Archives for September 2014

Contributors

September 30, 2014

Richard Drdla is a Toronto-based affordable housing consultant that has been studying and writing about inclusionary housing practices, including specifically inclusionary zoning,  for roughly twenty years.   In that time, his professional engagement has been  focussed mainly on examining municipally-based regulatory ways of supporting the provision of affordable housing without relying on federal and provincial funding.  These include inclusionary zoning, as well as affordable ownership programs, housing trust funds, linkage fees, community land trusts, and others.   He can be reached at rd@drdla.ca.

View all posts by Richard

Brian Eng Has been involved in inclusionary housing issues for nearly ten years, since having worked at the Wellesley Institute.  He is continued this engagement while currently serving as a director of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto and of Social Planning Toronto.  He can be reached at brian.eng@sympatico.ca

The Wellesley Institute is a Toronto-based non-profit organization that undertakes non-partisan research, policy-development and community-mobilization related to affordable housing and many other aspects of urban health. The Institute has been a strong advocate for inclusionary zoning and inclusionary housing practices for many year.   The Institute sponsored at major forum in Toronto in 2008 that attracted over 100 housing advocates as well as government policy makers and researchers. It established the initial version of this web site and funded much of the early research now presented on this one. See the Wellesley Institute web site.

This urchin with a complicated name smiles and say thank you. So buy levitra and send it to the forest. There’s a lot of grateful. Quiet decide how many send and you can do it.

Resources

September 30, 2014

Inclusionary zoning practices in the US have been very widely and extensively studied.  The reports and papers identified on this website are among the many that can be found on the internet, but only include those considered to be most relevant to the Canadian reader.  All in all, they should provide a solid introduction to the key aspects of these practices.

The Canadian research and writing on inclusionary housing practices, on the other hand, is very limited. Furthermore, most of that specifically on inclusionary zoning reflects a shallow understanding of it.   So, only a handful of Canadian documents have been identified here.

Will the inclusionary housing programs stifle the development of market housing?

September 28, 2014

This question has been carefully researched in the US.  The empirical evidence there conclusively shows that there has been little to no impact on the production of market housing in the municipalities that have adopted inclusionary zoning programs. [Read more…]

Will the inclusionary housing programs drive up the price of market housing?

September 28, 2014

This question has been carefully researched in the US. The empirical evidence there conclusively shows that there has been little to no impact on the price of housing in the municipalities that have adopted inclusionary zoning programs. [Read more…]

Ontario Legislative Background

September 16, 2014

The following review looks at the earlier legislative status of inclusionary zoning in Ontario.  It was written before the passage of the current IZ legislation in December 2016.  It examines the provisions of section 37 of the Planning Act, the most relevant OMB decision and the two precursory private members bills.

[Read more…]

British Columbia Legislation

September 16, 2014

The municipalities of British Columbia do not have the legislative authority to use mandatory inclusionary zoning. Although the term is used in the province, it has been inappropriately applied to other inclusionary practices that are only loosely related to inclusionary zoning and also far less demanding and effective.

The province did pass legislation in 1992, 1993 and 1994 making changes to the Vancouver Charter and its Municipal Act (now, the Local Government Act). These changes directed municipalities to plan for affordable housing, and authorized the use of various regulatory tools in providing for that housing.

According the explanatory guidelines accompanying the legislation, it enabled the use specifically of two inclusionary practices, with which inclusionary zoning is often confused:

1)  ‘density bonusing’:  Under this provision, municipalities are able to offer higher density in exchange for affordable housing, special needs housing, and/or other amenities.

2)  ‘comprehensive density zoning’:  Under this provision, municipalities are able to create customized zoning regulations for large, complex and/or multi-use redevelopment sites. This typically involves a negotiated re-zoning process, through which the municipalities offer the developer increased densities and other regulatory benefits in return for the provision of affordable housing and/or other amenities.

The first of these provisions is comparable to s37 of Ontario’s Planning Act, and the second in many ways is similar to Toronto’s ‘large sites policy’. Neither of these is considered to be inclusionary zoning in this province.

