Is open-space preservation a form of exclusionary zoning?: The evolution of municipal open-space policies in New Jersey

Urban Affairs Review

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 92-118

  Schmidt, Stephan ^a   Paulsen, Kurt ^b  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Exclusionary zoning; Municipal behavior; Open space preservation

Indexed keywords

AFFORDABLE HOUSING; DATA ACQUISITION; OPEN SPACE; URBAN DEVELOPMENT; VOTING BEHAVIOR; ZONING POLICY;

NEW JERSEY; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 68649098965     PISSN: 10780874     EISSN: 15528332     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1078087408331122     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Babcock, R. 1966. The zoning game: Municipal practices and policies. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press.
2. Bates, L., and R. Santerre. 1994. The determinants of restrictive residential zoning: Some empirical findings. Journal of Regional Science 34 (2): 253-63.
3. Bates, L. 2001. The public demand for open space: The case of Connecticut communities. Journal of Urban Economics 50:97-111.
4. Bogart, W. 1993. What big teeth you have! Identifying the motivations for exclusionary zoning. Urban Studies 30 (10): 1669-81.
5. Borcherding, T., and R. Deacon. 1972. The demand for the services of non-federal governments. American Economic Review 62 (5): 891-901.
6. Burchell, R., and D. Listokin. 1992. Fiscal impact procedures and the state of the art: The subset question of the costs and revenues of open space and agricultural lands. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ., Center for Urban Policy Research.
7. Crompton, J., 2004. The impacts of parks and open space on property values and the property tax base. 2nd ed. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.
8. Daniels, T. 2005. Land preservation: An essential ingredient in smart growth. Journal of Planning Literature 19 (3): 316-29.
9. Evenson, B., and W. Wheaton. 2003. Local variations in land use regulations. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs 4:221-60.
10. Fischel, W. 2001. The homevoter hypothesis: How home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
11. Fischel, W. 2004. An economic history of zoning and a cure for its exclusionary effects. Urban Studies 41 (2): 317-40.
12. Foresta, R. 1981. Open space policy: New Jersey's Green Acres Program. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press.
13. Frieden, B. 1979. The environmental protection hustle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Gottlieb, P. 2006. State aid formulas and the local incentive to chase (or shun) ratables. Urban Studies 43 (7): 1087-103.
15. Gottlieb, R. 1993. Forcing the spring: The transformation of the American environmental movement. Washington, DC: Island Press.
16. Hayden, D. 2003. Building suburbia: Green fields and urban growth, 1820-2000. New York: Pantheon Books.
17. Heiman, M. 1988. The quiet evolution: Power, planning and profits in New York. New York: Praeger.
18. Hollis, L. and W. Fulton. 2002. Open space protection: Conservation meets growth management. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
19. Howell-Moroney, M. 2004a. Community characteristics, open space preservation and regionalism: Is there a connection? Journal of Urban Affairs 26 (1): 109-18.
20. Howell-Moroney, M. 2004b. What are the determinants of open-space ballot measures? An extension of the research. Social Science Quarterly 85 (1): 169-79.
21. Hughes, M., and T. McGuire. 1991. A market for exclusion: Trading low-income housing obligations under Mount Laurel III. Journal of Urban Economics 29:207-17.
22. Jacobs, H. 2007. Searching for balance in the aftermath of the 2006 takings initiatives. Yale Law Journal 116 (7): 1518-66.
23. Jacobs, H.M. 1989. Localism and land use planning. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 6 (1): 1-18.
24. Jacobs, H.M. 2008. The future of regulatory takings issues in the U.S. and Europe: Divergence or convergence? Urban Lawyer 40 (1): 50-72.
25. Kotchen, M., and S. Powers. 2006. Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52:373-90.
26. Ladd, H. 1998. Local government tax and land use policies in the United States: Understanding the links. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
27. Levine, J. 2006. Zoned out: Regulation, markets, and choices in transportation and metropolitan land-use. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
28. Lubell, M., R. Feiock, and E. Ramirez. 2005. Political institutions and conservation by local governments. Urban Affairs Review 40 (6): 706-29.
29. McClaughry, J. 1976. Farmers, freedom, and feudalism: How to avoid the coming serfdom. South Dakota Law Review 21 (3): 486-541.
30. McConnell, V., and M. Walls. 2005. The value of open space: Evidence from studies of non-market benefits. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future
31. McQueen, M., and E. McMahon 2003. Land conservation financing. Washington, DC: Island Press.
32. O'Driscoll, P. 2006. Report: Conservation efforts offset land lost to sprawl. USA Today, November 30, 1.
33. Paulsen, K. 2006. Sprawl, residential density, and exclusionary zoning. Property and Probate 20 (3): 22-27.
34. Pendall, R. 2000. Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion. Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (2): 125-42.
35. Rolleston, B. 1987. Determinants of restrictive suburban zoning: An empirical analysis. Journal of Urban Economics 21:1-21.
36. Rome, A. 2001. The bulldozer in the countryside: Suburban sprawl and the rise of American environmentalism. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
37. Romero, F., and A. Liserio 2002. Saving open spaces: Determinants of 1998 and 1999 antisprawl ballot measures. Social Science Quarterly 83 (1): 341-52.
38. Romero, F.S. 2004. Continuing the open-space preservation dialogue: A response to Howell-Moroney. Social Science Quarterly 85 (1): 180-6.
39. Schmidt, S. 2008a. The evolving relationship between open space preservation and local planning practice. Journal of Planning History 7 (2): 91-112
40. Schmidt, S. 2008b. From pro-growth to slow-growth in suburban New Jersey. Journal of Planning Education and Research 28 (3): 306-18
41. Solecki, W., Mason, R., and Martin, S. 2004. The geography of support for open-space initiatives: A case study of New Jersey's 1988 ballot measure. Social Science Quarterly 85 (3): 624-38.
42. Stilgoe, J. 1988. Borderland: Origins of the American suburb, 1820-1939. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
43. Trust for Public Land. 2006. LandVote [annual series]. Washington DC: Trust for Public Land.
44. Wassmer, R., and E.L.J. Lascher. 2006. Who supports local growth and regional planning to deal with its consequences? Urban Affairs Review 41 (5): 621-45.
45. Williams, N. 1971. The three systems of land use control (or, exclusionary zoning and revision of the enabling legislation). Rutgers Law Review 25:80-101.
46. Wright, J.B., and R.J. Czerniak. 2000. The rising importance of voluntary methods of land use control in planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19:419-23.