🕷️ Crawler Inspector

URL Lookup

Direct Parameter Lookup

Raw Queries and Responses

1. Shard Calculation

Query:

Response:

Calculated Shard: 46 (from laksa108)

2. Crawled Status Check

Query:

curl -X POST \
  'http://laksa046.int.ahrefs:8124/' \
  -H 'Content-Type: text/plain' \
  -H 'X-ClickHouse-Database: crawler3' \
  -H 'Authorization: Basic YXBpOg==' \
  -d 'SELECT getAhrefsURLFromUnparsed(src_unparsed) AS found_url, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(download_stamp), 0) AS crawl_time, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(props_url_first_seen), 0) AS first_indexed_time, download_http_code AS http_code, src_unparsed AS src_unparsed, src_root_hash AS src_root_hash, history_drop_reason AS history_drop_reason, meta_title AS meta_title, meta_descriptions AS meta_descriptions, attrs_boilerpipe_text AS attrs_boilerpipe_text, attrs_markdown AS attrs_markdown, attrs_readable_markdown AS attrs_readable_markdown, meta_canonical AS meta_canonical FROM crawler3.page_info_local FINAL PREWHERE (src_root_hash, src_unparsed) IN ((getAhrefsRootHashFromUnparsed(getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://cayimby.org/blog/the-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot/\')), getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://cayimby.org/blog/the-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot/\'))) FORMAT JSONEachRow'

Response:

