Title:دیدگاه های کنونی در مورد مسکن فراگیر و مقرون به صرفه

این پخش اینترنتی در حال حاضر فقط برای مشاهده در دسترس است و دیگر برای اعتبارات AICP CM قابل استفاده نیست. تاریخ پخش اینترنتی: ۱۱ ژوئیه ۲۰۱۴ با حمایت: شمال نیو انگلند شرح فصل: قوانین مرتبط با مسکن و مسکن مقرون به صرفه عمدتاً بر اساس قوانین و موارد ایالتی است، اما ما برای تنظیم سرعت به چند رهبر متکی هستیم. این جلسه شامل کارشناسان حقوق مسکن از نیوجرسی و کالیفرنیا می شود و در مورد آنچه در آنجا اتفاق می افتد بحث می کنند – در نیوجرسی، ما در مورد شرایط همیشه در حال تغییر واکنش ایالت به کوه لورل دوم بحث خواهیم کرد و از کالیفرنیا خواهیم آموخت. در مورد ابتکارات قانونی فعلی و پاسخ به پرونده ها، از جمله پیامدهای تصمیم دادگاه عالی ایالات متحده در سال ۲۰۱۳ کونتز. در نهایت، ما دیدگاهی را از نیوهمپشایر دریافت خواهیم کرد، ایالتی که مسیر خود را با استانداردهای منطقه‌بندی شامل داوطلبانه دنبال می‌کند.

قسمتي از متن فيلم: Hello everyone and welcome to the webcast my name is Christine Dorsey and I’m the executive director of APA Ohio and bite Arabs and urbanism division and I’ll be the moderator for today’s webcast today Friday July 11th we will be hearing the presentation current perspectives on inclusionary and affordable housing for technical help

Bring today’s webcast type your questions in the chat box found in the webcast toolbar to the right of your screen or call the 1-800 number shown for content questions related to the presentation type those in the questions box also located in the webinar tool bar to the right of your screen we will

Answer those at the end of the presentation during the Q&A on your screen is a list of the sponsoring chapters and divisions I would like to thank all of those participating sponsors for making these webcasts possible today in particular our webcast is sponsored by the northern New England

Chapter for more information on APA chapters visit planning or acceptors and to learn more about all the divisions planning bad org slash divisions on your screen is a list of upcoming webcasts and for more information on these webcasts visit planning I’m sorry visit Utah APA org slash webcasts and to log

Your cm credits for attending today’s webcast visit planning org slash cm go to your dashboard select activities by provider and I’m sorry don’t select to the APA Florida chapter please select the northern New England chapter and select the title I apologize this webcast has been approved for 1.5 CM

Credits for live viewing only some recorded webcasts are available for distance education for availability check the webcast web page again at Utah APA org slash webcasts of course like us on Facebook planning webcast series to receive up-to-date inversion on upcoming sessions and we are recording today’s

Webcast and it will be available on our YouTube channel just search planning webcast series on YouTube and a PDF of the PowerPoint will also be available at Ohio planning org slash webcast presentations I now like to introduce our three speakers today and then get a program started our first speaker is

Chelsey McLean Chelsey is an attorney in holland and knights west coast land-use and environment practice group and lecturer at the University of California Hastings College of Law where she received her law degree her practice includes counseling clients on all aspects of regulatory compliance under federal and state environmental laws

With a particular concentration on the California Environmental Quality Act the redevelopment elimination legislation and climate change in green building laws regulations and guidance documents drafting and negotiating transactional agreements between developers municipal agencies and other third parties representing clients and litigation arising out of the land use and environmental issues and advocating for

Clients in the enactment and amendment of state and local land use statutes and regulations our second speaker today is Kevin Walsh Kevin Walsh Walsh associate director of the fairshare housing center joined FSH C following a clerkship in the New Jersey Supreme Court Walsh a graduate at the Catholic University of

America and Rutgers University School of Law and Camden is responsible for the center’s enforcement of the Mount Laurel doctrine and high-growth municipalities and the municipalities with potential for transit oriented development he’s also working on the center’s enforcement of civil rights and transparency laws as part of New Jersey’s recovery from Hurricane sandy

