Public Policy & Planning: Inclusionary Zoning in Los Angeles Essay

Abstract

Los Angeles is currently facing an affordable housing problem that commonly raised the demand for Inclusionary zoning development in Los Angeles. This type of development required when people cannot afford shelter due to low income level and increasing poverty. The concept of Inclusionary zoning developed with subsequent support of the state with typical subsidizing regulations. The imitative of Inclusionary zoning organized by Los Angeles City Council may causes myriad failure of real state market due to the liberated phenomenon of housing buyers. The citizens of Los Angeles City Council are taxed to endow with basic services such as water supply, sanitation and squander dumping. When properties of Inclusionary zoning are sold to credulous buyers, it has a greater impact on the economy and on the basis services of Los Angeles City Council as well as it has to be more concerned with the public health, welfare, safety and other issues.

By utilizing Bardach’s Eightfold Path Analysis (2005), evidence of Inclusionary zoning development has combined and decisive factors has selected to settle on what are the responses, which would be more appropriate to improve and overcome the burdens allied with the Inclusionary zoning policy in Los Angeles. The criteria engaged in this process have included administrative, political support and public value regarded with this policy [Moore (1995)]. With the support of a matrix, four alternatives have been chosen with these criteria to finding the most excellent policy choice.

The consequential policy recommendation for the cities like Los Angels suffering with housing problem are required to have certain disclosure and put a ceiling on buying houses of Inclusionary zoning until and unless infrastructural standards complied. These policy selection criteria will permit the private companies to come across a consumerist solution to the demand for supportable disclosure statements and at the same time encourage the city authority to utilize this enhanced information congregation gears for future planning processes.

Introduction

The Inclusionary zoning in Los Angeles is the main issue of this paper. According to eightfold path – this essay requires to find affordable housing development projects for people with lower incomes. Inclusionary zoning is a policy organized by Los Angeles City Council and the aim of this policy is to afford housing for many families in Los Angeles. Within basic needs of human being housing or shelter placed third. For the Los Angeles City Council, it is a really a big challenge to afford housing because of its high expense.

The Inclusionary zoning policy is applicable for different range of incomes for instance – very low, low and moderate level. According to inclusionary zones Los Angeles City Council selects people with lower income for affordable housing. They wish to execute this project planning in the course of Eightfold path. Eightfold path consists of eight sequential steps.

To prepare this report in the light of Eightfold path it should include the eight steps such as problem identification, a short description of the mentioned city, methodical way out of the problem, evidence to the scope and scale of the problem, criteria of the problem, sketch alternatives and justify them during a matrix, tradeoffs and finally presents several decisions or recommendations. Here also explains the demerits of implementing of this policy that is who could be affected or harm through Inclusionary zoning.

Framework

For public policy selection this report would apply eightfold of Bardach (2004) as an analytical tool. Eightfold path in case of a project or planning analysis follows a sequential step to explain itself. Theoretical explanation of eightfold path can be as bellow:

1. Problem identifying– First step of this path is to spot the issue for whom it needs to change the policy or formulate a new policy. This is a stage that requires setting the goal of the planning or the project along with objectives.
2. Criteria of the problem– Second step conduct the nature of the problem, who is the sufferer of the problem, reasons of the problem and so on.
3. Evaluate alternatives– In third step, analyses what are the probable ways to recover the identified problem. There may be occur a new policy or to modify the previous policy to reach the identified goal as well as way out of the problem.
4. Output of the project– To reach the goals of the planning and the project this stage analyses present value and the expected value of this planning. Here also explains uses of the tools of this project.
5. Evaluate and confront tradeoffs– The term tradeoffs refer relationship among cost of the project goals, time and performance. In another word, project manager must make tradeoffs between project process and progress. It is a process to make a balance among the project cost, time and performance to reach the targeted goals.
6. Finding– In this stage, analyses overall project planning and decide whether it is effective or not. Here also need to make decision this how long is this project sustains or is it necessary to stop now. This stage also draws some recommendation to skip the problems or obstacles of the project.
7. Tell your story– Last step of eightfold path sketch a comprehensive figure between theory and practical assumptions. For whom the project is drawn are they benefited from that. This assumption is conducted here. Consumers evaluation for the project and their requirement is also execute in this stage.

Definition of the problem

This vital step of Eightfold path looks for the reason to selecting the policy or project even to do work with sense of direction. It deals with what the secret dilemma warrants explaining as a public problem including market failure, equity motives and nonworking of system for which the change of policy as well as formulate a new policy is required. This is a step that needs locale the goal of the planning of the project next to with objectives. In this case, Inclusionary zoning provided by Los Angeles City Council- affordable housing for the people with lower level income.

In Los Angeles, afford housing is a great challenge because housing is very expensive in Los Angels. Moreover, growth rate of employment is very low in Los Angels. On the other hand, per capita income of the city is only $20, 671 where an approximate cost of housing is $596,546.5. Thus, it is great problem for the city council of Los Angeles to provide housing for about 3.8 million people of the city.

According to US Census, Los Angeles is the second highest populated metropolitan area of USA. Its population is almost 3.8 million. Inclusionary zoning in Los Angeles for the people with lower incomes is the vital objective of this planning project. In Los Angeles housing is very expensive and also affordable housing is a great challenge.

The overall economic and social situation of Los Angels, its population and public health situation should encourage a change like Inclusionary zoning. Here lowest price of each housing unit is about $596,546.5 where as the median income of a person is lower than it. So, it is difficult for a person to afford house within his poor income. Moreover, employment growth is not upward and ratio of permanent employee is one –third of the population. Considering all of above affordable housing for the people with lower income must have following criteria.

• Effective– When ratio of out put is larger than its input is termed as effective. In this case, with a lower income if anybody could afford house then it is considered as effective.
• Efficient– The term efficient is almost same as effective but the difference is that with the ratio between output and input here time variation is included. Therefore, to contract higher output efficient product requires rather input and time to carry out.
• Equity– Generally equity refers fairness or justness. Equity in case of affordable housing in Los Angeles pass on fair and equal distribution of costs, taxes imposed, age, race, religion of a person.

Inclusionary zoning policy divides people into three categories according to their income level. Percentage of these categories is as bellow. For the target people of this planning is under lower income level and their percentage is (50-80) % of median income.

Means of this policy

To organize this paper data has been collected from reliable sources like US census. The means of this inclusionary zoning policy oriented by local city council (here by the city council of Los Angeles) for lower income people, affordable housing. Generally, inclusionary zoning divide people according to their income level. Here selected income level is low. In the area of inclusionary zoning 80% of the whole area is for the house hold with median income. Following factors with relevant data is presented here in accordance to the sequence of eightfold path.

• Policy variable- Inclusionary zoning policy divides its units into three categories of income level under median income. These units are known as policy variable. These policy variables are termed in ascending order as- Very low, low and moderate. Here, the selected policy variable is people with lower income.
• Target population- Los Angeles is a city that populated almost 3.8 billion. It is the second highest populated city in USA. Among them 22.1% is under the poverty line and (50-80) % are low median level income. Here, this (50-80) % with low income is the target population under inclusionary zoning.
• Policy instruments- Each year for “affordable housing” project needs a large amount of employee to complete their target project. These workers have a great contribution to the national economy as well as in the local. Number of target affordable housing units are almost- 12,460 per year. To execute such a large project planning required workers are the policy instrument of the project.
• Feasible manipulations- Los Angeles is consist of 13 municipals. For these municipals inclusionary zoning within seven years constructed less than 17, 296 houses. Each year this city needs four that percentage was approximately 51%.

The nature of the affordable housing problem

Under inclusionary zones affordable housing for the people with low income needs to ensure some criteria. They are based on following key points:

• Effectiveness– The term effectiveness refers that better out put results while it does not require large inputs. In housing sectors, it is too difficult to manufacture houses with a low cost. So, here it is assumed that affordable housing for the people with lower income would not be effective project for the Los Angeles City Council.
• Efficiency– Efficiency refers task that will be cost effective, less time consuming and needs lower effort to accomplish a greater output. In case of housing, reducing costs, time and lower effort results decrease the production of the house. As a result, housing for lower income people could not show any efficiency in future. Moreover, imposed on high tax on this project can not provide houses with a low price. For this reason, this project planning would not be sketching any efficiency.
• Equity– Equity is constructed by two terms-process and distribution. In the sense of equity process and distribution must be fair and equal. Distribution involves in costs, taxes imposed, age, race, religion of a person. On the other hand, process involves in arriving of outcomes. Equity may be horizontal and vertical, progressive and regressive incidence or simple and conditional neutrality. Now, it is clear that for housing project for the people with lower income is difficult in the sense of equity.

A short description of Los Angeles

Los Angeles stayed in the state of Southern California in West USA. This city was found in 1781 of September 4. It is the second largest metropolitan city of USA accordance its population. Its population is almost 3.8 million. Total area of Los Angeles is about 498.3 square miles or 1,290.6 kilo meter square of the Southern California. Amount of residents is 12.9 million and they spoke in 224 types of different language. Geographically a mountain range bisected the city. 114 different countries people stayed in Los Angeles.

This city is famous for international trade, entertainment, technology, business, culture, education, media, science, petroleum, tourism and fashion. United States economy is patronized mostly through the contribution of Los Angeles. Key entertainment areas of Los Angeles are- music, television and motion pictures.

Though Los Angeles execute a wide range of economic contribution, but in its locality many of the people stayed under poverty line. Amount of median income, percentage of under poverty line and other criteria of can be express as bellow.

Defining the scope and scale of the problem

The scope and scale of the problem is depending on several factors. These factors represent the involvement of local government in executing policies in Los Angeles. Following are the key terms that defines the scope and scale of the problem:

• Taxes – the lower market price according to inclusionary zoning imposed a high range of tax on housing project. As a result the Los Angeles City council lost billion of dollars for this high tax.
• Regulation – With the decrease of supply cost and increase of administrative costs, tax on housing projects is increased regularly. This proportion directly imposed on price and production of housing projects.
• Subsidies and grants – here it is important to mention that Government does not pay attention for the subsidies and grants are this department. It is another barrier for affordable housing with lower income people.
• Service provision– As if there is any intention to reduce price of a house with same quality as it was, it is quite impossible. With the deduction of production cost, quality and number of houses remain downhill proportionally.
• Agency budgets– Agency budgets would need to decrease with reduce of projects budget. This is one of the reasons of high price of affordable housing.
• Information– There absents a direct contribution of policy makers in underdeveloped sectors. Thus many lower earned worker get looser for that. Policy holder could expand opportunities through their policies and can change employment growth of Los Angeles.
• Structure of private rights– Structure of private rights in Los Angeles is too poor. Moreover, 44% of population is under poverty. As a result, it is very difficult be a homeowner for a people.
• Framework of economic activity– the Los Angeles is a city of international trade, entertainment, technology, business, culture, education, media, science, petroleum, tourism and fashion. United States economy is patronized mostly through the contribution of Los Angeles. Key entertainment areas of Los Angeles are- music, television and motion pictures.
• Education and consultation– Educational structure is based on four levels. They are- under high school, high school, college level and graduate respectively. According to US census percentage of these levels are sequentially as – 62%, 85%, 103% and 18%. This data represents a better quality of educational background.
• Financing and contracting– As an economic report, there 675,000 employees are under poverty and most of them do not show their income. In service sector, a worker’s average annual income is less than $30,000. Moreover, many of the workers do not get any health insurance.

Nature of the problem

In short, nature of the problem is ineffective, inefficient and also inequitable. As a result, this is a project that could be harmful for the employment growth of the city. Reducing costs in housing projects reduces rate of houses and for this many people get unemployed.

Evaluate and confront tradeoffs

Evaluate and confront tradeoffs is assessment of progress and policy relationship. Here also evaluates the balance among the project cost, time and performance to reach the targeted goals. Though it is a planning for affordable housing lower income so, it is too hard-hitting for project manager to control costs of the houses. When costs of housing reduces crisis for affordable houses increases proportionally.

Alternatives

It required most practicable alternative policies to analyze the public policy based on the above well distinct criteria. This paper has been identified most pragmatic policies headed as A1, A2, A3 and A4.

Alternative-1 (A1)

Sustains with the status quo of existing policies without changing any features. It allows a prolongation of the Los Angeles Housing Law and its implementation. Consider that this course of action allows for suitable dispensation and classification, afterward the sequence being collected by the City Council possibly will be sufficient to give support to future planning actions. This alternative is regarding though Los Angeles Housing Law as it does nonentity to alleviate concerns over an adequate Rent Stabilization Ordinance, water supply, public health issues, and air pollution. Whilst these apprehensions are momentous, A-1 would mainly expect to be deemed with most apposite alternative by planners under City Council, who usually sustain very modest to no regulation.

