Joining Forces for Affordable Housing
  • Home
  • Who We Are
    • VISION
    • Advocacy
    • Impact
    • Membership >
      • Becoming a Member
      • Member List
    • Open Position
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    • Housing Help
    • Development Tracker
    • Local Planning Documents
    • Housing Publications & Advocacy Groups
    • Books, Movies, Songs & More
  • Blog
  • Get Involved
    • Workshops
    • YIMBY Committee
    • Zoning Committee
    • 2021 Candidate Committee
  • Calendar

Blog

Affordable Housing Feedback from Evanston's Wards

11/3/2019

0 Comments

 
During the summer, Joining Forces and Reclaim Evanston partnered to hold one meeting in each of Evanston's nine wards, asking residents for their input on the need for affordable housing. This article summarizes the feedback we received from community members on what types of solutions they would like to see. ​

Read More
0 Comments

Progress Toward Affordable Coach Houses & ADUs?

9/24/2019

0 Comments

 
​Coach houses and ADUs (accessory dwelling units) are a hot topic in Evanston, since many backyards have room for them and they may have the potential to  be a new source of affordable housing. However, turning this cool idea into reality is going to take some work. Here's what's going on.

Seeking to Do a Pilot
The Evanston Development Cooperative (EDC) is leading the charge on creating new coach houses. They have several homeowners interested. However, they are still looking for the right financing models to allow the new coach houses to be affordable to whomever is living in them. They pitched an idea for a pilot to the City of Evanston last week that included the following:
  • The City would loan up to $220,000 to a homeowner, selected because they offered to do a pilot project, at 1% interest and a term of 20 years.
  • In return, the homeowner would rent the coach house to someone at 80% AMI for 20 years.
  • The homeowner would be able to get out of the deal by repaying the City.
You can read about the details in the packet for the September 16 City Council meeting (starting on page 4).

Rejection of the Proposal 
The City Council voted the proposal for the pilot down. It appeared to us that they did not all seem to realize that this was a proposal to have the City fund one pilot coach house--not to pilot a loan program for coach houses. With an apparent assumption that this would be the first of multiple such loans, they raised several good concerns that included:
  • If the City is giving loans, shouldn't they go to people who are struggling (apparently the homeowner in this case is doing OK but just doesn't have the extra income to finance the project out of their own money)?
  • How did the City pick this homeowner for the pilot? Was the selection process fair?
  • Why would the City put its money on the line for this? Shouldn't a bank be doing this?
  • Is it enough for the rent to be appropriate for someone at 80% AMI? Can we go lower?
  • Etc.
Some of these concerns we agree with (like, can we try for a lower AMI for tenants), and we are glad that the aldermen are looking at proposals critically. 

However, some of the concerns seem to come from an overly cautious, austerity-based mindset. Such a mindset is understandable right now, given the current budget situation and the fierce criticism the community is directing towards City Council's every move. 

We believe that EDC's proposal was a low-risk opportunity to get a coach house built that could serve as a financial model for banks and other potential sources of funding and for homeowners to see how an ADU could be feasible for them. We believe that such a model could help to accelerate the propagation of affordable coach houses throughout the community.  
While the pilot proposal was not perfect, it would have showed everyone that the City is serious about taking action to get affordable housing built. If there had been better understanding that this was NOT a proposal for a loan program but a proposal to accelerate development of a pilot ADU, perhaps the aldermen would have been willing to take a leap of faith and try this out.

Next Steps
EDC responded to the rejection with grace and showed willingness to take the feedback they received and work with it. The best case scenario will be if they can find a solution that will quickly result in a pilot that has even stronger characteristics than what they originally proposed. Some things we are hoping for are:
  • Involvement of a lender other than the City (not necessarily ruling out City involvement, however)
  • Engagement of a low-income primary homeowner or a lower AMI requirement for the ADU tenant
Meanwhile, EDC and Joining Forces are both looking at ordinances that are currently prohibiting the propagation of ADUs, as well as incentives to homeowners to consider placing ADUs in their back yards! Stay tuned.
0 Comments

What Could Evanston Do about the Lack of Affordable Housing?

