Inclusionary Housing: Proven Success in Large Cities by Nicholas J

ZPOct04cover 11/12/04 12:55 PM Page 2

ZONINGPRACTICE October 2004 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION

ISSUE NUMBER TEN PRACTICE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PART TWO 10 ZPOct04.txt 11/12/04 12:49 PM Page 2

Inclusionary Housing: Proven Success in Large Cities By Nicholas J. Brunick

For nearly three decades, inclusionary housing served locally as an effective tool for medium-sized cities and wealthy suburban counties to address the need for affordable housing.

In a climate of decreased federal support, growth for low- and moderate-income house- lations (extremely low-income, disabled, local governments in affluent communities holds. The extension of the affordable hous- homeless, etc.) and preserving more of the found inclusionary zoning to be a cost-effec- ing crisis to working-class and lower-middle local tax base for other pressing public needs. tive way to produce homes and apartments income households has heightened the The global economy. To be competitive in for valued citizens, including seniors, public urgency to address the problem. a global economy, urban communities need a employees, and working-poor households, No funding. Inclusionary zoning is the sufficient supply of affordable housing for every who would otherwise be excluded from the market-based tool cities need for producing level of the workforce, a basic level of economic housing market. affordable housing without using tax dollars. equality, and a healthy consumer class. Until recently, no large U.S. city had Public revenues remain tight despite the Inclusionary zoning provides large cities with a adopted an inclusionary housing program. With urban resurgence, and the fiscal capacity of multipurpose policy tool to help maintain a the 1990s resurgence of many urban centers as large cities has been severely hamstrung by strong economic environment by creating vibrant locations for new investment, inclusion- the 30-year retrenchment in federal spending affordable housing for entry-level occupations ary zoning has surfaced as a policy solution to on cities and housing in general, the poor in key industries, by strengthening the eco- rising housing costs in big cities. economic conditions of the past three years, nomic security of low- and moderate-income This issue of Zoning Practice—the second and the recent federal tax cuts and other fed- households, and by integrating affordable in a two-part series on inclusionary housing— eral policies that dismiss any significant level housing into market-rate developments and tra- discusses why large urban centers are examin- of federal revenue sharing to aid states and ditionally market-rate neighborhoods. ing and adopting inclusionary housing strate- cities during these historically tough times. Racial and economic segregation. Inclu- gies. The article also presents five case studies Through the use of creative cost offsets sionary housing can mitigate the symptoms of of recently enacted inclusionary housing pro- such as density bonuses, flexible zoning stan- racial and economic segregation plaguing many grams in Boston, Denver, Sacramento, San dards, and expedited permitting processes, American cities today, including crime, failing Diego, and San Francisco. Finally, lessons that large cities can create affordable housing schools, and social instability, all of which deter other local governments (large or small) can while preserving the federal and state housing human and capital investment. By producing draw from the large-city inclusionary housing dollars they receive for more vulnerable popu- low- and moderate-income housing in an attrac- experience will be proposed and examined. tive, mixed-income fashion within market-rate WEB-BASED ENHANCEMENTS developments, inclusionary zoning programs FOR ZONING PRACTICE WHY LARGE CITIES? help to reverse exclusionary development pat- It is clear that inclusionary zoning is no longer In order to provide better service to Zoning terns, which discourage companies and moder- a policy tool used exclusively in affluent sub- Practice subscribers, with this issue we offer ate-income households from choosing to locate urbs and small cities. Why are large cities now the complete list of references for Nicholas or remain in the city. beginning to adopt and implement inclusion- J. Brunick’s article and affordable housing Sprawl and disinvestment. Sprawl pulls ary housing programs? Though the reasons web resources on the Zoning Practice web public and private investment away from the are varied, they all stem from the need to pre- pages of APA’s website. We invite you to urban core. If affordable housing cannot be serve the livability and attractiveness of cities check out this enhancement at www.plan- found in the city, developers and citizens will for capital investment and people. ning.org/ZoningPractice/currentissue.htm. look where land costs are lowest for invest- For more than the poor. Large cities are We will do this whenever we determine that ment—usually on the fringe of the metropoli- adopting inclusionary housing programs we can use the Internet to heighten the tan region. Inclusionary zoning programs because of their proven effectiveness in informational value we are delivering to our allow large cities to use density bonuses and addressing the dearth of affordable housing. subscribers. other cost offsets to produce and maintain a In the 1990s, housing costs outpaced income sufficient supply of affordable housing within

