INCLUSIONARY ZONING part 8

INCLUSIONARY ZONING

Ted Koebel, professor of Urban Planning at Virginia Tech, is not opposed to Inclusionary Zoning, but believes the affordable housing gap would be better closed by citywide or regional zoning that allows for all ranges of housing price points and needs in several neighborhoods.
“Very few cities allow mixed density, mixed use development and if you want to do something creative, you slam into a wall of discouraging regulations,” he said. “We don’t do enough comprehensive planning to create applications of zoning that would allow you to do more complex development. Developers can do master planned developments and have them be very well representative of all housing needs.”

Koebel said American planning comes from a history of segregation of uses. Mixed use and mixed density development requires so many variances and zoning changes that developers throw in the towel before trying to serve a diverse market here.

“European zoning allows for mixed use by right. What they review are issues around massing of buildings, the relationships of building to its surroundings, how growth fits the transportation system,” said Koebel, noting that European cities maintained a mix of affordable housing for centuries.

Koebel said the idea that housing has to be segregated by income “is flat out wrong.”

“This is not social experimenting. Developers can create a well-planned mixed product, but most zoning regulations demonize mixed income, mixed use development. Our local regulations speak to one market – middle income and above. True Inclusionary Housing starts with regulations that allow developers to build more diverse products.”

Wright frequently writes about smart growth and sustainable communities. He and his wife live in a restored historic home in the heart of Miami’s Little Havana. Contact him at: stevewright64@yahoo.com

INCLUSIONARY ZONING part 5

INCLUSIONARY ZONING

Inland in Sacramento, where California’s capital city saw the percentage of affordable homes fall from 70 percent to less than 10, Inclusionary Zoning is applauded. Desmond Parrington, a planner with the City of Sacramento, said nearly 2,000 affordable houses and rental units have been created.

The city’s Mixed Income Ordinance, created in 2000, seeks to “prevent segregated communities through economic integration.” It also “aims to provide affordable housing that fits the character of market rate neighborhoods.”

“(The program) has been successful at creating new mixed income communities that might not otherwise be created when new housing is built, due to the high price of land and construction costs in California,” Parrington reported.
“It ensures that there are lower-income units that are part of market rate developments and that those units are built concurrently with the rest of the project.”

INCLUSIONARY ZONING part 4

INCLUSIONARY ZONING

In Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work?,
published by the Reason Public Policy Institute funded by a grant from the Home Builders Association of Northern California, researchers Benjamin Powell and Edward Stringham found data that suggests Inclusionary Zoning is a failure in Northern California because it:

• Produces few units. “The 50 Bay Area cities with Inclusionary Zoning have produced fewer than 7,000 units.”

• Has high costs. “The total cost for all Inclusionary Units in the Bay Area to date (is) $2.2 billion.

• Makes market-priced homes more expensive. “In high market-rate cities…Inclusionary Zoning adds more than $100,000 to the price of each new home.”

• Restricts the supply of new homes. “In the 33 cities with data for seven years prior and seven years following Inclusionary Zoning, 10,662 fewer homes were produced during the seven years after the adoption of Inclusionary Zoning.”

• Costs government revenue. “The total present value of lost government revenue due to Bay Area Inclusionary Zoning Ordinances is upwards of $553 million.”