NEWSROOM
Commentary Articles
In The News
News Releases
Experts



Media Inquiries

Kim Cloidt
Director of Marketing & Communications
(510) 632-1366 x116
(202) 725-7722 (cell)
Send Email

Robert Ade
Communications Manager
(510) 632-1366 x114
Send Email


Subscribe



Commentary
Facebook Facebook Facebook Facebook

Contribute
Your participation will advance liberty. Join us as an Independent Institute member.



Contact Us
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA 94621-1428

510-632-1366 Phone
510-568-6040 Fax
Send us email


Interested in working with us?  Click here for more information.

News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 12, 2007

New Study Shows “Inclusionary Zoning” Hinders Development and Makes Housing Less Affordable


OAKLAND, Calif., Nov. 12, 2007—Affordable housing shortages are a national crisis. City governments from Los Angeles to Chicago are responding by pushing for a policy of “below-market housing” or “inclusionary zoning.” But what kind of track record has this policy had since its inception in the 1970s?

In a new report from the Independent Institute, Below-Market Housing Mandates as Takings: Measuring their Impact (November 2007 / The Independent Institute), Research Fellows Tom Means, Edward Stringham, and Edward Lopez reveal that not only does “inclusionary zoning” fail to make housing more affordable; it discourages development and ultimately increases prices.

According to a plan in Marin, Calif., for example, anyone wishing to develop their property would have to sell or lease 50-60 percent at below-market rates, which must be made affordable to households earning 60-80 percent of the median income—resulting in a sale price of approximately $180,000-$240,000. When compared to the conservative median sale price of $838,750 (and homes in Marin typically sell for much more), revenue from a ten-unit project, with 50 percent price-controlled at 60 percent of the median household income, the revenue loss would total $3,293,740—roughly 40% of the value of the project.

In five other San Francisco Bay Area Cities, the authors found a total loss of over $1 billion. To counter this effect of price controls, developers either take their business elsewhere or sell the remaining homes at above-market prices—a cost passed directly to homebuyers.

Moreover, many builders argue that these mandates violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment because they forcibly direct private property toward public goals without just compensation.

But in 2001, the court in Home Builders Association of Northern California v. City of Napa rejected this argument. It ruled that below-market housing mandates offer compensating benefits and necessarily increase the supply of affordable housing. But in Below-Market Housing Mandates as Takings, the authors refute both of these conclusions. Showing that the “compensating benefits” do not nearly offset the developers’ losses and are in fact counterproductive in inviting growth, they discover that “below-market housing mandates…are no different in substance than an outright taking under eminent domain.”

On the surface, “inclusionary” zoning seems inclusive, promising to invite more buyers and developers into the housing equation. But examination of a thirty-year history reveals just the opposite. “With 10 percent fewer homes and 20 percent higher prices,” local officials should consider leaving housing to the free market.

# # #



Home | About Us | Blogs | Issues | Newsroom | Multimedia | Events | Publications | Centers | Students | Store | Donate

Product Catalog | RSS | Jobs | Course Adoption | Links | Privacy Policy | Site Map
Facebook Facebook Facebook Facebook
Copyright 2014 The Independent Institute