CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

Los Angeles Housing Crisis: A Mix Methods Policy Review of NIMBY Sentiment and The Number of Permits Approved for New Construction

A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Public Administration in Public Sector Management and

Leadership

By Giselle Garcia-Lopez

December 2019

Copyright Page

Copyright by Giselle Garcia- Lopez 2019

ii

The graduate project of Giselle Garcia-Lopez is approved:

______Dr. Elizabeth Trebow Date

______Dr. Ariane David Date

______Dr. Anaïs Valiquette L’Heureux, Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

iii Table of Contents

Copyright Page ii

Signature Page iii

Abstract vi

Introduction 1

Background 5

Historical Perspective on Californian’s Housing Shortage 5

Litigation Policy Created Through Lawsuits Instead of (D) Process 6

CA Governor Gray Davis 7

CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 7

CA Governor Jerry Brown 8

CA Governor Gavin Newsom 8

Previous Waves of Citizen Political Engagement on Housing Production 9

Review of the Literature 11

California’s Housing Crisis 11

Stakeholder Analysis 13

Federal Government 14

State Government 14

City Government and City Council 15

Realtors and Developers 15

Homeowners 15

Middle Income Voters 16

iv NIMBY 16

Citizen Engagement 18

Analytical Framework: Advocacy Coalition Framework 18

Advocacy Coalitions 19

Policy Belief System 20

Deep Core 20

Policy Core 20

Secondary Aspects 20

Limitations in the Research 22

Section Summary 24

Research Question and Aim 25

Research Design 26

Introduction 26

General Approach 26

Participants and Sampling 27

Operationalization 27

Data Collection Methods 29

Hypothesis 30

Limitations 30

External and Internal Validity 31

Section Summary 32

Discussion 33

Project findings and significance 33

v Research Merits 33

Potential Implications 34

Conclusion 36

References 39

Appendix A: California’s Citizen’s Housing Shortage & Engagement Survey 51

vi Abstract

Los Angeles Housing Affordability Crisis: A Mixed Methods Policy Review of NIMBY Sentiment and The Number of Permits Approved for New Construction By

Giselle Garcia-Lopez

Master of Public Administration in Public Sector Management and Leadership

California’s continued housing shortage has raised concern with Californians and politicians alike. Los Angeles County will need to build an additional 516,946 rental homes to meet current demands (California Housing Partnership and Southern California

Association of Non Profit Housing, 2019); however, less than 80,000 new applications for both single-family and multi-family housing developments were submitted in 2016

(California Housing and Community Development and California Tax Credit Allocation

Committee, 2016). Traditionally, housing was seen as an issue facing low-income individuals seeking to become first-time homeowners. However, the scope of the problem has grown exponentially and is now a major concern for middle income households as well

(Schuetz, 2019). Current research suggests that the state’s high housing costs are the result of decades of exclusionary zoning which have led to unreasonably high developmental land costs, making the construction of housing units economically unviable for private contractors (Los Angeles Department of City Planning, 2013). One potential contributing factor to the lack of housing built in the city of Los Angeles is the issue of public participation. More specifically, Not in My Backyard or “NIMBY” movements affect the passage and implementation of housing policy. This paper proposes a mixed method study

vii to explore how citizen engagement affects housing policy implementation. The goal of this research is to provide policymakers and the general public with a better understanding of how citizens engage with the policymaking system and how their actions can affect policy outcomes.

viii Introduction

The City of Los Angeles is currently facing a severe housing shortage, limiting the ability of both low, and moderate-income households from gaining access to housing. From

1980 to 2010, the rate of population growth has outstripped housing growth by 42%

(LADCP, 2013). Much of the current housing stock is dated, with the median housing unit built in 1960 and nearly 90% of all units built before 1990 (LADCP, 2013). While there are 3,542,835 housing units within the Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim metro area

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2017), Los Angeles County will need to build an additional 516,946 rental homes to meet current demands (CHP-SCANPH, 2019) and 180,000 annually to match housing-to-population growth by 2025 (California Department of Housing and

Community Development, 2018). According to CA Housing and Community

Development there were fewer than 80,000 new applications for both single-family and multi-family housing developments as of 2016, while it is estimated that Los Angeles

County will need about 180,000 permits to meet actual demand needs (CHCD-CTCAC,

2016).

The roots of this crisis are multifaceted. Research suggests that 5% to 19% of the construction costs of a housing project can be attributed to local regulatory requirements, while parking requirements alone can add an additional 6% (CHCD-CTCAC, 2016). These additional construction costs can threaten the economic viability of privately funded projects. Local zoning regulations also contribute to the lack of housing development (Reid

& Raetz, 2018).

Citizen engagement is a vital part of the American political system. Beyond voting, citizens can participate by contacting their elected officials, writing opinion pieces for local

1 media and participating in neighborhood meetings. Citizen engagement is a top-down initiative from governments whose general goal is to improve public service deliveries and policy programs (Gilchrist, 2019). According to Alison Gilchrist from The Well-

Connected Community: A Networking Approach to Community Development, the main challenges to citizen engagement are identifying what is most important for citizens and offering them the necessary information to make well-founded decisions through participatory budgeting projects, city surveys or community governance (Gilchrist, 2019).

The California’s Citizen’s Housing Shortage & Engagement Survey, adapted from questions by Rossman and Wilson (1985), proposed within this study will serve to see if citizen engagement affects the housing development markets, measured by permits issued.

This body of work will offer a unique opportunity to explore the evidence and themes that might support or disclaim this proposition.

One citizen movement associated with the development of housing policy in the

United States is the Not in My Back Yard, or NIMBY, movement. According to Scally from The Nuances of NIMBY: Context and Perceptions of Affordable Rental Housing

Development (2013), the NIMBY syndrome can be broken down into two parts. The first part is the attitude of having a personal bias often shaped by fears of increased crime, poverty, service education costs and open space preservation. The second part is institutionalized action, generally assumed to be highly correlated with personal attitudes against affordable rental housing, although these links have not been sufficiently tested

(Kraft & Clary, 1991).

The concept of NIMBYism began in the mid-1970s when a popular movement rose to deinstitutionalize various groups of disabled people, coupled with a rapid development

2 of community housing, foster homes, group homes, hostels, and supervised apartments

(Piat, 2000). The traditional explanation for NIMBY attitudes assumes homeowners’ fears that their property values will decline if the proposed project is built; however, recent literature suggests that such attitudes are much more complicated than the stereotypical characterizations (Koebel, Lang, & Danielsen, 2004). For the most part, NIMBYism refers to intense emotional and often adamant local opposition to sitting proposals that residents believe will result in adverse impacts, such as the effects on human health, environmental quality, or property values whose benefits accrue to a large and more dispersed population

(Kraft & Clary, 1991). While the existence of NIMBYism is well-documented (Pendall,

1999), more research is necessary to determine the impact of their citizen engagement on the implementation of housing policy.

The purpose of this study will be to explore how citizen engagement affects housing policy implementation. Section 1 will include a Background section with further details on the history of California’s housing crisis within Los Angeles. It will touch upon

California’s last four governors and explore if California’s litigation policies that have been implemented historically were created through lawsuits instead of the democratic processes. Section 2 covers the previous waves of citizen political engagement on housing production. Section 3 is a Literature Review on the current scholarly work on policy failure, specifically focusing on The Analytical Framework of Advocacy Coalition Framework, as it outlines California’s various stakeholders, defines NIMBYism, citizen engagement and addresses the limitations that presently exist in the research. Section 4 articulates the research gap and reveals the study’s specific research question aim and its contribution to the study. Section 5 presents this study’s research design, whereas Section 6 is the

3 discussion portion, which focuses on the theoretical and practical implications in addition to its limitations. Finally, Section 7 is the paper’s conclusion.

4 Background

In this section, the paper will review the historical context for the current housing crisis and policies that have been implemented in the past. It will also describe previous waves of citizen political engagement on the issue.

Historical Perspective on Californian’s Housing Shortage

The City of Los Angeles experienced its first housing crisis in the wake of World

War II. Steel and other housing construction supplies were conscripted to the war effort, so construction was not able to keep up with the demand for housing from the inflow of workers to the area due to the wartime economy (Belinkoff Katz, 2018). At the national level, political leaders enacted strict rent control measures in the Emergency Price Control

Act from 1941 to 1946 as a form of patriotic duty (Fetter, 2016) and was extended in Los

Angeles until 1950 (Belinkoff Katz, 2018). These policies were effective at the time because the rate of homeownership was particularly low, due to the high foreclosure rates and worker migrations of the Great Depression (Fetter, 2016). While many areas of the country increased homeownership by converting these homes back to owner-occupied units (Fetter, 2016), California faced an extraordinary inflow of migration, growing more than 100% between 1945 and 1960, and did not have the housing stock available to accommodate its new residents (Doti & Schweikart, 1989).

