[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-332387-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-332387-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","inclusionary-zoning-and-housing-supply-evidence-from-californias-palmer-fix-abstract","Inclusionary Zoning and Housing Supply - Evidence from California’s Palmer Fix - Abstract","","Inclusionary Zoning requires developers to reserve a portion of new housing at affordable rates for low- to moderate-income tenants. In California, over a third of localities have adopted such ordinances, but mandatory inclusionary zoning functions like a tax on construction and can lower total housing supply, reducing affordability overall. The paper estimates these effects using novel administrative data for all California cities and counties and a difference-in-difference design around an exogenous reactivation of ordinances via the 2017 Palmer Fix.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/inclusionary-zoning-and-housing-supply-evidence-from-californias-palmer-fix-abstract/332387/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/inclusionary-zoning-and-housing-supply-evidence-from-californias-palmer-fix-abstract/332387.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Theodore","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-09","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is Inclusionary Zoning and why might it affect housing affordability?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Inclusionary Zoning requires developers to set aside a share of new units at affordable rates for low/moderate-income tenants. Mandatory inclusionary zoning can act as a tax on construction, reducing overall housing supply and potentially worsening affordability in the aggregate.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does the study identify the causal impact of inclusionary zoning in California?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The paper uses novel administrative data covering all California cities and counties. It leverages a statewide change in preempting law and applies a difference-in-difference design around the exogenous reactivation of local inclusionary ordinances after the Palmer Fix in 2017.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What are the main results regarding housing construction and policy stringency?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The typical inclusionary zoning ordinance reduces annual new residential construction by nearly a third (31.8%). The study also finds relocation toward lower-rent areas, and that accounting for policy stringency is critical, with heterogeneous effects helping explain divergent findings in prior literature.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},332387,1790026557,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":125},"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},7971461740886,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","Inclusionary Zoning and Housing Supply Evidence from California’s Palmer Fix ∗  \nNoah Kouchekinia†  \nUniversity of California, Irvine  \nDepartment of Economics, Social Science Plaza A (SSPA) 3139, Irvine CA 92697, United States  \nJune 11, 2026  \nAbstract  \nInclusionary Zoning requires developers to set aside a share of new units at affordable rates to low/moderate income tenants. In California, more than a third of localities have adopted an ordinance. Mandatory inclusionary zoning acts as a tax on construction and, all else equal, reduces the overall supply of housing. This potentially reduces affordability in the aggregate. Quantifying this trade off has been difficult due to heterogeneous local policies, data quality issues, and the endogeneity of local inclusionary zoning adoption. I estimate the effect of inclusionary zoning using novel administrative data covering all cities and counties in California. I leverage a statewide change in preempting law for identification, performing a difference-in-difference around an exogenous reactivation of local inclusionary ordinances. I find the typical inclusionary zoning ordinance reduces annual new residential construction by nearly a third (31.8%) . Additionally, I find the policies relocate multi-family developments within jurisdictions to lower rent areas, where the policy is effectively less severe. Accounting for the stringency of policies turns out to be critical, and heterogeneous effects by policy stringency may explain divergent results in the prior literature. I estimate the cost of generating an affordable unit with inclusionary zoning to be approximately $800,000 in “excess rents” paid by market rate renters asa result of the policy’s constraint on supply. This exceeds the cost of directly incentivizing the creation of low-income housing in California through existing programs like LIHTC.  \nJEL Classifications: R52, R31, R23, R13, J68, I38  \nKeywords: Inclusionary Zoning, Affordable Housing, Spatial Sorting, Location Choice  \n∗ This research was supported by the California Policy Lab and the Horowitz Foundation.†Email: [nkouchek@uci.edu](nkouchek@uci.edu)  \n1 Introduction  \nInclusionary Zoning, a popular local housing regulation, requires developers to set aside a share of new units at affordable rates to low/moderate income tenants. Nearly 900 cities across the US have adopted an inclusionary ordinance, with the policy being most popular in high-cost metro areas in the Northeast and Pacific West. In California, more than a third of localities have adopted an ordinance, with the number of associated affordable units rivaling the largest federal housing policies (Wang and Balachandran, 2021) .  \nThese ordinances act as taxes on construction, and ought to reduce the overall amount of housing produced. However, existing evidence on Inclusionary Zoning’s supply effects has been mixed. While some studies find no effect on the flow of new housing (Bento et al. , 2009; Hamilton, 2021; Mukhija et al., 2010), others find a reduction (Means and Stringham, 2012), or mixed results (Phillips, 2024; Schuetz et al., 2011) . Inclusionary Zoning’s supply effects are difficult to study because local ordinances are highly heterogeneous and there was, until now, a lack of high quality data on their key attributes.  \nI estimate the effect of inclusionary zoning ordinances on housing supply using novel administrative data on all California cities, leveraging a statewide change in preempting law for identification. This advances the literature on several fronts. First, the new data measures inclusionary zoning ordinances’ stringency. This allows me to estimate the intensive margin of inclusionary zoning’s effect on housing supply. Second, by using an exogenous shock to localities’ inclusionary zoning ordinances, I evade the confounding effects of simultaneously adopted local housing regulations. Additionally, the statewide shock allows me to use a standard difference-in-difference estimator ","cbCaild24CE7NWGK","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaild24CE7NWGK","pdf",4173789,45,"English","# Abstract\n## Housing supply effects\n## Identification strategy and data\n## Empirical findings\n## Costs and comparison to LIHTC","[{\"question\":\"What is Inclusionary Zoning and why might it affect housing affordability?\",\"answer\":\"Inclusionary Zoning requires developers to set aside a share of new units at affordable rates for low/moderate-income tenants. Mandatory inclusionary zoning can act as a tax on construction, reducing overall housing supply and potentially worsening affordability in the aggregate.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the study identify the causal impact of inclusionary zoning in California?\",\"answer\":\"The paper uses novel administrative data covering all California cities and counties. It leverages a statewide change in preempting law and applies a difference-in-difference design around the exogenous reactivation of local inclusionary ordinances after the Palmer Fix in 2017.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the main results regarding housing construction and policy stringency?\",\"answer\":\"The typical inclusionary zoning ordinance reduces annual new residential construction by nearly a third (31.8%). The study also finds relocation toward lower-rent areas, and that accounting for policy stringency is critical, with heterogeneous effects helping explain divergent findings in prior literature.\"}]","Inclusionary Zoning and Housing Supply - Evidence from California’s Palmer Fix - Abstract | PDF",1789998029,113]