This paper investigates the impact of inexpensive housing obligations in New Jersey on price of residing, price of housing, and precise housing manufacturing. New Jersey’s Mount Laurel court docket circumstances established a doctrine whereby municipalities should allow their “justifiable share” of affordably priced housing. At varied factors since then, the legislature has interpreted this doctrine with particular, quantitative targets for municipalities to succeed in, or it has declined to take action, leaving enforcement as much as the courts, which in flip backed away for a number of years from imposing inexpensive housing targets. These coverage modifications present a chance to research whether or not inexpensive housing targets are having their meant impact. Based mostly on artificial management evaluation, the outcomes present no impact of inexpensive housing mandates on housing manufacturing and minimal to no impact of inexpensive housing mandates on housing prices.
1. Introduction
The Mount Laurel court docket circumstances in New Jersey established that “a growing municipality could not, by a system of land use regulation, make it bodily and economically not possible to offer low and reasonable revenue housing.”[1]
Whereas the preliminary ruling merely held that municipal land-use laws couldn’t exclude every part aside from large-lot single-family homes, the legislature has interpreted the Mount Laurel doctrine to say that municipalities have an affirmative obligation to assemble deed-restricted inexpensive housing. Till 1985, the legislature didn’t act. Municipalities had broadly flouted or challenged the 1975 New Jersey Supreme Court docket choice, resulting in a “mass of protracted litigation.”[2] In 1983, the Mount Laurel II choice affirmed a “builder’s treatment” in opposition to municipalities that failed to fulfill judicially decided inexpensive housing targets, thereby incentivizing the legislature lastly to behave.[3]
The outcome was the Truthful Housing Act of 1985, which established an unbiased physique tasked with calculating every municipality’s “justifiable share” allotment of latest inexpensive housing items, which might afford them protected harbor from builder’s treatment lawsuits. That physique, the Council on Inexpensive Housing (COAH), issued its first spherical of justifiable share calculations in 1987, they usually remained in power till 1993. Spherical II of COAH’s fair-share obligations have been in power from 1993 to 1999, and after 1999 COAH went successfully defunct after its Spherical III calculations have been invalidated by the courts. It was lastly abolished in 2024 in favor of a brand new technique of calculating fair-share obligations. Since 2007, then, when COAH’s Spherical III guidelines have been invalidated, New Jersey municipalities have needed to revert to the previous technique of judicial certification of compliance with the Mount Laurel doctrine.
How have the Mount Laurel doctrine and its diversified interpretations by the legislature affected housing manufacturing and prices in New Jersey? To reply this query, we first want to know the political economic system of affordable-housing targets and inclusionary zoning applications.
2. The Results of Inexpensive-Housing Mandates
With the intention to adjust to COAH guidelines, New Jersey municipalities adopted inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning is available in two types: necessary and voluntary. Necessary inclusionary zoning requires that any new growth of a specified dimension or form put aside a proportion of items that should be rented or bought at an inexpensive value to low- or moderate-income customers. Deed restrictions and revenue verification implement the affordability requirement. Voluntary inclusionary zoning provides a developer a regulatory profit, equivalent to a rise in allowed density, offered a sure proportion of items are rented or bought at below-market charges in the identical method.
The Truthful Housing Act of New Jersey requires municipalities to develop at minimal a voluntary inclusionary zoning program, however necessary applications are ubiquitous all through the state, based on a database maintained at inclusionaryhousing.org.
Inclusionary zoning solely features if the market-rate items in an inclusionary growth are costly. The developer has to make a big revenue on these items to offset the losses on the items which might be required to be bought or rented at below-market charges. If housing basically turns into inexpensive, then, inclusionary zoning doesn’t work.
Inclusionary zoning has different curious results. As a type of value management, it creates shortages and rationing. Extra individuals need the below-market items than can be found, in order that they need to be allotted by lottery. Furthermore, inclusionary zoning, a minimum of within the necessary type, reduces the provision of housing, as a result of builders know they are going to make much less revenue from constructing than they’d if there have been no inclusionary necessities.
