According to the Plan: Testing the Influence of Housing Plan Quality on Low-Income Housing Production

Abstract

For more than 20 years, scholars have assessed a plan's content to determine the plan's quality, with quality serving as a proxy for planning efficacy. However, scholars rarely examine the relationship between a plan's quality and the plan's intended outcome. Thus, it is unclear whether quality influences planning outcomes or even advances equity. To close this gap, this study assessed a non-random sample of housing plans from 43 cities in California's Los Angeles and Sacramento regions to observe how cities accommodated low-income housing needs and to observe whether each plan's quality influenced low-income housing production. The analysis indicates that the plans identified 42 different planning tools to accommodate low-income housing needs, and nearly 60% of the implementing objectives proposed construction programs. Quality is influential after the city's location, land-use, population, and the plan's compliance with state housing law are taken into account. In summary, quality illuminated how these cities accommodated low-income housing needs and, in conjunction with other city conditions, quality influences low-income housing production. Due to this non-random sample, this study calls on planning scholars to subject quality to more empirical tests on planning outcomes in other areas to increase quality's importance in scholarship.

Accessory Dwelling Units as Low-Income Housing: California’s Faustian Bargain

“…Third, Ramsey-Musolf's recent study determined that California cities employed a wide variety of planning tools to accommodate housing needs. In that study, the top five planning tools were zoning (adoption and/or amendments), residential rehabilitation to remove defects, identification of sites with appropriate densities, identification of sites for transitional housing (e.g., homeless, women's, or emergency shelters) and, modification of development standards to facilitate production [92]. Lastly, the sample's low-income cities' housing plans averaged the highest compliance rates at 67% (or roughly compliant for 6 out of 9 years).…”

“…In order to reduce bureaucratic burden, Georgia allows these cities to substitute their HUD plans for the required housing plan [91]. Due to this compromise, it is not clear whether HUD or local planners are directing Georgia's local housing policies [92]. In 1999, Wisconsin Smart Growth Law required housing plans from all cities and towns if these jurisdictions implemented zoning [93].…”

“…The diminutive proportion of potential ADUs as low-income housing in low-income cities (0.61% or 218/35,616) suggests that these cities employ many planning tools (e.g., mixed-use, transit-oriented development, overlays, residential rehabilitation, increased density) to not only accommodate their large allocation of low-income housing needs but also regional housing growth [158,159]. For example, Ramsey-Musolf's recent study of housing plans from Los Angeles and Sacramento region cities determined that planners employed 42 different planning tools to accommodate low-income housing needs ( [92], Supplementary Table S3). Table 6 indicates that the sample counted 892 potential ADUs in which planners designated 749 as low-income and 142 as market-rate housing.…”

The Efficacy of Allocating Housing Growth in the Los Angeles Region (2006–2014)

“…When cities embed RHNA's housing growth into their housing elements, California requires that city planners quantify how many housing units can be placed on a site, specify the planning technique that facilitates housing production, and identify the potential funding source that facilitates housing production. Recently, Ramsey-Musolf examined the 3rd and 4th RHNA cycle housing elements from 43 California cities to determine how these cities accommodated low-income housing needs [121]. Ramsey-Musolf determined that city planners implemented 42 planning techniques to facilitate low-income housing production and, on average, each city implemented 11 such techniques [121].…”

“…Recently, Ramsey-Musolf examined the 3rd and 4th RHNA cycle housing elements from 43 California cities to determine how these cities accommodated low-income housing needs [121]. Ramsey-Musolf determined that city planners implemented 42 planning techniques to facilitate low-income housing production and, on average, each city implemented 11 such techniques [121]. Residential rehabilitation was the top low-income housing technique, followed by zoning entitlements (i.e., approvals) and amendments (i.e., increasing density), transitional housing, and identifying sites with appropriate densities.…”