Laserfiche WebLink
Highlights of the <br />Working Paper <br />State legal frameworks affect adoption. According to GSN, states <br />vary in their acceptance of IH programs, which affects the ability <br />of local jurisdictions to create I H programs or impacts the design <br />of IH programs. In some states, such as California, Maryland, <br />and Oregon, all types of IH programs are explicitly permitted by <br />legislation (Figure 1). In other states, such as New York, Ohio, <br />and Minnesota, there are no explicit barriers in state laws to deter <br />loca[jurisdictions from adopting IH programs. In a third group <br />of states, such as Virginia, Missouri, and Utah, localjurisdictions <br />Figure 1. State legal frameworks for local IH programs' <br />`For states where barriers may exist they may exist for several reasons: <br />1) In some states with prohibitions against rent control, IH may be <br />considered to be a form of rent control, and/or2) some states are subject <br />to Dillon's Rule, which requires express state authorization in order for a <br />city to adopt inclusionary housing. <br />Source: Grounded Solutions Network (2018). Inclusionary Housing <br />Database. Retrieved from inclusic naryhousing.orgirn . <br />6 <br />0 <br />attemptingto create IH programs face legal barriers, <br />especially jurisdictions that attempt to adopt mandatory <br />policies that do not allow developers to 'opt but" of <br />the program. <br />Finally, six states have laws that prohibit at least some <br />form of local IH programs, either by statute or by court <br />decision. These states, which include Texas, Tennessee, <br />Indiana, Arizona, Idaho, and Kansas, are the least likely <br />to have IH programs in localjurisdictions, if any. <br />0 No barriersto IH <br />16 Barriers to IH may exist <br />IS IH permitted <br />* IH prohibited <br />