{"found_url":"https:\/\/cayimby.org\/blog\/the-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot\/","crawl_time":1776083559,"first_indexed_time":1697452680,"http_code":200,"src_unparsed":"org,cayimby!\/blog\/the-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot\/ s443","src_root_hash":"16344693300791364446","history_drop_reason":null,"meta_title":"The Impact of Minimums: A Little, or a Lot? - California YIMBY","meta_descriptions":[],"attrs_boilerpipe_text":"Blog\nDecember 15, 2020\nA new\nworking pape\nr\nanalyzes an oft-forgotten aspect of land-use policy: The impact on affordability of minimum lot sizes, which cities use to set the smallest allowable square footage for individual parcels of land. This seemingly minor detail can have a huge impact on spatial segregation and economic inequality, as Amrita Kulka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison finds.\nKulka (2020) poses a simple yet powerful hypothesis: “By imposing different housing consumption floors across neighborhoods, minimum lot sizes can potentially distort the location decisions of households.”\nKey findings:\nHigher minimum lot sizes result in higher-income neighborhoods. Specifically, data from Wake County, NC showed that “a decrease in the allowed density by one dwelling unit per acre implies an increase in average neighborhood income by 4.5%”\nNeighborhoods that mandate larger lots also see higher house prices. On average, the study finds “lots are 19% larger and houses 7.5% more expensive on the more regulated side of a minimum lot size boundary.”\nBig lots are themselves a luxury amenity. By modeling households’ neighborhood choices, the paper estimates that relaxed minimum lot standards (allowing more homes per acre) would open up high-amenity neighborhoods to middle class residents.\nA large body of research examines land-use regulations and their impact on segregation in California. So far, most research has focused on\nzoned capacity\n, the\npermitting process\n, or the\noverall stringency\nof regulations contributing to racial and class segregation. The evidence on permitted homes per parcel is clear, but Kulka (2020) studies a particularly powerful variable: permitted lots per acre, or minimum lot sizes.\nKulka focuses on Wake County in North Carolina, home to the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area. This region, not unlike some in California, is undergoing a devastating housing crisis exacerbated by longstanding patterns of racial segregation. Not coincidentally, it also ranks higher than the average US city on the Wharton Residential Land Use Index (WRLUI), a measure of land-use regulation stringency. Kulka compiles data from Zillow and public mortgage data from the region to compare race and income factors with lot sizes, and comparing actual lot sizes with allowed minimum lot sizes.\nComparing this evidence with Census data, Kulka finds that larger minimum lot sizes correlate strongly with higher incomes in Wake County. Here’s what that looks like:\nNext, Kulka gathers administrative data from local public schools, including free and reduced lunches, to examine and model the effect of minimum lot sizes on neighborhood choices. Kulka uses a boundary discontinuity design to isolate the effect of lot sizes from other regulations and control for other factors that limit housing choices. “In the cleanest possible scenario,” Kulka explains, “I would compare two houses on either side of a street, where the regulation boundary coincides with a neighborhood street, i.e. the house on one side of the street is regulated with a higher minimum lot size\/ lower density and the house on the other side is regulated less strictly with a lower minimum lot size\/ higher density.” In lieu of such neat and perfectly controlled boundaries, other factors such as school attendance and amenities are also measured.\nIn rough summary, Kulka’s evidence does suggest that permitted density has a strong effect on household spatial sorting by income: “at a boundary where one side allows one dwelling unit per acre less than the other, sorting on income is about $4,000.” The average amount a household borrows for a mortgage also increases by 3% at this boundary.\nWhat if, all else equal, minimum lot standards were relaxed, allowing for more homes per acre? Of course, “all else equal” sets a high evidentiary standard for social scientists. But with all these variables in play, Kulka is able to model several counterfactuals.\nKulka sets up a static neighborhood choice model to estimate households’ living choices based on “land consumption,” or the size of the lot they choose, and consumption of other amenities, as their budget may allow. “While this behavior does not correspond to the reality,” Kulka explains, “it approximates the behavior of a household with children picking a neighborhood to live in for the duration of their children’s school education.”\nThe results from Kulka’s county-level analysis mirror the modeling closely: a larger fraction of households earning below median income tend to prefer neighborhoods with smaller lot sizes. Here’s what that looks like:\nKulka simulates two counterfactuals: reductions in minimum lot sizes, and vacant land zoned for residential neighborhoods. In both of these simulations, the results suggest “that small, localized reductions in the minimum lot size can lead to desirable neighborhoods being more affordable to lower income households that value amenities highly” and, furthermore, “that the affordability of vacant land will depend on the minimum lot size relative to the available amount of land that is to be zoned.”\nSpecifically, households earning the county’s median annual income of $75,000 value high-amenity neighborhoods and will spend more to live in them if minimum lot sizes are reduced to make homes more affordable there. Affluent neighborhoods with high-quality amenities such as schools and parks could see more socioeconomic integration if they try this one weird trick.","attrs_markdown":"[Skip to content](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/blog\/the-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot\/#content)\n\n1. [About Us](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/about-us\/)\n   Show submenu for “About Us”\n   1. [Our Team](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/our-team\/)\n   2. [Our Impact](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/our-impact\/)\n   3. [Our Mission](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/our-mission\/)\n   4. [Careers](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/careers\/)\n   5. [Victory Fund](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/victory-fund\/)\n2. [Legislation](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/legislation\/)\n   Show submenu for “Legislation”\n   1. [2026 Legislation](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/2026-legislation\/)\n   2. [Past Legislation](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/legislation\/)\n3. [Resources](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/resource-dashboard\/)\n   Show submenu for “Resources”\n   1. [Research](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/research\/)\n      1. [Maps](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/maps\/)\n      2. [Reports](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/reports\/)\n   2. [Endorsements](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/endorsements\/)\n      1. [2026 Governor’s Forum](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/2026-governors-forum-sf\/)\n   3. [Policy Framework](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/resources\/policy-framework\/)\n   4. [Metropolitan Abundance Project](https:\/\/www.metroabundance.org\/)\n4. [News & Events](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/news-events\/)\n   Show submenu for “News & Events”\n   1. [Blog](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/blog\/)\n   2. [Homework Newsletter](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/the-homework-newsletter\/)\n   3. [Press Releases](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/news-events\/press-releases\/)\n   4. [Abundance Podcast](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/news-events\/abundance-podcast\/)\n5. [Shop](https:\/\/california-yimby.myshopify.com\/)\n\nOpen search\n\nClose search\n\n1. [DonateOpens in a new window](https:\/\/secure.actblue.com\/donate\/victoryfund-framers-main)\n2. [Action Hub](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/action-hub\/)\n   Show submenu for “Action Hub”\n   1. [Events Calendar](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/events-calendar\/)\n   2. [Take Action](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/take-action\/)\n   3. [Take Local Action](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/take-local-action\/)\n   4. [Ways to Give](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/waystogive\/)\n\n[Site Menu Close Menu](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/blog\/the-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot\/#primary-footer-menu-section)\n\nBlog\n\n# The Impact of Minimums: A Little, or a Lot?\nDecember 15, 2020\n\nShare\n\n- [Share this page on Twitter](https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcayimby.org%2Fblog%2Fthe-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot%2F&text=The+Impact+of+Minimums%3A+A+Little%2C+or+%3Cspan+class%3D%22dewidow%22%3Ea+Lot%3F%3C%2Fspan%3E)\n- [Share this page on Facebook](https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcayimby.org%2Fblog%2Fthe-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot%2F&t=The%20Impact%20of%20Minimums:%20A%20Little,%20or%20a%20Lot?)