IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/houspd/v28y2018i2p267-284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do State Affordable Housing Appeals Systems Backfire? A Natural Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas J. Marantz
  • Harya S. Dillon

Abstract

Several U.S. states have supplemented traditional judicial review of local land-use regulation with a state affordable housing appeals system (SAHAS). Empirical evidence indicates that a SAHAS can increase the proportion of housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income households. But some scholars have suggested that an effective SAHAS will ultimately backfire, by producing incentives to prohibit market-rate development, thereby rendering a state’s housing stock less affordable overall. We test this “backfire” hypothesis with a longitudinal comparison of single-family housing development from 1980 through 2007 in municipalities located in adjacent areas of Connecticut (which adopted a SAHAS in 1989) and New York State (which did not have a SAHAS during the study period). Contrary to the predictions of the backfire hypothesis, our fixed effects regression indicates that Connecticut's SAHAS was associated with increased single-family development relative to the New York State jurisdictions in our sample. This result suggests that a SAHAS can increase below-market rate and mixed-income development without impeding market-rate development.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas J. Marantz & Harya S. Dillon, 2018. "Do State Affordable Housing Appeals Systems Backfire? A Natural Experiment," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 267-284, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:28:y:2018:i:2:p:267-284
    DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2017.1362021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10511482.2017.1362021
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10511482.2017.1362021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:28:y:2018:i:2:p:267-284. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RHPD20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.