![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Affordable housing development in suburban locales is often constrained by zoning and other municipal land-use restrictions. This article explores experiences in four states that have been recognized for exemplary interventions that address “exclusionary zoning.” Using quantitative and qualitative methods, the article examines overall production levels resulting from the specific program, the extent to which such production is occurring in locales with more White residents and more higher-income residents, and the levels of compliance with state-specified goals, where such goals exist. When possible, cross-state comparisons are provided. Although there are clear signs of progress, with municipalities increasing their affordable housing stocks and with some of this production occurring in locales that probably would not have developed such housing without such state (or county) intervention, the pace has been slow. A number of recommendations are offered for these and other states contemplating strategies to address exclusionary land-use practices.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the Citizens' Housing and Planning Association for providing funding for this project and to present and prior staff members: Brenda Clement, Aaron Gornstein, Ann Verrilli, and Karen Wiener. Thanks, too, to advisory committee members: Keri-Nicole Dillman, Lynn Fisher, Phil Herr, Sharon Krefetz, Peter Lowitt, Jennifer Raitt, and Clark Ziegler. Special thanks to the scores of people we interviewed or contacted and, in particular, to several people we bothered repeatedly: Chris Anderson, Annette Bourne, Cathy Creswell, Adam Gordon, David Kinsey, Alan Mallach, Kathy McGlinchy, Sally Roman, and Rob Wiener. Thanks to Tom Sanchez for his strong support of this work, the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, and Derek Hyra for his early encouragement to submit the work to Housing Policy Debate. Tufts faculty members, Mary Davis and Barbara Parmenter, were very helpful, as was the project's first research assistant, Kara Hubbard. At the time this project was undertaken, Abi Vladeck was a graduate student research assistant at Tufts and was responsible for designing and carrying out the quantitative analyses.
Notes
1. Current address: Special Assistant in Capital Planning, Office of Budget Management, City of Boston, MA, USA.
2. In addition to the Moving to Opportunity program, researchers and policymakers have considered the extent to which various federal housing subsidy programs promote racial and economic integration. Concerns that these programs have supported housing development in predominantly non-White, poor neighborhoods prompted federal regulations that encourage development in more diverse and more affluent areas (Tegeler, Citation2005). A recent study on the location of LIHTC units in New York City and seven surrounding counties found that 71% of the affordable units built through this program were located in areas of high or extreme poverty concentration and that 77% were located in minority areas (Kawitzky, Freiberg, Houk, & Hankins, Citation2013).
3. A full review of the literature on these impacts is beyond the scope of this article. However, concerning the property-value issue, a number of studies have found that the property values of nearby homes are not negatively impacted if subsidized housing is attractively designed, is of high quality, fits in with the surrounding neighborhood, and is managed well (Deng, Citation2011; Ellen, 2008; Nguyen, Citation2005; Pollakowski, Ritchay, & Weinrobe, Citation2005). Deng and others underscore the importance of context as a key factor contributing to differential outcomes. Funderburg and MacDonald (Citation2010) found some negative impacts on property values, but these were small and not statistically significant for all projects. Galster, Levy, Sawyer, Temkin, and Walker (Citation2005) found that community development corporation investments in affordable housing and commercial retail facilities can lead to substantial increases in property values.
4. The study also included analyses on the density of municipalities in which affordable housing production had occurred. However, the measures we used were not sufficiently fine-tuned to reach definitive conclusions and have been omitted from this article.
5. Qualitative information was collected on California's housing-element approach, but with the exception of a few passing comments, that information is not presented here (see Bratt, Citation2012).
6. Funding for the Massachusetts Housing Partnership (MHP) derives from a 1990 Massachusetts interstate banking act, which requires companies that acquire Massachusetts banks to make funds available to the MHP for affordable housing.
7. Massachusetts currently does not enforce its local comprehensive planning requirement, mandate that municipalities adopt growth management plans, or require consistency between local plans and zoning. Efforts have been ongoing to enact zoning reform legislation. A proposed bill would further encourage master planning, and the adoption of such a plan would be used as a basis for determining consistency with zoning ordinances. Inclusionary zoning also would be encouraged, and new guidelines for encouraging smart growth, including housing development districts, are outlined (“Summary of Zoning Reform Bill,” Citation2013).
8. In 2006, the state's inspector general investigated alleged abuses in the cost certification process used by developers under the Chapter 40B program. Although most of the inspector general's findings were refuted, the DHCD made various administrative changes in its oversight of the Chapter 40B program (letter from Aaron Gornstein, Executive Director, Citizens' Housing and Planning Association, to Inspector General's office, October 7, 2006; Flores, Citation2009).
9. For Rhode Island, we refer to “low- and moderate-income housing” instead of “affordable housing” because the former is the statutorily defined term.
10. While there is no statutory mandate under Chapter 40B to consider affordable housing plans, regulations adopted in 2002 provide immunity (for 1 or 2 years) for municipalities that have produced a certain number of units in accordance with their plan, as described in the text.