\n- [Share this page via Email](mailto:?subject=The+Impact+of+Minimums%3A+A+Little%2C+or+%3Cspan+class%3D%22dewidow%22%3Ea+Lot%3F%3C%2Fspan%3E+-+California+YIMBY&body=https%3A%2F%2Fcayimby.org%2Fblog%2Fthe-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot%2F \"Share this page via Email\")\n\nA new **[working paper](https:\/\/drive.google.com\/file\/d\/1Wr8T687wz-jVVMEVWoZCQXB53pxCM5hK\/view)** analyzes an oft-forgotten aspect of land-use policy: The impact on affordability of minimum lot sizes, which cities use to set the smallest allowable square footage for individual parcels of land. This seemingly minor detail can have a huge impact on spatial segregation and economic inequality, as Amrita Kulka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison finds.\n\nKulka (2020) poses a simple yet powerful hypothesis: “By imposing different housing consumption floors across neighborhoods, minimum lot sizes can potentially distort the location decisions of households.”\n\nKey findings:\n\n1. Higher minimum lot sizes result in higher-income neighborhoods. Specifically, data from Wake County, NC showed that “a decrease in the allowed density by one dwelling unit per acre implies an increase in average neighborhood income by 4.5%”\n2. Neighborhoods that mandate larger lots also see higher house prices. On average, the study finds “lots are 19% larger and houses 7.5% more expensive on the more regulated side of a minimum lot size boundary.”\n3. Big lots are themselves a luxury amenity. By modeling households’ neighborhood choices, the paper estimates that relaxed minimum lot standards (allowing more homes per acre) would open up high-amenity neighborhoods to middle class residents.\n\nA large body of research examines land-use regulations and their impact on segregation in California. So far, most research has focused on [**zoned capacity**](https:\/\/dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io\/how-legalizing-homes-can-integrate-the-bay-area\/), the [**permitting process**](https:\/\/dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io\/california-room-build-faster\/), or the [**overall stringency**](https:\/\/dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io\/local-control-5-decades-of-segregation\/) of regulations contributing to racial and class segregation. The evidence on permitted homes per parcel is clear, but Kulka (2020) studies a particularly powerful variable: permitted lots per acre, or minimum lot sizes.\n\nKulka focuses on Wake County in North Carolina, home to the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area. This region, not unlike some in California, is undergoing a devastating housing crisis exacerbated by longstanding patterns of racial segregation. Not coincidentally, it also ranks higher than the average US city on the Wharton Residential Land Use Index (WRLUI), a measure of land-use regulation stringency. Kulka compiles data from Zillow and public mortgage data from the region to compare race and income factors with lot sizes, and comparing actual lot sizes with allowed minimum lot sizes.\n\nComparing this evidence with Census data, Kulka finds that larger minimum lot sizes correlate strongly with higher incomes in Wake County. Here’s what that looks like:\n\n![A histogram of density levels associated with different median household incomes](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/graph-1.png)\n\nNext, Kulka gathers administrative data from local public schools, including free and reduced lunches, to examine and model the effect of minimum lot sizes on neighborhood choices. Kulka uses a boundary discontinuity design to isolate the effect of lot sizes from other regulations and control for other factors that limit housing choices. “In the cleanest possible scenario,” Kulka explains, “I would compare two houses on either side of a street, where the regulation boundary coincides with a neighborhood street, i.e. the house on one side of the street is regulated with a higher minimum lot size\/ lower density and the house on the other side is regulated less strictly with a lower minimum lot size\/ higher density.” In lieu of such neat and perfectly controlled boundaries, other factors such as school attendance and amenities are also measured.\n\nIn rough summary, Kulka’s evidence does suggest that permitted density has a strong effect on household spatial sorting by income: “at a boundary where one side allows one dwelling unit per acre less than the other, sorting on income is about \\$4,000.” The average amount a household borrows for a mortgage also increases by 3% at this boundary.\n\nWhat if, all else equal, minimum lot standards were relaxed, allowing for more homes per acre? Of course, “all else equal” sets a high evidentiary standard for social scientists. But with all these variables in play, Kulka is able to model several counterfactuals.  \n Kulka sets up a static neighborhood choice model to estimate households’ living choices based on “land consumption,” or the size of the lot they choose, and consumption of other amenities, as their budget may allow. “While this behavior does not correspond to the reality,” Kulka explains, “it approximates the behavior of a household with children picking a neighborhood to live in for the duration of their children’s school education.”\n\nThe results from Kulka’s county-level analysis mirror the modeling closely: a larger fraction of households earning below median income tend to prefer neighborhoods with smaller lot sizes. Here’s what that looks like:\n\n![A histogram charting households below median income by minimum lot size](https:\/\/dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/pasted-image-0-1024x488.png)\n\nKulka simulates two counterfactuals: reductions in minimum lot sizes, and vacant land zoned for residential neighborhoods. In both of these simulations, the results suggest “that small, localized reductions in the minimum lot size can lead to desirable neighborhoods being more affordable to lower income households that value amenities highly” and, furthermore, “that the affordability of vacant land will depend on the minimum lot size relative to the available amount of land that is to be zoned.”\n\nSpecifically, households earning the county’s median annual income of \\$75,000 value high-amenity neighborhoods and will spend more to live in them if minimum lot sizes are reduced to make homes more affordable there. Affluent neighborhoods with high-quality amenities such as schools and parks could see more socioeconomic integration if they try this one weird trick.\n\n#### Sign Up for Our Newsletter\nReceive legislative updates, news clips, housing research and analysis, and the latest writings from the California YIMBY team.\n\n#### Help Us Legalize More Homes\nTogether we can get California back on a path of broad-based economic prosperity and create vibrant, inclusive, and livable communities for everyone.\n\n1. [About Us](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/about-us\/)\n   1. [Our Team](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/our-team\/)\n   2. [Our Impact](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/our-impact\/)\n   3. [Our Mission](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/our-mission\/)\n   4. [Careers](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/careers\/)\n2. Legislation\n   1. [2026 Legislation](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/2026-legislation\/)\n   2. [2025 Legislation](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/2025-legislation\/)\n   3. [Past Legislation](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/legislation\/)\n3. Resources\n   1. [Metropolitan Abundance Project](http:\/\/metroabundance.org\/)\n   2. [Endorsements](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/endorsements\/)\n4. [News & Events](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/news-events\/)\n   1. [Blog](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/blog\/)\n   2. [Homework Newsletter](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/the-homework-newsletter\/)\n   3. [Abundance Podcast](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/news-events\/abundance-podcast\/)\n   4. [Press Releases](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/news-events\/press-releases\/)\n5. [Research](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/research\/)\n   1. [Maps](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/maps\/)\n   2. [Reports](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/reports\/)\n   3. [Research Bounty](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/?page_id=811)\n6. [Action Hub](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/action-hub\/)\n   1. [Shop](https:\/\/california-yimby.myshopify.com\/)\n   2. [Take Action](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/take-action\/)\n   3. [Take Local Action](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/take-local-action\/)\n   4. [Ways to Give](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/waystogive\/)\n\nSocials\n\n- [Link to twitter](http:\/\/www.twitter.com\/cayimby)\n- [Link to facebook](http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/cayimby)\n- [Link to