The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAFC 10-29-09 ~JCCOG r~..... MEETING NOTICE JCCOG Affordable Housing Committee Meeting Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 4:00 PM Coralville City Hall Council Chambers Agenda 1. Call to Order 2. Public Discussion 3. Consider approval of August 27, 2009 minutes 4. Housing and population data overview 5. Policy and zoning code options to encourage moderate-priced housing 6. Affordable housing and public relations 7. Identify topics for next agenda 8. Discuss next meeting time and location 9. Other business 10. Adjournment Attachments 1. October 22, 2009 memoradum and charts on housing and population data 2. October 19. 2009 memorandum regarding policy and zoning code options to encourage moderate-priced housing 3. October 23, 2009 memorandum regarding affordable housing and public relations 4. January 2009 Land Lines article Inclusionary Zoning, Incentives and Land Value Recapture [submitted by Maryanne Dennis] S: \PCOIAGE N DAS\JCCOGIAHC\2009IAFCagenda 1 0-29-09.doc MINUTES JCCOG AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 2009 - 4:00 PM CITY HALL, CORALVILLE, IOWA PRELIMINARY Members Present: City of Coralville: Ellen Habel City of Iowa City: Steve Long City of North Liberty: Tracey Mulcahey City of Tiffin: Royce Phillips City of University Heights: Louise From Home Builders Association: Glenn Siders Housing Fellowship: Maryann Dennis Housing Trust Fund of Johnson Co.: Tracey Achenbach IC Community School District: Lane Plugge Johnson County: Andy Johnson University of Iowa: George Hollins Staff Present: John Yapp, Kris Ackerson, and Linda Severson Others Present: Charlie Eastham (Housing Fellowship); Mark Patton (Iowa Valley Habitat); Rebecca Reiter (JC League of Women Voters); Dan Smith (The Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association) INTRODUCTIONS: John Yapp called the meeting to order at 4:04 PM and asked the members of this new committee to introduce themselves. He explained the history of this group and other groups who have looked at affordable housing. This committee is charged with looking at affordable housing from a regional point of view, and to eventually make recommendations on affordable housing policy and programs to the Johnson County Council of Governments Board and individual city councils. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None GROUP DISCUSSION: Yapp asked the group what some of the regional affordable housing issues are from their perspective. Siders stated that several years ago there was a scattered site task force in Iowa City which then also delved into affordable housing issues. He stated that not everyone was invited to the table; for example, those involved in the building and marketing of housing were not part of the committee. He also said there had been a "no name" group with a core group of 15 that met for about two years. They drafted a document that they are willing to share with the group. Dennis stated that the Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis (including surrounding communities) showed a need for affordable housing, specifically rental and scattered around the area. Yapp reviewed the nine recommendations from the JCCOG Affordable Housing Task Force Meeting (December 18, 2008). The initial task force was made up primarily of elected officials; JCCOG Affordable Housing Committee August 27. 2009 Page 2 of 3 it had been recommended that a more permanent discussion group be formed made up primarily of staff. The first task force came to the following conclusions: A. Affordable housing programs, policies and decision-making rests at the local level. However, Johnson County communities should continue to work together to improve and clarify public understanding of the benefits of quality multi-family housing. B. While some recommendations can only be addressed by each respective jurisdiction, it would be helpful to build regional capacity and to strive for consistency between jurisdictions. Among other topics, JCCOG should investigate and provide information about inclusionary housing policies, enterprise zone designations, and redevelopment opportunities. C. JCCOG should work to create an environment for collaboration and cooperation. The participation and involvement of the University of Iowa is important, as well as input from other stakeholders such as the school district, major employers, non profits, realtors, homebuilders, etc. D. A standing committee should be created which includes local government staff, officials, and other stakeholders. This committee should share information and work toward consistency in affordable housing policies, be a forum for exchanging 'best practices,' and build the regional knowledge base. E. In five years. another affordable housing market analysis should be conducted. During discussion. some specific issues related to affordable housing were noted including: Public awareness/perception Lack of education/information on the issue Build knowledge base Public resistance Keep educating Put a face on affordable housing Perception is the biggest issue-sometimes opinions without the knowledge People who complain may not have all the facts NIMBY (not in my backyard) Definition of affordable housing Levels of affordable housing Reg u lations/ti me/expense Private covenants Cost of land Cost of development Need consistency in region re: regulations, building codes, zoning Cost of scattered sites/financing Hard to find land for multiple units JCCOG Affordable Housing Committee August 27, 2009 Page 3 of 3 Multiple units are more cost efficient Inclusionary zoning No break from utility company-new requirements add $600 per house Rental units need more green space Affordable housing is an issue at the University for international students and merit staff Does affordable housing cause concentration of poverty? Stability is important in the lives of children and how they perform in school Management issues (how well are units managed or not managed? Management nonresponsive or slow to respond so problems grow) Safety issues (more police calls) Maybe more need for support services May not have access to resources (e.g. no car or no bus service) Community resources (library, community center) are important Yapp asked the group for some direction on what topics to emphasize and what information the group would like JCCOG to research. Phillips suggested that staff review today's comments/suggestions, the housing market analysis and other documents and develop a list of five to six priorities. Phillips emphasized how important a topic this is and that the group should work toward developing solutions as opposed to just generating further discussion. The topics circled as being issues the committee would like more research on for the next meeting include: Public awareness and perceptions/education on affordable housing issues; understanding the demand for affordable rental housing; understanding the ways which affordable housing may utilize more community resources and matching those resources to housing locations; the cost of developing housing. DISCUSSION ON COMMITTEE STRUCTURE: Yapp asked if the group would like JCCOG staff to chair and organize the meetings, or if they would prefer electing one of the committee members to chair the meetings. The majority indicated they were comfortable with JCCOG staff chairing, facilitating, and supporting the committee (agendas and minutes). NEXT MEETING TIME AND LOCATION: Mid - late October at Coralville City Hall. Note: It was later determined the next meeting of the JCCOG Affordable Housing Committee would be on October 29 at 4:00 PM, at Coralville City Hall. ADJOURNMENT: With no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 pm. Minutes taken by L. Severson s/PCD/Minutes/JCCOG/AFHC/aff hsg minutes8 27 09.doc Agenda Item #4 Date: October 22. 