However, Los Angeles had access to large tracts of agricultural land available for development (Hise, 1993). Development was financed by easy access to credit via mortgages through the Veterans Administration, commercial banks, deregulated insurance companies and the newly created Savings and Loans Associations (Doti & Schweikart,

1989). The invention of the Federal Housing Administration created additional funding for

5 large-scale, low-density construction for large project developers (Whittemore, 2012).

Single-family homes in suburban areas dominated the housing landscape, comprising 56% of all housing units by 1950 (Doti & Schweikart, 1989). This building trend went hand in hand with large areas of the city being “down-zoned” from majority multi-family housing zoning blocks to exclusively single-family housing zoning blocks (Whittemore, 2012).

Eventually, a recession in 1954 slowed the housing boom, and housing development began to shift back to the creation of apartments (Doti & Schweikart, 1989).

However, powerful homeowners’ groups like the Los Feliz Improvement Association started to foment political action to protect the quality and, in their minds, property values of specific neighborhoods through exclusionary building regulations such as height, density and parking restrictions (Whittemore, 2012). The cumulative effect of these regulations, in conjunction with the increased land prices, meant developers would have to charge higher prices for housing units. Citizens also experienced several tax rebellions, culminating in the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, which effectively created a “lock in” effect that incentivized Californian homeowners to stay in their homes for longer periods of time, thus reducing housing turnover (Ferreira, 2010).

Litigation – Policy created through lawsuits instead of democratic processes

In this section, this paper will review the different housing policies that have been implemented in the past. This section will touch upon the last four California governors:

Gov. Gray Davis, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gov. Jerry Brown and present Governor

Gavin Newsom, and examine if these housing policies were created through lawsuits instead of the democratic processes.

6 CA Governor Gray Davis (Jan 1999 – Nov 2003)

In his five years, Gov. Gray Davis’s term averaged 174,740 new housing units and

485,891 new residents per year (Lansner, 2018). Gov. Davis was also responsible for signing the state’s first laws fighting greenhouse gases and mandating energy efficiencies that some housing proponents say limit construction (Lansner, 2018). In addition, Gov.

Davis signed two housing bills that most planners and local governments at the time opposed because of its undermining tone to local authority (California Planning &

Development Report, October 2002). The first bill was AB 1866 (Johnson, 2014) which forces cities and counties to grant requests for an affordable housing density bonus and makes permits for second units a ministerial item. The second bill was AB 2292 (Johnson,

2014) which ensures no net loss of zoned housing density that local governments rely on for housing element certification. However, during his term, Gov. Davis recognized that there was a growing concern with construction defect litigation, and was hailed by the

California Building Industry Association for his third housing bill SB 800 (Johnson, 2014) which gives builders the right to correct alleged deficiencies to the housing projects proposed before a consumer sues (CP&DR, October 2002).

CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Nov 2003 – Jan 2011)

On Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s watch, California annually averaged 97,110 new housing units and 299,725 new residents (Lansner, 2018). However, during his governorship Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed several pieces of housing legislation aimed at increasing redevelopment agencies’ spending on affordable housing, and one that would ease California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of housing projects that comply with long-range housing development plans (CP&DR, 2006). Unlike the governor’s

7 universal healthcare act of 2007, it seemed that California’s housing development wasn’t as high on the governor’s priority list.

CA Governor Jerry Brown (Jan 2011 – Jan 2019)

In Gov. Jerry Brown’s governorship, California annually averaged 90,503 new housing units and 310,666 new residents through 2017 (Lansner, 2018). In fact, before leaving office, Gov. Jerry Brown enacted fifteen pieces of pro-housing legislation that provided new funding for low-income housing development, which sought to lower the cost of construction, fast-track building, and restrict the ability of cities and counties to block new development (Hart, 2017). Gov. Brown had been accredited for both streamlining the approval of housing and raising new revenue to fund affordable housing

(Hart, 2017).

CA Governor Gavin Newsom (Jan 2019 – Present)

Gov. Gavin Newsom has stepped up to the challenge and actively sets new housing production goals for California, such as calling for 3.5 million new homes by 2025.

Measures like Senate Bill 50, a proposal to legalize more housing near transit and job-rich neighborhoods throughout the state, was backed by about 66% of Californians. Yet because of some vocal opposition from suburban homeowners and city governments, it caused the bill to be placed on a hold until 2020 (Dedousis, 2019). In fact, the Los Angeles Times reported that the numbers for housing developments are trending in the opposite direction, with fewer homes than what was built in 2018 (Dillon, 2019).

In the end of these incremental housing policy reforms set forth by our last four

California governors, the path to California’s housing policy reforms may not be so simple.

Within their term, each governor took a unique approach to setting their own agenda in

8 order to identify and select those problems among the many that need serious attention and action to be addressed (Bekkers, Frenger, & Scholten, 2017). In the case of Gov. Gavin

Newsom, the development of housing policies for the state of CA is at the top of the governor’s list. That said, more research and data collection needs to be done to determine if these housing policies were created through lawsuits instead of democratic processes.

California’s housing litigation must strive to make its housing planning more data-driven and transparent in order to ensure that high income and job-rich cities plan and zone more housing production.

Previous waves of citizen political engagement on housing production.

According to Pendall (1999), Los Angeles residents actively relish political institutions that facilitate participation in the democratic process, so much so that public participation facilities like comprehensive planning and zoning have been mandatory since the 1970s. The Planned-Unit Developments (PUDs), which require negotiations with planners, decision-makers and the public over arrangement and amount of construction on each site, have been around since the 1960s. Pendall points out that California residents also have access to broad powers of initiative, referendum, and recall, which have increasingly been used as tools to stop developments they oppose and force elected officials to moderate the pace of development (Glickfeld & Levine 1992). It is important for elected officials to be aware of this trend and pay close attention to their constituents’ needs and actions, along with understanding the legal underpinnings and parameters of the decision- making process. Stahl (2017) goes on to say that in California, the decisions for the use of the land is made through political processes, which are made in response to what the elected officials perceive to be the desires of local voters. Despite this fact, Stahl goes on to quote

9 a 1960’s political scientist named Mancur Olson, who points out that majorities do not rule, small groups of intensely interested people do, referring to political officials who typically respond to organized lobbying efforts instead of isolated individuals because organized groups can donate large sums of money to political campaigns, canvass for or against candidates, and raise awareness in the community (Stahl, 2017).

While the current Los Angeles housing crisis may seem critical, it is by no means new. The roots of the housing shortage in California today can be traced back to post-

WWII policies which favored the production of large regions of single-family houses

(Belinkoff &Katz, 2018). Once developed, these neighborhoods were protected by exclusivist zoning regulations spearheaded by homeowner associations trying to sustain the status quo. Since the 1990s, the City of Los Angeles has tried to nibble around the edges of the problem, focusing their efforts on closely settled urban cores and public transit ways with limited success. With the ever-growing number of public involvements in this process, the extent to which there the local stakeholders can legitimately block new development is questionable.

10 Review of the Literature Introduction

This section will review the different factors associated with the housing crisis of

California today. First, the section will examine the general problem of California’s housing crisis and how the socio-demographics have affected the Los Angeles housing supply. Next, we will present the city of Los Angeles local stakeholders, and the effects of citizen involvement with regards to the housing polices implementation. And finally, this section will explore the Analytical framework: Advocacy coalition framework and attempt to explain the benefits of using this framework with regards to the housing crisis.

California’s Housing Crisis

Nearly a decade after the housing market crash, housing affordability has hit a 10- year low, due to rising interest rates and home price hikes that are outpacing wage gains

(DiPasquale, 2011). Research finds that across the state, the shortage of housing is restricting growth in California.

There is a variety of policy tools currently available to policymakers that both directly and indirectly address the issue of housing affordability; however, not all are particularly effective at every level of governance (Talbert & Costa, 2002). For example, the federal government implements affordable housing incentives both through tax policies such as the mortgage interest deduction and low-income tax credits, and spending programs such as Section 8 and Housing Choice Vouchers. Unfortunately, these programs are large and require significant amounts of funding.

