Post

Oi, Max, speaking of which, I noticed CA doesn't have a RLF yet. is this something CA YIMBY will target in the next cycle?

It seems that ‘inclusionary zoning’ functions as a sin tax on housing, and that’s exactly what some people want it to be.

Reducing rents integrates neighborhoods because maintaining a minimum wealth/income required to afford to live in a neighborhood is the primary tool used for segregation today. It explicitly segregates by class and implicitly segregates by other factors since marginalized people have less money.

If integration of neighborhoods didn't happen naturally, segregationists wouldn't have adopted restrictive zoning after explicit segregation was banned. Allowing apartments to be build in rich cities and neighborhoods would do a lot to integrate them. IZ hurts more than it helps here.

www.sightline.org/2024/10/28/t...

You’re correct that IZ has other (arguably more weighty) purposes than maximizing market rate production (i.e. integration, AH production). Regardless, the evidence supporting the claim that IZ suppresses production is remarkably thin & discounts cities w/ that have IZ & strong production.

The research in Happy City is more than a decade old. Recent experience suggests the inclusionary zoning approach I supported has recently led to delay/cancellation of new housing. To your point Mark, yes, coops/cohousing do seem to create a blast radius of social connections in surrounding 'hood.

SRP gives a density bonus for IZ - build 6 storeys instead of 5 if 20% is below market - but I'm not aware of any projects that have used it, so the result is fewer market homes than possible and no below market

@markabraham.bsky.social In addition to what @aboutdave.bsky.social suggests, you should also follow @amoralorealis.bsky.social. I don't have any specific links handy, but she has talked about IZ issues in the past. The biggest one being that it's basically an unfunded tax on new renters/buyers.

Agree — it seems that successful cities create more housing units of all types by taxing all luxury consumption/income. To the extent IZ is a regressive tax that would be one huge problem, though not necessarily a deal-breaker, for the other reasons I am curious about. @charlesincities.bsky.social

Inclusionary zoning only works "in theory" if you pair it with highly restrictive anti-housing development policies in the rest of the city. But in practice it doesn't even work under those conditions. Because in practice, making something more expensive NEVER makes it more abundant.

There is a certain category of leftist who will come up with every conceivable excuse to deny that markets actually exist. Unfortunately most of their "non-market" schemes are incredibly costly and often squander enormous sums of public dollars in non-productive pursuits.

They’ve both got their pros and cons, but I will say that the density bonuses in Austin seem to have created quite a bit of affordable housing, both through direct unit construction and through fee-in-lieu payments.

Density bonuses are good too

I was going to say this, especially with the low interest revolving loan programs some jurisdictions are experimenting with.