Alternative-2 (A-2)

Entails real estate sellers of small affordable housing to provide the prospective buyers with a demonstrable disclosure envelope as contrasting to the limiting disclosure at the present in use by a renter who meet criteria of target group of the policy. These extra comprehensive disclosure envelopes would restrain information on whether or not the housing is located within the district’s service area and would delineate least infrastructural customary and necessities those turn out to be the responsibility of the new housing buyers. This prerequisite put a stop to sellers from responding “indefinite” on the present Housing Law form concerning questions of right of entry to and accessibility of assets. If it considered as an amendment in policy, it would consent to purchasers of Inclusionary zoning developments would be alert the necessary improvements and potential financial commitment for the housing assuage in turn unevenness problems.

On the other hand this alternative may perhaps provide a preparatory point for the buyers to formulate the infrastructural step up essential as to decrease the free qualification dilemma. The supportable disclosure would most expect to be sustained next to the real estate industry. Some real estate developers raised question on to private property advocates and argued for an another endeavor to enlarge the cost of construction and civil work and hold back house owners. Moreover it would generate supplementary administrative effort for the city council as they would be mandatory to expand disclosure measures and embark on pathway information.

Alternative-3 (A-3)

Enforce contact fees on the buyers of Inclusionary zoning emphasizing on the minimum costs of essential infrastructural perfection in regulate to guard the safety and health of residents and the area’s bottom line. This alternative of Inclusionary zoning consist of a prerequisite for falling the amount of shock charges paid by the buyers beside the scale of proposed developments asked by the homeowner including Registration fee, Evictions system, Occupancy Limits and Relocation Assistance as well as road infrastructure. The consequence would boundary the private property rights using directive with a minimum intensity of progress. Here the internalization costs are at present collective with all taxpayers. The cohorts of this alternative argue that this process would guarantee the general taxpayers are not weighed down with paying for infrastructural developments on home. Within this scenario Los Angeles would need to extend standards as well as impact fees levels for unstable development.

Alternative-4

The Los Angeles City Council is considering enacting a regulation which provides all new housing advance projects to set aside a certain fraction of units and make them affordable for people with lower incomes, a policy known as “inclusionary zoning.” By enacting new laws and amending existing laws it can be find out a new develop policy for the people of Los Angeles. In this context, the Los Angeles City Council can follow others states law to provide more developed policy. For example: the Los Angeles City Council can adopt Wildcat Development policy or lot splitting regulation though this policy is subject of criticism. Lot splitting regulation is emphasis on people with lower incomes which is similar to inclusionary zoning development policy. In last two decade, the population growth rate of Arizona was 40% which is too high. As a result policy maker give importance on population of poverty level. Lot splitting regulation permit individual property owners to split their land into several lots for example five or fewer lots, moreover it allow to selling their property without having subdivision instruction requirements. Before attempt to implementation inclusionary zoning, the Los Angeles City Council have an opportunity to overlook the Wildcat Development policy or lot splitting regulation to find out another alternatives which ensure all facilities for the population of poverty level.

Criteria

Bardach (2005) recommend that an outcomes matrix should be used due-to analysis the complex and uncertain situation for the fundamental alternatives combined with their variants. To adopt this matrix it is essential to have an outline of all the information which demonstrate the projected outcomes and proper explanation of the project. How the alternative affects the value and the public interest will be determined from the information of the columns project. Moreover, it will consider the dimensional changes of the project.

After analyzing the evidence of Inclusionary zoning development policy and some consequential negative impact on Los Angeles City Council it can be identified that numerous criterion have been preferred to consider various policy alternatives to this dilemma and maximize the public interest or public value outcome. The criteria have been chosen were projected just with elements of eightfold path analysis of Bardach.

Moore, M. H. (1990) presented the overarching criterion with three main points of strategic triangle and these are political support, administrative feasibility and public value. The first issues that is political support can be illustrates as whether or not an exacting strategy alternative, given accomplishment would be successful to obtain the majority of the population’s support. It also integrates pervasive groups for instance minority groups, elected representative and the general people at large. Administrative feasibility which is known as operational feasibility can be described in light of the infrastructure and the viewpoint in public affairs.

