This is a common issue. People think that by **requiring** more affordable housing, we’ll just get it. When actually there are many other factors at play (market, parking, land, finance etc). Inclusionary zoning is too simple a solution for too complex a problem.https://twitter.com/kimmaicutler/status/1000381555523670017 …
-
-
I agree that inclusionary zoning is an important tool for affordable housing. My point is that 1) you get more inclusionary with bigger projects and 2) what
@kimmaicutler wrote (some in PA have proposed 40% inclusionary with no other flexibility for things like density and FAR) -
My post was in response to your statement that it is “too simple a solution to too complex a problem”. I have not heard anyone in Palo Alto proposing 40%, but I assume there is such a straw man out there. 15-20% has worked well.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Interesting claim that no one is trying to eliminate inclusionary housing. The CA Building Industry Assoc was successful in doing just that until cities got the state Supreme Court to overturn the lower court Palmer Decision three years ago.
-
Obviously I alone am responsible for all things the CA Building Association does or does not do. It me.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.