11. Annette Bourne is no longer employed at the agency. She is currently the administrator of Rhode Island's Department of Human Services.
12. The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled in West v. McDonald (Citation2011) that the comprehensive plan takes precedence if there are conflicts with a municipality's zoning law.
13. Based on 2013 data presented in municipality profiles at HousingWorksRI (http://www.housingworksri.org/cities-towns), the same number of municipalities (six) had attained the 10% goal.
14. This includes Pawtucket and West Warwick, two out of the five municipalities that have met the state's housing goal through the alternative rental housing threshold.
15. Research team analysis based on data provided by Rhode Island Housing, “LMIH production since AHPs.”
16. Other data provided by the Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Affairs (Citation2010) show that (1) an even higher percentage of the still-price-controlled MPDUs are rentals (48%), and (2) 13% of the homeownership MPDUs ever built and 28% of the rental units ever built are still price controlled.
17. Various data that were made available to the research team revealed some minor discrepancies in the still-affordable tallies. However, the method used in our analysis to determine the total number of MPDUs and still-affordable units was based on recommendations from two Montgomery County employees: Christopher Anderson, manager of single family housing programs, Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Affairs; and Sharon Suarez, coordinator for housing research and policy, Montgomery County Planning Department. In addition, although there is a possibility of some overlap in the MPDU and HOC databases, the weight of the evidence, and information from interviewees, consistently pointed to about 32% or less of the MPDUs ever built retaining their affordability.
18. In 1985, a statewide developer fee earmarked for affordable housing development was instituted. Municipalities that had developer fees in place prior to 2008 were (for the most part) given permission to keep these funds. The ability of municipalities to charge fees to developers has been a major area of controversy.
19. Kevin Walsh, associate director of the Fair Share Housing Center, explained that some municipalities file plans with the courts rather than with the COAH “since the courts are viewed as being somewhat more flexible than COAH.” Further, municipalities may feel that they “have a better chance of controlling the review process.” For towns that have been sued, the courts may feel more convenient. Regardless, court decisions are required to conform with the COAH's regulations whenever practicable.
20. An important “stick,” although one that also has been used infrequently, allows a trial judge to replace the town's planning board with a court-appointed master who is charged with developing new zoning ordinances consistent with the municipality's fair-share obligation.
21. Out of the state's 566 municipalities, 248 filed plans with the COAH, 32 had a case pending in the courts, and 19 were expected to file with the courts. Excluded from the total number of municipalities were 53 that had received a 1-year extension and 72 that did not have a prior-round obligation. Many, if not most, of the latter do not choose to file plans. Thus, 299/441 = 68% (Gordon, Citation2009).
22. Of the 18,910 units produced in municipalities without prior-round obligations, 3,029 (16%) were produced through the RCA program. In this analysis, these units are “credited” only to the municipalities in which they were constructed. Data provided by the COAH: “All Projects Summary,” March 2009, and “Rehabilitation Share, Prior Round Obligation and Growth Projections,” October 20, 2008.
23. The future of the COAH is, itself, to be decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
24. For some municipalities, this would include surplus units (i.e., units produced in excess of the targets specified in the first two rounds) that could be applied to the third round.
25. Another mixed finding is that municipalities that built no affordable housing have higher percentages of White residents, but the median income is lower than municipalities that built at least some housing.
26. California has been a leader in demanding that local jurisdictions adopt zoning ordinances that can accommodate the housing needs of all residents. While locales are responsible for providing the appropriate land-use framework to enable development to occur, they are not accountable for whether the housing market responds. Creating opportunities for higher-density development does not automatically translate into producing affordable housing units or, indeed, serving the range of income levels specified in the housing element. Perceptions concerning the effectiveness of the California statute must be tempered by the lack of a centralized housing production database that would provide information on each jurisdiction's housing needs, as specified in the housing elements, compared with housing production outcomes.
27. Under the Community Preservation Act (CPA), enacted in Citation2000, local governments have the option to create their own new tax (up to a 3% surcharge on the property tax), the proceeds of which are partially matched by state funds. At least 10% of each municipality's CPA funds must go to each of three areas: open space, historic preservation, and affordable housing. Chapter 40R, enacted in 2004, encourages municipalities to create special zoning overlay districts that allow for increased housing densities, so long as the zoning requires that at least 20% of the units are affordable and that they combine mixed uses. Financial incentives for this rezoning are provided by the state. Chapter 40S, enacted 1 year later, provides state subsidies to local governments to cover the net increase in education costs resulting from the development of affordable housing built under the Chapter 40R program.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Rachel G. Bratt
Rachel G. Bratt is a professor in the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts University, specializing in housing and community development.
Abigail Vladeck
Abigail Vladeck received her M.A. from Tufts in 2010 and is a Special Assistant in Capital Planning, Office of Budget Management, City of Boston.