2009 L-~JCCOG ~ ~.... m e m 0 To: JCCOG Affordable Housing Committee From: John Yapp. Director Re: Agenda Item #4: Housing and population data overview At the last meeting. we discussed the impact of the national economy and the Flood of 2008 on the local housing market. We have collected data from several sources and have prepared the attached graphs depicting some trends in the local market. Charts 1-3 Housing prices: Charts 1-3 show trends in housing prices. The average price of a single family home in the Iowa City area market has decreased from approximately $190,000 to $181.000 between September 2008 and September 2009. The average price of condominium units has increased from approximately $129,000 to $134,000. This indicates a softening of the market for single family homes and higher demand for condominiums. Cook Appraisal report on rental rate trends: The attached report from Cook Appraisals quantifies the trends in rental rates in Iowa City, Coralville and North Liberty. Rents continue to increase in the urbanized area, especially for 2- and 3-bedroom units which saw over a 5% increase over the past two years. The area within one mile of the Pentacrest has the highest rents and saw the highest rental increase. Charts 4-6 Household size in Johnson County: Owner occupied housing typically has a higher household size than rental housing. The most frequent household size for rental housing one-person households; this indicates a limitation in earning power as opposed to households with more than one wage earner. In general, household sizes have been decreasing: Johnson County now has an average household size of 2.29 people, compared to 2.59 nationally. Chart 7 Rent as a percentage of household income: A high percentage (48%) of renters devote over 35% of their income to their rent. This is the upper range of the percentage of income which can be devoted to rent before having difficulty paying for other needs (utilities, food, health care. transportation). While this is not uncommon in a market dominated by student households. it indicates a high percentage of households are at risk if their income is compromised. Charts 8-9 Population and income growth: Johnson County population is forecasted to continue to grow. Johnson County's 2005 population is estimated to be 121,000. Woods and Poole's (2009) forecast for Johnson County's 2020 population is 158,456, and 210,695 in 2040. While the housing market will certainly fluctuate from year to year, this population growth will fuel continued demand for housing over the long term. Similarly, personal income growth is expected to continue to rise over the long term. C:\Documents and SettingsIJyapp\Desktop\MemoForm-newJCCOG.doc Chart 10 Housing occupancy status: Approximately 39% of households in Johnson County are rental households, compared to 26.7% of rental households in the entire state. This suggests that affordable rental housing should be a significant part of the discussion. Chart 11 Distribution of home values: In the year 2000, 18% of owner-occupied homes were in the $100,000 to $125,000 price range. As home values are projected to increase, there will be more homes in the upper end of the price spectrum and fewer in the middle. What does this data mean? In the short term, the price of single family homes has decreased this past year while condominium prices and rents have increased throughout the urbanized area. This indicates increasing demand in the lower-cost part of the market which includes rentals and condominiums. Land use and zoning policies which encourage more construction of housing in this price range would benefit households seeking housing in the price range of condominiums ($134,000 average in Sept 2009). Over the long term, Johnson County is projected to continue to grow in population, and the average value of owner-occupied homes is expected to shift more toward higher-value homes and less moderately priced homes. This is consistent with trends of condominiums taking the place of owner-occupied homes for buyers in the lower range of the housing market. The next agenda item (agenda item #5) is a summary of land use and zoning code policies which other communities have used to encourage more moderately proceed housing. We have focused on policies and programs which do not require any direct subsidy to the household, but are more of a manipulation of codes or an indirect subsidy of public infrastructure. C:\Oocuments and Settings\jyapp\Desktop\MemoForm-newJCCOG.doc Housing Prices Chart 1: Average Total Price of Sold Units in Iowa City Area $200,000 $190,190 $180,000 $160.000 $ 140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80.000 $60.000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 Sep-08 $180,846 Sep-09 . Sold Sign Ie Family Units . Sold Condo Units 10waClty A.ssodaUon of REALTORlj,' Ch,rt d.sllVl bV C, Wldm.r Aueust zoo, F or more than 15 years we have been gathering information on the local rental market in order to access its health. This year we have gathered information on 5,365 units across the entire Iowa City area, including Coralville and North Liberty. We have focused on professionally managed buildings with four or more units. Our study splits the data out into four geographic zones. Zone 1 the "Pentacrest Mile" is displayed graphically on the map below and defined to encompass those areas with the greatest appeal to the stu- dent population. The rest ofIowa City comprises zone 2, Coralville is zone 3 and North Liberty, zone 4. Because of the competitive nature of zone one, as it focuses on the student market, it continues to earn the highest rents and experience the lowest vacancies. Also, the growth in rents continues to be the strongest within zone one. Boundaries for definition of "Penta crest mile" area. The red line shows the bound- aries used to define the "Pentacrest Mile" area. Bor- dered on the north by the Iowa River and south by Highway 6. The western border lines up with Sunset St while the east- ern border lines up with Gover- nor St and Summit St. A'VelAGE RENT BY UNIT 1YPE AI€J GEOGRAPHICAL AR:A . Core '09 1-8edroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-8edroom CNeraIl A_ Zone 1 $ 677 $ 722 $ 1.247 $ 1,485 $ 1,033 Zone 2 $ 493 $ &J7 $ 924 $ 675 Zone 3 $ 435 $ 627 $ 830 $ 631 Zone 4 $ 510 $ 658 $ 705 $ 945 $ 704 CNeraIl $ 529 $ 653 $ 926 $ 1.215 $ 761 AVERAGE RENT COMPARISON Cora 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-8edroom Overall Average % Change % Change % Change % Change % Change 2007-2009 2007-2009 2007-2009 2007-2009 2007-2009 Zone 1 5.17% 5.96% 6.52% 3.66% 5.74% Zone 2 7.51% 7.20% 3.81% 5.70% Zone 3 2.35% 3.53% 2.18% 2.66% Zone 4 0.00% 5.89% 6.03% 3.73% 4.09% Overall 3.82% 5.63% 5.39% 3.69% 4.70% The three tables on this page summarize what we found through our survey. Rent figures were calculated from the 'core', that portion of our data which represents those units for which were had two consequitive years of data and from which a comparison could be drawn. Vacancies are representa- tive of our entire sample. VA~ BY UNIT TYPE AND GEOGRAPHICAL AREA - 2009 l-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom Overall Averat;Je 0.73% 0.51% 2.17"10 0.00% 0.80% 1.01% 1.61% 1.19% 1.43% lore 1 lore 2 lore 3 lore 4 Overall 0.00% 1.49% 4.52% 1.41% 4.00% 0.00% 1.43% 0.88"", 1.43% 1.10% 15.15% 6.17"10 $200,000 $180,000 $160,000 $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20.000 $0 Johnson County Average Home Sales Price Chart 2: Johnson County Average Home Sales Price .... N n'I <t III <D .... 