Slide 1

CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN YOUR COMMUNITY HOSTED BY LOCAL PROGRESS

Slide 2

Ady Barkan Co-Director Local Progress

Slide 3

Sasha Hauswald Cornerstone Partnership Senior Program Officer for Inclusionary Housing Policy

Slide 4

www.affordableownership.org Cornerstone Partnership 2013 Inclusionary Housing Presentation for Local Progress

Slide 5

5 www.affordableownership.org Cornerstone Partnership Introduction Sasha Hauswald Senior Program Officer, Inclusionary Housing Policy

Slide 6

6 www.affordableownership.org Agenda About Cornerstone Why Inclusionary Key Choices Recent Trends

Slide 7

7 www.affordableownership.org What We Do We promote housing opportunity by: Advising communities on inclusionary housing policy. Building capacity of nonprofits running homeownership programs that build wealth and preserve affordability over time. Developing innovative technology solutions to increase program efficiency and capture social impact data.

Slide 8

8 www.affordableownership.org Whats the Problem? Lower and middle-income households are increasingly being priced out of growing housing markets. Lack of housing opportunities leaves these families few choices: extreme commute times, overcrowding, substandard housing, or living in housing beyond their means.

Slide 9

9 www.affordableownership.org San Jose Home Sales History (2014 dollars) YearSales PricePotential Buyer 1988 $378,000$87,000 1996 $301,900 $69,500 2015$939,000 $216,032 Loss of Affordability

Slide 10

10 www.affordableownership.org Housing Prices Outpace Wages source: americancenturyblog.com

Slide 11

11 www.affordableownership.org Why Inclusionary?

Slide 12

12 www.affordableownership.org What is Inclusionary Housing? >500 Source: Hickey, Sturtevant and Thaden (2014). Achieving Lasting Affordability through Inclusionary Housing. Local policies that require or encourage lower-priced, income-targeted homes and apartments in new market- rate developments.

Slide 13

13 www.affordableownership.org Development Booming Source: http://colors.papabeta.com/

Slide 14

14 www.affordableownership.org Income Inequality on the Rise Source: San Francisco Human Services Agency

Slide 15

15 www.affordableownership.org Polarization: A Tale of One City Source: J.D. Pooley/Getty Images

Slide 16

16 www.affordableownership.org Why Inclusionary? Affordable Housing Development without Public Subsidy Recapture Value Generated by Public Investment Build Mixed-Income TOD Workforce Attraction and Retention Reduce pollution due to Commuting Economic Integration: Access to Good Neighborhoods Ponce City Flats, Atlanta, GA

Slide 17

17 www.affordableownership.org How Do We Structure Inclusionary Policies?

Slide 18

18 www.affordableownership.org Voluntary or Mandatory? What is the percentage of price-restricted units (typical range is 10% to 30%)? What is the threshold size for projects? What income groups will be targeted? Does it apply to both rental and for-sale development? Is the policy geographically targeted? Does the policy apply to non-residential developers? Will in-lieu fees, off-site or land dedication be allowed? What incentives will be offered? What is the duration of affordability requirements? Will specific design standards apply to the price-restricted units? Key Choices

Slide 19

19 www.affordableownership.org Mandatory Typically produce more affordable units. Voluntary vs Mandatory San Francisco, CA

Slide 20

20 www.affordableownership.org Voluntary Must offer adequate incentives Strong Voluntary/ Triggered Programs Voluntary vs Mandatory Austin, TX

Slide 21

21 www.affordableownership.org Inclusionary Percentage Typical range 10% to 30% Trade Off Lower % for Deeper affordability Palmers Dock Apartments, Brooklyn, NY

Slide 22

22 www.affordableownership.org Income Targeting Typical range 30%AMI to 120%AMI Often lower for rental than ownership Atlanta, GA

Slide 23

23 www.affordableownership.org Geographic Targeting Transit Oriented Development Mixed markets Specific zoning districts, neighborhoods or census tracts.

Slide 24

24 www.affordableownership.org In-Lieu Fees Flexibility Leveraging of outside funds Use expertise of nonprofits Ease of development Monitoring costs and challenges New Condominium Development, Santa Fe

Slide 25

25 www.affordableownership.org Why Not Do In-Lieu Fees Prices often set too low Delay to see units Administrative and development capacity Concentration of poverty Scarcity of leveraging sources Political and public will Evans Station Lofts, Denver

Slide 26

26 www.affordableownership.org Other Compliance Options Offsite Performance Land Dedication Preservation Downtown Tucson, Arizona

Slide 27

27 www.affordableownership.org Density bonus Parking reduction Other zoning variances Fee / tax reductions Financial subsidies Expedited permitting Types of Incentives Atlanta, Georgia

Slide 28

28 www.affordableownership.org Most Effective Policies: Do not miss the window of opportunity Apply where new development is occurring/ will occur Are mandatory Have long terms of affordability Plan for monitoring and stewardship Are simple and predictable Objectively assess financial feasibility Lessons Learned

Slide 29

29 www.affordableownership.org Strengthening Existing Programs Longer terms of affordability Higher fees-in-lieu Voluntary programs becoming mandatory Mixed Markets Denver, New York, Pittsburgh, New Orleans Southern and Rustbelt Cities Atlanta, Nashville, Minneapolis Inclusionary Upzoning Regional Efforts California, Twin Cities Fee-Based Programs Seattle, California 2015 Trends

Slide 30

30 www.affordableownership.org Thank you. For More Information: shauswald@capitalimpact.org affordableownership.org

Slide 31

Valerie Ervin Executive Director Participatory Democracy Project

Slide 32

Inclusionary Zoning in Montgomery County BIRTH-STRUGGLE- EVOLUTION

Slide 33

BIRTH A long view: Visionary Leadership (It is the governments role to expand opportunity) 1964: Montgomery County Council passed a General Plan which included a concept called Wedges and Corridors which created wedges of low-density, open space and protected farmland and corridors of growth and development. In 1974 the Montgomery County Council pioneered the nations first mandatory inclusionary zoning law. The program allows that a specified density bonus allowance to builders to provide affordable housing. In 1980 the Council created the Agricultural Reserve which was designed to protect 93,000 acres of farmland and agriculture. As Montgomery County grew as a desirable community outside the nations capital, community and political leaders grew concerned that the majority of new housing in the county was being built and marketed to high income households. Moderately priced and low-income housing was shrinking. This fact brought visionary leadership both elected and community together to create public policy answers to this growing dilemma. The law requires that between 12.5% and 15% of homes in new developments of 20 units or more be MPDUs. The law allows a density increase of up to 22% above the normal density permitted under the zone. The density bonus, in effected, creates free lots on which MPDUs are constructed. When the program was established it required that the affordability of both rental and homeownership MPDUs be controlled for 5 years. Today, that period is 30 years for homeownership and 99 years for rentals. In 2014, a household must earn between a minimum of $30,000 and a maximum of $81,000 to rent and MPDU (based on unit size and unit type). To buy an MPDU, household income must be between $35,000 and $81,000. These income limits are updated annually.

Slide 34

STRUGGLE Who qualifies? The program requires that 40% of newly developed MPDUs first be offered for sale to the Housing Opportunities Commission, Montgomery Countys public housing agency, and to non- profit housing providers who provide housing to the countys poorest residents who do not qualify for the MPDU program. The MPDU program is not for poor people. Moderately priced housing is designed to be housing for teachers and firefighters and other public sector employees who cannot afford to live in the county where they provide their public service. These residents are moving further and further away from the county due to issues of affordability. The next generation is also impacted by higher housing costs. They essentially cannot afford to live in the community where they were born and raised. The Housing Opportunities Commission was established to provide housing for the families who do not qualify for MPDUs. As the County grows and the availability of land shrinks, the pressure on the county and developers is growing. New development is actually redevelopment of older wedges that were originally designed in the 60s and much of that development was in the form of strip malls. The pushback from communities is the result of the older residential communities feeling the pressure of this new development which puts them in close proximity to neighbors who are different. In an enclave that was a traditional bedroom community that was very homogeneous to one that is more diverse has been a tension that creates pushback from well- organized single-family residents and residents who live in condos in tony neighborhoods where redevelopment is also occurring. The lack of affordable housing has also caused neighbors to respond negatively to families due to financial constraints sharing housing.

Slide 35

EVOLUTION The MPDU program is not a static program. It works because it is in a constant state of reevaluation and improvement. The County is becoming more urban and is nearing its capacity for development. As a result, the production of MPDUs has decreased. This decreased production was also a result of the recent recession which slowed down building and development for the past several years. Land is expensive so the developers continue to find ways to ensure certainty to build to make a profit. The MPDU program is still an important source of affordable housing but it cant be the only tool. There have to be many tools in the tool box to make affordable housing a reality in our communities.

Slide 36

Robin Kniech Councilwoman At Large Denver, CO

Slide 37

High, medium, and low zones based on the overlay of two metrics 1.Fixed-rail Transit Why?: Proximity to transit saves moderate income families money compared to owning and/or always using a car. Data and thresholds: 30% or 50% of neighborhood within mile of fixed rail transit station. 2.Median Sales Prices Why?: We have a greater need for new affordable housing as a part of development in higher cost neighborhoods than in neighborhoods where the market already creates moderate priced housing. Data and Threshold: median sales distributed into three tiers citywide by neighborhood. 37 Determining Zones for Variable Cash in Lieu/Incentives

Slide 38

Zones for variable cash-in-lieu or incentives Distribution: LOW = 25% MEDIUM = 60% HIGH = 15% Zones Based on Need/Transit

Slide 39

Tiered Cash-in-Lieu and Incentives by Zone Zone CILCash Incentives High 70% of Sales Price $25,000 per unit Medium 50% of Sales Price (Existing) $6,500 per unit (Existing adjusted by inflation) Low 25% of Sales price $2,500 per unit * Except within mile of transit, which receives the medium incentive Tiered Cash In Lieu (CIL) and Incentives - By Zones

Slide 40

Denver City Councilwoman At-Large Robin Kniech (720) 337-7712 robin.kniech@denvergov.org www.denvergov.org/robinkniech 40

Slide 41

Q and A Please raise your hand or type a question in the chat box

Slide 42

THANK YOU! Please contact Tarsi Dunlop with questions (tdunlop@populardemocracy.org)