The Inclusionary Zoning Conundrum

I have an op-ed in the Urbanist on a policy fix for the vexing issues around inclusionary zoning. It’s wonky, but for those interested in housing policy, I believe it represents some much-needed new thinking on a difficult topic. 

Few issues have been as fractious in the housing space as “inclusionary zoning,” often abbreviated as “IZ.”

IZ requires builders to set aside a portion of the homes they build for lower-income folks at affordable levels. Or, as in Seattle, those builders can pay a fee into a fund that is used by nonprofit developers of affordable housing.

But IZ has come in for criticism: that it prevents a great deal of housing from being built, and raises the price of what is built — resulting in a net loss to the renters and buyers, including those who have lower incomes. 

Last year, Sightline (which is one of my clients, though I am writing this to represent only my own views here) led the charge for a different form of inclusionary zoning, called “funded inclusionary zoning,” in the transit-oriented development bill. It was a huge step forward. 

But it has one major flaw. It doesn’t allow for the fee option I mentioned above, which means it is potentially toxic for the nonprofits that build and maintain our vital affordable housing infrastructure. They are important public servants, and a potent political force. For the housing coalition to continue to rack up successes, this faultline needs to be addressed. 

So, I did!

Happy New Year!