Oregon’s House of Representatives passed a bill to legalize inclusionary zoning. In memory of Bart Simpson, this should be called the “I Didn’t Do It Act,” as the reason for Oregon’s low housing affordability compared with most other states is the legislature’s continuing support for land-use regulation and urban-growth boundaries.
Inclusionary zoning requires home builders to dedicate a fixed share–usually around 15 to 20 percent–of the housing units they build to low- and moderate-income buyers or renters. Research by economists from San Jose State University has conclusively proven that inclusionary zoning laws actually make housing less affordable. This is because builders respond by building fewer homes and by charging more for the non-subsidized units to pay for the ones that they are required to subsidize.
Inclusionary zoning is legal in California, where housing is far less affordable than in Oregon. But inclusionary zoning is not really about making housing affordable; it is more about assuaging liberal consciences for adopting policies that make housing less affordable. If they can force greedy homebuilders to supply a handful of homes for less than market value to needy people, then they don’t have to feel so bad about everything they did that mucked up the housing market.
get viagra no prescription This particular issue has a complete negative impact over your life. Apart from that, he may also recommend some lifestyle changes, including exercising more and eating a better diet can help us change our whole life. online generic cialis In most cases, off-label prescriptions are only written when a person isn’t viagra cheap sale responding well to the health. Whatever kind of locations are needed, California indeed prescription for ordering viagra has something to offer.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the people who actually get some of the “affordable” homes are not really poor anyway. Most inclusionary zoning laws require that such homes be made available to people whose incomes are less than the regional median, not people at the poverty level. At least some of the units go to friends of the developers and home builders rather than to people who are truly needy. Some graduate student who is looking for a thesis topic should consider surveying people who have bought or rented such units.
Your conclusively proven link is broken.
http://nonprofithousing.org/wp-content/uploads/Reason_Report_Critique2004.pdf
I belive this is the study the Antiplanner was referring to.
http://reason.org/files/020624933d4c04a615569374fdbeef41.pdf
When nearly 20% of the cost of a house is
rent to governmentproperty tax, that’s the primary factor that makes housing unaffordable for the poor and working class. It’s really quite unfair that the childless poor and working class are forced to pay more for their housing to support failing schools.“At least some of the units go to friends of the developers and home builders rather than to people who are truly needy.”
Would be interested in seeing evidence of this.
As with the Antiplanner’s link, his advocacy against restrictive single-family zoning (the real reason why housing is unaffordable) is “404 Not Found”.
Inclusionary zoning is not the same as affordable housing requirements. I agree with the Antiplanner that forcing a project to have a certain number of below market rate housing units makes the other ones more expensive. Much better in my opinion would be to have developers pay a affordable housing fee in lieu of providing affordable housing, as some cities allow.
Inclusionary zoning does not have to result in curb-to-curb monstrosities in order to be effective. Legalizing granny flats allows for more housing units without changing the look of the neighborhood. It also allows struggling homeowners to earn some rental income to help pay their monstrous mortgage.
The whole point of SB100 was to discourage development.
It’s working.
.
Link fixed.
I never understood how “affordable housing” works in the real world. So some units of a fancy condo development “sets aside” some condos that cost less? Who decides who gets them? Are they in the basement or just as good as all the other condos? Does the condo board have to let in blue collar people who irritate the elite condo owners, or only grad students or white collar workers who make little money, like race and gender studies grads who work at Starbucks?
Oh, and I especially don’t understand how the first buyers of “affordable housing” don’t just reap the windfall and sell the condo to the next person for a huge profit and it is no longer affordable.
@Sandy Teal
Implementations vary from one city to the next. Here’s an article about NYC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/realestate/affordable-housing-in-new-yorks-luxury-buildings.html?_r=0
Just walked back from the local brew pub on subsidized 70-year-old sidwalks. (Why did they use polished river rocks back then in sidewalks on steep hills where it rains excessively and makes said old sidewalks so slippery—not that it’s raining today.)
Anyway, the point of this is that our Socialist city council member is posting signs (one of which I saw on my subsidized walk home from said brewpub) calling for people to attend a meeting about the out-of-control rent prices in Seattle. On the list of “solutions” to high rent was rent control. *Double Facepalm*
I’d go to the Socialist meeting just to point out all the ways socialism and central economic planning failed, but what’s the point?
Past time to get out of Seattle.
Thanks for NY Times article. It confirms the very worst idea I had about it. Why do planners want to treat people like statistics — nothing more than their race, gender, sex, and income? Who thinks giving out huge benefits like cheap housing by “lottery” makes the world a fair place. That is what they do in “The Hunger Games” and “The Lottery”.
One of the things I can’t stand about planners is they start by measuring society with statistics, but it always eventually turns into manipulating people by statistics and thinking that actually changes society. It is like school busing, affirmative action college admissions, and giving awards to every kid just for showing up. You might briefly get better “statistics”, but you didn’t really change anything.
A few decades ago, Phoenix did something like this with their “urban village” concept. Based on who I see at the Walmart in my “urban village,” I’d guess that this approach has significantly upped the crime rate in the area.
Much better in my opinion would be to have developers pay a affordable housing fee in lieu of providing affordable housing, as some cities allow.
Much better in my opinion would be to stop haranguing developers and let them do what they do best, supply housing.
Anyway, the point of this is that our Socialist city council member is posting signs (one of which I saw on my subsidized walk home from said brewpub) calling for people to attend a meeting about the out-of-control rent prices in Seattle. On the list of “solutions” to high rent was rent control.
Any chance that would be the same socialist council member who pushed the $15 minimum wage? I’m sure that won’t put any upward pressure on local rents either.
Sometimes it just makes you want to sit down and pick this kind of person’s brain, just to see if they really believe the things they say.
Why do planners want to treat people like statistics — nothing more than their race, gender, sex, and income?
Because in places like NYC identity politics count for a great deal. This is just their version of ‘equity’.
Who thinks giving out huge benefits like cheap housing by “lottery” makes the world a fair place.
Because it prevents all kinds of awful things from happening, like people using their income to outbid others for a given housing unit. If nobody is allowed to express their preferences, then the outcome is ‘fair’.
“Any chance that would be the same socialist council member who pushed the $15 minimum wage? I’m sure that won’t put any upward pressure on local rents either.”
Yes, and you’re exactly right.
It’s also the same Socialist council member who thinks Boeing’s plants can simply be “re-tooled” to manufacture mass transit like buses.
Get me out of here!
The Detroit factories have huge unused capacity and Detroit has a huge unemployed population. Why can’t liberals/communists put them together to make billions and trillions of dollars? They claim they could, but somehow can’t.
Anyone with a BS in economics could explain why.