Laserfiche WebLink
The lnclusionar¥ Housin Debate: <br />The Effectiveness of Man.dator¥ PrO,rams <br />Over Voluntary Programs <br />8y Nicholas J. ~runic,'~ <br /> <br />In response to the nationwide affordable housing crisis, many local governments are <br />turning to inclusionary zoning as an effective topi'for creating much needed affordable <br />housing. <br /> <br /> in cra~ing an inclusJonan/housing program, <br /> every communib/faces a maior decision: <br /> should (he inclusionar,/housing program be <br /> manda{o~/or voiuntap/? <br /> <br /> This decision raises questions common <br />r.o any po. iicy debate involving marke~s and <br />~overnmen[at regulation, is ~ mandate <br />needed ~o produce affordable housing or are <br />incen(ives sufficien[ co spur oeveio0ers (o cre- <br />a(e affor~abte homes and apartmen[s? Can a <br />communic¢ provfde enough Mcendves <br />(through densibl bonuses, flexible zonin~ <br />s:andards, ~ee waivers, e~c.) ~o andce devel- <br />opers to build affordable housing wi{hour a <br />mandate? Will manda[es for a~fordabiiiw and <br />~he production o[ affordabie housing, even <br />when coupied with ~enerous "cos[ offsets." <br />chill market acdvi[y and axacarba[e <br />ability problems by. restricting supply? <br />Manda[o~ or ye(un,aw--which approach will <br />produce more housing and more afforda~ie <br />housin~ ~or ~he preferred popuiadonsf <br /> <br /> Even/communitv.Niti engage in ils own <br />polidca! deba(e and 8vaiua[e i~s own [egai <br />authority :o de,ermine ils posi[ion on man- <br />dales and incen[ives. However, experience <br />wi[n inclusionaw housin$ <br />ion~-szanding, provides a numoer <br />on chis important policy decision. Over, ti, <br />mandatory programs produce more housing, <br />~nciud[n~ nousin~ ~or lower-income popula- <br />tions. They also proviqe more 3reGic~abili[v <br />~or deveiooers and ~he con,unity, and ap <br />no[ siifle qeveiopmen[ 3c;ivi[v..As a -esuK. <br />more .:ommLIni[tes are :noosin~ ~an~a[orv <br /> <br />first in a ~wo-par[ series on affordabte hous. <br />ing, will examine indusionaw housing pro. <br />.gram experiences and studies from across the <br />countP/. <br /> <br /> MANDATORY PROGRAMS <br /> PRODUCE MORE <br /> HOUSING <br /> <br />:.E:xperienca and research <br />indicate mandatory <br />[nclusionary housing <br />.5ro§rams are more effec- <br />tive at ~enerat[ng a <br />[ar§er supply of afford- <br />aoie housing ~.han volun- <br />tan/programs. A t994 <br />s'[udy by [he Calii:omia <br />Coaiidon for Rura[ Housing <br />tCCRH) says, "Mandatory <br />programs produce the most <br />very-iow- eno {ow-income <br />afforoabie units compared <br />with votun[ary programs, <br />both in (arms of <br />aosotute numbers and <br />percen[age of to(al <br />:ieveiopmen[." <br /> <br /> A 2003 study bv <br />CCRH and the Nonprofit <br />Housing' ~ssociadon pi: <br />Northern California found <br />similar :esui[s. The ~ <br />,"nos{ oroouctive fnclu- <br />siona'rv aousing pro- <br />grams :n :aiifornia 5re <br />.nanoatoq/programs. n <br /> <br /> fac[, the ¢eport found that oniy six percent of <br /> ~he to7 communities reporting co have an <br /> indusionary housing program said the pro- <br /> <br />: :L~- ':- .:x~ }/ '.'%-~ X~:::;q.:/ <br /> <br />126 ZC, NINGPRACTIC.~ o9.o~ <br /> <br /> <br />