instagram](http:\/\/www.instagram.com\/cayimby)\n- [Link to tiktok](https:\/\/www.tiktok.com\/@cayimby)\n- [Link to youtube](https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCOTemRubNPlYxrQkQl2jPMA)\n\nCopyright © Paid for by California YIMBY, A 501(c)4 Non-Profit Organization\n\n2023–2026\n\n## Mobile Menu Overlay\n1. [About Us](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/about-us\/)\n   Trigger submenu: About Us\n   - [Our Team](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/our-team\/)\n   - [Our Impact](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/our-impact\/)\n   - [Our Mission](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/our-mission\/)\n   - [Careers](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/careers\/)\n   - [Victory Fund](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/victory-fund\/)\n2. [Legislation](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/legislation\/)\n   Trigger submenu: Legislation\n   - [2026 Legislation](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/2026-legislation\/)\n   - [Past Legislation](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/legislation\/)\n3. [Resources](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/resource-dashboard\/)\n   Trigger submenu: Resources\n   - [Research](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/research\/)\n     Trigger submenu: Research\n     - [Maps](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/maps\/)\n     - [Reports](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/reports\/)\n   - [Endorsements](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/endorsements\/)\n     Trigger submenu: Endorsements\n     - [2026 Governor's Forum](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/2026-governors-forum-sf\/)\n   - [Policy Framework](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/resources\/policy-framework\/)\n   - [Metropolitan Abundance Project](https:\/\/www.metroabundance.org\/)\n4. [News & Events](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/news-events\/)\n   Trigger submenu: News & Events\n   - [Blog](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/blog\/)\n   - [Homework Newsletter](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/the-homework-newsletter\/)\n   - [Press Releases](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/news-events\/press-releases\/)\n   - [Abundance Podcast](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/news-events\/abundance-podcast\/)\n5. [Shop](https:\/\/california-yimby.myshopify.com\/)\n\n1. [Donate](https:\/\/secure.actblue.com\/donate\/victoryfund-framers-main)\n2. [Action Hub](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/action-hub\/)\n   Trigger submenu: Action Hub\n   - [Events Calendar](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/events-calendar\/)\n   - [Take Action](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/take-action\/)\n   - [Take Local Action](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/take-local-action\/)\n   - [Ways to Give](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/waystogive\/)","attrs_readable_markdown":"Blog\n\nDecember 15, 2020\n\nA new **[working paper](https:\/\/drive.google.com\/file\/d\/1Wr8T687wz-jVVMEVWoZCQXB53pxCM5hK\/view)** analyzes an oft-forgotten aspect of land-use policy: The impact on affordability of minimum lot sizes, which cities use to set the smallest allowable square footage for individual parcels of land. This seemingly minor detail can have a huge impact on spatial segregation and economic inequality, as Amrita Kulka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison finds.\n\nKulka (2020) poses a simple yet powerful hypothesis: “By imposing different housing consumption floors across neighborhoods, minimum lot sizes can potentially distort the location decisions of households.”\n\nKey findings:\n\n1. Higher minimum lot sizes result in higher-income neighborhoods. Specifically, data from Wake County, NC showed that “a decrease in the allowed density by one dwelling unit per acre implies an increase in average neighborhood income by 4.5%”\n2. Neighborhoods that mandate larger lots also see higher house prices. On average, the study finds “lots are 19% larger and houses 7.5% more expensive on the more regulated side of a minimum lot size boundary.”\n3. Big lots are themselves a luxury amenity. By modeling households’ neighborhood choices, the paper estimates that relaxed minimum lot standards (allowing more homes per acre) would open up high-amenity neighborhoods to middle class residents.\n\nA large body of research examines land-use regulations and their impact on segregation in California. So far, most research has focused on [**zoned capacity**](https:\/\/dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io\/how-legalizing-homes-can-integrate-the-bay-area\/), the [**permitting process**](https:\/\/dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io\/california-room-build-faster\/), or the [**overall stringency**](https:\/\/dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io\/local-control-5-decades-of-segregation\/) of regulations contributing to racial and class segregation. The evidence on permitted homes per parcel is clear, but Kulka (2020) studies a particularly powerful variable: permitted lots per acre, or minimum lot sizes.\n\nKulka focuses on Wake County in North Carolina, home to the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area. This region, not unlike some in California, is undergoing a devastating housing crisis exacerbated by longstanding patterns of racial segregation. Not coincidentally, it also ranks higher than the average US city on the Wharton Residential Land Use Index (WRLUI), a measure of land-use regulation stringency. Kulka compiles data from Zillow and public mortgage data from the region to compare race and income factors with lot sizes, and comparing actual lot sizes with allowed minimum lot sizes.\n\nComparing this evidence with Census data, Kulka finds that larger minimum lot sizes correlate strongly with higher incomes in Wake County. Here’s what that looks like:\n\n![A histogram of density levels associated with different median household incomes](https:\/\/cayimby.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/graph-1.png)\n\nNext, Kulka gathers administrative data from local public schools, including free and reduced lunches, to examine and model the effect of minimum lot sizes on neighborhood choices. Kulka uses a boundary discontinuity design to isolate the effect of lot sizes from other regulations and control for other factors that limit housing choices. “In the cleanest possible scenario,” Kulka explains, “I would compare two houses on either side of a street, where the regulation boundary coincides with a neighborhood street, i.e. the house on one side of the street is regulated with a higher minimum lot size\/ lower density and the house on the other side is regulated less strictly with a lower minimum lot size\/ higher density.” In lieu of such neat and perfectly controlled boundaries, other factors such as school attendance and amenities are also measured.\n\nIn rough summary, Kulka’s evidence does suggest that permitted density has a strong effect on household spatial sorting by income: “at a boundary where one side allows one dwelling unit per acre less than the other, sorting on income is about \\$4,000.” The average amount a household borrows for a mortgage also increases by 3% at this boundary.\n\nWhat if, all else equal, minimum lot standards were relaxed, allowing for more homes per acre? Of course, “all else equal” sets a high evidentiary standard for social scientists. But with all these variables in play, Kulka is able to model several counterfactuals.  \n Kulka sets up a static neighborhood choice model to estimate households’ living choices based on “land consumption,” or the size of the lot they choose, and consumption of other amenities, as their budget may allow. “While this behavior does not correspond to the reality,” Kulka explains, “it approximates the behavior of a household with children picking a neighborhood to live in for the duration of their children’s school education.”\n\nThe results from Kulka’s county-level analysis mirror the modeling closely: a larger fraction of households earning below median income tend to prefer neighborhoods with smaller lot sizes. Here’s what that looks like:\n\n![A histogram charting households below median income by minimum lot size](https:\/\/dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/pasted-image-0-1024x488.png)\n\nKulka simulates two counterfactuals: reductions in minimum lot sizes, and vacant land zoned for residential neighborhoods. In both of these simulations, the results suggest “that small, localized reductions in the minimum lot size can lead to desirable neighborhoods being more affordable to lower income households that value amenities highly” and, furthermore, “that the affordability of vacant land will depend on the minimum lot size relative to the available amount of land that is to be zoned.”\n\nSpecifically, households earning the county’s median annual income of \\$75,000 value high-amenity neighborhoods and will spend more to live in them if minimum lot sizes are reduced to make homes more affordable there. Affluent neighborhoods with high-quality amenities such as schools and parks could see more socioeconomic integration if they try this one weird trick.","meta_canonical":null}