Walsh received the Mary Philbrook award from Rutgers University School of Law Camden in October 2012 and was named lawyer of the year in December 2012 by the New Jersey law journal our third speaker today is Benjamin frost Benjamin frost AICP is the director of public affairs in New Hampshire housing where

He coordinates federal and state legislative and and provides direct technical assistance to municipalities to help them develop regulations from an affordable housing and sustainable development he frequently lectures on issues of affordable and workforce housing planning and zoning law and ethics Benton has over 25 years of experience

As a land use planner and 20 years as an attorney previously he was a senior planner with the New Hampshire office of energy and planning he was executive director of the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission and he was also a planner and administrator in local and regional government in New

Hampshire and elsewhere Ben is a member of the Governing Council of Housing action new hampshire and a low-income housing advocacy organization he is the past chairman of the municipal section of the New Hampshire Bar Association and is a founding director of the New Hampshire municipal Lawyers Association he represents New Hampshire housing on

The new hampshire energy efficiency and sustainable energy board he serves as the treasurer of the New Hampshire planners Association and is the professional development officer of New England the northern New England Chapter the American Planning Association and he coordinates the National consortium of APA chapters and divisions that provides

These free training for professional planners he is a member of the American Institute of Certified planners and is also a member of the legislative committee as the American Planning Association and the New Hampshire Bar Association he serves on the community development Advisory Council the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Bend holds a

Bachelor’s and a master’s in geography with a soviet/russian focus from Colgate University and Syracuse University respectively and a law degree from Cornell Law School with a concentration business law and regulation he lives in Ward New Hampshire where he serves on the Planning Board without further ado

We are going to turn it over to Chelsea and I apologize this might take a moment we have a lot of folks on our call today and our system in low low air we owe okay hello everyone good morning to the West Coasters and good afternoon to the

East Coasters Christine thank you for that introduction and thank you for organizing this event as Christine mentioned I’m a California land use attorney at Holland tonight and I’d advise developers throughout the entitlement process on compliance with the myriad of California land use and environmental regulations as a bit of

Further introduction I do come from a family of city planners so I hope that gives me an extra badge of credibility in this crowd so jumping into the content here we’re going to rate cover a whole range of affordable housing issues in California many cities have imposed inclusionary housing requirements that

Is ordinances that require a given share of new construction to be affordable to people low to moderate income I am going to ruin the suspense here and go ahead and give up a few of the most important takeaways from my presentation first and most importantly the California Supreme Court is currently reviewing the

Appropriate standard of review for affordable housing ordinances in a case called California Building Industry Association versus the knee of San Jose out of that Supreme Court decision which is fully briefed and is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court sometime this year I think we can safely expect heightened scrutiny for exactions

Including monetary exactions and exactions for permit denials and so in the context of affordable housing obligations again I think we can expect heightened scrutiny when courts are looking at those types of affordable housing ordinances so as a result cities are responding by preparing detailed nexus studies to demonstrate the link between new market

Development impacts and the need for affordable housing another issue we will discuss is that the imposition of affordable housing obligations on rental development it’s unclear because of a separate line of cases and actions so with that I’ll go ahead and dive into a bit of the historical background in

California many cities and counties have adopted inclusionary ordinances as a means to provide local low-cost housing the first ordinances were adopted in the 1970s gained prevalence in the 1980s and increased in the 2000 there have essentially been two types of inclusionary housing requirements either set-aside requirements which require a

Certain number typically 15% of new units to be available to people of low to moderate income or number two in lieu fees that a city can use to build affordable housing units elsewhere developers have challenged these ordinances for years as presenting a number of legal issues and on the other

Hand affordable housing advocates argue that the need for affordable housing has grown dire given the elimination of redevelopment funding and it might also add the astronomical cost of housing in California so this historical tension has more recently been compounded by new and more recent pressures we have tensions between developers looking to

