Exclusionary Zoning – An Old Problem National Commission on Urban Problems, 1968
Planning and zoning enabling statutes should provide: • sites for housing persons of all income levels • require that governments prepare plans showing how the community proposes to carry out such objectives in accordance with county or regional housing plans. Within the region as a whole there should be adequate provision of sites for all income levels.
A Persistent Problem Exclusionary zoning is a “significant barrier to higher-density multifamily housing in major metropolitan areas throughout the United States.” Knaap, Meck, Moore and Parker, 2007
Widespread view that housing can and should be a springboard to stabilizing lives and enhancing family security.
Affordable housing, in general, and its placement in low-poverty areas, in particular, is closely connected to a desire to promote social justice and reducing income inequality.
Housing and Opportunities: The Research Moving to Opportunity Ø ambiguous findings about employment/ school outcomes Ø good evidence that moving to low poverty areas positively impacted: ü adult physical and mental health ü well-being/safety & security
Other research shows more dramatic results: NJ – “the development of affordable housing projects in affluent suburbs constitutes an efficacious means to lower levels of racial and class segregation while increasing social mobility for disadvantaged inner-city residents.” Douglas Massey et al. 2013
Low income students in Montgomery County, Maryland’s Inclusionary Zoning program who attended low-poverty elementary schools: “significantly outperformed their peers in public housing who attended moderate-poverty schools in both math and reading.” Heather Schwartz, 2010
Types of Anti-Exclusionary Zoning Interventions 1)
Identical statewide goal for each city/town: MA, RI, CT, IL Mandatory inclusionary zoning: many counties in MD, VA + about 500 other progs. “Fair share” mandate: NJ, CA, MN Mandated housing element as part of planning requirement— most prominent in: CA, FL, NJ, OR, WA also ~ 20 other states
My Research n
How exclusionary zoning is being addressed in 4 states and 1 county (Montgomery County, MD).
Initiatives mostly involve 1 goal for all municipalities (10% as in MA and RI), or “fair share” distribution (CA, NJ).
Report available at chapa.org
Housing Policy Debate, with co-author, Abigail Vladeck, July 2014
Research Questions 1) 2)
Level of affordable housing production? Where produced? In locales with little or no affordable housing? To what extent have state-mandated goals been achieved? Correlations of affordable housing with race and income? Differences in race and income variables in locales producing affordable housing and in achieving goals, and those not?
New Jersey Mt. Laurel decisions; 1985 Fair Housing Act; n Builder’s remedy – density bonus with setaside for low-moderate income households n Municipalities without appropriate zoning could have zoning voided by court n Immunity from builder’s remedy by submitting plan to COAH n “Fair share” target for each municipality n Numerous law suits; hard to administer n 3rd (6-year!) round underway since 1999 n
Massachusetts Chapter 40B, 1969 n 10% of each municipality’s housing stock must be affordable. n Comprehensive permit process allows developers in non-compliant locales to get a density bonus; 25% of the units =affordable. n State Housing Appeals Committee hears developer appeals; can over-ride local rejection of project. n Progress can earn temporary “compliance.” n
Rhode Island Low and Moderate Income Housing Act, 1991 n 10% of each municipality’s housing stock must be affordable. n Comprehensive permit process gives developers in non-compliant locales a density bonus; 20% of the units = affordable. n State Housing Appeals Board hears developer appeals; can over-ride local rejection. n Mandatory Comprehensive Plans with housing element; how LMIH goal to be achieved. n Local zoning must be consistent with Plans. n
Montgomery County, MD Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit program, 1974 n Inclusionary zoning n All developments > 20 units must set aside 12.5 -15% of the units for moderate income households. n County housing authority, the Housing Opportunities Commission, may purchase up to 40% of MPDUs in each development. n
California Housing element required as part of a municipality’s general plan, 1969 n State assigns “fair share” goals, by income n No locales are exempt n Housing needs assigned for each income group and special needs groups. n Potential develop. sites must be inventoried. n Evidence that zoning and infrastructure are appropriate to meet housing needs. n Non-compliance sanctions: state can overturn/negate local land-use decisions. n
First, congratulations… Each state and Montgomery County has created a strong response to a difficult problem – encouraging the development of housing affordable to lower income people in locales that would otherwise be unlikely to produce such housing.
Findings 1) Progress toward Goals In the two states (MA and RI) with a statemandated 10% goal for each local jurisdiction, the goal has not been widely achieved (2013): MA = 11% of cities/towns > 10% RI = 28% of cities/towns > 10%
1) Progress toward Goals, cont’d. In NJ, 30%of cities/towns attained “fair share” mandate (2009). In CA, 90% of cities/towns are in compliance with housing element requirement (2014). No data for CA on goals vs. actual production comparison, for each city/town.
2) Lack of Proactive Enforcement n
In MA, RI, NJ, and CA, the state does not have the power to enforce its mandate proactively.
A complaint or court case must be filed by an individual or entity with standing to protest a specific action by the local jurisdiction, which is time consuming and costly.
3) Buy-out Option n
In NJ, when local governments were given the option to make in lieu payments to other municipalities, rather than building the housing in their own jurisdictions, fewer units were produced than what would have been required by the statute. In Montgomery County, when developers were given the option to opt out of developing units on-site and, instead, could make a donation to a fund to be used elsewhere, the per unit contributions were inadequate to provide an actual housing unit, as would have been required under the MPDU program.
4) State Enforcement n
The various strategies to encourage the attainment of statewide goals primarily serve as threats, albeit important ones; very few cases actually come before the MA Housing Appeals Committee, the CA courts, the RI State Housing Appeals Board or the NJ courts (not counting court cases on “fair share” allocations).
The various appeals mechanisms encourage developers and local jurisdictions to come to a resolution through negotiation.
5) Zoning and Planning n
Mandated comprehensive planning, with a housing element that requires localities to detail how they will meet the housing needs of residents at all income levels, and to inventory land, is a powerful tool, particularly when coupled with the threat of negating local zoning (as in CA).
MA, NJ and RI have linked progress toward attaining affordable housing goals with immunity from a state over-ride of the proposal in question.
However, how much progress is sufficient to be in compliance? Sanctions for non-compliance?
6) Achieving Long-term Affordability In the one locale where long term-affordability restrictions did not accompany the program from the outset (Montgomery County), only about 32-34% of the total number of units produced through the program are still affordable, due to short-term restrictions on affordability in the early years of the program.
7) Income/Racial Mixing of Units Produced While each program appears to have stimulated the production of housing affordable to lower income households, there are mixed findings on the extent to which the new units are being located in higher income areas with higher percentages of white residents.
8) On the one hand… Ø In
both MA and NJ, affordable housing production is positively correlated with higher median incomes.
both MA and RI, affordable housing production is positively correlated with larger white populations.
municipalities that have attained the 10% goal with Ch. 40B have higher incomes than those attaining the goal without Ch. 40B.
9) On the other hand… Ø Municipalities
in MA and RI that have attained their goals have lower incomes and fewer white residents than those not meeting goals. Ø In NJ, municipalities that met prior round obligations had fewer white residents than those that did not. Ø In NJ, municipalities with new affordable housing are associated with proportionally smaller white populations. Ø In MD, MPDUs tended to be built where fewer white residents and lower income households.
10) On balance… n
Municipalities that are working toward the statewide goal are showing some promising signs that exclusionary patterns are changing.
But, for the most part, municipalities that have attained their state goals or obligations are those that historically are associated with producing more affordable housing.
Observations/Recommendations 1) Really hard to do comparative research. 2) Public subsidies for housing are needed. 3) Use controversies as vehicles to educate. 4) 10% goal simpler to understand and administer; less contentious than “fair share” – but perhaps less “fair.” 5) Importance of long-term affordability restrictions for all units created; housing authority purchases a good idea.
6)In-lieu payments for off-site trade-offs generally a bad idea. 7) State aid should be linked to progress or attainment of housing goals; need clarity about how progress is defined. 8) Clear sanctions needed for non-compliance. 9) Comprehensive planning and housing elements should be required, along with zoning able to accommodate the needed housing; threat by state to negate zoning. 10) Municipalities should be required to zone for multifamily housing.
Inclusionary Zoning in Context Regulatory strategies Subsidies for production & maintenance
Targeted taxation Non-speculative land and housing ownership
Regulatory Strategies ü Inclusionary
zoning/affordable housing set-asides
incentives to zone for affordable housing (MA Ch. 40R)
Subsidies for Production & Maintenance ü Produce
affordable housing, with long-term use restrictions ü Focus on developing/supporting nonprofit-owned housing ü Preserve public housing
Renovated Public Housing Jackson Gardens—Cambridge, MA
Villa Victoria, South End Boston (IBA-CDC)
Somerville Community Corp. Housing Saint Polycarp Village
new development for affordable housing/services – Linkage fees
ü Community ü Housing
Non-speculative Land and Housing Ownership ü Alternative
social ownership: • limited equity coops/condos • community land trusts ü Public/nonprofit acquisition of land in “hot market” areas ü Set-aside these parcels for future social needs, particularly affordable housing. Goal: Remove the affordable housing from the private speculative market