Empirical analysis largely confirms these theoretical expectations. Analysis within the Baltimore-Washington space finds that necessary inclusionary zoning will increase the price of market-rate housing, although it may not have an effect on new housing provide (Hamilton, 2021). An earlier examine of California discovered that inclusionary zoning insurance policies decreased the scale and elevated the worth of single-family homes (Bento, et al., 2009). A examine of San Francisco and Boston discovered that necessary inclusionary zoning elevated costs and diminished manufacturing in Boston whereas growing costs in periods of rising costs and lowering costs in periods of falling costs in San Francisco, and never affecting manufacturing there (Schuetz, et al., 2011). Yet one more examine of California discovered sturdy hostile results on manufacturing and costs (Means & Stringham, 2012). There’s just one contrarian examine on the problem, discovering that discount in inclusionary zoning necessities in elements of California didn’t have an effect on home costs (Hollingshead, 2015). It may very well be that these applications create hysteresis in housing markets as soon as they’re carried out.
Whereas these research concentrate on necessary inclusionary zoning, there are causes to suppose that even voluntary inclusionary zoning, which is rather more widespread, might have hostile penalties for housing manufacturing, notably in a state like New Jersey or Massachusetts with a “builder’s treatment” out there when municipalities fail to fulfill inexpensive housing targets.
Suppose that municipal management usually opposes new multifamily growth. If a developer proposes a brand new market-rate multifamily growth, it usually doesn’t straight assist the municipality meet its inexpensive housing goal, as a result of the items are often not priced affordably sufficient. Furthermore, since housing markets are supra-municipal, corresponding largely to commuting areas, municipal leaders could properly notice that constructing market-rate housing has solely weak results on the general affordability of housing inside municipal boundaries, contributing fairly to the affordability of housing all through the native labor market. Realizing that they have to meet their inexpensive housing targets, however disfavoring multifamily growth usually, municipal management could have a transparent incentive to disclaim planning permission for market-rate multifamily developments.
Anecdotally, the market-rate nature of a growth (i.e., the dearth of deed-restricted inexpensive items) continuously comes up as a justification for planning denials. State legislation doesn’t expressly defend municipal choices to disclaim planning approval to market-rate multifamily tasks, however municipalities usually take pleasure in broad discretion to disclaim approval for bigger multifamily tasks, via both web site plan overview, variance, or conditional use allow processes. When a scarcity of deed-restricted inexpensive items is mixed with different options which will justify a denial, equivalent to site visitors impacts, a municipal land-use board could really feel themselves on firmer floor to subject a denial than in any other case.
Anecdotally, the market-rate nature of a growth (i.e., the dearth of deed-restricted inexpensive items) continuously comes up as a justification for planning denials. State legislation doesn’t expressly defend municipal choices to disclaim planning approval to market-rate multifamily tasks, however municipalities usually take pleasure in broad discretion to disclaim approval for bigger multifamily tasks, via both web site plan overview, variance, or conditional use allow processes. When a scarcity of deed-restricted inexpensive items is mixed with different options which will justify a denial, equivalent to site visitors impacts, a municipal land-use board could really feel themselves on firmer floor to subject a denial than in any other case.
On this manner, a state-level requirement that municipalities meet affordable-housing manufacturing targets will have a tendency to cut back general housing manufacturing and thereby improve general housing prices.
Have affordable-housing manufacturing targets and inclusionary zoning had these results in New Jersey? We’d like a reputable empirical take a look at evaluating New Jersey to related states.
3. Empirical Evaluation
The empirical technique right here is to match the rounds of binding affordable-housing obligations in New Jersey to the identical intervals in different states and to intervals in New Jersey when there weren’t binding affordable-housing obligations. Of specific curiosity are two outcomes: constructing permits per capita (the very best measure of housing manufacturing) and two measures of price of residing basically and value of for-sale homes specifically. There is just one annual measure of state-level price of residing that goes again earlier than 2008 (Berry, et al., 2000). We shouldn’t have annual knowledge on rental prices, however the FHA produces an all-transactions home value index primarily based on resales and value determinations. Their quarterly knowledge are averaged by yr to create an annual index.
The end result variables are as follows: 1) whole housing items permitted per capita, from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2) housing items in five-or-more-unit buildings per capita (these housing items are most certainly to be affordably priced), 3) annual change in state price of residing, and 4) annual change within the state’s all-transactions home value index. The annual state-level constructing permits knowledge return to 1980 and as much as 2023. The price of residing knowledge return to 1960 and as much as 2007. Home value knowledge go from 1975 to 2024.
Determine 1 exhibits how whole constructing permits per capita have developed in New Jersey and two neighboring states since 1980. The vertical strains set off the interval of 1985 to 1999, when Mount Laurel obligations have been most significantly enforced, and the interval 1999 to 2007, when Mount Laurel obligations have been barely enforced in any respect, as a result of the courts have been ready on a legislative answer that by no means got here.
