ABSTRACT
The urban planning profession is commonly implicated in the housing crisis. However, “planning” is a false promise in the context of housing policy, since, unlike public infrastructure and transportation, the government cannot implement those plans. Built metropolitan density is a byproduct of regional growth within its physical and political confines. Regulation responds to this growth, with the proper exercise of the police power of the state. Studies on the impacts of land-use regulations on housing are mostly biased. They do not account for the variations in land values that explain much of the housing prices, nor the public benefits of regulations and exactions. Supply is driven by the market towards income levels where profits are higher and risks are lower, even if the excess units remain vacant. Hence, housing cost burdens are acute at the bottom fifth of the income scale, for both owners and renters. Homeownership is also challenging at the lowest incomes, even though it can be a platform out of poverty. A general deregulatory approach is therefore not helpful, since public agency planners should expressly address inequities in the supply of housing through procedural as well as substantive regulations. Greater discretion in the project approval process can empower equity voices through community organizing.
