IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v12y1994i4p425-447.html

The State—Local Regulatory Nexus in US Growth Management: Claims of Property and Participation in the Localist Resistance

Author

Listed:
  • T A Clark

    (Graduate Program in Urban and Regional Planning, College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado at Denver, PO Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217-3364, USA)

Abstract

Influenced possibly more by volume than substance, some scholars have concluded that significant progress is being realized in state-level land-use regulation in the United States. In truth, more time must pass before a definitive evaluation of the more comprehensive efforts can be made. In this critical paper I examine the statewide growth-management legislation of the four states having tripartite (local—regional—state) administrative hierarchies: Florida, Vermont, Maine, and Georgia. There and elsewhere, numerous structural compromises have won adoption. Bold declarations of regulatory intent are found here often to be wrapped around ambiguous and easily subverted administrative mechanisms and standards. With prima facie evidence of significant structural shortcomings in hand, I then restore focus on the founding debates in search of a synthesis that might be more supportive of regional growth management. Using the theory of local autonomy as a starting point, I disentangle the normative foundations of the Liberal ethic of local participation and ‘control’, and of private rights in property. The centralization of growth management is seen by its proponents as a means to regionalize the ‘public interest’ in land use, positing a new and more expansive norm defining the public's interest in private property. Opponents, on the other hand, resist the public encumbrance of private land, and find in centralization a regionalized ‘public’ desirous of greater control and less amenable to private influence. In these opposing views, however, lies the possibility of less conflicted, more efficacious regional growth-management enactments. Centralization, I conclude, can actually deepen the capacity for ‘local’ participation yet at the same time extend its domain to matters of regional concern. The result can improve the capability of the local state to manage spillovers, achieve more sustainable patterns of growth, and facilitate more satisfactory templates of private investment and equity accumulation.

Suggested Citation

  • T A Clark, 1994. "The State—Local Regulatory Nexus in US Growth Management: Claims of Property and Participation in the Localist Resistance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 12(4), pages 425-447, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:12:y:1994:i:4:p:425-447
    DOI: 10.1068/c120425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c120425
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c120425?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katz, Lawrence & Rosen, Kenneth T, 1987. "The Interjurisdictional Effects of Growth Controls on Housing Prices," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 149-160, April.
    2. Gerrit Knaap, 1989. "The Political Economy of Growth Management in Oregon: A Historical Review," The Review of Regional Studies, Southern Regional Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 43-49, Winter.
    3. Elliott, E Donald & Ackerman, Bruce A & Millian, John C, 1985. "Toward a Theory of Statutory Evolution: The Federalization of Environmental Law," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 313-340, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elliot Anenberg & Edward Kung, 2018. "Can More Housing Supply Solve the Affordability Crisis? Evidence from a Neighborhood Choice Model," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2018-035, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    2. John Landis & Vincent J. Reina, 2021. "Do Restrictive Land Use Regulations Make Housing More Expensive Everywhere?," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 35(4), pages 305-324, November.
    3. Edward L. Glaeser & Joseph Gyourko & Raven E. Saks, 2006. "Urban growth and housing supply," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 71-89, January.
    4. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline & Mouez Fodha, 2011. "Environmental Tax and the Distribution of Income among Heterogeneous Workers," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 103-104, pages 71-92.
    5. Marcy Burchfield & Henry G. Overman & Diego Puga & Matthew A. Turner, 2006. "Causes of Sprawl: A Portrait from Space," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 587-633.
    6. Virat Agrawal & Richard K. Green & Neeraj Sood & Christopher M. Whaley, 2025. "The Impact of the Out-of-Pocket Housing Expense Inflation on Household Alcohol and Tobacco Purchases," NBER Working Papers 33534, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Waldorf, Brigitte S. & Byun, Pillsung & Florax, Raymond J.G.M., 2005. "Strategic Interaction and Spatial Multiplier Effects in Local Growth Control Policies: The California Housing Market," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19574, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Frederic S. Mishkin, 2007. "Housing and the monetary transmission mechanism," Proceedings - Economic Policy Symposium - Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pages 359-413.
    9. Robert M. Hunt & Tim VandenBerg, 1998. "Discouraging Federal actions that reduce the value of private property: evaluating procedural and financial approaches," Working Papers 98-24, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    10. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Introduction to the Political Economy of Environmental Regulations," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-12, Resources for the Future.
    11. M B Mackay, 1994. "Environmental rights and the US system of protection: Why the US Environmental Protection Agency is not a rights-based administrative agency," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 26(11), pages 1761-1785, November.
    12. Jenny Schuetz & Rachel Meltzer & Vicki Been, 2011. "Silver Bullet or Trojan Horse? The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets in the United States," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(2), pages 297-329, February.
    13. Grimes, Arthur & Liang, Yun, 2009. "Spatial determinants of land prices: Does Auckland’s metropolitan urban limit have an effect?," MPRA Paper 68803, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Ganong, Peter & Shoag, Daniel, 2017. "Why has regional income convergence in the U.S. declined?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 76-90.
    15. John M. Quigley & Steven Raphael & Larry A. Rosenthal, 2004. "Local Land-use Controls and Demographic Outcomes in a Booming Economy," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(2), pages 389-421, February.
    16. Lawrence W.C. Lai & Winky K.O. Ho, 2002. "An econometric study of the decisions of a town planning authority: complementary & substitute uses of industrial activities in Hong Kong," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 127-135.
    17. Jae Ik Kim & Jun Yong Hyun & Seom Gyeol Lee, 2019. "The Effects of Releasing Greenbelt Restrictions on Land Development in the Case of Medium-Sized Cities in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, January.
    18. Lawrence W. C. Lai & Winky K. O. Ho, 2001. "A Probit Analysis of Development Control: A Hong Kong Case Study of Residential Zones," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 38(13), pages 2425-2437, December.
    19. Edward L. Glaeser, 2020. "Urbanization and its Discontents," NBER Working Papers 26839, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Ganong, Peter Nathan & Shoag, Daniel W, 2012. "Why Has Regional Convergence in the U.S. Stopped?," Scholarly Articles 9361381, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:12:y:1994:i:4:p:425-447. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.