ABSTRACT: Many analysts argue that important structural conditions exist that discourage city governments from engaging in redistributive policy, especially programs that create direct costs for private developers. Labeled the limited city argument, this logic concludes that only cities with sufficient levels of economic and fiscal well‐being can afford to impose upon private developers to meet social needs. Using survey data from 133 cities with populations over 100,000, this paper examines land use regulations that impose obligations or restrictions on the private sector to promote low income housing. The data suggest that the limited city argument is only part of the explanation. The use of regulatory housing policy is also correlated with measures of need and low income housing advocacy.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||15|
|Journal||Journal of Urban Affairs|
|State||Published - Oct 1991|