Search

California's farmworkers are among the lowest-paid wage earners in the state. They often live in crowded or substandard housing. The Polanco Bill—state legislation enacted in the early 1990s—aimed to increase the supply of housing for farmworkers by encouraging the development of employee housing on land zoned for agriculture. This article discusses the implementation and effects of the Polanco Bill in the agricultural area of the eastern Coachella Valley. It finds, somewhat unexpectedly, that groups of farmworkers, often family members, have used the bill to collaborate and develop small, resident-owned, informal mobile home communities, called polancos, and focuses on one such case. Although the article's key contribution is to identify the informal approach and its key attributes, it also discusses whether a new housing model based on the collectively owned polancos is possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars typically study affluent neighbourhoods resisting annexation by poorer adjacent cities. This paper focuses on the mirror image of this problem: municipal underbounding—the unwillingness of cities to annex poor neighbouring areas. In the paper, such local governments are called reluctant cities and it is suggested that urban studies scholars need to reach a better understanding of the practice. Here, a seemingly counter-intuitive case from California is documented where adjacent cities were convinced to annex poor neighbourhoods, designated as colonias. It is suggested that there may be opportunities for local co-operation leading to annexation. The important role of federal infrastructure funding is noted and the need for deeper involvement of residents of annexed neighbourhoods in decision-making is emphasised. Although race was not an issue in this case study, it is likely to be an important concern in annexations and the literature’s call for regional approaches and institutional reforms is supported. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

We focus on three nonprofit organizations developing mutual self-help housing and analyze their projects to examine how they are addressing cost increases. We find that instead of using simpler designs, they are developing more elaborate homes through intricate financing. We are critical of this evolution. First, we suggest that the original modest house design of mutual self-help housing allowed for more affordable housing through post-occupancy improvements and de facto incremental development. Second, after the modest design was replaced with a larger model, development costs increased. Despite financial innovations, including longer loan terms and secondary financing, participation by poor households dropped. Third, we urge a return to the modest housing idea. Fourth, we call for policymakers to better integrate design-based thinking in housing policy. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Inclusionary zoning—requiring and encouraging developers to build some affordable housing in market-rate projects—is a growing but deeply contested practice. We evaluate the experience of inclusionary zoning programs in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, including their structure and elements, effectiveness in delivering affordable housing, and effect on housing markets and supply, to address the debate. We find that the programs vary but are not heavily demanding and include cost offsets. Low in-lieu fees, however, can be the weak link. Many of the mandatory programs are effective, if effectiveness is measured by comparing the affordable housing productivity of inclusionary zoning with other affordable housing programs. We found no statistically significant evidence of inclusionary zoning's adverse effect on housing supply in cities with inclusionary mandates. We conclude that critics underestimate the affordable housing productivity of inclusionary zoning, and overestimate its adverse effects on housing supply. Nonetheless, inclusionary zoning is no panacea and needs to be part of a comprehensive housing strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we compare colonias in Texas and California and evaluate the federal policy relating to them. In Texas, designated colonias are recently subdivided but unregulated housing settlements that lack infrastructure. California's designated colonias are old communities, with varying demographics, infrastructure needs, and jurisdictional authority. Because subdivisions are strongly regulated in California, we did not expect to find designated colonias there. In actuality, there are over 30. However, federal policy is based on Texas colonias, and we argue that it is too broad because it fails to distinguish between inherently distinct areas and investment needs. Paradoxically, the federal criteria for defining colonias are also too narrow. Many locally designated colonias in California do not qualify for funding because they are not close to the Mexican border or exceed the population ceiling. Ironically, some of the colonias that fail to qualify have the worst housing conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]