Inclusionary Zoning

To whom it may concern,

Many local municipalities have begun to develop inclusionary zoning ordinances, also known as mixed-income or housing affordability ordinances, into their zoning and subdivision codes. The philosophy is that there is a need in all residential developments to create a range of both housing type and income level. The opposing theory is that by creating as many units as possible, supply will eventually meet demand, and prices will even out over a region. This philosophy, I fear, does not take into account the locational demands and constraints on housing nor the dignity of those left behind by the current system. Building more expensive homes in one neighborhood will not bring down the prices for the entire community, but in fact exacerbate its exclusivity. If a police officer or a teacher cannot afford to live in the city where they work, what does that say about the priorities of the community in which they serve? We learned early on in the 1960s during the Urban Renewal period, that bulldozing neighborhoods and consolidating low-income people into new, high rise towers only created vertical ghettos. In every residential development we must diversify housing types (apartments, condos, town homes, single family attached and detached, etc...) and costs (very low income, low income, workforce housing, market rate, etc..) to encourage not only interaction but upward mobility. A mix of incentives and requirements is imperative for such a program to succeed. How will the federal government support affordable housing in local communitites, and will you connect HUD monies to local governments with these inclusionary policies?


GUNNAR HAND, AICP