Politicas que promueven la integracion residencial urbana: El caso de Estados Unidos y Europa Santiago de Chile, Jueves 11 de Septiembre Nico Calavita, Professor Graduate Program in City Planning San Diego State University
Inclusionary Housing (also called Inclusionary Zoning) is any program that uses the local zoning authority or the development approval process to require or encourage the inclusion of affordable housing in market-rate residential development
IH not only produces affordable housing, but also fosters socially integrated communities
IH programs can be mandatory or voluntary
What are Linkage Fees? Linkage Fees are paid by developers of non-residential development to build affordable housing They are called linkage fees because of the link between a new hotel, a winery, etc., and the hiring of new workers at wages that make it impossible for them to afford market-rate housing
What are the origins of IH and how has it evolved?
Multiple strands, mostly traceable to the turmoil of the 1960s and early 1970s
1960s - Civil rights movement Riots in major American cities
1968 Kerner Commission “...two separate societies…” Challenge to Segregation
Exclusionary Housing Paul Davidoff Suburban Action Institute
Outcome: Efforts to foster socioeconomic integration
Environmental Movement Questioning of the idea that growth is good, that growth is inevitable Emphasis on Quality of Life Outcome: Growth management and expansion of exactions to make developers pay for the costs of growth
Exactions and Development Impact Fees (DIFs) Exactions: Exactions are payments made by a developer to local governments for the right to develop to offset the impacts of development Exactions can include Development Impact Fees, the dedication of land for public facilities, linkage fees, etc.
Decline in Federal funding for affordable housing in the 1970s and 1980s Outcome: States & localities are left to fend for themselves to provide affordable housing
Affordability Problems During the late 1970s interest rates exploded and housing prices rose much faster than incomes, especially in places such as California and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area Outcome: Interest in IH as a mechanism to produce affordable housing
In summary: 1) growth management and concern for QOL legitimized higher levels and new forms of "exactions;" 2) housing cost crises at the same time that the Federal government practically eliminated affordable housing programs forced lower levels of government to intervene and; 3) exclusionary zoning practices and failure of efforts to foster socioeconomic integration pointed to the need for new approaches All these factors combined to give impetus to IH in the 1970s
Evolution IH spread quickly to counties surrounding the Washington metropolitan area and to many localities in the State of California, areas with serious affordability problems;
and to the state of New Jersey, as a result of court decisions that declared that zoning was being used to exclude (through large lot zoning) lower-income households and protect property values
Outcome: Increasing numbers of IH programs in many parts of the country
Smart Growth, New Interest in Urban Living Emphasis on densification, infill and redevelopment of already urbanized areas IH from the suburbs expands to the cities
IH is being applied not only to new development, but also to existing buildings when Condo Conversions occur With condo conversions existing (many times affordable) rental apartments are converted into ownership (condominium) units Affordable housing is lost
Emphasis on redevelopment, "infill" and densification can lead to gentrification In redevelopment areas IH can become an important mechanism to insure that at least a small percentage of the units remain affordable to low-income households. Outcome: IH as a tool for fostering mixed-income communities in the suburbs acquires new importance in urban areas
I NCLUSIONARY PERCENTAGE IH programs require that a percentage of the units in a development be affordable. Generally the requirements vary between 10 and 20 percent with the most frequent inclusionary percentage being 10 percent .
IH programs require that inclusionary homes be targeted to one or more pre-determined income groups. Rental units are targeted most frequently to low-income households (earning 51-80 percent of Area Median Income - AMI), while for-sale units are most frequently targeted to moderate-income households
LENGTH OF AFFORDABILITY How long before the housing units are allowed to return to the market?
Programs typically offer developers one or more alternatives to constructing affordable units within the market-rate project. Most common are “in-lieu fees,” allowing a developer to pay a fee instead of building the units
Developers treasure flexibility in meeting their requirements. Many programs allow developers to construct affordable units off-site or to build units different from those in the development.
Plusvalias are increases in land value resulting from public actions, such as rezonings or construction of public facilities
Plusvalias are generally considered unearned or undeserved. Why?
It is, therefore, “socially desirable to capture all or part of the increased value for the public sector” (Martin Smolka and Fernanda Furtado, “Mobilizing Land Value Increments for Urban Development: Learning from the Latin America Experience” - 2002)
It seems then that there are two different choices in dealing with the costs of IH
IH with cost-offsets and incentives
(the public pays)
IH as a land value recapture mechanism when applied at the time of rezonings
(the landowner pays)
Let’s look at how European countries have approached this issue
IH started in the U.S. in the 1970s, but it spread to Europe and Canada in the 1990s and 2000s;
and also to such far-flung places as India, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia.
The global spread of IH reflects a larger policy shift under which governments increasingly look to developers to shoulder the wider societal costs of development.
To analyze these new approaches in Europe (Italy, Spain, France, Great Britain, Ireland) and Canada and compare them with those in the U.S., Alan Mallach and I are conducting comparative research with the support of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
A trend initiated only about ten/fifteen years ago Why?
We would expect more government intervention in Europe
Enter privatism and the retrenchment of the public sector
It allowed that a specified percentage (not more than 20%) of land zoned for residential and other uses, be transferred at existing use value to the local authority for social and affordable housing production.
“ It represents a community and planning gain or return against the windfall profits arising from the development of land” (Brooke, 2005. Building for Inclusion? Housing Output and Part V of the Irish Planning and Development System)
It was immediately referred by the President of Ireland to the Supreme Court under the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution of Ireland (1937)
Local authority and developer negotiate Sec. 106 agreement (may include participation of Housing Association and landowner)
Developer builds housing and/or makes financial contribution
(Rental housing) on completion, Housing Association buys units at price set in agreement and maintains as social rental housing
(Ownership housing) on completion, units sold to qualifying home buyers.
… Landowner expected to absorb (some part of) costs of social housing
From Total and Law , the newsletter of the law firm of Thompson, Snell and Passmore, discussing planning obligations (exactions) and Section 106 requirements:
“ As inevitably, it falls to the landowner to fund these provisions by reduction of the sale price, there is often lengthy and sometimes acrimonious discussion as to the need and the amount of the provisions” (September 2004)
“ Levels of segregation - racial, ethnic, and socio-economic - are generally lower in cities in European countries than in cities in the U.S.” (Sako Musterd, University of Amsterdam: “Social and Ethnic Segregation in Europe: Levels, Causes, and Effects” Journal of Urban Affairs)
Attention to integration problems, or to use the European term, “social exclusion,” arose about 20 years ago as a result of concerns over the effect of economic restructuring, globalization and immigration
Social exclusion is a multidimensional concept that forces policy-makers to go beyond the provision of income security, and to address social exclusion in several domains and different levels
Including the spatial
ALL countries analyzed attach great importance to IH as a mechanism to foster socio-economic integration,
or “Social Cohesion” (Catalunia) or “Mixite’ Social” (France, Montreal - Canada), “Mixed-Tenure” (Ireland); “Mixed and Inclusive Communities” (England) with various degrees of enthusiasm, commitment & effectiveness