Does Land Conservation Drive Housing Costs?
A new study in the San Francisco Bay Area says no, that had there been no controls in place there would be only 6.5% more housing built over the past 50 years.
The reason is that the Bay Area land being conserved is unsuitable for most housing, and affordable housing in particular.
John Wildermuth writes, "Over the years, developers and business groups have complained that converting so much land into protected open space has made what's left so expensive that young families can no longer move into the area.
"Now we have the research that says that's not really true," said Michele Beasley, a senior field representative of the Greenbelt Alliance. "We have an affordable housing problem, which won't be solved by million-dollar homes on hillside lots.""
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Environmentalists and New Urbanists Battle Over Proposed Development - May 04, 2011
- Land Conservation Not Responsible For High Cost of Housing - Mar 13, 2010
- "Environmental Architecture" at its Finest - Nov 27, 2011
- Brownfield Revitalization, or Gentrification? - Aug 28, 2011
- Cities, Not Farms, At Fault For Bay Pollution - Oct 06, 2010


















