Inclusionary Zoning: What’s Lost and What’s Gained?

affordable-03-2008.jpg
The Furman Center released a big report yesterday about how inclusionary zoning affects prices and development. In other words, the report looked into whether incentivizing the creation of affordable housing puts an undue strain on developers, forcing them to raise prices for market-rate units or scrap would-be projects. The study focused on how inclusionary zoning has worked in San Francisco, D.C., and suburban Boston areas, and it more or less concluded that it does not sink development or cause unnatural price hikes. “Our analysis refutes the ‘sky-is-falling’ cries from IZ opponents; we find no evidence that IZ programs have reduced housing production in the San Francisco area, and find evidence of only slight effects on production in the Boston area,” said Vicki Been, Director of the Furman Center, in a statement. “However, we found that IZ policies have produced only a modest number of affordable housing units, suggesting that IZ by itself is not a panacea for a community’s affordable housing challenges.” Indeed, the current practice of simply requiring a small percentage of affordable housing in an otherwise market-rate development—which is one of the main ways New York City is addressing its affordability crisis—is something, but it’s hardly everything.
Report on the Impact of Inclusionary Zoning Programs [Furman Center]
Photo by Housing Here and Now.

By Gabby |