Determine 1: Complete Constructing Permits per Capita in New Jersey and Neighboring States
We see right here that earlier than 1985, New Jersey was allowing much more items per capita than Pennsylvania and New York have been. Shortly thereafter, nonetheless, New Jersey allowing plunged, and it remained kind of at Pennsylvania’s stage till about 2012, when the state regained a small however regular benefit over its neighbors. These modifications in allowing don’t line up properly with the enforcement of inexpensive housing obligations.
Determine 2 exhibits how constructing permits for items in buildings with 5 or extra items developed over time in the identical group of three states.
Determine 2: 5-Plus Constructing Permits per Capita in New Jersey and Neighboring States
The outcomes listed here are just like these in Determine 1, besides that Pennsylvania and New York swap locations. Pennsylvania produces extra housing than New York, however New York produces extra multifamily housing than Pennsylvania, which isn’t stunning since New York is extra urbanized. After 1990, New Jersey’s allowing of bigger multifamily buildings intently tracks New York’s, however New Jersey did have a barely increased fee between 2016 and 2022.
Up to now, the uncooked knowledge don’t present a robust impact of inexpensive housing obligations on housing manufacturing in New Jersey. New Jersey is essentially the most densely populated state within the nation, so it is sensible that New Jersey would produce a bigger share of multifamily housing than a state like Pennsylvania. However solely in the previous couple of years has New Jersey produced extra general housing than Pennsylvania. There is no such thing as a proof that the 1985 to 1999 interval particularly was extra productive of housing in New Jersey than different intervals, or that the 2000 to 2007 interval was notably unproductive, besides maybe relative to the post-2012 interval.
After all, constructing permits are a measure of amount provided, however economics teaches us that each provide and demand collectively decide an equilibrium. We can’t motive from amount modifications alone that New Jersey’s inexpensive housing obligations didn’t work, as a result of maybe New Jersey had abnormally low housing demand, which precipitated builders to need to construct much less no matter laws. If inexpensive housing obligations corresponded to intervals of gradual progress in the price of residing in New Jersey, we might infer that these obligations boosted housing provide in spite of everything.
Determine 3 exhibits the evolution of state price of residing from 1960 to 2007 for New Jersey and its bigger neighbors.
Determine 3: Value of Residing in New Jersey and Neighboring States
This chart suggests as properly that inexpensive housing obligations didn’t work. Value of residing in New Jersey grew extra quickly than in neighboring states between 1980 and 1990 and since then has remained persistently increased. This proof means that demand for housing in New Jersey was rising quickly within the Nineteen Eighties, and extra housing items would have been provided to fulfill market situations even within the absence of inexpensive housing obligations. It’s even doable that inexpensive housing obligations suppressed provide via the regulatory incentives established by inclusionary zoning.
Lastly, Determine 4 plots the annual change in the home value index for all three states. It is very important observe right here that the home value index is restricted to every state, so ranges are usually not comparable throughout states, solely modifications are. Each state’s home value index is about to 100 within the first quarter of 1980.
Determine 4: Modifications in Home Costs in New Jersey and Neighboring States
New Jersey home costs largely change in lockstep with New York’s. However between 2015 and 2020 there’s a temporary interval when New Jersey’s home costs rose much less quickly than New York’s. We most likely shouldn’t overinterpret six years of knowledge on this time collection, however in live performance with the proof from Determine 2 it would counsel that the interval of court docket supervision of Mount Laurel obligations was extra productive for housing than both the interval of legislative supervision or the interval when these obligations have been largely not enforced.
Nonetheless, these charts are usually not conclusive. We are able to examine the results of New Jersey’s inexpensive housing obligations utilizing artificial management evaluation (Abadie, et al., 2015). Artificial management creates a weighted common of comparable items to the handled unit, then compares the precise ends in the handled unit to the counterfactual outcomes represented by the weighted common of comparable items. The therapy impact of the intervention equals precise New Jersey’s worth minus artificial New Jersey’s worth on an consequence.
I used the instant lag of the dependent variable, inhabitants, private revenue, land space, and variety of native governments per sq. mile from Ruger and Sorens (2023) to create a “artificial” New Jersey from different states. Within the change in price of residing and alter in home costs analyses, I additionally used the one-year lag of the extent of every index to seize any scale results occurring in very long time collection of value indices. This artificial New Jersey is as related as doable to the true New Jersey, permitting us to research the counterfactual constructing permits, price of residing, and housing prices that might have occurred in New Jersey within the absence of the Mount Laurel inexpensive housing obligations.
