Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:15:32.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Economy of Downzoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Adesoji O. Adelaja  and
Paul D. Gottlieb
Adesoji O. Adelaja
Affiliation:
John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor in Land Policy and Director of the Land Policy Institute at Michigan State University, in East Lansing, Michigan
Paul D. Gottlieb
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, in New Brunswick, New Jersey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

“Substantial downzoning” is defined as the exercise of police power to significantly reduce the legally permitted density on undeveloped land in a community. This contentious practice is typically challenged by those who perceive the action to limit their market opportunities (e.g., farmers and developers), their sympathizers, and others who prefer the status quo. Supporters tend to be those who perceive positive benefits (e.g., environmentalists, conservationists, and homeowners) and those who see it as a supplement to other preservation techniques, based on concerns over such things as growing public costs of land acquisition, limited effectiveness of existing alternatives, or the perceived urgency to act to manage growth.

Given the complexity of the issue and the lack of previous research, this paper develops a conceptual model of the public choice to “substantially downzone” and presents specific hypotheses to be empirically tested, using New Jersey as a case study. The probability of implementing substantial downzoning is found to increase with (i) the amount of open space that remains to be protected, (ii) declining farm population, (iii) recent growth in non-farm population, (iv) recent growth in land values, and (v) the presence of alternative growth management tools. Results also suggest its use as a substitute for other preservation tools when the financial and/or political ability of communities to afford other approaches is limited. Hence, the likelihood of substantial downzoning may increase over time if alternatives become more difficult to implement.

