Category Archives: zoning

“Not very many options for the people who are working here…”

affordable housing, housing development, inclusionary zoning, Inclusive Communities, New Hampshire, Rural Housing Affordability, zoning, zoning regulations

A Paper from CARSEY RESEARCH: University of New Hampshire, Carsey School of Public Policy,  Fall 2017, Jessica A. Carson and Marybeth J. Mattingly

Rural Housing Challenges Through the Lens of Two New England Communities

 “In this brief, [Jessica A. Carson and Marybeth J. Mattingly] use interview and focus group data to describe some of the ways that restricted rural housing stock affects working families in two rural New England counties, and explore solutions proposed by rural residents and experts to make housing affordable …

…

“Subsidies and publicly funded programs can play a part in alleviating the challenges of affordable rural housing, but  addressing the issue of affordable housing in rural places will require a variety of approaches. For instance, at the local level, residents can encourage local zoning and planning boards to align town regulations with “inclusionary zoning” practices, such as requiring a certain percentage of housing units to meet affordability standards and offering incentives to developers for constructing affordable dwellings. Municipalities might also loosen or alter zoning restrictions to reduce lot size requirements and allow construction of structures other than traditional single-family
dwellings, including duplexes, in-law apartments, backyard cottages, townhouses, or bungalow courts.”

White House Housing Development Toolkit

affirmatively furthering fair housing, affordable housing, civil rights, density, inclusionary zoning, integration, segregation, zoning, zoning regulations

Executive Summary from the White House Housing Development Toolkit: September, 2016

[FYI Please note this toolkit was issued under President Obama’s administration.]

“Locally-constructed barriers to new housing development include beneficial environmental protections, but also laws plainly designed to exclude multifamily or affordable housing. Local policies acting as barriers to housing supply include land use  restrictions that make developable land much more costly than it is inherently, zoning restrictions, off street parking requirements, arbitrary or antiquated preservation regulations, residential conversion restrictions, and unnecessarily slow permitting processes. The accumulation of these barriers has reduced the ability of many housing markets to respond to growing demand.”whitehouse-housing_development_toolkit-f-2_page_01

Read it all here> http://tinyurl.com/WhiteHouseDevpToolKit 23 pages easy reading.

Reform land use, promote shared growth of new housing

affirmatively furthering fair housing, affordable housing, density, fair housing, housing, housing crisis, Municipal and Regional Planning, zoning, zoning regulations, , ,

– San Francisco Chronicle  http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Reform-land-use-promote-shared-growth-of-new-9283703.php

By Jason Furman | September 25, 2016 | Updated: September 25, 2016 8:34pm

housing-constructionpicturePhoto: Michael Macor, The Chronicle

When certain government policies — like minimum lot sizes, off-street parking requirements, height limits, prohibitions on multifamily housing, or unnecessarily lengthy permitting processes — restrict the supply of housing, fewer units are available and the price rises.

It is no secret that cities like San Francisco, New York and Washington, D.C., face challenges in the availability and cost of housing. But policymakers and economists have increasingly recognized both the role that certain inappropriate land use restrictions play in raising housing costs — not just in major cities but across the country — and the opportunity for modernizing these regulations to promote shared growth.

Basic economic theory predicts that when the supply of a good is constrained, its price rises and the quantity available falls. In this respect, the market for housing is no different: When certain government policies — like minimum lot sizes, off-street parking requirements, height limits, prohibitions on multifamily housing, or unnecessarily lengthy permitting processes — restrict the supply of housing, fewer units are available and the price rises. On the other hand, more efficient policies can promote availability and affordability of housing, regional economic development, transportation options and socioeconomic diversity.

Research suggests that local barriers have become more restrictive in recent decades. One way to measure this is comparing the sale price of houses with construction costs. This gap typically reflects the cost of buying land — which increases with tighter land use restrictions. Indeed, the gap has increased in the past two decades: House prices from 2010 to 2013 were 56 percent higher than construction costs, a 23 percentage-point crease over the average gap during the 1990s.

Of course, many land use regulations can have benefits for communities. Environmental reasons in some localities may make it appropriate to limit high-density or multiuse development. Similarly, health and safety concerns — such as an area’s air traffic patterns, viability of its water supply, or its geologic stability — may merit height and lot size restrictions.

But in other cases, barriers to housing development can allow a small number of individuals to enjoy the benefits of living in a community while excluding many others, limiting diversity and economic mobility.

This upward pressure on house prices may also undermine the market forces that typically determine patterns of housing construction, leading to mismatches between household needs and available housing.

Improving land use policies can also create benefits for the U.S. economy as a whole. High- productivity cities offer higher-income jobs than low-productivity cities and often attract workers who move from other cities, naturally bringing more resources to productive areas of the country. But when unnecessary barriers restrict the supply of housing and costs increase, then workers — particularly lower-income workers who would benefit the most — are less able to move.

All told, this means slower economic growth: Some researchers have estimated that GDP could have been almost 10 percent higher in 2009 if workers and capital freely moved so that the distribution of wages across cities was the same as in 1964.

On the other hand, smarter land use and housing policy can promote both growth and equity. While most land use policies are appropriately made at the state and local level, the federal government can also play a role in encouraging smart land use regulations. Today, the Obama administration is releasing a new toolkit at http://bit.ly/2d4dVAc that highlights best practices that localities have employed — including streamlining permitting processes, eliminating off-street parking requirements, reducing minimum lot sizes, and enacting high-density and multifamily zoning policies — to reduce overly burdensome land use restrictions and promote mobility and economic growth.

Reforming land use policies can have important benefits for local residents and the nation as a whole, not only raising economic growth, but ensuring that its benefits are widely shared among all Americans.

Jason Furman is the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

Coalition Launched to Increase Housing in Chittenden County VT

affordable housing, Burlington, South Burlington, Uncategorized, Vermont, zoning, , , ,

South Burlington, VT – Dozens of Chittenden County leaders in the fields of housing, business, local and state government, and social services announced this morning a new campaign to increase the production of housing and setting a target of 3,500 new homes created in the next five years.

The new coalition, called Building Homes Together, was formed by the Champlain Housing Trust, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and Housing Vermont and released an initial list of nearly 100 community leaders supporting the effort.

“Working together we will accomplish this goal,” said Brenda Torpy, CEO of Champlain Housing Trust. “For the sake of our communities, our workers and local economy, we will educate and advocate together for more housing.”

“The housing shortage in Chittenden County has been well noted with unhealthy vacancy rates and high rents,” added Charlie Baker, Executive Director of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. “Employers can’t find workers, and workers themselves spend more time in commutes and with a higher percentage of their paychecks on housing costs.”

Twenty percent of the 3,500 goal are targeted to be developed by nonprofit housing organizations. The remainder by private developers.

“This step-up in production will not just provide new homes and infrastructure for communities, it’ll be a boost to the economy and contribute to the tax base. Building homes together is a big win for all of us in Chittenden County,” said Nancy Owens, President of Housing Vermont.

The campaign will provide up-to-date data to the community on the need for and benefits of new housing, build cross-sector and public support for housing development, increasing access to capital, and supporting municipalities.

Individuals, businesses or organizations that wish to sign on and participate in the campaign are encouraged to by sending an email to Chris Donnelly at Champlain Housing Trust (chris@champlainhousingtrust.org). For more information, visit www.getahome.org/news/building-homes-together

Separating Fact from Fiction to Design Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs

fair housing, housing, housing development, inclusionary zoning, zoning

Inclusionary Housing, A Series of Research & Policy Briefs by Center for Housing Policy

[Below is an excerpt. Here is a link to download the full piece -12 pages.  http://www.nhc.org/#!2016-fact-and-fiction/jfbck ]

