Mitigating the Price Effects of Growth Control: A Case Study of Davis, California

American cities and suburbs have long used their zoning powers to exclude certain groups, usually the poor or racial minorities (Davidoff and Davidoff 1971; Bosselman 1973). In the last decade, many communities have adopted regulations that directly or indirectly control their socioeconomic composition as well as their rate of growth (White 1978; Dowall 1984). These communities typically justify growth control by asserting that new development does not pay its way (the property tax revenues it generates do not pay for the services it requires), that population growth will degrade the character of the community, and that development will come at the expense of more desirable uses of the land (farming or parkland) (Schwartz et al. 1979). Regardless of the community's rationale for limiting growth, the result may be the exclusion of poor households from the community. Studies of growth control support the assertion that growth control increases the price of housing in a community. Estimates of the increase in the market price of housing due to growth control have ranged from 13 to 50 percent (Katz and Rosen 1980; Gruen and Gruen 1977; Schwartz et al. 1979). Legal attacks on stringent growth control programs have been based largely on the public welfare and equal protection issue, arguing that the increase in housing prices excludes lower-income households from the community. Several communities have introduced growth controls with accompanying measures designed to reduce the increase in the price of housing. An assessment of the effectiveness of these measures