Ensure that obligations accurately reflect actual residential impacts affordable housing advocates concerned about housing affordability and municipalities looking to achieve affordable housing targets some of the new pressures come from new legislation in 2008 the Legislature passed SB 375 which mandates more coordinated jobs housing and transportation planning notably it put pressure on city

To meet housing targets then in 2011 Governor Brown eliminated redevelopment agencies which provided a major source of affordable housing subsidies using tax increment financing this funding source has not been replaced so to put the affordability crisis into perspective this slide reflects the booming real estate market in the Bay

Area and San Francisco in particular if you can’t see the coloring here the yellow line indicates that the median home price in San Francisco which admittedly is a very wacky real estate market but the median home price is $900,000 and I personally can speak from experience as I’ve been trying to buy a

House with my husband for over a year and a half within and outside of San Francisco and we are consistently outfit another interesting anecdote I think that illustrates the affordability crisis is what we call the Google bus wars so shuttles for technology companies like Google and Facebook pick

Up employees in San Francisco and bring them down to the Silicon Valley those buses have been blockaded egg’ protested everything under the Sun and so many people feel that the working class the teachers the artists those and public service are being pushed out of San Francisco due to the affordable housing

Crisis and in the midst of this affordability crisis a series of disjoin legal opinions has resulted in a patchwork of inconsistent rules related to affordable housing so this multitude of questions and inconsistencies between different courts throughout the state has resulted and the type of storm that often prompts the Supreme Court review

As has occurred where the California Supreme Court granted review and the CBI a California Building Industry Association versus city of San Jose case on September 11th 2013 so there’s a lot to be gained if the core provides guidance on some or all of the questions I will note below the

Ordnance Act question in the California Supreme Court case is an ordinance adopted by the city of San Jose the San Jose ordinance required developers of for sale residential units to set aside 15% of their project units as affordable in the alternative developers could satisfy the obligation in three ways

Number one they could build inclusionary units off site number two they could pay an in lieu fee for the city to fund affordable housing units elsewhere or number three they could dedicate land suitable for construction of units elsewhere in the city and that land value would have to be equal to the

Value of in Luffy the question presented regarding the San Jose ordinance is whether it is appropriate and a consortium of builders brought a suit to challenge that ordinance and again the question is what standard of review applies to this type of inclusionary housing ordinance and a standard of

Review is essentially a legal term for the type of test that the ordinance has to pass in order to be upheld the courts have identified three possible tests starting with the highest level of scrutiny that would give the city the least amount of deference is the Nolan Dolan standard of review otherwise known

As the Nexus rough proportionality test the second option is the reasonable relationship test and the third option that would give the agencies the most amount of deference is the police power test I’ll talk about each of these tests in a little more detail versus again the one that has the

Highest level of scrutiny and I’m sure that most of the planners here are familiar with is the Nolan Dolan test the Nolan test requires an agency to demonstrate a nexus that is a legitimate state interest in advancing an exaction and the Dolan test requires an agency to demonstrate rough proportionality

Between the magnitude of the exaction and the nature and extent of the project impact as a bit of a sidebar here the Nolan Dolan test could be imposed on the San Jose ordinance based on a recent US Supreme Court decision in Koontz versus st. John’s water River Management

District so in the current case the developer sought permits to develop a section of his property from the st. Johns River Water Management District Court the district rejected the proposal only if the developer decided that he would reduce the size of the development indeed to a district a conservation

Easement on the property resulting in a larger remainder of the property or if the developer would hire a contractor or to make improvements to the district own property several miles away so the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Nolan Doland test here and so that applies to a denial of a permit and monetary

Exactions so the takeaway here and the applicability to the San Jose case is that this US Supreme Court case was a reminder of the high standard of review that applies to its actions another side bar here is that the Nolan’s Dolan test could also be imposed

Based on the Californian sea act I won’t go into all of the components of the act that I’ve listed here and the slide but again the takeaway is that the California mitigation fee Act could be applied to the courts consideration of the San Jose ordinance and require this again this

