Thank you for this well researched article! It spells out many of the concerns I have about "inclusionary zoning". The question "how many affordable units does this development contain?" seems to be one of the first things people ask from any proposal. But I've always felt this is the wrong way to look at it. For one thing, who defines "affordable"? Usually the developer so they can get a couple of gold stars added to their proposal. But is a $400K condo really "affordable" just because the others are $650K? And how long must it remain "affordable" before being flipped?
If a developer has 60 units and 5 are tagged as "affordable" that could cost $1 million dollars if each was given a $200K reduction. I believe it would be *far* more useful to give that $1 million to a local low cost housing development run by the Working Centre and/or other partners. I'm sure *many* more units would get built and they would remain "lower cost". This kind of donation is a far more efficient and long lasting use of that money.
Thanks, Ted. I am quite supportive of funding going towards some of the awesome non-profits in our Region. I think you're right that they could stretch those dollars further, resulting in more affordable housing in our community - which is what we want, right? That approach seems to get some pushback from folks, thinking it let's developers off the hook though. I'd love to better understand how to shift that thinking.
When I've discussed this topic elsewhere, some folks have said these non-profit developments put people in 'ghettos' instead of integrating them with (I guess) more wealthy people who are paying full price for their condo. But I believe anyone getting one of these non-profit units would be pretty excited to have housing they could afford.
The whole concept of "inclusionary zoning" and including "affordable" units is complex and mystifying. Your article is very helpful.
Great post, Melissa. It’s sent me down a rabbit hole this morning about IZ and reading Michael Manville’s essay about value capture. When working for municipalities I used to be very confused when we would have a 30% target of affordable housing but never measured or tracked it. I used to be a proponent of IZ but agree now that efforts are better off removing exclusionary zoning instead. The point from Manville that really resonated for me was that vacant land (land left undeveloped) and building no housing is assumed to be socially harmless. This assumption - among some other key ones for IZ - is fundamentally flawed. Affordable housing should be a public service offered by government/non-profits and funded by the entire tax base - not just new home/condo owners or renters. It’s a “yes…and” situation. Moving away from IZ without government commitment to build affordable housing cannot happen.
It does make me think about a separate, but related, topic. We often talk about wanting a range of housing options in a neighbourhood that allow people of all classes to live together. But what about in individual towers and larger buildings? Is there any risk to having one tower entirely marketed to one income class and a neighbouring building being entirely affordable housing? What’s the risk or harm from this type of segregation? And is there a way to plan for (and require) more diversity within individual buildings. I’m trying not to talk myself back into IZ…
I really love all your points here and will need to look up Manville's essay. Those are great questions about inclusivity within neighbourhoods vs individual buildings. I wonder if there has been any research done on that specifically.
Definitely thought provoking, and for certain exclusionary zoning plays huge role in the problems we are experiencing. I think more deliberate housing choices, such as rooming houses and others mentioned and more non profit builds, more co-ops, not more single family mansions. It feels like we know where we need to go, but have not bought into the ideas...
Absolutely! There are so many great options for us to support, but too often we seem stuck with the status quo and thinking that single-family housing is the only/best option for everyone.
Thank you for this well researched article! It spells out many of the concerns I have about "inclusionary zoning". The question "how many affordable units does this development contain?" seems to be one of the first things people ask from any proposal. But I've always felt this is the wrong way to look at it. For one thing, who defines "affordable"? Usually the developer so they can get a couple of gold stars added to their proposal. But is a $400K condo really "affordable" just because the others are $650K? And how long must it remain "affordable" before being flipped?
If a developer has 60 units and 5 are tagged as "affordable" that could cost $1 million dollars if each was given a $200K reduction. I believe it would be *far* more useful to give that $1 million to a local low cost housing development run by the Working Centre and/or other partners. I'm sure *many* more units would get built and they would remain "lower cost". This kind of donation is a far more efficient and long lasting use of that money.
Thanks, Ted. I am quite supportive of funding going towards some of the awesome non-profits in our Region. I think you're right that they could stretch those dollars further, resulting in more affordable housing in our community - which is what we want, right? That approach seems to get some pushback from folks, thinking it let's developers off the hook though. I'd love to better understand how to shift that thinking.
When I've discussed this topic elsewhere, some folks have said these non-profit developments put people in 'ghettos' instead of integrating them with (I guess) more wealthy people who are paying full price for their condo. But I believe anyone getting one of these non-profit units would be pretty excited to have housing they could afford.
The whole concept of "inclusionary zoning" and including "affordable" units is complex and mystifying. Your article is very helpful.
Great post, Melissa. It’s sent me down a rabbit hole this morning about IZ and reading Michael Manville’s essay about value capture. When working for municipalities I used to be very confused when we would have a 30% target of affordable housing but never measured or tracked it. I used to be a proponent of IZ but agree now that efforts are better off removing exclusionary zoning instead. The point from Manville that really resonated for me was that vacant land (land left undeveloped) and building no housing is assumed to be socially harmless. This assumption - among some other key ones for IZ - is fundamentally flawed. Affordable housing should be a public service offered by government/non-profits and funded by the entire tax base - not just new home/condo owners or renters. It’s a “yes…and” situation. Moving away from IZ without government commitment to build affordable housing cannot happen.
It does make me think about a separate, but related, topic. We often talk about wanting a range of housing options in a neighbourhood that allow people of all classes to live together. But what about in individual towers and larger buildings? Is there any risk to having one tower entirely marketed to one income class and a neighbouring building being entirely affordable housing? What’s the risk or harm from this type of segregation? And is there a way to plan for (and require) more diversity within individual buildings. I’m trying not to talk myself back into IZ…
I really love all your points here and will need to look up Manville's essay. Those are great questions about inclusivity within neighbourhoods vs individual buildings. I wonder if there has been any research done on that specifically.
Definitely thought provoking, and for certain exclusionary zoning plays huge role in the problems we are experiencing. I think more deliberate housing choices, such as rooming houses and others mentioned and more non profit builds, more co-ops, not more single family mansions. It feels like we know where we need to go, but have not bought into the ideas...
Absolutely! There are so many great options for us to support, but too often we seem stuck with the status quo and thinking that single-family housing is the only/best option for everyone.