Charles Tiebout,’s influential 1956 paper, “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures", hypothesized that people, “vote with their feet”; by deciding which town to live in by the amenities provided given taxes and other constraints.
At the same time, many municipalities have erected zoning and other barriers to prevent or minimize “affordable housing”; housing not for very poor people, rather for middle-class income earners, such as policeman, fireman, utility workers – the backbone workers of a community.
What started as a local legal matter nine years ago regarding the exclusion of minorities to purchase affordable housing in 31 out of 42, primarily white and upper income neighborhoods has percolated to a federal matter involving the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the appointment of a Federal Monitor as part of a Consent Decree to build, construct and market 750 affordable homes in these 31 communities.
This paper traces the ethical and moral reasons for municipalities providing affordable housing. Next, it synthesizes the major legal and national legislation pieces related to affordable housing and exclusionary practices. Next, the author collected Capital Budget Financial data for nearly all the municipalities in Westchester County to determine if there is a “supply side motivation” to the Tiebout Hypothesis. In other words, “Do the communities cited for exclusion invest more in “positive public goods” (parks, libraries, community centers) versus “negative public goods” (sewer systems, waste disposal) and “neutral public goods” (fire trucks, Department of Maintenance tools and vehicles). Finally, we investigate inclusionary land practices in Westchester County, NY.
Keywords: inclusion, exclusion, zoning, public goods, neighborhood effects, Tiebout model