Inclusionary zoning (IZ) is municipal and county planning ordinances that require or provide incentives when a given percentage of units in a new housing development be affordable by people with low to moderate incomes.
[3] Another goal of inclusionary zoning is to build mixed-income communities, rather than having poor households concentrated in specific city neighborhoods.
[4] Most inclusionary zoning is enacted at the municipal or county level; when imposed by the state, as in Massachusetts, it has been argued that such laws usurp local control.
By denying lower income families access to suburban communities, many feel that exclusionary zoning has contributed to the maintenance of inner city ghettos.
Supporters of inclusionary zoning point out that low income households are more likely to become economically successful if they have middle class neighbors as peers and role models.
When effective, inclusionary zoning reduces the concentration of poverty in slum districts where social norms may not provide adequate models of success.
Education is one of the largest components in the effort to lift people out of poverty; access to high-quality public schools is another key benefit of reduced segregation.
[14] The large low income resident population burdens Norristown's local government and school district, while much of the county remains unburdened.
Inclusionary zoning aims to reduce residential economic segregation by mandating that a mix of incomes be represented in a single development.
Critics have stated the affordable housing can be directed to those making up to $200,000 through the improper use of an Area Median Income, and used as political tools by organizations tied to various politicians.
New York City communities such as Harlem, the Lower East Side, Williamsburg, Chelsea and Hell's Kitchen have experienced significant secondary displacement through the use of Inclusionary Zoning.
[citation needed] Real Estate industry detractors note that inclusionary zoning levies an indirect tax on developers, so as to discourage them from building in areas that face supply shortages.
Furthermore, to ensure that the affordable units are not resold for profit, deed restrictions generally fix a long-term resale price ceiling, eliminating a potential benefit of home ownership.
[citation needed] Homeowners sometimes note that their property values will be reduced if low income families move into their community.
[16] Developers have attempted to fight back these requirements by challenging local inclusionary zoning ordinances through the court legal system.
For example, the initiative and referendum process in California allows citizen groups or developers to change local ordinances on affordable housing by popular vote.
Passed in June 2016, this proposition amends the city's charter to increase the requirement for affordable housing for development projects of 25 units or more.
[21] The clash between these various interests is reflected in this study published by the libertarian-leaning Reason Foundation's public policy think tank, and the response of a peer review of that research.
In California, the League of Cities has created a guide to inclusionary zoning which includes a section on the pros and cons of the policies.
[22] For instances in Suffolk County, it is found that there is a spatial concentration of IZ units in poor neighbourhood coupled with higher proportions of Black and Hispanic, which are considered the minorities.
[23] This shows that IZ policies may fail to disperse the low-income distributions when it is carried out without taking regional coordination into account.