Comments on: Conflicting Affordable Housing Policies

By: Timothy DuBois

Timothy DuBois — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:09:00 +0000

Portland only recently enacted inclusionary zoning and since then not a single permit has been filed that would meet the IZ requirements. Given the gap between permitting and buildings going online it may take a couple years before we see the IZ rules leading to rent inflation. Unfortunately Portland is also working on putting in rent control, no-cause eviction rules, and displacement fees. This would mean we don’t even know what terrible policy to put the most blame on rent inflation. As for Seattle and New York it is my understanding that IZ only applies to zoning variances that allow for increased density beyond what the zoning allows. This means that IZ serves only as a carrot and not a stick. In portland it is mostly a stick with only minor off-sets such as reductions in parking.

By: MrAmbrose

MrAmbrose — Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:28:00 +0000

Is inclusionary zoning a problem per se, or are they just poorly
written? If it included allocations for more low-income residents or section-8 vouchers, can
it work? Rents in Portland, Seattle, and NYC rents may have leveled off, but all three cities also have inclusionary zoning. How do you reconcile flattening rents to one and not the other? And if the rental market is slowing down, does that necessarily make it affordable right now? You write, “Land-use liberalization is the only way to achieve broad-based
affordability in markets where middle-income people struggle to afford
housing.” Is it really “broad-based” if it doesn’t address low-income housing? Houston has no zoning. Maybe a compare and contrast can demonstrate your point more effectively. Finally, I understand you are arguing that the market can fix the affordable housing problem on its own. However, the idea that building more housing will open up older units for lower income people and in itself solve the affordable housing problem ignores that cities are growing in population, and the older units may be gobbled up by wealthier newcomers. It also ignores accessibility to jobs, better schools, etc, for those not earning top dollar.

By: Emily Washington

Emily Washington — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:31:00 +0000

You may be right. If this is the case though, it’s important that these officials are pressured to acknowledge that their policies are helping some people while making life worse for their least well-off residents

By: PL73

PL73 — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:42:00 +0000

City planners and other government officials who advocate susidizing folks who make slightly less than or even above the area median income don’t want very low income households in their precious cities. They mostly want younger professional urban hipsters, not families with teens. Schools cost money. Developers also want to benefit people they perceive as being more like themselves. Plus, a lot of people who work with so called affordable housing want to be praised for helping people but don’t actually want to deal with the poor huddled masses.