Sustainability Law

Although economic development decreases blight and reduces crime, it is important to maintain diverse neighborhoods that are inclusive of people from all levels and parts of society.  In some communities, generous landlords and developers provided discounted rent or invested in smaller local businesses, thus allowing them to remain and help retain the character of the neighborhood.[2]  However, this requires developers and landlords who are willing to forego economic benefits in favor of social and community benefits.  Relying on developers to willingly maintain lower rents is unreasonable and does not effectively protect small businesses and low-income families from being squeezed out of their own neighborhoods.

 

By using inclusionary zoning, local governments can require developers to provide a percentage of new units at affordable prices.[3]  Local governments can incentivize this development by permitting higher density or smaller lots than allowed under the zoning code in exchange for inclusionary zoning agreements from developers.  These techniques allowed cities to protect low-income individuals and businesses from being pushed farther and farther from desirable neighborhoods.  This supports the equitable view that “[i]f you’re good enough to work here, you’re good enough to live here.”[4]  Oregon’s urban growth boundary restrictions encourage dense development, however, there are no safeguards in place to maintain a stock of affordable housing.

 

Unfortunately, Oregon is one of only two states that bans inclusionary zoning, prohibiting local governments from requiring developers to provide a percentage of low-income units.[5]  Developers and homebuilder associations lobbied heavily against inclusionary zoning, believing that they should not bear the burden of a problem that they did not create.[6]  Advocates for the ban argue that the lack of low-income housing is a community problem that should be solved by the community, not individual businesses.  This ignores the fact that developers are part of the community, and their involvement impacts the character of communities.  The ban prevents cities and municipalities from making their own decisions about the needs of community members and taking action to protect the most vulnerable.  Inclusionary zoning “allows local communities to customize a housing policy that meets the needs of their residents.”[7]  A straight ban prevents local governments from determining the best method of providing affordable housing, especially in areas where the government has provided incentives but affordable housing is still not available.

 

Inclusionary zoning is not meant to be a blunt tool, comprised solely of requirements and regulations.  Inclusionary zoning agreements work well with incentives for developers.  Incentives can be granted for several criteria, such as: increased density; expedited review processes; waived fees, and; increased community support.[8]  In this way, local governments can provide monetary benefit to developers in exchange for a percentage of low-income units.  This allows developers to defray the cost of providing some units below market value by having more units on the property than is otherwise be allowed, or by avoiding some permitting and development fees.

 

Considering the current economic market, it is unlikely that developers will willingly provide lower rent units when they could demand higher prices.  Although this is a hard market for developers to recoup costs and investments, it is unfair to place the burden of the economic situation on low-income individuals who are already at a disadvantage in finding affordable housing.  A combination of incentives and inclusionary zoning requirements would allow the burden to be shared between the local government, communities and developers.

 

Efforts in Oregon to lift the ban on inclusionary zoning have not been successful.[9]  A lift on the ban would provide local governments with method of providing more affordable housing.  Some homebuilders associations have suggested that density bonuses will produce more affordable housing than inclusionary zoning.[10]  However, simply allowing increased density does not guarantee local governments that they will get affordable units in exchange, unless local governments are allowed to use inclusionary zoning.  The current structure allows the local government to increase density, but cannot require that the developer provide a percentage of low-income units in exchange.  If developers want to reap the benefits of regulatory flexibility, they should be willing to provide the community with something in exchange.

 

Sustainable development cannot just involve economic and environmental improvements to urban communities.  It requires protections to prevent the increased cost of living from forcing low-income families from their neighborhoods.  Without intervention from local governments, the stock of affordable housing will decrease, putting more strain on the most vulnerable people in our communities.  Applied appropriately, inclusionary zoning would increase affordable housing and provide benefits to developers in this tough economy.  Providing more powers to local government will allow Oregon communities to support sustainable development without leaving low-income families behind.

Pages: 1 2