Problem, research strategy, and findings: Advocates of community benefits agreements (CBAs) between coalitions of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and real estate developers contend that CBAs promote public accountability and responsiveness to community concerns. This study assesses the Los Angeles Sports and Entertainment District (LASED) CBA, which scholars and practitioners have described as a model for such agreements. I assess compliance with key provisions of the agreement related to jobs, affordable housing, and parks and recreational facilities. I also assess whether compliance with these provisions has yielded benefits beyond those required under existing laws and regulations. I find that the parties to the agreement have technically complied with many, although arguably not all, of its provisions. But some of the provisions in the CBA are not legally binding, other provisions overlap with requirements that the developer would have had to satisfy even without the CBA, and some reports required by the CBA are unavailable. As a result, outcomes such as living wage jobs and funding for affordable housing units are not clearly attributable to the CBA; other outcomes, such as targeted hiring, are unknown due to a lack of relevant information.Takeaway for practice: Although CBAs may not fulfill all the claims that advocates make on their behalf, they can play important roles in community development by directing public and private spending to underserved neighborhoods. But collecting and verifying the relevant data may be challenging, even if reporting requirements are clearly spelled out in the CBA. As the complexity of a CBA increases, so do the challenges of assessing outcomes and assigning responsibility for those outcomes.

This paper empirically analyses a Massachusetts law (Chapter 40B) allowing developers of income-restricted housing to appeal local land-use decisions to a state administrative body. Based on a unique dataset, we assess whether Chapter 40B was more likely to be used by developers in municipalities that place stronger restrictions on development. We find that the use of Chapter 40B to overcome regulatory barriers depends on the type of project. For rental development, developers were more likely to use the law in municipalities that were relatively accessible to jobs and that placed relatively stringent zoning restrictions on multifamily development. The use of Chapter 40B for condominium development was more likely in larger, less well-located municipalities with relatively stringent wetlands regulations.

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Several U.S. states with high housing costs have recently adopted laws intended to promote infill development. These new laws expand state agencies’ supervisory responsibilities to ensure that local governments comply with state mandates. Effective administration of these laws will require state agencies to accurately estimate the amount of new housing that might be created and to target review to the jurisdictions that are failing to meet the relevant requirements. Here we present quantitative tools both for prioritizing review of local plans and zoning ordinances and for estimating future housing development. We applied the tools to the implementation of California laws requiring local governments to amend their zoning ordinances to allow accessory dwelling units on parcels zoned for detached single-family housing development. We provide computer code, written in the open-source statistical computing language R, that implements these tools. Although we present off-the-shelf tools, our proposed tools should supplement other regulatory techniques rather than serving as a substitute. Takeaway for practice: Requirements for local governments to allow infill development should be accompanied by mandates for data collection. With good data, state agencies can use open-source statistical software to create quantitative measures that can help estimate future housing production and set priorities for reviewing local plans and zoning ordinances.

In California, there has been a growing concern about housing unaffordability and its negative consequences, but it has remained unclear how transportation is related to this issue. This report synthesizes the literature on the causes and consequences of local growth control which has been viewed as one of the most significant barriers to expanding housing supply and thus managing travel demand more effectively. Emphasis is on what insights can be gained from the literature and what further research is needed to better understand how transportation influences and is influenced by growth control actions.

California’s Housing Element law requires all local governments to adequately plan to meet the state’s existing and future housing needs. The law establishes processes for determining regional housing needs and requires regional councils of governments (COGs) with allocating these housing needs to cities and counties in the form of numerical targets. Local governments must update the housing element of their general plans and adopt policies to accommodate the housing targets. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews all local housing elements and determines whether the elements comply with state law.

California’s Housing Element law establishes processes for determining regional housing needs and allocating these housing needs to cities and counties in the form of numerical targets. This study assesses whether the state's housing allocation process achieves the state’s goals of promoting housing development in areas accessible to transit, jobs, and socioeconomic opportunities. Our first analysis compares the mechanism that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) uses to allocate housing units to local governments with two simpler alternatives. For all three allocation mechanisms, we assess whether the resulting allocations align with the goal of promoting housing development in areas with high social mobility and near transit and jobs. We find that SCAG’s allocation method may be unnecessarily complex, and that simpler allocation methods – which are less susceptible to technical difficulties and political wrangling – could achieve the state’s policy objectives with less administrative burden. Our second analysis, based on case studies of two Southern California cities, provides preliminary evidence that current enforcement mechanisms adopted in California may be insufficient to ensure that local governments accommodate their housing targets and promote housing development near transit and job centers.

In California, there has been a growing concern about rising housing cost burdens. Declining housing affordability, particularly in job-rich areas, can lead to lengthy commutes and pose significant challenges to achieving sustainable transportation and development patterns. It may also cause disproportionate impacts on vulnerable population groups by pushing members of these group to areas where jobs and other amenities are limited. Although no single factor can fully explain the rise of this critical issue, local growth control measures (e.g., growth moratoriums, density restrictions, and public facilities requirements) and other strict land use regulations have been criticized for constraining the housing supply and adding to jobs-housing imbalances. It is important to understand what motivates local growth control actions, as well as how these controls may affect land use, housing, and transportation.