In 2014, the Times review of housing department data reported that more than a quarter of California’s 539 cities and counties failed to tell the state how many homes were built within their boundaries over an eight-year period (Dillon, 2017). Critics proposed

11 that state politicians should hold cities accountable for approving new housing projects by providing money to local governments that do so and penalizing those that do not.

Otherwise, cities will continue to sign off on plans to appease state regulators but continue to block housing from being built (Dillon, 2017). In an effort to address some of the barriers to housing construction at the state and local levels, California lawmakers have introduced more than 130 bills in the 2017 legislative session, of which 15 bills made it into what was referred to as the “housing package” by Gov. Jerry Brown (League of California Cities,

2019). These fifteen housing bills focused on reducing or eliminating local land use, funding for housing projects, and local accountability (League of California Cities, 2019).

Another factor to consider is the national economy’s overall lack of wage growth for employees. Lack of strong wage growth has meant that wages are perpetually being outstripped by the cost of housing, which is especially disconcerting because one third of all workers within Los Angeles currently make less than $30,000 per year, as some of the fastest growing job titles, such as “home health aide” and “service workers”, fall within that pay range (Los Angeles Business Council Institute, 2018).

Considering all these demographic changes, it is important to understand that the housing crisis in Los Angeles goes beyond the simple narrative of the limited supply of housing versus a larger demand (Talbert & Costa, 2002). As outlined above in the historical section, the Los Angeles housing crisis also encompasses the issues of housing affordability, policymakers’ inefficiencies to directly and indirectly address California’s housing crisis, holding noncomplying cities accountable when they do not approve new housing projects, and the lack of strong wage growth (Blumenthal, McGinty, & Pendall,

2016).

12 In fact, authors Blumenthal, et al. (2016) go on to state that although they agree that providing a greater housing supply is necessary when addressing the housing crisis, they stress that it is not enough. In the end, policymakers and decision-makers are still faced with the responsibility of providing housing options and financial tools to all residents: renters, owners, high-income and low-income alike, despite a community’s reluctance to support higher density development. Blumenthal, et al. (2016) stress that community opposition creates significant barriers to development, and that elected officials need to be responsive to their constituents’ (stakeholders) concerns if they want to move forward with present and further housing projects.

Within this next section, we will identify the City of Los Angeles’s local stakeholders and explore the effects of citizen involvement with regards to implementation of housing polices.

Stakeholder Analysis

According to Bill Royce (1963), the first printed use of the concept of

“stakeholders” appeared in the LRPS Report No. 168 titled “The Strategic Plan” which defined the concept as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organizations objectives (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar, & De

Colle, 2010).

In order to gain a better understanding of the complexity of the housing shortage within Los Angeles, it is crucial that we examine the current stakeholders that partake within this process. These individuals and groups are the ones that have the most to gain and lose from any potential policy change; therefore, it is vital that we analyze the motives behind each of the following stakeholders: the federal government, the state government,

13 city government and city council, legislators, realtors and developers, suburban homeowners, middle-income voters, and NIMBY communities.

Federal Government

The federal government and its administration agree that there is a strong need to build more housing units nationwide. However, the federal government has made it very clear that it believes that this issue of producing housing for the masses should be handled and addressed directly by state and local governments. Earlier this year, the Trump

Administration proposed to eliminate most rural housing programs and enact tax cuts, pointing out that housing assistance programs fall within the federal government’s non- defense discretionary portion of the federal budget and are therefore vulnerable to the president’s budget cuts. Because of this, an estimated 1.8 million households are expected to lose housing assistance (Waxman & Giannarelli, 2017).

State Government

The State of California recognizes that housing affordability and availability is a local and regional problem. The present state of California resembles a marble cake-like federalism, where the national, state, and local governments share functions and financing, making the roles of each individual unit difficult to distinguish. In an effort to promote the production of more housing units for a variety of income earners, Governor Newsom has made it California’s goal to build 3.5 million new homes by 2025 and is following the federal government’s lead on adding pressure to local city governments to jump on board with a plan. Otherwise, the state will begin to enforce these housing laws by suing cities like Huntington Beach for violating state housing laws enacted during the Brown

14 Administration and has warned other cities that there will be more suits (Chronicle

Editorial Board, 2019).

City Government and City Council

City governments have expressed their concerns with the governor’s “one size fits all” approach, stating that this type of aggressive legislation fails to recognize the true needs of each city due to its size or geographical location, and added that the state and federal governments are overstepping their boundaries and encroaching on the powers of local governments to shape their communities. Local politicians like the mayors of Beverly

Hills, Pasadena and Huntington Beach worry that bills like SB-50 would undermine local housing plans (Chronicle Editorial Board, 2019).

Realtors and Developers

Realtors and developers essentially are in favor of federal and state measures that support “up zoning” land that is currently dedicated to single-family housing in California.

Legislation measures like SB-50 would offer fewer restrictions on planning permits and zoning ordinances, allow developers to build duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes in place of single-family housing, and permit taller buildings and more homes in job- and transit-rich counties (Chronicle Editorial Board, 2019).

Homeowners

Homeowners strongly reject the supply and demand theory of housing that the federal and state governments are pushing on them, arguing that market-rate development has historically benefited realtors and developers, resulting in gentrification and displacement of the current residents of these cities targeted for up zoning (Matthew, 2019).

15 Middle Income Voters

The biggest opposition to many of the reforms has been from middle-income

Americans made up by suburban communities, small towns or cities (Brinklow, 2019).

Middle-income Americans are the most powerful stakeholders on this issue because they are the ones who vote and put the real pressure on California’s politics, despite the larger national discourse (Brinklow, 2019). For example, the California legislature introduced about 200 bills in the beginning of 2019 that addressed the state’s housing crisis. However, strong opposition from their constituents forced politicians to cut many of these bills from the voting ballots by the end of the May 2019 deadline.

In the next section, we will dive into a specific type of citizen involvement that is notorious for its opposition to housing policy implementation: NIMBYism. Within this section the term will be defined, and the complicated attitudes that are stereotypical characterizations of citizen engagement will be addressed.

NIMBY

It is important to explore the use of politics in NIMBYism, which are used to prevent housing development projects from happening if they do not perceive the use of the land in line with their community views (Wexler, 1996). An example of a community resistance exercising NIMBYism would be when the community residence opposes projects that result in gentrification, defined as “the process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-income taste” (DeVerteuil, 2012, p. 213).

Another example of NIMBYism would be opposition to affordable housing, defined here as housing that is deemed affordable to those with a median household income as rated by the national government or a local government (Weicher, Eggers, & Moumen, 2018), or

16 inclusionary housing/inclusionary zoning (IZ). IZ refers to municipal and county planning ordinances that require a given share of new construction to be affordable by people with low to moderate incomes (Metcalf, 2018). NIMBY strategies to keep newcomers out of their neighborhoods also include defeating development projects by imposing on the government’s permitting process and/or slowing down the project so that it becomes uneconomical for builders and interest groups (Wexler, 1996).

Recent literature suggests that NIMBY attitudes are much more complicated than the stereotypical characterizations (Pendall, 1999). This belief stems from the presumption that there is no single motivation that can explain all opposition to new housing because the community opposition may reflect the owners’ desires to enhance their property values or slow the pace of change in a world otherwise beyond an individual’s control (Pendall,

1999). It is suggested that the NIMBY style of protest may be the only way that citizens can express their concerns and influence government policy (Kraft & Clary, 1991). In fact,

NIMBYism often takes the same form whether the facilities to be built are group homes, mental institutions, public housing, waste facilities or affordable housing (Koebel, et al.,

2004). Fischel’s (2000) “home voter hypothesis,” suggests that homeowners who part take in NIMBYism are behaving “rationally” to protect their uninsured home equity by carefully screening those land uses that could reduce their property values. In the past, property values were protected by zoning and exclusionary zoning.

Fischel (2000) finds that fragmented governments in the United States are the prime places where this system of property protection can be maintained. Consequently, established residents have long been vigilant about and even opposed new houses.

However, Pendall (1999) stresses that all protests should be labeled as NIMBY because

17 this leads elected officials to miss a multitude of underlying motivations that may anger people enough to move them into action (Pendall, 1999). In some communities these fights are successful, while their efforts fail in others; nevertheless, the facility usually proceeds without the community’s support (Koebel, et al., 2004).

The next section will define citizen engagement and explore if citizen engagement should be an essential part of the urban planning process.

