The Fair Housing Land Use Score in California: An Evaluation of 199 Municipal Plans

Most local governments in California have finalized their 2021–2029/2022–2030 housing plans. These plans must identify parcels with capacity to add new housing, and unlike previous plans, state law now mandates that they affirmatively further fair housing. State guidelines suggest that local governments identify or create capacity for new housing, especially for low-income households, in high-opportunity neighborhoods. In this report, we assess whether local governments followed these guidelines by analyzing the site inventories adopted by 199 California cities before April 2024. We do this using the Fair Housing Land Use Score (FHLUS), which measures the distribution of housing sites by neighborhood opportunity, using metrics such as household incomes and environmental quality. We can thereby answer the question, are cities meeting their fair housing obligations? The answer is no. Most cities (roughly 80%) disproportionately plan for new housing in their least affluent neighborhoods and those with worse environmental quality, and sites designated for low-income housing are less likely to be in high-opportunity neighborhoods than sites for above moderate-income households. One positive finding is that sites proposed in rezoning plans are better located than non-rezoned sites, even though they are a minority of sites. In addition to reporting the FHLUS, we provide preliminary evidence of whether certain kinds of cities — e.g., bigger, more affluent, or more equal cities — did better at planning for housing in their high-opportunity neighborhoods. We find no significant correlations between cities’ socioeconomic or other characteristics and their FHLUS. The one factor associated with the FHLUS is the spatial distribution of existing zoning: Cities mostly identify sites for new multifamily housing near existing multifamily housing, suggesting an important role for inertia in housing plans. Our findings illustrate how rules for site selection maintain the status quo and demonstrate that unless the state requires new housing sites be created in high-opportunity neighborhoods, California cities will not affirmatively further fair housing.

Publication Details

Journal
eScholarship (California Digital Library)
Published
2024-10-01
Primary Topic
Magnetic confinement fusion research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Fair Housing Land Use Score in California: An Evaluation of 199 Municipal Plans

eScholarship (California Digital Library)
Magnetic confinement fusion research
article

The Fair Housing Land Use Score in California: An Evaluation of 199 Municipal Plans

article en

Abstract

Most local governments in California have finalized their 2021–2029/2022–2030 housing plans. These plans must identify parcels with capacity to add new housing, and unlike previous plans, state law now mandates that they affirmatively further fair housing. State guidelines suggest that local governments identify or create capacity for new housing, especially for low-income households, in high-opportunity neighborhoods. In this report, we assess whether local governments followed these guidelines by analyzing the site inventories adopted by 199 California cities before April 2024. We do this using the Fair Housing Land Use Score (FHLUS), which measures the distribution of housing sites by neighborhood opportunity, using metrics such as household incomes and environmental quality. We can thereby answer the question, are cities meeting their fair housing obligations? The answer is no. Most cities (roughly 80%) disproportionately plan for new housing in their least affluent neighborhoods and those with worse environmental quality, and sites designated for low-income housing are less likely to be in high-opportunity neighborhoods than sites for above moderate-income households. One positive finding is that sites proposed in rezoning plans are better located than non-rezoned sites, even though they are a minority of sites. In addition to reporting the FHLUS, we provide preliminary evidence of whether certain kinds of cities — e.g., bigger, more affluent, or more equal cities — did better at planning for housing in their high-opportunity neighborhoods. We find no significant correlations between cities’ socioeconomic or other characteristics and their FHLUS. The one factor associated with the FHLUS is the spatial distribution of existing zoning: Cities mostly identify sites for new multifamily housing near existing multifamily housing, suggesting an important role for inertia in housing plans. Our findings illustrate how rules for site selection maintain the status quo and demonstrate that unless the state requires new housing sites be created in high-opportunity neighborhoods, California cities will not affirmatively further fair housing.

eScholarship (California Digital Library)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 52%
Magnetic confinement fusion research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The Fair Housing Land Use Score in California: An Evaluation of 199 Municipal Plans · eScholarship (California Digital Library) (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS