School's In: Inclusionary Zoning and the College Town Affordable Housing Crisis

It is no surprise that college towns have become magnets for newcomers. Concentrations of cultural offerings, school spirit, and incubators of higher knowledge have propelled many a college town to the lists of best places to live- as well as to lists of America's most expensive communities. This influx of middle and upper-middle class residents, including many well-off retirees, into markets with relatively little housing stock creates a scarcity of affordable options. As a result, many college towns have seen a surge in their homeless populations and, as generally small towns or mid-sized cities, they do not have the resources to serve these residents. Creative efforts highlighting college towns' affordable housing crises have turned ivory tower heads towards the reality of the poverty, homelessness, and housing inequality that exists in the backyard of the vaunted halls of academe.  Since the 1970s and 80s, several policies have developed to combat college town housing inequities. Although various policies and laissez-faire market approaches each have their supporters and constant legal challenges, inclusionary zoning (IZ) is by far the most popularly-implemented housing policy to rethink traditional Section 8 housing plans and address affordable housing shortages in college towns.

Image Credit: Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitor's Bureau

IZ plans require a given share of new construction to be affordable to low and moderate-income residents and allow for more affordable options than market forces might compel and provide incentive to introduce affordable housing to the most desirable areas of town (one of the aims of the Town of Chapel Hill IZ scheme). With the exception of statewide implementation of inclusionary zoning in the great experimental laboratory of Massachusetts, IZ policies generally occur at the municipal level. College towns including Chapel Hill, N.C.; Davidson, N.C.; Boulder, Col.; Madison, Wis.; and Berkeley, Cal. have adopted mandatory IZ plans while other, including Ann Arbor, Mich. and Ithaca, N.Y. have pursued voluntary inclusionary policies. See, e.g., Inclusionary Zoning, Boulder City Acts §9-13 (2006). However, many of the nation's most expensive college towns- notably, Berkeley- and 107 of the 135 municipalities with mandatory IZ plans have faced significant legal obstacles to implementing their affordable housing visions. A relatively recent California Appellate Court decision held that Los Angeles's Central City West Specific Plan, which had attempted to place a 15 percent affordable housing requirement on developers violated California's Costa-Hawkins Housing Act. See Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of L.A., No. B206102, slip op. (Cal. App. 3d Dist., filed July 22, 2009).  Fallout from the decision led the California legislature's amending the Planning and Zoning Law to allow municipalities to set inclusionary housing requirements. See Cal. SB 184 Amended (2011). 

Many inclusionary zoning proponents have heralded this amendment as a confirmation that city-level inclusionary zoning is a desirable and efficient method of achieving economic integration and infusing college town housing markets with more affordable options. While they may be imperfect, and will likely be subject to a revolving door of legal challenges, regulatory obstacles, and questions about whether they could actually reduce housing supply, IZ plans (particularly mandatory schemes) have placed the onus on developers looking to capitalize on the pockets of disposable income and growth in college town markets to graduate to plans that include affordable options for those at risk of homelessness and housing marginalization. Cue Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance, please.