In a notable related matter, municipalities also were given the authority to enter into ‘housing agreements’ with developers when using these tools. Using these agreements, municipalities can secure the long-term affordability of the housing, both ownership and rental, provided by the developers. These agreements can be used to control such aspects as the tenure, management, price or rent, and eligibility of the occupants for an indefinite period.

Municipalities in Ontario lack comparable powers, and so their ability to protect long-term affordability is more limited.

A good example of a comprehensive development zoning policy can be found in Vancouver – particularly, in what was initially called its ‘20% Core Need Housing Policy’, but now its ‘Non-Market Housing Policy’. It is broadly similar to inclusionary zoning in that both rely on the development approval process to leverage the provision of affordable housing in what otherwise would be exclusively market-rate developments.

Beyond this, there are many very significant differences between the two. Unlike inclusionary zoning, Vancouver’s comprehensive development zoning typically has been:

  •  applied to selected sites, and not to all or most sites across the city;
  •  used to secure land for housing, not the housing units themselves;
  • dependent on government funding to build the housing, not solely through the use of regulatory concessions; and
  • used to provide housing on separate sites, not housing fully integrated with the market units.

Having said all this, and to add to the confusion, it must be acknowledged that there are a number of municipalities in the province that have implemented a form of voluntary inclusionary zoning. In these programs, developers are encouraged – but not required – to provide affordable housing through density increases and other incentives. The comparable voluntary programs in the US have been found to be far less productive than the mandatory programs, and so are no longer generally promoted there for that reason.  (See Mandatory vs Voluntary Programs.)

RD/6Aug2014

This hedgehog with a complicated name smiles and say thank you. So buy levitra and send it to the forest. There’s a lot of grateful. Quiet decide how many send and you can do it.

Manitoba Legislation

September 16, 2014

The province of Manitoba has passed legislation authorizing the use of mandatory inclusionary zoning. This law came into effect on 5 December 2013 when the legislation received Royal Assent. This represents the first time, and only so far, that a province in this country has passed such enabling legislation.

The legislation, made through amendments to Manitoba’s The Planning Act and The City of Winnipeg Charter, provides the enables  all municipalities and planning districts in the province to pass by-laws that would require developers of new market residential developments to construct and provide a proportion for housing affordable to low and moderate income households.  Read the legislation.

The legislation is simple and straightforward, containing only these four key provisions:

  1. The zoning by-law for a new development may require that a specified percentage of the dwelling units are offered as affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households.
  2. The by-law also must contain a definition of affordable housing (or a way of determining when housing is affordable).
  3. The by-law may allow for modifications to the relevant specific development requirements, including permitted increased density, in return for the affordable housing.
  4. The development agreements associated with these development may set terms and conditions for the following
    • the provision of the affordable housing, including their number, type and extent; and
    • the measures required to maintain the long-term affordability of the affordable housing.

It is worth noting that these provisions enable, but do not require, the municipalities to use mandatory inclusionary zoning. Also, these municipalities apparently already have the authority to use incentive zoning, through which developers can be encouraged through incentives, but not required, to provide affordable housing.

The legislation establishes the essential provisions needed for the municipalities to create effective inclusionary programs, but before doing so, they will need to address regulations and procedures dealing with a number of other important aspects, including (but not limited to) these:

  • the affordable housing definition, including developing a serviceable yardstick;
  • the compliance alternatives, including especially the use of fees–in-lieu;
  • the potential cost-offsets;
  • the specific developments subject to the requirements;
  • the minimum design standards of the affordable housing units; and
  • the legal mechanisms for maintaining long-term affordability.

Because many of these aspects are complex, and in any case will also necessarily involve the province, the province should take the lead in developing appropriate approaches that can be used by all municipalities across the province, rather than expecting the municipalities to develop them one-by-one on their own.

RD/10Aug2014

This hedgehog with a complicated name smiles and say thank you. So buy levitra and send it to the wood. There’s a lot of thankful. Quiet decide how many send and you can do it.

Issues

September 15, 2014

In this section, various contentious issues related to inclusionary zoning are addressed.  These include the following:

Contact/Comments/Questions

September 12, 2014

For anyone wishing to leave a question or comment or make a contribution, please use the following form.

Mandatory vs Voluntary Programs

September 12, 2014

Inclusionary programs can be divided into two broad types:  mandatory and voluntary.  Although they share many characteristics, they differ in one fundamental aspect that significantly affects how effective they are in providing affordable housing.

The fundamental difference between the two is this:

  • Mandatory programs require the developers to provide affordable housing as a condition of receiving development approval, and then typically provide some form of regulatory concessions in return for that housing.
  • Voluntary programs (also called incentive-based or negotiated) encourage the developers to provide the affordable housing by using regulatory concessions as incentives.

This fundamental difference can be looked at it another way:   in the mandatory programs, the developers have no choice but to provide the affordable housing if they wish to build anything; while in the voluntary, they have the choice to build something but not all they might if they accepted the incentives.

Developers, who have consistently opposed mandatory programs, often have portrayed voluntary programs as an effective alternate. They argue that they could provide ample affordable housing on a voluntary basis, if only they were given sufficient concessions and favourable conditions.

Both approaches have been widely tried in the US, and after years of experience, there is ample and convincing evidence that the voluntary programs don’t work. The vast majority of voluntary programs have produced very little affordable housing, and generally much much less than the mandatory programs. As a consequence, voluntary programs are now generally dismissed as  a credible option.

It is true that a handful of voluntary programs have been productive but this can be explained by particular local conditions not replicable elsewhere or by other demanding policies or regulations. For example, some voluntary programs are coupled with growth management policies that place a heavy-weighting on the provision of affordable housing when determining what developments are allowed to go-ahead.

New York City’s voluntary program is relevant here. It has been the most productive of the voluntary programs to date, but it success have been tied particular circumstances: its extraordinarily high housing prices. These prices have induced some developers to offer the provision of affordable housing in return for the right to build a few more expensive units. Nevertheless, the city’s newly elected mayor has proposed changing it to a mandatory program because it has produced insufficient housing, and then only in certain parts of the city.

It also must be said there are many mandatory programs that also are not productive. They are unproductive when there is little or no housing development activity. They are also unproductive when the programs are poorly designed. For example, this can occur when smaller projects (say, those smaller than 30 or 50 units) are exempted, or developers are allowed to pay fees-in-lieu.

California Surveys

Two surveys of the inclusionary programs in California contain some relevant findings on this issue. Although these surveys do not cover the whole country, they are instructive because the state has about a third of the country’s total, including many of the earliest.

2006 Findings

The survey conducted in 20061 looked at the 170 then-known programs in the state.  These programs had been implemented in 32% of the local jurisdictions of the state.  Out of these programs, 130 (76%) were described as mandatory.  See the survey.

The survey found that 24 of these programs had been able to produce 10% or more of their new units as inclusionary housing. Of these programs, 22 were mandatory. (Although not stated by the survey, the 2 productive voluntary programs relied on growth management policies to produce the affordable housing.)

The 8 top-producing programs were mandatory. Although they represented less than 5% of the sample, they had produced 28% of the inclusionary units identified in the survey.

The report associated with the survey contains five recommendations for achieving an effective program. The first of these is to adopt a mandatory policy.

2003 Findings

The 2003 survey2 obtained responses from the 98 or the107 then-known programs. Out of these, 92 (94%) were found be mandatory.  See the survey.

All of the 15 most successful programs were mandatory.

Of the 6 voluntary programs, 3 had reported no production at all. Two of these specifically blamed the voluntary nature of their programs for the poor production despite the housing boom in their communities.

The report contains these two relevant conclusions:

  • “In general, jurisdictions with voluntary or incentive-only policies report that their policies did not produce the desired affordable housing.”
  • “In general, …. the voluntary programs do not cause market rate developers to build or facilitate affordable units unless including affordable housing makes an applications more competitive in the permit approval process.”

Expert Opinion

A number of major organizations in the US have endorsed the use of mandatory programs instead of voluntary programs. These include the following:

  • American Planning Association (APA);
  • PolicyLink;
  • National Institute for Housing;
  • Innovative Housing Institute;
  • Pratt Institute Centre for Community and Environmental Development;
  • Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI); and
  • Urban Land Institute.

Many recognized experts (some writing for the above organizations) are also on the record for endorsing mandatory programs, include these:

  • David Rusk;
  • Alan Mallach;
  • Nico Calavita; and
  • Nick Brunick (BPI and APA).

Here are some of their comments:

  • David Rusk3: “Lesson #1: Enact a mandatory, not voluntary, IZ law. Voluntary programs don’t produce much inclusionary housing. They simply give spineless public officials political cover that “they’ve done something” while it’s “business as usual” for builders.”  See the speech.
  • Nicholas J. Brunick4: “Experience and research indicate mandatory inclusionary housing programs are more effective at generating a larger supply of affordable housing than voluntary programs… mandatory programs have produced more affordable units overall, as well as more units for a wider range of income levels within the affordability spectrum.”  See the paper.
  • PolicyLink5: “While voluntary programs receive less opposition from developers,
    mandatory policies have produced far more affordable units. Indeed, an analysis of programs nationally reveal voluntary programs only produce affordable units if they offer substantial subsidies to the developer, or function as a mandatory policy by making it difficult for developers to obtain discretionary building permits without including affordable units in their projects.”
  • Pratt Institute6: “An analysis of existing IZ programs nationally reveals the superior delivery power of mandatory inclusionary zoning… Jurisdictions that apply mandatory inclusionary zoning requirements to all residential development produce significantly more affordable units.”
  • Alan Mallach7: “From time to time it has been argued that the provision of affordable housing under inclusionary programs should not be required, but rather should be a voluntary decision by the developer… This approach, however, has a number of serious deficiencies. It is ineffective as a means of producing lower income housing, while simultaneously significantly compromising the predictability and rationality of the broader municipal planning process. Such studies that have been done on inclusionary zoning have consistently found that – in the absence of deep Federal housing subsidies – voluntary programs remained largely unutilized by developers.”
  • Urban Land Institute8:  “The program should be mandatory. Voluntary programs do not produce affordable housing.”

 RD/6May10 (rev 10Sep14)

This hedgehog with a complicated name smiles and say thank you. So buy levitra and send it to the forest. There’s a lot of appreciative. Quiet decide how many send and you can do it.

end1955_();

  1. Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH), California Coalition of Rural Housing (CCRH), Sacramento Housing Alliance and San Diego Housing Federation: “Affordable by Choice: Trends in Inclusionary Housing Programs”, 2007. ↩
  2. CCRH and NPH: “Inclusionary Housing in California: 30 Years of Innovation”; 2003. ↩
  3. David Rusk: “Nine Lessons for Inclusionary Zoning”; Keynote Remarks to the National Inclusionary Housing Conference; 5 October 2005. ↩
  4. Nicholas J. Brunick: “The Inclusionary Housing Debate: The Effectiveness of Mandatory Programs over Voluntary Programs”; Zoning Practice, American Planning Association; September 2004. ↩
  5. ‘Equitable Development Toolkit: Inclusionary Zoning’ on the PolicyLink website (www.policylink.org/EDTK/IZ). ↩
  6. Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development and PolicyLink: “Increasing Housing Opportunity in New York City; The Case for Inclusionary Zoning”; Fall 2004. ↩
  7. Alan Mallach: “Inclusionary Zoning in Burlington Vermont: Laying the Groundwork for an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance”; prepared for City of Burlington; Aug 1988. ↩
  8. John McIlwain (ULI Senior Research Fellow): “Inclusionary Zoning, Cure or Curse”; The Urban Land Institute (www.uli.org); 2005. ↩