|
<br />;:-....-J,.; ,:;':._- ~~<f".~ -'"J~: _~;:_,.-:::c ~'-~- -~1' ~_ -+ ~'''''::
<br />~QB(E.tQp:*G AND.SUepO~TI~G]x HOUSING
<br />, - . ~~ -:'t ~ ,<-" _-. ,- ~ -. -' ~ ~ ~ -
<br />, .7: '.'$@TE~FORWORkrNG'FAMllIES '
<br />].;: _+....:.~::::.?..:...p< >-~~, ,. _ '"':. _ _ .',-; _J., -~ - r _' ~
<br />
<br />."'; _of'..,..''', .~.:; '.r..;'.
<br />
<br />.~..~,"~ :
<br />
<br />'. :-~..
<br />
<br />..r_:'.,....:....
<br />". ". ~::-:;"'':.
<br />
<br />,.,:.-'
<br />
<br />. ,-, .;., .": ~ '.: :'~
<br />
<br />
<br />:~ :;~::,':.
<br />;<-,~.'!,::
<br />
<br />;'~-:-::":" ,-,"
<br />
<br />. Voluntary vs. Mandatory. The consensus
<br />view of practitioners working in this area is
<br />that mandatory requirements work better than
<br />voluntary policies that rely entirely on incen-
<br />tives. On the other hand, New York City
<br />appears to have had significant take-up of its
<br />voluntary inclusionary housing incentives for
<br />Greenpoint-Williamsburg. Chicago has a cross
<br />between voluntary and mandatory policies,
<br />with the policy optional for those develop-
<br />ments that do not seek financial assistance
<br />from the city, but mandatory for those that do.
<br />It remains to be seen whether the voluntary
<br />approach can be extended effectively to other
<br />contexts.
<br />. Target Income Levels. In general, inclusion-
<br />ary zoning appears better suited to producing
<br />homes affordable to families with moderate
<br />income than families with very low incomes.
<br />This is due both to the economics-moderate
<br />income families can afford to pay more than
<br />very low-income families. meaning there is
<br />less foregone revenue associated witn those
<br />homes-and the fact that inclusionary zoning
<br />is more feasible politically when focused on
<br />moderate income families.
<br />To ensure that very low-income families
<br />have access to some of the for-sale or rental
<br />homes produced through inclusionary zoning
<br />policies, jurisdictions may want to authorize a
<br />
<br />-.'-',::,'
<br />
<br />local housing authority or other public entity to
<br />purchase a portion of the affordable homes. as
<br />is the case in both Montgomery and Fairfax
<br />Counties. After purchaSing the homes, the
<br />housing authorities can combine them with
<br />other subsidies to make them affordable to
<br />lower income families.
<br />. Duration of Affordability. One of the limita-
<br />tions of many inclusionary zoning ordinances
<br />is that they guarantee affordability for only a
<br />limited time period. While 15 or 20 years may
<br />seem like a long time, such affordability peri-
<br />ods limit the effectiveness of inclusionary
<br />zoning policies in contributing to a lasting
<br />increase in affordable housing opportunities
<br />for moderate income families. They also make
<br />it harderto preserve mixed income communi-
<br />ties overtime. As discussed in greater detail
<br />in the analysis on which this article is based,
<br />a number of solutions exist to extend the
<br />affordability period indefinitely, while still
<br />ensuring opportunities for individual asset
<br />growth. Such solutions are generally prefer-
<br />able to more limited affordability periods.
<br />. On-site vs. Off-site. Some advocates of
<br />inclusionary zoning insist that each develop-
<br />ment include a percentage of affordable
<br />homes. Others believe it is sensible to allow
<br />developers to provide an equivalent number
<br />of homes off-site or pay a fee in lieu of provid-
<br />ing on-site affordable homes, with funds to be
<br />used to develop affordable homes elsewhere
<br />in the community. In general. it appears easier
<br />to gain consensus around inclusionary poli-
<br />~ies that permit off-site affordability or in-lieu
<br />fees. This approach also may increase the
<br />number of affordable homes constructed by
<br />shifting the production of affordable homes to
<br />sites with lower land and production costs.
<br />. Market variations. It is important to be sen-
<br />sitive to market realities. Inclusionary zoning
<br />mandates probably do not make a lot of sense
<br />for declining neighborhoods struggling to at-
<br />tract any development whatsoever. While
<br />inclusionary zoning is likely to be more effec-
<br />tive in hot markets, it will likely be most effec-
<br />tive if enacted while there is still a significant
<br />number of developable parcels. Interested
<br />communities should try to anticipate areas of
<br />futu re growth.
<br />. Relation to other housing strategies. While
<br />inclusionary zoning is a promising tool for har-
<br />nessing strong markets to produce affordable
<br />homes, it is not a panacea. Inclusionary hous-
<br />ing policies will ultimately be most effective if
<br />they are part of a larger and more comprehen-
<br />
<br />'.
<br />,
<br />
<br />sive approach to solving a community's hous-
<br />ing challenges.
<br />
<br />STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT
<br />The three policies outlined here demonstrate
<br />the potential of the zoning process to expand
<br />(or restrict) the availability of affordable homes.
<br />Each of these individual approaches is likely to
<br />yield improvement, but the benefits would be
<br />maximized by adopting all three at once-ide-
<br />ally as part of a comprehensive and strategic
<br />approach to meeting a community's need for
<br />affordable homes.
<br />While space does not permit a thor-
<br />ough discussion ofthe process of develop-
<br />ing and supporting a housing strategy for
<br />working families. the list at the left provides
<br />a brief list of many of the key elements. To
<br />the extent that communities can initiative a
<br />broad and comprehensive process for exam-
<br />ining their needs, and bring the full array of
<br />,resources and agencies to the table to meet
<br />those needs, they are more likely to gain
<br />support for needed changes and more likely
<br />to develop effective strategies for increasing
<br />the availability ,of homes affordable to work-
<br />ing families.
<br />
<br />-
<br />Cover photo: www.istockimages.com
<br />A row of San Francisw Victorian homes,
<br />
<br />VOL 23, NO. 12
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication ofthe
<br />American Planning Association. Subscriptions are
<br />available for $75 (U.S.) and $100 (foreign). W.
<br />Paul Farmer, FA1CP, Executive Director; William R.
<br />Klein, AICP, Director of Research.
<br />
<br />Zoning Practice (IssN 1548-0135) is produced at
<br />APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, Editor; Michael Davidson.
<br />Guest Editor; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor;
<br />Lisa Barton, Design and Production.
<br />
<br />Copyright @2006 by American, Planning
<br />Association, 122 5. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600,
<br />Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning
<br />Association also has offices at 1776
<br />Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
<br />20036; www.planning.org.
<br />
<br />All rights reserved. No part of this publication
<br />may .be reproduced or utilized in any form or by
<br />any means. electronic or mechanical, including
<br />photocopying, recording, or by any information
<br />storage and retrieval system. without permission
<br />in writing from the American Planning
<br />Association.
<br />
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recy-
<br />cled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste.
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICE 12.06
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I P"S"!
<br />
|