Land-use regulation and zoning policies aim to be beneficial to the city, but often lead to problems when implemented alone. Zoning as an environmental policy to curb pollution levels to the socially efficient level is not effective as it only moves the pollution. Local governments that zone for open public space create inefficiencies, creating welfare loss. The problems of exclusionary zoning arise, potentially leading to ethnic segregation and very few affordable housing opportunities. The opposite policy practice of inclusionary zoning is drawing widespread acclaim and critique, but is not a full proof solution to urban issues.
The inefficiency and multiple key problems of zoning as a policy tool begs the question of the best way to implement
…show more content…
Zoning as an environmental policy is ineffective as it only moves pollution around and does not offset the negative externality. However, combining zoning and the economic approach of fixing environmental externalities through tax, we achieve the socially efficient level of pollution and control exposure. Zoning retail space away from residential areas does not fix the externalities of commercial areas. Rather, zoning while also implementing performance standards, which requires firms to offset negative externalities by funding public goods, is more efficient. Local government provides open public space, however, when it zones for it, it causes inefficiency. It shifts some of the cost of providing the space to landowners, and the government ends up providing too much open space, creating a welfare loss. The following graph illustrates the open space dilemma and what occurs when zoning is used as a tool for providing open …show more content…
Using only zoning as a policy tool to combat environmental and open space issues create externalities. Framing zoning as inefficiencies does help urban planners, allowing policymakers to implement strategies such as taxes to bring cities to socially efficient levels. Thinking of land-use regulation through self-reinforcing effects and unintended consequences are also helpful – it makes planners conscious of what kind of long-lasting effects zoning has, and other areas that it could affect such as market-rate housing and race. However, while framing zoning into economic terms is helpful, it does not capture the intangibles. Some zoning models do not capture the community value of a neighborhood or the complex racial consequences. It would be helpful for planners to think of land-use regulation by combining both the economic analysis through externalities, but also think of the unintended consequences on a more wider, social
... motivation for wealthy individuals to return to the inner-city core but it also provides impetus for commercial and retail mixed-use to follow, increasing local revenue for cities (Duany, 2001). Proponents of gentrification profess that this increase in municipal revenue from sales and property taxes allows for the funding of city improvements, in the form of job opportunities, improved schools and parks, retail markets and increased sense of security and safety ((Davidson (2009), Ellen & O’Reagan (2007), Formoso et. al (2010)). Due to the increase in housing and private rental prices and the general decrease of the affordable housing stock in gentrifying areas, financially-precarious communities such as the elderly, female-headed households, and blue-collar workers can no longer afford to live in newly developed spaces ((Schill & Nathan (1983), Atkinson, (2000)).
Too often, the knee-jerk response is to fight development in these gentrifying neighborhoods. The consequences of this are two-fold. First, economics 101 tells us that capping supply will only cause prices to rise. Instead of newcomers filling newly-constructed units, they will quickly flood the existing stock of housing, quickening gentrification. Second, thwarting development shuts the release valve that alleviates housing price pressures that caused gentrification in the first place. Since not building is not an option, politicians would prefer to funnel new construction into disadvantaged neighborhoods instead of letting it happen where there is market demand. Development suppressed, gentrification swiftly captures the neighborhood and
This investigation is based on the assumption that gentrification with all its troubles can’t be prevented and is an inherent part of every city. What are the negative impacts of gentrification? What are the underlying mechanisms that feed these impacts? What drives these mechanisms? What would be an alternative scenario?
Inclusionary zoning (IZ) is an affordable housing development program, which encourages the production of affordable housing and controls the housing prices. IZ policies in San Francisco, Boston, and Washington D.C support new residential developments to keep a certain percentage of the housing units affordable and serve to low income residents. Density bonuses are allowed to the developer to build more units, and fast-track permitting allows developers to expedite the building process. Although those programs have aided numerous residents, there is the argument followed, IZ program would cause the prices of market-rate housing to rise ultimately reducing rather than increasing affordability. To find out the truth of the IZ program, the research team in Furman Center, New York University addresses these questions.
to fund public programs or make general improvements throughout the community. Urban sprawl is expensive not only on people’s wallets, but is taxing on their health, the environment, their relationships. The.. After examining all of the problems associated with urban sprawl it is hard not to question how America lost the genuine communities of old and adopted the new community of
The modern story of developed areas is a move from the inner city to the suburbs. This decentralization of metropolitan areas has left urban areas neglected. Such a transformation has had negative consequences, because it has inherently meant the abandonment of those left behind in urban centers. Furthermore, the issue is complicated by the fact that the distinction between those moving to the suburbs and those left behind has been defined largely by race. As Kain notes,
The core flaw with gentrification is that although it brings economic development to a neighborhood, this does not benefit the original residents of the affected communities—in fact, it hurts them. The positive impacts of gentrification disproportionately benefit people who do not really need economic help in the first place (middle-to-upper class people). The goal of neighborhood development should be to improve the lives of the people already living in a community—not to improve the neighborhood so other people can move in and kick the original people out. The latter does nothing to change the systemic struggles that poor and minority people face in urban areas, including lack of affordable housing. This is the difference between gentrification and revitalization. Revitalization is characterized by many of the same positive effects of gentrification, while benefitting the original residents, instead of displacing
Gentrification goes through a process of steps that starts with the government. Gentrification starts when the government funds public infrastructure that creates “room” for private investors to buy these buildings. By that, government-funded construction companies tear down and demolish buildings in the inner-city that take up space and if they are not aesthetically pleasing for the public; obviously, these buildings are not creating enough or any tax revenue. The government depends on gentrification to create more taxes because they know that wealthier citizens can pay property taxes and that brings in more revenue that goes directly back into the public. It may seem like it is a good process, however, it harms minorities. This is just a never-ending cycle of private companies buying out ghettos, which displaces minorities because they do not have the funds to live in more high-end places, and that now makes them homeless. This process of removing people from their homes for capital is pure greed—it disproportionately affects them and puts them at a disadvantage in society.
“The Deeper Problems We Miss When We Attack ‘Gentrification’”exhibit their opinion on the positives of gentrification and the potential of “revitalization” in low-income urban communities. Badger argues that gentrification brings nothing more than further opportunities for urban communities while integrating citizens of different social classes.Furthermore , she continues to question if gentrification is in fact the monster that brings the prior expressions against gentrification where she says “If poor neighborhoods have historically suffered from dire disinvestment, how can the remedy to that evil — outside money finally flowing in — be the problem, too?”(Badger) Stating that the funds generated from sources external that are brought into these communities can’t be problematic. This concept is further elaborated in the article “Does Gentrification Harm the Poor” where Vigdoor list the potential positive enhancements gentrification can have on an urban area in America ,stating that gentrification can
Gentrification is described as the renovation of certain neighborhoods in order to accommodate to young workers and the middle-class. For an area to be considered gentrified, a neighborhood must meet a certain median home value and hold a percentage of adults earning Bachelor’s degree. Philadelphia’s gentrification rate is among the top in the nation; different neighborhoods have pushed for gentrification and have seen immense changes as a result. However, deciding on whether or not gentrification is a beneficial process can become complicated. Various groups of people believe that cities should implementing policy on advancing gentrification, and others believe that this process shouldn’t executed. Both sides are impacted by the decision to progress gentrification; it is unclear of the true implications of completely renovating impoverished urban areas; gentrification surely doesn’t solve all of a community’s issues. I personally believe that gentrification is not necessarily a good or bad process; gentrification should occur as a natural progression of innovative economies and novel lifestyles collide within certain areas. Policy involving gentrification should not support the removal of people out of their neighborhood for the sake of advancement.
Gentrification does not follow traditional urban growth theory, which predicts ?the decline of inner city areas as monied classes move to the metropolitan fringe.? The traditional economic model of real estate says that wealthy people can choose their housing from the total city market (Schwirian 96). Once these people decide to live in the suburbs, the lower social classes move into the old homes of the upper class, essentially handing housing down the socioeconomic ladder. Gentrification is actually a reversal of this process. For a variety of reasons, many inner city areas are becoming more attractive to the wealthy, and they are selecting their housing in those areas (Schwirian 96). The problem is that now when the wealthy take over poor homes and renovate them, the poor cannot afford the housing that the wealthy have abandoned. Many researchers have argued whether gentrification has truly created problems in cities. I will analyze the arguments for and against gentrification by exploring the subject from both sides.
Recently, urban development has become increasingly vulnerable to the growing impact of gentrification. Our nation’s capitol, more commonly known Washington, D.C., unfortunately has been heavily affected by gentrification. Gentrification is the process of renovating and improving a house or district, so that it conforms to a certain middle-class taste. This certain exchange of private land is a continuous competing claim between public and private owners. In addition, Kathryn Howell, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University claims, “In the most recent wave of urban redevelopment, the change has been led largely by public–private partnerships in a market-driven process. … this type of redevelopment represents a perceived ‘win-win’ for
In my conclusion, I will align with sociologist Feagin and Parker suggested understanding that political and economic leaders control urban growth. Here in my country. The urban mayors, and leading business class has hijack the land allocation. “economic and political leaders work alongside each other to effect change in urban growth and decline, determining where money flows and how land use is regulated,” (Little & McGivern, 2013, p.622).
Indeed, many global cities face compelling urban planning issues like urban sprawl, population, low density development, overuse of non-renewable natural recourses, social inequities and environmental degradation. These issues affect the cities themselves, the adjacent regions and often even globally. The resulting ecological footprint upsets the balance in adjacent rural and natural areas. Unplanned or organic development leads to urban sprawl, traffic problems, pollution and slums (as evident in the case of Mumbai city). Such unplanned development causes solid waste management and water supply to fall inadequate. Urban sprawl gives rise to low density development and car dependent communities, consequently leading to increased urban flooding, low energy efficiency, longer travel time and destruction of croplands, forests and open spaces for development.
(4) Its impact on land value, land markets and credit opportunities. On the other hand, land use planning, promoting sustainable natural resource use and environmental management are generally part of the mandate of local governments.