I take a look at two therapy intervals, the primary when the legislature made Mount Laurel obligations efficient from 1985 to 1999, and the second when neither the legislature nor the courts have been imposing Mount Laurel obligations (2000 to 2007). Separate artificial management analyses are run for every interval.
End result:Complete unitsTotal units5-Unit permits5-Unit permitsΔ Value of livingΔ Value of livingΔ Home value indexΔ Home value indexTreatment interval:1985-19992000-20071985-19992000-20071985-19992000-20071985-19992000-2007Massachusetts0.660.580.820.220.60.290.440.2Pennsylvania0.240.170.170.220.52Connecticut 0.130.460.140.38New York0.020.230.170.280.090.160.01Florida0.090.27Nevada 0.070.04Arizona 0.02Hawaii 0.25California 0.1
Desk 1: Development of Artificial New Jersey in Every Evaluation
As a result of I’m working eight completely different artificial management analyses (two therapy intervals mixed with 4 outcomes), the exact content material of artificial New Jersey varies from evaluation to evaluation. Desk 1 exhibits how artificial New Jersey is constructed in every evaluation; the numbers signify the weights on every state.
Unsurprisingly, neighboring states New York and Pennsylvania contribute loads to many of those analyses. Massachusetts is the one state that contributes to artificial New Jersey in each evaluation. The most important shock is to see Hawaii enter as a major contributor to artificial New Jersey within the 1985–1999 home value index evaluation. In any other case, uncommon states make up solely a really small proportion of artificial New Jersey in every occasion.
Predictor steadiness was largely good, with handled and artificial New Jersey matching intently on inhabitants, private revenue, and efficient competing jurisdictions per sq. mile. Nonetheless, handled New Jersey land space was usually a few half to 1 / 4 of artificial New Jersey’s. New Jersey is abnormally small for its inhabitants and private revenue (it’s the most densely populated state), and it’s exhausting for the algorithm to copy that sample with different states.
Determine 5 exhibits the outcomes of the artificial management analyses of whole constructing permits per capita for the 2 therapy intervals.
Determine 5: Artificial Management Evaluation of New Jersey Complete Constructing Permits
The artificial management algorithm finally ends up replicating New Jersey’s pre-treatment allowing extraordinarily intently within the ancient times and solely reasonably intently within the later interval. New Jersey’s precise allowing fell under its counterfactual allowing over many of the earlier therapy interval, akin to the primary legislatively enforced Mount Laurel regime. However the variations are tiny in an absolute sense, and after we bear in mind regular variation in different states, they don’t seem to be statistically vital in any yr. The identical is true of the therapy results within the later interval, akin to no enforcement of Mount Laurel obligations, besides in 2000, the place the outcome goes within the “mistaken” course (New Jersey constructed greater than anticipated). In different phrases, neither legislative enforcement of Mount Laurel nor a suspension of Mount Laurel made any distinction to New Jersey residential constructing permits.
Determine 6 presents equal outcomes for five-unit manufacturing.
Determine 6: Artificial Management Evaluation of New Jersey 5-Unit Constructing Permits
The outcomes are mainly the identical. The one statistically vital outcomes primarily based on standardized p-values are in 1986 and 2000, however they go within the “mistaken” course, suggesting that New Jersey had abnormally few five-unit permits in 1986 and abnormally many five-unit permits in 2000.
Determine 7 strikes on to common inflation. Right here, we might anticipate legislative enforcement of Mount Laurel to cut back state inflation charges and no enforcement of Mount Laurel to extend them, if the system really promoted housing provide.
Determine 7: Artificial Management Evaluation of New Jersey Inflation
Right here, we’re capable of mannequin New Jersey’s pretreatment inflation extraordinarily intently and precisely. As soon as once more, we discover primarily no impact of the Mount Laurel regime. Not one of the therapy results are near statistical significance, besides in 2002, the place the outcome means that the dearth of Mount Laurel enforcement could have added a tenth of a proportion level to the state’s inflation fee. However for many years, the information counsel that Mount Laurel has made no distinction to common inflation in New Jersey.
Subsequent, Determine 8 seems to be on the outcomes for change within the all-transactions home value index.
Determine 8: Artificial Management Evaluation of Change in New Jersey Home Costs
The outcomes listed here are all around the map, suggesting that Mount Laurel enforcement raised home costs in 1986 and 1987 and lower them in 1989, 1990, and 1991. The common therapy impact over the primary interval is -1.2, akin to a few 0.5 p.c change in home costs over the entire 1985–1999 period. After enforcement was eliminated, home costs rose, however solely in two years was that improve statistically vital: 2002 and 2006. The common therapy impact over this era is 11.7, akin to a few 2.7 p.c change in home costs throughout that period. There may be inconsistent proof that Mount Laurel enforcement stored home costs down barely.
