|
Regulatory barriers to affordable housing often arise out of negative
views and attitudes toward such housing. Local government regulations,
such as one-acre minimum lot sizes and restrictions on multi-family
housing densities, can often be traced back to a collective fear
of the unknown. Several states and communities have recently undertaken
campaigns to combat these misconceptions and increase support for
affordable housing. In so doing, they hope to reduce opposition
and the Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) worldview, thereby reducing the
tendency to create regulatory barriers. In this article, we’ll
look at two efforts in the ‘reality check’ school of
public opinion making: a long-term program in Minnesota and a more
recent effort in Phoenix, Arizona.
Purpose
Most communities that create affordable housing marketing campaigns
have a reason for undertaking the activity. In Minnesota, there
was no specific event that prompted state officials to take action,
but rather, a general impression that many residents were opposed
to affordable housing developments. In Phoenix, officials had the
overarching goal of reducing NIMBYism, but it was being driven by
a specific objective of generating support for an upcoming affordable
housing bond issue.
Communication Strategy
One of the most important aspects to consider when developing an
information campaign is to identify the audience and consider how
best to deliver the message to that audience. According to Chip
Hallbach, Executive Director of HousingMinnesota, the Minnesota
effort used a number of communication methods to highlight the issue.
According to Hallbach, “A variety of audiences were targeted,
including the general public, with messages and images that highlighted
the importance of housing for family stability and community vitality.”
HousingMinnesota created a brochure, radio advertisements, advertisements
on public transportation vehicles, and about 25 billboards that
were strategically placed in four or five communities. As part of
the effort, Governor Jesse Ventura recorded a message of support
that was broadcast in several markets. According to Manny González,
Director of the City of Phoenix Housing Department, Phoenix
is focusing on six similarly worded messages that are being placed
on 12 billboards strategically placed in high traffic areas throughout
the City. Phoenix has also created posters for display in public
buildings, nonprofit agencies, and campaign partner businesses.
Partners/Funding Sources
Working with the Family Housing Fund, the Greater Minnesota Housing
Fund, and the state housing finance agency, the Minneapolis Foundation
secured the services of a professional marketing firm to develop
a viable outreach campaign. The state housing agency and HUD funded
a portion of this project. The Foundation also enlisted a number
of highly regarded business professionals to serve as trustees.
The overall campaign cost approximately $400,000 over an 18-month
period. Meanwhile, the City of Phoenix launched its campaign with
funding through HUD’s Community Development Block Grant. Other
sponsors included a consortium of seven organizations: Bank of America,
Bank One, Fannie Mae Foundation, Harris Bank, Local Initiatives
Support Corporation, the Phoenix Industrial Development Authority,
and Wells Fargo Bank. To keep a lid on costs, Phoenix used city
staff to create the text and the city public information office
to create the layout of the billboards. When completed, the cost
of the Phoenix campaign will run to approximately $155,000.
Bringing the Message Home
Minnesota featured young teachers, firefighters, police officers,
seniors, cooks, day-care workers, and health-care attendants who
serve the community in many important ways, but can’t afford
to live there. One advertisement depicts a teacher with the tag
line, “Meet another member of your community who needs an
affordable place to live.” Phoenix’s advertisements
featured photos of a recent college graduate, a city bus driver,
a teacher, an elderly man, a disabled office worker, and a daycare
provider.
Successful marketing campaigns usually employ at least two complementary
strategies. They are not isolated activities, but are part of an
overall program to promote affordable housing. In Minnesota, a public
relations campaign was just one of three phases devised to increase
awareness of the issue. In another phase, the outreach efforts were
aimed at rallying businesses and faith-based organizations to support
the affordable housing concept. One measure of their success is
that more than 1,300 people attended a state conference promoting
the development of affordable housing. HousingMinnesota is currently
working with a research firm to develop indicators of housing success
for a new housing program. They’re also looking for innovative
ways to invest in affordable housing and are supporting a state
tax credit for charitable donations that support housing.
In Phoenix, the initial goal was simply to raise awareness that
those who need affordable housing include people from all economic
strata. Mr. González said that Arizona State University,
the State of Arizona, the City of Phoenix, U.S. HUD, and other public,
private, and nonprofit partners have launched the Affordable Housing
Initiative (AHI); a regional effort to promote support for affordable
housing. On June 14, 2004, the AHI sponsored a day-long ‘Housing
Summit 2004’ for the Governor’s Office. The Summit’s
report describes affordable housing as “quality housing for
Arizona’s workforce,” and presents a strong economic-based
statement on the need for affordable housing.
Another important aspect of successful marketing campaigns is that
advertisements must suggest action on part of the viewer. In the
Minnesota campaign, the advertisements directed readers to the HousingMinnesota
website for information on how to assist in the effort. The Phoenix
billboard advertisements also contain a link to the City’s
affordable housing website.
For More Information
Information is also available on a similar program in Maine.
To view efforts being undertaken on a national scale, visit The
Campaign for Affordable Housing.
 |
Parking Requirements
and Infill Development |
|
|
As hard as this may be for some of our younger readers to
believe, many inner-city properties were developed in the
days before mass production led to widespread use of the automobile.