3. Robots.txt Check

Query:

Response:

4. Spam/Ban Check

Query:

Response:

5. Seen Status Check

ℹ️ Skipped - page is already crawled

📄

INDEXABLE

✅

CRAWLED

2 days ago

🤖

ROBOTS ALLOWED

Page Info Filters

Filter	Status	Condition	Details
HTTP status	PASS	`download_http_code = 200`	HTTP 200
Age cutoff	PASS	`download_stamp > now() - 6 MONTH`	0.1 months ago
History drop	PASS	`isNull(history_drop_reason)`	No drop reason
Spam/ban	PASS	`fh_dont_index != 1 AND ml_spam_score = 0`	ml_spam_score=0
Canonical	PASS	`meta_canonical IS NULL OR = '' OR = src_unparsed`	Not set

Page Details

Property	Value
URL	https://cayimby.org/blog/the-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot/
Last Crawled	2026-04-13 12:32:39 (2 days ago)
First Indexed	2023-10-16 10:38:00 (2 years ago)
HTTP Status Code	200
Meta Title	The Impact of Minimums: A Little, or a Lot? - California YIMBY
Meta Description	null
Meta Canonical	null
Boilerpipe Text	Blog December 15, 2020 A new working pape r analyzes an oft-forgotten aspect of land-use policy: The impact on affordability of minimum lot sizes, which cities use to set the smallest allowable square footage for individual parcels of land. This seemingly minor detail can have a huge impact on spatial segregation and economic inequality, as Amrita Kulka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison finds. Kulka (2020) poses a simple yet powerful hypothesis: “By imposing different housing consumption floors across neighborhoods, minimum lot sizes can potentially distort the location decisions of households.” Key findings: Higher minimum lot sizes result in higher-income neighborhoods. Specifically, data from Wake County, NC showed that “a decrease in the allowed density by one dwelling unit per acre implies an increase in average neighborhood income by 4.5%” Neighborhoods that mandate larger lots also see higher house prices. On average, the study finds “lots are 19% larger and houses 7.5% more expensive on the more regulated side of a minimum lot size boundary.” Big lots are themselves a luxury amenity. By modeling households’ neighborhood choices, the paper estimates that relaxed minimum lot standards (allowing more homes per acre) would open up high-amenity neighborhoods to middle class residents. A large body of research examines land-use regulations and their impact on segregation in California. So far, most research has focused on zoned capacity , the permitting process , or the overall stringency of regulations contributing to racial and class segregation. The evidence on permitted homes per parcel is clear, but Kulka (2020) studies a particularly powerful variable: permitted lots per acre, or minimum lot sizes. Kulka focuses on Wake County in North Carolina, home to the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area. This region, not unlike some in California, is undergoing a devastating housing crisis exacerbated by longstanding patterns of racial segregation. Not coincidentally, it also ranks higher than the average US city on the Wharton Residential Land Use Index (WRLUI), a measure of land-use regulation stringency. Kulka compiles data from Zillow and public mortgage data from the region to compare race and income factors with lot sizes, and comparing actual lot sizes with allowed minimum lot sizes. Comparing this evidence with Census data, Kulka finds that larger minimum lot sizes correlate strongly with higher incomes in Wake County. Here’s what that looks like: Next, Kulka gathers administrative data from local public schools, including free and reduced lunches, to examine and model the effect of minimum lot sizes on neighborhood choices. Kulka uses a boundary discontinuity design to isolate the effect of lot sizes from other regulations and control for other factors that limit housing choices. “In the cleanest possible scenario,” Kulka explains, “I would compare two houses on either side of a street, where the regulation boundary coincides with a neighborhood street, i.e. the house on one side of the street is regulated with a higher minimum lot size/ lower density and the house on the other side is regulated less strictly with a lower minimum lot size/ higher density.” In lieu of such neat and perfectly controlled boundaries, other factors such as school attendance and amenities are also measured. In rough summary, Kulka’s evidence does suggest that permitted density has a strong effect on household spatial sorting by income: “at a boundary where one side allows one dwelling unit per acre less than the other, sorting on income is about $4,000.” The average amount a household borrows for a mortgage also increases by 3% at this boundary. What if, all else equal, minimum lot standards were relaxed, allowing for more homes per acre? Of course, “all else equal” sets a high evidentiary standard for social scientists. But with all these variables in play, Kulka is able to model several counterfactuals. Kulka sets up a static neighborhood choice model to estimate households’ living choices based on “land consumption,” or the size of the lot they choose, and consumption of other amenities, as their budget may allow. “While this behavior does not correspond to the reality,” Kulka explains, “it approximates the behavior of a household with children picking a neighborhood to live in for the duration of their children’s school education.” The results from Kulka’s county-level analysis mirror the modeling closely: a larger fraction of households earning below median income tend to prefer neighborhoods with smaller lot sizes. Here’s what that looks like: Kulka simulates two counterfactuals: reductions in minimum lot sizes, and vacant land zoned for residential neighborhoods. In both of these simulations, the results suggest “that small, localized reductions in the minimum lot size can lead to desirable neighborhoods being more affordable to lower income households that value amenities highly” and, furthermore, “that the affordability of vacant land will depend on the minimum lot size relative to the available amount of land that is to be zoned.” Specifically, households earning the county’s median annual income of $75,000 value high-amenity neighborhoods and will spend more to live in them if minimum lot sizes are reduced to make homes more affordable there. Affluent neighborhoods with high-quality amenities such as schools and parks could see more socioeconomic integration if they try this one weird trick.
