Why do communities mobilize against growth: Growth pressures, community status, metropolitan hierarchy, or strategic interaction?

Journal of Urban Affairs

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 25-43

  Nguyen, Mai Thi ^a  

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CENSUS; DEMOGRAPHY; ESTIMATION METHOD; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LAND USE PLANNING; LOGIT ANALYSIS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SUBURBAN AREA; URBAN GROWTH; URBAN HOUSING; URBAN POLICY;

CALIFORNIA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 59349085158     PISSN: 07352166     EISSN: 14679906     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2008.00427.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing (1991). "Not in my backyard": Removing barriers to affordable housing. Washington, DC: Department of Housing and Urban Development.
2. Baldassare, M. (1981). The growth dilemma: Residents views and local population change in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3. Baldassare, M. (1985). Predicting local concern about growth: The roots of citizen discontent. Journal of Urban Affairs, 6, 39-49.
4. Baldassare, M., & Wilson, G. (1996). Changing sources of suburban support for local growth controls. Urban Studies, 33(3), 459-471.
5. Brueckner, J. K. (1995). Strategic control of growth in a system of cities. Journal of Public Economics, 57, 393-416.
6. Brueckner, J. K. (1998). Testing for strategic interaction among local governments: The case of growth controls. Journal of Urban Economics, 44, 438-467.
7. Burbank, M. J., Heying, C. H., & Andranovich, G. (2000). Antigrowth politics or piecemeal resistance?Citizen opposition to Olympic-related economic growth. Urban Affairs Review, 35(3), 334-357.
8. Burchell, R., Downs, A., Mukherji, S., & McCann, B. (2005). Sprawl costs: Economic impacts of unchecked development. Washington, DC: Island Press.
9. California Association of Realtors (1992). California ballot monitor: A guide to local land use and taxation measures (CAR Report). Los Angeles, CA.
10. DeGrove, J. M. (1995). Growth management principles and practices. Chicago: American Planning Association.
11. Donovan, T., & Neiman, M. (1992). Community social status, suburban growth, and local government restrictions on residential development. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 28(2), 323-336.
12. Donovan, T., Neiman, M., & Brumbaugh, S. (1994). Two dimensions of local growth strategies. Research in Community Sociology, 4, 153-169.
13. Downs, A. (1994). New visions for metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
14. Fischel, W. (2001). The homevoter hypothesis: How home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Fodor, E. (1999). Better not bigger: How to take control of urban growth and improve your community. Stony Creek, CA: New Society.
16. Frieden, B. (1979). The environmental protection hustle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
17. Fulton, W. (1999). Guide to California planning. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books.
18. Fulton, W., Nguyen, M., Williamson, C., Shigley, P., Kancler, E., Dietenhofer, J., & Sourial, J. (2002). Growth management ballot measures in California. Ventura, CA: Solimar Research Group.
19. Gordon, T. (2004). The local initiative in California. San Francisco: The Public Policy Institute of California.
20. Gottdiener, M., & Neiman, M. (1981). Characteristics of support for local growth control. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 17(1), 55-73.
21. Guest, A. M., & Oropesa, R. S. (1984). Problem-solving strategies of local areas in the metropolis. American Sociological Review, 49(December), 828-840.
22. Hill, R. C. (1974). Separate and unequal: Government inequality in the metropolis. The American Political Science Review, 68, 1557-1568.
23. Hirschmann, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24. Howell-Moroney, M. (2004). What are the determinants of open-space ballot measures? Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 169-179.
25. Jenkins, J. C. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 527-553.
26. Kay, R., & Little, S. (1987). Transformations of the explanatory variables in the logistic regression model for binary data. Biometrika 74(3), 495-501.
27. Lee, S., & Leigh, N. (2005). The role of inner ring suburbs in metropolitan smart growth strategies. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(3), 330-346.
28. Levine, N., Glickfeld, M., & Fulton, W. (1996). Home rule: Local growth ... regional consequences. Report to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Southern California Association of Governments. Los Angeles.
29. Lewis, P. (2001). Retail politics: Local sales taxes and the fiscalization of land use. Economic Development Quarterly, 15(1), 21-35.
30. Lewis, P., & Neiman, M. (2002). Cities under pressure: Local growth controls and residential development policy. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
31. Logan, J. R. (1978). Growth, politics, and the stratification of places. American Journal of Sociology, 84(2), 404-416.
32. Lyons, W. E., Lowery, D., & DeHoog, R. H. (1992). The politics of dissatisfaction: Citizen, services, and urban institutions. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
33. McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212-1241.
34. Medler, J., & Mushkatel, A. (1979). Urban-rural class conflict in Oregon land-use planning. Western Political Quarterly, 32(2), 338-349.
35. Misczynski, D. J. (1986). The fiscalization of land use. In J. J. Kirlin & D. R. Winkler (Eds.), California policy choices. Sacramento, CA: School of Public Administration, University of Southern California.
36. Myers, P. (1999). Livability at the ballot box: State and local referenda on parks, conservation, and smarter growth, Election Day 1998. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
37. Myers, P., & Puentes, R. (2001). Growth at the ballot box: Electing the shape of communities in November 2000. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
38. Neiman, M., & Loveridge, R. O. (1981). Environmental and local growth control: A probe into the class bias thesis. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 759-772.
39. Orfield, M. (1997). Metropolitics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
40. Peterson, P. E. (1981). City limits. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
41. Protash, W., & Baldassare, M. (1983). Growth policies and community status. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 18(3), 397-412.
42. Public Policy Institute of California (2002). Special survey on land use: Part of the growth, land use, and environment series. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
43. Romero, F. S., & Lisero, A. (2002). Saving open spaces: Determinants of 1998 and 1999 "Antisprawl"ballot measures. Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), 341-352.
44. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
45. Sharp, E. B. (2003). Political participation in cities. In J. P. Pelissero (Ed.), Cities, politics, and policy. Washington, DC: Loyola University Press.
46. Sierra Club (1998). Sprawl: The dark side of the American dream. San Francisco: Sierra Club.
47. Sierra Club (2000). Sprawl costs us all: How your taxes fuel suburban sprawl. San Francisco: Sierra Club.
48. South Burlington County, NAACP v. Mt. Laurel (1975). New Jersey Supreme Court.
49. South Burlington County, NAACP v. Mt. Laurel (1983). New Jersey Supreme Court.
50. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1980). 1980 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape File 3A. Washington, DC.
51. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990). 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape File 3A. Washington, DC.
52. Vogel, R. K., & Swanson, B. E. (1989). The growth machine versus anti-growth coalition: The battle for our communities. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 25(1), 63-85.