Post by John Zeger on Jun 16, 2005 12:37:16 GMT -5
Elsewhere someone (I think it was Dave D.) quoted a study from the U.S. which said, "Empirical studies of the price effects of local growth controls -- most of them done in California using housing sales data from the late 1970's and early 1980's -- suggest that controls add as little as 2 percent or as much as 35 percent to the price of housing, depending on the community and the severity of the restriction (Fischel, 1990)."
However, he didn't bother to quote a more recent study in 1992 which compared housing prices of seven California cities having growth controls with comparable cities not having growth controls. This study examined each community's home prices every year from 1980 to 1987 and found that "median single-family home prices did not rise any faster or to higher levels in the seven case-study cities than in their counterpart pro-growth cities. Indeed, by the end of the 1980's housing was more affordable in some of the growth control cities than in their corresponding comparison cities." The report concludes that, "Home prices need not be systematicaly higher or increase faster in growth control cities than in pro-growth cities." (John D. Landis, "Do Growth Controls Work? An Evaluation of Local Growth Control Programs in Seven California Cities, CPS Brief Vol.4 No.2 Feb. 1992)
"One explanation for why housing prices would be lower in cities with growth controls is that cities acting to control growth may also be more proactive with housing policies. Indeed, an extensive survey of California's 443 cities and counties found that municipalities with growth controls enacted more affordable housing incentives than cities without growth controls." (Eben Fodor, Better Not Bigger, 1999)
However, he didn't bother to quote a more recent study in 1992 which compared housing prices of seven California cities having growth controls with comparable cities not having growth controls. This study examined each community's home prices every year from 1980 to 1987 and found that "median single-family home prices did not rise any faster or to higher levels in the seven case-study cities than in their counterpart pro-growth cities. Indeed, by the end of the 1980's housing was more affordable in some of the growth control cities than in their corresponding comparison cities." The report concludes that, "Home prices need not be systematicaly higher or increase faster in growth control cities than in pro-growth cities." (John D. Landis, "Do Growth Controls Work? An Evaluation of Local Growth Control Programs in Seven California Cities, CPS Brief Vol.4 No.2 Feb. 1992)
"One explanation for why housing prices would be lower in cities with growth controls is that cities acting to control growth may also be more proactive with housing policies. Indeed, an extensive survey of California's 443 cities and counties found that municipalities with growth controls enacted more affordable housing incentives than cities without growth controls." (Eben Fodor, Better Not Bigger, 1999)