Citizen Engagement

Community citizen engagement is a process in which people take collective action to address issues of public concern and is instrumental to democracy (Checkoway &

Aldana, 2013). In fact, it is argued that citizen participation should be an essential part of the urban planning process if the needs of the local population are to be addressed

(Steiniger, Poorazizi, & Hunter, 2016). The belief is that through civic engagement, leaders along with its citizens create a community within a city, achieving a greater buy-in to decisions with fewer backlashes and a larger voter turnout that cultivates and shapes the state to be a representation of vast culture. Examples of participatory processes within community citizen engagement would be public hearings, multi-state holder forums, public audits and planning and budgeting processes and surveys (Rocha & Sharma, 2008).

NIMBYism can also be considered a type of citizen engagement. To analyze this engagement, scholars have proposed analytical frameworks. In the next section will explore the Advocacy Coalition Framework by Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier.

Analytical Framework: Advocacy Coalition Framework

To understand the societal transformation such as the role of policy learning within the policy dynamics associated with NIMBYism and its impact on California’s housing

18 crisis, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), developed by Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier

(1994) in Public Policy in Action: Perspectives on the Policy Process, will be addressed within this literacy review section.

The ACF is a type of policy subsystem which was developed to provide a causal theory of the policy process which involve relatively demarcated networks of actors operating in relation to a specific policy topic (Bekkers, et al., 2017). Within the ACF, the subsystem level is especially important in order to develop the understanding for both policy learning and bringing about change. Sabatier goes on to define the concept of policy learning as “relatively enduring alterations of thought or behavioral intentions that result from experience and which are concerned with the attainment or revision of the precepts of the belief system of individuals or collectivities such as Advocacy Coalitions, there by leading to incremental policy change or policy adjustment” (Sabatier, 1993, p.42).

The ACF major concepts are Advocacy Coalitions, Policy Belief System, Deep

Core, Policy Core, and Secondary Aspects:

“Advocacy Coalitions”

Are defined as actors who share specific policy ideas of beliefs and share resources in efforts to achieve those beliefs to the point that when a conflict or confrontation occurs with others. This triggers advocacy coalitions not to change their beliefs and defend and sharpen their understanding of how to best achieve their goals (Bekkers, et al., 2017:257).

An example of this would be voting residents of Los Angeles who participate in citizen engagement to oppose new housing development within their neighborhoods (Blumenthal, et al., 2016).

19

“Policy Belief System”

Is referred to as the glue that holds together advocacy coalitions and the key for understanding the role of learning within the ACF, which includes value priorities, perceptions of important causal relationships, and perceptions or assumptions concerning the efficacy of various policy instruments (Heclo, 197:99).

“Deep Core”

Is the second framework, which involves the fundamental beliefs about the relation between state society individual about equality and freedom. Change at this level is considered highly unlikely and tends to be resistant to policy learning as well (Sabatier &

Jenkins-Smith, 1988:123). An example of this would be longtime residents who fear being pushed out of their neighborhood as redevelopment costs raise the housing costs to rents and property, A community’s resistance to increased density is often a reflection of these

Deep Core beliefs that motivates individuals to go out of their way to ensure that their community and way of life remains the same (Blumenthal, et al., 2016).

Policy Core”

Includes beliefs that are specific to a policy problem or issue such as problem definition, causal theories and or choice of policy (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1988:123).

“Secondary Aspects”

Have an instrumental character, referring to the choice and setting of instruments and the applications of specific means. Learning is considered to play a key role at the level of secondary aspects, because members of various coalitions seek to better understand the world in order to further their policy objectives (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1988:123). An

20 example of this would be individuals who are in favor of affordable housing for “all” except in their neighborhood (Blumenthal, et al., 2016).

The authors present the idea that “agenda setting involved a struggle between advocacy coalitions who tried to get an issue from the subsystem level onto the political agenda and advocacy who were best served by the status quo and tried to prevent agenda setting” (Bekkers, et al., 2017, p. 227). This phenomenon is evident within the voting residents of Los Angeles County, who are a part of single-family neighborhood suburbs who oppose new development within their neighborhoods because they may be resistant to the concept of change and the impact this change will have on their communities, such as fearing traffic, living with lower-income people, and having their local schools getting crowded due to the surplus of new residents. It is this Deep Core Policy Belief System that oftentimes motivate LA residents oppose even the mildest form of densification on the account that they insist on preserving their neighborhood character; it is the glue that keeps this cause going strong (Blumenthal, et al., 2016).

When addressing the housing crisis in Los Angeles, it is important for policymakers, elected officials and decision-makers to understand the significant barriers that are developed because of this type of NIMBYism community opposition. According to Blumenthal, et al. (2016), under the current approval procedures, community opposition adds real costs to development because it adds extra years before the project is approved, due to fees for attorneys, numerous studies and hearings that have to be conducted before there is a concession of reduced density.

The next section of this chapter will present limitations that exist within the literature analyzed/presented research.

21 Limitations in Existing Research

The literature suggests that protests can reflect racial or class antagonism, ideological commitment to homeownership, desire to protect neighborhood ambiance, and fear of decreased home value (Obrinsky & Stein, 2007). Citizen engagement through protest may be an excellent source of information. This research would benefit from incorporating effective and comprehensive strategies within their research that incorporated the community groups’ and longtime residents’ points of view and concerns about this topic to get a better understanding of the consumers housing needs (Been, 2017).

It is the lack of research on this topic, requires that researchers seek a deeper understanding of citizen engagement and how it affects the housing policy implementation in order to help government and community leaders and practitioners prepare for and respond to

California’s housing shortage. Current literature is scarce about the tools to spearhead policies that will benefit and improve the neighborhoods they server (Been, 2017).

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the State of California is in dire need of assistance regarding its housing shortage. The literature on this subject points to a gap in the research which fails to identify the causes for the lack of new housing projects moving forward once bills and legislation have passed on these measures. The action of local community groups may be among the reason for which new developers are unable to secure the support from local governments for new construction projects. However, current literature does not address the data necessary to determine if these identities correlate with specific housing policy implementation rates more or less than other communities that are not identified as active NIMBY communities. There needs to be a push for secondary

22 research that helps enlighten a path that helps identify if areas of high democratic citizen engagement lead to decreased implementation of new housing projects.

This paper proposes a survey of a variety of cities throughout the County of Los

Angeles to measure just how active the citizens opposing developing projects (NIMBY), and then compare that to how many permits were issued There is a lack of research on local community groups actions and the impediments they create for developers.

The population data gathered from previous studies is only partially applicable to housing shortage crisis experienced in specific regions. Context-specific research is necessary to gather evidence capable of informing regulatory initiatives in specific settings.

From a moral standpoint, the state and federal government should not reward poor policy planning on the local level by increased funding until the City of Los Angeles. There is limited guidance regarding how federal- and state-level agencies can provide funding for municipalities and counties that can make sure that those dollars are spent as efficiently as possible (Blumenthal, et al., 2016). Because localities do not have the policy levers available to increase wages to cover these rising costs (Freeman, 2005), the city should focus on regulatory policy tools to better foster the development of affordable housing units and bend the construction cost cover of housing projects to better meet its supply needs.

Studies about specific neighborhoods within the outer regions of Los Angeles have not been the object of analysis, to the knowledge of the author. These studies would provide more robust data to guide local County officials with housing governance insights and responses to of housing crisis.

23 Section summary

The current praxis shows how there is positive and negative cooperation among policy participants in the process of local legislation; however, when it comes to the topic of California’s housing crisis there is a variety of paradox within each stakeholder.

Drawing on mixed methods, this literature review applies the Advocacy Coalition

Framework (ACF) to understand the process of how citizen engagement affects housing policy implementation. The literature on this subject points to a gap in the research which fails to identify the causes for the lack of new housing projects moving forward once bills and legislation have passed on these measures. Indeed, as stated above, there is a lack of research on local community groups actions and the impediments they create for developers.

24 Research Question and Aim

Is there a correlation between NIMBY sentiment and the number of permits approved for new construction in the Los Angeles area? The purpose of this study will be to explore how citizen engagement affects housing policy implementation.

This project will provide insights as to what extent the opposition from citizen engagement such as suburban homeowners, lawsuits, and lack of action from city government groups is as a contributing factor in the delay (and perhaps, in some cases gridlock) that the developers face within Los Angeles area when promoting new housing projects.

The ultimate contribution of this study is to see if NIMBYist citizen engagement affects housing development markets, measured by the permits allotted. This body of work offers a unique opportunity to explore the evidence and themes that might support or disclaim this proposition.

