|
sr. migh~, and r. hough fully awue of' tie neighborhood's ch~acter
<br /> and energ7, will eventually tire of it and lobby for a politicai
<br /> shi~, effectively ending an historic era.
<br />
<br /> Z~nin~g a~ a Miti~atar ta Gentrificatlo.
<br /> Kennedy and Leonard a%=ue convincingly thac many of
<br /> gentrificarion's contributory factors--regional job growth and
<br /> metro-wide housing market demands to name a few--are hOC
<br /> easily adjusted' at the local levei. Other, more'subjective, Factors
<br /> might include a neigkborhood's fashionable or trendy
<br /> reputation or even irs ?oliti=. Predlcring the next hot spot is
<br /> nor sO easy', so employing a top-down srra~e=-:,7 can be helpful.
<br /> fnclusionaW Homing Policies. [nclusionary zoning is a
<br />requirement by the jurisdiction ~or residential developers ro
<br />include a specified percentage of ~Tordabie unit in new
<br />developments, it ensures mixed-income communities, jobs-
<br />housing balance, and helps to offaer r. he decrease of.public dollars
<br />in low-income housing. Some indusionar7 housing programs are
<br />volunrar7, some incentive-driven; some allow developers to build
<br />the m-ti= at a different location, while others require that they
<br />contribute co an a2Zr%rdable homing Fund. Whatever the met. hod,
<br />the goal is ro maintain a degree of'socio-economic balance in tb_e
<br />communi .fy by protecting low- and moderate-income ~'arnilies in
<br />an otherwise upscale and growing market. For example, East Polo
<br />Alto, California, near the Silicon Valley, adopted a Below Market
<br />Rare (BMR) ordinance requiring ~at one in every four
<br />residential units be made available ro residents malc/ng no more
<br />than 30 percent of the median area income.
<br /> Montgomery Count'y, Marybnd, has one of the country's
<br />best-known a. nd most effective inciUSionary zoning ordinances.
<br />Adopted in 1974, the ordinance requires that ar least i2.5 to 15
<br />percent of the dwelling units proposed for a new development
<br />of 50 or more unica be a/fordable (defined as 60 percent of the
<br />median area income). [n exchange, r. he developer receives a
<br />density bontm otc up [o 22 percent.
<br /> ivla~sachuser=, Califbrnia, Minnesota, and New Jersey address
<br />inctusionary zoning at the statutory [evet. Storewide policies
<br />provide the opportunir7 ro create mi, ted-income communities
<br />through the involvement of-all municipalities, which decreases
<br />the risk~ of creating a concentration Of poverty. New Jersey's
<br />legislation requires each municipality to create affordable
<br />housing, based on a =hit share" determination by the stare5
<br />Council on A/-7ordable Housing, ming one of the following:
<br />
<br />· Building the required number of units.
<br />
<br />· Providing bans to homeowners wh.o cream affordable
<br /> accesaory dwellings.
<br />
<br />~ Paying another municipality with a high proportion of low-
<br /> income residenu.
<br />
<br />· Giving the developer ofazTordable units a de,icy bonus.
<br />
<br /> Cali?brnia uses irs inctu~ionary zoning policy in all areas of
<br />redevelopment ro thwart'the most common marker-based
<br />problem in gentrifying neighborhood: residential displacement,
<br />Aiming co achieve mixed-income communities, the st:rte
<br />requires private developers to set aside l 5 percent of ch'& units
<br />while public developments set azide 30 percent.
<br /> Some greet this approach with skepticism, however, because
<br />they ~'ee[ mixed-income communities cannot survive ~he unfettered
<br />~brces of the marker. Lurron quotes urban ptannmg professor John
<br />Berancur From the Univer=ity of Blinois at_Chicago, and co-our_hot
<br />of thc a~bremenrioned Genr~fican'on in I~exr Town: Contested
<br />
<br />Ground: "k's a nice dream, but r_h.e whole logic of the market, and I
<br />even dqe dynamics of race and class, go agmSnst it. The realiu/is r. Mr
<br />[city planner=] are sa,Ang one r. hing a.nd they are doing another. I
<br />hor~dy believe char'what daey c~ a mixed-income neighborhood
<br />is ear. her a very. higNy subsidized neighborhood or ¢be it is simply a
<br />neighborhood in rgm'tsition." Proponents of&e Nhzytand zoning
<br />law lmve ~u~c to disagree, wir. h
<br />13,000 '~ordable uniu be~wveen 1974 and 1.999. ·
<br />M~ed-Use D~vdopm~r. Crt=ring mixed-~se Communities,
<br />e~pecintly those with transit-oriented devebpment,
<br />insrrumen~ in the srr%o~nle for. affordable hou.~ing and an I
<br />equalizing force in the j~gs-housing imbalance, i~,~Lxed.u~e
<br />developments d~ar include residenrial~perhaps darough an
<br />indusionary zoning inidadve~and commercial uses cm be instant
<br />job oppommides for residents, iVlontgomery Cotmry employ~
<br />indusionary zoning ordinance in all mixed2me development:
<br />
<br /> [n planned development ~one~,
<br /> zonm, and central business district zones (standard method of
<br /> development) containing flexible developmen[ standards, the
<br /> number of moderately priced dwe[llng anir= (MPDUs) must not be
<br /> [e~, chon dr. her the number o£densi~ bonus unirq or ![2.5 ?ercenc
<br /> of the rural number of dwelling unit. whiO.¢ver is grea~er, l
<br /> Zoning R~eor-rn. Cerralnl7, one way
<br />al':lJ'ordable b. ousing is for state governments co enact mandatory
<br />or at leazr voluntary [nclusionary zoning policies. Where not
<br />
<br />T/Ji~ ;tr'uCrUre i~ ar the center ora heated debate in ~f?toWr~ A recent TZF I
<br />
<br />disrn'cr destgnarion provides the developer with ?ublic funds to mtore the
<br />
<br />Under the current?tan, the back third of the structure is ro be razed and
<br />rebuilt as marke, r-rare condorninmms with some 'affordable" units.
<br />Preservationuts are screaming about the demolition, and housing acu'vists say
<br />the affbrdable units are roll our of the ?n~e range of the neighborhood's low-
<br />income residents. $orh zroups are critical that TZF funda are being used to
<br />subsidize rhe proje~.
<br />
<br />possible, local options exist, as Betancur and cO-authors Isabe[-
<br />Domeyko and Parricia A. Wrigb. r point our in their suggestion
<br />to work coward implementing suc~h ordinances ar the m. un&c.i.p...al:5.
<br />level They also recommend strong citizen pazricipation as p~rrY:_
<br />of zoning reform, perhaps u.smg democranc, locally elecre0.
<br />citizen planning and zoning boards co bolster local involvement,
<br />build communication between neighborhood residents and
<br />elected officials, improve city semites, and foster the
<br />development of Future community leaders. The authors claim
<br />more than 20 cities around the country have adopted
<br />ordinances establishing such boazds.
<br />
<br />1026
<br />
<br />
<br />
|