- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
City Council to Consider Flawed Inclusionary Zoning Bill TOMMORROW!
Submitted by jennifer on Wed, 11/14/2007 - 2:07pm.
There is an inclusionary zoning bill that, if passed, would put Philadelphia at the forefront of cities in making sure that average city residents benefit from all that high-end development cropping up everywhere. Inclusionary zoning mandates that some portion of new construction over a certain size contains affordable units, or allows "in lieu" contribution to a fund that will build that affordable housing and provide other crucial services. This bill was drafted with the accumulated wisdom of our own Community Legal Services lawyers, and with the knowledge of leading national experts.
This great inclusionary zoning bill, which Philadelphia greatly needs, is NOT the one that City Council will be voting on tomorrow.
The bill before City Council, drafted by Councilman Darrell Clarke and put up for last-minute vote before Mayor Street leaves office, looks like an inclusionary zoning bill. However, the affordable housing that it would mandate is not affordable to the average Philadelphian. Councilman Clarke's bill only requires that developers build units that would be affordable to people making between 80% and 150% of the median income for Philadelphia. That works out to $57,000 to $104,000 per year in income. Most Philadelphia families do not come close to even the low end of that spectrum. (Click here for a comparison of the two bills.)
We have the chance to pass a model bill in the new year, with a new mayor and a revived City Council. It is crucial that we get Councilman Clarke's bill voted down tomorrow, so we do not squander that opportunity.
As the mayor elect has said (and I've quoted twice this week): "We no longer need to chase growth; now we need to guide it." True words. We need to stop settling for less than we deserve. Come to City Hall room 400 tomorrow at 9:45 am. Testify why each Philadephian deserves the chance to buy a house he or she can afford. Tell City Council we will wait for the right bill.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Less than we deserve
The inclusionary housing bill version that Darrell Clarke proposes is substantially more lenient on developers and would probably lead to proportionally less affordable housing than legislation that has been passes in other cities. In other words, not only is Darrell Clarke sticking it to his own constituents, he's sticking it to a good portion of city residents who might qualify for living in a place down the line. I have no idea why.
----
Another flaw in Clarke's bill is that new apartments buildings will only be required to have affordable units for about ten years and then the provision will expire whereas the affordable housing coalition bill calls for permanent affordable units. The permanent provision increases the chance that as Center City expands that there will be some affordable housing in the long term.
Lastly, it is ironic on a night that PennPraxis proposes the development of literally billions of dollars of residential development over the next three or four decades along the the waterfront that City Council would potentially enact legislation that would not maximize affordable housing for the area. It seems to me that new zoning and inclusionary housing initiatives should be considered together in January.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
Half for households below 80% is a better goal
I'm not familiar with the details of the CLS-based legislation, but 2 years ago, I went (back) to Boston and talked with some of the leaders there who steered their city's Inclusionary Housing program in order to develop a policy for Philly and they have Inclusionary Housing law that requires at least one half of the "affordable" units be set aside for households earning LESS than 80 percent of AMI and the remaining offered to households with incomes between 80 and 120 percent (w/ an average of 100 percent).
One only has to walk the streets of Queen Village to see the problematic effects of economic segregation. I would much prefer a truly integrated community with homeowners of all economic levels living side by side. There are, however, more than a few opponents to this policy. Opponents who would otherwise call themselves liberal democrats, no less.
Of course, the development community balks at this proposal, which is unfortunate. I think, if this Inclusionary Housing bill were part of a larger package of zoning and development reform bills (that had both carrots and sticks) , it may get more support from the development community. That being said, I don't think the support of the development community is essential to a better bill's passage.
The alternate legislation
The alternate legislation has not yet been publically released. I do know that these would be the income guidelines for 'affordability': the properties built should be affordable to "families earning less than 50% of Area Median Income (AMI), or $36,000 for a family of four." If developers instead chose to contribute money to the fund, that money "would be targeted to families earning as little as 10% of AMI."
I think there is consensus among advocates that there have to be incentives for the developers. When the comparison between the bills was drafted, the Clarke bill apparently did not include incentives. He has since revised the bill, however, so I don't want to speak conclusively about it. It was described to me as basically the same.
Incentives under the alternative bill mostly include density bonuses and streamlined, expedited approval processes. Both are important and can cut costs and increase profits, offsetting liability from constructing the affordable units.
Two big issues that I think absolutely have to be pushed for in any bill we adopt: the bill should encourage on-site construction of affordable housing, because only that will help ease residential segregation. In-lieu money to the fund is a good thing, but in the long run we need to take steps to encourage some amount of mixed-income development.
Second, duration of affordability is crucial. These bills are about equity, but they are also about a real shortage of affordable housing that is not being filled by the federal government. And short-term redistribution is not going to fix that. Properties that can convert in ten years to market rate, as they would under the Clarke plan, will not fix that.
The federal government experimented with 30-year susidized mortgages to prompt affordable housing construction, and has been struggling with a disaster once it came time for those properties to be freed from affordability restrictions and suddenly be converted to market-rate housing. The alternative bill claims to ensure permanent affordability, through deed restrictions, and we absolutely need that if we are going to attack the problem of the market not providing a full range of options, and have anything other than a short term mediation of that problem.
It was good to see you for a moment last night!
Time duration
Jen:
I just wanted to point out the the duration timeframe applies differently to homes and apartment buildings. For the most part, inclusionary housing legislation across the country allows individual homes to become market rate after ten years. I support this both because it allows initial home owners to acquire equity and because its difficult to regulate in a reasonable fashion the sale of individually owed homes.
The ten year restrictions versus unlimited time duration, as I understand it, is primarily targeted at apartment buildings and possibly condos. Clarke's version allows apartments buildings to convert to market rate after ten years. This provision, in particular would reduce the number of affordable units close to Center City.
I agree with the importance of on-site housing.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
Yeah, that makes sense. I
Yeah, that makes sense. I got the sense that there was a little lack of clarity about how the 'permanent affordability' would work, but that may be just the product of discusison and not seeing the full, on-paper plan.
Allowing for equity in for-sale property definitely makes sense. And, god willing, if development continues apace one of the advantages of a plan like this is that it would continuously spur new construction to replenish those that price out of affordability.
I do think that rental housing needs to stay affordable. The markers of affordability can shift over time as income does, but all neighborhoods here need to be grounded by some measure of accessible rental housing.
The time limit for SALES is
The time limit for SALES is a critical component to helping families build wealth, afford college and plan for retirement. All of this ultimately eases the strain on subsidized programs designed to get there otherwise. For leases, not so much.
Saving half of the units for those making under 50% is even better. I've always said if my son or daughter wanted to grow up to be a police officer, he/she should still be able to afford a home in the neighborhood in which they were born.
As far as incentives are concerned, many developers have told me if the city could boil down the permit/building/zoning process to fit the BIA's recommended 10-step process, they'd realize enough savings in carrying costs and other line items to ease any perceived pain coming from Inclusive Housing mandates.