Based on the work of Karl "Chip" Case, who is renowned for his scientific contributions to the economics of housing and public policy, this is a must read during a time of restructuring our nation's system of housing finance.

This is a study of the costs of state regulation to the land developer and home builder, those concerned with skyrocketing costs of government regulation. It includes details of how the American Law Institute's Model Land Development Code can improve the quality of development and thus put an end to the problems of new development.

Just as investors want the companies they hold equity in to do well, homeowners have a financial interest in the success of their communities. If neighborhood schools are good, if property taxes and crime rates are low, then the value of the homeowner’s principal asset—his home—will rise. Thus, as William Fischel shows, homeowners become watchful citizens of local government, not merely to improve their quality of life, but also to counteract the risk to their largest asset, a risk that cannot be diversified. Meanwhile, their vigilance promotes a municipal governance that provides services more efficiently than do the state or national government. Fischel has coined the portmanteau word “homevoter” to crystallize the connection between homeownership and political involvement. The link neatly explains several vexing puzzles, such as why displacement of local taxation by state funds reduces school quality and why local governments are more likely to be efficient providers of environmental amenities. The Homevoter Hypothesis thereby makes a strong case for decentralization of the fiscal and regulatory functions of government.

Homeownership - a core American Dream - remains elusive to millions of families priced out of the unstable housing market. This book explores the delicate balance between regulations designed to promote the production of sound, affordable housing in safe community environments and the red tape in which housing developers become entangled.Based on case studies of communities in New Jersey and North Carolina, and building on extensive research on the housing development regulatory process, the authors examine the incidence of regulation and quantify the actual itemized costs of excessive regulation. How are the costs of excessive regulation distributed between developers and home buyers? How can state and local jurisdictions reform deeply entrenched regulatory systems to ease the delivery of affordable housing from developer to purchaser?Red Tape and Housing Costs examines the incidence of regulation. The distribution of these costs is critical to housing affordability. At the same time, developers shift to building housing for consumers to whom they can pass on the increasing costs of regulation. Michael I. Luger and Kenneth Temkin provide policymakers and housing advocates with hard facts and reasoned explanations about the link between excessive regulations and spiraling housing costs. The authors argue that their analysis will allow policymakers to launch efforts to create responsible housing development regulatory systems.

The final report of the blue-ribbon commission appointed by Pres. Bush to study government regulations that drive up housing costs for American families. Examined the effects of rules, regulations, and red tape at all levels of government on the costs of housing in America. Graphs.

"Zoning has for a century enabled cities to chart their own course. It is a useful and popular institution, enabling homeowners to protect their main investment and provide safe neighborhoods. As home values have soared in recent years, however, this protection has accelerated to the degree that new housing development has become unreasonably difficult and costly. The widespread Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome is driven by voters’ excessive concern about their home values and creates barriers to growth that reach beyond individual communities. The barriers contribute to suburban sprawl, entrench income and racial segregation, retard regional immigration to the most productive cities, add to national wealth inequality, and slow the growth of the American economy. Some state, federal, and judicial interventions to control local zoning have done more harm than good. More effective approaches would moderate voters’ demand for local-land use regulation—by, for example, curtailing federal tax subsidies to owner-occupied housing"--Publisher's description.