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?
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!
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?
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!