The pro-density argument for inclusionary zoning is that the bonuses allow developers to build where they otherwise could not but when an area is being targeted for development anyway, anti-density activists can easily anticipate bonuses when base zoning allowances are being hashed out and factor them in to their maximum tolerated building envelope. If those who oppose development in and of itself have enough clout, the “bonus” that developers [would get] can be [significantly] reduced [and become] just a technicality.

Benjamin Hemric writes:

Very true — and this is but one sad representation of the “degradation” of true zoning for things like “light and air,” etc. Today, the original legitimate reasons for zoning regulations like height and set back regulations are being used as bargaining chips — while the original justification (and legitimization) for regulations are being increasinly ignored.

– – – – – – – – – – –

Stephen Smith and Emily Washington wrote [added emphasis is mine — BH]:

Some below-market units were carved out of the proposed development, while others WERE PUSHED OFF-SITE – the AFFORDABLE HOUSING “will not generate additional bulk in the neighborhood through an inclusionary bonus,” as Chelsea Now wrote in 2009. The affordable apartments will be built on city-owned plots 15 blocks north, which given their location, were destined for development soon anyway.

Benjamin Hemric writes:

Another very sad example of the degredation of zoning. And it also seems that this might be a good case of where people are being “hoodwinked” because they are not recognizing the difference between “inclusionary zoning” and “affordable housing.” In inclusionary zoning terms, pushing the low-income units off-site is a travesty — it obliterates the underlying reasoning supporting inclusionary zoning!

– – – – – – – –

Stephen Smith and Emily Washington wrote:

And for those who support inclusionary zoning programs because of the extra density they can bring to neighborhoods, Assemblymember Gottfried’s suggestion for West Chelsea should be especially troublesome: “The Commission should look for places to lower the base FAR to allow the area available for affordable housing to increase.”

Indeed that seems to be what happened. “Building density in the entire [West Chelsea] district has been reduced from the previous plan,” The Villager wrote the next month, “in order to provide more incentives for developers to apply for higher density under the inclusionary housing program.”

Benjamin Hemric writes:

Good paticular example of the general distortion of the legitimate underlying reasons for zoning. Plus it shows that people really do NOT accept the idea forwarded by Jane Jacobs that high densities are, essentially, good for urban districts (most especially when they are accompanied by small blocks, mixed uses, mix of building types, etc.).

– – – – – – – – – – –

Stephen Smith and Emily Washington wrote:

Last year in California, some housing advocates were hostile to legislation, supported by developers and environmentalists, that would have forbidden municipalities in the state from requiring more than one parking space per unit in neighborhoods adjacent to frequent transit corridors.

Benjamin Hemric writes:

Again, although the goals of developers and environmentalists may be laudable, this controversy seems to be about a very different kind of “inclusionary zoning” (suburban, not urban) and different kind of “affordable housing” (suburban and car oriented, not urban). (In other words, the goal is not to maintain the health of an existing high-density, mixed-use area; the goal is not to create housing for those who might be displaced by increased urban health; etc.)

Again, it seems to me that ignorning three important distinctions has lead to confusion rather than clarity.

– – – – – – – – –

Stephen Smith and Emily Washington wrote:

As Lisa Payne . . . told the California Planning & Development Report . . . “We have 30 years of history with density bonus law, that recognizes the value of trading a planning concession, whether it be height, density, or parking for supplying the mix of incomes in a project. This bill would have removed that tool.”

Benjamin Hemric wrote:

Again, while the goals may be laudable, this is another sad example of where people (from both sides) seem to be overlooking the legitimate underlying justifications for zoning and making zoning into a bargaining chip instead.
Still to be continued — perhaps tomorrow.

Benjamin Hemric
Tues., October 16, 2012, 9:05 pm

Montgomery County . . . has one of the nation’s most established inclusionary zoning problems. In over 30 years, inclusionary zoning has created fewer than 13,000 housing units in the county, which area developer AJ Jackson with EYA describes as “a drop in the bucket of housing demand.”

Benjamin Hemric writes:

I’m not that familiar with Montgomery County, so I say this very tenatively: But from a quick look at the info on Wikipedia, Montgomery County seems to be more of a RELATIVELYsuburban jurisdiction than an urban one (e.g., New York County — Manhattan). Thus the goals of this program could be, basically, different. The idea of “urban” inclusionary zoning is to maintain the long-term healthy of exisiting (relatively) high-density, mixed use districts (and to provide housing for those who might be displaced by increased urban health). In a RELATIVELY suburban jurisdiction, the goal of inclusionary zoning could be different — to have a suburban county make up for its past bad behavior of exclusionary zoning and bear its “fair share” of low- and moderate-income people (who would likely use more in the way of expensive government services, and thus might be seen by original suburbanites as constituting a drain on a jurisdictions fiscal resources).

– – – – – – – –

Stephen Smith and Emily Washington wrote [added emphasis and added text (for clarity?) is mine — BH]:

Jackson . . . suggests that the only viable solution to the problem of a lack of affordable housing is to increase allowable densities broadly. HE POINTS TO SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN DC AND SURROUNDINGCOUNTIES [that] are currently zoned for commercial or light industrial uses, but [where] profitable residential development could succeed with zoning changes.

Benjamin Hemric writes:

As written (even in the unedited version in the original post above) this seems to be a “weird” argument. Shouldn’t he be arguing for increasing allowable densities broadly (instead of via “inclusionary zoning”) in Montgomery County? As written, at least, this seems like a sly attempt to preserve exclusionary zoning! (Keep the poor people in other counties and other jurisdictions, like Washington D.C.!)

To be continued.
Benjamin Hemric
Tues., 10/16/12, 9:00 pm

Inclusionary zoning advocates often base their support on the desirability of mixed-income neighborhoods [which is the goal of inclusionary housing], while challengers argue that inclusionary zoning is an inefficient way to deliver housing [this is not the goal of inclusionary zoning, but the goal of affordable housing] with unintended consequences.

Benjamin Hemric writes:

This seems to me to be a good example of an instance where people are talking past one another.

– – – – – – – – – – –

Stephen Smith and Emily Washington wrote:

Heather Schwartz . . . says that one important feature of this policy tool is that it gives low-income families access to high-income neighborhoods while at the same time limiting the number of low-income residents in a neighborhood. She said, “Since IZ is a place-based strategy that tends to only apply to high-cost housing markets, it can offer access to lower-poverty places than housing vouchers and other forms of subsidized housing have historically done.”

Benjamin Hemric writes:

It seems to me that this reflects the goal of inclusionary zoning.

– – – – – – – – –

Stephen Smith and Emily Washington wrote [added text within brackets is mine — BH]:

David Alpert . . . offers another argument in favor of inclusionary zoning, “a policy that builds support for both greater density and affordable housing,” he said in an email. “Much of the opposition to greater density involves a feeling that it is just a ‘giveaway’ to developers who make the profit and impose some collateral burden on a neighborhood [when in fact they , but many people are more supportive of the density if it serves an affordable housing goal.”

Benjamin Hemric writes:

David Alpert’s arguments also seem to reflect the goals of inclusionary zoning, but in a tactical roundabout way: a) high-densities can be good for city districts (if they suffer from too little density); b) but people generally oppose high-densities nevertheless; c) so maybe if we attach a “social cause” to increased density, we can then get the higher densities that are also good for urban districts.

– – – – – – – – – – –

Stephen Smith and Emily Washington wrote [added emphasis is mine — BH]:

While INCLUSIONARY ZONING proponents may see its ability to introduce just a few low-income residents to a higher income neighborhood as an asset, it does not typically meet an area’s demand for AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

Benjamin Hemric writes:

This is another example of two sides talking past one another.
To be continued.

Benjain Hemric
Tues., 10/16/12, 8:55 pm