Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HartfordResident t1_j3oy7o4 wrote

Reply to comment by buried_lede in ConnCAT Dixwell apartments by buried_lede

Inclusionary zoning is a tax on developers. In other words, it raises the cost of development. That means fewer units will be built. The result of fewer units is more demand from households for each unit. The result of that is that the cost of housing is much higher than it would be otherwise.

1

Clams_casin0 t1_j3we0iy wrote

People who don’t live in these communities love telling people who do what’s best for them

2

HartfordResident t1_j3xqo38 wrote

People who own homes (city council persons, mayors, community organizers) love making up policies that pretend to help poor renters, but in reality make the problem a lot worse

1

buried_lede OP t1_j4f447x wrote

I've lived there, by the way, just not recently

1

buried_lede OP t1_j4f4193 wrote

Well, in New Haven's case, inclusion of lower income units gets you tax breaks, and allows you to build more units and smaller units to make up for it. It also lets you out of minimum parking I think. It gives you some footprint room. We just have to wait and see if it works for New Haven, because not all of the city is zoned this way and if you want to get out of it, you can pay the city $160K or something like that, and if it "works" whether it will utlimately house people more affordably than the city has in the past

1

HartfordResident t1_j4q8q6v wrote

Those are good points. But if the city truly wanted housing to be more affordable, it would just give tax breaks, allow smaller units, allow more building height/density, allow larger footprints, and/or get rid of parking minimums for all developments automatically. Housing is being kept expensive because of these rules and zoning laws.

1

buried_lede OP t1_j4qolkg wrote

Without requiring affordable units, lifting those rules makes housing more expensive, except when excess inventory drives the price down.

For instance, some landlords are renting rooms in apartments now instead of apartments, allowing them to get far more for the apartment than if they rented the apartment as a whole. All of those size and footprint breaks would do the same—-allow gouging in the absence of excess inventory or requirement for affordable units.

Many of New haven’s landlords are private equity funds. They’ll mug your grandmother if you aren’t looking

1

HartfordResident t1_j4qp5fk wrote

No, those are all rules that are well known to increase affordability. In some cases the unit that the rule applies to might be more expensive - for example, a taller building might have more expensive units because the apartments at the top have a better view and rent for more - but that's certainly not the usual scenario. Overall, the effect is that more apartments get built, which means there are more homes to go around. Every time a new apartment gets built (or a large apartment gets split into two apartments), it opens up an apartment for someone else.

1

buried_lede OP t1_j4t4h09 wrote

In the case where they are renting out each room in, say, a three bedroom apt, the landlord is increasing the revenue from the apartment.

That’s a formula being used often now for newly developed, student focused apartment complexes.

If you’re running a private equity fund, those rules will bring the landlord’s costs down, not necessarily the rent. They have to mandate affordable units or the city won’t get them, unless and until inventory outstrips demand.

1