By Lisa A. Sturtevant, Ph.D.
May 2016
Inclusionary housing programs generally refer to city and county planning ordinances that require or incentivize developers to build below-market-rate homes (affordable homes) as part of the process of developing market-rate housing developments. More than 500 local jurisdictions in the United States have implemented inclusionary housing policies, and inclusionary requirements have been adopted in a wide variety of places—big cities, suburban communities and small towns.
Despite the proliferation of inclusionary housing programs,the approach continues to draw criticism. There have been legal challenges around inclusionary housing requirements in California, Illinois, Idaho, Colorado and Wisconsin, among others.
In addition to legal questions, critics have claimed inclusionary housing policies are not effective at producing affordable housing and have negative impacts on local housing markets. While there have been numerous studies on inclusionary housing, they unfortunately do not provide conclusive evidence about the overall effectiveness of inclusionary housing programs. These studies vary substantially in terms of their research approaches and quality. In addition, it is difficult to generalize the findings from the existing research because researchers have examined policies in only a handful of places and at particular points in time when economic and housing market conditions might have been quite different. Given these limitations, however, the most highly regarded  empirical evidence suggests that inclusionary housing programs can produce affordable housing and do not lead to significant declines in overall housing production or to increases in market-rate prices. [emphasis by author]

…

Landmark Discrimination Case: Fair Housing Act Thwarts NIMBYs

affirmatively furthering fair housing, fair housing, Uncategorized, zoning, , , , ,

I am sharing here in full an article about a U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision with significant fair housing and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing import for planning, zoning and permitting of residential housing development that was published April 28, 2016  in the legal issue blog site, “Manatt.” Especially check out the three basic “Practice Pointers” at the end of the article for the main take away.

— https://www.manatt.com/real-estate-and-land-use/Landmark-Discrimination-Case-Fair-Housing-Act-Thwarts.aspx —-

—————————————————-

Real Estate and Land Use

Apr 28, 2016
Landmark Discrimination Case: Fair Housing Act Thwarts NIMBYs

Avenue 6E Investments, LLC v. City of Yuma (March 25, 2016)

Author: Michael M. Berger

Why It Matters: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision in favor of the City of Yuma, Arizona, and concluded instead that there was sufficient evidence to present to a jury that the City had rejected the developer’s application for an increase in zoning density for reasons of barely disguised animus toward the expected residents of the new development. The Court held that issues of disparate treatment and disparate impact under both the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the federal Fair Housing Act needed to be tried.

Facts: The plaintiffs/developers acquired 42 acres of undeveloped land with the intent of building a “moderately priced” housing project. They are known in the area as a developer of Hispanic neighborhoods. Although the General Plan allowed for homes on either 6,000- or 8,000-square-foot lots, a prior owner had it zoned for 8,000-square-foot lots. Unfortunately, the economy would no longer support lots of that size and the developers sought a rezoning to the smaller size which in turn would allow increased density. The City had done some studies, concluding that its population was racially divided, with most of the low-to-moderate-income housing in the areas populated by Hispanics. These developers wanted to develop their housing on the border of a predominantly white area.

The City’s General Plan acknowledged that racial segregation is wrong and that large-lot zoning raises housing costs and impairs the ability of the City to provide housing for moderate-income buyers. The Planning Commission approved the rezoning to smaller lots and recommended that the City Council do so as well. The City Council, however, was besieged with NIMBY complaints and thinly veiled anti-Hispanic charges, complaining that these particular developers were known to “cater to” the people responsible for the vast majority of major crimes.

Two other facts had some import. First, there were similarly priced and modelled homes available elsewhere in Yuma, a fact that the City thought absolved it of any claims of disparate impact. Second, a fact that proved difficult for the City to impress on the Court was that, in the preceding three years, this was the only rezoning request that had been rejected out of 76 applications.

