By
Richard Drdla, on December 2nd, 2010
This guide identifies the main aspects of inclusionary housing that should be addressed in order to implement an effective program, and also the main principles and key practices that should be followed when addressing those aspects.
It does not attempt to draft a model bylaw nor to set out specific regulations. In many cases, those regulations will depend upon the particular needs, conditions and priorities of each municipality. Also, in some cases (and as also noted here), they still will require further study and research.
The guide draws to a large extent upon the inclusionary housing practices used widely across the US. These practices in the main follow a common model and use a similar set of rules and procedures. This model is generally called inclusionary zoning, and might be described as American-style inclusionary housing. In any case, this particular model has not been used in Canada.
It is not expected that the American model will be fully adopted in this country. Different priorities, regulations and mechanisms are likely to emerge here. Also, some of the aspects of the US programs cannot be readily imported. Nevertheless, considering that these practices have been tried and tested for well over 30 years and in many different communities, this experience offers an invaluable starting point for developing corresponding programs in this country.
Read the full guide
By
Richard Drdla, on December 2nd, 2010
This report reviews the affordable housing mandates that have been used by uppertier jurisdictions in the US and Canada. The mandates include those in the four states of New Jersey, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut; the two provinces of British Columbia and Ontario; and the two metropolitan areas of Portland, Oregon and Minneapolis/St Paul, Minnesota (also called the Twin Cities).
These mandates in various but similar ways harness the planning regulations and associated development approval process to assist in the provision of affordable housing.
These mandates go well beyond expecting municipalities to use what might be called good planning practices — like providing sufficient development land, zoning for higher densities and cutting municipal red tape.
Under these mandates, municipalities are obliged to support the provision of affordable housing in an affirmative way. That means that the municipalities are required to assist in some way that will lower the cost of the housing, and make it affordable specifically to lower-income households.
These mandates set quantified targets for the municipalities as a way of defining their obligations or measuring their performance. In some cases, these targets are set through a specific allocation assigned to each municipality, and in others, through a standard minimum quota applied to all.
Read the full report
By
Richard Drdla, on February 14th, 2010
The two terms are often used interchangeably to mean the same thing. In this website, the two are used in a more particular and careful way in order to make an important distinction.
‘Inclusionary zoning’ is used only in reference to the particular set of inclusionary housing practices and policies seen in the US. Put another way, it might be described as “American-style” inclusionary housing. Although all of the programs there vary in many details, they all fall within the same and recognizable model. (That model is described elsewhere on this website.)
‘Inclusionary housing’ is used more generally in reference to a variety of practices and policies directed at creating mixed-income projects through the development regulations and approval process.
There are two notable and effective examples of inclusionary housing. One is the afore-mentioned inclusionary zoning as practised in the US. The other is the ‘planning gain’ approach used across England – which could be called “English-style” inclusionary housing .
In this country, three major cities – Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver – also have adopted inclusionary housing policies. These share many features, and might be the basis for an emerging “Canadian-style” inclusionary housing approach.
Here is the important distinction that must be made. It is inappropriate to call any of these Canadian programs as ‘inclusionary zoning’. They use a set of practices that are distinctly different than those in the US and, as a consequence, are more limited in the affordable housing that they produce.
Back to Frequently Asked Questions
Recent Comments