Category: District of Columbia

Campaign to Strengthen DC’s Inclusionary Zoning Affordable Housing Program Briefing

Event Materials:

Supporting Materials:

Event Description:
October 22, 2015 | held at DC Fiscal Policy Institute (DCFPI)

Speakers:

David Bowers, Enterprise Community Partners

Claire Zippel, DC Fiscal Policy Institute

Cheryl Cort, Coalition for Smarter Growth

DC Affordable Housing Alliance and the Campaign for Inclusionary Zoning convened a briefing for affordable housing and social justice advocates to learn how the city’s newer affordable housing programs, Inclusionary Zoning, can better serve the people it was intended to help.

The briefing covered how DC’s Inclusionary Zoning regulations are working, and how they can be improved to offer more affordable housing for lower income DC residents. The advocates briefing was in preparation for the January 28, 2016 public hearing by the DC Zoning Commission to consider changes to the IZ regulations to better serve low income people.

Testimony on partial offsite Inclusionary Zoning and affordable housing benefit in the Highline development project

We are enthusiastic about this project because it takes full advantage of the site’s proximity to Metro and bus lines, employment, services and burgeoning new commercial districts. I will spend the rest of my time discussing our qualified support for the proposed partial off-site compliance for Inclusionary Zoning regulations (IZ), and an affordable housing proffer.

City should expand Inclusionary Zoning

D.C.’s transformation from a city struggling and losing population in the 1990s to today’s increasingly popular and booming district has brought many benefits. But this transformation has created a growing affordable housing crisis. Many longtime residents and would-be new transplants without large bank accounts feel that they don’t have a place. Local leaders from Mayor Muriel Bowser on down rightly perceive this as a problem that must be addressed.

Unfortunately, there is no one magic bullet to keep our city inclusive and make sure longtime residents can enjoy the same amenities as wealthier new comers. Rather, we need to look at an array of policy solutions as we would a toolbox where a number of different tools are needed to effectively tackle any job. In keeping with this metaphor, we also need to remain ready to add to that toolbox and sharpen or upgrade existing tools.

One tool ready to be sharpened is Inclusionary Zoning, or IZ.

Adopted in 2006, IZ requires builders of most residential developments larger than nine units to set aside 8 to 10 percent of the units as permanently affordable to middle-class and lower-income house- holds. Typically these units are reserved for families making between 50 and 80 percent of the area median income. For a household of two, this equals $44,000 to $70,000 a year. IZ pays for lower priced homes in market rate developments by allowing the developer to build more units than would otherwise be allowed under zoning rules. It requires no direct subsidies. Thus we are able to use our city’s sustained building boom to create additional affordable units now and bank them for the future.

Critics say the program is too slow to put units on the market. To date, just over 100 units, mostly rent- als, have become available. As of late April, 61 of 105 available IZ rental units had been leased, with another 11 sold or under contract out of 13 for sale. Additionally, the beginning of the program has suffered from many administrative kinks.

Both of those initial problems are being addressed. IZ’s slow start will soon be a thing of the past, with an estimated 1,000-plus units currently in the pipeline. Many of the administrative problems are being resolved, and the city now has a fully staffed team to manage the program. The IZ program is operational and doing what it was designed to do. The Urban Institute recently pronounced D.C.’s pro- gram sound and of great potential.

IZ is about to deliver 19 affordable units in Upper Northwest at 5333 Connecticut Ave., and is now leasing 17 affordable homes at the Drake at 17th and O streets in Dupont Circle. How else would such moderately priced housing opportunities ever be possible there?

But IZ can and should do more. That’s why a coalition of housing, religious, labor and smart growth groups is urging the Zoning Commission and mayor to act. The D.C. Council just passed a resolution asking the same. We should strengthen IZ to increase the number of low-income households that qualify for the program and the number of IZ units produced.

This means bringing down the top end of the income range from 80 percent of area median income (AMI) to 70 percent AMI or lower, and increasing the number of units gained at the 50 percent AMI level (affordable for a two-person house- hold earning just under $44,000 annually). We should also ask for at least 10 to 12 percent of homes in a residential building to be affordable, and provide additional bonus density and zoning flexibility to ensure developments recover the added cost of the affordable units.

Fixing any problem as complicated as D.C.’s affordable housing crisis requires a lot of tools. IZ is one way we can make up ground in our affordable housing crisis — and one that doesn’t require millions of dollars out of D.C.’s budget. It helps working-class residents have more housing options as prices continue to rise out of reach. Other programs better address the needs of those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Along with strengthening IZ, these other efforts — part of the needed continuum of help require our deepened investment and support, too. The unprecedented level of funding for affordable housing in the budget proposed by Mayor Bowser and given initial approval by the D.C. Council is a great start to the Bowser administration and council session.

We hope that Mayor Bowser and the Zoning Commission will take the opportunity to act now while our city continues to attract more people and build new housing at a rapid pace.

Cheryl Cort is policy director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth and a leader of the DC Campaign for Inclusionary Zoning.

Read the original article here.

RELEASE: Housing advocates commend DC Council resolution urging action to expand affordable housing production through Inclusionary Zoning

Today, housing advocates applauded nine DC Councilmembers for introducing a resolution encouraging the DC Zoning Commission and Mayor Bowser to strengthen a promising market-based affordable housing program. At-Large Councilmember Elissa Silverman, along with eight of her colleagues, introduced the resolution. The measure encourages the Zoning Commission and Mayor Bowser to act to strengthen the city’s Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) program, which sets aside a certain number of permanently-affordable units in most new residential construction.

An affordable housing crisis with no end in sight

nclusionary Zoning battled a lot of developments that were grandfathered in before the law went into effect, said Cheryl Cort, policy director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth. And much of the program’s focus has been on rentals, as it will remain until the building market falls under these new regulations. So far, they have 48 units rented under Inclusionary Zoning rules — or a dismal eight rentals a year.

Transit advocate backs bus-only lane as traffic solution for D.C.’s busy 16th Street route

A prominent advocacy group for smart growth and transit challenges the views that a letter-writer and I expressed about the future of bus service on one of the District’s busiest commuter routes.

Sixteenth Street buses are squeezing out all the capacity they can under current conditions. There’s no more room to add additional capacity for cars to the road without harming neighborhoods adjacent to 16th Street NW (nor is driving an option for many residents along 16th Street anyway).

Yet our region continues to grow, and more people need to commute to downtown D.C. from D.C. and Silver Spring neighborhoods all along the corridor. What are we going to do to address that?

The 16th Street bus lanes proposal, in which the current reversible rush-hour lane from Arkansas Avenue NW to downtown would be transformed into a dedicated bus lane, is our best option. With the rush-hour bus lane, we would increase our capacity to move the greatest number of people through this important corridor and with the least disruption to commuters using different transportation modes.

A 2013 feasibility study for the District Department of Transportation showed that creating a bus lane in that stretch of 16th Street would still leave two lanes for cars and only slightly increase delays. Meanwhile, buses, which move half of rush-hour travelers on 16th Street, would move 30 percent faster with a dedicated lane and, most important, would increase capacity for [moving people through the corridor] by 10 percent.

All of this can be done without sacrificing any parking spaces or narrowing 16th Street to one lane for cars in the peak direction south of U Street NW, as the letter-writer in your column suggests.

The same 50-foot right-of-way along this corridor has sufficient room south of U Street to be restriped for three travel lanes in the peak direction during rush hour, and to allow the non-peak direction to remain as it is — with one parking lane and one travel lane. Traffic volume is not as high south of U Street as it is to the north, where street parking isn’t allowed during rush hour in either direction.

As to your other points about bringing signal prioritization to the corridor and increasing the number of Metro supervisors along 16th Street to improve the efficiency of bus spacing, we agree, but it’s not enough.

Buses get stuck in traffic and are thrown off their schedules for two big reasons: They are stopped at red lights, and they are held back from moving through intersections because there are a bunch of cars in front of them.

Dedicated bus lanes free up buses from being stuck behind a line of cars trying to get through an intersection, and signal priority gets the bus through the intersection. Together, bus lanes and signal priority do more than the benefits they offer individually to get buses moving.

When we can do this with a marginal effect on traffic congestion, but a real increase in overall capacity, it’s a win for everyone.

What should be our next move? Do the detailed evaluations, approvals and plans to assess and implement a bus lane. DDOT should also expedite implementation of transit-signal priority, which is scheduled to be operating in the next two years.

The current status of the bottled-up transit service on 16th Street leaves more than half of the corridor’s commuters with a substandard option that is not only unacceptable, but also fixable. Why would we be so biased against effective solutions to make a corridor work for a majority of its travelers?

Cheryl Cort, policy director, Coalition for Smarter Growth

DG: A woman who lived at 16th and U streets in the late 1980s told me the Metrobuses were referred to as the “Banana Bus Lines,” because they always arrived in bunches. Many of today’s riders who try to board in the Mount Pleasant/Columbia Heights neighborhoods and farther south say that’s the most predictable part of the rush-hour bus service.

But to really succeed, a transit service needs the schedules to be predictable, not the bus bunching and crowding.

Metro and the District Department of Transportation consider 16th Street part of a regional bus priority corridor network, but DDOT has not yet presented an official proposal for bus-only lanes on 16th Street.

Maryland-to-D.C. commuters and D.C. residents along the corridor need to see such a proposal to make a proper evaluation. DDOT’s abortive experience with reconfiguring Wisconsin Avenue NW highlights some of the difficulties in translating what looks good on a map into what works for commuters in rush-hour traffic.

Before bus lanes arrive on 16th Street, drivers and bus riders alike need to know the District will be committed to enforcing new rules on lane use, parking and turning.

Bus-only lanes in an urban core are a block-by-block experience in engineering and transportation politics. If 16th Street becomes an initial experience, it needs to be a good one. Otherwise it could poison the environment for other transit improvements.

Read the original article here.

D.C. group launches email campaign to save H Street streetcar

“We want to be sure we’re doing what we can to look out for the mobility needs of D.C. residents,” he said. D.C. residents can express their frustration in an email to Bowser sent through the organization’s website. “I believe that the streetcar can be a prominent part of a larger transit investment strategy — with the right modes selected for the right corridors,” the email says.

Save the H Street streetcar, ANC 6A tells Mayor Bowser

An ANC that covers the H Street NE corridor is urging Mayor Muriel Bowser to get the streetcar up and running and expand the system to avoid creating a “useless” service. ANC 6A unanimously voted last night to send a letter to Bowser asking her to save the project. Killing the project would undercut development along H Street, the ANC said.

Is D.C. in too deep to kill the H Street streetcar?

As the H Street streetcar meets its possible end by the end of this month, various news outlets, organizations, and businesses have confessed their own feelings on one question: to kill or not to kill the streetcar? While controversy has circled around the project since the very beginning, there are still many who hope for the development to come to fruition.

D.C. is spending $1 million on another study of the 16th Street NW corridor

The new 16th Street NW Transit Priority Planning Study will look in detail at a 2.7-mile stretch from Arkansas Avenue south to H Street NW, a section an earlier study noted as optimal for a dedicated bus lane. DDOT will hold a public meeting March 31 to hear from residents, transit users and other stakeholders. Once this latest study is completed, some riders and public transit advocates say they expect the city to move from planning to action.