Summary of Significant Accounting Policies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Accounting Policies [Abstract]
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies	Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Use of Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities At times, we may use derivative instruments to manage exposure to variable interest rate risk. We generally enter into interest rate swaps to manage our exposure to variable interest rate risk and treasury locks to manage the risk of interest rates rising prior to the issuance of debt. We enter into derivative instruments that qualify as cash flow hedges and do not enter into derivative instruments for speculative purposes. The interest rate swaps associated with our cash flow hedges are recorded at fair value on a recurring basis. We assess effectiveness of our cash flow hedges both at inception and on an ongoing basis. The effective portion of changes in fair value of the interest rate swaps associated with our cash flow hedges is recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss and is subsequently reclassified into interest expense as interest is incurred on the related variable rate debt. Within the next 12 months, we expect to reclassify $3.1 million as an increase to interest expense. Our cash flow hedges become ineffective if critical terms of the hedging instrument and the debt instrument do not perfectly match such as notional amounts, settlement dates, reset dates, calculation period and LIBOR rate. In addition, we evaluate the default risk of the counterparty by monitoring the credit worthiness of the counterparty. When ineffectiveness exists, the ineffective portion of changes in fair value of the interest rate swaps associated with our cash flow hedges is recognized in earnings in the period affected. Hedge ineffectiveness has not impacted earnings in 2012, and we do not anticipate it will have a significant effect in the future. Derivative instruments and hedging activities require management to make judgments on the nature of its derivatives and their effectiveness as hedges. These judgments determine if the changes in fair value of the derivative instruments are reported in the condensed consolidated statements of operations as a component of net income or as a component of comprehensive income and as a component of stockholders’ equity of Equity One, Inc. on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. While management believes its judgments are reasonable, a change in a derivative’s effectiveness as a hedge could materially affect expenses, net income and equity. See Note 9 for further detail on derivative activity. Concentration of Credit Risk A concentration of credit risk arises in our business when a national or regionally based tenant occupies a substantial amount of space in multiple properties owned by us. In that event, if the tenant suffers a significant downturn in its business, it may become unable to make its contractual rent payments to us, exposing us to potential losses in rental revenue, expense recoveries, and percentage rent. Further, the impact may be magnified if the tenant is renting space in multiple locations. Generally, we do not obtain security from our nationally-based or regionally-based tenants in support of their lease obligations to us. We regularly monitor our tenant base to assess potential concentrations of credit risk. As of September 30, 2012, Publix Super Markets, located in our South and North Florida regions, is our largest tenant and accounted for approximately 1.9 million square feet, or approximately 10.2% of our gross leasable area, and approximately $14.8 million, or 6.0%, of our annual minimum rent. As of September 30, 2012, we had outstanding receivables from Publix Super Markets of approximately $307,000. No other tenant accounted for over 5% of our annual minimum rent. Recent Accounting Pronouncements In May 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2011-04, "Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRSs")." The guidance under ASU 2011-04 amends certain accounting and disclosure requirements related to fair value measurements to ensure that fair value has the same meaning in U.S. GAAP and in IFRS and that their respective fair value measurement and disclosure requirements are the same. This guidance contains certain updates to the measurement guidance as well as enhanced disclosure requirements. The most significant change in disclosures is an expansion of the information required for “Level 3” measurements including enhanced disclosure for: (1) the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and (2) the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs, if any. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on or after December 15, 2011. We have incorporated the required disclosures within this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q where deemed applicable and the adoption and implementation of this ASU did not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations. In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Presentation of Comprehensive Income” which revises the manner in which companies present comprehensive income. Under ASU No. 2011-05, companies may present comprehensive income, which is net income adjusted for the components of other comprehensive income, either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or by using two separate but consecutive statements. Regardless of the alternative chosen, companies must display adjustments for items reclassified from other comprehensive income into net income within the presentation of both net income and other comprehensive income. ASU 2011-05 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011, on a retrospective basis. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-12,”Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in ASU 2011-05.” ASU 2011-12 defers the requirement that companies present reclassification adjustments for each component of accumulated other comprehensive income in both net income and other comprehensive income on the face of the financial statements. Reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income are to be presented either on the face of the financial statement in which other comprehensive income is presented or disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. Reclassification adjustments into net income need not be presented during the deferral period. This action does not affect the requirement to present items of net income, other comprehensive income and total comprehensive income in a single continuous or two consecutive statements. The effective date for the deferred portion has not yet been determined. When adopted, the deferred portion of the guidance is not expected to materially impact our consolidated financial statements. We have incorporated the required disclosures within this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q where deemed applicable and the adoption and implementation of this ASU did not have an impact on our financial position or results of operations. In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08, “Testing Goodwill for Impairment (the revised standard)”. Under ASU No. 2011-08 companies have the option to perform a qualitative assessment that may allow them to skip the annual two-step test and reduce costs. The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and earlier adoption is permitted. The adoption and implementation of this ASU did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-10, “Derecognition of in Substance Real Estate”. The amendments in ASU 2011-10 resolve the diversity in practice about whether the guidance in Subtopic 360-20 applies to the derecognition of in substance real estate when the parent ceases to have a controlling financial interest (as described in Subtopic 810-10) in a subsidiary that is in substance real estate because of a default by the subsidiary on its nonrecourse debt. The guidance emphasizes that the accounting for such transactions is based on their substance rather than their form. The amendments in the ASU should be applied on a prospective basis to deconsolidation events occurring after the effective date. Prior periods should not be adjusted even if the reporting entity has continuing involvement with previously derecognized in substance real estate entities. The guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after June 15, 2012. The adoption and implementation of this ASU did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11, “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities”. Under ASU 2011-11 disclosures are required to provide information to help reconcile differences in the offsetting requirements under U.S. GAAP and IFRS. The new disclosure requirements mandate that entities disclose both gross and net information about instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the statement of financial position as well as instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting arrangement. In addition, the ASU requires disclosure of collateral received and posted in connection with master netting agreements or similar arrangements. The guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after January 1, 2013. We do not believe that the adoption of this ASU will have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition. In July 2012, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2012-02, “Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment (the revised standard)". The revised standard is intended to reduce the cost and complexity of testing indefinite-lived intangible assets, other than goodwill, for impairment. It allows companies to perform a "qualitative" assessment to determine whether further impairment testing of indefinite-lived intangible assets is necessary, similar in approach to the goodwill impairment test. The revised standard is effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012, and earlier adoption is permitted. We do not believe that the adoption of this ASU will have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

