Housing affordability advocates often attribute affordability
problems to inadequate federal funding. But it is difficult to
argue that inadequate federal funding is the source of
affordability problems given the relationship between local
regulation and housing costs.
Regardless of whether federal funding improves affordability,
federal money does encourage poor local policy decisions. After
ranking the states based on the burden of their land-use
regulations (Appendix B), I find that federal housing subsidies are
concentrated in the most restrictively regulated states.
For example, federal housing voucher dollars go to the
most-restrictively zoned states at more than twice the rate they go
to the least-restrictively zoned states. And the most-restrictively
zoned states receive nearly two times more federal dollars per
capita compared to the least-restrictively zoned states (Figure 7).
States seem to be rewarded for their counterproductive local
policies. The relationship between federal subsidies and
restrictive zoning regulations holds even after accounting for
This arrangement poses some problems. First, it prevents states
and local government from learning from their mistakes. When
affordability problems arise, states can focus the blame on limited
federal funding rather than reforming their local zoning or
Second, the relationship between federal and state government
poses fairness issues. Federal taxpayers cannot reasonably be
expected to subsidize the consequences of irresponsible state and
local policies, but this is what happens under current federal
Not all states ignore the cost of regulation; some states and
cities have tried to mitigate its effects. They have tried
inclusionary zoning, state affordable housing plans, luxury
condominium taxes, developer linkage fees,35 and affordable housing
quotas. At best, most initiatives only provide a Band-Aid solution,
and at worst they undermine their claimed objectives. For instance,
inclusionary zoning often weakens the economic incentives for new
residential development, which is similar to zoning regulation. As
a result, inclusionary zoning compounds housing supply shortages
and leads to higher housing prices.36
Effective reform requires a direct approach. For example, states
can reduce the scope of the State Zoning Enabling Act, which
provides cities with broad latitude to regulate restrictively.
States can also amend their laws to explicitly protect property
owners from regulatory takings. Currently, property owners are
rarely compensated for the destruction of property value
accompanying zoning or re-zoning (e.g., re-categorizing property
from multifamily residential to single-family residential).37
Figure 7: Federal housing affordability spending is
highest in the most-regulated states
Source “2017 Budget State-By-State Tables,” Office
of Management and Budget, 2017. This pairs the author’s 2015 state
rank with 2015 budget numbers. Dollar values include Section 8
housing vouchers, Public Housing Operating Fund, and Public Housing
Capital Fund spending.
If state government requires cities to compensate property
owners for zoning or land-use regulations, this would deter cities
from zoning or regulating arbitrarily. States can also reallocate
housing subsidy dollars to cities that limit or reduce regulation.
A handful of states, including Oregon, have tried this
When major reform is out of reach, local governments can take
small steps forward. Streamlining existing approval processes, and
making certain classes of development by right-rather than
discretionary-would increase housing supply and thereby improve
In the absence of regulatory reform, it is problematic for local
government to rely on federal programs like Section 8 housing
vouchers, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and public housing to
ease housing affordability issues. Reforming local regulation is
both inexpensive and addresses the housing affordability problem
As the academic literature and supporting analysis in this paper
suggest, zoning and land-use regulations have deleterious effects
on housing affordability. And zoning and land-use regulations are
rapidly becoming more restrictive.
Unfortunately, local governments seem to be rewarded for
counterproductive behavior. Current federal programs provide
incentives for state and local government to ignore local
contributions to the housing affordability crisis. Federal money
cannot adequately compensate for the effect of local zoning and
land-use regulations on housing affordability. Even if it could,
using federal funds to back damaging local policy is
States and local municipalities can improve housing
affordability without federal cash by reforming local zoning and
land-use regulations. Reforms such as streamlining approval
processes, making development by right, and reallocating state
funds to cities reducing regulation provide benefits to
all constituents. The benefits of reform include housing
affordability, better job-to-worker matching, and improved economic
Appendix A. Major Regulation Types
Zoning and land-use regulations have different but overlapping
meanings. Land-use regulation is an umbrella term that includes
zoning as well as subdivision regulations; building codes; and
national, state, or regional rules on land development and
permitting (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act or California
Environmental Quality Act). Zoning is an important subset of
land-use regulation and includes land-use regulation associated
with a city or county zoning ordinance. This report analyzes zoning
and land-use regulation independently.
Together, zoning and/or land-use regulation affect the
development of housing through some of the following important
Table A.1: Types of zoning and/or land-use regulation
Appendix B. State Rank
Regulation is trending up across states, and relative levels of
regulation vary by state and geography. Tables B.1 and B.2 compare
states’ relative level of regulation from 2000 to 2010, scaling by
state population. The 2015 case and population numbers are used to
conduct the federal spending analysis under Policy
Many of the states scoring high (low) on zoning regulation also
score high (low) on land-use regulation.38 Southern states make up some
of the least-restrictively regulated states. These states include
Oklahoma, Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Arkansas.
Overall, southern states occupy 8 of the 10 least-restrictive spots
for land-use regulation and 7 of the 10 least-restrictive spots for
Northeastern states make up some of the most restrictively
regulated states. These states include Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Delaware, Maine, and New Hampshire. Overall, northeastern
states occupy 7 of the 10 most-restrictive spots for land-use
regulation and 6 of the 10 most-restrictive spots for zoning. These
results aren’t particularly surprising, given the northeastern
states’ reputations for exclusionary zoning and the eastern states’
designation as some of the least-free states overall.39
Table B.1: State rank: land-use regulation
Table B.2: State rank: zoning regulation
Hsieh and Enrico Moretti, “Housing Constraints and Spatial
Misallocation,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper
no. 21154, May 2015.
