By
Theo Noell
In November 2006, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (the Bank), the New England
Housing Network, and Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association sponsored
a forum on the role played by land-use tools in the production of affordable
housing.
In response to the continuing shortage of housing in the region and questions
about how and where new housing should be developed, 40 professionals experienced
in finance, planning, development, architecture, and public policy met at the
Colonnade Hotel Boston to explore the key land-use tools available to help generate
more affordable housing in New England.
Forum speakers identified some of the consequences of the housing shortage, including
lost population, jobs, and tax revenues. Conrad Egan, president and CEO of the
National Housing Conference, noted that a structural gap between housing prices
and income is driving many younger families and lower-income families out of
New England.
In varying degrees, municipalities across the region are implementing a range
of land-use tools to expand the supply of
affordable housing, including inclusionary zoning, tax increment financing, transit-oriented
development, and transfer of development rights. Housing advocates are encouraging
form-based zoning codes, smart growth, mixed-use developments, and overlay districts
to promote higher-density housing.
View from the States
John Egan, housing developer at Coastal Enterprises, Inc., highlighted
a number of successes in Maine, including several com- munities
in Southern Maine that are adding density bonuses and clustering
to their zoning codes. Condominium development and partnering
with conservation interests have been effective in achieving
higher densities and developing affordable housing.
David Fink, policy and communications director at Partnership for
Strong Communities in Connecticut, said inclusionary zoning is
working in Stamford because of the city’s strong housing
market, while the statewide affordable-housing campaign — HOMEConnecticut — is
raising awareness and building momentum to add incentives and overlay
zoning. Towns are also becoming more interested in mixed-use developments.
A critical mass of constituencies appears to be emerging in Connecticut
because of the severity of the state’s housing problem.
Ben Frost, housing awareness coordinator at New Hampshire Housing,
said state law RSA 674-21 empowers communities to be creative with
zoning by using incentives such as density bonuses, cluster development,
flexible zoning, and the permitting
of accessory units. He said New Hampshire has also adopted RSA
9-B, the state’s smart growth policy, and RSA 79-E, which
allows communities to provide tax breaks for downtown development.
In Rhode Island, statutes requiring communities to have a minimum
amount of affordable housing (sticks) combined with state incentives
(carrots) to encourage planning, local infrastructure capacity,
and housing production are bearing fruit, said Annette Bourne,
assistant director of policy at Rhode Island Housing. Ms. Bourne
noted that the recent reform of the state’s comprehensive
permit law to apply to for-profit developers in addition to nonprofit
developers has led to a higher number of proposed developments.
Massachusetts, meanwhile, has had significant success combining
the incentives of Chapters 40R and 40S with Chapter 40B, the state’s
comprehensive permit law. Eleanor White, president of Housing Partners,
Inc., said Chapter 40R provides communities with incentives to
create higher-density, overlay zoning districts to create new housing,
while Chapter 40S provides payments for higher school costs generated
by the new districts.
Ms. White, however, expressed frustration with the difficulty of
getting the story of Chapters 40B, 40R, and 40S accurately
out to the public. She said it is difficult to
overcome the stereotypes associated with
the cost of affordable housing and its impact on local resources.
Gustave Seelig, executive director of the Vermont Housing & Conservation
Board, noted that the state’s comprehensive growth center
legislation provides communities with technical assistance and
permits tax-increment financing. Mr. Seelig said the adoption of
statewide property taxes in 1998 altered the funding of local education
by promising new funding for communities with additional children
in school systems.
The Barriers
Forum participants also identified barriers to the implementation
of land-use tools, including home rule by local zoning boards
throughout New England. These largely volunteer boards often
lack the capacity to plan for growth and in many cases oppose
new housing developments. Participants noted that the prevalence
of home rule has also made it difficult to build coalitions across
municipalities, regions, and states. Lack of coordination and
leadership at the state and federal levels also obstruct land-use
policies and housing production.
Additional barriers include NIMBYism (not in my back yard), overt
and hidden discrimination, and land-use tools that generate only
limited results (for example, incentive payments through inclusionary
zoning may not be sufficient to make a deal work). Many participants
commented on the lack of state leadership and limited funding,
while Conrad Egan noted that fragmentation of decision making across
federal agencies is also a barrier to housing and land-use policy.
Next Steps
Participants, however, noted that opportunities exist to build
coalitions around workforce housing, smart growth, and green building/energy
efficiency. Conrad Egan noted that housing constituencies are growing
to include businesses, conservation interests, and economic-development
advocates as the role of housing in local and state economies becomes
increasingly clear and vital.
Participants also noted that the “sticks” of comprehensive
permit laws, or other state laws requiring municipalities to have
a base level of affordable housing, are not politically feasible
in today’s development climate and that affordable housing
requirements need to be linked with incentives for planning, school,
and infrastructure funding. Massachusetts’ experience with
Chapters 40R and 40S illustrates that
planning- and school-funding incentives
can be effective.
Participants also noted that the political climate is ripe to use
smart growth as the unifying force to build broader coalitions
and proposed developing a national pilot initiative based in New
England to promote the issue. They urged the Bank to consider convening
a meeting with the New England Council and other regional groups
to discuss the land-use issue further. T
Theo Noell is manager of programs and outreach at the Federal Home
Loan Bank of Boston.
|
