Yes but also more people should want to live in more places. Hate to admit it, but PGH is a great city. Its at low risk for earthquakes, wild fires, hurricanes. It has plenty fresh water, esteemed Eds & Meds, pro sports, culture & bars. Its a shame low demand to live there has driven prices so low.

The IHC comments are not criticisms of the law, but recommendations for implementation & where warranted include criticisms of City’s draft regulations where they depart from the intent & letter of the law to weaken it. Will see if I can link. City was supposed to post all public comments but hasnt.

Of course there were compromises. More importantly, take notice of IHC’s written public comments on draft regulations implementing this law (and that City has been slow walking) & City’s attempt to use regs to weaken the law. We’re told new draft regs coming out for public comment soon…

Turns out the Barcelona article doesnt say that! Discusses a lot of generalized market & regulatory uncertainty. Never mentions says IZ is the cause. Suggests more like its been collateral damage.

OMG no! The market has never been sufficient! Most rural and urban people lived in horrible conditions. Especially new immigrants and Black people. By 1949 cities faced an ever more severe & broad shortage. Fed gov’t then funded a brief building boom until Nixon moratorium & great down zone in 1973.

All/vast majority of IZ laws provide a density bonus. Many offer parking relief. Some like Baltimore & Portland now pay for it w/ tax credits/exemptions. If its a local problem, do like advocates in like Baltimore & Portland & fix it. We’ll get more support for zoning reform w/ IZ included.

Exactly! Integration is the primary purpose of IZ along w/ producing AH units. Two of most important fixes we can do! Mixed income cross subsidy where it works (as in MoCo) is good. Density bonus is good. Public subsidy w/ tax credits or $$ where needed (as in Portland/Baltimore) also good.

Because it only compares effect of exposure to LIHTC in matching nearby low income census tracts (w/ & w/o LIHTC) it it doesnt address additional benefit gained from exposure to subsidized housing in more affluent & resource rich tracts. (E.g Unlike research by Chetty, DeLuca & others). 2/2

Thanks! Its pretty jumbled but sounds like their low # IZ units caused by a lot of generalized legal, political & market uncertainty. IZ itself is just collateral damage, not cause. Disappointing but not surprising if they pinned hopes mostly on IZ—or any other single housing strategy.

No, this is more ideology than fact. In all those years very little evidence to support this premise & its all localized (mostly CA) & finds small, if any, impact on price or production. There is no nat’l evidence looking at the +/-1000 varying IZ laws in different markets.

30% sounds higher than the norm. My Spanish not good enough to read this, but can be a variety of market & regulatory reasons for low production in general and/or IZ units specifically. E.g Baltimore built 7000 new market rate apts due to tax subsidies but only 37 of them IZ due to City IZ waivers.

They arent soley responsible & arent asked to be. But we are talking about fixing residential segregation so clearly the real estate industry, including developers & landlords, have a major role to play. Its weird to think they have no responsibility.

Time to think beyond either/or. Vouchers are a key piece—in Baltimore we used deseg litigation to get HUD $$ for 4800 vouchers coupled w/ housing mobility services. IZ serves a related but different purpose, preventing more segregation in growth areas & making actual units available.

That wasnt even your question.
Look I get that your org really hates the IZ laws in CA. But that doesnt warrant waging a generalized vendetta based on assumption that market & political environment in in CA is typical & that IZ laws in SF, LA etc are typical of the +/- 1000 IZ laws across the US.

No that is not how it works across the +/- 1000 jurisdictions that have a version of IZ. But if it works that way in your city, address your claims to the particulars of your market & submarket & the evidence you rely upon. Otherwise its just libertarian rehetoric.