|
men[ due to the confusion and ,Jncer~ainty
<br />deveiopers experienced in (he development
<br />process under a volumary program.
<br />
<br /> Of course, mandaton/ programs are less
<br />predictable if Ihe cos[ offsets are uncertain
<br />and decided on a case-by-,:ase basis.
<br />Similari,/, voiun[ary programs, if applied con-
<br />s~sren[ty and a§~ressively, ,:an be made
<br />clearer .and (ess arbi[raW. Overall, mandatory
<br />programs ,]re bec(er su,ted to establish pre-
<br />allocable results for both the total community
<br />and private market ac[ors.
<br />
<br />ARRESTED DEVELOPMEN:r?
<br />In addressing ~.he need for more affordable
<br />housing no one ,Nan(s .3 bo[icy thai will depress
<br />or stifle nousing producbon. The best avai[al~[e
<br />evidence indicates that manda[on/inclusionan/
<br />hnusin§ programs have not done this.
<br />
<br /> One rec~n[ study by economists at(he Los
<br />Angeles-based Reason Public Policy institute
<br />en[i[ted..ffousing Supply qnd Affordobili~: OD
<br />Afforddbie Housing Mdnddtes Work?, c',aims
<br />inctusionaw zonin~ pro,rams in (he San
<br />Francisco Bay area !ed to a decline in housin~
<br />production ~n (hose ,:ommuni[ies, con[ribu~in~
<br />~o risin~ housin~ prices over~lL ~he study
<br />,:[aims an analysis of building permit data from
<br />
<br />45 communities with [ndusionap/zoning
<br />snowed a decline in housing producbon in (he
<br />"average city" (he year aAer passage o[ (he pro-
<br />:fram. 'the study aiso claims (ha[ an analysis
<br />buildin~ permit data fo~ 33 communities with
<br />inc',usiona¢/zoning m ~he same re~ion showed
<br />(hal [ess housing was produced in (hose cities
<br />in ~he seven ./ears .3~er passage ,}f an [nc[u-
<br />~[onap/zonin~ ordinance ~han m {he seven
<br />./ears prior [o passage.
<br />
<br /> The S[udy's methodology exhibits a num-
<br />ber ,)f Fadings. indudin~ a failure (o include
<br />communme5 withoo[ mdus~onarv zonin~
<br />[he analvs~5 .]fid a failure ~o account ~or or
<br />noid constant o(her fac[ors ,:hal could have an
<br />effect on levels of housJn~ production, such
<br />.~s ~he unemployment rate, ~he prime
<br />:ate, ~row[h boundaries. ;ac'.( of ~vaiiable
<br />~amJ, '/ac;i~c¥ rates, e[c. AS .a result. ~he
<br />;[Ud~'~ ,:onE,us;on d~a[ ;ndusionarv zoning
<br />the cause {or a Jennie[cant gsuse) }¢ dec~eased
<br />
<br />housing ~roduct[on a] ;hose ,:ommumcle5
<br />
<br />'emaln:; Nnodv u~suooor~ed. )ne :311ROi
<br />
<br />Nne[her )[her ~ac:ors ~ndepenQe~[ .3~ ~i~CiU-
<br />
<br />JiORarV :r~llirl~ ~re :ausin~ ] :le,:'.ine n 3UUS-
<br />
<br />ing production or whether development also
<br />has declined in communities without Jnctu-
<br />s[onan/zoning.
<br />
<br /> A more diligent and'reliable study of 28
<br />California cities over ~_o years by David Paul
<br />Rosen and Associates reaches the opposite
<br />conclusion. Like ~.he Reason institute study,
<br />Rosen analyzes residential building permit
<br />data obl:ained from I:he Cons[ruction Indus~p/
<br />Research 8pard. Unlike the authors from the
<br />Reason institute, the Rosen study accom-
<br />plishes the following:
<br />
<br />· Includes communities 'with and'vwthout
<br /> incLusionan/zoning programs iri ,:he sample
<br /> of ~_8 California cities;
<br />· Includes communities [rom a varieW of inca-
<br /> dons in California (Orange, San Die§o, San
<br /> Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento
<br /> Counties) as ooposed to just one region;
<br />
<br />· Performs a regression analysis to de[ermine
<br /> [he extent to which inclusionaw zoning'
<br />
<br /> impacts levels of produc:ion, and (o what
<br /> extent other independent variables impact
<br /> housing production. The Rosen study meas-
<br /> ures r. he effect of indicators like the unem-
<br /> ployment rate, changes in (he prime rate,
<br /> median price for new construction homes,
<br /> [he 3D-year mortgage rate, and the t986 lax
<br /> Reform Ac[, which eliminated many inten-
<br /> d. ives in the U.S. Tax Code chat had served to
<br /> stimulate [he production of renta[ housing.
<br />
<br /> The study concludes ihat the adoption
<br />of inctusionary zoning does not negatively
<br />impact overall levels of housing' production.
<br />In fact, in a number of jurisdictions, includ-
<br />ing San Diego, Carisbad, !trine, Chuia Vis'la,
<br />and Sacramento, he found chat housing pro-
<br />duction increased (in some cases signifi-
<br />candy) aC;er passage of indusionar¥ housing
<br />programs· Only in Oceanside did housing
<br />production d.ecrease. The drop was most
<br />likely caused '?y rising unemployment and
<br /> high races of housing
<br />
<br />vacancy associated with
<br />the economic recession
<br />of the early t99os and
<br />~.he Gulf 'Nar (Oceanside
<br />is near a mititap/ base).
<br />Overall, the s~udy found
<br />
<br />was m~st heavily ·
<br />affected by unemploy-
<br />ment levels, the median
<br />orice of new cofls[ruc-
<br />
<br /> lion homes, and the
<br /> :,986 Tax Reform Act.
<br /> Rosen's findings
<br /> are more consistent
<br /> with the balance of
<br /> available evidence on
<br /> this issue nationwide.
<br /> P!anning officials and
<br /> local monitors of pro-
<br /> grams in San Diego,
<br />: .>.~. Sacramento, 8psion,
<br /> :" ;:!' San Francisco, Denver.
<br /> Chapel Hill, North
<br /> Carolina, Cambridge,
<br /> and 3ouider claim
<br /> ~.o have seen a decrease
<br /> in deve!opment activity
<br /> ~-oilowin§ ~he impiemen-
<br /> ~a[ion of [nc',usionarv
<br /> housing programs.
<br />
<br />zONIN(:, PRACT]C~
<br />
<br />
<br />
|