25 Research Design

Introduction

This study is proposed by the researcher in fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Public Administration in Public Sector Management and Leadership.

The purpose of this study will be to explore how citizen engagement affects housing policy implementation. This study will focus on neighborhoods within the Greater Los Angeles

City area (for example: Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights or Koreatown). The neighborhoods will be randomly selected to participate in a short, mixed methods short survey to determine if there is a correlation between NIMBY sentiment and the number of permits approved for new construction within the Los Angeles area.

General approach

This study is intended to be a mixed methods analysis of how citizen engagement affects housing policy implementation. It is important to understand the perspective of the

NIMBY residents in Los Angles and see if the areas of high democratic citizen engagement lead to decreased implementation of new housing projects. All survey questions will ask a random sampling of participants who reside in randomly selected neighborhoods within the Greater Los Angeles City area. The survey will include two parts: demographic questions that will be gathered to determine the ethnic and socio-economic makeup of the neighborhood and open-ended questions that will help determine the general attitude towards development within the neighborhood (i.e. what proportion of the neighborhood has strong NIMBY or YIMBY beliefs). A short survey comprised of open and closed – ended questions will be used to maximize survey participation and capture a breadth of the citizens engagement participation and forgo the depth of the survey information.

26 Subsequently, a two-part, 3-point Likert scale will be used to determine the level of agreement with each question (1 = disagree, 2 = neither agree nor disagree, 3 = agree,).

Sampling

Random sampling will be used to generate the list of participants for the survey.

The benefit of using a random sampling is that each member of the population has an equal chance of being chosen for the study, ensuring that the sample chosen is representative of the population and that the sample is selected in an unbiased way thereby making the statistical conclusions that are drawn from the analysis valid (Crossman, 2019). Because the population being studied for this survey is quite large, it would require a computer- generated random sampling list of every person in the geographic area to be obtained. This would be accomplished by purchasing voter registration files from the County Registrar –

Recorder/County Clerk via their website LAvote.net - CD which contains the text files of

Los Angeles County Voter Files for $146 per file. Once the list of participants has been generated, the surveys will be distributed via mail and will include options for the participants to return the completed survey to the researcher in a self-addressed, prepaid envelope included in the mailer.

Operationalization

The two main concepts within this proposed study is NIMBYism and citizen participation (or engagement). For the purpose of this study, the operational definition of

NIMBYism will be individuals: homeowners who participate in community opposition in order to create significant barriers to housing development to protect their property values, suburban residents who do not want their communities to become more urban, or renters

27 who are afraid that redevelopment projects will raise their housing costs. This definition will also acknowledge the contextually dynamic aspects of anti-development attitudes by also including individuals who support affordable housing and new housing developments until it is in their backyard (Blumenthal, et al., 2016). Additionally, citizen participation will have to operational definition citizen participation will be attending local community meetings or engaging with local political leaders regarding housing policy issues. These two issues will be addressed in multiple different questions and there will be a variety of wording amongst the questions to ensure the survey will capture participants’ multiple understandings of the concepts.

Additionally, there will be eight questions within the first part of the survey questionnaire with regards to the participants’ demographics, such as their gender, marital status, age, race/ethnicity, highest level of education completed, zip code of their present residency, how long they have lived at that address, and their annual household income

(see Appendix A). This will provide the researchers with valuable inside on the ethnic and socio-economic background of the participants and provide the data necessary to determine if these identities correlate with specific housing policy implementation rates more or less strongly than the identified NYMBY attitudes thereby creating a baseline for comparison.

The second part of the survey will consist of six quantitative questions regarding the participant’s attitude towards housing development and citizen engagement. The participant will be given the opportunity to answer agree/yes, neutral, disagree/no to each question. The scoring for the survey will be based on a 3-point scale, which will range from

(1 = no/disagree) to (3 = yes/agree). These questions have been developed based on

28 previous research in the field and predetermined indicators of participant’s attitudes towards housing development (Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L., 1985).

The third and last part of the survey will use in-depth, open-ended qualitative questions. There will be a total of twelve specific open-ended questions about housing development, the individual’s familiarity with NIMBYism, and their need to attend community meetings regarding housing productions. This data will help to determine if there are recurring themes evident in the participant’s answers that have not been identified in previous studies. These new themes could create a deeper understanding of NIMBYism dynamics that can be further tested in future research.

Data collection methods

A survey was created to collect data from a random sampling of voter registration files from the County Registrar – Recorder/County Clerk website www.LAvote.net. Using this list, we will select 222 citizens and reach out to them by mail. The survey questionnaire will be mailed out with a self-addressed envelope for them to mail back. The response rate should reach at least 45%, so that the final database includes at least 100 answers. Follow- up letters will be sent if this threshold is not met upon the first mass mail. Additional voters could be the quantitative survey will focus on registered voters from various cities throughout Los Angeles County. The survey consists of two types of questions in the mixed methods approach: quantitative questions that gather demographic data from the participants, and qualitative questions that seek to find out if the participants are active citizens who engage in community meetings and are identifiable as NIMBYists. Each survey should take a few minutes to answer and the survey should take about 15 minutes

29 to complete in its entirety. The internal reliability of this survey follows the accepted protocols established for this type of data collection method.

Data Analysis

Hypothesis

The quantitative analysis will attempt at testing the correlation between two variables: citizen engagement (measured in the questionnaire – see appendix A) and number of completed housing projects, measured by the number of emitted permits.

Following the trends that have been seen in previous research (Blumenthal, et al.,

2016), this study predicts that areas with high levels of citizen participation within local government will also have a relatively decreased implementation of housing policy.

Additionally, this proposal postulates that NIMBY attitudes will more strongly correlate with a relatively depressed implementation of housing policy than the demographic parameters included in the study.

This survey will produce internal reliability based on its inner consistency, using the survey questions to look at the results and provide reliability for this dimension tool; then, both sections of the survey will be united and compared using statistical differences among the units of analysis within each group. Additionally,

Data interpretation

Mixed methods research relies on the principle of triangulation (Creswell & Creswell,

2017). As such, the qualitative data will be compared to the quantitative analysis portion of the survey to find recurring themes within this random sampling group of registered voters within Los Angeles and then measured with external data from the United States

Census Bureau regarding the number of new housing development permits issued within

30 each of the zip codes provided. By taking these measures, this study will show both the internal and external validity of this project and will allow for comparisons among various cities across the Los Angeles County.

Research Design Limitations

This proposed study will use random sampling to select participants, which may lead to exploratory outcomes that are less generalizable to all sampling settings. The researcher is primarily interested in getting participants to complete the survey questionnaire and maximize survey participation rather than obtaining a depth of survey information. Therefore, steps have been made to ensure that the number of questions are limited the most vital to the research questions and that they are easily comprehendible for the participants.

Potential errors in this proposed research design may occur if participants take the survey in groups and share answers or responses to the questions. This proposal does not provide a method for ensuring participants take their surveys independently and keep their responses private. Additionally, participants who have completed the survey may share their responses with others who have not yet completed the survey which may also influence forthcoming responses. Finally, if respondents fail to complete the survey, the researcher may have incomplete data and will have fewer respondents than the desired sample size, which may impact the representativeness of the overall population, and the validity of the results.

External and Internal Validity

It is important to show that this study is sound and valid and explain how there are limitations in the findings of this research. Regarding external validity, this study’s results

31 will be generalizable to other reasonability comparable cities across the United States and this study can be replicated. Data from the survey will be useful in determining if NIMBY attitudes and rate of citizen engagement correlate with the number of housing permits that are issued in other geographic areas. By using random sampling, the surveys questionnaire data should produce a high level of external validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).

Some threats to the validity of this study may include arguments that there is selection bias in the gathering of participants. Since list of participants will be acquired from the County Register – Records / County Clerk voter registration file directly, the citizens included in the said list are individuals who have registered to vote, and they therefore may be more inclined towards citizen participation than then general public.

While that may be true, the voter file is the most pragmatic means to gather large pools of participants within the geographic area. Additionally, the use of random sampling to select the neighborhoods to which the surveys will be sent will ensure that areas with high voter registration rates, and thereby potentially higher citizen participation, will not be given preference or their data more heavily weighted. Also, each list will in no way be specifically geared to once single community unit, with the outcome that the lists will be valid and random. The survey tool is valid because it will be the same across cities and respondents surveyed.