At times, we may use derivative instruments to manage exposure to variable interest rate risk. We generally enter into interest rate swaps to manage our exposure to variable interest rate risk and treasury locks to manage the risk of interest rates rising prior to the issuance of debt. We enter into derivative instruments that qualify as cash flow hedges and do not enter into derivative instruments for speculative purposes. The interest rate swaps associated with our cash flow hedges are recorded at fair value on a recurring basis. We assess effectiveness of our cash flow hedges both at inception and on an ongoing basis. The effective portion of changes in fair value of the interest rate swaps associated with our cash flow hedges is recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss and is subsequently reclassified into interest expense as interest is incurred on the related variable rate debt. Within the next 12 months, we expect to reclassify $3.1 million as an increase to interest expense. Our cash flow hedges become ineffective if critical terms of the hedging instrument and the debt instrument do not perfectly match such as notional amounts, settlement dates, reset dates, calculation period and LIBOR rate. In addition, we evaluate the default risk of the counterparty by monitoring the credit worthiness of the counterparty. When ineffectiveness exists, the ineffective portion of changes in fair value of the interest rate swaps associated with our cash flow hedges is recognized in earnings in the period affected. Hedge ineffectiveness has not impacted earnings in 2012, and we do not anticipate it will have a significant effect in the future. Derivative instruments and hedging activities require management to make judgments on the nature of its derivatives and their effectiveness as hedges. These judgments determine if the changes in fair value of the derivative instruments are reported in the condensed consolidated statements of operations as a component of net income or as a component of comprehensive income and as a component of stockholders’ equity of Equity One, Inc. on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. While management believes its judgments are reasonable, a change in a derivative’s effectiveness as a hedge could materially affect expenses, net income and equity. See Note 9 for further detail on derivative activity.