ZONINGPRACTICE 10.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 2 ZPOct04.txt 11/12/04 12:49 PM Page 3

ASK THE AUTHOR JOIN US ONLINE! About the Author During November 15–26, go online to participate in our “Ask the Author” forum, an interac- Nicholas J. Brunick is an attorney and the tive feature of Zoning Practice. Nicholas J. Brunick will be available to answer questions about Regional Affordable Housing Initiative this article. Go to the APA website at www.planning.org and follow the links to the Ask the Director at Business and Professional People Author section. From there, just submit your questions about the article using an e-mail link. for the Public Interest (BPI) in Chicago. The author will reply, posting the answers cumulatively on the website for the benefit of all subscribers. This feature will be available for selected issues of Zoning Practice at announced times. After each online discussion is closed, the answers will be saved in an online archive available through the APA Zoning Practice web pages.

the city core, thereby reducing the economic Thomas Menino to sign an executive order in The ordinance, passed by the city council in pressures that send people, employers, and February 2000 creating an inclusionary hous- 2002 in response to the city’s workforce hous- investment away from the city. ing policy. ing needs, was an amendment of the housing Large cities face housing shortages that The program. Under Boston’s policy, any and zoning codes to create a moderately threaten the economic and social well-being residential project that contains ten or more priced dwelling unit (MPDU) program. of their communities. In the absence of a units and, 1) is financed by the City of Boston The program. Unlike many local inclu- coherent federal urban policy and significant or the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), sionary zoning ordinances, the Denver pro- federal funding for affordable housing, inclu- 2) is to be developed on property owned by gram covers new construction and existing sionary zoning provides large cities with a the city or BRA, or 3) requires zoning relief, buildings that are being remodeled to provide market-based tool to address the need for a triggers the requirements of the program. Due dwelling units. Most programs cover new con- wide range of housing options. to the antiquity of the city’s zoning code, struction only. Existing developments that are nearly all residential developments over nine for-sale must include a 10 percent affordable LARGE-CITY CASE STUDIES units are covered by the executive order. component. Because of a state statute and a Since 2000, five major U.S. cities with popula- The Boston policy states that in all qualify- Colorado Supreme Court ruling prohibiting tions exceeding 400,000 people have ing developments, 10 percent of the housing local ordinances from limiting rent levels, adopted inclusionary housing programs. units must be affordable. While the policy pro- Boston has an executive order requiring vides for off-site development of affordable developers to build affordable housing in new units, a developer who exercises this option developments, and Denver, San Francisco, must include a 15 percent (rather than 10 per- San Diego, and Sacramento have inclusionary cent) affordable component. This requirement housing ordinances that require affordable creates an incentive for developers to construct homes and apartments in new developments. the affordable units on-site. Boston’s program These programs provide trail-blazing exam- also allows for a fee-in-lieu payment to BRA. ples that other urban centers can follow. The results. In the initial year of implementation, eight privately financed high-end housing Boston developments were subject to the policy Background. The economic boom of the requirements. As a result, approximately 246 1990s raised income levels for Boston area affordable units were constructed with many residents, but housing prices went even more in the pipeline. A total of $1.8 million in higher, soaring at a double-digit pace. As con- fees were collected, with millions more commit- struction and land costs increased, gentrifica- ted. New housing development continues to Susannah Levine tion spread from the central downtown areas boom in Boston, and development projects to surrounding neighborhoods, displacing remain lucrative, even with the affordable unit moderate-income families. In addition, afford- set-aside requirement. Pleased with the results able-housing advocates said the city’s unoffi- thus far, the city is now conducting a demonstra- The redeveloped Denver Dry Goods cial inclusionary housing program was failing tion project to see how a 15 percent affordability Building, which includes a mix of affordable to produce affordable units, pointing to two requirement would work. and market-rate housing, retail, and office high-profile developments devoid of afford- space. Built in 1888, this 350,000-square- able housing. Boston’s tight housing market, Denver foot building is located in downtown Denver and pressure from community-based organi- Background. Denver has one of the newest near the city’s light rail system. zations and housing advocates, led Mayor inclusionary housing programs in the country.

