The Affordability Challenge Working Around Inclusionary Zoning with a Comprehensive Approach 1
THE AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGE • Multidimensional problem • Diverse spectrum of need • From very low and low income • To moderate income • Even to above median income in many markets today 2
THE AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGE • Reasons for shortfall include: • Plans that solicit jobs but don’t adequately provide for housing • Outdated ordinances that limit range and mix of housing types • Unwieldy development approval processes • Increasing fees that add to housing costs • Environmental/growth controls that constrain land supply and developability 3
THE AFFORDABILITY SOLUTION • Different tools and approaches needed to address different income segments and solve different problems • Some may work better than others in your area • Most work best as part of comprehensive strategy 4
THE AFFORDABILITY SOLUTION • Silver Bullet Fallacy—there is no single solution • Yet many communities rely on just a few tools such as IZ because of a lack of information or local politics • Easier than taking a comprehensive approach 5
NEW NAHB RESEARCH • Little comprehensive research done to date on inclusionary zoning or how other state and local approaches are working • NAHB conducted three major studies • Reports free and available at www. nahb. org/housingaffordability 6
NATIONAL SURVEY • Prepared by nationally known land use attorney Timothy S. Hollister, Shipman & Goodwin LLP • 50 -state survey of state enabling authority for inclusionary zoning as well as ordinances across the country • Covers 40 elements that should be carefully considered when drafting and implementing ordinances 7
SURVEY OF STATE STATUTES 13 states: expressly or implicitly authorize IZ 7 states: no express authority 2 states: prohibit IZ (Oregon, Texas) 2 states: IZ ordinance invalidated-- conflicted with state rent control laws 26 states: no express or implied authorization-dependent on home rule KNOW YOUR STATE STATUTE!! 8
40 ELEMENTS THAT INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCES SHOULD ADDRESS • General practical issues—incentives and in-lieu provisions • Defining geographic and type of construction applicability • Resident eligibility—very complex • Financial information and management—resale provisions, buyer equity terms 9
NATIONAL SURVEY CONCLUSION “inclusionary zoning is a complicated undertaking, one with many more moving parts and practical considerations than drafters realize. . If government proceeds with implementation, it is essential that all of the critical details be identified, addressed, and molded into a workable program. " 10
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND RESEARCH (Knaap and Bento) • Academically rigorous study • Extensive California data set over 17 -year period • Controlled for many factors and influences • Statistically significant results 11
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND RESEARCH • Could not find an increase in overall housing production from IZ • Did find 7 % drop in single family production with shift to multifamily • Shift increased as IZ requirements also increased 12
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND RESEARCH • Increased price of new homes by 2. 2 % or $4, 600 • Nationally equates to pricing 900, 000 U. S. households out of market • 5 % price increase for more expensive homes • Reduced size of new homes by 2. 5% or 48 square feet 13
NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy • Study funded by Center for Housing Policy • Similar academic rigor • Mixed results from three jurisdictions: DC, Boston and San Francisco • Three questions – What kind of jurisdiction adopts? – How much housing has it produced and what influenced the amount? – What are the market effects? 14
NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy • Larger; more affluent; near other jurisdictions with IZ; with other land use regulations • Mixed success in production – – 526 / yr in DC 43% of jurisdictions in Boston produced nothing 9 / yr in San Francisco Density bonuses and small project exemptions increase production • Mixed impact on total production – In SF, no impact on single family production – In Boston, decrease in production and increase in price (similar to U of MD results) 15
ABT ASSOCIATES STUDY • 350 -page compilation of state and local means of addressing housing affordability • How strategies work • How they are funded • Where they’ve been used • Pros and cons of each strategy 16
ABT ASSOCIATES STUDY • Most comprehensive report ever assembled on nonfederal solutions • Details numerous strategies under three broad categories • Land Use • Financial • Other initiatives • 30 case studies of communities successfully using these tools, often in combination 17
