Background 

The United States, a country of expansion from desire for farm land, has now seen the expansion inwards surrounding the rising urban centers (Hyra 1755).  These urban centers are those with high density in the human population in a relatively small concentration of land. From 1950 to 2018 the population of urban centers rose from 64% to 83% (United Nations). This consistent increase in city residents has seen both benefits and disadvantages to the way of city life. This rapidly growing influx of population to urban centers is especially harmful to the low-income communities. The added population can create stress to the infrastructure of the city (Tacoli et al. 11). If cities aren’t properly prepared for the growth of residents it could lead to competition for resources. Housing is one sector that receives such high levels of competition (Tacoli et al. 11). The demand for the housing units increases with the incoming population faster than the supply of units can be created (Mock et al. 2). This uneven development of supply and demand can raise the prices of those available housing units. Competition created over housing can exclude low-income households in the process because of the inability to afford the rising prices of homes (rent and buy) (Tacoli et al. 11). The issue of low-income households and families going without appropriate housing has prominent the need for affordable housing programs to develop. Such programs have been implemented and tested for the past century in the United States with varying degrees of success. Throughout this century, the change in spatial distribution and communities have added to differing designs to affordable housing programs. 

Current factors to changing city landscape is the prominence of urban sprawl and subsequently gentrification. The term “urban sprawl” is used to categorize the pattern of development in American cities outwards and towards suburbs on the edge of cities (Laidley 74). The appeal of movement away from the urban center is to “seek out the reasonable cost of living” in this underdeveloped land (Laidley 76). The cheap land closer to rural development makes it easier to buy large sized land. However, this results in low-income households being left downtown with a growing economic divide between those on the edge of the city and those unable to afford moving out of poor neighborhoods (Laidley 77). This social development only increases the scarcity of appropriate infrastructure and housing needs in low-income neighborhoods closer to downtown. 

These neighborhoods, while still unaffordable by some households, have seen lower prices to buy homes in because of the worsened surroundings. This prompted the start of gentrification. This process is of higher-income households coming to urban neighborhoods because of the lower pricing. However, with this influx in new residents the neighborhoods see increase in rent and property value. Ultimately, forcing out previous residents of the neighborhood who can no longer afford their homes (Lubell 131). Some households are able to withstand the rising prices of the neighborhood's homes, but have seen loss in power because of the arrival of outsiders (Hyra 16). The long-standing residents are replaced by those not connected to the culture and community of the previous neighborhood. This disconnect can impact their ability to represent the interest of all the residents. This is especially important given that low-income policies are more effective with the use of their perspectives (Watson 151). 

Inclusionary Zoning 

The introduction of Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) was brought to the field of urban development and the process of affordable housing as a direct antagonist to Exclusionary Zoning. This zoning practice dictates the demographics that make up a neighborhood. Specific types of the zoning are “minimum lot size requirements, minimum square footage requirements, prohibitions on multi-family homes, and limits on the height of buildings” (Rouse et al.). The role of IZ programs is to hopefully reverse the negative effects Exclusionary Zoning brought to communities and to further increase the mixed demographics of neighborhoods in socio-economics, race, and ethnicity.

Since the role of Inclusionary Zoning programs are to be very specific and tailored to each city, the definition it holds can range from loosely used to very distinct. However, Emily Hamiliton, the director of the Urbanity Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, describes IZ policy action used to "require[s] private developers to subsidize below-market-rate units” (161). This broad definition can be interpreted differently based on the needs of the community. The word “require” can be based on different tiers of requirement. Some cites taking a more strict vs. relaxed approach. 

When looking at the implementation of affordable housing, the use of IZ has become the most common type to be used. This reach is primarily towards urban centers, but IZ has also expanded its governance to suburban communities (Freeman et al. 217). The program is most common in the communities of urban centers because it directly addresses the needs of low-income residents in more densely populated areas. This is because the program works with the developers building new units. The use of these developers and their apartments is key to the IZ program because based on the IZ policy action taken it can take advantage of the developers to create affordable housing units. Because the developers are already building units for more residents, the policy uses that opportunity to either require or encourage developers to set aside a certain number of units for low-income households (Lubell 138-139). Furthermore, the relationship between developers and the IZ program can be seen most effectively at the local level. This is attributed to the fact that IZ programs are being tailored towards the community of residents, specifically low-income residents, that the developers are working in. 

Implementations of the Current Programs

Understanding the need for IZ programs to be concentrated more towards a local level, helps to contextualize how these programs are able to easily adapt to the concerns of the community. At a local level of implementation the individual voices and needs of the low-income residents are more likely to be heard and considered. This can help tailor the IZ policies to more accurately reflect that of the community it tries to benefit. The stark difference taken into consideration for IZ programs is if the city would be more responsive to mandatory or voluntary policy. 

Mandatory policy is regulations that directly require the developers to take actions to set aside the appropriate amount of  units for low-income residents. This amount is tailored to the population of the low-income community and the needs of the city, but it usually is between 10-30% units set aside for new housing (Lubell 138). The required element of the mandatory policy ensures that these units are being set aside for low-income households. In Los Angeles and Orange County, Mukhija et al. discuss the effectiveness of IZ programs. An element of their initial data from 2010 was that 14 of the 17 programs implemented in both counties leaned towards mandatory policy (230). This not only demonstrates how the variation in IZ can be dispersed across a singular county, but also how urban areas are seeing higher effectiveness with mandatory policy. In a study done of 27 states’ IZ programs, it was generally found that mandatory policy had “higher odds of producing any affordable units” (Wang et al. 551). However, while it is generally noted that IZ programs to be more effective with the use of mandatory policy, this statement may not give the full scope of the mandatory vs. voluntary research. 