After we put all this proof collectively, it means that Mount Laurel enforcement didn’t improve housing provide. It might have lower housing costs barely with out growing allowing, suggesting a discount in demand for housing, however these modifications have been too slight to make any influence on broader state-level inflation.
4. Dialogue
The outcomes from the foregoing analyses counsel that the Mount Laurel doctrine and a number of rounds of inexpensive housing obligations relationship again a minimum of 39 years have finished nothing, or subsequent to nothing, to make housing extra ample or inexpensive in New Jersey. It is a disappointing outcome, maybe, nevertheless it’s exhausting to see it as a stunning one, since New Jersey stays a pricey state for housing and comparatively slow-growing in comparison with Sunbelt states that make it straightforward to construct.
A few of the proof means that New Jersey constructed a variety of housing throughout 2015 to 2020, and that this era additionally corresponded to a moderation in home value will increase. This was a interval of judicial enforcement of Mount Laurel obligations with none legislative framework. At the very least, the outcomes nonetheless help pessimism concerning the legislature’s potential to provide you with standards for Mount Laurel compliance that foster progress in housing provide.
These outcomes additionally shouldn’t be stunning because the bulk of the scholarship on the query finds that inclusionary zoning insurance policies are likely to make housing much less inexpensive, much less ample, or each. The Truthful Housing Act’s mandating of voluntary inclusionary zoning and encouragement of necessary inclusionary zoning has, at minimal, counteracted the intent of the legislation to make housing extra out there to households of modest revenue.
New Jersey is presently present process a fourth spherical of inexpensive housing obligations, and the method has generated a lot controversy. The legislation, Act 2 of 2024, requires the Division of Group Affairs to develop municipality-specific inexpensive housing obligations underneath an in depth, exact method. These obligations go into power this yr.
Components of the legislation’s method are price questioning. To begin with, “Certified City Support” municipalities are exempted completely from the legislation. This would possibly make sense if all of those municipalities already provided ample inexpensive housing, however that’s not essentially the case. Municipalities can qualify for this listing if they’ve a excessive proportion of substandard and poor housing or just a excessive inhabitants density.
Second, Potential Want – the brand new inexpensive housing obligation – is calculated on the belief that 40% of the housing demand in each area and in each municipality will come from low and reasonable revenue (LMI) households. This ignores the probability that LMI households desire to stay in some locations fairly than others (as an illustration, locations with entry to public transit or walkable to employment).
Communities find yourself with the next quota if they’ve had extra fast industrial valuation progress over the earlier decade. This provision encourages communities to squelch industrial growth. Furthermore, industrial valuation progress doesn’t essentially indicate employment progress. Sensible-growth ideas counsel utilizing employment progress as an alternative to find out housing want.
The method additionally contains an revenue capability issue, which punishes communities not only for being rich, but additionally for having a small inhabitants, as a result of it averages a purely income-based measure with a household-weighted income-based measure. To keep away from penalizing communities for having a small variety of households, the measure ought to merely be the household-weighted measure.
The legislation does bear in mind land capability of the municipality, which is meant to cut back new housing obligation for already built-out municipalities. Nonetheless, the calculation relies upon partially on Geographic Data Methods (GIS) land-cover and tax map knowledge which might be usually not sufficiently granular, correct, and up-to-date for the aim.
Lastly, the “allocation components” are merely averaged to supply the justifiable share calculation, with no justification. For instance, the small neighborhood of Monmouth Seaside has complained about its optimistic Potential Want quantity, on condition that it has zero developable land.
Given these issues, it’s no surprise that the renewed inexpensive housing obligations are going through sturdy resistance across the state. Generally state governments do have to put guardrails on the municipal zoning energy, however basically, mandates on the variety of items to supply don’t work properly, as a result of they encourage wasteful litigation, and municipalities are sometimes capable of keep away from them via sub rosa strategies like delaying permits, requiring further research, and zoning land for growth that’s not really developable.
5. Conclusion and Suggestions
Is the Mount Laurel doctrine working for New Jersey? Not in its legislative interpretations thus far. The legislative framework primarily based in 1985’s Truthful Housing Act has demonstrably failed to unravel the inexpensive housing drawback in New Jersey. In reality, there’s no proof it has elevated allowing in any respect, and valuable little that it has introduced down the price of housing within the state.