Concentration of Credit Risk

A concentration of credit risk arises in our business when a national or regionally based tenant occupies a substantial amount of space in multiple properties owned by us. In that event, if the tenant suffers a significant downturn in its business, it may become unable to make its contractual rent payments to us, exposing us to potential losses in rental revenue, expense recoveries, and percentage rent. Further, the impact may be magnified if the tenant is renting space in multiple locations. Generally, we do not obtain security from our nationally-based or regionally-based tenants in support of their lease obligations to us. We regularly monitor our tenant base to assess potential concentrations of credit risk. As of September 30, 2012, Publix Super Markets, located in our South and North Florida regions, is our largest tenant and accounted for approximately 1.9 million square feet, or approximately 10.2% of our gross leasable area, and approximately $14.8 million, or 6.0%, of our annual minimum rent. As of September 30, 2012, we had outstanding receivables from Publix Super Markets of approximately $307,000. No other tenant accounted for over 5% of our annual minimum rent.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2011-04, "Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRSs")." The guidance under ASU 2011-04 amends certain accounting and disclosure requirements related to fair value measurements to ensure that fair value has the same meaning in U.S. GAAP and in IFRS and that their respective fair value measurement and disclosure requirements are the same. This guidance contains certain updates to the measurement guidance as well as enhanced disclosure requirements. The most significant change in disclosures is an expansion of the information required for “Level 3” measurements including enhanced disclosure for: (1) the valuation processes used by the reporting entity and (2) the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those unobservable inputs, if any. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on or after December 15, 2011. We have incorporated the required disclosures within this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q where deemed applicable and the adoption and implementation of this ASU did not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Presentation of Comprehensive Income” which revises the manner in which companies present comprehensive income. Under ASU No. 2011-05, companies may present comprehensive income, which is net income adjusted for the components of other comprehensive income, either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or by using two separate but consecutive statements. Regardless of the alternative chosen, companies must display adjustments for items reclassified from other comprehensive income into net income within the presentation of both net income and other comprehensive income. ASU 2011-05 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011, on a retrospective basis. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-12,”Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in ASU 2011-05.” ASU 2011-12 defers the requirement that companies present reclassification adjustments for each component of accumulated other comprehensive income in both net income and other comprehensive income on the face of the financial statements. Reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income are to be presented either on the face of the financial statement in which other comprehensive income is presented or disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. Reclassification adjustments into net income need not be presented during the deferral period. This action does not affect the requirement to present items of net income, other comprehensive income and total comprehensive income in a single continuous or two consecutive statements. The effective date for the deferred portion has not yet been determined. When adopted, the deferred portion of the guidance is not expected to materially impact our consolidated financial statements. We have incorporated the required disclosures within this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q where deemed applicable and the adoption and implementation of this ASU did not have an impact on our financial position or results of operations.

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08, “Testing Goodwill for Impairment (the revised standard)”. Under ASU No. 2011-08 companies have the option to perform a qualitative assessment that may allow them to skip the annual two-step test and reduce costs. The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011 and earlier adoption is permitted. The adoption and implementation of this ASU did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-10, “Derecognition of in Substance Real Estate”. The amendments in ASU 2011-10 resolve the diversity in practice about whether the guidance in Subtopic 360-20 applies to the derecognition of in substance real estate when the parent ceases to have a controlling financial interest (as described in Subtopic 810-10) in a subsidiary that is in substance real estate because of a default by the subsidiary on its nonrecourse debt. The guidance emphasizes that the accounting for such transactions is based on their substance rather than their form. The amendments in the ASU should be applied on a prospective basis to deconsolidation events occurring after the effective date. Prior periods should not be adjusted even if the reporting entity has continuing involvement with previously derecognized in substance real estate entities. The guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after June 15, 2012. The adoption and implementation of this ASU did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11, “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities”. Under ASU 2011-11 disclosures are required to provide information to help reconcile differences in the offsetting requirements under U.S. GAAP and IFRS. The new disclosure requirements mandate that entities disclose both gross and net information about instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the statement of financial position as well as instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting arrangement. In addition, the ASU requires disclosure of collateral received and posted in connection with master netting agreements or similar arrangements. The guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after January 1, 2013. We do not believe that the adoption of this ASU will have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

In July 2012, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2012-02, “Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment (the revised standard)". The revised standard is intended to reduce the cost and complexity of testing indefinite-lived intangible assets, other than goodwill, for impairment. It allows companies to perform a "qualitative" assessment to determine whether further impairment testing of indefinite-lived intangible assets is necessary, similar in approach to the goodwill impairment test. The revised standard is effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012, and earlier adoption is permitted. We do not believe that the adoption of this ASU will have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition.