|
<br />-
<br />
<br />centage from 10. to 20. percent on develop-
<br />
<br />ments where a zoning change that increases
<br />
<br />residential density is granted; and 3) Diversify
<br />
<br />the income targeting to reach mDre working-
<br />
<br />clasS people in Chicago. Rather than targeting
<br />
<br />the affDrdable hDmeS to. households at or
<br />
<br />belDW 10.0. percent of AMI target a third of the
<br />
<br />homes to hDuseholds at or belDw 100. percent
<br />
<br />Df AMI, Dne-third to. hDusehDlds at or below
<br />
<br />80. percent of AMI, and one-third to house-
<br />
<br />hDlds at or belDw 60. percent of AMI.
<br />BDston recently began using city median
<br />
<br />income figures instead ofthe metro median
<br />. me fi"ures to accomplish the same objec-
<br />IncO 0 .
<br />tive of making the affDrdable units "more
<br />
<br />affordable."
<br />Whatever the outcome, it appears likely that
<br />
<br />.Cl;Jicago'S inclusionary hDUsing pr.ograms will
<br />expand to cover more de~elopment types. With
<br />
<br />tl;Je passage of the mayor's ordinance as pro-
<br />. d .he Chica"o way would now entail an
<br />.pose . , L 0
<br />exlDaAded ARO(including city land, increased
<br />
<br />",demsity, financial assistance, Dr access to the PUD
<br />
<br />
<br />crafted with the genuine input and involve-
<br />ment of all stakeholders (developers and
<br />advocates alike), everyone pays a little bit
<br />and no one pays too much.
<br />In determining who pays, the pDlitics of
<br />develDpment, density, and cDmmunity cDntrol
<br />'prDvide the finaldeterminatiDn. Of course, no.
<br />group wants to be the sDle payer-nDt devel-
<br />opers, nDtthe community, not landDwners,
<br />not home buyers. How inclusionary housing
<br />programs are designed depends on the level
<br />of interest, DrganizatiDn, and relative pDlitical
<br />clDut Df the interest groups listed abDve.
<br />Under a mandatory approach with well-
<br />crafted cost offsets, the risk can be bDrn fairly
<br />equally. Under a mandatory approach withDut
<br />generous or guaranteed cost offsets, it is the
<br />develDpment community, the landowners, and
<br />the market-rate homebuyers who assume the
<br />risk of paying for the cost of the affordable units.
<br />Under a voluntary approach, it is the broader
<br />community that will most likely foot the bill
<br />(either through overly generous cost offsets or
<br />
<br />In determining who pays, the politics of
<br />development, density, and community control
<br />provide the final determination.
<br />
<br />. ess); a Aeighborhood-based program in
<br />
<br />aAd a downtown density bonus program.
<br />
<br />E5S0NS
<br />.~ilCago way and the experience of other
<br />.clti:es pwvide key lesSDns about inclu-
<br />''''holllsilr.lg programs.
<br />'-g free lunch. With affordable housing,
<br />:8nrr,i""ersally true-someone must foot
<br />')A gem era I, under traditional afford-
<br />.u$i:mg programs or initiatives, it is the
<br />..,Theyprovide the public financing or
<br />. .o.wned property to subsidize the cost
<br />" howshilg mDre affordable.
<br />:j,li[;lUer amill:rdusiDnary housing program,
<br />. 'r.n.ao/ be tlmclear at first. When a city
<br />for afifr,lruability, developers might have
<br />tlmwl!lgln ,educed profits; landowners
<br />fila!\le to pay tin ro ugh reduced selling
<br />um land or buildings that now must
<br />e some "affordable hDusing; market-rate
<br />\trlllyers r.nigliit have to pay through
<br />reased prices; or the community might have
<br />'paytm;rough cost Dffsetsthat increase den-
<br />w3,iVe fees, or reduce off-street parking.