The developers filed suit under the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violation of the Equal Protection guarantee, as well as for disparate impact and treatment under the Fair Housing Act. The trial court entered summary judgment for the City on the sole ground that the adequate supply of similar housing elsewhere in the City automatically foreclosed any finding of disparate impact.

The Decision: The Court of Appeals reversed. When the opinion began with a paean to the Fair Housing Act and the way it “strikes at the heart of the persistent racism that so deeply troubles our Nation,” something that the provision of more affordable housing can help to cure, it was apparent that the conclusion was foregone: judgment reversed.

The Court of Appeals was unable to disregard the bright light of the fact that out of 76 applications, the only time the City had denied a zone change in the past three years was this one. There could be no explanation for the denial other than racism, particularly in light of some of the communications made by neighbors to the City Council about the presumed criminal proclivities of the anticipated residents of the new development. Nor would the Court have anything to do with the trial court’s idea that the presence of similar developments elsewhere in Yuma obviated the problem. Indeed, it merely emphasized the fact that the City was racially divided and at least some of its residents wanted things to remain that way.

There appeared to be no principled opposition to the requested zone change. As the Court of Appeals put it, the record was replete with “code words” and “veiled references” for the Hispanic influx that the neighbors anticipated, turning the development into a “low-cost, high-crime neighborhood.” The case had no chance on appeal.

Practice Pointers:

  • Neighbors frequently oppose projects in their neighborhoods that are intended to be occupied by lower-income families. Local governments often bow to this political pressure. This decision may well serve to justify these projects, even in the face of neighbor opposition.
  • Language similar to the “code words” used by neighbors in this case is common among project opponents opposing higher-density projects. Local agencies need to be mindful of the exposure that this kind of language may impose if the projects are disapproved by the local agency.
  • At the very least, local agencies need to include sufficient data and facts in the record to support their decision as not being based on discriminatory rhetoric.

Housing as a Vaccine

AARP, affirmatively furthering fair housing, affordable housing, artists' housing, housing, housing cooperatives, housing crisis, housing subsidies, housing vouchers, human rights, public housing, Uncategorized, workforce housing, zoning

The 2016 Homelessness Awareness Day and Vigil was held at the Vermont State House in Montpelier on January 7th. Two House committees Housing, General and Military Affairs and Human Services had a joint hearing on homelessness, taking testimony on housing and homelessness issues. A number of other hearings regarding homelessness happened in the building during the course of the day.

sample

Opening the hearing was nationally recognized pediatrician Dr. Megan Sandel (principal investigator on Children’s Health Watch,  Associate professor at Boston University’s School of Medicine,  and Medical director, at  the National Center for Medical-Legal Partnership at Boston Medical Center), who has done path-breaking work on the effects of housing insecurity and homelessness on children. She gave a brilliant presentation on “Housing as a Vaccine: A Prescription for Child Health.”

At that hearing, Representatives and attending members of the public also heard from Vermont homeless service providers Linda Ryan (Director of Samaritan House) and Sara Kobylenski (Executive Director of Upper Valley Haven) on the latest trends and some recommended solutions to end or decrease homelessness in Vermont.

At Noon, community members, legislative leaders, administration officials, and advocates took the State House steps for a vigil to remember our friends and neighbors who died without homes, and to bring awareness of the struggles of those still searching for safe and secure housing. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy and other legislative representatives and advocates joined and spoke at the vigil.

How can Housing be a Vaccine?

Dr. Megan presented data to support her thesis that housing can be protective for health. The quality, stability and affordability are important determinants to heath of all people. That means improving housing can provide multiple benefits. According to Dr. Megan, timing and duration of housing insecurity matter greatly to a child’s health. By increasing availability, affordability, and quality of housing, the health effect of housing insecurity can be decreased. Dr. Megan also provided specific evidence regarding housing quality and children’s health. For example, developmental issues, worsening asthma and other conditions have been tied to specific housing conditions such as pests, mold, tobacco smoke, lead exposure and so forth, and tied to long term effect with poor health outcomes.

