Does smart growth regulation create price instability?
One argument I've seen in anti-smart growth literature is that regulation generally and/or smart growth-oriented regulation creates housing bubbles that lead to price instability.
Attached is a chart showing the evolution of housing prices between 2000 and today. The two major regions with the most aggressively smart-growth-oriented regulation are Seattle and Portland (both of which have urban growth boundaries). Neither seems particularly unstable according to the chart. Nationally, prices increased by 105% from 2000 to the peak of the bubble, and by 58% in real terms from 2000 to today. Thus, the national "instability gap" (the amount of housing price increase that did not survive the recession) was 47%. By contrast, Seattle prices were actually more stable than the rest of the nation, with an instability gap of 35% (89% housing price increase to peak of bubble, 54% from 2000 to today); Portland's "instability gap" seems even lower.
So even if regulation generally feeds bubbles, it does not appear that urban growth boundaries, standing alone, do so.
Write your comments in the box below and share on your Facebook!