00 '" 0 .... N n'I <t III <D .... 00 '" 0 .... N n'I <t III <D .... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... N N N N N N N N N SO\M"ce: U.'S. Bureau ofthe C@nsus. JohnsonCounty Audtor ZOO, (hart design by C. Widmer August 1009 - - 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% Chart 3: Percent Change in Home Sales Price by Each Proceeding Year .... N n'I <t III <D .... 00 '" 0 .... N n'I <t III <D .... 00 '" 0 .... N n'I <t III <D .... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... N N N N N N N N N Source: U.S. Bureauofthe Census. JohnsonCountyAudtor 200' (hdirt design bV C. wIdmer August lOO'J Household Size Chart 4: Household Size - Renter and Owner Occupied ~Owner Occupied ~ Renter Occupied 12.000 10,000 8,000 6.000 4,000 2,000 0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 Sour<:*:2005- .<: .<: .<: .<: .<: lOO7Amfrlc.an <:> '" '" <:> '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Community :J :J :J :J :J 0 0 0 0 0 Survey 3-Yur .<: .<: .<: .<: .<: Estimates c: c: c: c: c: 0 0 0 0 51 ChartdesignbvC. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Wldm.r August '" '" ~ '" '" 'i" 0. 0. 0. 200' ..... N ,;, .;. .;., '0 '0 .<: '" ~ :J o .<: c: o ~ ~ '" 0. J, Chart 5: Household Size - Owner Occupied 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1 5,073 4,601 2 345 Number of Persons per Household SOUrce:1OO5-1007 American Community Survey 3-'1'.. oar Estimates ChartiHdgnbyC. IhidmerAugustlOO' 474 6 -----, c: 51 ~'O "'- c.O "'.<: ~ '" o ~ E i5 '-.<: o ,:. 124 7 12,000 l 10,000 8,000 6.000 4,000 2,000 o . 1 Chart 6: Household Size - Renter Occupied 623 261 1,069 2 345 Number of Persons per Household 6 >ource: 1005-1007 A.merkan Community Sutvty l.Y.. Estlm~es Chart design by C. Widmer AuCUst 2009 58 7 48.20% Rental Rates vs. Household Income Chart7: GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME 10.80% . less than 15.0 percent . 15.0to 19.9 percent .20.0 to 24.9 percent . 25.0to 29.9 percent .30.0 to 34.9 percent 11.10% .35.0 percent or more Total of 14,561 Units Sourc.: 1005.2007 Amtrlc.m Community Survey P(t.Estlrnates (h~r1d.si(nby'. Widmer AUl\utlOO'9 5.90% Population Growth by Income Levels Chart 8: Projected Population Growth - Johnson County 250,000 210,695 197,529 - 200.000 c 158,456 171,417 0 184,445 .., ..!!! 150,000 121,236 ::J 111,461 a. 145.645 0 133,071 0.. .... ;;; 100,000 - ~ 50,000 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year Sourc@-:2009 WOODS & POOLE ECONOMICS. INC. Ch.lIrt design by C. Widmer August 2009 $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35.000 " E $30,000 0 u .: :I $25.000 'c. a $20.000 ~ " 0.. $15,000 $ 10.000 $5,000 $0 Chart 9: Johnson County Per Capita Personal Income Projection $45,084 1970 1980 1995 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 1985 1990 1975 Sourct!: 2005~2007 Arne-man Community 'j,urvey Chart design by C, Wklmfr AUi\lst 200' Year 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% Housing Profiles Chart 10: Distribution of Housing Units Occupancy Status and Tenure for Johnson County 54.5% 55.9% 54.9% 0.0% . Vacant . Owner . Renter 2000 2007 2012 Source: u.s. Buruu of the Census. 2000 Census of populaUon.and Housing; ESRI fortusUfor 2007 and l012 Chart dts~ by C. Wldmtr Aucurt lOa' Chart 11: Distribution of Owner Occupied Housing by Value in Johnson County 20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% __2000 ~ 12.0% c .. 10.0% ........2007 u ~ .. Q. 8.0% __2012 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ff I:l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~.~. ~'~'~. ~.~'~.~'~'~'~'~'~.~'~'~'~.~'~.~'~'~~ ~~9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' #.#####.#####.#~~~~~~~~~~~ ~. 1->' ~~. ~", ~~. ~", ~~, ~~. ,1;)' ^~, ~~. ~~. ~I:l ,_<S' ~<S' ~<S'_",,1:l ~1:l_",,<S' ~I:l ~<S' ~<S' .,"" .,'" .,. .,. 'i' 'i' .,~ 'i' .,~ .,' .,V 'i" ~~' '\.." .,~. ,\-" ,,-' !?~. ",-' ",-' (:)~' !?~. .,"" .,'" .,'" .,'" .,'V .,"\. .,'" ~ .,'" .,^' Sourct:U.$. Burt~oftht Ctnsus, 2000 c.nsusofPopul~ion.lndHousine:;ESRlfOftC,)Stsfor 2007 ,md lOU Ch..rt dtSlen by C. widmer August 200' Agenda Item #5 ~JCCOG .-~ m e m 0 ,...... Date: To: From: Re: October 19, 2009 JCCOG Affordable Housing Task Force Kristopher Ackerson, Assistant Transportation Planner Agenda item #5: Policy and zoning code options to encourage moderate-priced housing Various communities employ land-use tools to improve the supply of workforce and retiree housing. Density bonuses, land banking, and streamlined approval are three prominent tools, as well as encouraging accessory dwelling units and reduced parking requirements for new struc- tures. The following memorandum highlights successful affordable housing policies employed in other communities that could be considered locally in Johnson County. Significantly, these tools do not require the city to allocate funds for implementation, which improves the likelihood of adoption. Let us know at our October 29 meeting if you would like more information about any of these policy options. Affordable Housing Policies More Efficient Use of Housina/Accessorv Dwellina Units - An accessory dwelling unit is a sec- ondary dwelling incorporated within a single-family structure - sometimes called a 'granny flat.' Accessory dwelling units (ADU) may not be subdivided or otherwise segregated in ownership from the primary residence structure. The City of Bellevue, Washington allows ADUs by right and reduces the following requirements to accommodate affordable accessory dwelling units and bonus units on-site: · Lot coverage · Parking requirements · Building height · Lot area · Open space Proportional Impact Fees - Local governments frequently charge impact fees to cover the infra- structure costs associated with new development. These one-time expenses are typically levied upon issuance of building permits to help ensure that public facilities and services - including water and sewer systems, roads, and even schools - have adequate capacity. While impact fees are initially charged to the developers of new homes, the cost of the fees may be passed on to the occupants in the form of higher home prices or rents. Impact fees are often assessed on a flat, per-unit basis; for example, the same impact fee may be charged for a small town home and a spacious single-family residence even though their "im- pact" differs. Proportionate fee schedules help to preserve housing affordability by reducing the fees associated with smaller, starter homes and infill development. Density Bonus - Some jurisdictions have adopted inclusionary zoning policies that require de- velopers to set aside a percentage of units in housing developments for low- and moderate- S:\PCDlJCCOG\TRANS\Projects\Affordable Housing Task Force\Afford Housing Policy- 1 O_6_09.doc income residents, Other communities, however, employ a carrot and stick approach. Density bonuses and other incentives offset the developer's project costs and compensate them for pro- viding affordable units, which may otherwise reduce profits. This approach enlists private sector help in contributing to the affordable housing supply and reduces segregation of affordable housing. To be effective, the incentives must be enticing enough to encourage the development community to take advantage of them. To achieve these goals, the cities expect that developments seeking density bonuses meet the necessary qualifications by offering units at prices affordable to people at 80% or less of the Area Median Income. In return, the cities offer a range of incentives to developers, from greater density to reduced parkland exactions, and special financial assistance or variances in parking requirements: · Reduced minimum lot sizes and/or dimensions · Increased maximum lot coverage . Increased maximum building height and/or stories . Reduced on-site parking standards, including the number or size of spaces and ga- rage requirements · Reduced street widths · Reduced park dedication requirements · Shifting commercial uses to residential . Expedited review Pre-Approved Plans for Streamlined Approval - Several west coast communities have initiated programs that reduce the time and cost of the permit process for the developer for certain types of housing, while promoting well-designed housing. These cities offer contractors the opportu- nity to purchase or use house plans that are pre-approved by the city. The city reviewed plans in advance for conformance with building codes and many other standards. Sacramento, Califor- nia offers such "permit ready" plans for infill housing. The Portland, Oregon program targets housing on narrow lots, and Santa Cruz offers accessory dwelling unit plans. Portland's plans were developed based on design contest winners. Alternative Sinqle Family Zone Development (Hiqher Density) - The City of Portland, Oregon zoning code (33,110.240) includes 'alternative development options' in several residential zones including zero-lot line duplexes, screened flagpole lots, and transitional density between single family residential and non-residential areas. These options allow for variety in development standards while maintaining the overall character of a single-dwelling neighborhood. The alternative development options are allowed by right, unless specifically stated otherwise. Still, the project must comply with all of the applicable development standards of the code, These options have several public benefits: · They allow for development which responds to environmental concerns, especially in hilly areas and areas with water features and natural drainage ways; · They promote better site layout and opportunities for private recreational areas; · They promote opportunities for affordable housing; · They promote energy-efficient development; . They allow for the provision of alternative structure types where density standards are met. such as accessory dwelling units and zero lot line duplexes; and S:\PCD\JCCOG\TRANS\ProjectslAf1ordable Housing Task ForcelAf1ord Housing Policy_10_6_09.doc Innovative Housina Demo Proarams - Several communities have established innovative hous- ing demonstration projects or pilot projects to test how well cottage housing and other innovative housing types would address local housing needs and fit into the community. Cottage housing is small, detached houses clustered around a common landscaped area. In Seattle, this type of housing is allowed in multifamily lones, but is now being considered for single family lones. Standards for cottage housing would promote development that is similar in scale and design to traditional bungalows. Driveway or alley access to shared on-site parking can be accommo- dated with minimal impact on the neighborhood streetscape. For example, the mayor of Seattle supports creating affordable housing options by increasing the variety of housing types available to Seattle residents. Cottage housing can provide an affordable alternative to single family home ownership. As part of the Housing Choices project, the Department of Planning and Development worked with the Seattle Planning Commission on concepts for cottage housing. These concepts will form the basis for developing more detailed standards for this development type. Conclusion Image source: City of Seattle The tools outlined in this memorandum provide a menu of options to consider. What works in one community may not be effective in another. However, the success of these programs creat- ing workforce and retiree housing hint at opportunities to for further research and evaluation based on local conditions. Feel free to contact me with questions at 356-5247 or Kristopher-Ackerson@iowa-citv,org. I will also be at your October 29th meeting to answer questions. S:\PCD\JCCOG\TRANS\Projects\Affordable Housing Task ForcelAfford Housing PolicL10_6_09,doc Agenda Item #6 ~JCCOG r~ m e m 0 r.... Date: October 23, 2009 To: JCCOG Affordable Housing Committee From: Linda se~~uman Services Coordinator Re: Definition of Affordable Housing, and Marketing/Public Education Attached you will find the following information: . HUD definition of Affordable Housing Is this the definition the committee would like to use as we proceed, or should we not focus on a specific definition of affordability at this time? . Information from Lincoln NE Affordable Housing needs Analysis re: NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard). This is produced by the City of Lincoln. . Billboards re: Affordable Housing in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Marin (San Francisco area) Consortium For Workforce Housing, and Northern Colorado. These media campaigns have either been at a state level or in a large metropolitan area. . Information from the City of Austin Texas re: Affordable Housing Forums The Austin Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department and the Austin Housing Finance Corporation hosted a series of public forums on various aspects of affordable housing with different topics and speakers at each forum. The definition of Affordable Housing For housing to be affordable, housing expenses (whether mortgage expenses or gross rent payments) must equal no more than 30 % of a household's gross income, according to HUD. Mortgage expenses include repayment of principle, insurances, taxes, and interest payments. Typically utilities, maintenance, and rehabilitation expenses are not included in the determination of owner affordability. Gross rent includes utilities and rent payments. en z e - I- - Z - LL W C C z <C en w z - ..J W C - :J C) w :E e (J z - -w C) :liE m 0 C J: () - =- E c ns ns I.. I.. C) C) 0 I.. .:.::: a. C.) tn .2 0- m .- .c C ~ (1) (1) E C O-~ o ns - a. (1) > C (1) (1) C E b+-' ._ 0 C Q) :::::s > E -= E Q) o E () 0 en J: o en o 0 N 0 ~ N en T- ,..: .c N C.) - .... Ii: ns 0- :liE < (1) (1) > > +i +:i C.) C.) ~ ~ w w - LL e w ..J m ~ >- I- - U ~ o w.. o ~ u r:: Q) .!!! S "00 Q) (,) ::E.5 Q) S 0- (,) Q) .5S r:: 0 co (,) ._ r:: "0 .- Q) ~ ::Eo ~:::. o o co r:: co Q) :as Q) ::EO (,) ~.5 o co r:: .!!! Q) "Cs Q) 0 ::E(,) ~.5 o It) o 0 0 0 000 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N co -.::t_ 0 T""" N N ('i) ('i) 0 co (0 N co -.::t 0 L() (0 (0 f'... co co 0> 0 ~~~~~~~T""" ~ o 0 0 0 0 000 L() L() 0 0 L() L() 0 L() L() (0 f'... co (0 L() -.::t~ N N co -.::t 0 L() 0 L() 0 -.::t -.::t L() (0 (0 I'- I'- co ~~~~~~~~ o 0 0 0 0 000 N co -.::t 0 (0 N N co 0> -.::t~ 0 (O~ N 0> L() T""" T""" (0 T""" L() 0> N (0 0 ('i) ('i) -.::t -.::t -.::t L() L() (0 ~~~~~~~~ 00000 000 0 L() (O-.::t~NOO (0 0 -.::t co T""" N ('i) ('i) ('i) -.::t ~~~~~ o 0 0 o 0 L() T""" T""" T""" -.::t f'... 0 -.::t -.::t L() ~ ~ ~ Q) S_ o- (,) Q) r:: > _Q) 000 0 0 0 0 0 r::~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .!!! ~ L() co 0 N -.::t (0 co 0 "C Q) T""" T""" N N N N N ('i) ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o. o - o C"') "C '0 .c::Q) Q) N 0.'- :::J(/) o J: T""" N ('i) f'... -.::t L() (0 ....0') zo UJ~ ~or-f ...... UJQ) ::.::,Q ~ 0 c(8 :E~ ~~ -Q) Lfffi co a:::: T""" o ~ co T""" -.::t ~ a:::: 0> o (0 co 0 T""" ('i) ~ a:::: o -.::t co ~ N ~ a:::: N o co co L() T""" ~ co tt:: co w ~ ~- c (]) a:::: .= >- m~ ..... == <1>5 s<( -CI <1>(J <1>_ o <1> X..c: <1>..... .....>- g.o C-c m <1> 0..... m ui"S <1> 0 E(ii :po ::J I/) -C~ 'cu >- c..~ ..... 0 c';:: m..... c 0 <1>..!!:! .....<1> L.. L.. .E.E -<1> <(0 Ic (Jm - 3= '-'0 >-= 'Em o <1> ..c:..c: ..... ..... ::J <( -c . c- o>m(O .~ >- Ef) I/) c: ' ::JOl() o >- r-- I.....l() >-:Q~ :!:: L.,.,. (Jt5~ m..!!:!l() 3=<1>Ef} OL..-c -.E<1> >-1/)<1> .0>-0 -cmX <1> c.. <1> :geo > m c e c c c..<1>m I/)f-~ m ..'- <1> C <1>o..::J gEE mmo 3= x 0 o LU L.. _ -c - '<1> m~.o >- c , .....::J<1> ==(iic '5.....0 <1> ~ m ..c:L..L.. .....-c.E 0><1>..... c.....c iJ .!!1 <1> ::JI/)O::: _I/) om' c ...... .- LU co _~Ef} ~O.!!1 e> I Q) m >-- ..c:c::J om~ .....L....c: ~.E 0 L.......CJ) -c<1> $<1>0 o L.. c ..........m <1> ~ 3= ..c:L..0 f-m- ~ E <{ ~ o CD o ~ ''j 8' c: Eo '8 R 0. From the City of Lincoln, Nebraska: Affordable Housing Needs Analysis (produced by the City of Lincoln) Strategies to Change NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) Attitudes: . Educate and inform neighborhood organizations on the benefits of affordable housing and housing for special populations. . Encourage affordable housing providers to workwith neighborhood associations before seeking City approval. . Provide "best practices" design standards for housing redevelopment projects to reduce NIMBYism. Because Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) involves fear of change in the physical and/or social composition of the neighborhood and community, overcoming NIMBY attitudes can be one of the most difficult barriers to overcome. These sentiments can be easily translatable into government action or inaction. These attitudes can use concerns about property values, quality of life, neighborhood aesthetics, to cover up feelings against low-income persons, about persons with disabilities, and/or racial or ethnic prejudice. The City and partners should work to educate and inform neighborhood organizations on the benefits of affordable housing and housing for special populations. Informed neighborhoods are better able to communicate with affordable housing providers and cope with the transition of new development and social change. The City should encourage landlords, developers, special needs housing providers, and affordable housing providers to work with neighborhood associations before seeking City approval. Effective communication about a project can reduce neighborhood fear and opposition. The City and its partners should provide "best practices" design standards for housing redevelopment projects to reduce NIMBYism. Affordable housing can often be designed to fit within the existing neighborhood framework and remain affordable. The City should continue with the media to highlight best practices in affordable housing design, maintenance, and support. ~ ~ --~~-~- i"""~'"""''''-- ,{~. .. :?~~,~:~~ . .;./ ~~" ",..;v;'~;::;':;;::..t ~;~:f;.i~~::,~~~;:):.t~;:;;~:?f,#M;,i>if}#IiItJ/: I I I l_n .. "'tJ c: o - '" - ~ . '"'CI CD o E ..c 0 ~..c c... 1- -- a.= :::>> D '" ~~ CI) c: .. D 0)", - - ... ::) ..a ~ ,.---.-- i ~ bJ:) C .-- V) =' 0 V) :c u CJ.) ~ CJ.) C J..... 0 '-l~ ..c ~ 3 J.... ~ ",~., ?:ir' 1',Ir '1 t) ~li-"l ('~ (1\ -r I '0" 'rt' ~ r 1(' ., ~ C \ 'i. ,I ___ ..........._ -' ......'" .:J-,"'...." ..;z,r l..J _ '~~r' r' [ I I "( r ' ') ), ~Cr.C) ('c ,(leO' 0 (V(1"' r"rrl tit r !....~ ~ - .,.,'" .,;,-Y/'" .L V r~..v ~...Q~L_:t:) in Northern Colorado .....-.....: ~, II takes O\'C:r $14.00Il'l0ut 10 alToi'd the ~Lvet<lge 2.~droom aparlmenlltere. It takes almost $27.00JhOUf lO afford the averaae hOflle tletC'. These people benefit our communities. Let's keep them here. Support affordable housing. ~ rOl_W",,-nsu.t ~ nu_t...,-'nt"rthtCilyalJa:1C4G:l, (ii", ~ ~jj.~.fIM6la~a.rroc _ ....11ie~1I(,. llil~t,'IM~lI ~ ~__- HllJ'U.\'!: IC .1'0-~"'11108 In..w t\1wIl]I, r- illlip' C-'Mv. (If Calf ..,.. ^~li6r .' 1\olI:oIIIII~Q{~~. .;#' "'--- - lnclusionary Housing, Incentives, and Land Value Recapture Nico Calavita and Alall Mal/adl I. ndu~i(}nary Housing (III) program~ are land l use regulation~ that require developers of market-rate residential devdopment to set .~. aside a small portion of tllf~ir units. usually hetwecn 10 and 20 pel'cent, for households unabl!': to aflorcl housing in the open market. A1- tCl'l1ativcly they can choose to pay a Ice 01' donme land in Iiell of providing units. Originating in the carly 19708, inclusionary housing has grown tel be a major vehicle by which alTordable hOllsing units .lI'e provided in lal'ge parts of the United States, as well as an important strategy fill' alliJrdable hOlls- ing in many other countries. From the first days of IH, there has becn widc- spread debate over what is sometimes called lht: "incidence" controversy-that is, how the cost~ of providing alTordablc, and by definition bdow- market, housing are addres~cd, and which of tht' parties in a real estate lran~aclion actually bears those costs. As a result of wicle~rl"(:ad concern that costs arc being borne by developers and/or ma\"- kct-ratc hO/llcbuycrs, and retlecting legal concerns as~ociated with the takings issut', malty mUllidpali- tie~ enacting inclllsionary ordinances huve com- hined them with incenlives 01' cost offsets designl~c1 to make the imposition of all aITordnble hOllsing obligation cost-neutral. Many of lhese incentives, hOWeVl:lj displace costs onto the public, either directly or indirectly. We suggest that a bettt'r approat:h is to link inc:lll~ionary housing- to the ong-oing process of rezoning eilher by the developer or by local govenlln~nl initiative lhu~ lrcating it explicitl)' as a vc.hide for recapturing ChI' public benefit some part of the gain in land value rt'"~lIlting from public action. The La Costa Paloma Apartments In Carlsbad. California, have 180 apartment units affordable to households earning at or below 50 and 60 percent of the area median Income. J A N U A H Y 2 0 0 9 . Ltllul Lines . LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY ill . FE AT U R E Inclusioll'!r)" Housing, ItIlTllti\l('s, and Land Valuc R('(',ljllnll' .~ Part of an Incluslonary development In affluent suburban Cranbury, New Jersey, this four- unit structure Is designed to look like an expensive single-family house. The Evolution of Incluslonary Housing Several factors contdbuted to the development of inclusionary housing in the early 1970s: efforts to foster racially and socioeconomically integrated communities and combat exclusionary practices; the rise of the environmental movement that spur- red growth management programs; the use of exactions to make development pay for the costs of growth; and sharp housing cost increases, par- ticularly in key areas such as California and Wash- ington, DC. During the I 980s, IH became an im- portant tool to offset the Reagan administl'ation's savage cuts in federal funding for atTordable hOlls- ing by pushing states and localities to take a more pro-active role in the atTordable housing arena, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts led the nation in IB, driven by stale laws ena(:ted dur- ing this period that required local govc.rmnents to produce, or remove obstacles blocking others from producing, their "f.,ir share" of alTordablc housing. Outside of those states, the greater ''''ashington, DC, region produced many of the first significant IH programs, notably in Montgomery and Prince George's counties in Maryland, and llairfax and Loudoun counties in Virginia. IH was originally a tool to provide alTordable housing and create mixed-incomc communities in suburban areas, but today it is also being adopted in urban centers sllch as Denver, Baltimore, Ohica- go, and New York where redevelopment, infill, and densification-and often gentrification-are taking place. Some cities arc also requiring developers who convert rental housing into condominiums to make a portion of the former rel1lalunits alTord- able to moderate- or 100v-income homebuyers, extending the reach of IH to existing buildings as well. Implementing IE programs becomes more problematic, howevel~ when applied to urban infill sites and redcvelopment areas, where developmcIlt is ofi:en more expensive and difIicult than in UlC suburbs, demanding particular fiexibility in dr-sign- ing and administering IE ordinances. No national survey has ever been conducted of IH programs. Estimates rangc from 300 to 500 programs in existence and 80,000 to 120,000 units produced (Porter 2004; Brunick 2007; Mallach 2009). IH may not be a panacea for the nation's housing alTordability problems, but it can bc a sig- nificant, locally based component of an ovcrarch- ing stmtegy in which the [ederal and state govern- ments must also play significant roles. IH, moreovel~ is no longer an exclusive Ameri- can practice. In recent years it has spread not only to Canada and many European countrit':s, in dud- <<> Alan Mallach 16 LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY . uuul Lines . J A N U A R Y 2 009 ing England, lrdand, France, haly, and Spain, bur also to such far-flung places as lndia, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia. The global sprend of HI l'eflects a larger policy shift under which gov- ernments incrcnsingly look to developers to shoul- der part of the widcr societal costs of develop- ment. But who actually pays for those costs'~ The Incidence Controversy Since it can be assllmed that affi)l"(Jable'housing units will sell 01' rent for below-market prices, therc is little doubt that there are costs associated with complying with a lllunicipality's inclusionary 1'C- quirement. ''''hile developers OfLCH maintain that renters 01' buyers of market~rate units bcar th(~ cost of IH, cconomists point out that the devdoper and/ or the seller of raw land to the dl~veloper should, undcr most circumstances, absorb part or all of these costs. There seems to be agreement in the literature that "in the long nm . . . most of the (:osts will be passed hack ward to the owners of land" (Mallach I !l84-, 88). A strong argument in support of this position is that a rationnl developer will already charge the maximum housing sale price that the market can beal; and thus will be unable to pass along addi- tional eosL~ thmugh higher prices. Under those ,>~ C> NIco Cal..;!. circumstances, if newly imposed exactions increase thc cost of developmcnt, eithcr the pl'ice of the land 01' thc dcvelopers' profits will havc to come down. ''''hile developers may reducc their profit lIlargins, it is likely Ihat wherever possible they will seek a reduction in land costs. Critics of IH main- tain that these represent unreasonahle and unfair outcomes, while proponents argue that it is neither unfilir nor unrcasonable for the landowner to heal' mueh of the cost of inelusionary programs. Is the reduction of land costs a desirable 0\1t- come of IH? Put differently, docs the imposition of IH actually reduce land vnlue from some level in- trinsic to the land, or does it represent the rccap- turc of an increment in land valne associated with govemmcntal action? It is widely a1"/~ued that increases in land values do nOI gcnerall)' rcsult from the owner's unaided efforts, hut rather from public invcstments and governmelll decisions, and m'c thcrefore in wholt" or part "unearned." This argulllelll is acccpted in many European l'()untries, leading to the adoption of regulations that attempt to recapture or elimi- nate what :Ire considered to be windfill! profits assoeiatcd with land dcvelopmcnt. Our research, supported by the Lincoln Institute, has found that in mauy countries IH is viewed explicitly as II The single,famlly developer of the La Costa Paloma Apartments In Carlsbad, California, was allowed to cluster the IH units and build them in collaboration wlth a nonprofit developer. J ^ N U A R Y 2009 . Land Liues . LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY 17 ---------- . FE A T U R E Illdll~Hlll"r~ !!owiiug, IUl'l'llllH'S, aud Land V;dlU' \{('('aplllll' i Mill River House Is a 92.unlt mid-rise In a downtown redevelopment area of Stamford, Connecticut, with a 12 percent lowl moderate Income set aside. mechanism to recaptUl'e unearned increments in land value. In the United States, where the "right to devel- op" is far more central to the concept of property rights than is the case in most European countries, land value recapture is not widely recognized as a part of planning practice and land development. Thus, the impositioll of affordable housing obliga- tions is often legitimatized by providing compensa- tion in the form of incentives or cost oo-sets to de- velopers for the additional costs of providin~ IH. As Ha~man (1982) has argued, incentives such as density bonuses and other cost off.~ets have 110 elTect on the price paid by the buyers of market units, but ensure instead that the unearned incre- ments in land value will keep flowing to landown- ers. Even housing advocates will argue for cost olTsets, if only as a way of gaining support and blunting developers' opposition to the enactment of indusionary ordinances. Incentives and cost olTsels provided to developers are not free, how- ever, but may carry pott:lltially high public costs. Incentives and Cost Offsets It has been argued in the United States that with- out incentives and cost offsets, "inclusionary hous- ing becomes a constraint or an exaction on new development" (Coyle 199], 27-28). For examplt:, the California Department of Housing and Com- munity Development (HCD) hus advised for years against "the adoption by local governments of in- c1usionary housing ordinances or policies which shill the burden of subsidi..dng low-income afforcl- ability fium government to private builders" (Coyle 1994,2), The current HCD position is that JH creates a potential obstacle to private residen- tial development and therefc)re localities must demonstrate that IH adoption 01' implementation has a neutral or even positive impact on develop- ment. Similarly, a 2007 New Jersey COlllt decision found that municipalities seeking to enact inclu- sionary ordinances must pl'Ovide the developers with "compensating benefits" to mitigate the cost of the alTordable housing obligation (In tlte IHatter Q[ the Adoption of No]A.C. 5;94 anrl.5:95, 390 N.]. Supel: I (App. Dill, 2007), ccrtij.' dtllierll92 NJ. 72 (2007). In this climate, it is undt:rstanclable that local governments incorporate cost off.~ets or incentives in their inclusionary programs, even in the absence of a clear legal doctrine requiring off.~clling bene- fits, These programs may include density increases or "bonuses," waivers or deferral of impact fees, fast-track permitting, lower parking requirements, o Todd Dumols, City 01 Slamford lond Us. Bu,..u :1.8 LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY . Land Line.~ . J A N U A R Y 2009 relaxation of design standards such as street widths and setbacks, or other regulatory concessions that subseque::ntly reduce developers' costs. In addition, financial incentives may be provided through fe::d- eral Community Development Block CI';Ults and Home:: funds or state and local subsidies, induding below-market-rate construction loans, tax-exempt bond mortgage financing, and land write-downs. A survey of IH in California found that local financial subsidies arc commoll among the most productive jurisdictions (NPH/CCRH 2007). The most fh:quently lIsed subsidy is tax increment financing (TIF), which is all but synonymous with redevelopment in California. Under statc law, 20 pereent of all TIF reve::nues must be dedicated to the provision of affordable housing. After TIF funds the most wielely used incentives are density bonuses and permit-related concessions, such as deferral, redul:tion, or waiver of applicable permit and impact fees. Some jlllisdictions also oller fast- track pl'Oeessing and ncxibility of design standards, including height and bulk requircments, as well as parking and open space requirements. In his national study of IH programs, Porter (2004, 9) found a similar pattern with "the most common compensatory offering being density bonuses. . . although their specific value in any given location is difficult to calculate." Studies have shown that it i~ often po~~ible to fill the affordability ~ap-the difference between what it costs to provide housing and what lower- income households can afford-through local gov- ernment measure~ that reduce production cost~. However, developers often argue that cost o{f.~ets alone do not compensate thcm adequately for in- dusionill)' requirements. Even additional financial assistance does not gllal'antee acceptance of IH by the dcvelopment industry. In large jurisdictions in filst-growing areas with powelful development in- terests, even cost offset approaches can be thwarted, particularly during recessiol1ary periods, as they were rno~t e~regiollsly in the City of San Diego in the early 1990s (Calavita and Grimes 1994-). These incel1lives often come at a public cost. Financial incentives are paid directly by taxpaycrs, either through appropriations at the federal, state, or local level, or by redirecting revenues that would Olherwi.<re go into the city's genenll fund. The effect of fee waivers, reduclion~, or deferrals is nearly as direct. Development ("J'eates demands for publil: facilities, services, and infrastructure, the costs of which arc typically mitigated by fees whose nature and amount is directly related and roughly propor- tional to the developmel1l's impact. ''''hen a project docs not pay its full cost, the city must make lip the lost revenue or allow infra- structure or service levels to decline. in either case, the public bears a cost. Fast-track permit approval will requil'e more personnel 10 process the plan at public cost, or lengthen delays fi)r prqjects that do not benefit from the fast track. LJwer parking re- quirements might be justified by the assumptioll that lower-pricl~d tmits require less parking, an as- sUIllPtion that Illay not be supportable in all cases, and thlls a legitimate cause of concern fi)!' neigh- borhood groups. Density bonuses, which are uscd widely to in- ccntivize urban design amenities as well as afford- able housing, can be both the most attractive to the developers and the most problematic to the public at large. When superimposed on an existing planning framework, density bonuses raise three major areas of concern. Torrey Highlands, a 76-unlt IH project serving families earning up to 60 percent of area median Income, Is In the City of San Diego's northern fringe area. 1. They undermine cxi~ting rcgulatiollS, dlectivcly undoing land use planning and zoning regula- tions without the associated processes that usu- ally accompany zoning changes. A Los Angeles J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 9 . Laud Lines . LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY 19 SOMA Grand Is a 246.unlt condo- minium project with 29 IH units In the South of Market (SOMA) neighborhood of San Francisco. The IH units are affordable to families making 100 percent of area median Income, while the market-rate units sell for between $500,000 and $1.9 million. City Council member opposed to IH stated: "Th is proposal automatically increases a dcnsity in a l:Ommunity by 15 percent, which in ellect trashes a community's ellorts to master plan their community" (Smith 2004, 2), 2. They may lower lhc level of service of public facilities and infrastructure in the area. Analysis of the adequacy of public fildlities, identifica- tion of necded improvemcllts, and scheduling of the invcstments-either on the part of the developer or the locality--is needed to ensure that levels of selvice will not deterioratc as a rcsult of the additional densit), associated with land use or zonin~ changes. Without it the qual- ity of life and publie services in neighborhoods affected by significant use of density bonuses may deteriorate. These imp;u:ts are ran:ly taken into consideration. 