8/7/2019

0 Comments

 
City of Evanston staff came up with a great list of ideas to address the affordable housing crisis in Evanston back in 2017 (see their White Paper).  We have added to it below, with just some of the ideas we have drawn from research. There are LOTS of solutions. But it all starts with planning--a list of solutions is not the answer. We need a plan that defines which solutions should be implemented when and where, where funding will be sought, and when we should start to see what kind of results. 

We are hoping to see the Affordable Housing Plan Steering Committee start to move forward from exploration of these solutions to planning and commitment to action in its next meeting. We believe that community outreach is the next step. We would like to see that outreach focus on what types of solutions will work best in the different geographic areas of the City and among the different segments of residents in the community based on socio-economic status, race, age, household size, etc.

People ask what we want to see in the plan--here are some ideas:

Fix City-controlled zoning and processes that make affordability more difficult:
  • Get rid of single-family zoning 
  • Get rid of the 3-unrelated rule
  • Change zoning to allow smaller lots and dwellings in more neighborhoods
  • Reduce parking restrictions
  • Allow development of new ADUs
  • Reduce costs of building affordable housing (e.g., through code amendments, lower fees, reduced parking, city-funded street improvements)
Implement supportive programs for landlords of affordable rental units:
  • Develop and fund incentives for landlords to charge affordable rents for market rate units
  • Develop incentives for people to rent out coach houses and basement apartments, create home-sharing opportunities, and other innovative affordability solutions
  • Publicize tax incentives for landlords that rent to voucher holders
  • Create a “vacancy payment” program to encourage landlords to hold apartments for voucher holders during the approval process
  • Expand the existing rehab program for landlords with rents appropriate for lower income households
  • Create a “risk mitigation” program for landlords that rent to low-income tenants at affordable rates Create incentives for landlords to participate in landlord training and meetings
  • Provide tenant education programs
  • Create a rental registration program
Implement supportive programs for lower income home-owners:
  • Expand the scope of the handyman program
  • Tie the handyman program to social services where needed, to help home-owners who cannot afford their homes and may need to move
  • Implement rehab programs to assist owners of single-family homes and two-flats stay in their homes
  • Create a program to help renters become home-owners
  • Partner with local banks on home-buyer programs
  • Expand use of the land trust model
Support the development/preservation of affordable housing:
  • Partner with non-profit organizations and housing agencies to fund the purchase of existing, affordable multi-family housing to preserve it for the long term.
  • Provide gap funding for projects that bring in external funding
  • Work with faith communities to develop affordable units in unused facilities.
  • Solicit RFPs from developers for affordable or mixed income buildings for vacant land, foreclosed upon properties, and properties that need development
  • Require deed restrictions to ensure permanent affordability
  • Use City-owned property for development of new affordable or mixed income housing
  • Acquire parcels through the Cook County No Cash Bid Program and use them to develop affordable housing.
  • Create a registry of vacant buildings and plan for their acquisition and use as affordable housing
  • Invest in capital improvements in at-risk neighborhoods
Support low-income people with housing cost-burden:
  • Establish a more robust rental subsidy program(s) with options for short-, medium-, and long-term subsidies
  • Expand the General Assistance program
  • Publicize programs such as Hardest Hit
  • Support programs that help to reduce costs for low-income people (e.g., childcare subsidies, transportation assistance, supplemental food programs, etc.)
  • Provide financial literacy programming
Find new revenue for affordable housing and housing programs:
  • Divert half the revenue from the Real Estate Transfer Tax to the Affordable Housing Fund
  • Tap additional local sources to dedicate more funding to affordable housing (e.g., increase of property tax and/or business & occupation tax, luxury taxes, bonds, etc.)
  • Pursue funding partnerships with employers (hospitals, Northwestern), financial institutions, foundations, and others.
  • Pursue federal, state, and county dollars for housing.
  • Pursue developers of affordable housing who regularly apply for federal, state, and private funding combinations.
  • Encourage development of private, philanthropic affordable housing funding.
0 Comments

Using City-Owned Property for Affordable Housing

6/26/2019

0 Comments

 
Recently, several parcels of land owned by the City of Evanston have been for sale. One was the old Recycling Center on Oakton, which is moving toward becoming a climbing wall facility. Another is the library parking lot, where a controversial proposal to build a large office building was being considered and was recently declined by the City Council.

  • We understand that, several years ago, the City debated whether the Recycling Center parcel should be used for affordable housing and decided that it should not. That ship has sailed, and we won't bring the issue up again--unless, for some reason, plans for the climbing wall fall through and the City goes back to the drawing board completely.
 
  • However, at its July 8 meeting, the City Council is going to discuss issuance of an RFP to developers for the library parking lot parcel, since there has been interest among developers. Additionally, we expect that other City-owned lots will come up for sale over the next year.

While not every parcel is appropriate for affordable housing, Joining Forces feels that any piece of City-owned property should be rigorously evaluated as a site for affordable housing before any RFP is issued and that all developers should be encouraged to propose buildings that include affordable residential units. We would like to see developers be invited to look beyond current zoning restrictions--if they include affordable units in their proposals--in order to promote development of affordable units in traditional as well as mixed-use and mixed-income buildings.

Additionally, we would like to see the Affordable Housing Plan Steering Committee include provisions for City-owned property in the Affordable Housing Plan that it is drafting. Now is the time to look at the available land in the City and determine where and how as much of it as possible can be used to achieve the City's goals, in particular, the goal related to affordable housing. The plan should also call for an ongoing policy that requires newly available City-owned land to be immediately considered for use as affordable housing as it  becomes available. 

Chicago is in the process of building 4 new libraries that have senior housing included in the facilities. This is the kind of creativity and innovation that we need to seek from developers of all kinds of building if we are to meet the need in Evanston.
0 Comments

An Excellent Night for Affordable Housing

2/12/2019

0 Comments

 
On Monday, February 4, the City Council held one of its special quarterly meetings on Affordable Housing. City staff gave its report on progress (see pages 4 - 7 in the Board packet). As you can see, they have been working on many fronts.

Most exciting is that their report included movement towards some new affordable housing developments--the most the City of Evanston has seen in years.

Mixed Income Development at 506 South Blvd.
The Council considered a proposal to start up a Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposal Process for the redevelopment of the parking lot at 506 South Boulevard as a mixed income residential development. As stated in the Board packet, the development will include a mix of the following:
  • Public housing units for low income households who would pay 30% of their income toward rent with the remainder subsidized
  • Units restricted for moderate and middle income households with incomes between 50% and 80% of the area median income
  • Market rate units
​
This would be the first development of its kind in the City. We do not yet know how many units. The time frame is that the land sale and redevelopment agreement would proceed in the coming fall. 

Concerns raised by residents at the meeting were primarily focused on the loss of parking. However, several residents who were observing commented to others that new affordable housing isn't needed, because we have enough housing stock in Evanston already. I think that the point of this comment was that we need to preserve the smaller homes and apartment buildings that already exist and make/keep them affordable.

Alderman Wynne, in whose ward this development would be, asked that there be a public meeting to talk about the development before the vote on the request for proposal process be taken.

To-Do's:
  • We will prepare to share Ward-specific data on need and units available throughout the City. We believe that the data will show a great need for both new units and preservation.
  • We will engage with City staff to learn more about parking issues and solutions and their intersection with affordability. 

60-Unit Affordable Senior Housing Development 
Evergreen Real Estate Group and the Council for Jewish Elderly are applying for government funding to develop a 60-unit affordable senior housing building at 1015 Howard Street (where the old Dairy Queen used to be). The financial deal would include $2,000,000 of funding from the City of Evanston, which would come from HOME funds that the City accumulates from the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, as well as from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. The deal is described more in the  Board packet. The current step is that the Council approved a letter of support from the City that the developers can use in their application for the the government funding. It will likely be a couple of years before this development is ready for move-in.

We did not note any serious concerns from residents about this development, and the Council members were very supportive.

To-Do's:
  • Listen for concerns about this development and be prepared to advocate for it as it moves forward.

No Owner-Occupancy Requirement for Coach Houses
The City Council voted against a proposal to require that the owner of a property with an accessory dwelling unit such as a coach house live on the property if one of the units is to be rented to a non-family member. Joining Forces felt that this was an overly restrictive regulation to impose and spoke against it. Thanks to those of you who stood with us. 

Thank You to Council Members
All of the Council members appeared to be engaged and enthusiastic about the progress being made. Four aldermen in particularly stood out as being particularly proactive, practical, and outspoken about efforts to create affordability:

Alderman Rainey (8th Ward) gave a passionate defense of renters during the discussion about owner-occupancy and coach houses. She noted that renters should not be treated as second-class citizens and that they were just as important to the community as home-owners. THANK YOU, Alderman Rainey! She also has been very proactive in holding community meetings about the developments coming up in her ward--and appears to have more happening in her ward than is happening anywhere else in Evanston.

Alderman Wynne (3rd Ward) asked that there be a community meeting on the proposed 506 South Blvd. development before any new steps are taken. We have seen that the Evanston community wants input on developments and have seen examples where a perceived lack of input has triggered great resistance to projects (the Housing Opportunity for Women project, for instance). Therefore, we appreciate this action and look to the City to be proactive about talking to their constituents about developments earlier rather than later.

Alderman Revelle (7th Ward) continues to be a champion of affordable housing efforts at all levels. While we did not support the idea of requiring owner-occupancy on properties with accessory dwelling units, this was clearly a concern of residents from her ward, and we feel she was right to initiate the discussion. We also appreciate her persistence in focusing on the concerns of residents (potential loud parties and other obnoxious behavior from non-owners--primarily students). When it became clear that the suggested provision would not be passed, the alderman suggested a review of the how the City handles nuisances, since the current nuisance ordinance appears to be ineffective. This discussion may lead to better policy that will address concerns about student parties--in properties with coach houses as well as others.

Alderman Fleming (9th Ward) stuck up for the freedoms of residents during the discussion of owner-occupancy, warning the Council to not come down too hard on people who occasionally engage in nuisance behavior. Legislating for exceptions can infringe on rights, and the alderman has a keen sense of when this might happen. We appreciate her concern in this area--as well as her making a pitch for a new Dairy Queen!
0 Comments

2018 Progress, 2019 Goals for Joining Forces

12/3/2018

0 Comments

 
Evanston and Wilmette have both made good progress this year related to affordable housing, and we are proud to believe that Joining Forces had at least some small part to play in these successes.

Here is the top 10 list of accomplishments:

  1. In November, Evanston convened the first quarterly Affordable Housing Working Group meeting, gathering the many organizations that provide and support housing in the community to collaborate with each other.
  2. Evanston had five special City Council meetings devoted to affordable housing, and one special educational session for Council members and the public.
  3. After opting out, Wilmette opted back in to increasing its minimum wage along with most of the rest of Cook County--a sure-fire way to increase housing affordability.
  4. Evanston made it legal for people to rent out their coach houses to non-family members. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) like these are an important source of affordable housing.
  5. Evanston launched a new Landlord Rehabilitation Assistance Program to help people who own affordable rental units to keep them in good shape.
  6. Evanston increased its real estate transfer tax and found other sources of revenue that eliminated cuts to the Mental Health Board funding that supports important housing-related programs for highly vulnerable residents.
  7. Evanston influenced developers of several new residential buildings to include on-site affordable units (instead of paying fees in lieu), resulting in 37 new units of affordable housing that will come online within the next year or two.  
  8. Evanston revised its inclusionary housing ordinance to incentivize inclusion of even more affordable units in new residential developments.
  9. Wilmette approved development of a new 16-unit affordable apartment building.
  10. Evanston committed to creating a new Affordable Housing Plan and has appointed an excellent Steering Committee.

And here is what we will be focusing on in 2019:

  • Ensuring that Evanston's new affordable housing plan is developed to include the following:
    • Housing strategies for people with different income levels and different barriers to stability
    • An evaluation of and changes to the Planned Development Process and to Evanston's zoning rules and regulations
    • Tangible, countable goals for creating and preserving affordable housing units
    • An evaluation and updating process so that the plan is "evergreen" and will continue to address the affordable housing need for years to come
  • Bringing the same progress that Evanston has started on affordable housing to surrounding communities, including Wilmette, Skokie, Morton Grove, Lincolnwood, Glenview, and others.
  • Increasing advocacy at the County and State levels to:
    • Increase State funding for housing and homeless programs
    • Create more State and County incentives for municipalities to take steps toward affordability
  • Launching a regional YIMBY (Yes, In My Back Yard) campaign to pave the way for changes that support affordability.
In order to accomplish these goals, we will need your help. Stay tuned for new educational sessions, opportunities to provide input, and other ways to get involved!                                 
0 Comments

Quantifying the Need for Affordable Housing

11/14/2018

0 Comments

 
In a prior posting, Joining Forces attempted to define housing affordability in terms of WHO needs it and WHAT types of solutions are available. At our November 2018 Member Meeting, we started to try to quantify the need, just in Evanston. The following is a summary of what we discussed--updated from some new information we found. We will begin to try to do the same type of analysis on surrounding municipalities.

Note: The following chart assumes an Area Median Income (AMI) of $79,000. AMI is the midpoint within the population--half the people make more and half make less. Data for the chart was taken from the City of Evanston's Affordable Housing White Paper presented to City Council on October 30, 2017.
Picture
Primary Take-Away
The points that strike us most in the above chart are the following:
  • 28% of Evanston's population is paying more than 30% of their income on housing-- the vast majority of those households being very low-income (30% to 50% of the AMI) and extremely low-income (under 30% of the AMI)
  • Anyone who earns less than 100% of the AMI can have a difficult time finding an affordable place to live in Evanston, the burden is falling much harder on those with lower incomes.
  • Accordingly, housing solutions that are focused on households at 100% and 80% of the AMI do not appear to be meeting the real need.
  • We need more housing that is affordable for households who are earning less thank $40,000 a year.

Other Numbers That Define the Need
In addition to income levels, we need to look at the prevalence of circumstances and conditions that suppress incomes or otherwise create barriers to stable housing. The following chart summarizes the information we could find on the numbers of people affected by such barriers, and we have provided some explanations of those numbers as well.​
Picture
​People with Disabilities
This group includes people with disabilities who generally do not earn enough through employment or receive enough through disability benefits to afford their own housing without financial assistance. We have developed the following range of estimates on the size of this group based on data from a local agency that works with people with disaiblities:
  • According to Evanston census numbers, 4.9% of the population, or 3,663 people have disabilities.
  • However, across the nation, approximately 12% of the population has disabilities, If we count 12% of Evanston's population, that would be 8,970.
Senior Citizens
This includes people over 62. Senior citizens often have reduced incomes, are looking to downsize, may need space for caregivers, and may need special accommodations related to accessibility.
Picture
Families with Children Under 18 Years
This group includes families with children. This group is included separately because they need units with more bedrooms than are needed by individuals or couples, and such units are in particularly short supply at affordable rates. Additionally, there is a trend for some landlords to be reluctant to rent to families with children due to concerns about noise and damage to property.

According to www.statisticalatlas.com, Evanston has approximately 7,727 households with children (about 27% of households).

Young Adults Between 18 and 24 Years Old
This group includes youth who are independent but may not yet be self-sufficient, generally counted as people between 18 and 24 years of age.

According to DataUSA (https://datausa.io/profile/geo/evanston-il/), Evanston has approximately 12,543 people aged 18 to 24 years.

People with Arrest and/or Criminal Records
“Between 70 million and 100 million—or as many as one in three Americans—have some type of criminal record…. Communities of color; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals; and people with histories of abuse or mental illness are disproportionately affected.” (Source: “Americans with Criminal Records,” The Sentencing Project),

If the total adult population in Evanston (over age 18) is 60,396, then 1/3 of the population is 20,132.

People with Poor Credit
According to articles online, about 1/3 of adults have credit that makes it difficult for them to get loans, and probably to get housing as well. Younger people and poorer people have a greater problem with credit, in general. Other than low incomes, poor credit is probably the biggest obstacle that clients of Connections for Homeless face when they are looking for apartments.

According to Transunion, the percentages of people at different age ranges with poor credit nationally are as follows:
Picture
People with Records of Eviction
According to Eviction Lab, Evanston has .18 evictions a day, had 68 evictions in 2016, and has .43 evictions for every 100 homes.

However, we do not have a number yet for how many people in Evanston have past evictions on their records that are making it difficult for them to attain housing. If anyone knows of a source for this data, please email sloellbach@connect2home.org. We will continue research on this topic, knowing that eviction data is a new area of study.
0 Comments

IHO Revisions Passed in Evanston

11/13/2018

0 Comments

 
An inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO) requires a certain percentage of units in any new or substantially rehabbed residential building in a municipality to be affordable to people at moderate or low incomes.

On Monday, October 29, Evanston's IHO Sub-Committee passed a revised ordinance that Joining Forces believes is a great improvement upon the one passed in 2015 (which was a great improvement upon its predecessor). Here is an overview of the ordinance, with new changes highlighted:

Covered Developments:
  • The ordinance applies to any development with 5 or more units
    • New: It used to be that developments under 10 units that were not near public transportation were not covered.

# of Units That Must Be Affordable:
  • 10% in privately funded developments
  • 20% inf developments that use public funding

Fees in Lieu
(IHOs often allow developer to pay fees into a fund instead of including the affordable units on-site in the development.)

  • Developers that stay within the base zoning can pay fees in lieu for all required affordable units.
  • Developers that receive or allowances beyond the base zoning must include half of the required units on-site (5%) and can pay fees in lieu for the other half (5%).

NEW:  It used to be that all developers could buy out of all on-site units using fees in lieu, regardless of variances or allowances.
  • Fee in Lieu Amounts:
    • In Downtown and Research Park Zoning Districts: $175,000 per unit
    • In other zoning districts: $150,000 per unit
    •  For condominium developments only that elect to pay the fee in lieu of all onsite units: 1.5 times the fee in lieu shown above, per unit, for either Downtown or non-Downtown zoning districts.
      • ​​​NEW: The fee in lieu used to be $100,000 for units near public transportation and $75,000 for units not near public transportation.
      • ​​​​NEW: The fee in lieu will be will be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index. It used to be subject to annual review and revision by the city council.
      • NEW: Fees in lieu will be due at the same time as building permits. They used to be due later, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy.  

Duration of Affordability:
  • In perpetuity for owner-occupied units
  • 30 years for rental units 
    • NEW: The affordability period used to be 25 years for rental units

Appearance & Size of Affordable Units:
  • The exterior and common areas of affordable and market rate units must be the same.
  • The interior appearances and finishes may be different in affordable units, but the materials must be Contractor Grade or higher.
  • The size of the affordable units may be less than that of the market rate units but must meet or exceed the minimum size requirements in the City code.
    • NEW: Appearances, materials, and sizes used to have to be the same. 

Who Is Eligible for the Affordable Units:
  • Households whose incomes do not exceed 100% AMI* (adjusted for household size) for owner-occupied units
  •  Households whose incomes do not exceed 60% AMI* (adjusted for household size) for rental units
    • NEW:  It used to be that eligibility was as follows:
  • For owner-occupied units:
    • Near public transportation: 50% of affordable units for households earning up to 100% AMI and 50% of the units for households at 80% AMI
    • Not near public transportation: 50% of units for households earning up to 120% AMI and 50% of the units for households at 80% AMI
  • For rental units:
    • Near public transportation: 50% of affordable units for households earning up to 60% AMI and 50% of the units for households at 50% AMI
    • Not near public transportation: 50% of units for households earning up to 80% AMI and 50% of the units for households at 60% AMI
* AMI = Area Median Income--half the population earns more than this, half less.

Alternative Equivalents: 
  • The City Council can consider and approve alternative equivalent proposals at its discretion.
    • NEW:  The new ordinance adds that developers can offer "fewer on-site affordable units at prices affordable to households at lower income levels, such as 30% AMI, or more affordable units at higher income levels such as 80% AMI." However, the ordinance also states, "To qualify as affordable units, rental units shall not exceed 80% AMI and ownership units shall not exceed 120% AMI, both adjusted for household size."

Reduction of Requirements:
  • NEW:  The ordinance used to include a clause that allowed consideration of proposals that failed to meet the affordability requirements. This clause has been removed.
0 Comments

Proposed IHO Changes--What Joining Forces Thinks

9/24/2018

0 Comments

 
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) Sub-Committee in Evanston has nearly finished its work and is going to be presenting its proposed changes to City Council for a vote in October. For the most part, Joining Forces members have felt that the proposed changes are excellent and will make the ordinance much more impactful. However, we do have a couple of concerns--areas where we feel more should be done. 

What We Appreciate
The following changes are ones that we feel will have a positive impact by creating more affordability at different levels:
  • Inclusion of options for developers to provide units for people with extremely low incomes (30% of AMI) instead of just moderate- and middle-income households.
  • Increase in the length of the affordability period from 25 to 30 years for rental units (see below for a concern).
  • Making the ordinance applicable to developments containing 5 or more units across the board (not just in Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) areas).
  • Applying the same incentives and bonuses to developers of affordable housing as to other developers.
  • Using a creative and flexible formula for determining income-based eligibility for for-rent units--and one that includes an option for including affordability for households at 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI).
  • Requiring developments that receive variances or allowances to make at least 5% of the units on-site (instead of allowing cash payments in lieu for all 10% of the required units).
  • Increasing the fee in lieu for from $100,000 to $175,000 for developments in TOD areas and from $75,000 to $150,000 for non-TOD areas, and to 1.5 those amounts for condo developments (see below for how we'd like to see this go even further).
  • Including a clause to review the fees in lieu every year based on the Consumer Price Index.
  • Making the fees in lieu due earlier in the development process.
  • Elimination of the “Reduction of Requirements” article.
  • Renewability of the 99-year affordability period for affordable owner-occupied dwellings upon sale.
  • The clarity of the incentives for developers to include on-site units.

Where We'd Like the City to Go Further
In addition to the changes above, we would like to see the following:
  • For units that are for-sale, as opposed to for-rent, the proposed ordinance would price the affordable units for people at 120% of the AMI. We feel that the units should be priced for people at 80% if the AMI.
  • While we are glad that the committee is proposing an increase, we'd like to see the amount of fees in lieu per unit to be even higher. Given that the cost of development is at least $300,000 per unit, it seems that the fees in lieu of on-site units should be even higher than the proposed $175,000 per unit (in a TOD area).
  • We appreciate the increase in the length of the affordability period from 25 to 30 years for rental units, we think this is the minimum increase that should be considered. In addition, we would like to see staggered periods of affordability, particularly for large developments with more than 5 affordable units--for example, so that some would expire after 30 years, some after 35 years, and some after 40 years.
  • Some of our members are concerned that the affordable units can have different interior appearances and finishes than the market rate units and can be smaller than market rate units. They do not want the difference in appearance or size to stigmatize the lower income tenants and want the quality to be equal to that of the market rate units. In general, we would prefer to have the affordable units be identical to the market rate units.
​
Here is a link to the proposed changes--the first part of the packet is a summary, and the second part is the ordinance itself, with changes underscored.
0 Comments

The Case for Density

8/23/2018

0 Comments

 
Every quarter, the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development's (HUD's) Office of Policy Development & Research publishes a periodical called Evidence Matters. This spring's edition, called "Regulatory Barriers and Affordable Housing," is particularly enlightening, and I'm including a link to it here. I have abstracted some of the key points below.

The thesis of the article is that "zoning and land use regulations increase housing prices" (p. 4) and that there is "a strong correlation between the severity of a city's barriers to apartment construction and the percentage of households spending at least 35 percent of their income on rent." (p. 5). The article also ties strong NIMBY-ism (a "not in my back yard" perspective) to higher housing costs, stating that "Strong NIMBY opposition in places of opportunity may have the overall effect of reducing the amount of newly constructed affordable housing built in these areas." (p. 6)

While the reasons behind many types of zoning are good and necessary and benefit the community at large, zoning is also affected by subjective citizen opinions and preferences. The article points out that "Residents of growing suburban communities are demonstrating strong demand for low-density housing." (p. 12) Because of this, "…in modest and high-cost housing markets, local governments use their zoning powers to price out low-income families, bowing to pressure from upper-middle-income households to preserve or increase their home values." (p. 14)

Regulatory Barriers
The regulatory barriers to residential development that increase housing prices include the following:

  • Zoning that is designed to limit density, reducing the number of people that can live on a site, increasing the cost of land, and increasing the cost to potential renters. Density-related zoning includes:
    • Limits on height 
    • Limits on floor area ratio (FAR) 
    • Requirements for ample parking
    • Requirements for setbacks and side yards 
    • Open space requirements
    • Lot size minimums
    • Requirements for single-family homes
    • Restrictive design guidelines
    • Unit mix requirements
    • Prohibitions against accessory dwelling units or small lots
    • Prohibitions against manufactured housing

  • Lengthy permitting processes that delay construction and payment, require revisions to plans, and invite opposition to projects. Elements that make the development process more expensive include:
    • Lack of standard requirements related to affordability
    • Complex planned development processes 
    • Multiple levels of review that are not coordinated or have long waiting periods between them
    • Forums for community input
    • Different processes and requirements in different jurisdictions

In addition, NIMBY opposition, while not a product of regulation, can be exacerbated when zoning and processes are not constructed to ease the development of multi-family buildings.

Recommendations
The article makes a variety of recommendations:

  • What municipalities can do to reduce housing costs:
    • Review and update existing policies and get rid of those that are outdated
    • Establish by-right development for desired affordable housing
    • Adopt form-based codes--meaning that community input is incorporated into the code, not into every individual project
    • Coordinate public hearings to reduce waiting periods 
    • Streamline permitting processes to reduce approval time frames
    • Loosen restrictions on alternatives to single family homes (e.g., accessory dwelling units) 
    • Implement inclusionary zoning 
    • Build in flexibility to adjust to changing market conditions 

  • What states can do to reduce housing costs:
    • Require local and regional housing needs assessments 
    • Support local communities by providing technical assistance and financial incentives to implement zoning frameworks that encourage denser development 
    • Empower localities to align their own resources to create incentives for development 
    • Authorize communities to combat or moderate NIMBY opposition to new development  
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    Categories

    All
    COVID Response
    Evanston
    Joining Forces News
    New Developments
    Research & Learning
    Zoning

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
  • Who We Are
    • VISION
    • Advocacy
    • Impact
    • Membership >
      • Becoming a Member
      • Member List
    • Open Position
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    • Housing Help
    • Development Tracker
    • Local Planning Documents
    • Housing Publications & Advocacy Groups
    • Books, Movies, Songs & More
  • Blog
  • Get Involved
    • Workshops
    • YIMBY Committee
    • Zoning Committee
    • 2021 Candidate Committee
  • Calendar