The public value is the last criterion which can be illustrates as in aspects of the Inclusionary zoning development strategy setback as well as the particular information irregularity and free provision subjects which are difficult to control. Form the analysis of public value it can be identify criteria as follows:

• The criteria for public values may not be highly ambitious, but always be moderately clear-cut and easy to measure. The appliance would generate standardized outcomes to measuring different alternatives. Duplication of the process should give the same outcomes.
• Economic Criteria: The foremost policy analysis incorporates at least a single economic criterion such as effect on the economy, effect on government spending or predictable public sector revenues, when the ordinary economic criteria are costs.
• Equity Criteria: The equity is a public concern that looks the social allocation of benefits and burdens. If the anticipated policy alternatives reallocate the benefits and burdens, it must keep an impact on equity. Equity sustained with equal opportunity and corporate social responsibility.
• Technical Criteria: The efficiency and implication are the criterion which reviews proposed policy with goals, target and uncertainty consideration.
• Political Criteria: It reviews the political viability of the projected policy alternative with acceptance to the different groups.

All of these ingredients of public value fundamentally integrate the first and second criterion and these are political and administrative feasibility. Moreover, these factors also determined by Bardach’s evaluative and realistic criteria, comprising competence, fairness, freedom, values, legitimacy, political acceptability and forcefulness.

In order to include these issues, this alternative policy always determines the public values or public interest. It also provides more emphasis on some other issues, such as political support and administrative feasibility.

It was essential to accomplish, since political and administrative practicability actions find out whether an alternative can be adopted effectively. On the other hand public value decides whether an alternative be able to resolve the Inclusionary zoning development setback of free provision and the issue of information irregularity. At the same time, public value is balancing the interests of private property as well as individual proprietor rights. It also considers the tax payers rights and interests and the county. These subjects and interests are the dominant grounds for undergoing the investigation in the initial position and for that reason warrant a higher degree of burden than the other relevant criteria.

Justification of alternatives

After reviewing previously discussed alternatives with identified criteria outcomes for solving this problem would be:

• Identify another market to control prices- Housing is an industry that requires a large amount of investment to sustain its quality. Controlling price in this case decreases the rate of housing projects. As a result this impacts on the whole economy of the nation as well as in local area. This effect on employment growth, tax imposed per capita income and also reduces affordable housing.
• With the increased demand magnify supply in markets of housing- Another way is to expand supply in markets of housing. This could be preventing affordable housing crisis.
• Equity in housing projects- With reduces of housing lands costs of per housing increased rationally. For this reason, there should be keeping a balance in affordable housing. On the other hand, ensure environmental safety have to be maintained in proper balancing way.
• Flexible the barriers of regulations in housing- Sometimes in housing projects government regulations are too strict that imposed on the price of the houses. For this reason, if the regulations of the government would flexible then price of affordable housing could be sound for the people.
• Partnership between private and public- If in housing projects partnership between private and public will be available then price of the affordable houses would be flexible. This relationship could be reducing taxes, costs of capital, interest’s rates and so on.
• Both in local and state generate a broader housing fund- This initiative could be execute through efficient house constructors while down payment of the houses and other relevant house cost would occur. In this way not only the price of the houses but also in case of hotel rent will be reduce.

Decision or recommendation

Make a decision or recommendation

From overall discussion of the policy analysis there could be reach several decisions or recommendations. They are:

• High living costs- Living costs of Los Angeles is too high for that reason affordable housing is out of reach for most of the people. With the sustain residence only 40% of the population could be placed. For this reason, government should try to give subsidy to decrease the living costs.
• Most of the families are stayed under poverty line- 18.3% families of this city are under poverty line. They cannot effort their basic needs soundly. So, the government should take initiative programs for developing these families.
• Insufficient income- 15.4% of this city’s population earned not as much as they need. Therefore, they can not afford suitable residence for them. By developing income level government can reduce the crisis of affordable housing of the people.
• Poor employment growth- Since 1990 to 2006 employment growth of this city is only 10%. So, lack of employment growth people can not fulfill their basic needs as well as their housing. Through expand the service sector government can increase employment growth and also standard of living.
• Deprived health insurance- As any other segment health insurance is also too poor. As a result most of the young people are under poverty line. This unsound health causes of unsound society structure. So for better living standard sound health is needed as affordable housing.