STATE AND LOCAL APPROACHES • Plan for housing, not just jobs • Regulatory barriers removal and streamlining strategies • Density bonuses • Vacant land assembly • Land supply monitoring systems • Land trusts that help buy down land housing costs 18
STATE AND LOCAL APPROACHES • State and local housing trust funds that are broadly funded • Tax increment financing, tax credits • Fee waivers • Employer-assisted housing programs • Creative public-private partnerships • Coalitions with business and housing interests 19
SUMMARY OF ALL RESEARCH RESULTS • Price and production results suggest that IZ acts like a tax on housing • IZ is a complex market intervention that may not work in all markets and may worsen affordability for some • There are many tools being used –often together—that can have a far greater impact 20
SUMMARY OF ALL RESEARCH RESULTS • Nature of local housing market will dictate best strategies—can’t simply copy from another community • Most successes rely on an array of strategies • Strategies that get the most press are not necessarily the most effective 21
Case Studies on Inclusionary Zoning Stories From the Field 22
Case Studies on Inclusionary Zoning • Madison, Wis. • St. Cloud, Minn. • Tallahassee, Fla. • Palm Beach County, Fla. • Mc. Call, Idaho • Bozeman, Mont. • Davie, Fla. • Montgomery County, Md. 23
Madison, Wis. • Created 173 affordable homes out of 2, 075 built. • Of the 173 affordable homes constructed, only 33 sold. • Market rate apartments went from 660 in 2003 to 143 units in 2006, the lowest number in decades • Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down entire ordinance as a form of rent control. • City Council decided not to renew ordinance in 2009 24
St. Cloud, Minn. • Adopted in 2004 • Created 28 homes • Competing program from the Housing Redevelopment • Authority created 83 single-family homes with no market re-sale restrictions • St. Cloud residents were more interested in re-developing existing housing than building new affordable housing in an effort to stabilize existing neighborhoods • City Council repealed the ordinance in April 2007 25
Tallahassee, Fla. • Enacted ordinance in 2005 • To date, has not produced any affordable housing units • HUD Consolidated Plan recognizes the housing downturn hampers city’s ability to generate affordable housing this methodology • 12 -month supply of housing and high foreclosure rate • The next two to three years the city will focus on rehabilitation for affordable housing 26
Tallahassee, Fla. • City had to cover legal costs for lawsuit against the ordinance • Additionally burdensome in this time of cashstrapped local government budgets 27
Palm Beach County, Fla. • Enacted in early 2006 • Area hit hard shortly thereafter by housing bust • Over-supply in the area has led to market rate housing units to be available for less than IZ units • No development projects have been approved in the last four years 28
Mc. Call, Idaho • Ordinance struck down by the Fourth Judicial District Court of Idaho • “Regulations go much further than merely regulating the use of property, they regulate ownership of property by dictating to whom a unit may be sold or rented” 29
Mc. Call, Idaho • “Such regulation is arbitrary and unreasonable as a land use provision” • “Imposition of the subsidy or (in-lieu of) fee required” • “Under the (IZ Ordinance) are in reality a tax and not a regulation” Mountain Central Board of Realtors, Inc. vs. the City of Mc. Call 30
Bozeman, Mont. • Another example of how inclusionary zoning is susceptible to downturns in the economy • Two years after this ordinance was put into effect, there still have been no affordable homes built • Home builders have requested that the ordinance be repealed • City Council has voted to review the program in 2011 31
Davie, Fla. • Hard hit area by the foreclosure crises • Over 5, 000 units built between 2000 -2007. In 2010 only 72 units built. • Adopted IZ ordinance in 2008, no affordable units built to date • 50 -unit project built elsewhere due to town’s burdensome ordinance 32
Davie, Fla. • In a time of shrinking tax base and budgetary crises loss of development is doubly painful • Town Council has voted to suspend ordinance for two years • Indicates how having an IZ ordinance on the books can leave a municipality vulnerable and exposed when the “good times” end 33
Montgomery County, Md. • Longest continuous program in the country, often cited as the most successful program in the country. • Also susceptible to economic downturns. • In 2007 only 77 units of inclusionary zoning were built, and all time low in the programs 36 year history • Sharp decrease from the 500 units produced during the height of the building boom. 34
WHERE TO GO Reports and resources available from: www. nahb. org/housingaffordability NAHB Land Development Services Department 800 -368 -5242 Debra Bassert, AVP, Land Development ext. 8443 or dbassert@nahb. org 35
Скачать презентацию The Affordability Challenge Working Around Inclusionary Zoning with
29efb99f4754e08e4db0248d54c989d5.ppt