ZONINGPRACTICE 10.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 3 ZPOct04.txt 11/12/04 12:49 PM Page 4

rental developments can voluntarily choose to LARGE-CITY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM M price 10 percent of the units as affordable. City/Implementation Threshold Number of Units/ I In addition to density bonuses, reduced Date/Population Affordable Units Produced Income Target Affordable Requirement Control Period O parking, and an expedited review process, Threshold: ten or more units Income Target: at least one- Denver also provides a cash subsidy to develop- F half of affordable units for c Boston, Massachusetts 246 inclusionary units com- households earning less m ers for the affordable units (state law does not “Maximum allowable by 2000 pleted since 2000; than 80 percent of the AMI; 10 percent a allow the city to provide fee waivers). The remaining affordable units law” 589,141 $1.8 million in fees O for households earning 80- b Denver ordinance permits the developer to build 120 percent of the AMI, with i the required affordable units off-site but within an average of 100 percent of the AMI the “same general” area. Instead of construct- ing the affordable units, developers also may contribute an in-lieu fee to the special revenue Threshold: 30 units or more F Denver, Colorado Income Target: 65 percent of 10 percent of for-sale units or fund in an amount equal to 50 percent of the 2002 3,395 units completed since the AMI for rental units and a voluntary 10 percent for 15 years price per affordable unit not provided. 554,636 2002 less than 80 percent of the rental units AMI for for-sale units a The results. Denver’s program stands out “ as the most successful to date for a city this

size. Since its passage in 2002, the program has Threshold: any development produced (or is in the process of producing) over 9 units Income Target: 15 percent of 3,395 affordable units. To the surprise of city Sacramento, California 649 units completed since the units must be set aside as 2000 staff, no fee-in-lieu money has been collected 2000; more in the pipeline affordable. One-third of 15 percent 30 years 407,075 households making 50-80 thus far. Though Denver is considering a few percent of the AMI. Two-thirds of households making less minor changes to the program’s implementa- than 50 percent of the AMI tion, it is deemed a tremendous success. Furthermore, the program has not had a nega- Threshold: ten or more units tive effect on development levels in the city. Income Target: rental units 1,200 units completed San Diego, California are set aside for households between 1992 and 2003; 55 years for rental and 1992, expanded in 2003 earning at or below 65 per- 10 percent 200 units in the pipeline; for-sale units Sacramento 1,223,341 cent of the AMI; for-sale $300,000 in fees Background. In the 1990s, Sacramento experi- units are set aside for households earning at or below enced significant growth in residential and com- 100 percent of the AMI mercial development on its periphery. The com- mercial development created new jobs for a variety of income levels, but the majority of residential Threshold: ten or more units 128 units completed Income Target: for rental development was upscale. To provide housing to San Francisco, California between 1992 and 2000; units, households earning 50 years for rental and 1992, expanded in 2002 450 units completed since 10 percent low- and moderate-income families near or within 80 percent or less of the for-sale units 776,733 2002; 440 units in the AMI; for for-sale units, these job-rich areas, the city council explored an pipeline households earning 120 per- inclusionary housing program. Through the work of cent of the AMI a broad coalition of affordable-housing advocates, labor unions, neighborhood associations, environmental groups, minority-led efforts, faith-based sity bonus, developers also may receive organizations, and the local chamber of com- expedited permit processing for the afford- merce, the city council passed the Mixed-Income able units, fee waivers, relaxed design Housing Ordinance in 2000. guidelines, and priority status for available The program. The ordinance applies to all local, state, and federal housing funds. residential development over nine units in “new The results. The Sacramento ordi- growth areas,” including large undeveloped nance is responsible for the creation of areas at the city’s margins, newly annexed 649 units to date with more to come; areas, and large interior redevelopment areas. this ordinance has not had a negative The affordable requirement under the ordinance effect on development. is 15 percent of all units, which can be single or multifamily. Flexibility in unit type helps devel- San Diego opers determine a cost-effective way to con- Background. In 1992, San Diego voters

struct the affordable units. and Redevelopment Housing Sacramento Agency imposed an inclusionary housing Sacramento provides a density bonus of 25 Ryland Homes in Sacramento. This single- requirement in the North City Future percent, which follows the density bonus family home was produced under the Urbanizing Area (FUA), a developing sec- required under California law for certain types of Sacramento inclusionary zoning ordinance. tion of the city with no rental or afford- affordable developments. In addition to the den- able housing. The requirement reserves

ZONINGPRACTICE 10.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 4 ZPOct04.txt 11/12/04 12:49 PM Page 5

AM MATRIX that included formerly skeptical developers. A market, the architects of the law were concerned In-Lieu-Fee Payment/ Other Developer detailed economic analysis of the potential that it might generate substantial fees and little Off-Site Development Density Bonus Incentives impact of a citywide ordinance convinced devel- affordable housing, but city staff are thus far opers that they would be able to do business pleased with the performance of the ordinance Fee: must be equal to 15 per- and say it has not stifled development. cent of the total number of under the new law. No citywide developer incen- market-rate units times an tives, but increased height The program. The ordinance requires all affordable housing cost factor None and FAR allowances permit- residential developments of ten or more units San Francisco Off-site: may build off-site, ted in the financial district but set-aside requirement to include a 10 percent affordable housing Background. In 1992, San Francisco adopted a increases to 15 percent component. The FUA is exempt from the city- limited inclusionary housing program to address wide ordinance and will continue to adhere to the shortage of affordable housing for very-low- $5,000 reimbursement for each for-sale unit, up to 50 the 1992 FUA inclusionary zoning framework. and low-income residents. The 1992 ordinance Fee: 50 percent of the price percent of the total units in applied only to planned unit developments per affordable unit not built the development; $10,000 Neither the 1992 FUA inclusionary zoning Up to 20 percent for single reimbursement for each Off-site: allowed if developer family units; up to 10 percent ordinance or the 2003 citywide ordinance pro- (PUDs) and projects requiring a conditional use affordable rental unit if unit builds the same number of for multifamily units affordable units in the is priced for households at vides developers with incentives or cost offsets permit, neither of which affected a substantial “same general” area 50 percent of the AMI or for building affordable units. The city opted to not amount of residential development in the city. below; expedited permit process; parking reductions

Can dedicate land off-site or build off-site if: Expedited permit process for • there is insufficient land affordable units; fee waivers; zoned as multifamily on-site 25 percent relaxed design guidelines; • alternative land or units may receive priority for sub- must be in “new growth” sidy funding areas

Fee: calculated based on the square footage of an affordable unit. Fee increases between 2003 and 2006 from $1.00 per square foot to $2.50 per None None square foot Off-site: developers can opt

to build off-site (set-aside San Diego Housing Commission does not increase)

Fee: determined by several factors including the projected value of on-site affordable units; in-lieu payments are made to the Citywide Refunds available on the Affordable Housing Fund environmental review and None Off-site: developers can building permit fees that elect to build affordable apply to the affordable units units off-site, but the set- Windwood Village in San Diego includes 92 one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments. aside requirement increases to 15 percent The development allows working families and low-income households to live closer to work.

20 percent of all new rental and for-sale offer cost offsets, such as fee waivers or density In January 2002, the inclusionary zon- dwelling units for households earning 65 per- bonuses, because developers can easily cover ing ordinance was expanded to include all cent of the area median income (AMI). the cost of affordable units through the sale of residential projects of ten units or more, Developers must build affordable units market-rate units, according to an economic including live-work units. The program’s because payment of a fee-in-lieu is not an analysis conducted for the housing commission. expansion came in response to the ongoing option. According to San Diego planner Bill Developers can opt to make a fee-in-lieu affordable housing crisis and political pres- Levin, the FUA’s inclusionary zoning program payment, which is based on the square sure from community groups concerned produced 1,200 affordable units over the last footage of an affordable unit compared to the about the displacement of low-income decade. Development has continued rapidly in gross square footage of the entire project. households as a consequence to rising the FUA. The city estimates that 1,200 addi- Upon approval from the plan commission and property values and unattainable live-work tional affordable units will be produced before the city council, the inclusionary housing units. Live-work units starting at $300,000 the FUA is completely built out. requirements also can be satisfied by provid- in the mid-1990s had reached $700,000 by In July 2003, San Diego adopted a citywide ing the same number of units at another site the end of the decade. inclusionary zoning ordinance. The effort to pass within the same community planning area. The program. Under the new ordinance, the ordinance was based on the success of the The results. Under the citywide law, 200 10 percent of the units in a residential devel- FUA program, the rising demand for affordable affordable units are in the development opment of ten or more units must be afford- housing for many groups, and the recommenda- pipeline, and $300,000 in fees has been col- able. The affordable requirement jumps to 15 tion of an inclusionary zoning working group lected. Because of the robust San Diego housing percent if the units are provided off-site. PUDs

