Advertisement

Policies Boost Affordable Housing, Study Finds

Share
Times Staff Writer

Requiring housing developers to dedicate a percentage of units to low-income residents has stimulated the construction of affordable housing in California, according to a survey released Monday.

About 80% of the 107 cities and counties that have policies known as inclusionary housing or zoning reported that the requirements have spurred the construction of apartments and houses that otherwise would not have been built.

The survey, conducted by two housing advocacy groups, found that in the last 30 years, more than 34,000 units of affordable housing have been built in California because of inclusionary housing.

Advertisement

At a news conference organized by the Los Angeles Inclusionary Zoning Coalition, supporters said the report supports their claim that such policies can help get housing built, without driving builders from the city.

“Let’s get educated,” said Los Angeles Councilman Ed Reyes, standing in front of City Hall flanked by Councilmen Eric Garcetti and Antonio Villaraigosa, and members of tenants organizations and housing rights groups. “Let’s understand what the rest of the state already knows: that mandatory inclusionary housing does not hurt the economy.”

The study is key for housing advocates in Los Angeles, where the City Council is debating such an ordinance. A city-commissioned study by an outside consultant determined that such a program is economically feasible in Los Angeles.

The survey released Monday, by the California Coalition for Rural Housing and the Non-Profit Housing Assn. of Northern California, provides a detailed look at the state of the controversial policies, which date back to the 1970s.

Typically, cities and counties with inclusionary housing requirements mandate that developers set aside units for moderate-, low- or very low-income residents when constructing market-rate housing projects. In exchange, developers are offered incentives designed to help offset the costs of offering the reduced rate units.

Builders often view inclusionary ordinances as burdens placed unfairly on their shoulders. The policies also harm middle-income residents who must pay more for the market-rate housing, said Tim Coyle, senior vice president of the California Building Industry Assn.

Advertisement

“I’m not aware of any other industry in the state that is required to compensate for government’s failure to help people,” he said. “Dentists don’t do this, or lawyers.”

Coyle said the message of the survey is not that the programs are effective, but that they do not produce enough housing given the state’s need.

“If anything, it begs this question: Is this the best strategy when it’s fallen woefully short of meeting the needs?”

In Los Angeles, groups such as ACORN, the Southern California Assn. of Non-Profit Housing, Livable Places and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor are pushing for an inclusionary housing ordinance.

“With the affordable housing crisis as bad as it is in L.A., it’s time for the city of Los Angeles to catch up with other cities of California that have passed these laws,” said Alvivon Hurd of ACORN. The Central City Assn. of Los Angeles opposes a mandatory inclusionary housing policy. An association report released in May said the policies “unfairly tax market-rate units to pay for required affordable units, which can act as a disincentive to housing production.”

The new survey revealed an array of programs throughout the state that vary in certain key areas: the percentage of units that must be set aside, types of incentives offered to developers, the length of time the units must be kept affordable.

Advertisement

A key distinction is whether a program is voluntary or mandatory. Only six jurisdictions in the survey reported having voluntary programs; three of them reported that the programs had produced no new housing units. According to the report, the most successful programs are mandatory.

“Los Alamitos and Long Beach specifically blame the voluntary nature of their programs for stagnant production despite a market rate boom,” the report said.

About half of all programs surveyed require builders to set aside at least 15% of the units as affordable, the survey found. The most frequent percentage is 10%, found in 44% of programs.

Coyle, of the builders association, said the requirements can have the opposite effect of what supporters planned. In the Northern California city of Davis, requirements are so strict “no housing gets built,” he said.

Katherine Hess, Davis’ planning and redevelopment administrator, counters that the ordinance has lead to the construction of 1,453 units since 1987. It has also helped keep the city affordable to those who otherwise would be priced out, she said.

According to the survey, Davis’ ordinance requires builders to dedicate 25% to 35% of new housing construction to affordable housing. But in spite of the policy and builders’ opposition to it, building has not stopped, Hess said.

Advertisement

“We continue to get developers’ applications and people requesting permission to build,” she said. “Builders do a lot of things they don’t like in order to build, and sometimes because it’s good for the community.”

In Irvine, inclusionary housing policies have existed since 1977, but only became mandatory in March, said Brian Fisk, manager of planning services.

“We’re very sensitive to the additional cost it places on housing,” Fisk said. “The city is being extremely flexible in working with developers to meet our affordable housing goals.”

Garcetti said passing an inclusionary housing ordinance would be a needed next step for a council that has already created a $100-million housing trust fund.

Advertisement