Section summary

Ultimately, the contribution of this study is to see if NIMBYist citizen engagement affects housing development markets, measured by the permits allotted. This body of work offers a unique opportunity to explore the evidence and themes that might support or

32 disclaim this proposition. It will also give citizens, elected officials and policy lawmakers alike a blueprint with allocating funds for community and housing projects.

33 Discussion

Projected Findings and Significance

The purpose of this study will be to explore how citizen engagement affects housing policy implementation. This project will provide insights as to what extent the opposition from citizen engagement such as suburban homeowners, lawsuits, and lack of action from city government groups is a contributing factor in the delay the developers face within Los

Angeles area when promoting new housing projects. The result of this study’s findings can be applied to cities throughout the County of Los Angeles area to offer its citizen- elected officials and policymakers a tool that can be used when developing new housing projects. By surveying a couple of cities within the Los Angeles County to the data collected from the questionnaire, will be able to measure threw common reoccurring themes, just how NIMBY each city is and then compare that to how many new housing permits were issued. This proposed mixed methods study can provide population data and serve as a beneficial tool, to citizens and policy law makers alike with when allocating funds for community and housing projects.

Research Merits

Using the ACF to understand the process of local legislation in Los Angeles within the discussion of the housing crisis of the County of Los Angeles, it is clear that the

Advocacy Coalition Framework plays an important role in the policymaking process and structure, composition and residents’/stakeholders’ behavior (Sabatier, 1993:42). Within the literature review, the study outlines the four basic premises of the ACF. First is understanding the process of policy change and the role of learning which is incremental and requires a time perspective of a decade or more. Second, policy subsystems, which

34 offers a unique way of looking a policy change over such a long time span, defined as the

“interaction of actors from different institutions who follow and seek to influence governmental decisions in a policy area” (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994, p. 258). The third, describes how the subsystems must include an intergovernmental dimension especially when dealing with domestic policy. And lastly, the fourth premises touch upon public policies and how they can be conceptualized in the same manner as be its belief system “which is sets of value priorities and causal assumptions about how to realize them”

(Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994, p. 257). Through the literature review the study identifies the active Advocacy Coalition that exist within the Los Angeles County housing crisis which consist of their various stake holders and the voting Los Angeles residents who through citizen engagement participate in new housing project opposition (Blumenthal, et al., 2016). It also points out that a focus on short term decision making will underestimate the influence of policy analysis because such research is mainly used to alter the perceptual apparatus of policy makers over time (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994).

The current praxis shows how there is a positive and negative cooperation among policy participation in the process of local legation with regards to Los Angeles’s housing crisis.

The next sections will touch upon the benefits to citizen engagement and the challenges.

Potential Implications

The Benefits to Citizen Engagement Rocha and Sharma, authors of “A Joint

Evaluation of Citizen’s Voice and Accountability” (2008), point out the main assumptions that voices of “increasing citizens” will make public institutions like state officials

(especially at the local and sub-national level) more responsive to citizens needs and demands, and there for more accountable for their actions (Rocha & Sharma, 2008). Rocha

35 and Sharma (2008) also state that changes at an intermediate level involve changes within policy, practice and power relations and they argue that “the overall theory of change on the contribution of citizen engagement to development outcomes continues to guide donor interventions” (p. 33). According to Gaventa and Barrett (2010), citizen engagement can also contribute directly to governance, rights and democratic outcomes.

Challenges of Citizen Engagement what happens when politicians like Gov. Gavin

Newsom rise to the challenge and actively set new housing production goals for California?

One such proposal is Senate Bill 50, which calls for 3.5 million new homes by 2025, targeting more housing near transit and job-rich neighborhoods throughout the state. This proposal was backed by about 66% of Californians, yet because of some vocal opposition from suburban homeowners and city government, it caused the bill to be placed on a hold until 2020 (Dedousis, 2019).

36 Conclusion

Summary

Our task was to reach beyond the literature to learn from the experience of LA

County residents about the challenges and opportunities that exist between citizen engagement, and its effects on the number permits approved for new construction within the Los Angeles area. However, the literature points to a gap in the research, which has failed to illustrate without a shadow of a doubt if in fact there is a correlation between

NIMBY sentiment and the number of permits approved for new construction in the Los

Angeles area.

Benefits

Considering all these demographic changes, it is important to understand that the definition of a housing crisis within Los Angeles, goes above the simple narrative that suggests that it is because of the limited supply of housing vs a larger demand (Talbert &

Costa, 2002). As outlined above in the historical section, Los Angeles housing crisis also encompasses the issues of housing affordability, policy makers inefficiency to directly and indirectly address California’s housing crisis, holding noncomplying cities accountable when they do not approve new housing projects, and the lack of strong wage growth

(Blumenthal, et al., 2016).

Limitations.

This study is only focused on the city of Los Angeles, which limits the usage of the data that will be acquired to only LA county cities, which means that the data found may not be applicable to other cities like New York or Chicago. Another limitation within this study is that it only uses the operational definition of NIMBYism which covers individuals:

37 homeowners who participate in community opposition in order to create significant barriers to housing development to protect their property values, suburban residents who do not want their communities to become more urban, or renters who are afraid that redevelopment projects will raise their housing costs (Blumenfeld,2010). It does not cover other forms of NIMBYism that exists outside of citizen/ community engagement that do not focus on housing development. Existing research does not give citizens, elected officials and policy lawmakers alike a blueprint with allocating funds for community and housing projects (Clary,1997).

The population data gather from these studies would be generalizable to the city of

Los Angeles housing shortage crisis as a whole and may provide the basis for future studies within other citizen involvement study settings. From a moral standpoint, the state and federal government should not reward poor policy planning on the local level by increased funding until the City of Los Angeles does more to make sure that those dollars are spent as efficiently as possible. Because localities do not have the policy levers available to increase wages to cover these rising costs (Freeman, 2005), the city should focus on regulatory policy tools to better foster the development of affordable housing units and bend the construction cost cover of housing projects to better meet its supply needs.

Recommendation of Future Research or Policy

When addressing the housing crisis in Los Angeles, it is important for policy makers, elected officials and the decision makers, to understand the significant barriers that are developed because of this type of NIMBYism community opposition, according to

Blumenthal, et al. (2016), under the current approval procedures, community opposition adds real costs to development, because it adds extra years before the project is approved,

38 there are fees for attorneys, plus numerous studies and hearings have to be conducted before there is a concession of reduced density. After analyzing the limitations that exist within the research, this study suggests that there be a push to for secondary research that helps enlighten a path that helps identify where these areas of high democratic citizen engagement lead to decreased implementation of new housing projects. The use of comparative results from other cities may be beneficial in predicting more generalizable indicator for communities with high levels of delayed housing projects due to NIMBY communities.

39 References

Agbonlahor, W. (2015). Strategic planning - Impact of minister's prospective powers on

neighborhood plans. Planning, p. 9. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from:

https://online.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/doi/abs/10.3828/tpr.2017.27

Been, V. (2017). City NIMBYs. J. Land Use & Envtl. L., 33, 217. Retrieved October 23,

2019, from: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-

bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/jluenvl33§ion=13

Bekkers, V., Fenger, M., & ScholtenENG, P. (2017). Public policy in action:

Perspectives on the policy process. Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved October

23, 2019, from:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fIwzDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=

PT11&dq=public+policy+in+action+victor+bekkers&ots=eKjmRt24cZ&sig=olZ

uq5UBmuCg-mihWQdSZX6QeGs

Belinkoff Katz, A. (2018). People Are Simply Unable to Pay the Rent: What history tells

us about rent control in Los Angeles. UCLA Luster Center for History and Policy.

Retrieved October 23, 2019, from: https://luskincenter.history.ucla.edu/wp-

content/uploads/sites/66/2018/09/People-Are-Simply-Unable-to-Pay-the-Rent.pdf

Blumenfeld, J. (March 27, 2010). LA Zoning Turns 100: Now What? Lecture. The

Huntington, San Marin, CA. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from:

dh101.humanities.ucla.edu › archive › files

Blumenthal, P. M., McGinty, J. R., & Pendall, R. (2016). Strategies for Increasing

Housing Supply in High-Cost Cities. Urban Institute, 6-9. Retrieved October 23,

40 2019, from: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/83656/2000907-

strategies-for-increasing-housing-supply-in-high-cost-cities-dc-case-study.pdf

California Department of Housing and Community Development (2018). California’s

Housing Future: challenges and opportunities final statewide housing assessment

2025. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-

research/plans-reports/docs/SHA_Final_Combined.pdf

California Housing and Community Development and California Tax Credit Allocation

Committee (2016). Proposed Regulation Changes with Initial Statement Reasons.