Keywords

substantial downzoningtakingsland usegrowth managementopen spacepolitical economy
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , October 2009 , pp. 181 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adelaja, A. 2004. “The Value Gap: The Preservation-Viability Dilemma of Agriculture at the Urban Fringe.” Report No. 2004-2, Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
Adelaja, A., and Friedman, K. 1999. “Political Economy of Right-to-Farm.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 31(3): 565–579.Google Scholar
Adelaja, A., Miller, T., and Taslim, M. 1998. “Land Values, Market Forces, and Declining Dairy Herd Size: Evidence from an Urban-Influenced Region.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27(1): 63–71.Google Scholar
Adelaja, A., and Schilling, B. 1998. “New Approaches to Farmland Preservation: Equity Insurance, Equity Mortgage and Other Innovative Mechanisms.” In Furuseth, O.J. and Lapping, M., eds., Contested Countryside: The Rural Urban Fringe in North America. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Alonso, W. 1964. Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldassare, M. 1981. The Growth Dilemma: Residents’ View and Local Population Change in the United States . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, N. 1998. “Speculative Behavior in Land Markets.” Unpublished M.S. thesis, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Bates, L.J., and Santerre, R.E. 1994. “The Determinants of Restrictive Residential Zoning: Some Empirical Findings.” Journal of Regional Science 34(2): 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchell, R.W., Shad, N., Listokin, D., Phillips, H., Downs, A., Seskin, S., Davis, J., Moore, T., Helton, D., and Gall, M. 1998. “The Costs of Sprawl—Revisited.” TCRP Report No. 39, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Campos, R.W. 1987. “Toward a Theory of Instrument Choice in the Regulation of Markets.” California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California. Google Scholar
Chressanthis, G. 1986. “The Impact of Zoning Changes on Housing Prices: A Model and Empirical Evidence.” Growth and Change 17(1): 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, T. 1999. When City and Country Collide. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
Dye, T.R. 1996. Politics, Economics, and the Public: Policy Outcomes in the American States. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Etgen, R., Bernstein, J., Taylor-Rogers, S., Gray, R., Caldwell, P., Perry, E., Chapman, J., and Dehart, H.G. 2003. “Downzoning: Does It Protect Working Landscapes and Maintain Equity for the Landowner?” Maryland Center for Agro-Ecology, Queenstown, MD. Google Scholar
Evans, T. 2004. The Race to the Middle: The Homogenization of Population Density and What It's Costing New Jersey. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Future.Google Scholar
Fischel, W.A. 1985. The Economics of Zoning Laws: A Property Rights Approach to American Land Use Controls. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, B. 2004. “The Effects of Residential Minimum Lot Size Zoning on Land Development: The Case of Oakland County, Michigan.” Master's thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
Frieden, B. 1979. The Environmental Protection Hustle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Furuseth, O.J. 1985a. “Influences on County Farmland Protection Efforts in California: A Discriminant Analysis.” Professional Geographer 37(4): 443–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furuseth, O.J. 1985b. “Local Farmland Conservation Programs in the U.S.: A Study of California Counties.” Applied Geography 5(3): 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, B.D. 1977. “The Economics of Agricultural Land Preservation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(5): 1027–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, E., and Gyourko, J. 2003. “The Impact of Building Restrictions on Housing Affordability.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 9(2): 21–39.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, P., and Adelaja, S. 2004. “The Political Economy of Downzoning.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Denver, CO (August 1-4).Google Scholar
Hahn, R.W. 1990. “The Political Economy of Environmental Regulations: Toward a Unifying Framework.” Public Choice 65(1): 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henneberry, D., and Barrows, R. 1990. “Capitalization of Exclusive Agricultural Zoning into Farmland Prices.” Land Economics 66(3): 249–258.Google Scholar
Ihlanfeldt, K.R. 2004. “Exclusionary Land-Use Regulations Within Suburban Communities: A Review of the Evidence and Policy Prescriptions.” Urban Studies 41(2): 261–283.Google Scholar
Katz, L., and Rosen, K. 1977. “The Interjurisdictional Effects of Growth Controls on Housing Prices.” Journal of Law and Economics 30(1): 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, E. 1993. Managing Community Growth: Policies, Techniques, and Impacts. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Kline, J. 2006. “Public Demand for Preserving Local Open Space.” Society and Natural Resources 19(7): 645–659.Google Scholar
Kline, J., and Alig, R. 1999. “Does Land Use Planning Slow the Conversion of Forest and Farm Lands?” Growth and Change 30(1): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, J., and Wichelns, D. 1994. “Using Referendum Data to Characterize Public Support for Purchasing Development Rights to Farmland.” Land Economics 70(2): 223–233.Google Scholar
Knaap, G., and Nelson, A. 1992. The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land Use Planning from Oregon. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar
Kotchen, M.J., and Powers, S.M. 2006. “Explaining the Appearance and Success of Voter Referenda for Open-Space Conservation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52(1): 373–390.Google Scholar
Logan, J.R. 1976. “Notes on the Growth Machine: Toward a Comparative Political Economy of Place.” American Journal of Sociology 82(2): 349–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, J., and Molotch, H. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lopez, R., Adelaja, A., and Andrews, M. 1988. “The Effects of Suburbanization on Agriculture.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(2): 346–358.Google Scholar
Muth, R. 1971. “The Derived Demand for Urban Residential Land.” Urban Studies 8(3): 243–254.Google Scholar
Orfield, M. 1997. Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Pollakowski, H., and Wachter, S. 1977. “The Effects of Land Use Constraints on Housing Prices.” Journal of Law and Economics 30(1): 149–160.Google Scholar
Peltzman, S. 1976. “Toward a More General Theory of Regulation.” Journal of Law and Economics 19(2): 211–240.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A., Lubowski, R., and Stavins, R. 2002. “The Effects of Potential Land Development on Agricultural Land Prices.” Faculty Research Working Paper Series No. RWP02-012, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Pogodzinski, J.M., and Sass, T.R. 1994. “The Theory and Estimation of Endogenous Zoning.” Regional Science and Labor Economics 24(5): 601–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Protash, W., and Baldassare, M. 1983. “Growth Policies and Community Status: A Test and Modification of Logan's Theory.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 18(3): 397–412.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. 2003. “Downzoning, Fairness, and Farmland Preservation.” Journal of Land Use 20(2): 59–90.Google Scholar
Rolleston, B.S. 1987. “Determinants of Restrictive Suburban Zoning: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Urban Economics 21(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Rudel, T. 1989. Situations and Strategies in American Land-Use Planning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, M. 2004. “The Impact of Downzoning on Agricultural Land Value in New Jersey.” Study by Clarion/Samuels Associates for the New Jersey Farm Bureau.Google Scholar
Schilling, B., Marxen, L., and Onyango, B. 2004. “Political Economy of Local Land Preservation Taxes in New Jersey.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33(2): 301.Google Scholar
SmartGrowth Network. 2002. “Getting to Smartgrowth: 100 Policies for Implementation.” Produced in collaboration with the International City Managers’ Association. Available at http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/gettosg.pdf (accessed January 10, 2005).Google Scholar
Spalatro, F., and Provencher, B. 2001. “An Analysis of Minimum Frontage Zoning to Preserve Lakefront Amenities.” Land Economics 77(4): 469–481.Google Scholar
Vaillancourt, F., and Monty, L. 1985. “The Effects of Agricultural Zoning on Land Prices, Quebec, 1975-81.” Land Economics 61(1): 36–42.Google Scholar
Wallace, N. 1988. “The Market Effect of Zoning Undeveloped Land: Does Zoning Follow the Market?” Journal of Urban Economics 23(1): 307–326.Google Scholar
White, J. 1988. “Large Lot Zoning and Subdivision Costs: A Test.” Journal of Urban Economics 23(1): 370–384.Google Scholar
Wisand, K., and Muth, R. 1972. “A Note on the Variation of Land Values with Distance from the CBD in St. Louis.” Journal of Regional Science 12(3): 269–273.Google Scholar