|
gram ,,vas voluntary. ~',No of ~_hose communi-
<br />ties (Los Alamitos and Lon§ Seach) "specifi-
<br />cally blame ~he voluntary nature of their pro-
<br />~rams ,-'or ~.agnan[ orodud:ion [of a(fordabie
<br />housm~ despite a m&~Ket-r~[e 0opm."
<br />
<br /> Accordin~ ~o che National Nousin8
<br />Conference, a Washington, O.C.-based afford-
<br />able housin~ advocacy ,)raaniza[ion, experi-
<br />ence ,n Massachusetts shows that mandato~
<br />approaches were critical ~o the success of
<br />inc'.usionar,/:onin~ pro,rams. In Cambridge,
<br />after ten years o( zolun[aw inciusionan/
<br />mi disLncts ~hat ~ailed [o proquce any afford-
<br />aDie noljS[fl~, a manda[on/inclusiona~ hous-
<br />m3 ordinance was adopted in t999- As of
<br />june. the pro,ram had produced t35 afford-
<br />ame homes with 58 more in (he deveiopmen[
<br />
<br /> F~naily, experience from the Washine[ofl,
<br />D.C., metropoii[an area supports ~he same
<br />canc~us~on. Four mandatory coufl[,/wide pro-
<br />3rams have worked effectiveb/co ,:re~[e
<br />a~fordable housm~ m a mixed-income context
<br />in some of the nation's most affluent .:pun-
<br />des. ;n Mon(~mer,l Coufl[V, Maryiand. Over
<br />ia,pop housm~ units were produced durin~
<br />~he past 3o years ~hrO[J~ a manda[o~ pro-
<br />~fam :equirJn~ 3 :z.~- tS percent ~(fordabdiW
<br />,:proponent ,n ~ar~e develoomencs.
<br />
<br /> ¥OIIJfl[a~l [n,:hJSJonan/ houslfl~ programs
<br />
<br />n,zeo [hal ~heorerKailv, with enough .){ ]
<br />~ubsidv any votun[ary [arogram c~uio work
<br />extremely wed. Reaiistically, however, nm]sing
<br />SubSidieS .Sfe 9ecDmlfl~ scarcer. /leve~he~ess,
<br />imun[ar,/ pro,rams .]~n
<br />are ~r[]Dle~e~:Eed
<br />
<br />-nan,;a[e,] Crowm iml[a[lon5~
<br />
<br />untar¥" inc[usionary housing component a
<br />highty attractive option. For example, in
<br />"lnc[usionary Housing in California: The
<br />Experience df Two 0ecades," authors Calavita
<br />and Grimes attribute the success of the volun-
<br />
<br />(ary indusionary zoning program in Irvine to
<br />an "unusually sol, his[ica[ed" and "particu-
<br />larly L4utsy" staff committed to makin§ the
<br />program work (Journal o[ ,;he ,4meric,~n
<br />P(anning AssocJdrionl t998). Simiiart¥, in
<br />Chapel Hill. North Carolina. the voluntary tS
<br />percent affordable i;ousing prdgram ~or
<br />oeve[opmen[s [hat require rezoning is also
<br />au~te success[ul. The program is so rigor-
<br />ously marke~.ed by :own staff .]no the ~own
<br />
<br />· :ouncil ~hat no new residential deve!ooer,
<br />:e~ard~ess of requiring a ~'ezoning requesL
<br />'las 3pproacJqed ;he planning :~mm~ssion
<br />
<br />without at least a tS percent affordable hous.
<br />lng component or pans ~0 oay a fee in lieu of
<br />building affordable units. P~anning staff in
<br />Chape( Hill explain ~.hat deve{oper5 construe
<br />the inctusionan/zoning expectation as
<br />
<br />mandatory because residential deveJopment
<br />proposals are difficult, more expensive and
<br />less likely to Mn aporoval without an afford-
<br />able housing component. Chape( Hill's yogurt-
<br />caw program has produced z62 affordable
<br />homes since aooo and has ::o[[ec;ed approxi-
<br />ma[eJy $t78,ooo in fees.
<br />
<br /> Lexington, Massachusetts, followed a
<br />similar approaca with ihe aoop[ on of a ~irm
<br />policy re!ated :0 affordaoi[i[v on all discre-
<br />tionar;/approvals. Consequently, :he commu-
<br />nity succeeden~ in :readn§ ~ 3ignific~nt
<br />5mount pi: new 31:fordaPle housing,
<br />
<br />ZONING PR;~CT]CZ o9.04
<br />
<br />
<br />
|