sample 1

According to Children’s Health Watch, “unstable housing, hunger and health are linked” because evidence shows that being behind on rent is strongly associated with negative health outcomes such as high risk of child food insecurity, children and mothers who are more likely in fair or poor health, children who are more likely at risk for development delay, mothers who are more likely experiencing depressive symptoms. Research conducted by the National Housing Conference from Children’s Healthwatch illustrates that there is no safe level of homelessness. The timing (pre-natal, post-natal) and duration of homelessness (more or less than six month) compound the risk of harmful childhood health outcomes. The younger and longer a child experiences homelessness, the greater the cumulative toll of negative health outcomes, which can have lifelong effects on the child, the family, and the community.

Several community representatives spoke in support of increasing housing affordability by targeting more public funding to support housing affordability and housing stability and adding to state housing directed funds with a $2 per night fee on hotel, motel and inn stays.

 

Zoning’s link to unaffordability AND inequality

affordable housing, economic growth, fair housing, housing crisis, income inequality, public opinion, segregation, Vermont, zoning, , , , , ,

Rising income inequality has become a major public concern over the last few years. What some of us may not realize, though, is that zoning is one of the likely culprits.

Yes, zoning and other land-use restrictions can contribute to housing unaffordability, but also — by extension — to income inequality and diminishing productivity.furman2

That’s the argument that Jason Furman, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, brought to the Urban Institute in an address last month. His remarks had scholarly underpinnings, in the form of charts and footnotes.

Here’s a compressed version of what he said: Income inequality has increased over the last several decades, as have land-use restrictions in the more productive metropolitan areas. Meanwhile, labor mobility has declined — workers are less likely to switch jobs and move around the country for higher pay — and so have annual increases in productivity. The drop in mobility ( or “fluidity”) is not well understood, but one cause appears to be the high cost of housing in high-wage, productive cities (such as Boston or San Francisco) that many would-be employees can’t afford to move to.

“Zoning and other land-use restrictions, by restricting the supply of housing and so increasing its cost, may make it difficult for individuals to move to areas with better-paying jobs and higher-quality schools,” he said. (He acknowledged that some land-use restrictions can be beneficial, but that some can be harmfully excessive, in such forms as minimum lot sizes, off-street parking requirements, height limits, prohibitions on multifamily housing, and lengthy permitting processes.)

Hampered mobility diminishes economic growth, he said, citing the same recent study we referred to in a recent post.

Generally speaking, Furman said, zoning restrictions tend to favor well-to-do property owners, who defend these restrictions so as to safeguard their assets. Stringent zoning reduces housing supply, maintains high prices, reinforces wealthy enclaves, and effectively repels people of moderate or low income. The restrictiveness of land-use regulations correlates with the gap between construction costs and house prices — the bigger the gap, the more land costs figure into the those higher prices.

“The timing of tighter land use regulations may not have been a coincidence,” Furman said. “After a turbulent decade of the 1960s in the United States that saw racial tensions flare, with rioting in many urban areas around the country that damaged or destroyed both residential and commercial structures, thousands of high income, predominantly white families moved out of many cities, spurring the continued rise of racially and socioeconomically homogeneous communities. These communities were also strictly zoned, a choice which may very well have been a part of a conscious or unconscious attempt to maintain this homogeneity through the affordability channel.”

Nowadays, there’s an increased demand for multi-family housing, but this form of housing tends to be heavily regulated, he said, and one of the nation’s challenges is to reduce regulatory barriers to increasing the supply of this housing option. In fact, the Obama administration is promoting an initiative (the Multi-family Risk Sharing Mortgage) to shore up the “limited supply of credit” for multifamily developments.

What’s more, Obama’s FY16 budget includes $300 million for Local Housing Policy Grants — a competitive program, he said, designed to provide funds “to those localities and regional coalitions” that support “new zoning and land use regulations to create an expanded, more flexible and diverse housing supply.”

Hmm, any interest in Vermont?