Many people have argued that inclusionary housing (IH) is a desirable
land use strategy to address lower-income housing needs and to further
the geographic dispersal of the lower-income population. In an attemp
t to evaluate the effectiveness of IH, this article examines the exper
iences of New Jersey and California, two states where IH has been appl
ied frequently over an extended period. While the concept of regional
''fair share'' is central to both states' experiences, the origins of
the programs, their applications, and their evolutions are quite dissi
milar. IH originated in New Jersey from the famous Mount Laurel cases
and in California from housing affordability crises and a legislativel
y mandated housing element. The experiences of both states indicate th
at IH can and should be part of an overall affordable housing strategy
but that it is unlikely to become the core of such a strategy.