Markdown	[Skip to content](https://cayimby.org/blog/the-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot/#content) 1. [About Us](https://cayimby.org/about-us/) Show submenu for “About Us” 1. [Our Team](https://cayimby.org/our-team/) 2. [Our Impact](https://cayimby.org/our-impact/) 3. [Our Mission](https://cayimby.org/our-mission/) 4. [Careers](https://cayimby.org/careers/) 5. [Victory Fund](https://cayimby.org/victory-fund/) 2. [Legislation](https://cayimby.org/legislation/) Show submenu for “Legislation” 1. [2026 Legislation](https://cayimby.org/2026-legislation/) 2. [Past Legislation](https://cayimby.org/legislation/) 3. [Resources](https://cayimby.org/resource-dashboard/) Show submenu for “Resources” 1. [Research](https://cayimby.org/research/) 1. [Maps](https://cayimby.org/maps/) 2. [Reports](https://cayimby.org/reports/) 2. [Endorsements](https://cayimby.org/endorsements/) 1. [2026 Governor’s Forum](https://cayimby.org/2026-governors-forum-sf/) 3. [Policy Framework](https://cayimby.org/resources/policy-framework/) 4. [Metropolitan Abundance Project](https://www.metroabundance.org/) 4. [News & Events](https://cayimby.org/news-events/) Show submenu for “News & Events” 1. [Blog](https://cayimby.org/blog/) 2. [Homework Newsletter](https://cayimby.org/the-homework-newsletter/) 3. [Press Releases](https://cayimby.org/news-events/press-releases/) 4. [Abundance Podcast](https://cayimby.org/news-events/abundance-podcast/) 5. [Shop](https://california-yimby.myshopify.com/) Open search Close search 1. [DonateOpens in a new window](https://secure.actblue.com/donate/victoryfund-framers-main) 2. [Action Hub](https://cayimby.org/action-hub/) Show submenu for “Action Hub” 1. [Events Calendar](https://cayimby.org/events-calendar/) 2. [Take Action](https://cayimby.org/take-action/) 3. [Take Local Action](https://cayimby.org/take-local-action/) 4. [Ways to Give](https://cayimby.org/waystogive/) [Site Menu Close Menu](https://cayimby.org/blog/the-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot/#primary-footer-menu-section) Blog # The Impact of Minimums: A Little, or a Lot? December 15, 2020 Share - [Share this page on Twitter](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcayimby.org%2Fblog%2Fthe-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot%2F&text=The+Impact+of+Minimums%3A+A+Little%2C+or+%3Cspan+class%3D%22dewidow%22%3Ea+Lot%3F%3C%2Fspan%3E) - [Share this page on Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcayimby.org%2Fblog%2Fthe-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot%2F&t=The%20Impact%20of%20Minimums:%20A%20Little,%20or%20a%20Lot?) - [Share this page via Email](mailto:?subject=The+Impact+of+Minimums%3A+A+Little%2C+or+%3Cspan+class%3D%22dewidow%22%3Ea+Lot%3F%3C%2Fspan%3E+-+California+YIMBY&body=https%3A%2F%2Fcayimby.org%2Fblog%2Fthe-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot%2F "Share this page via Email") A new [working paper](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Wr8T687wz-jVVMEVWoZCQXB53pxCM5hK/view) analyzes an oft-forgotten aspect of land-use policy: The impact on affordability of minimum lot sizes, which cities use to set the smallest allowable square footage for individual parcels of land. This seemingly minor detail can have a huge impact on spatial segregation and economic inequality, as Amrita Kulka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison finds. Kulka (2020) poses a simple yet powerful hypothesis: “By imposing different housing consumption floors across neighborhoods, minimum lot sizes can potentially distort the location decisions of households.” Key findings: 1. Higher minimum lot sizes result in higher-income neighborhoods. Specifically, data from Wake County, NC showed that “a decrease in the allowed density by one dwelling unit per acre implies an increase in average neighborhood income by 4.5%” 2. Neighborhoods that mandate larger lots also see higher house prices. On average, the study finds “lots are 19% larger and houses 7.5% more expensive on the more regulated side of a minimum lot size boundary.” 3. Big lots are themselves a luxury amenity. By modeling households’ neighborhood choices, the paper estimates that relaxed minimum lot standards (allowing more homes per acre) would open up high-amenity neighborhoods to middle class residents. A large body of research examines land-use regulations and their impact on segregation in California. So far, most research has focused on [zoned capacity](https://dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io/how-legalizing-homes-can-integrate-the-bay-area/), the [permitting process](https://dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io/california-room-build-faster/), or the [overall stringency](https://dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io/local-control-5-decades-of-segregation/) of regulations contributing to racial and class segregation. The evidence on permitted homes per parcel is clear, but Kulka (2020) studies a particularly powerful variable: permitted lots per acre, or minimum lot sizes. Kulka focuses on Wake County in North Carolina, home to the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area. This region, not unlike some in California, is undergoing a devastating housing crisis exacerbated by longstanding patterns of racial segregation. Not coincidentally, it also ranks higher than the average US city on the Wharton Residential Land Use Index (WRLUI), a measure of land-use regulation stringency. Kulka compiles data from Zillow and public mortgage data from the region to compare race and income factors with lot sizes, and comparing actual lot sizes with allowed minimum lot sizes. Comparing this evidence with Census data, Kulka finds that larger minimum lot sizes correlate strongly with higher incomes in Wake County. Here’s what that looks like: ![A histogram of density levels associated with different median household incomes](https://cayimby.