Last week, I submitted the following letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times in response to a vicious, and more importantly, extremely misleading op-ed that decried inclusionary housing as a development killer.
Dear editors,
Contrary to Gary Galles’s ideological claims (op-ed. Jan. 6), multiple independent studies have shown that inclusionary housing policies do not slow production or raise prices. The study Galles emphasizes was builder-funded and has been roundly debunked. Among its many flaws, it didn’t look at comparable cities without inclusionary policies over the same time periods. Lo and behold, production also fell similar amounts in those places, leaving the study’s claim that inclusionary measures caused the drop with no supporting evidence.
Inclusionary housing policies are a win-win for everyone. Hard-working households struggling to make ends meet are able to live where they can get to jobs more easily and send their kids to better schools. Employers enjoy less turnover and more productive workers. And yes, developers win too by knowing what to expect and still earning a healthy profit while increasing opportunity in their communities.
I find it ironic that Galles has a book out that decries political decisions being made on the basis of bias rather than evidence, when that is clearly what he is doing here—relying on one extremely flawed study that supports his Econ 101 assumptions about how inclusionary zoning will affect housing markets to the exclusion of all the other much stronger studies that contradict those guesses. (Thanks to Victoria Basolo and Nico Calavita who took the time in 2004 to explain the study's flaws in great detail.) In the world of economics, "evidence-based" is too often trumped by a set of assumptions about the world that only hold true in the most simplified of situations. And the housing market is definitely not a simplified situation.
FULL STORY: So, About That Anti-Inclusionary “Study”

Planetizen Federal Action Tracker
A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.

Canada vs. Kamala: Whose Liberal Housing Platform Comes Out on Top?
As Canada votes for a new Prime Minister, what can America learn from the leading liberal candidate of its neighbor to the north?

The Five Most-Changed American Cities
A ranking of population change, home values, and jobs highlights the nation’s most dynamic and most stagnant regions.

Op-Ed: Why an Effective Passenger Rail Network Needs Government Involvement
An outdated rail network that privileges freight won’t be fixed by privatizing Amtrak.

‘Quality Work, Fast’: NC Gears up for Homebuilding After Helene, Trying to Avoid Past Pitfalls
The state will field bids to demolish, repair and rebuild homes in the mountains. After struggles in eastern NC, officials aim to chart a different course.

Washington State’s Parking Reform Law Could Unlock ‘Countless’ Acres for New Housing
A law that limits how much parking cities can require for residential amd commercial developments could lead to a construction boom.
Urban Design for Planners 1: Software Tools
This six-course series explores essential urban design concepts using open source software and equips planners with the tools they need to participate fully in the urban design process.
Planning for Universal Design
Learn the tools for implementing Universal Design in planning regulations.
Central Transportation Planning Staff/Boston Region MPO
Heyer Gruel & Associates PA
Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS)
City of Grandview
Harvard GSD Executive Education
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
Toledo-Lucas County Plan Commissions