Comment on Paul G. Lewis's “Can state review of local planning increase housing production?”

Arthur Nelson

Housing Policy Debate, 2005, vol. 16, issue 2, 201-209

Abstract: Paul G. Lewis finds that California's mandatory housing element does not predict new housing starts. This is unfortunate but not surprising for California. Lewis offers important lessons for all states—lessons that must be heeded before the housing crunch gets worse. This comment highlights the pending housing crunch, embellishes on Lewis's California findings through the lens of hazard mitigation, offers some anecdotal evidence of what appears to be a successful mandatory housing element (Portland, OR), elaborates on lessons we have learned about effective institutional arrangements, and calls on state legislatures to provide more than lip service in meeting the nation's housing needs.

Date: 2005
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10511482.2005.9521540 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:houspd:v:16:y:2005:i:2:p:201-209

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RHPD20

DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2005.9521540

Access Statistics for this article

Housing Policy Debate is currently edited by Tom Sanchez, Susanne Viscarra and Derek Hyra

More articles in Housing Policy Debate from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().