ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts each provide a strong policy backstop at the state level for local inclusionary policies that help protect these policies from being overturned. Why Weren't More Policies Weakened Finally, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts or Eliminated? each provide a strong policy backstop at the state level for local inclusionary policies :hat help protect these Given the housing market slowdown, one might have policies from being overturned. Eliminating inclusionary expected private developers to convince more local requirements in any of these states simply means that a officials to rescind local inclusionary housing policies, given jurisdiction will have to come up with other tools for or at least to suspend requirements. Why didn't this generating housing for below-median-income households happen?To the extent we can answer this,it may provide —such as raising local funds to subsidize affordable units important insights into how inclusionary housing policies — in order to stay compliant with state housing laws. can be preserved and strengthened going forward. Oftentimes these alternatives are more politically difficult than adopting an inclusionary housing policy. The most straightforward explanation for inclusionary housing's resilience during the downturn is that most The recent experience in the city of Folsom (CA) is policies tend to be based in relatively strong housing illustrative. California Housing Element law requires markets. Certainly a strong economy has buoyed that jurisdictions create realistic opportunities for inclusionary policies in places like Montgomery County meeting regionally determined affordable housing (MD), where private development never ceased during targets. Historically, inclusionary housing policies have the economic downturn. Developers there have been a popular tool for complying with this law.20 produced more than 700 inclusionary units since 2008 —roughly half rental, and half ownership." In 2011,Folsom's City Council voted to end its inclusionary housing policy. But in June 2012, the Superior Court of Inclusionary housing also tends to be located in places Sacramento County ruled that Folsom could not drop its with strong,local constituencies.Their support fortified inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO) without adopting policies in even weak markets over the past five years. a new housing strategy to replace it.In the decision,the For example, the Florida jurisdictions of Palm Beach judge stated: County and Tallahassee saw median home prices cut in half during the downturn and new production slow The Court is persuaded that the city's action to a trickle. Nonetheless both jurisdictions left their to sunset the IHO is inconsistent with the city's policies unchanged after local advocates mustered a housing element because t (1) discontinued a strong counter-weight to efforts to overturn them.18 A program ostensibly responsible for nearly half new policy in Baltimore survived a similar challenge (405 units) of the city's quantified objective in 2011.19 for affordable housing, without identifying any replacement program; and (2) interfered with The flexibility of many inclusionary housing policies may the Housing Element's goals to promote the have provided further insulation from challenges during development of affordable housing.Therefore,the the housing downturn. Many policies allow alternatives City's Sunset Ordinance should be invalidated.21 to the on-site construction of affordable units in certain situations. Options include payment of an "in-lieu" fee, To date,Folsom's inclusionary po icy remains on the books. building affordable units off-site,or dedicating land.Some policies also allow developers to waive out of requirements It would be overly simplistic to solely credit state housing altogether in cases of severe financial hardship. law for the perpetuation of so many policies in California, Jurisdictions can also adjust these options as market given that many policies were created as a response to conditions change,as in the case of Oceanside discussed real,local affordability concerns.'2 Furthermore,the major, above. Arguably,this flexibility,especially when combined recent drop in state public subsidy for affordable housing with cost-offsets (such as density bonuses and relaxed has made inclusionary housinc all the more appealing zoning standards), has helped to reduce the grounds for for some California communities. But arguably state concern with ordinances, helping them endure through housing law has made it a bit more difficult to eliminate the housing downturn. inclusionary policies without lecal consequence. 4