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/graph-1.png) Next, Kulka gathers administrative data from local public schools, including free and reduced lunches, to examine and model the effect of minimum lot sizes on neighborhood choices. Kulka uses a boundary discontinuity design to isolate the effect of lot sizes from other regulations and control for other factors that limit housing choices. “In the cleanest possible scenario,” Kulka explains, “I would compare two houses on either side of a street, where the regulation boundary coincides with a neighborhood street, i.e. the house on one side of the street is regulated with a higher minimum lot size/ lower density and the house on the other side is regulated less strictly with a lower minimum lot size/ higher density.” In lieu of such neat and perfectly controlled boundaries, other factors such as school attendance and amenities are also measured. In rough summary, Kulka’s evidence does suggest that permitted density has a strong effect on household spatial sorting by income: “at a boundary where one side allows one dwelling unit per acre less than the other, sorting on income is about \$4,000.” The average amount a household borrows for a mortgage also increases by 3% at this boundary. What if, all else equal, minimum lot standards were relaxed, allowing for more homes per acre? Of course, “all else equal” sets a high evidentiary standard for social scientists. But with all these variables in play, Kulka is able to model several counterfactuals. Kulka sets up a static neighborhood choice model to estimate households’ living choices based on “land consumption,” or the size of the lot they choose, and consumption of other amenities, as their budget may allow. “While this behavior does not correspond to the reality,” Kulka explains, “it approximates the behavior of a household with children picking a neighborhood to live in for the duration of their children’s school education.” The results from Kulka’s county-level analysis mirror the modeling closely: a larger fraction of households earning below median income tend to prefer neighborhoods with smaller lot sizes. Here’s what that looks like: ![A histogram charting households below median income by minimum lot size](https://dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/pasted-image-0-1024x488.png) Kulka simulates two counterfactuals: reductions in minimum lot sizes, and vacant land zoned for residential neighborhoods. In both of these simulations, the results suggest “that small, localized reductions in the minimum lot size can lead to desirable neighborhoods being more affordable to lower income households that value amenities highly” and, furthermore, “that the affordability of vacant land will depend on the minimum lot size relative to the available amount of land that is to be zoned.” Specifically, households earning the county’s median annual income of \$75,000 value high-amenity neighborhoods and will spend more to live in them if minimum lot sizes are reduced to make homes more affordable there. Affluent neighborhoods with high-quality amenities such as schools and parks could see more socioeconomic integration if they try this one weird trick. #### Sign Up for Our Newsletter Receive legislative updates, news clips, housing research and analysis, and the latest writings from the California YIMBY team. #### Help Us Legalize More Homes Together we can get California back on a path of broad-based economic prosperity and create vibrant, inclusive, and livable communities for everyone. 1. [About Us](https://cayimby.org/about-us/) 1. [Our Team](https://cayimby.org/our-team/) 2. [Our Impact](https://cayimby.org/our-impact/) 3. [Our Mission](https://cayimby.org/our-mission/) 4. [Careers](https://cayimby.org/careers/) 2. Legislation 1. [2026 Legislation](https://cayimby.org/2026-legislation/) 2. [2025 Legislation](https://cayimby.org/2025-legislation/) 3. [Past Legislation](https://cayimby.org/legislation/) 3. Resources 1. [Metropolitan Abundance Project](http://metroabundance.org/) 2. [Endorsements](https://cayimby.org/endorsements/) 4. [News & Events](https://cayimby.org/news-events/) 1. [Blog](https://cayimby.org/blog/) 2. [Homework Newsletter](https://cayimby.org/the-homework-newsletter/) 3. [Abundance Podcast](https://cayimby.org/news-events/abundance-podcast/) 4. [Press Releases](https://cayimby.org/news-events/press-releases/) 5. [Research](https://cayimby.org/research/) 1. [Maps](https://cayimby.org/maps/) 2. [Reports](https://cayimby.org/reports/) 3. [Research Bounty](https://cayimby.org/?page_id=811) 6. [Action Hub](https://cayimby.org/action-hub/) 1. [Shop](https://california-yimby.myshopify.com/) 2. [Take Action](https://cayimby.org/take-action/) 3. [Take Local Action](https://cayimby.org/take-local-action/) 4. [Ways to Give](https://cayimby.org/waystogive/) Socials - [Link to twitter](http://www.twitter.com/cayimby) - [Link to facebook](http://www.facebook.com/cayimby) - [Link to instagram](http://www.instagram.com/cayimby) - [Link to tiktok](https://www.tiktok.com/@cayimby) - [Link to youtube](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOTemRubNPlYxrQkQl2jPMA) Copyright © Paid for by California YIMBY, A 501(c)4 Non-Profit Organization 2023–2026 ## Mobile Menu Overlay 1. [About Us](https://cayimby.org/about-us/) Trigger submenu: About Us - [Our Team](https://cayimby.org/our-team/) - [Our Impact](https://cayimby.org/our-impact/) - [Our Mission](https://cayimby.org/our-mission/) - [Careers](https://cayimby.org/careers/) - [Victory Fund](https://cayimby.org/victory-fund/) 2. [Legislation](https://cayimby.org/legislation/) Trigger submenu: Legislation - [2026 Legislation](https://cayimby.org/2026-legislation/) - [Past Legislation](https://cayimby.org/legislation/) 3. [Resources](https://cayimby.org/resource-dashboard/) Trigger submenu: Resources - [Research](https://cayimby.org/research/) Trigger submenu: Research - [Maps](https://cayimby.org/maps/) - [Reports](https://cayimby.org/reports/) - [Endorsements](https://cayimby.org/endorsements/) Trigger submenu: Endorsements - [2026 Governor's Forum](https://cayimby.org/2026-governors-forum-sf/) - [Policy Framework](https://cayimby.org/resources/policy-framework/) - [Metropolitan Abundance Project](https://www.metroabundance.org/) 4. [News & Events](https://cayimby.org/news-events/) Trigger submenu: News & Events - [Blog](https://cayimby.org/blog/) - [Homework Newsletter](https://cayimby.org/the-homework-newsletter/) - [Press Releases](https://cayimby.org/news-events/press-releases/) - [Abundance Podcast](https://cayimby.org/news-events/abundance-podcast/) 5. [Shop](https://california-yimby.myshopify.com/) 1. [Donate](https://secure.actblue.com/donate/victoryfund-framers-main) 2. [Action Hub](https://cayimby.org/action-hub/) Trigger submenu: Action Hub - [Events Calendar](https://cayimby.org/events-calendar/) - [Take Action](https://cayimby.org/take-action/) - [Take Local Action](https://cayimby.org/take-local-action/) - [Ways to Give](https://cayimby.org/waystogive/)
Readable Markdown	Blog December 15, 2020 A new [working paper](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Wr8T687wz-jVVMEVWoZCQXB53pxCM5hK/view) analyzes an oft-forgotten aspect of land-use policy: The impact on affordability of minimum lot sizes, which cities use to set the smallest allowable square footage for individual parcels of land. This seemingly minor detail can have a huge impact on spatial segregation and economic inequality, as Amrita Kulka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison finds. Kulka (2020) poses a simple yet powerful hypothesis: “By imposing different housing consumption floors across neighborhoods, minimum lot sizes can potentially distort the location decisions of households.” Key findings: 1. Higher minimum lot sizes result in higher-income neighborhoods. Specifically, data from Wake County, NC showed that “a decrease in the allowed density by one dwelling unit per acre implies an increase in average neighborhood income by 4.5%” 2. Neighborhoods that mandate larger lots also see higher house prices. On average, the study finds “lots are 19% larger and houses 7.5% more expensive on the more regulated side of a minimum lot size boundary.” 3. Big lots are themselves a luxury amenity. By modeling households’ neighborhood choices, the paper estimates that relaxed minimum lot standards (allowing more homes per acre) would open up high-amenity neighborhoods to middle class residents. A large body of research examines land-use regulations and their impact on segregation in California. So far, most research has focused on [zoned capacity](https://dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io/how-legalizing-homes-can-integrate-the-bay-area/), the [permitting process](https://dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io/california-room-build-faster/), or the [overall stringency](https://dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io/local-control-5-decades-of-segregation/) of regulations contributing to racial and class segregation. The evidence on permitted homes per parcel is clear, but Kulka (2020) studies a particularly powerful variable: permitted lots per acre, or minimum lot sizes. Kulka focuses on Wake County in North Carolina, home to the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area. This region, not unlike some in California, is undergoing a devastating housing crisis exacerbated by longstanding patterns of racial segregation. Not coincidentally, it also ranks higher than the average US city on the Wharton Residential Land Use Index (WRLUI), a measure of land-use regulation stringency. Kulka compiles data from Zillow and public mortgage data from the region to compare race and income factors with lot sizes, and comparing actual lot sizes with allowed minimum lot sizes. Comparing this evidence with Census data, Kulka finds that larger minimum lot sizes correlate strongly with higher incomes in Wake County. Here’s what that looks like: ![A histogram of density levels associated with different median household incomes](https://cayimby.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/graph-1.png) Next, Kulka gathers administrative data from local public schools, including free and reduced lunches, to examine and model the effect of minimum lot sizes on neighborhood choices. Kulka uses a boundary discontinuity design to isolate the effect of lot sizes from other regulations and control for other factors that limit housing choices. “In the cleanest possible scenario,” Kulka explains, “I would compare two houses on either side of a street, where the regulation boundary coincides with a neighborhood street, i.e. the house on one side of the street is regulated with a higher minimum lot size/ lower density and the house on the other side is regulated less strictly with a lower minimum lot size/ higher density.” In lieu of such neat and perfectly controlled boundaries, other factors such as school attendance and amenities are also measured. In rough summary, Kulka’s evidence does suggest that permitted density has a strong effect on household spatial sorting by income: “at a boundary where one side allows one dwelling unit per acre less than the other, sorting on income is about \$4,000.” The average amount a household borrows for a mortgage also increases by 3% at this boundary. What if, all else equal, minimum lot standards were relaxed, allowing for more homes per acre? Of course, “all else equal” sets a high evidentiary standard for social scientists. But with all these variables in play, Kulka is able to model several counterfactuals. Kulka sets up a static neighborhood choice model to estimate households’ living choices based on “land consumption,” or the size of the lot they choose, and consumption of other amenities, as their budget may allow. “While this behavior does not correspond to the reality,” Kulka explains, “it approximates the behavior of a household with children picking a neighborhood to live in for the duration of their children’s school education.” The results from Kulka’s county-level analysis mirror the modeling closely: a larger fraction of households earning below median income tend to prefer neighborhoods with smaller lot sizes. Here’s what that looks like: ![A histogram charting households below median income by minimum lot size](https://dev-ca-yimby.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/pasted-image-0-1024x488.png) Kulka simulates two counterfactuals: reductions in minimum lot sizes, and vacant land zoned for residential neighborhoods. In both of these simulations, the results suggest “that small, localized reductions in the minimum lot size can lead to desirable neighborhoods being more affordable to lower income households that value amenities highly” and, furthermore, “that the affordability of vacant land will depend on the minimum lot size relative to the available amount of land that is to be zoned.” Specifically, households earning the county’s median annual income of \$75,000 value high-amenity neighborhoods and will spend more to live in them if minimum lot sizes are reduced to make homes more affordable there. Affluent neighborhoods with high-quality amenities such as schools and parks could see more socioeconomic integration if they try this one weird trick.
Shard	46 (laksa)
Root Hash	16344693300791364446
Unparsed URL	org,cayimby!/blog/the-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot/ s443