Retrieved October 23, 2019, from https://www.treasurer.ca.gov › ctcac › 2016 ›

20160915 › proposed_regs

California Housing Partnership and Southern California Association of Non Profit

Housing (2019). Los Angeles County’s Housing Emergency Update. Retrieved

October 23, 2019, from:

https://static.1squarespace.com/static/58793de5f7e0abe551062b38/t/5ce2fc70af9a

e10001c74987/1558379634095/Los+Angeles+HNR+2019.pdf

California Planning and Development Report (2002). Governor Signs Housing Bills, Rail

Bond. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-854

California Planning and Development Report (2006). Schwarzenegger Rejects Numerous

Land Use Bills. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from: http://www.cp-

dr.com/articles/node-178

Checkoway, B., & Aldana, A. (2013). Four forms of youth civic engagement for diverse

democracy. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(11), 1894-1899. Retrieved

41 October 23, 2019, from:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740913002879

Clary, B. (1997). " NIMBY" or Citizen Participation? Maine Policy Review, 6(2), 6-7.

Retrieve October 23, 2019, from:

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol6/iss2/1/

Colburn, G., & Allen, R. (20180). Ret burden and the Great Recession in the USA. Urban

Studies, 55 (1), 226-243. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0042098016665953

DeVerteuil, G. (2012). Resisting gentrification‐induced displacement: Advantages and

disadvantages to ‘staying put’among non‐profit social services in London and Los

Angeles. Area, 44(2), 208-216. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from:

http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/23251536

Doti, L.P., & Schweikart, L. (1989). Financing the Postwar Housing Boom in Phoenix

and Los Angeles, 1945-1960. Pacific Historical Review, 58(2), 173-194.

Retrieved October 23, 2019, from:

https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refere=https:scholar.go

ogle.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1134&context=economics_articles

Driscoll, D. L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P., & Rupert, D. J. (2007). Merging qualitative

and quantitative data in mixed methods research: How to and why not. Retrieved

October 23, 2019, from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmeea/18/

Ferreira, F. (2010). You can take it with you: Proposition 13 tax benefits, residential

mobility, and willingness to pay for housing amenities. Journal of Public

42 Economics, 94(9-10), 661-673. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~cle/wp/wp72.pdf

Fetter, D. (2016). The Home Front: Rent control and the rapid wartime increase in home

ownership. The Journal of Economic History. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from

https://www.canbridge.core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/home-

front-rent-control-and-the-rapid-wartime-increase-in-home-

ownership/171D34C6E02790944799DD9BB808835A

Fischel, W. A. (2000). Municipal corporations, homeowners, and the benefit view of the

property tax. Property Taxation and Local Public Finance, Wallace E. Oates, eds,

1781-1803. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=233210

Freeman, L., & Schuetz, J. (2017). Producing Affordable Housing in Rising Markets:

What Works? 217-236

Freeman, R. (2005). Fighting for Other Folk’s Wages: The Logic and Illogic of Living

Wage Campaigns. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 44(1),

14-31. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

http://web.bebsochost.comlibproxy.csun.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=c50e6

c5e-a207-4a7bacf8-

340sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9zwhvc3QtbG12ZQ%3d%3d#AN=1545654

5&db=buh

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010).

Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.

43 Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2010). So what difference does it make? Mapping the

outcomes of citizen engagement. IDS Working Papers, 2010(347), 01-72.

Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2010.00347_2.x

Gilchrist, A. (2019). The well-connected community: A networking approach to

community development. Policy Press. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

https://csun-

primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/u60j4s/TN_gale_ofa257974549

Glickfeld, M., & Levine, N. (1992). Regional growth--local reaction: The enactment and

effects of local growth control and management measures in California. Lincoln

Inst. of Land Policy.

Gorska, K., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Halle, D., Monkkonen, P., & Mukhija, V. (2015).

Different Shades of Change: Historic Districts in Los Angeles and Their Impact

on Gentrification and Neighborhood Trends, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

https://csunprimo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/u60j4s/TN_proquest1722

055016

Haefele, M. (December 18, 1998). Jersey West. LA Weekly. 15. Retrieved November 6,

2019, from:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02665433.2012.681140

Hart, A. (September 29, 2017). Jerry Brown signs new California affordable housing

laws: The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from

44 https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-

alert/article176152771.html

Herbert, C., Herman, A. & McCue, D. (2018). Measuring Housing Affordability:

Pressing the 30 Percent of Income Standard. Joint Center for Housing Studies of

Harvard University. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from:

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/harvard_JCHS_Herbert_Hermann

_McCue_measuring_housing_affordability.pdf

Hise, G. (1993). Home Building and Industrial Decentralization in Los Angeles: The

Roots of the Postwar Urban Region. Journal of Urban History, 19(2), 95-125.

Retrieved October 23, 2019, from https://journals-sagepub-

com.libproxy.csun.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/00964429301900204

Huggins, M., & Hilvert, C. (2013). Tackling wicked problems takes resident engagement.

Public Management, (August), 6-11. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from

https://csun-

primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/u60j4s/TN_proquest1520312921

Hui, B. (2018). Bridging democracies: A case study of the Los Angeles Department of

Neighborhood Empowerment (Doctoral dissertation, UC Irvine). Retrieved

October 23, 2019, from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/73t1p9sq

Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1994). Evaluating the advocacy coalition

framework. Journal of public policy, 14(2), 175-203. Retrieved October 23, 2019,

from:

45 Johnson, A. C. (2014). 2014 State Legislative Review. Animal L., 21, 383. Retrieved

November 6, 2019, from: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-

bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/anim21§ion=18

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2018). The State of the Nation’s

Housing 2018. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Harvard_JCHS_State_of_the_Nat

ions_Housing_2018.pdf

Koebel, C. T., Lang, R. E., & Danielsen, K. A. (2004). Community acceptance of

affordable housing. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

Ahttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=30&q=nimby+housing&hl=en&as_sdt

=0,5

Kraft, M. E., & Clary, B. B. (1991). Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome:

Public response to radioactive waste disposal. Western political quarterly, 44(2),

299-328. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=citizen+participatio

n+NIMBY&btnG=

Lansner,J. (2018). Press-Telegram: Who was California’s best governor for housing

supply? Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

https://www.presstelegram.com/2018/03/23/who-was-californias-best-governor-

for-housing/

Lahav, A. D. (2015). The Roles of Litigation in American Democracy. Emory LJ, 65,

1657. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi

bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/emlj65§ion=50

46 League of California Cities (2019). Housing. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from:

https://www.cacities.org/Policy-Advocacy/Hot-Issues/Housing

Los Angeles Business Council Institute (2018), The Affordable Housing Crisis in Los

Angeles: Impacts to LA’s fastest growing industries. Retrieved October 23, 2019,

from:

https://socialinnovation.usc.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2018/10/FiNAL_LABC_MH

TJS_ExecSum_2018_Low-Res.pdf

Los Angeles City Planning Department (1995). The Citywide General Plan from an

Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan. Retrieved October 23, 2019,

from: https://planning.lacity.org/cwd/framwk/chapters/title/htm

Los Angeles Department of City Planning (2013). Housing Needs Assessment:2013-

2022. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from: http://www.latnp.org/expo-line/expo-

draft-plan/

Lubell, J., Crain, R., & Cohen, R. (2007). Framing the issues—the positive impacts of

affordable housing on health. Center for Housing Policy, 34. Retrieved October

23, 2019, from:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.370.4585&rep=rep1&t

ype=pdf

Metcalf, G. (2018). Sandcastles before the tide? Affordable housing in expensive cities.

Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(1), 59-80. Retrieved October 23, 2019,

from: http://pubsaeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.59

Morrow (2013). Morrow Comprehensive Plan: Building a Better Tomorrow. Retrieved

October 23, 2019, from: www.co.warren.oh.us › MorrowVillage › finalplan

47 Obrinsky, M., & Stein, D. (2007). Overcoming opposition to multifamily rental housing.

National Multi Housing Council (NMHC) White Paper. Retrieved November 6,

2019, from: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/rr07-

14_obrinsky_stein.pdf

Patel, D. I., Winkler, P., Botello, J., Villarreal, J., & Puga, F. (2016). The citizen scientist:

Community-academic partnerships through Translational Advisory Boards.