Appendix 1 for examples and descriptions.
A. Fischel, Zoning Rules! The Economics of Land Use
Regulation (Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,
Edwards, “The Federal Emergency Management Agency: Floods,
Failures, and Federalism,” Downsizing the Federal
Government, December 1, 2014, https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/.
Sterk, “Structural Obstacles to Settlement of Land Disputes,”
Boston Law Review 91 (2011), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1581737.
A. Fischel, “An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for Its
Exclusionary Effects,” Urban Studies 41, no. 2 (2004):
Tanner, Poverty: A Libertarian Perspective (Washington:
Cato Institute, forthcoming).
“An Economic History of Zoning.”
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty
Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
research suggests that zoning regulation allows the conversion of
property taxes into a user fee. See Fischel, Zoning
T. Rothwell, “The Effects of Density Regulation on Metropolitan
Housing Markets,” working paper, the Woodrow Wilson School of
Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, 2009,
Schuetz, “No Renters in My Suburban Backyard: Land Use Regulation
and Rental Housing,” Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management 28, no. 2 (2009): 296-320.
- Edward L.
Glaeser and Bryce A. Ward, “The Causes and Consequences of Land Use
Regulation: Evidence from Greater Boston,” Journal of Urban
Economics 65 (2008): 265-78, doi:10.3386/w12601.
- John M.
Quigley and Steven Raphael, “Regulation and the High Cost of
Housing in California,” American Economic Review 95, no. 2
(January 2005): 323-28.
Ihlanfeldt, “Exclusionary Land-Use Regulations within Suburban
Communities: A Review of the Evidence and Policy Prescriptions,”
Urban Studies 41, no. 2 (2004): 261-83.
Glaeser et al., “Why Is Manhattan So Expensive? Regulation and the
Rise in House Prices,” Journal of Law and Economics 48,
no. 2 (October 2005): 331-70.
Furth, “Costly Mistakes: How Bad Policies Raise the Cost of
Living,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder no. 3081, November 23,
Shoag and Peter Ganong, “Why Has Regional Income Convergence in the
U.S. Declined?,” working paper, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard
University, January 2015,
T. Rothwell and Douglas S. Massey, “Density Zoning and Class
Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas,” Social Science
Quarterly 51, no. 9 (December 2010):1223-43.
Ikeda and Emily Washington, “How Land-Use Regulation Undermines
Affordable Housing,” Mercatus Research, Mercatus Center at George
Mason University, Arlington, Virginia, November 2015,
- Hsieh and
Moretti, “Housing Constraints and Spatial Misallocation.”
- The data
set was provided by Daniel Shoag of the Harvard Kennedy School. The
data contain annual land-use regulations and annual zoning
regulations by state over a nearly 70-year period. See Appendix 1
cases correlate well with other measures of land-use
restrictiveness, according to Shoag and Ganong. Examples include
the Wharton Residential Land Use Regulation Index and a survey of
the American Institute of Planners. The former surveyed states’
local governments, courts, and executive branches on various
process- and outcome-related aspects of land-use regulation; the
latter surveyed planning officials about land-use policies in their
land-use cases vary from one year to the next, but the average
number of cases rises over this period.
- Individual state analysis is provided in the
associated online appendices for this paper, located at the
of the regression: R2 = 0.35, F-stat = 26,
p-value = 0.00, t-statistic = 5.1. A fixed
effects model using all 1,800 observations finds an overall
R2 = 0.38, F-stat = 124, p-value = 0.01,
t-statistic = 2.59.
Alaska, Oregon, Illinois, Missouri, and North Dakota are the
exceptions to the rule. It is possible that certain states do not
see a positive relationship between regulation and home price
because regulation is relatively low.
of the regression: R2 = 0.12, F-stat = 6.4,
p-value = 0.01, t-statistic = 2.53. A fixed
effects model using all 1,750 observations finds an overall
R2 = 0.28, F-stat = 43, p-value = 0.08,
t-statistic = 1.79.
Fischer and Barbara Sard, “Chart Book: Federal Housing Supply Is
Poorly Matched to Need,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
- Cost-burdened households spend 30 percent or
more of their income on housing and housing-related costs.
cost-burdened households spend 50 percent or more of their income
the financial crisis, many homeowners saw home values fall.
Fernald, ed., “The State of the Nation’s Housing 2016,” Joint
Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/state_nations_housing.
author’s regression analysis uses her own state ranking and 2015
Office of Management and Budget numbers. Details of the zoning
regression: R2 = 0.18, F-stat = 5.2,
p-value = 0.00, t-statistic = 2.91. States with
the most restrictive land-use regulation receive 40 percent more
federal subsidies per capita than states with the least restrictive
land-use regulation, but the relationship between the relative
regulatory rank and federal subsidies is not statistically
Epstein, “The Affordable Housing Crisis,” Defining Ideas,
February 27, 2017, http://www.hoover.org/research/affordable-housing-crisis.
- Ikeda and
Washington, “How Land Use Regulation Undermines Affordable
- Roger Pilon, “Property Rights and the Constitution,” in
Cato Handbook for Policymakers, 8th ed. (Washington: Cato
Institute, 2017), https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2017/2/cato-handbook-for-policymakers-8th-edition.pdf.
rankings can be useful for describing general trends in regulation,
but they have limits. California is a heterogeneous state, with
lots of variation between coastal cities and the Central Valley.
But California is toward the middle in land-use and zoning rank.
This is because the state rank is an average, which means
California as a whole looks better than many of its heavily
regulated cities, such as San Francisco or San Jose.
Ruger and Jason Sorens, “Freedom in the 50 States: 2015-2016,” Cato