Exclusionary Zoning: Policy Design Lessons From the Mount Laurel Decisions

References

• Assembly Committee Substitute for Assembly. (2008). No. 500, state of New Jersey, 213th legislature.
   Google Scholar
• Bailin, N., & Eisdorfer, E. (1996). The impact of the Mt. Laurel initiatives: An analysis of the characteristics of applicants and occupants. West Orange, NJ: Seton Hall University Center for Public Service.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, D. M., Glaeser, E. L., & Vigdor, J. L. (1999). The rise and decline of the American Ghetto. Journal of Political Economy, 107(3), 455–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dantzler, P. (2016). Exclusionary zoning: State and local reactions to the “Mount Laurel” Doctrine. The Urban Lawyer, 48(3), 653–673.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dougherty, C. (2016, July) How anti-growth sentiment, reflecting in zoning laws, thwarts equality. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
   Google Scholar
• Econsult Solutions. (2015). New Jersey affordable housing need and obligations. Retrieved from http://www.southbrunswicknj.gov
   Google Scholar
• Ellen, I. G., Horn, K. M., & Kuai, Y. (2018). Gateway to opportunity? Disparities in neighborhood conditions among low-income housing tax credit residents. Housing Policy Debate, 28(4), 572–591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischel, W. A. (2005). The homevoter hypothesis: How home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, R. (1988). The selling out of Mount Laurel: Regional contribution agreements in New Jersey’s fair housing act. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 16, 535.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, J. C., Chaskin, R. J., & Bazuin, J. T. (2013). Making mixed-income neighborhoods work for low-income households. Cityscape, 15(2), 83–100.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, C. T., & Moretti, E. (2018). Housing constraints and spatial misallocation. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 11(2), 1–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karki, T. K. (2015). Mandatory versus incentive-based state zoning reform policies for affordable housing in the United States: A comparative assessment. Housing Policy Debate, 25(2), 234–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keane, M. P. (1992). A note on identification in the multinomial probit model. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(2), 193–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kontokosta, C. E. (2015). Do inclusionary zoning policies equitably disperse affordable housing? A comparative spatial analysis. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30(4), 569–590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerman, B. R. (2006). Mandatory inclusionary zoning – The answer to affordable the affordable housing problem. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 33(2), 383–416.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, D. K., McDade, Z., & Bertumen, K. (2013). Mixed-income living: Anticipated and realized benefits for low-income households. Cityscape, 15(2), 15–28.
   Google Scholar
• Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2014). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ludwig, J., Liebman, J. B., Kling, J. R., Duncan, G. J., Katz, L. F., Kessler, R. C., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2008). What can we learn about neighborhood effects from the Moving to Opportunity experiment? American Journal of Sociology, 114(1), 144–188.
   Google Scholar
• Mangin, J. (2014). The new exclusionary zoning. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 25, 91.
   Google Scholar
• Manson, S., Schroeder, J., Van Riper, D., & Ruggles, S. (2019). IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 14.0. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS.
   Google Scholar
• Marantz, N. J., & Zheng, H. (2018). Exclusionary zoning and the limits of judicial impact. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Massey, D., Albright, L., Casciano, R., Derickson, E., & Kinswy, D. (2013). Climbing Mount Laurel: The struggle for affordable housing and social mobility in an American Suburb. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitiative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mukhija, V., Das, A., Regus, L., & Tsay, S. S. (2015). The tradeoffs of inclusionary zoning: What do we know and what do we need to know? Planning Practice & Research, 30(2), 222–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murakami, T. (2000, May). Going to court over housing “Builder’s Remedy” suits force the issue with towns that won’t plan for affordable housing. Retrieved from http://www.articles.philly.com
   Google Scholar
• New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing. (1987). Annual report. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State Library Archives.
   Google Scholar
• New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing. (1997). People places & progress: The COAH story 1996–1997. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State Library Archives.
   Google Scholar
• New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing. (2003). Annual report 2002 – 2003. N.J.S.A 52:27D-312. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State Library Archives.
   Google Scholar
• Pendall, R. (2009). How might inclusionary zoning affect urban form? In N. Pindus, H. Wial, & H. Woman (Eds.), Urban and regional policy and its effects (Vol. 2, pp. 223–256). Washing DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Quillian, L. (2002). Why is Black–White residential segregation so persistent?: Evidence on three theories from migration data. Social Science Research, 31(2), 197–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzo, S. (2017, January). N.J. Supreme Court: Towns must have affordable housing. Retrieved from https://www.northjersey.com
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, J. E., Stroh, L., & Flynn, C. (1998). Lake Parc Place: A study of mixed-income housing. Housing Policy Debate, 9(4), 703-740.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothwell, J. T. (2011). Racial enclaves and density zoning: The institutionalized segregation of racial minorities in the United States. American Law and Economics Review, 13(1), 290–358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothwell, J. T., & Massey, D. S. (2010). Density zoning and class segregation in U.S. metropolitan areas. Social Science Quarterly, 91(5), 1123–1143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schively, C. (2007). Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(3), 255–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuetz, J., Meltzer, R., & Been, V. (2009). 31 flavors of inclusionary zoning: Comparing policies from San Francisco, Washington, DC, and Suburban Boston. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(4), 441–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, A. F., & Tajbaksh, K. (1997). Mixed-income housing: Unanswered questions. Cityscape, 3, 71–92.
   Google Scholar
• Shertzer, A., Twinam, T., & Walsh, R. P. (2016). Race, ethnicity, and discriminatory zoning. American Economic Journal. Applied Economics, 8(3), 217–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• So. Burl. Cty. (1975). NAACP v. Tp. of Mt. Laurel, 67 N.J. 151.
   Google Scholar
• So. Burl. Cty. (1983). NAACP v. Mt. Laurel Tp., 92 N.J. 158
   Google Scholar
• Span, H. A. (2001–2003). How the courts should fight exclusionary zoning. Seton Hall Law Review, 32, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Talbert, C. T., & Costa, N. L. (2004). Current issues in inclusionary zoning. The Urban Lawyer, 36(3), 557–569.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, T. (2006). Inequality, metropolitan growth, and residential segregation by income. In G. Burtless, Janet Rothenberg Pack (Ed.), Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs (pp. 1–52). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wooldridge, J. (2012). Introductory econometrics a modern approach 5e. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar