Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Urban Studies
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gerber, E. R.
Right arrow Articles by Phillips, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Direct Democracy and Land Use Policy: Exchanging Public Goods for Development Rights

Elisabeth R. Gerber

Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, 712 Oakland, Suite 250, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 3021, USA. ergerber@umich edu

Justin H. Phillips

Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego, 301 Social Science Building, La Jolla, CA 92093 0521, USA. jhphilli{at}weber.ucsd.edu

To counter the power of pro-development interests, growth opponents in American communities have increasingly turned to the institutions of direct democracy. This study analyses the effects of one type of direct democracy-voter requirements for new development-on municipal growth. Analysing data from a sample of California communities, we consider the impact of voter requirements on the land use process and outcomes. We find that—in general-voter requirements fail to stop new development; property owners and developers can and do adapt to the constraints created by these direct democracy institutions. We also find, however, that voter requirements change the land use process in important ways. Specifically, they change the way developers interact with interest groups in the community and force developers to compensate current residents for enduring some of the negative aspects of growth.

Urban Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2, 463-479 (2004)
DOI: 10.1080/0042098032000165343
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
E. E. Ramirez de la Cruz
Local Political Institutions and Smart Growth: An Empirical Study of the Politics of Compact Development
Urban Affairs Review, November 1, 2009; 45(2): 218 - 246.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Action ResearchHome page
R. M. Silverman, H. L. Taylor Jr, and C. Crawford
The role of citizen participation and action research principles in Main Street revitalization: An analysis of a local planning project
Action Research, March 1, 2008; 6(1): 69 - 93.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
A. F. Peterson, B. S. Kinsey, H. Bartling, and B. Baybeck
Bringing the Spatial In: The Case of the 2002 Seattle Monorail Referendum
Urban Affairs Review, January 1, 2008; 43(3): 403 - 429.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
M. Lubell, R. C. Feiock, and E. Ramirez
Political Institutions and Conservation by Local Governments
Urban Affairs Review, July 1, 2005; 40(6): 706 - 729.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Politics ResearchHome page
E. R. Gerber and J. H. Phillips
Evaluating the Effects of Direct Democracy on Public Policy: California's Urban Growth Boundaries
American Politics Research, March 1, 2005; 33(2): 310 - 330.
[Abstract] [PDF]