Reviewed by Kenneth J. Dueker, Emeritus Professor of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University

Introduction

Jonathan Levine has written a thoughtful and provocative critique of zoning practice in the U.S as it relates to transportation and land use. It is an important assessment of the role of zoning in shaping urban areas, particularly the exclusionary nature of some zoning practices that perpetuates urban sprawl and inhibits compact developments. The following section summarizes Levine’s position, while the final section critiques it.

Levine’s Perspective

Levine argues that the tendency of unchecked municipal regulation to exclude density, results in the exclusion of new forms of more acceptable density of the form of compact, walkable, and transit-friendly development. Further, Levine laments the inclination of American scholarship and public debate to identify these regulatory actions as the base case, which is not a market-derived base, thus it distorts the policy debate. He argues that this distorts the transportation and land use policy debate by implicitly treating the status quo as a neutral default choice from which deviations require justifications in travel savings. This results in urban sprawl and paucity of alternative development forms that are the result of governmental regulation, not a free market base case, from which policy reform should be measured.

Instead, Levine argues that interventions on behalf of compact development are worth considering as a remedy for the market failure of exclusionary zoning, and that intervention need not be constrained by proving travel behavior benefits. Increasing the availability of walkable alternatives represents a transportation benefit as surely as reducing traffic congestion and vehicle-miles of travel (VMT).

Levine acknowledges that realizing the benefits of compact development are a long term proposition, and that there might not be a market for compact development in the short term. Nevertheless, he argues that areas around transit stations designated for compact development should not be preempted by low density development

The shortage of affordable housing near ones work and non-work destinations is a result of exclusionary zoning practices of municipalities that favor suburban single-family housing, which is the basis for policy reform to foster more compact development and increased density. He goes on to call for the planning profession to educate local citizens and decision-makers to the importance of accommodating a broader range of housing neighborhood types –not because of proven benefits of compact development forms but because they provide amenable environments for a broad range of housing types, foster walkable neighborhoods, promote vibrant downtowns. In addition, incentive-based policies can help municipalities toward reduced regulatory exclusion, in the form of transit service improvements and incentives to build housing near transit stops. Stronger than incentives, are systems in which land use authority is shared between local governments and regional or state government to overcome local resistance to compact development. For example, statewide growth management mandates hold some potential for overcoming local governmental regulatory obstacles to compact growth. Another example of shared powers is mandating that local zoning conform to a comprehensive plan that is consistent with statewide planning goals.

Critique

Levine’s perspective is shaped by observing zoning practice in urban areas that have been shaped by a locally-controlled planning and zoning regime. However, instead of calling for a repeal of zoning he calls for a shared-powers regime to reform zoning. My criticism of his book is one of omission, that it does not proceed to assess and critique early experience and outcomes of application of the shared powers approach he recommends.

He cites the statewide planning program in Oregon as a positive example of the use of incentives and shared powers to foster compact development. In many instances the pace of transit-oriented development in the Portland metropolitan area has lagged in spite of incentives and subsidies. Proponents of compact development justify subsidy based on assumed density and travel behavior benefits. But they have no convincing proof. Levine did not address this situation of whether there is a burden of proof to justify subsidy to compact development. Although he dismisses the burden of proof as a condition to allow compact development, I do not think he should dismiss the burden of proof of benefits when subsidy is involved. Use of subsidy warrants proof of benefits.

Similarly, Levine should examine experience in the State of Washington where shared powers under the Growth Management Act results in mandates to local governments of population growth targets and growth boundaries that beget minimum density requirements. Tightly drawn growth boundaries and minimum density requirements at the urban fringe results in a shortage of low-density development options that is causing gentrification in inner city areas and is displacing residents from what was affordable housing. The lack of affordable housing in the inner city and high land prices at the urban fringe due to a constrained land supply is driving moderate income groups to nearby small towns and rural area, causing longer commutes. Also, this movement to outlying areas might be accelerated if compact development is not well received by housing consumers and they opt to escape from over prescribing it.

The experience in Oregon and Washington, states with statewide planning, raises questions about reforming planning and zoning by the use of shared powers incentives and mandates. Interventions to reform planning and zoning also have unintended consequences. In addition, density incentives and mandates may also negatively impact the quality of development in the absence of good architecture and urban design.