The way I like to describe inclusionary zoning to progressives is that it is a tax that is exclusively placed on renters in the market rate units of the apartment buildings, to pay for the capital A Affordable units, while the truly wealthy residents in single family homes are not asked to contribute anything at all for these units.
A much better version of this would be to levy a property tax on all properties and use that money to pay developers to make a certain number of their units Affordable, or to fund more housing vouchers (vouchers are almost always a far more efficient way to help poor people afford housing). That way the wealthy in single family homes would also contribute, rather than just the middle class people in market rate units.
And you're right to emphasize the off-budget nature of IZ as a major reason why policymakers like it. A place that adopted my suggested property tax + voucher system will be classified as a higher tax place than an identical jurisdiction that instead adopted IZ.
Great analysis. While JLG promised to deliver more housing, IZ is, like rent control, one of the main housing policy prescriptions from DSA-types. How could she go down the path of repealing IZ while saving face with her base?
I’m hoping she can pull off a Zohran somehow and pivot to market-oriented reforms.
"It is true, of course, that without IZ fewer “affordable” units will be built. But building more overall units will accomplish more for citywide affordability. It’s also worth saying that while the 60 percent of MFI threshold is a significant discount, these programs do not help the truly poor. MFI is analyzed on the basis of the entire DC metro area, which is very wealthy, so 60 percent equates to $68,850 for a single person or $88,500 for single mother of two. We’re talking about a program that raises average rents citywide and reduces construction activity without doing anything at all to help our neediest residents. A far better way to help those in need is to simply have a strong economy and use general tax revenue to meet social needs."
Ah, yes. Trickle-down economics comes to housing, and affordable units are its DEI.
The way I like to describe inclusionary zoning to progressives is that it is a tax that is exclusively placed on renters in the market rate units of the apartment buildings, to pay for the capital A Affordable units, while the truly wealthy residents in single family homes are not asked to contribute anything at all for these units.
A much better version of this would be to levy a property tax on all properties and use that money to pay developers to make a certain number of their units Affordable, or to fund more housing vouchers (vouchers are almost always a far more efficient way to help poor people afford housing). That way the wealthy in single family homes would also contribute, rather than just the middle class people in market rate units.
And you're right to emphasize the off-budget nature of IZ as a major reason why policymakers like it. A place that adopted my suggested property tax + voucher system will be classified as a higher tax place than an identical jurisdiction that instead adopted IZ.
Great analysis. While JLG promised to deliver more housing, IZ is, like rent control, one of the main housing policy prescriptions from DSA-types. How could she go down the path of repealing IZ while saving face with her base?
I’m hoping she can pull off a Zohran somehow and pivot to market-oriented reforms.
"It is true, of course, that without IZ fewer “affordable” units will be built. But building more overall units will accomplish more for citywide affordability. It’s also worth saying that while the 60 percent of MFI threshold is a significant discount, these programs do not help the truly poor. MFI is analyzed on the basis of the entire DC metro area, which is very wealthy, so 60 percent equates to $68,850 for a single person or $88,500 for single mother of two. We’re talking about a program that raises average rents citywide and reduces construction activity without doing anything at all to help our neediest residents. A far better way to help those in need is to simply have a strong economy and use general tax revenue to meet social needs."
Ah, yes. Trickle-down economics comes to housing, and affordable units are its DEI.
well the incidence falls on both renters and landlords.