Three suggestions for reform observe.
As talked about, Act 2 exempts city municipalities from inexpensive housing mandates. This exemption makes little sense if one’s objective is to offer extra inexpensive housing the place there may be demand for it. Act 2 might subsequently be amended to use to all municipalities within the state, and the quantitative housing mandates recalculated. Some lawmakers could query this strategy on the grounds that increased inexpensive housing mandates for suburban and rural municipalities will likely be extra more likely to scale back residential segregation. However it’s a usually legitimate maxim that when one goals at two targets directly, one dangers hitting neither. A greater option to cope with segregation can be to handle its adverse penalties straight.
A modest reform would shift inexpensive housing targets from municipal to regional our bodies, both the prevailing county planning boards or new regional authorities created by laws. These our bodies might overview growth functions particularly for inexpensive housing developments, in session with the municipalities concerned. A regional goal system can be extra versatile than the prevailing municipal goal system, and will enable market demand to have a better say in the place these tasks happen.
New Jersey lawmakers ought to think about repealing Act 2 completely and focus on methods to leverage personal property rights and the free market to develop housing provide, equivalent to by conferring particular growth rights for sure sorts of tasks primarily based on web site and infrastructure situations.
The state may pace up allowing with shot-clocks, third-party allowing, and broadened exemptions from particular allow necessities. The Mercatus Heart publishes an annual report on the state legislative “toolbox” for housing, a helpful supply of concepts on this entrance (Furth, et al., 2024).
As an alternative of detailed inexpensive housing mandates which have spawned a whole litigation business, the state ought to transfer towards regulatory reforms geared toward common housing abundance. The state might nonetheless financially reward cities that really allow a variety of new constructing, however these rewards ought to come after the permits have been issued, not after mere rezonings. This strategy would construct a extra collaborative relationship between the state and municipalities and likewise make it simpler for builders to know what they’ll construct and the place, with out having to undergo years of authorized rigmarole. These reforms would make housing extra ample the place it’s wanted, bringing down the fee and doubling down on New Jersey’s current financial strengths, like a talented, urbanized workforce and robust industrial and port infrastructure.
Acknowledgments
The writer thanks Audrey Lane for editorial help and steerage and nameless referees for useful suggestions. All remaining errors are the writer’s accountability.
References
Abadie, A., Diamond, A. & Hainmueller, J., 2015. Comparative Politics and the Artificial Management Technique. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), pp. 495-510.
Aten, B. H., 2017. Regional Worth Parities and Actual Regional Earnings for america. Social Indicators Analysis, 131(1), pp. 123-143.
Bento, A., Lowe, S., Knaap, G.-J. & Chakraborty, A., 2009. Housing Market Results of Inclusionary Zoning. Cityscape, 11(2), pp. 7-26.
Berry, W. D., Fording, R. C. & Hanson, R. L., 2000. An Annual Value of Residing Index for the American States, 1960-1995. Journal of Politics, 62(2), pp. 550-567.
Furth, S., Hamilton, E. & Gardner, C., 2024. Housing Reform within the States: A Menu of Choices for 2025, Arlington, Va.: Mercatus Heart at George Mason College.
Hamilton, E., 2021. Inclusionary Zoning and Housing Market Outcomes. Cityscape, 23(1), pp. 161-194.
Hollingshead, A., 2015. When and How Ought to Cities Implement Inclusionary Housing Insurance policies?, Berkeley, Calif.: Cornerstone Partnership.
Means, T. & Stringham, E. P., 2012. Unintended or Meant Penalties? The Impact of Beneath-Market Housing Mandates on Housing Markets in California. Journal of Public Finance and Public Alternative, 30(1-3), pp. 39-64.
Ruger, W. & Sorens, J., 2023. Freedom within the 50 States: An Index of Private and Financial Freedom. seventh ed. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.
Schuetz, J., Meltzer, R. & Been, V., 2011. Silver Bullet or Trojan Horse? The Results of Inclusionary Zoning on Native Housing Markets in america. City Research, 48(2), pp. 297-329.
Finish Notes
[1] Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 67 N.J. 151 (1975).
[2] Monaghan, Justin M., and William Penkethman Jr. “The Truthful Housing Act: Assembly the Mount Laurel Obligation with a Statewide Plan.” Seton Corridor Legis. J. 9 (1985): 585–619, 587.
[3] Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel Township, 92 N.J.
158, 456 A.second 390 (1983).