<br />lJ:m:der a well-crafted ordinance that takes
<br />accoumt local market conditions and is
<br />
<br />through missed opportunities that fail to produce
<br />much-needed affordable housing). In Chicago
<br />and New YDrk City, the risk is assumed by the
<br />broader community; in Denver, San Diego,
<br />Boston, and San Francisco, it shades towards the
<br />development community.
<br />Be creative. Chicago, New York, and
<br />Boston have not embraced a citywide, manda-
<br />tory approach, but all use some form of inclu-
<br />sionary housing policy. Chicago's downtown
<br />density bonus program is a creative respDnse
<br />to the political and policy thicket of how to
<br />make inclusionary housing wDrk in a diverse
<br />city with competing political forces. Chicago
<br />should be applauded for this innovation.
<br />Cities need to find all viable ways to harness
<br />the marketplace for affordable housing.
<br />Be aggressive. Building booms are
<br />fleeting. Cities' need to be nimble and ready
<br />to act fast with prudent policies that will
<br />allow them to reap the benefits of the next
<br />building bODm. Chicago has missed many
<br />opportunities for creating and preserving
<br />affordable housing. Cities should not be
<br />afraid to empioy mandatory approaches in a
<br />prudent manner to capture as much devel-
<br />opment as possible.
<br />
<br />Memorialize your polides. Negotiated and
<br />ad hoc pDlicies will no doubt serve a positive
<br />role in many local governments. However, an
<br />ordinance, executive order, or even public regu-
<br />latiDns that provide a clear, predictable policy
<br />for the development community is essential.
<br />Without them, developers cannot appropriately
<br />price land or buildings and incorporate the cost
<br />of affordable housing into their pro formas. In
<br />additiDn, the application of one's hDusing pol-
<br />icy may become even more the result Df political
<br />clout than is already the case in Dur compli-
<br />cated wDrld. Establishing clear, public, and pre-
<br />dictable programs is gODd government and
<br />good development policy.
<br />Do more than zone for affordability.
<br />Inclusionary housing Dr zoning for affordabil-
<br />ity is not a panacea for the housing crisis or
<br />for community and economic develDpment,
<br />but it is a very important tool. Cities must IDDk
<br />to Dther tools: securing more federal, state,
<br />and city dollars for affDrdable housing and
<br />using city-owned vacant land fDr affDrdable
<br />housing. Zoning for affDrdability .cannot solve
<br />the housing crisis alone, but it can playa very
<br />impo.rtant role.
<br />
<br />- - ~ - -- ~ - - . - '
<br />, - - "- .
<br />~ COveT image by ~istOl:lcpho10; :design , . ,
<br />concept iJy LIsa B~tDn . _ . '.
<br />- -.
<br />~ ~~ -
<br />
<br />VOL. 24, NO.3
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication or the
<br />American Planning Asaociation. Subscriptions
<br />are avaHable for $75 (U.s.) and $100 (foreign). W.
<br />Paul"Farmer, FAIC?, Executive Dire!:tor; William R.
<br />Klein; AIC?, Director of Research.
<br />
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0135) is produced at
<br />APA. Jim Schwab. AIC?, Editor; Michael Davidson,
<br />Guest Editor; Julie Von Bergen. Assistant Editor;
<br />Lisa Barton, Design and Production.
<br />Copyright '92007 by American Pianning
<br />Association, 122 S. Michigan l'we., Suite 1600..
<br />Chic3go. IL 60603. The i>.merica-n 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 rOnT1 Dr by
<br />any means, electronic Dr mechanical, including
<br />photocopying, recording, Dr by any information
<br />storage and retrieval system, without permission
<br />in writing from the /',merican Planning
<br />Association.
<br />
<br />?'iinted on recyded pape:r, including 50.70D/O
<br />recycled fiber and 10% postcon'sumer waste.
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICE 3.0? n 1
<br />AMERICAN PL~NNING A5socIAn~ '1' p ge 7
<br />
|