Editing Growth management (section)

==California studies==

Jurisdictions throughout the United States have experimented with local growth management measures designed to limit the growth of residential or commercial development within their jurisdiction or to shift them to areas with less development.  Glickfeld and Levine conducted two major studies of growth management measures in virtually all California cities and counties in 1988 and 1992. The first study inquired about 18 different types of growth management measures.<ref>M Glickfeld & N Levine (1992). Regional Growth...Local Reaction: The Enactment and Effects of Local Growth Control and Management Measures in California.  The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA. February. https://www.amazon.com/Regional-Growth-Local-Reaction-Management/dp/1558441190</ref> The vast majority of the jurisdictions had adopted one or more growth management measures to affect residential, commercial or new development.  These varied from requiring adequate service levels [[Smart growth|as]] a condition for receiving approval to construct residential or commercial developments to measures that reduced permitted residential density to measures that restricted the height of buildings or the floor area ratio on a given parcel.  Typically, jurisdictions near the Pacific coastline had more restrictions than those in the interior of the state.

The second study showed that over the four-year period between the two surveys the cumulative effect of growth-management legislation showed no relationship to permitted construction values for California as a whole when controlling for population growth and interest rates.<ref>N Levine, M Glickfeld & W Fulton (1996)  Home Rule: Local Growth Control...Regional Consequences.  Report to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Southern California Association of Governments. Los Angeles. April.</ref>

However, a follow-up study showed that the measures helped displace new construction from the metropolitan areas to the interiors of the state with low income and minority populations being particularly impacted.<ref>N Levine (1999). “The effects of local growth management on regional housing production and population redistribution in California”. ''Urban Studies'', 1999. 36 12, 2047-2068. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/0042098992539</ref>  That is, the measures did not affect overall construction levels in California but did affect where new construction was built.