Citizen Mobilization and the Adoption of Local Growth Control

• Published date: 01 September 1992
• Date: 01 September 1992
• DOI: 10.1177/106591299204500306
• Author: Todd Donovan,Max Neiman
• Subject Matter: Articles

CITIZEN

MOBILIZATION

AND

THE

ADOPTION

OF

LOCAL

GROWTH

CONTROL

TODD

DONOVAN,

Western

Washington

University

and

MAX

NEIMAN,

University

of

California,

Riverside

n

recent

years

social

scientists

across

a

range

of

disciplines

have

become

increasingly

interested

in

the

struggle

to

control

land

use.

One

reason

for

the

increased

interest

is

that

the

political

and

eco-

nomic

stakes

involved

in

land

use

issues

are

very

high.

These

issues

may

structure,

as

Molotch

notes,

&dquo;who

in

material

terms,

gets

what,

where,

and

how&dquo;

in

the

community,

and

who

stands

to

benefit

from

growth,

change

or

stability.

Recognizing

the

importance

of

this,

recent

urban

research

has

dedicated

attention

to

the

influence

of

local

&dquo;growth

machines&dquo;

(Molotch

1976;

Logan

and

Molotch

1987;

similarly,

Elkin

1987),

the

dominance

of

&dquo;developmental&dquo;

policy

issues

in

city

politics

(Peterson

1981),

as

well

as

the

rise

of

&dquo;growth

control&dquo;

movements

por-

traying

citizens

mobilized

in

opposition

to

local

growth

(Neiman

and

Loveridge

1981;

Protash

and

Baldassare

1983;

Cox

1984;

Logan

and

Zhou

1990).

Finally,

a

number

of

scholars

see

competition

over

the

use

and

control

of

land

as

a

core

social

process,

by

which

the

very

sub-field

of

urban

analysis

can

be

defined

(Williams

1971;

Neiman

1975;

Gottdiener

1985).

This

literature

highlights

the

tension

between

the

usual

dominance

in

local

policymaking

of

relatively

insulated

development-oriented

elites,

and

the

episodic

movement

against

growth

in

many

areas

that

has

spawned

slow-growth

policies.

One

question

which

emerges

from

this

tension

involves

the

extent

which

citizen

mobilization

against

growth

may

structure

what

cities

actually

do

to

control

growth.

Since

the

mid

1970s,

a

range

of

growth

control

policies

has

become

common

in

many

suburban

regions

(Dowall

1984;

Scott,

Brower

and

Miner

1975).

The

observation

that

many

communities

are

hostile

to

development,

or

make

it

difficult

for

new

development

to

occur

is

not

new

(Babcock

and

Bosselman

1973;

Siegan

1972).

However,

our

knowledge

about

the

process

behind

the

adoption

of

these

controls

is

limited.

Previous

studies

652

have

established

that

participation

in

local

politics

has

a

direct

status-

bias,

noting

that

higher

status

groups

are

more

likely

to

form

local

political

associations

and

participate

in

local

politics

(Guest

and

Oropesa

1984).

Additional

research

has

demonstrated

an

association

between

upper

status

communities

and

the

adoption

of

restrictions

on

develop-

ment

(Baldassare

and

Protash

1982).

Less

is

known

about

how

levels

of

citizen

mobilization

may,

directly

or

indirectly,

translate

social-

group

pressures

into

variations

in

policy

outcomes.

Measures

of

citizen

mobilization

in

previous

studies

are

typically

indirect,

surrogate

indicators

of actual

citizen

mobilization

and

conflict

in

the

process

of

local

growth

politics,

and

thus

may

give

us

only

a

faint

portrait

of

the

influence

that

citizens

had

in

forming

policy.

Without

details

of

how

different

political

actors

influence

the

formation

of

local

policy,

empirical

demonstration

of

a

link

between

social

group

presence

and

a

growth-restrictive

policy

does

not

necessarily

establish

that

mobil-

ization

against

growth

generated

such

linkages.

In

some

cities

local

legislatures

might

simply

mirror

the

preferences

of

the

citizenry,

re-

sulting

in

pro-growth

or

anti-growth

policies

independently

of

citizen

mobilization.

This

study

examines

how

differences

in

local

policy

processes

can

be

associated

with

local

growth

policies.

We

test

whether

citizen

activ-

ity

structures

the

content

of

local

growth

policies

and,

if

so,

whether

the

resulting

policies

are

more

likely

to

be

regulatory,

distributive,

or

redistributive.

By

focusing

upon

the

residential

development

policies

of

147

municipalities

in

southern

California,

a

number

of

hypotheses

regarding

the

causes

of

increased

restrictiveness

of

residential

controls

can

be

examined.

These

hypotheses

incorporate

not

only

traditional

status-based

explanations

regarding

the

etiology

of

local

development

disputes,

but

also

draw

on

a

more

general

community

conflict

frame-

work

to

account

for

inter-community

differences

in

residential

restric-

tiveness.

We

test

the

hypothesis

that

regulation

of

residential

develop-

ment

will

be

more

extensive

in

those

cities

where

citizen

mobilization

against

growth

is

greatest.

The

determinants

of

conflict

and

mobiliza-

tion

over

residential

development

issues

are

also

examined.

OVERVIEW:

CITIZEN

MOBILIZATION

AND

LOCAL

PUBLIC

POLICY

The

question

of

how

citizen

discontent

with

growth

translates

into

tangible

policy

outcomes

has

been

addressed

traditionally

as

one

of

a

series

of

hypotheses

tested

by

comparing

the

incidence

of

growth

con-