21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Discussion of Key Findings In total, the study identified 1,019 IH programs in 734jurisdictions atthe end of 2019. of these, 685 IH programs were traditional programs and 99% offered the option to complete affordable units on the site of a new development. Nine out of 10 programs applied to both single-family homeownership and multifamily rental programs. Although the GSN-identified programs are in 31 states and the District of Columbia, nearly three- quarters of programs are in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California alone. This study finds that, while adoption of new programs has slowed somewhat since 2010, overall, IH programs in the nation are growing more numerous and evolving, which reflect a growing willingness by local governments nationwide to ask for greater affordability from developers. Since 2011, an average of 19 new IH programs have been adopted annually. In addition, IH policy strengthening and adaptation to market dynamics is common, as the GSN study found that two out of five policies have undergone significant legislative updates in the past three years, and one in five was under review at the time of survey. 161 The predominant option for developers to contribute to affordable housing is to build affordable units on-site, with the second most offered option allowing developers to contribute in -lieu fees to an affordable housing fund. A majority of IH programs target low-income households earning 50%-80% of area median income (AMI), and rental programs generally serve lower-income levels than homeownership programs. Overall, inclusionary housing programs in the nation are growing more numerous and evolving. Most IH programs have affordability requirements that last for 30 years or longer, and it is common for programs to restart the affordability term upon resale. This necessitates updating and preserving these units so that they may remain viable affordable homes long-term. This study also sheds light on patterns of program design. For example, the average set-aside for affordable units is 16% of housing units, and 29% of IH programs require 20% or more of housing units to be set aside at affordable prices on-site. For linkage/impact fee programs, fee rates vary widely across programs, but the fee rate is often set too low to build the same number of affordable units through a fund receiving fees as an on-site option can build. California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey show distinct patterns in some program features in comparison to IH programs outside of these three states.