Reply to Greater Greater Washington as a news source

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Greater Greater Washington as a news source"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Bowser would never force this on her buddies, the developers.  She’s all talk about affordable housing, but the reality is that eligible projects for inclusive zoning have on average 8% IZE units and effective level that is even below the statutory requirement.  There is no effort by the bows are administration to hold developers to account for the meager requirements exist today[/quote]

At a “Charrette” meeting at Wilson High today, some Office of Planning staffers were saying that 10 percent is about the limit that they believe developers will accept for inclusionary zoning.  They acknowledged that Ward 3 would have to add tens of thousands of new market housing units to achieve an appreciable number of IZ units.  They suggested that there is not political will in the Bowser Admin. to change the law to increase the IZ percentage requirement.[/quote]

I was there today and missed this - it certainly wasn't part of the public discussion at the meeting.

And the rest of what you are saying doesn't even make sense.  If Ward 3 added tens of thousands of market rate units in multi-unit buildings it would easily meet a good part of the affordable housing goals for Ward 3.  Since tens of thousands of units in Ward 3 are very unlikely that by itself won't get the city there.

And it is not simply a question of political will.  IZ does cost developers real money and is a version of takings.  But it can be a deterrent to new development if you ask for too much, especially in Ward 3 where some of the fixed development costs are much higher than they are in other wards (land and legal costs).  Also there is a great deal of value to also adding market rate units as it helps to moderate housing prices and those units also generate a lot of tax revenue.

So it isn't just some magic NIMBY thing where the evil developers should only build affordable units and that will solve all the cities problems.  IZ units are a useful way to leverage new development for needed workforce housing but it is only part of the affordable housing solution and needs to be imposed on new development in a way that doesn't stifle it to the point that developers shy away from certain projects. [/quote]

Certainly it is reasonable in a situation where DC increases the zoning, say from low or medium to high density residential, that the condition be that the development has to include at least 25 percent affordable housing.  That is not a “taking” — upzoning is a huge windfall for the investor or developer, which is why certain interests have lobbied so heavily to it include it in the Comp Plan and FLUM proposed amendments.  Therefore DC can put conditions on realizing that windfall.

At the same time I don’t see Bowser standing up on requiring more affordable housing from the monied interests who fund her campaign, PAC and perhaps other things.  After all, a hooker won’t  push back too much on her pimp or her johns.  It’s professionally limiting.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics