Abstract Building codes designed to protect public safety from substandard construction may stifle efforts to revitalize urban areas by increasing the cost of renovating and reusing existing buildings. To remedy this problem, several states have adopted “smart building codes” to spur the renovation of older buildings. This article examines the impact of the first of these, New Jersey's rehabilitation subcode, on residential rehabilitation activity. Comparing residential rehabilitation activity in a sample of New Jersey jurisdictions with that in a sample of jurisdictions in nearby states without smart codes reveals that the subcode has increased the number of housing units rehabilitated, but not the aggregate value of rehabilitation activity. Localities enhance the positive effects of the New Jersey rehabilitation subcode when they allow building inspectors to use their discretion to remove additional barriers to rehabilitation that are difficult to foresee in a uniform state code.
[1]
Charles G. Field,et al.
The building code burden
,
1975
.
[2]
Raymond J. Burby,et al.
Making Sense Out of Regulatory Enforcement
,
1998
.
[3]
Anthony Downs,et al.
The advisory commission on regulatory barriers to affordable housing: Its behavior and accomplishments
,
1991
.
[4]
John Braithwaite,et al.
Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate
,
1992
.
[5]
Matt Syal.
IMPLEMENTING A BUILDING REHABILITATION CODE IN MICHIGAN
,
2005
.
[6]
P. May.
Regulatory Implementation: Examining Barriers From Regulatory Processes
,
2004
.
[7]
Michael H. Schill.
Regulations and Housing Development: What We Know and What We Need to Know
,
2004
.
[8]
Raymond J. Burby,et al.
Building Code Enforcement Burdens and Central City Decline
,
2000
.