ZONINGPRACTICE 10.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 5 ZPOct04.txt 11/12/04 12:49 PM Page 6

and developments that require a conditional centers, encouraging sprawl and exacerbating its program so that two-thirds of the housing use permit are subject to a 12 percent afford- affordability problems. Evidence from the five units produced will serve very-low-income able component, increasing to 17 percent if cities profiled in this article, including inter- households (households below 50 percent of the affordable units are built off-site. views with planning staff, shows this to be the AMI). One-third of the housing units pro- San Francisco offers minimal developer unlikely. City staff in San Francisco report that duced serve households at or below 80 per- incentives. Incentives are limited to refunds the overall pace of development has actually cent of the AMI. on the environmental review and building per- accelerated since passage of the mandatory Denver and Sacramento provide devel- mit fees for the portion of the housing project inclusionary housing ordinance—not surpris- opers with some flexibility in complying with that is priced affordably. Developers can make ing considering the broad experience of inclu- these eligibility requirements. Denver devel- fee-in-lieu payments to the Citywide sionary housing programs across the country. opments that are taller than three stories, Affordable Housing Fund instead of building In fact, analytical studies, anecdotal evidence, equipped with elevators, and where over 60 the units. The amount of the fee is determined and developer and community reaction from percent of the parking is in a parking struc- by several factors, including the projected communities nationwide indicate that inclu- ture may have affordable for-sale units value of the affordable units if the developer sionary housing programs have not caused priced up to 95 percent of the AMI and constructed them on-site. overall levels of development to slow. rental units up to 80 percent of the AMI. In The results. Since the adoption of com- Sacramento, on small projects (less than 5 prehensive inclusionary zoning in 2002, the Large-city administrators acres), a developer may meet the inclusion- program has generated 450 affordable homes ary obligation by pricing all of the affordable and apartments with approximately 440 more must not buy into the homes at or below 80 percent of the AMI if units in the development pipeline. Planning all the homes are for-sale units and on-site. staff report an increase in development activ- misconception that In addition, with special approval, small ity since passage of the ordinance. condominium developers may price two- inclusionary housing will thirds of the affordable units below 80 per- BENEFITS . . . . drive development cent of the AMI and one-third of the afford- Though large cities are newcomers to inclu- able units below 50 percent of the AMI. sionary zoning, three valuable benefits can be out of urban centers. Programs in large cities also can create a seen from the experience thus far. First, inclu- mix of income levels, with some units going to sionary zoning is a highly versatile policy tool Three of the cities profiled provide little moderate-income households and others to that can be used effectively in large cities, in the way of cost offsets to developers. Most low-income households, as is done in Boston affluent suburbs, and smaller communities. inclusionary housing programs include den- and San Diego. Finally, a large city can success- Second, inclusionary housing programs, when sity bonuses, flexible zoning, fee waivers, an fully use an inclusionary housing ordinance for properly designed, will not chill development expedited permitting process, or other bene- moderate- to middle-income residents, as in in large urban centers. Third, inclusionary zon- fits to help developers offset the cost of pro- San Francisco, which sets the highest income ing can successfully serve a broad range of ducing affordable homes. The San Diego, San targets of the five cities profiled. income levels and populations in need of Francisco, and Boston programs appear to be affordable housing in urban centers. working quite well despite offering little or no NOT JUST FOR SUBURBS AND Versatility. Given both the poor prospects cost offsets. Denver and Sacramento provide SMALL CITIES ANYMORE for a renewed federal commitment to afford- a generous list of offsets, and on balance, After decades of decline, American cities are able housing and the proven success of inclu- have created more affordable units (which on the rebound. But continued success cannot sionary zoning programs around the country, could be attributed to many factors independ- be taken for granted. Ensuring the future more cities with higher-cost housing markets ent of the inclusionary ordinance) than their growth and vitality of large urban centers should feel emboldened to explore inclusion- counterparts. This fact demonstrates the ary housing programs. The cities profiled in importance of carefully examining and under- this article have successfully created many new standing the local housing market when units of affordable housing (or collected com- designing a program. parable fees-in-lieu) using a variety of Who is being served? Inclusionary hous- approaches with cost offsets, income levels, ing programs in large cities can be a flexible and administration, demonstrating a highly tool serving a wide variety of income levels. A versatile tool that can be tailored to meet the large-city program need not serve only house- specific needs of cities large and small. holds at or near 100 percent of the median Effect on development and cost offsets. income. Denver, the most productive of the Large-city administrators must not buy into large-city programs, provides for the “deep- the misconception that inclusionary housing est” income targeting, primarily serving will only work in large-tract, suburban subdivi- households at 65 percent of the AMI in rental sions, and that inclusionary zoning require- units and 80 percent of the AMI for owner-

ments will drive development out of urban occupied units. Similarly, Sacramento targets Photos by Michael Davidson

ZONINGPRACTICE 10.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 6 ZPOct04.txt 11/12/04 12:49 PM Page 7

requires deliberate policies and significant The author thanks Lauren Goldberg and ingly, vacation homes of wealthy New Yorkers political will. Census data for 2003 show that Jessica Webster for hours of research, inter- inflate area home values, and encroaching cities such as Chicago, which saw population viewing, and writing that contributed to this sprawl from the metro area exacerbates the gains from 1990 to 2000, have again begun article; Susannah Levine and Ellen Elias for problem. Though development translates into losing population to suburbs with better editing assistance; David Rusk and Teresa property tax revenues for the affected Long housing options for working-class house- Ojeda at the City of San Francisco; and Beverly Island towns, it also forces many people to holds. Large U.S. cities must preserve afford- Fretz-Brown and Emily Hottle at the City of live elsewhere. Town officials say the affordability for a broad range of income levels if Sacramento for assistance in providing photo- able housing shortage is a threat to the local they wish to maintain and enhance their place graphs for this article. economy, as workers in lower-paying jobs in theglobal economy and provide a desirable simply cannot afford to live in the area. Even environment for moderate-income house- Horton commutes to work from a nearby town holds. because Southold is too expensive. Officials Inclusionary housing is working in the NEWS BRIEFS hope the ordinance will combat gentrification cities profiled in this article and elsewhere. AFFORDABLE HOUSING GETS HUGE BOOST ON and attract young professionals and families Though a versatile tool in the creation of LONG ISLAND who may not otherwise be able to afford a affordable housing without having to use By Josh Edwards home in Southhold. major public subsidies, inclusionary housing In August, Southold, New York, passed an Copies of the Southhold, New York, afford- programs cannot be the only answer to hous- ordinance requiring developers to set aside able housing ordinance, and the ordinance ing needs. Until there is a more effective 25 percent of the new units as affordable establishing the affordable housing fund, are option, inclusionary zoning does offer U.S. housing for every subdivision over five units. available to Zoning Practice subscribers by con- cities a market-based policy tool that can help The ordinance passed unanimously with tacting the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) at with this critical effort. strong support from both residents and devel- [email protected]. A selection of inclusionary housing opers. Lacking any loopholes, the ordinance Josh Edwards is a researcher with the ordinances featured in this article is avail- will require the highest percentage of afford- American Planning Association in Chicago. able to Zoning Practice subscribers by con- able units on Long Island, a measure tacting the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) intended to help stem the alarming affordable Cover photo: A 345-unit luxury condominium at [email protected]. housing shortage in this mostly affluent east- development in San Francisco. Thirty-three ern section of the island. units are affordable under the San Francisco After months of refinement, the board ordinance. Photo provided by the City of San agreed on the details: one quarter of all units Francisco Planning Department. must be affordable to individuals or families earning at or below 80 percent of the median income for the county, which is $68,250. In VOL. 21, NO. 10 May, Southold approved a housing fund to Zoning Practice (formerly Zoning News) is a monthly accompany the ordinance. Funds will be distrib- publication of the American Planning Association. uted in the form of grants and low- and no-inter- Subscriptions are available for $65 (U.S.) and $90 (for-

est loans for income-eligible residents for eign). W. Paul Farmer, AICP, Executive Director; William R.

affordable units and will also be used directly Klein, AICP, Director of Research. for the creation of affordable housing. Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548–0135) is produced at APA. Jim Developers who choose not to meet the 25 per- Schwab, AICP, and Michael Davidson, Editors; Barry Bain, cent requirement must pay a fee toward the AICP, Fay Dolnick, Josh Edwards, Megan Lewis, AICP, Marya housing fund to subsidize affordable units else- Morris, AICP, Rebecca Retzlaff, AICP, Lynn M. Ross, Sarah K. where in town. Southold is using the fund to Wiebenson, Reporters; Kathleen Quirsfeld, Assistant Editor; Some of the country’s largest, most expensive cities are ensure that affordable units remain perma- Lisa Barton, Design and Production. still without mandatory inclusionary housing programs nently affordable. Affordable units are resold to Copyright ©2004 by American Planning Association, 122 and must rely on other approaches to offer low- and the housing fund at market-rate prices. Buyers S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The moderate-income residents respectable housing. In then purchase the units from the housing fund American Planning Association also has ofﬁces at 1776 these two historic buildings in Chicago’s gentrifying at the lower subsidized price. Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Edgewater neighborhood, resident income levels are 50 County Supervisor Joshua Horton www.planning.org. - 60 percent of the AMI. Federal low-income housing tax describes the affordable housing ordinance All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro- credits and an extended-use agreement secure the as “a giant step forward” and notes that duced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or affordability of the units for 30 years. Without the dili- Southold and other nearby communities have mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any gence of neighborhood advocates, the local alderman, reached a crisis point as home prices escalate information storage and retrieval system, without permis- and a supportive developer, the projects would not beyond the reach of most prospective resi- sion in writing from the American Planning Association. have happened. dents. The average home price in Southold Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled surpassed $500,000 in 2003. Not surpris- ﬁber and 10% postconsumer waste.

ZONINGPRACTICE 10.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 7 REFERENCES (from Inclusionary Housing, Part Two, by Nicholas J. Brunick; October 2004)

LARGE-CITY CASE STUDIES, BOSTON The Program Background Levin, Bill. 2003. Senior Planner, City of San Diego, California. Callahan, Tom. 2002. Director, Massachusetts Affordable Housing Telephone interview, August. Alliance (MAHA). Telephone interview, April. The Results The Program Levin, Bill. 2004. Senior Planner, City of San Diego, California. McGourthy, Tim. 2004. Policy Director, Boston Redevelopment Telephone interview, August. Authority (BRA). Telephone interview. Tinsky, Susan. 2003 Chief Policy Advisor, San Diego Housing ______. 2001. Policy Director, Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA). Commission. Telephone interview, August. Telephone interview, August. LARGE-CITY CASE STUDIES, SAN FRANCISCO The Results Background Kiely, Meg. 2003. Deputy Director of Community Development and Ojeda, Teresa. 2003. Planner, City of San Francisco, California. Housing, Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA). Telephone inter- Telephone interview, July. view, August. ______. 2003. Planner, City of San Francisco, California. Telephone McGourthy, Tim. 2004. Policy Director, Boston Redevelopment interview, August. Authority (BRA). Telephone interview. The Results LARGE-CITY CASE STUDIES, DENVER Ojeda, Teresa. 2004. Planner, City of San Francisco, California. Background Telephone interview, June. Glick, Jerry. 2003. Workforce Housing Initiative. Telephone interview, ______. 2003. Planner, City of San Francisco, California. Telephone November. interview, July. ______. 2003. Planner, City of San Francisco, California. Telephone The Program interview, August. Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30 (2000)

The Results LESSONS FROM LARGE CITIES, EFFECT ON DEVELOPMENT LeClair, Marianne. 2004. Program Manager, Workforce Housing AND COST OFFSETS Initiative. Telephone interview. April. Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI). 2003. Inclusionary Housing: A Policy that Works for the City that Works. LARGE-CITY CASE STUDIES, SACRAMENTO Chicago: Business and Professional People for the Public Interest. Fretz-Brown, Beverly. 2004. Director of Policy and Planning, Background Jones, David. 2001. City council member, City of Sacramento, California. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. Telephone inter- Telephone interview, March. view, June. Kiely, Meg. 2003. Deputy Director of Community Development and The Results Housing, Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA). Telephone inter- Fretz-Brown, Beverly. 2004. Director of Policy and Planning. Sacramento view, August. Housing and Redevelopment Agency. Telephone interview, June. LeClair, Marianne. 2004. Program Manager, Workforce Housing Initiative. Telephone interview, April. LARGE-CITY CASE STUDIES, SAN DIEGO Levin, Bill. 2003. Senior Planner, City of San Diego, California. Background Telephone interview, August. Levin, Bill. 2003. Senior Planner, City of San Diego, California. Ojeda, Teresa. 2003. Planner, City of San Francisco, California. Telephone interview, August. Telephone interview, July. Tinsky, Susan. 2003. Chief Policy Advisor, San Diego Housing ______. 2003. Planner, City of San Francisco, California. Telephone Commission. Telephone interview, August. interview, August.

ZONINGPRACTICE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION REFERENCES (continued)

LESSONS FROM LARGE CITIES, WHO IS BEING SERVED? Mason, Phil. 2003. Senior Planner, Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Fretz-Brown, Beverly. 2004. Director of Policy and Planning, Telephone interview, June. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. Telephone inter- ______. 2004. Senior Planner, Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. view, June. Telephone interview, May. National Housing Conference (NHC). 2002. “Inclusionary Zoning: OTHER REFERENCES Lessons Learned in Massachusetts.” NHC Affordable Housing Policy Brown, Karen Destorel. 2001. Expanding Affordable Housing Through Review. Washington, D.C.: National Housing Conference. Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons from the Washington Metropolitan Paden, Liza. 2004. Assistant Land-Use Planner, Community Area. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Development Department, City of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Metropolitan Policy. Telephone interview. April. Calavita, Nico and Kenneth Grimes. 1998. “Inclusionary Housing in Pieropan, Cindy. 2004. Housing Planner, City of Boulder, Colorado. California: The Experience of Two Decades.” Journal of the American Telephone interview, 2004. Planning Association. 64, no. 2 (spring): 155. Rosen, David Paul and Associates. 2002. City of Los Angeles Inclusionary California Coalition for Rural Housing. 1994. Creating Affordable Housing Study: Final Report. Los Angeles, CA: Prepared by David Paul Communities: Inclusionary Housing Programs in California. Rosen and Associates for the Los Angeles Housing Department. Sacramento, CA: California Coalition for Rural Housing. California Coalition for Rural Housing and Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. 2003. Inclusionary Housing in California: 30 Years of Innovation. San Francicso, CA: California Coalition for Rural Housing and Nonprofit Housing Association of ZONINGPRACTICE Northern California. AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION WEB RESOURCES (from Inclusionary Housing, Part Two, by Nicholas J. Brunick; October 2004)

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE FOR THE PUBLIC NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT INTEREST (BPI) OFFICIALS (NAHRO) BPI is a Chicago-based citizen advocacy organization that uses a vari- NAHRO is a leading housing and community development advocate for the ety of approaches, including community organizing, litigation, policy provision of adequate and affordable housing and strong, viable commu- advocacy, and collaborations with civic, business, and community nities for all Americans-particularly those with low and moderate incomes. organizations to address issues that affect the equity and quality of life NAHRO members administer HUD programs such as Public Housing, in the Chicago region. For more information visit www.bpichicago.org. Section 8, CDBG, and HOME. For more information visit www.nahro.org.

KNOWLEDGEPLEX NATIONAL HOUSING CONFERENCE KnowledgePlex is a web resource implemented by the Fannie Mae The National Housing Conference is a coalition of housing leaders from Foundation. The site is designed to support the efforts of practi- the private and public sectors. For more information visit www.nhc.org. tioners, grantors, policy makers, scholars, investors, and others involved or interested in the fields of affordable housing and community development. Visitors to the site will find documents, news items, discussion forums, and much more. For more information ZONINGPRACTICE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION visit www.knowledgeplex.org. REFERENCES (from Inclusionary Housing, Part Two, by Nicholas J. Brunick; October 2004)

ZONINGPRACTICE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION REFERENCES (continued)