Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing

by November 17, 2023
November 17, 2023
Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing

Peter Van Doren

What can be done to increase the supply of affordable housing? The traditional answer in Blue states has been inclusionary zoning, a policy that mandates that new housing developments price a small percentage of units at less than the market. The New York Times recently profiled a new inclusionary zoning development in Montgomery County, Maryland, one of the jurisdictions that invented the policy in the early 1970s.

Inclusionary zoning is superficially attractive to voters and elected officials because it isn’t “public housing” and thus does not have an explicit budget that is visible to taxpayers. And the rhetoric that surrounds the policy suggests that it simply makes developers do the right thing:

In the decades since Montgomery County passed the housing ordinance, the idea that developers should provide affordable housing in every kind of building and neighborhood, once regarded as a wild notion pushed by volunteer activists, has spread around the country. It is known as “inclusionary zoning” and has become a staple of many cities’ housing policy.

But regardless of the positive rhetoric that suggests the benefits that flow from good government mandates, inclusionary zoning is a tax on new housing that is also attached to a spending program on rent reduction that is off budget. The irony, of course, is that a tax on new housing reduces its supply and thus increases its price. This understanding is not new. More than thirty years ago a colleague and I asked why tax the supply of a commodity (housing) whose supply you intend to increase?

Previously I have described two alternatives to inclusionary zoning. The first is filtering: reduce zoning constraints on new construction and allow the effects of the increased new supply to “filter down” to existing units whose owners have to reduce price to maintain occupancy. Recent evidence suggests the benefits from filtering are real. The second is payments to incumbent low‐​density homeowners to gain their acceptance of increased density and affordability.

Allowing local governments to convert the current in‐​kind, opaque, underground market for zoning change into an explicit legal exchange of cash for density would facilitate the development of housing and reduce prices. 

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
ProPublica Profiles Army Corps Failures
next post
Statement by Mario Vargas Llosa and Leading Latin American Democrats in Support of Javier Milei

You may also like

Understanding SALT

June 22, 2023

New York City Can’t Force Owners to Rent...

June 12, 2023

Don’t Give Big Businesses Immunity from Litigation

June 27, 2025

GAO Finds 218 Percent Arrest Increase with Police...

November 5, 2024

Has the Overdose Death Rate Peaked? Insights from...

November 19, 2024

The Culture Wars and Public Libraries

July 31, 2023

Leave Child Tax Credit Expansion to the States

February 19, 2025

Zenger at 290: The Jury’s Duty to Say...

August 4, 2025

First Impressions of the AI Order’s Impact on...

November 3, 2023

Mississippi’s Age Verification Law Could Impact Us All

August 21, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Legal group sues FDA over puberty blocker records, citing alleged Biden-era cover-up

      August 30, 2025
    • Lawyers for Cook, DOJ trade blows at high-stakes clash over Fed firing

      August 29, 2025
    • Olivier v. City of Brandon Brief: Protecting the Right to Recover for Free Speech Violations

      August 29, 2025
    • Is Putin stringing Trump along to sidestep US sanctions while bombing Ukraine?

      August 29, 2025
    • House investigators nix Mueller testimony in Epstein probe over health concerns

      August 29, 2025
    • Shakedowns and a Sovereign Wealth Fund

      August 29, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,920)
    • Investing (2,256)
    • Politics (16,523)
    • Stocks (3,228)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved