Inclusionary Zoning Would Ease Housing Crisis (This ran in the Projo, April 6) 

Providence has a housing affordability crisis, and the City has yet to do all it can to change that. Next week, the non-profit PolicyLink, out of Oakland, CA, will come to town for a series of forums with policymakers about instituting a so-called "inclusionary zoning" ordinance, which, if adopted, could yield affordable housing for hundreds of people each year at no cost to the city.

Housing that costs more than 30% of the income of its occupants is generally considered unaffordable. According to the Providence Plan, as of 2000, 40% of Providence households spent 30% or more of their income on housing. Though post-2000 statistics are hard to come by, it's safe to assume the problem has only worsened, as property taxes and rents have increased in all corners of our city. 

The housing crisis hits many of us directly, as we shell out more money than we can afford for rents and mortgages, but it is to the detriment of our community as a whole as well. Unaffordability exacerbates poverty and all the problems that follow from it -- more crime and poorer public education among them. Unaffordability also means people move more, destabilizing our neighborhoods, and making it harder for small businesses to retain their employees. 

Communities across New England and throughout the country have produced affordable housing by implementing inclusionary zoning ordinances. "Inclusionary" zoning distinguishes from traditional "exclusionary" zoning practices, which tend to stratify them economically.

PolicyLink has done inclusionary zoning studies for New York City and Washington, DC. Working with a number of community organizations, we commissioned them to do a study for Providence.

Loosely, as our study's not yet been issued, we think the city should require all developments of more than say, ten units, to include housing which is affordable to lower income Providence residents. We anticipate recommending that 10-15% of units in such developments be affordable. (Mayor Menino recently increased Boston's requirement to 13%. On the west coast, affordable set-aside mandates reach 20% or higher.) 

Ideally, the size and ownership of affordable units would mirror the breakdown of other units in a given development: If half of the development's units were three-bedroom and half were two-bedroom, so too would be the affordable units. If half were owner occupied, and half rented, so too would be the affordable ones.

In most cases affordable units would be mixed within larger developments, decreasing Providence's severe economic and racial segregation. For costlier projects, like mill rehabilitations, mandates might need to be lower, and the city could provide more leeway as to the location of affordable units, or just require a contribution to the city's new housing trust fund. Relaxed requirements could also be provided for areas where geographic considerations weigh heavily -- on the water tables of WaterPlace Park, along the waterfront, on brownfields, and elsewhere.

In return for producing and maintaining affordable units, the city would provide certain offsets -- perhaps allowing fee waivers, somewhat increased height or density, or other design flexibility -- which would save developers time and money. Such offsets would be set to negate any disincentive to development that affordability requirements might otherwise yield. Our study will examine the monetary value of particular offsets so we can match them with development costs.

Studies consistently indicate that for an inclusionary zoning ordinance to be effective, compliance must be mandatory. We reiterate here that Providence should require the production of affordable units and offer cost-offsets to affected developers in return. Or, in other words, it should not be an option to build a large development and produce no affordable housing (in exchange for not taking advantage of offsets).

The city should act fast to stem the tide of gentrification, and it should strive for greater socio-economic diversity in its neighborhoods. (It is an astounding but little-known fact that, according to the 2000 census, during the 1990s, segregation of whites from Hispanics grew faster in Providence than in any other city in America.)

Inclusionary zoning wouldn’t solve all of our troubles -- most of which are more contingent on action by the state than action by the city -- but it is an important first step and we must do what is within our reach.

[HOME]