The concept of inclusionary zoning can generate complex debates about the role of government in the free market. But it also can be summed up in a quote from Ian Lefcourte: “If something is important to have, you require it.”
Lefcourte is a senior planner for Redmond, a city of approximately 77,000 people east of Seattle that is home to Microsoft’s corporate offices. And he was speaking to The Columbian about the role that inclusionary zoning has played in his city’s development.
Under a policy first adopted in 1993, Redmond requires 5 percent to 10 percent of new apartments to set rents at a level deemed affordable. Some 500 cities across the country, including Portland and Seattle, have similar policies out of a desire to generate housing for a broad spectrum of income levels.
That brings up some obvious problems. While Portland and Seattle have used the gentle hand of government to influence multifamily housing construction, both cities have intractable issues with homelessness. Proponents can argue that inclusionary zoning has kept the situation from being worse; critics can argue that it has prevented developers from entering the market and actually limited housing supply.
In July, a study funded by the city of Portland found that requirements for the inclusion of affordable units isn’t as costly for developers as initially feared. “Overall, this study shows that inclusionary housing works,” Commissioner Carmen Rubio told Oregon Public Broadcasting. “Eliminating it would be a disincentive to downtown development.” But restrictions on developers also can be viewed as a disincentive.
All of this should help guide discussions in Vancouver, which has not yet explored the concept. Policymakers here have relied on incentives for developers — rather than mandates — in an effort to increase affordable housing. As Columbian reporter Alexis Weisend writes: “It is clear, however, that not enough affordable housing is being built in Vancouver. The city has only 22 affordable homes for every 100 low-income renters and a growing homeless population.”
Vancouver also has relied on a property-tax levy to fund affordable housing. Voters first approved the levy in 2016 to raise $42 million over seven years for the construction and preservation of affordable units; they agreed to a 10-year, $100 million levy renewal earlier this year with 54 percent of the vote.
Any effort to increase affordable housing takes years to yield results. It takes time for housing to be constructed and for the market to adjust. Meanwhile, the housing crisis continues to intensify and debate about possible solutions continues to grow.
City leaders should add the possibility of inclusionary zoning to that debate. As Alishia Topper, the Clark County treasurer and a former city councilor, said: “I think when you have a really strong housing market and there’s a lot of new construction — especially in the multifamily sector — that it’s a better opportunity to use a tool like inclusionary zoning.”
That does not necessarily mean the policy would be effective in Vancouver. At the moment, there appears to be an insatiable appetite for housing in the city; but an economic downturn or a change in the perception of Vancouver as a jewel of the Portland metro area could reduce the desire of developers to build housing here. There also are considerable questions about what constitutes “affordable” housing.
But as Vancouver officials consider all options for providing housing and reducing homelessness in our community, those questions need to be discussed.