3. They frustrate citizen participation in the plan- ning process by being enacted outside of that process. Once approved, their implementation is piecemeal, and their impacts only gradually fHt. A critical distinction must be made, therefore, betwecn density increascs resulting frol11 an up- zoning based on a plannin~ process that has pre- sumably taken into account the issues arising fi'om an incrcase in land use intensity, and density bonuses superimposed on existing zonin~ with the potential to have a significant but unanticipated impact on neighborhoods. The costs imposed by density bonuses, as with other incentives, are ofi:en forgotten by those who propose using cost offsets and incentives to support TH. Land Value Recapture Through Rezoning Reliance on cost Oml':lS and incentives implicitly assumr.s a static view of urban plannin~-that III requirements will be applied within thc cxisting planning and zoning framework as part of the sub- division or site plan approval process. Within this framework, while rational developers will try to buy the land at prices that reflect those requirc- ments, the availability of cost offsets will reduce the developer's motivation to bargain with the landowner who, in any case, will not be motivated to sell her land at an)' less than the price she could get in the absence of IH requirements. In the end, the landowner is likely to get her price and the de- veloper his profits, while the city and the neighbor- hoods absorb lhe cost~. All of this reflects the re- , <<> Pelarls Group SIln FrancisCo Rasld."tIel Market Repo,l luctance of the public sector in the United States to confront the effr.cts of any action on land valucs, There is a bettcr way. Planning is a dynamic process. Plans and ordinances arc changed constantly to reflect both changes in e.xternlll conditions and the potential profit to be made Ii'om upwning properties to higher density or more profitable IISr.S. Constant wning changes are a realily of the plannin~ pro- cess in any area with strong development demand, When land use intensities change and land values increase as the result or public action, TH can be- come an integral part of lhe local land use plan- ning and development process, rather than heing superimposed on a pre-existing framework. Thlls, TH can become an instrument to \"~eapLUre th~ land value increment associated with the ~vern- ment action of rezoning 01' land lIse changes, The state of Washington took a step in this directioll in 2006 in enacting Hn 2984, which spe- cifically authori7.es IH where it is linked to upzon- iugs. As described in one commentary, "If a city decides to up:wuc a neighborhood, it can require that anyonr: building in that area includc a eel"tain number of affordable units. . . . The justification of this reqlliremr.nt is that the property owner has 20 LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY . Limd Li'les . J A N U A R Y 200 9 - - - ~ --- 1. been given increased land value by virtue of the up7.one, and that increased value is the equivalent of an incentive under a voluntary program" (The Housing Partnership 2007, 5). Rules proposed by the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing, which sets standards for fH in the framework of the state's statutory fair-share scheme, have moved in a similar direction. The rules establish "minimum presumptive densities" and "presumptive maximum" IH set-asides, rang- ing Irom 22 units to the acre with a 20 percent set- aside in urban centers to 4 units to the acre with a 25 percent set-aside in areas indicated for lower density under the State Development and Redevel- opment Plan (New Jersey Council on Aflordablc Housing 2008,47-48). Although not explicitly linking the indusionary requirement to a rezoning per se, re7.0ning will be needed in many, if not most, cas('.s to achieve the presumptive densities required by the proposed rules. Recent New.Jel'sey legislation has gone a step furthel; mandating that every residential develop- ment "resulting from a 7.oning change made to a previously nonn:sidentially zoned property, where the change in 7.oning precedes the application. . . by no more than 24 months," contain a set-aside of housing allordablc to lo\\'- and moderate-income households (Public Law 46 of 2008, amending NJ. Statutes Ann. 52:27D- 307). The Council is empowered to set the appropriate set-aside per- centage in such cases based on "cconomic feasibil- ity with consideration for the proposed density of development." Although the concept is ul'guably implicit in the Washington statute, the New Jersey legislation appears to be the first time thatth(~ principle of "planning gain," as it is termed in the United Kingdom, or rhe recapturc of the land value increment resulting li"(lm rezoning for the benefit of affordable homing, has been enshrincd in American land planning law. \I'Ve are not proposing that communities do away with existing IH s)'stems, but rather that there be a two-tiercd approach. The first would impost': mod- est inelusiollary requirements within an existing zoning fi-amework, incorporating those il1(:en tives that can be offered withrmt undue cost to the pub- lic. The second would be associated with significant up7.0nings of either specific parcels or largcr areas groundcd in thc principle of laud value recapture, imposing inclusionaf)' requirements that in many cases could be substantially higher than the 10 to 20 percent range that is now customary. A period of transition might be appropriate to allow land markets to adjusl to the new regulatory framework. In conclusion, the time ha~ come to reconsider the underlying premises of IH in the United States. By grounding IH in the practice of rezon- ing, we believe it is possible to better integrate ill- c1usionary housing into good planning practices and begin to recapture lor the public good some part of the unearned increment in land values re- sulting from the exercise of public land use regula- tory powers. Il . ABOUT THE AUTHORS NICO CALAVITA iJ pro/wol" elllf/'illlS ill Ihe Graduale Progmm ill Cil)' I'lanning at Sail Diego Stale Ullir't/"Si!J. CoOl/lrul: llculavil@mail.sdsl/.ecl/l ALAN MALLACH is a /lumt.n'rlmt .ffl/iorfillow at Mrtropolilal/ Poliq Pmgmll/ 0/ tbe Bmdil/g.l illstill/lion ill HflSllillgtuJ/, DC. {II/dl.iritillg srllolar al llle Fdeml Reserve Bank qf Philttdelphia, COI/lact: amaIlQell@,"l)lI/casl.'ltt . REFERENCES Brunick, Nicholas. 2007. Compensatory benefits to developers for provision of affordable housing. Incluslonary housing: Lessons from the national experience. Trenton. NJ: New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing. Calavita, Nlco, and Kenneth Grimes. 1994. Incluslonary housing in a con. servative city: Equity planning strategies and political realities. Presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Assoclallon of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Phoenix, AZ. November. Coyle, Timothy. 1991. Inclusionary zoning: Is it helping or hurting housing? Land Use Forum 1(1):27-28, -. 1994. Barriers /0 affordable housing. Sacramento, CA: Depart- ment of Housing and Community Development. Hagman. Donald. 1982. Taking care of one's own through incluslonary zoning: Bootstrapping low- and moderate.income hOllsing by local govern- ment. Urban Law and Policy 5: 169-187. The Uousing Partnership. 2007. The Ins and outs: A policy guide /0 Inc/usionaryand bonus housing programs in Waslling/on. DC. August: 5. Mallach, Alan. 1984, Inclusiooory hal/sing programs: Policies and practices. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. Rutgers University. -. 2009 (forthcoming). Understanding affordable housing: Creating and preserving housing fOl" the less afflvent America. Chicago. IL: Planners Press New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing, 2008. Proposed amcndments to substantive rules for pcriod boglnnlng Junc 2, 2008, Trenton, NJ. Non.Profit Housing Association of Northern California and California Coalition for Rural Housing (NPH/CCRH). 2007. Affordable by choice: Trends in California Incluslonary JlousJng programs. San Francisco, CA. Porter, Douglas. 2004. Incluslonary zoning for affordable hOUSIng. Washington. DC: Urban Land Institute. Smith, Greig. 2004. Inclusionary zoning: It's Just bad planning. Council District 12 Monthly Column. City of Los Angeles. J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 9 . Land Lilies . LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY 21