Laserfiche WebLink
tary incentive zonin§ scheme. Sometimes the <br />developer receives a zoning bonus of extra <br />density to soften the financial impact of the <br />required affordable units. Specifically, linka§e <br />pro§rams require developers of lar§e office <br />buildings to construct affordable housin§ or <br />contribute money to a city-administered hous- <br />in§ trust fund. ]'he linka§e amount may range <br />from two to three percent of total develop- <br />ment cost, payable in the early years of the <br />development. Smaller office buildin§s are <br />often exempt from the requirement. The word <br />"linkage" appears to refer variously to a con- <br />ceptual relationship between the central busi- <br />ness district and the nei§hborhoods, between <br />offices and housing, or between wealth and <br />poverty. <br /> <br /> More widely employed across the coun- <br />try, inclusionary zoning requires developers of <br />market-rate housin§ to provide or pay for <br />affordable housing'. A typical indusionary <br />zonin§ requirement might be lo percent, <br />meaning that a developer must provide one <br />unit of affordable housin§ for every to units of <br />market-rate housin§, althou§h affordable <br /> <br />requirements have extended as hi§h as :z5 <br />percent in some jurisdictions. The zoning' <br />specifies whether the units must be provided <br />eh-site or may be located off-site. Generally, <br />the affordable units must be of a similar <br />external quality as the market-rate units. <br /> Lo§at and policy questions persist about <br />the validity and sagacity of linkage and inclu- <br />sionary zoning. To belkin with, many state zon- <br />in§ acts do not expressly authorize such pro- <br />§rams, so local governments have to enact <br />them on their own home-rule authority. <br />Furthermore, the programs may have constitu- <br />tional vulnerability. Proponents would do well <br />to demonstrate that the~'e is a relationship <br />(nexus) between some harm to, or need for, <br />affordable housing §enerated by the markeb <br />rate development, and that the linkage or <br />inc[usiona~/zoning obligation is roughly pro- <br />portionate to that harm or need. In the case <br />of [inka§e, cities could show that office devel- <br />opment impacts affordable housing by, for <br />exampie, accommodating newly resident <br />employees who to some de§roe increase the <br />demand for housing of all types and, in the <br /> <br />short.run, render affordable housin§ [ess <br />affordable. From an efficiency viewpoint, neo- <br />classical economists would scoff at the basic <br />premise. The question is whether iudges <br />would be receptive to an equity/distributive <br />economic argument. <br /> <br /> Indusiona~ zoning is dicier. Here, the <br />arg[ument goes, market-rate housing develop. <br />ers have harmed or created a need for afford- <br />able housin§, yet any student of Economics <br />tot knows that increasing supply of housing' <br />should decrease, or at least not increase, the <br />price of alt hous[n§. One available argument <br />for [nclusionary zoning ts that market-rate <br />housin§ occupants create a demand for seN- <br />ices rendered by ]ower-incame employees, <br />and that a city may choose to assure that <br />housing affordable to such workers is avail- <br />able within the jurisdiction. <br /> <br /> A second ar§ument cuts to the heart of <br />the matter. A city wants to maintain or <br />increase demographic diversity, a laudable <br />and constitutionally approved goal (see the <br />U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on affirmative <br />action in UniversiG' of California Regents v. <br /> <br />ZONING PRACTICE o~..o~. <br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION <br /> <br /> <br />