California's Fair-Share Housing 1967—2004: The Planning Approach

Abstract

Fair-share housing in California has gone through six stages since the requirement was established as the housing element in the general plan. At first, each stage required greater rigor and care than the previous one in preparing the housing plan. After a while, the state also began reviewing local elements for compliance with state law, challenging cherished traditions of home rule. All the while, however, the focus was exclusively on housing. Most recently, planning implications of housing have forced a broader focus, now also beginning to consider other regional planning concerns dealing with transportation, air quality, and the environment.

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

“…Finally, RHNA's statistical associations speak to scholars who have questioned the impact of California's Housing Element Law [7,26,[88][89][90]. In the early 2000s, Lewis examined over 200 cities from various California regions and determined that a city's compliance with state housing law did not influence housing construction (i.e., residential permits) [91,92].…”

“…Vogel and Nezelkewicz define government as a "coercive power and command-and-control process embedded in hierarchal organization" [114]. In the case of California, the 1980 revision of the Housing Element Law introduced regional governance because RHNA relies on existing agencies to satisfy the housing needs, e.g., CAHCD, COGs, and cities [13,88]. During the implementation of the 4th RHNA cycle, neither the COGs nor the cities were under the direct command of CAHCD, and COGs maintained no direct power over the cities [32].…”

State Mandates, Housing Elements, and Low-income Housing Production

“…In 1967, California passed the housing element law in order to increase suburban housing production by requiring general plans to include a housing element that “endeavor[s] to make adequate provision for all economic segments of a community’s housing needs” ( Housing Element Law 1967, chap. 1658; Baer 2008, 55).…”

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

“…Baer attributes this problem to governance [57]. With passage of AB 2853 in 1980, California shifted its housing laws from hierarchal command to governance-all agencies operate as equal actors [58] (pp. [59][60][61].…”

“…Even though the housing allocation directs changes in density in order to promote equity, a city may resist modifying a neighborhood's established character [59,60]. Baer acknowledged that compliance advances equitable planning, but also lamented that there is little evidence indicating that compliance produces "affordable units on actual building sites" [58] (p. 68). In closing, the presented study will attempt to link planning aims to planning outcomes by exploring the relationship between the quality of housing plans and low-income housing production-the plan's intended outcome and also an equitable good.…”