Remedies for Affordable Housing: From Fair Share to Growth Share

Payne, John M.

doi:10.1080/00947598.1997.10395928

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, he thought, a variety of programs, including tax credits, would continue to be available to for-profit developers to make such housing possible. 32 Within weeks of the New Jersey Future report, COAH, now chaired by the state's Director of Community Affairs and former Cherry Hill Mayor Susan Bass Levin, announced new fair share rules based on the growth share concept. Levin claimed that obligations to build one affordable unit for every ten new homes or thirty new jobs was a more effective and less contentious way of providing affordable housing while at the same time eliminating inducements for additional sprawl that critics of Mount Laurel had charged were brought on by the builder's remedy.…”

Section: Urban Reinvestmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planning After Mount Laurel: To Gild “the Ghetto” or Disperse It?

Gillette

2006

Journal of Planning History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the New Jersey State Supreme Court ruled that every community had an obligation to actively include affordable units in its housing stock, it was taking up the challenge, laid down by the Kerner Commission in 1968, to disperse levels of concentrated poverty that had contributed to the wave of civil disorders plaguing the country. A generation later, despite open housing laws, metropolitan communities remain highly segregated, not the least in New Jersey. A revitalization plan for Camden, where the Mount Laurel affordable housing cases were instigated, has given lip service to regionalizing the recovery effort, a challenge the Ford Foundation has picked up by supporting a number of related efforts aimed at achieving “regional equity.” Such efforts address the state court’s support for “sound planning,” but resistance to integration remains, leaving the outcome of concerted investments in social justice still very much in doubt.

show abstract

Section: Urban Reinvestmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planning After Mount Laurel: To Gild “the Ghetto” or Disperse It?

Gillette

2006

Journal of Planning History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…putting planning priorities first is preferable." 2 California increasingly put planning priorities first. That may be preferable, but it created other problems.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Baer

2008

Journal of Planning History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Relationship Between State Preemption of Inclusionary Zoning Policies and Health Outcomes: Is There Disparate Impact Among People of Color?

Melton-Fant

2020

Housing Policy Debate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Remedies for Affordable Housing: From Fair Share to Growth Share

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Planning After Mount Laurel: To Gild “the Ghetto” or Disperse It?

Planning After Mount Laurel: To Gild “the Ghetto” or Disperse It?

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

Relationship Between State Preemption of Inclusionary Zoning Policies and Health Outcomes: Is There Disparate Impact Among People of Color?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About