By Ralph-Cedric Comeau

Affordable Housing has always been a crisis as cities and towns heavily support housing discrimination through exclusionary zoning. Exclusionary zoning is the mechanism through which affluent neighborhoods like that of New York City and suburbs like that of Greater Boston keep low-income families from moving to their community. This is done by deceitfully prohibiting multifamily residential area or mobile homes in order to maintain property values (Lerman). The purpose of affordable housing, in the form of either NYCHA and BHA public housing or Section 8 voucher program, is to preserve housing for long-time residents and decrease suburban sprawl (NYC Planning). It is within the context of this dichotomy that inclusionary zoning emerges. This new movement tries to encourage affordable housing development in response to the exclusionary zoning.  I will provide an overview of the inclusionary housing programs, then a survey of criticism and the consequences on public housings authorities such as NYCHA and BHA.

State and local government oversee inclusionary housing programs through zoning ordinances since these programs are not federally mandated. This suggests that the process is not federally funded like Section 8 program is—in fact it isn’t funded at all. Indeed, it relies overwhelmingly on the partnership between private investments in the form of developers and local entities in which developers are solely encouraged to create affordable housing. Developers and the local government agree, through local zoning ordinances, to provide a percentage of units to low-income and moderate-income families. Local agencies, similarly to the process of Section 8 program, set the income threshold of the recipient in respect to the median income of the city (Kautz). The unit is leased as “affordable” for set period of time, which varies depending on the agreement forged between both parties. Within this framework, affordable housing is an integral part of both commercial and residential developments in the community (Burchell).  In return, developers receive local tax abatements, waivers of zoning requirements such as density bonus. This integrates the population through mixed-use developments.

However, both New York City and Boston have struggled with inclusionary zoning. In a 2013 report submitted by the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Developments (ANHD) entitled Guaranteed Inclusionary Zoning: Ensuring Affordability is part of New York City’s Future, researchers have found that since its inception in 2005, inclusionary housing program have only generated 2,769 affordable housing units and specifically in two neighborhoods. This is less than 2% of all multifamily building permit that tend to cater to low-income families. Boston, on the other hand, struggles because of Massachusetts state laws. Developers can initiate affordable housing programs through the Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit Law and the General Laws Chapter 40B. This allows them to submit proposals to local Zoning Board of Appeals and build large apartment complexes without conforming to municipal zoning restrictions (Lerman). Consequently, developers take advantage of these zoning ordinances yet they don’t deliver.

The terms of the agreements are unintentionally hurtful to the poor communities. According to the United States Census Bureau, in New York City the median household income and percentage of people below poverty line differ drastically from one borough to the other. For instance, the median household income in Manhattan is $67,204 with 17.6% of persons below poverty level. In The Bronx, it is $34,744 and 28.5% respectively. This showcases the enormous disparity in income in New York City overall. Therefore, the income bracket local agencies define as low and moderate is not representative the actual income of disadvantaged and marginalized people. Therefore, most of these inclusionary housing units are given to moderate-income people. This leads to more segregated housing with ghettoization and overconcentration of poverty in public housing run by NYCHA and BHA.

Inclusionary Housing Programs are useful tools to forge partnership between local governments and developers in the goal of creating affordable housing. The issue, however, is that because of the absence of federal funding, municipalities engaging in those programs are at the mercy of greedy developers. Housing, and by extension, the well being of citizens are a matter of civil rights and thereof federal government.  The next step should be to mandate it at federal level through legislations.

 

Sources

1.Lerman, Brian R. Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning- The answer to the affordable housing problem

2. Kautz, Barbara Ehrlich: In Defense of Inclusionary Zoning: Successfully Creating Affordable Housing

3. Schuetz, Jenny: The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets, Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy New York University

4. Dr. Burchell, Robert: Inclusionary Zoning: A Viable Solution to the Affordable Housing Crisis?

5. Newman, Kathe: The Right to Stay Out, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New York City

 6. Emory Law Journal: Zoning For All: Using Inclusionary Zoning Techniques to Promote Affordable Housing