Patient Education and Counseling, 99(12), 2087-2090. Retrieved November 6,

2019, from: https://csun-

primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/u60j4s/TN_gale_hrca520878542

Pendall, R. (1999). Opposition to housing: NIMBY and beyond. Urban affairs review,

35(1), 112-136. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10780879922184310

Piat, M. (2000). The NIMBY phenomenon: Community residents' concerns about

housing for deinstitutionalized people. Health & social work, 25(2), 127-138.

Retrieved November, 2019, from: https://academic.oup.com/hsw/article-

abstract/25/2/127/687302

Rocha, A., & Sharma, B. (2008). A Joint Evaluation of Citizen’s Voice and

Accountability. Synthesis Report. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

https://www.sida.se/contentassets/25a544c079cb46e6845c4e0180b150f0/15052.p

df

Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative

and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation

48 review, 9(5), 627-643. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0193841x8500900505

Roy, J., Maynard, M., & Weiss, E. (2008). The hidden costs of the housing crisis. The

partnership for America’s economic success. Retrieved August 1, 2011. Retrieved

October 23, 2019, from: pewcenteronthestates.org

Scally, C. P. (2013). The nuances of NIMBY: Context and perceptions of affordable

rental housing development. Urban Affairs Review, 49(5), 718-747. Retrieved

October 23, 2019, from:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=nimby+housing&o

q=nimby+h

Schuetz, J. (2019), Cost crowding or commuting? Housing on the middle class. The

Brookings Institution. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from

https://www.brookings.edu/research/cost-crowding-or-commuting-housing-stress-

on-th-middle-class/

Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing (2018). Out of Reach: an annual

report on renters’ housing and wage. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from:

https://static.1squarespace.com/static/58793de5f7e0abe551062b38/t/5b60a7050e2

e72e41d194324/1533060870873/Out+of+Reach+2018-LA+City.pdf

Stahl, K. (2017). 'Yes in My Backyard': Can a New Pro-Housing Movement Overcome

the Power of NIMBYs?. Zoning & Planning Law Report, Forthcoming. Retrieved

October 23, 2019, from:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3087508

49 Steiniger, S., Poorazizi, M. E., & Hunter, A. J. (2016). Planning with citizens:

Implementation of an e-planning platform and analysis of research needs. Urban

Planning, 1(2), 46-64. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A467681394/EAIM?u=csunorthridge&sid=EAIM

&xid=1ec82782

Talbert, C. T., & Costa, N. L. (2002). Inclusionary Housing Programs: Local Government

Respond to California's Housing Crisis. BC Envtl. Aff. L. Rev., 30, 567.

Retrieved November 6, 2019, from: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-

bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/bcenv30§ion=27

U.S. Census Bureau (2017). American Community Survey 1-year estimates. Retrieved

November 6, 2019, from Census Reporter Profile page for Los Angeles-Long

Beach Glendale, CA Metro Division

http://censusreporter.org/profiles/31400US310831084-los-angeles-long-beach-

glendale-ca-metro-division/

U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Los Angeles County QuickFacts. Retrieved November 6,

2019, from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/losangelescountycalifornia

U.S. Government Accountability Office (2018). Trends Affecting Government and

Society. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from: https://www.gao.gov › annual_index

› 2018

Waxman, E., & Giannarelli, L. (2017). The Impact of Proposed 2018 Changes to Key

Safety Net Programs on Family Resources. Washington, DC: Urban Institute,

2100. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from:

50 https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/94831/the-impact-of-

proposed-2018-changes-to-key-safety-net-programs-on-family-resources_3.pdf

Weicher, J., Eggers, F., & Moumen, F. (2018). The Long-Term Dynamics of Affordable

Rental Housing: Creating and Using a New Database. Cityscape, 20(2), 235-244.

Retrieved October 23, 2019, from HYPERLINK "https://www-

jstororg.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/26472176"

https://wwwjstororg.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/26472176

Wexler, M. N. (1996). A sociological framing of the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard)

syndrome. International review of modern sociology, 91-110. Retrieved October

23, 2019, from: http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/41421101

Whiteman, D. (2009). Documentary film as policy analysis: The impact of yes, in my

backyard on activists, agendas, and policy. Mass Communication and Society,

12(4), 457-477. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from: https://csun-

primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/u60j4s/TN_gale_ofa498253030

Whittemore, A.H. (2012). Zoning Los Angles: a brief history of four regimes. Planning

Perspectives, 27(3), 393-415. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew_Whittemore/publication/254345904

_Zoning_Los_Angeles_A_Brief_History_of_Four_Regimes/link/5734b44d08ae9

ace84092601.pdf

Woetze, J., Mischke, J., Peloquin, S., & Weisfield, D. (2018). A Tool Kit to Close

California’s Housing Gap: 3.5 million homes by 2025. McKinsey Global

Institute. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from:

https://www.mckinsey.com/~?media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/Urbanizatio

51 n/Closing%20Californias%20housing%20gap/Closing-Californias-housing-gap-

Full-report.ashx

Yankelovich, D., & Furth, I. (2006). Public engagement in California escaping the

vicious cycle. National Civic Review, 95(3), 3-11. Retrieved October 23, 2019,

from: https://csun-

primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/u60j4s/TN_gale_ofa153190287

52 Appendix A

California’s Citizen’s Housing Shortage & Engagement Survey

Survey Tool

Thank you for your interest in participating in this Housing Shortage Survey. The purpose of this survey is to understand factors affecting California’s housing shortage within Los Angeles. There is no compensation for your participation. Benefits of participating in this study include contributing data to help inform best practices to support local, state and federal policy law makers better appropriate funds that lead to successful new housing development within Los Angeles, CA. There are little to no risks to participating in this study. Your participation is voluntary, and you have the right to stop the survey at any time, and/or refuse to answer certain questions. Your participation is also anonymous and confidential, and all responses will be aggregated so that no response can be traced to an individual. Survey data will be stored in a password protected data file in

Dropbox that only the lead researcher will have access to. If you have any questions about this study, please contact (the researcher) at (email).

This survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. By continuing to the next section of this survey, you agree to participate in this study.

Thank you for your participation.

53 California’s Citizen’s Housing Shortage & Engagement Survey

Data Collection: Survey data has been collected through these following questionnaires:

Part 1- Demographic Questions What is your Gender o Male o Female o Transgender

o N/A

What is your current marital o Divorced o Married o Widowed status? o Separated o Single o N/A

What is your age? o 18-25 yrs. o 26-49 yrs. o 65 & older

o 50-64 yrs. o N/A

o Asian / Pacific Islander o White/ o American Caucasian Indian / Native What is your race/ethnicity? American o Hispanic/Latino o Black/ African American o Other ______o High School o Bachelors o Professional What is the highest level of Degree Degree – PHD education you completed? o Associates Degree o Masters o NA - AA Degree What Zip Code do you live Enter Zip code : in? How long have you lived at o Less than 10 o 10-19 o 20 years or this address? years years more

o N/A

o Under $10K o $50K - o Over $150K What is your annual $70K Household Income? o $20K-$40K o $80K - N/A 100K

54 Part 2 – Political Agree Neutral Disagree Yes No Engagement Is most of the local o 3 o 2 o 1 community involved in citizen participation? Do you believe in more o 3 o 2 o 1 housing development in California? Are there enough o 3 o 2 o 1 opportunities for local citizens to voice their say regarding new housing developments? Have you attended any local o 3 o 2 o 1 neighborhood meeting? Do you believe there are o 3 o 2 o 1 benefits in developing new housing units in your neighborhood? Have you attended o 3 o 2 o 1 community meetings regarding new housing production?

Part 3 – Open Ended Questions

1. How would you respond to a new bill stating new housing development in your community?

2. How likely would you support or oppose new housing development in your community and why?

3. To what degree would you become involved in opposing new housing development in your community and why?

55 Part 3 – Continuation Open Ended Questions

4. Do you believe new housing development should be relegated to specific areas or zones such as inner cities, and/or suburbs? Why or Why not?

5. What factors (i.e affordable housing, environmental quality, and others) do you consider important in new housing development proposals in your neighborhood? Why?

6. How familiar are you with the term NIMBYISM

7 How familiar are you with the term NIMBYISM

8. What are your attitudes toward NIMBYism (Not In my Backyard)?

9. What is your primary concern regarding new housing development in California?

10. What suggestions do you have for your elected leaders in California regarding housing in California?

11. How do you feel about new construction (housing, business) in your neighborhood?

12. How important is it for you to attend community meetings regarding housing production? Why?

This concludes the survey. Thank you for your participation.

*Questions adapted from the subscale questions (Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L., 1985).

56