Growth Management Revisited.

This article uses California as its lens to focus on three unresolved questions concerning the effectiveness of local growth control and management (LGC&M) programs. I conclude that some types of LGC&M programs, principally residential caps, annexation controls, and voter-enacted super-majority approval requirements, do appear to significantly limit population growth in the cities that adopt them. I also find that LGC&M programs that do not constrain housing production below their communities' shares of regional demand for housing are not principally responsible for high housing prices and rents. Finally, LGC&M programs are associated with an increased likelihood of infill development in the cities that adopt them, and with growth displacement to nearby communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of the American Planning Association is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)