As a result, many core city properties have little if any
parking for residents or guests. If owners do not enlarge
or remodel these structures, or if they maintain their intended
use as residential properties, most communities don’t
force owners to meet current parking requirements. However,
that tolerance ends when owners wish to convert, enlarge,
or reconstruct these buildings. In such cases, local governments
often require owners to meet existing parking requirements.
More parking may be great news for auto enthusiasts, but it
also tends to drive up the cost of housing. This is particularly
true in urban areas, where land costs are already at a premium.
In many communities, modern parking requirements often discourage
infill development by requiring the removal of landscaping,
the purchase of additional nearby land, or in the most severe
cases, a reduction in the number of units, in order to satisfy
the regulatory requirement. Many local governments have noticed
that these requirements are impeding revitalization efforts.
In response, they’ve been developing alternatives that
encourage redevelopment by easing the demand for parking when
the objective is to promote or maintain affordability.
Requirements for Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation, conversion, and reconstruction are three
widely used methods that owners and developers use to create
new or repair old, affordable, single- and multi-family housing
in urban neighborhoods. In an effort to minimize on-street
parking demand, local governments often require that these
improvements include parking for those who will occupy the
new or rehabbed structures. Spokane
requires that owners who increase the number of units in a
residence or other structure containing sleeping rooms must
provide parking spaces for all additional units. In addition,
should developers wish to move a building to a new location,
they must provide all required parking spaces. Las
Vegas; Allentown,
Pennsylvania; and Memphis
only require owners of residential structures undergoing rehabilitation
to provide parking for the increased demand that results from
the rehabilitation. In Nashville,
the rules are slightly different. If an expansion or change
will increase the parking requirement by less than 25 percent,
then the owner only has to provide the number of parking spaces
required by the expansion or change. If the change increases
the parking requirement by 25 percent or more, then the owner
must provide all of the required parking. Since strict enforcement
of these regs would discourage rehabilitation, many cities
create options that owners and developers can use to meet
the spirit of the requirements.
Proximate Parking Alternatives
Recognizing that many housing sites cannot provide adequate
parking, Hartford,
Memphis and Spokane offer a number of alternatives that strike
a balance between parking and affordability. These cities
each allow developers to secure space on other properties
when certain criteria are met. Allentown requires that off-street
parking must be on the same lot or on a lot directly abutting
the proposed use. In Hartford, the other property must be
within 500 feet of the development. The maximum distance in
Memphis and Spokane is 300 and 600 feet, respectively. Most
of these cities have multiple requirements for these alternative
sites. Memphis and Hartford specifically require that the
owner document in writing that the space will be available
for the duration (as long as the project’s intended
use remains the same). Hartford’s ordinance also requires
that the parking cannot be used to satisfy other parking requirements.
Shared Parking Alternatives
Some communities also allow parking requirements to be met
by sharing parking with other land uses. In Spokane, the statute
allows a 20 percent reduction in the parking requirement if
the owner shows that shared parking arrangements will reduce
demand for parking. In Dayton,
Ohio, the authors of a recent study recommend that the
city consider allowing shared parking arrangements, because
they recognize that various uses have different peak operating
hours.
Transit
Many communities have opted to waive parking requirements
for any type of housing, including affordable housing, where
the new units are close to public transit facilities. Nashville,
for example, allows the owner or developer to reduce the required
parking by 10 percent if the development is within 660 feet
of a transit facility.
Other Parking Alternatives and Issues
Spokane exempts any new building or addition with less than
3000 square feet from the parking requirement. Memphis addresses
situations where nonconforming buildings are damaged and need
to be repaired. In cases where the destruction does not exceed
75 percent of the value of the building, current parking requirements
do not apply. Where damage exceeds 75 percent, the current
requirements are brought into play. In the Dayton study, the
author suggests that developers be allowed to pay an in-lieu
fee that would be used to pay for city-provided public parking
facilities. The author also recommends that the city consider
deferring construction of required parking spaces if the applicant
anticipates the demand for parking will be less than the city’s
minimum requirement.
Level of Review
In addition to the statutory requirements, local governments
have created a number of devices to streamline the permission
process for adjusting parking requirements. In Hartford, the
City Council must vote to allow the reduction or elimination
of required parking, while Allentown lets the Zoning Hearing
Board waive some of the parking requirements. Spokane gives
the planning director authority to grant exemptions, while
Memphis provides the building official with authority to make
such decisions.
Conclusion
With the demand for both parking and affordable housing growing
each year, local governments are often faced with tough decisions
about which need is most important. Many communities are working
to balance these often-conflicting demands through innovative
programs that allow for some flexible parking options that
minimize any negative effects on affordable development and
rehabilitation. If your community has an interesting story
to tell about parking and affordable housing, please let us
know so that it can be included as a resource in our searchable
database.
 |
Affordable
Housing Task Forces and Regulatory Reform |
|
|
As communities across the nation face increasingly high
housing costs, many have responded by establishing task
forces to examine affordability issues and identify
what local governments can do to help. This article
is the first of a three-part series that examines how
local bodies have responded to the challenge of providing
affordable housing. In this first article, we’ll
look at administrative streamlining, building codes,
infill, and development fee reform efforts in Burlington,
Vermont; Pasadena, California; Columbus, Ohio; Minneapolis-St.
Paul, Minnesota; and Dallas, Texas. A second article,
to be published in December, will study these same communities’
efforts to reform zoning regulations, tax policies,
and state policies. The third article will examine how
the task forces propose to measure success in implementing
their respective approaches to regulatory reform.
Administrative Streamlining
Each of the task force reports we’ve examined
recognizes that lengthy processing time increases the
cost of developing affordable housing and needs to be
addressed. The Burlington
task force suggests that zoning permit hearings be ‘on
the record’, so that any appeals would not have
to restart the entire permit application process from
scratch. They also recommend that the City not attempt
to redesign projects under review.
The Pasadena
and Columbus
task forces suggest that their cities create a single
body to approve affordable housing applications. Authorities
in Columbus further recommend that the City provide
technical assistance to developers and suggest that
the City consider on-line plan review. They also recommend
that the City provide developers with technical assistance
and create a database of information on affordable housing
resources.
Meanwhile, the task force in Dallas is encouraging
the City to publish standard timelines for development
reviews and to establish a process for tracking all
types of development projects during the review process.
Another suggestion is that the City create a web-based
tracking tool for permitting information. Further, they
say that Dallas should establish a single point of contact
between the City and the developer during both the review
and construction phases of development. They also encourage
acceptance of third-party engineering work without extensive
review, or perhaps eliminate outside reviews and take
the work in-house. For affordable housing developments,
they urge the adoption of a fast-track permitting process
for affordable housing similar to the SMART
process in Austin, Texas.
Building Codes
Many of the local task forces examine the role that
building codes and the inspection process play in determining
housing affordability. After a hard look at the way
things have been, most recommend the adoption of various
reform strategies. Burlington officials argue that the
City should adopt a flexible rehabilitation sub-code.
They also observed that the Fire Marshall’s approval
of the initial plans indicates that substantive issues
have been resolved and that the City Engineer be the
final arbiter of any lingering differences. The Burlington
task force further recommends that the City not enforce
its life safety code until the City Council conducts
an analysis on the impact of such enforcement on housing
affordability.
The Minneapolis-St
Paul regional study comes out in favor of easing
the process of accepting new building technologies.
They support the idea that the state and member governments
streamline the review process to encourage the adoption
of new technologies. (New building technologies often
run up against established code, despite the fact that
they often yield reduced construction times and materials
costs, as well as improved energy performance cost efficiencies
to the eventual occupants.) Two specific means for implementing
this recommendation include developing model ordinances
for the approval process and establishing a statewide
uniform approval process for building codes. They also
suggest that member governments seek input from trade
associations as to the most effective incentives.
Rehabilitation and Infill
In most of the reports and plans reviewed, the task
force members agreed that reducing the time and effort
to secure land is a key strategy in any effort to redevelop
deteriorating neighborhoods. Authorities in Columbus
suggest that the City process properties that are tax
delinquent or have been taken over through the nuisance
abatement process more quickly, so they can be used
to create affordable housing. They also suggest that
the City actively support owners who agree to build
affordable housing on infill properties. Further, they
say that the City may want to act as the applicant to
secure the necessary approvals for developing properties.
The task force also recommends that the City attempt
to obtain release of a tax delinquency collection account
and use the money to secure tax delinquent property
on Columbus’ behalf.
Further south, the Dallas report recommends that the
City enter into an agreement where they could sell tax
delinquent properties for less than market value, or
for less than the judgments in place against the properties
in certain designated areas. The report also proposes
that affordable housing properties in a redevelopment
plan area be sold to qualified buyers without having
to conduct a sheriff’s sale.
Fees and Exactions
Several of the task forces examined the issue of fees
and their impact on the cost of affordable housing.
Those on the Burlington task force ask the City to study
whether removing the fees on excavation and sewer connections
would encourage new affordable housing development.
They also recommend that the regional planning agency
broker agreements between municipalities where the communities
would reduce demand for new water and sewer facilities
by sharing unused capacity.
The members of the Pasadena task force advise the City
to increase the number and types of fees waived for
affordable housing. See the fees proposed below.
| Pasadena Fees
Proposed for Waiver
- Plan Check/Permit Fee (currently waived)
- Construction Tax (currently waived)
- Development Review Fee
- Grading/Shoring Permit Fee
- Residential Development Impact Fee
- (includes Parks and Recreation Fee)
- Sewer Connection Fee
- Water Connection Fee
- Excavation Permit Fee
|
Those in Dallas suggest that the City assist the housing
authority by granting them waivers of building permit
fees, just as the city does for non-profit Community
Housing Development Organizations.
Conclusion
Local task forces recognize that slow approval processes,
outdated building codes, restrictive infill ordinances
and high fees have an impact on housing affordability.
Many are trying to overcome these barriers by urging
local governments to undertake reforms that will benefit
those who build and occupy affordable housing. Please
read our December issue to see how these bodies suggest
how communities should attack zoning barriers, tax burdens
and state restrictions. |
|
|
