I have come to believe that (covenant) affordable housing / inclusionary zoning is Bad, Actually. Fundamentally the entire concept relies on the existence of a shortage. It assumes there are excess profits on market-rate units, which can be re-directed to subsidize the covenant units. If you have a 20% inclusionary zoning rule, what you're saying is you will never allow the housing shortage to get less-bad to the point that excess profits stop covering 20% covenant units stop being available.
We should want housing to be so abundant that the rent you can collect on new market-rate units only barely covers costs (including a fair income for the builders), with no excess.
Do I understand correctly that currently in Berkeley, for projects of six or more 20% of the units must be low income? That’s very high. Have for profit projects been built under those conditions? Do they all use the state density bonus to (in essence) lower the percentage of required below market units?
Five or more, yes that is correct. Indeed it is very high which is why there was no appetite to make it higher. Berkeley is currently undergoing a building boom downtown so the inclusionary percentage seems fine so far, but its worth noting that every single developer compensates by using the state density bonus which they're automatically entitled to.
That requirement so SO HIGH. If housing is being built despite the requirement, then if it didn't exist the flat part of Berkeley would have been carpeted with multifamily projects. It amounts, as you observe, to a requirement that the applicant use the state density bonus.
I have so many questions. What do the projects end up looking like- how big, how many total inclusionary units, unit size, floor area? Have there been any projects with 6-10 base units? Does Berkeley require inclusionary units to be similar in size, placement and finishes to market rate units?
How long is Berkeley's approval process? Not much is being started now anywhere, but two years ago, was Berkeley getting a significant fraction of multifamily projects that were approved but then not built?
Berkeley needs 9000 homes to make its RHNA. Even with a "building boom," from 2018-2022 they only permitted 2902 and completed 2106, which is way off pace, and I do not expect 2023 numbers, available soon, to be better. I'd rather see the city take off the shackles.
Very enlightening article! I was an urban planner for almost four decades, and these issues were well known, but had no political traction, and strong racist and fear based resistance. Now the problems have gotten too obvious to ignore, and lots more education and discussions like this will get us going in a better direction. Bravo!
Did this proposal ever come up for a vote? I just joined your substack, I live in S. Berkeley -- very excited to read your past and future thoughts on these issues!
I have come to believe that (covenant) affordable housing / inclusionary zoning is Bad, Actually. Fundamentally the entire concept relies on the existence of a shortage. It assumes there are excess profits on market-rate units, which can be re-directed to subsidize the covenant units. If you have a 20% inclusionary zoning rule, what you're saying is you will never allow the housing shortage to get less-bad to the point that excess profits stop covering 20% covenant units stop being available.
We should want housing to be so abundant that the rent you can collect on new market-rate units only barely covers costs (including a fair income for the builders), with no excess.
Do I understand correctly that currently in Berkeley, for projects of six or more 20% of the units must be low income? That’s very high. Have for profit projects been built under those conditions? Do they all use the state density bonus to (in essence) lower the percentage of required below market units?
Five or more, yes that is correct. Indeed it is very high which is why there was no appetite to make it higher. Berkeley is currently undergoing a building boom downtown so the inclusionary percentage seems fine so far, but its worth noting that every single developer compensates by using the state density bonus which they're automatically entitled to.
That requirement so SO HIGH. If housing is being built despite the requirement, then if it didn't exist the flat part of Berkeley would have been carpeted with multifamily projects. It amounts, as you observe, to a requirement that the applicant use the state density bonus.
I have so many questions. What do the projects end up looking like- how big, how many total inclusionary units, unit size, floor area? Have there been any projects with 6-10 base units? Does Berkeley require inclusionary units to be similar in size, placement and finishes to market rate units?
How long is Berkeley's approval process? Not much is being started now anywhere, but two years ago, was Berkeley getting a significant fraction of multifamily projects that were approved but then not built?
Berkeley needs 9000 homes to make its RHNA. Even with a "building boom," from 2018-2022 they only permitted 2902 and completed 2106, which is way off pace, and I do not expect 2023 numbers, available soon, to be better. I'd rather see the city take off the shackles.
Very enlightening article! I was an urban planner for almost four decades, and these issues were well known, but had no political traction, and strong racist and fear based resistance. Now the problems have gotten too obvious to ignore, and lots more education and discussions like this will get us going in a better direction. Bravo!
Did this proposal ever come up for a vote? I just joined your substack, I live in S. Berkeley -- very excited to read your past and future thoughts on these issues!