Zoning plays a critical role in our society. It’s what allows us to drink clean water, breathe clean air, drive on roads with less traffic, and provides us with so many other standards on safety. Zoning, however, has a negative side which is not often analyzed.
Literature Review
Exclusionary Zoning
Exclusionary zoning is the process of imposing harsh zoning policies or regulations with the intent to deter or exclude a group or multiple groups of people from certain areas. Throughout the late 19th century and early 20th century, exclusionary zoning was used to target specific minority groups from living too close to predominately white neighborhoods. Because of the enacted Fair Housing Act of 1968, exclusionary zoning can no longer explicitly discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability. This, however, has opened the door towards discrimination based on socio-economic status, which has undoubtedly impacted the unhoused community.
Homelessness
Homelessness within the United States is a complex urban problem in which there is no singular solution. States, cities, and local municipalities address homelessness on an individualized basis and contributing causes of homelessness vary from individual to individual. According to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, homelessness across the majority of the United States declined between 2018 and 2019, however, homelessness in the State of California increased by 16 percent, or roughly 21,306 people. It is estimated that within the last five years, on any given night over 568,000 Americans experience homelessness.
Hypotheses
Exclusionary zoning practices serve an integral role in displacing those who do not conform to the majority of the population. In major cities, physical characteristics may not have as much of an impact in exclusionary zoning as financial status. Specifically, in wealthier cities such as San Francisco, zoning is often implemented to discourage expansion of affordable housing units. Because of this, the first hypothesis is that strong exclusionary zoning practices in cities such as San Francisco, including but not limited to building height limits and limitations towards single-family units, yield limited support for the homeless population.
As time passes, we have seen intense transformations within urban cities. While analyzing the most recent census data, it was announced that Austin, Texas, was the fastest growing metropolitan area from 2010-2020. This growth is expressed through Figure 1 and shows the growth of Austin, Texas, in comparison to the other major cities in this study. With a population influx, failure to provide enough affordable beds can lead to individuals experiencing homelessness. This brings us to the second hypothesis; As a result of the intense population growth within cities such as Austin, Texas, expansion has yielded additional properties designed specifically for those at risk of or experiencing homelessness.
Data/Methods
This study addresses the question of if exclusionary zoning practices result in a decline in housing opportunities for addressing homelessness through a comparative analysis between major United States cities and their respective housing policies. Data surrounding point-in-time counts of individuals experiencing homelessness, population estimations, and an in-depth breakdown of housing opportunities within selected cities across the United States. These data sources target the cities of Austin, Texas; Indianapolis, Indiana; and San Francisco, California; and focus on findings related to zoning, housing, income inequality, public policy surrounding the unhoused, and public discourse related to said policies.
Findings
When testing my first hypothesis, I observed similarities between Austin, TX, and San Francisco, CA, in how residential zoned land was utilized. Both areas hover around 63% of all homes being single-unit housing and 56% of homes being owned, as opposed to rented. Indianapolis’s Metro Area, however, had different results. The city utilized single-unit housing for nearly 77% of all housing units. Additionally, over 65% of all homes in this region are owner-occupied. From this data, however, we struggle to find a clear correlation without additional research. For that reason, my first hypothesis has resulted in an inconclusive result.
In analyzing the second hypothesis, there was a strong emphasis on P.I.T. counts of those experiencing homelessness. Point in time counts, or P.I.T. counts, are a method of calculating the number of individuals experiencing homelessness by physically counting visible people. With a steep decline in P.I.T. reporting and a slight increase in multi-unit dwellings over the established time periods, I assumed that the population growth within the City of Austin, Texas, has yielded additional properties designed specifically for those at risk of or experiencing homelessness, confirming my second hypothesis.
Based on this information, we can impact the future of exclusionary zoning practices with a stronger understanding of their immense impact on housed communities across the United States. Additionally, we can utilize this data to target areas where exclusionary zoning practices are ravaging communities.
Leave a Reply