Above are the recommendations or decisions that along with affordable housing. Besides these affordable housing could not possible. Therefore, Los Angeles City Council should pay attention on the aforementioned decision for affordable housing. Besides these affordable housing for the people with lower income will not be possible.

Project outcomes

Outcomes of the project depends on models in policy and planning, tools or elements of the model and evaluate the difference between present value and expected value of the project. These values are also identified between time and risk designing.

Alternatives-Matrix

Each of the alternatives discussed over the paper have been meditate on next to the abovementioned standards and scored with weight +1, 0 and -1 in apiece grouping. The attainment of weight “+1” indicates that the alternative has complied with previously defined criteria. The attainment of weight “-1” reveals that the alternative has not complied with the standard criteria at the same time the weight “0” is a sign of neutral rejoinder to the criteria. The weights for every alternative has been placed diagonally the criteria designed for total weight allocated with comparability in the table bellow. The utmost entirety weight is equal to six, while the least total weight is equal to negative six.

In the light of present numerical analysis, policy alternatives-3 and alternatives-3 has emerged to appear the contiguous to rewarding all of the preferred criteria shown in Figure-1. This paper also keeps its effort to evaluate and face up to the tradeoffs dormant within the alternatives to be confirmed that the precisely correspond to the goals by improving the problems connected along with Inclusionary zoning development.

Presentation of Alternatives next to Criteria:

Aforesaid alternatives would be marked -1, 0, or +1 according to their feature. Consistent with this score each of them passes on different criteria. At first, “-1” indicates that identified criteria has no association with the alternative. On the other hand, “0” scored alternative has no effect on the criteria and at last, “+1” require continuous development or allow choosing the alternatives. Based on this marking, a table is draft as matrix criterion in bellow as arbitrator for identifying an alignment between alternatives and feature of the problem.

Calculation of Deterrence

In accordance to the alternatives what would happen is the Counter-Factual analysis. This analysis assumes some percentage reduction ratios. This ratio is measured by following equation.

C3= C3wo * D

Therefore, C3wo = C3/D

Where,

• C3wo=Measuring deterrence=?
• C3= Housing in 2005= 17,296 houses
• D=Percentage of deterrence effect= 51%=0.51

Thus, Deterrence, C3wo= (17,296/ 0.51) = 33,914 houses (approximately)

Incapacitation effect

Incapacitation effect= (Number imprisoned*Recidivism rate)

Here,

Number of imprisoned = 12,460 houses

Recidivism rate= 36.7% = 0.367

So, Incapacitation effect= (12,460*0.367) = 4,573 houses (approximately).

Conclusion

The affordable housing problem of Los Angeles would be diminished by the city councils Inclusionary zoning policy. The perception of Inclusionary zoning urbanized with succeeding support of the state with typical sponsoring regulations. Accomplishment has to be taken to curtail the information gap and financing issues related with Inclusionary zoning. To address these factors, legislators and public policy makers ought to first comprehend with politics is the porter of the batch opening problem in Los Angeles. Any public policy selection or solution of public issues have to be balanced with the wellbeing of private property owners with government’s necessitate to shelter, health and safety of inhabitants. At the same time it has to keep its eyes on the welfare of individual property proprietor as well as community base. The predicted resolution ought to be accessible from the viewpoint of both property proprietors as well as and government agents. This derivative of Inclusionary zoning by Los Angeles City Council possibly will ground a myriad of real state market failure due to the free stipulation experience of housing buyers.

Bibliography

Barzel, Yoram, Economic Analysis of Property Rights, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 978-0521597135, (1997).

Bardach, Eugene, A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: the Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving, 2nd edition, CQ Press; ISBN-13: 978-1568029238. (2004).

Brunick, Nicholas, The Impact of Inclusionary Zoning on Development, 2008. Web.

Christensen, Paul et al, Lot Splitting and Development Regulation: Vol. 3, 2006.

Moore, Mark H. (1990), Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Powell, Benjamin, and Stringham, Edward, Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work? Evidence From Los Angeles County and Orange County. 2008. Web.

Tombari,A. Edward, Smart Growth, Smart Choices Series: The Builder’s Perspective on Inclusionary Zoning, 2008. Web.

U.S. Census Bureau, Los Angeles City, Web.