Land use regulation may affect housing prices through housing supply and demand, but the empirical literature conflates both effects and finds wide variation in the estimated impact. We disentangle three channels through which regulation may affect housing prices: the production channel through housing supply, the amenity channel through housing demand, and the general equilibrium (GE) channel that captures price feedback effects on location choice. We develop a GE model with households’ choices on consumption and location and with housing developers’ choice on housing production. Our theoretical model delivers a closed-form solution to the equilibrium prices and a simple form of the estimation equations. Using property transaction-assessment data from 1993 to 2017 in California and a regulatory index compiled from the Wharton Residential Land Use Survey (Gyourko, Saiz and Summers, 2008), we structurally estimate and disentangle the supply and demand-side effects. We find that the regulatory impact on housing prices through the production channel is much stronger than the amenity channel (4.38% vs 0.32% if referenced to the average city in California) and is heterogeneous across cities. The relationship still holds, even when the GE effects are included in the two channels (3.24% vs 0.27%). The total effect of regulation will be 4 times larger, if referenced to the average regulation in the US. Our estimations point out the key roles of structural characteristics of housing and macroeconomic conditions in the prediction of housing prices. Estimations without quality adjustment underestimate land regulation’s impact on prices. Additionally, we examine the within-MSA regulatory interdependence and find significant and positive spillover effects of regulation on housing prices. Estimations without spillover consideration underestimate the regulatory impact on prices.
1010 Affordable Housing Amazon Amenitization Architecture Artificial Intelligence Asia Australia automation Autonomous Vehicles bonds Borrowing Constraints Brexit California Canada Capital Business China Co-Working Environment coastal markets cold storage Colombia Commercial Brokerage Commercial Real Estate commissions Congestion consumer bias covid-19 CRE credit card market Credit Default Swaps Credit Insurance Credit Risk Transfers Culture Data Analytics data centers Data Collection Technology Debt Market Demand Demographics Density Development Discrete Choice disruption Diversity drones e-Commerce Economic Corridors economic policy economics education election studies Equity Funds Equity Market Ethnic Factors Europe Fannie Mae financial asset management Foreclosures Foreign Policy France Freddie Mac general equilibrium Global global economy Global Financial Crisis Globalization great depression Great Recession healthy buildings Hedonic hospitality Housing & Residential housing boom Housing Disease housing prices Housing Supply Identity Income Inequality India inflation Inter-generational mobility interest rates Investing jobs labor market Lagging Regions land use regulation Language life sciences Macroeconomics malls Market Pricing megacities Microeconomics Migration Minimum Payments Mixed-Use Mobility moral hazard mortgage insurance mortgage market Mortgage Rates Mortgages Multi-family Nation Building Non-Traditional Mortgages Office Market office sector pension funds Placed Based Policies Political Risk Price Discovery Private Equity Business public health public policy Public Schools real estate brokerage Real Estate Investment Real Estate Investment Trusts Recession Rental Retail Retirement reverse mortgages Risk Adjustment risk management risk-shifting robotics single family housing Slums Sorting South America Spatial Regions spillover effect stimulus package Sub-Prime Mortgages Sustainability Technology telecommunications trade transportation unemployment United States Urban Urbanization Warehouse welfare work from home