Voluntary policies use incentives for developers to persuade them to set aside the needed housing units (Lubell 139). A common method of voluntary policies is the use of density bonuses. These bonuses allow developers to build more units than normally allowed, and it is used to help balance the losses created by setting aside units for IZ (Hamilton 162). The use of voluntary policies can be typically used in less densely populated cities. This is because they are not needing to be as strict to meet the needs of affordable housing. Voluntary policies can generally appeal to the developers because they work more closely with them and make it a mutual advantage for both sides to set aside units. Although mandatory policy has been deemed more effective, many researchers share that the use of voluntary policies can meet the same output of units produced if the policy is more strict and provide large incentives to make up for developer's loss of profit (Hamilton 189; Lubell 139; Wang et al. 563). The ability to tailor the IZ policy boosts the effectiveness to provide appropriate numbers of affordable housing desired by a city. It can lead to increased discussion around the effect and efficiency to the type of program the city wishes to implement. 

Limitations and Implication of Inclusionary Zoning

The role of adjusting IZ programs to be more tailored to the goals of the community can allow the creation of a vibrant community. While the Inclusionary Zoning can be used to disperse the demographics of residents to be more diverse, this program can fail at the ability to fulfill that goal. However, just because a program has not seen a lot of success in dispersing the policy, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have the potential to. Observing the previous faults can help assess for improvements. Constantine Kontokosta, an NYU professor, conducted a study on the dispersion of IZ programs in Suffolk and Montgomery County. They found that 97.7% of Suffolk’s IZ program fell into 10% of the county’s tracts. This was compared to Montgemory’s 56.1% in 10% of the county’s tracts (587). These statistics provide the scope to which current IZ programs take place across the county. The policies are being placed in a small region of the county, contributing to accumulation of low-income residents in that area. This negatively affects the ability to create diverse communities across the whole county with IZ. New policies can use this information when working with developers across the county to increase the affordable units they have. Actions like those taken in the Bay Area of San Francisco can be taken to ensure that socioeconomic factors aren’t taken into consideration when deciding placement of IZ units (Meltzer and Schuetz 579). This exclusion of socioeconomic factors allows the policy to be implemented across the city and not confined to a specific location. This allows more cross-interaction of those low-income communities and not. This cross-interaction that IZ program can potentially bring if implemented correctly can increase the effectiveness of not only creating increased affordable housing, but also dispersing different demographics across the city.

Work Cited

• “Exclusionary Zoning: Its Effect on Racial Discrimination in the Housing Market.” The White House, The United States Government, 30 Nov. 2021, www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/17/exclusionary-zoning-its-effect-on-racial-discrimination-in-the-housing-market/#:~:text=Exclusionary%20zoning%20laws%20place%20restrictions,likely%20to%20receive%20commercial%20zoning. 
• Freeman, Lance, and Jenny Schuetz. "Producing affordable housing in rising markets: What works?." Cityscape 19.1 (2017): 217-236.
• Hamilton, Emily. "Inclusionary zoning and housing market outcomes." Cityscape 23.1 (2021): 161-194.
• Hyra, Derek. “The Back-to-the-City Movement: Neighbourhood Redevelopment and Processes of Political and Cultural Displacement.” Urban Studies, vol. 52, no. 10, 2015, pp. 1753–73. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26146094. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.
• Kontokosta, Constantine E. "Do inclusionary zoning policies equitably disperse affordable housing? A comparative spatial analysis." Journal of housing and the built environment 30 (2015): 569-590.
• laidley, thomas. “The Problem of Urban Sprawl.” Contexts, vol. 15, no. 3, 2016, pp. 74–77. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26370417. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.
• Lubell, Jeffrey. "Preserving and expanding affordability in neighborhoods experiencing rising rents and property values." Cityscape 18.3 (2016): 131-150.
• Meltzer, Rachel, and Jenny Schuetz. "What drives the diffusion of inclusionary zoning?." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 29.3 (2010): 578-602.
• Mock, Rozalyn, et al. "Can Inclusionary Zoning Be an Effective Housing Policy in Greater Boston? Evidence from Lynn and Revere." (2023).
• Mukhija, Vinit, et al. "Can inclusionary zoning be an effective and efficient housing policy? Evidence from Los Angeles and Orange Counties." Journal of Urban Affairs 32.2 (2010): 229-252.
• Tacoli, Cecilia, et al. Urbanisation, Rural–Urban Migration and Urban Poverty. International Institute for Environment and Development, 2015. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep01308. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.
• Wang, Ruoniu, and Xinyu Fu. "Examining the effects of policy design on affordable unit production under inclusionary zoning policies." Journal of the American Planning Association 88.4 (2022): 550-564.
• Watson, Vanessa. "‘The planned city sweeps the poor away…’: Urban planning and 21st century urbanisation." Progress in planning 72.3 (2009): 151-193.
• “World Urbanization Prospects - Population Division.” United Nations, United Nations, population.un.org/wup/download/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024. 

‍