Heightened standard of review such that the city would have to really demonstrate the link between the impacts of market rate development and the requirement for affordable housing moving on to the second test it is the reasonable relationship test and that requires as it sounds a reasonable relationship between an impact in

Exaction the trial courts of the lowest court in the San Jose case held that the San Jose ordinance could not meet this standard and thereby held that the ordinance was invalid if the Supreme Court elected this test it could invalidate inclusionary ordinances throughout the state at least temporarily the third option is the

Police power test the police power test is highly deferential standard of review under this standard the ordinance would be considered invalid only if it’s arbitrary discriminatory and without a release a reasonable relationship to any legitimate public interest this deferential police power standard would allow cities to adopt and defend

Similar ordinances under most any circumstance so now that we’ve considered the three options for the standard of review the question is what are the prospects for the San Jose ordinance so we have a couple of signs and indicators here the first is if the Supreme Court has granted review of the

Six districts opinion and that’s a sign of course that the Supreme Court will select a standard different than the leniently power test used by the appellate court the second sign is that the US Supreme Court reinforced the Noland own standard of review and the Coons decision number three the

California Supreme Court recently held in yet another case sterling Park versus city of Palo Alto that the longer statute of limitations and the mitigation fee Act applied to a developer’s challenge to an inclusionary housing obligation again that just indicate the willingness of the supreme court to apply more of the mitigation

Fee acts heightened scrutiny to other inclusionary housing obligations so given all these signs and indicators it appears that the Supreme Court has now established a trend of moving towards a higher standard of review so if I were to wager I would bet that sentence a’s ordinance will be set aside because the

City didn’t have anything in the record to establish nexus between the market rate housing impacts and the need for affordable housing they adopted the ordinance again there was nothing in the record there was no study to support that nexus so as a result and while we wait for supreme court’s decision which

Of course can take one to two years many studies have started to prepare and have adopted detailed housing mixes studies to quantify this linkage studies associated with the nexus studies include development fee comparisons where a city will compare its development fees to those in neighboring cities they will also prepare a fee

Burden analysis where they will look at hypothetical developments say a 100 unit multifamily project they’ll also consider something much larger and consider how affordable housing impact fees would affect the hypothetical developments they are also looking at asking rent analysis to determine that in asking rent in any given city and

Then they’re also looking at how the rents compared to average worker compensation now these nexus studies are hundreds of pages long but can be simplified into a few steps see is that the nexus study we’ll look at the newly constructed market rate unit and how they represent

New households the second step is that the households represent new income that will consume goods and services in the city next new consumption translates to often low-income jobs and lastly low income jobs translate to lower-income households that need affordable housing so these are very long studies prepared by very qualified and equipped economic

And you know planning consultants and it all boils down to this step in logic to links and market rate housing to the need for affordable housing this slide here shows the range of affordable housing fees in the Bay Area the fees range as you can see in this middle

Column from 10,000 to 50,000 dollars per market rate unit so particularly when we’re talking about San Francisco these fees are really quite substantial and as the developers will tell you often make it difficult to have a feasible economically feasible project to pencil this column here shows the range in

Set-aside requirements which ranges from 10 percent to 20 San Francisco is actually considering increasing that set-aside requirement to 30 percent so again quite substantial here and help indicate why this is such a hot issue in California so because we can always count on more litigation in California

The next round of litigation may be on these nexus studies so developers opponents may question the methodology and the nexus studies they may ask whether the data is accurate and supported who knows what other challenges they may bring in my view California courts are likely to uphold these several hundred pH Nexus studies

Once a city has done the work hired the consultants done the detailed analysis again my view is that a city is not going to question that and that they are going to give deference to the agency’s review and adoption of those types of Nexus studies supporting affordable housing fees and set-aside requirements

So in conclusion cities with affordable housing ordinances on the books or proposed for future would be well advised to consider preparing next the study is similar to the ones that are being prepared in California so finally I’m going to just briefly touch on a couple of other affordable housing

Questions that are not squarely in front of the Supreme Court but that warrant some additional clarification again just briefly another question that is sort of swirling in California is and actually just nationally as a result of the Koons decision is the weather conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis that is on a

Specific development project or permit continue to be subject to a higher standard of review than legislatively imposed requirements are those imposed via a generally applicable ordinance and the rationale is that for ad hoc conditions there’s a greater potential for abuse when conditions are imposed on that single project versus citywide and

Interestingly in the Koons decision they did not emphasize that previously what very well established distinction they dispensed noted may be phase maturity except that distinction or then again maybe not at the least the majority refusal to say more about the scope of its new real new

Rule cast a cloud on every decision by every local agency to require a person seeking a permit pay or spend money so again more can more uncertainty regarding the standard of review as it applies to both ad hoc and legislatively adopted conditions and then the last question that we’re

Thinking hard about here in California is how affordable housing obligations apply to rental housing we’ve talked in the past about these affordable housing ordinances that apply to for sale developments and there is a separate question as a result of a decision in 2009 Palmer where’s the city of Los

Angeles which held that Los Angeles’s inclusionary housing ordinance violated state law found in the cost of hockings Act now that’s a real estate law that dealt with landlord tenant rule and said that a landlord always gets to determine the initial rental rate and that therefore that state law preempted any

Local city law that tried to regulate rental housing so it was this very odd and unexpected kind of overlap between real estate law and land use law very unexpected and as a result though cities could not impose affordable housing obligations on rental development last year the legislature tried to fix this a

Adopted legislation a b 1229 that would have superseded the palmer decision but interestingly our Governor Brown vetoed that legislation and basically said that as a mayor of Oakland and his prior career he saw how hard it was to bring new development into the city and he wasn’t convinced that affordable housing

Ordinances were effective despite Palmer and AV 1229 continues continue to impose affordable housing fees on rental housing but again they’re using these nexus studies as the justification to do so so with all that background in mind and all of these legal questions that are swirling the stakes are really high and

So we are really hoping that when the Supreme Court makes decision that it will provide guidance on a lot of these questions and a lot of parties could benefit from that cities and affordable housing advocates could receive guidance to ensure their obligations will stand on solid legal ground and developers

Making a comfort the affording portable housing obligations will accurately reflect the actual impact of their residential development in the meantime again we expect heightened scrutiny for exactions including monetary exactions and exactions for permit denials and nexus studies as the justification for those obligations and lastly until the Palmer decision addresses rental housing

Imposition of affordable housing fees on rental housing is unclear so with that I hope that some of the challenges and lessons learned in California are useful to planners in practitioners throughout the country and I am going to turn it over to Kevin for the New Jersey experience

Hi everyone Kevin Walsh here from fair share housing center in New Jersey gonna tell everybody about our experience in New Jersey over the last several decades with the Mount Laurel doctrine we’re a group of primarily lawyers here but we have community organizers and and we contract with planners to do the work we

Do which is enforcing the obligation in New Jersey for all towns to provide their fair share of the regional need for affordable housing organization was founded in 1975 following up on the original Mount Laurel decision and it was founded by some of the attorneys and plaintiffs that were involved in that

Original case which I think a lot of planners out there probably studied in school for the past 40 or so years our organization in collaboration with other civil rights groups and with with developers and other nonprofit organizations and very often religious groups both statewide and in specific municipalities have advocated for the

Enforcement of affordable housing obligations here and I’m going to tell you a little bit about that work which is important work we think because New Jersey is so profoundly racially and economically segregated and that really results in a lot of the opportunities in the state being distributed in ways that

Deny lots of people opportunities for no reason other than the zip code they live in the effort that started here in New Jersey began back in in May 1970 when a local group of largely african-american residents their former chair croppers as the story goes who were gathered in a

Church that was part of the Underground Railroad to hear the mayor bill Hanes of Mount Laurel tell them what he thought and what the people in charge thought in the town of their proposal to build a modest development of Garden Apartments at a time that Mount Laurel was itself approving huge developments

That wouldn’t have been affordable to the people who were living in the town was part but now Lara was on as an exit on the New Jersey Turnpike and at the time the there was a lot of deteriorating housing that wasn’t up to code and rather than helping take any

Steps rather than encouraging the landlord’s of requiring the landlord’s to do anything Mount laurels approach was just to condemn the housing after people moved out and at the same time it was occurring at a time of tremendous white flight out of Camden just ten miles away in a state where people were

We’re only beginning to come to terms with deterioration in places like Camden and and the separation that waif-like caused when the mayor showed up and said as it says here a few people can’t afford to live in our town you’ll just have to leave it was the sort of thing

That really offended the people who were gathered there who would who had worked and lived beside and the people who were in power and didn’t expect them to to use the zoning power to to in effect force them out of town that they had

Lived in for a long long time and it was it was that does that effort that that led to to the Supreme Court’s decision in 1975 and again in 1993 which which I’m showing you an important quote here from and it that decision stood for really three things one as it says here

The power to zone is one portion of the police power and must be exercised for the general welfare the court said second that the general welfare includes more than the welfare that municipality and its citizens and also includes the housing needs of those residing outside the municipality but within the region

And then third that regulations that municipalities adopted do not provide the opportunity for a fair share of the region’s need conflict with the general welfare and violate state constitutional requirements so with that that reasoning from a legal standpoint the court found in 1975 and again in 1983 that municipalities throughout the state have

An obligation to provide their fair share of the regional need for affordable housing and that they’re in effect their municipal zoning ordinances are unconstitutional if they don’t meet that obligation as you might expect that was a decision that was both both celebrated and rejected by lots of folks

As not what zoning is intended to be but it was really I’ve driven and as the Court recognized in those decisions really driven by the understanding that the power to zone was being used in ways that was promoting racial and economic segregation new jersey and unfairly leaving some folks to stay in cities

Where they were forced deal with declining tax bases and forced to deal with the impacts of racial segregation and that historical context at the time very much influenced the courts the courts provided a remedy in 1983 that they didn’t provide initially in 1975 when they first decided daaamn municipalities have fair share

Obligations and what the Court did in 1983 was incentivized the private sector to bring what’s called builder’s remedy litigation where as long as the the proposed zoning is consistent with sound comprehensive planning they are the developer if it proves that the municipality has not met its fair share

Obligations that developer can receive a change in zoning so that the municipality cannot any longer stand in the way of developing what in most instances would be 20% affordable housing without any public needs at all about a hundred municipalities were sued soon after that decision was was reached

And as a result the municipalities were were incentivized to push for legislation in which the the state legislature in 1986 adopted the Fair Housing Act actually 1985 and the Council on affordable housing went into effect in 1986 and it assigns municipal fair share obligations thus avoiding I think many

Of the the sorts of studies that Chelsea discussed to the state’s 565 municipalities both for new households and for households living in substandard housing it based on census data it comes up with both the need for housing and the number of substandard units in each municipality municipalities are required

Under the law to come up with strategies to both provide a realistic opportunity for the new construction obligation and to put together programs that can help landlords and homeowners bring their homes up to code it’s been pretty successful in part because there for 12 years up until 1999 things were going

Well and there are about 90 thousand homes required to be zoned for throughout the state to meet the needs of new households whose needs otherwise wouldn’t be met through other ways of providing housing affordable to lower-income households it creates an administrative process and so you know so valleys really like that

Because they were no longer being sued in court and they felt like they could somewhat control their destiny and the the success rate we think is pretty good it is a it is an effort that has resulted in about 60,000 homes for families seniors and people special

Needs and even among those seniors and people with special needs are still preferred in some ways by municipalities because the only thing in many New Jersey suburbs that’s worse than a school child is a lower income school child but Mount Laurel has done a good job of checking that exclusionary

Impulse that too many municipalities here have we’ve as a result of the law passed in 2008 there used to be a requirement where municipalities usually wealthier municipalities could pay poorer racially segregated municipalities to accept their fort about their half of their affordable housing obligation and that law was was

Abolished that practice was abolished and at the same time you’ll always put in place that requires 20% affordable housing and state-designated transit oriented transit villages 20% affordable housing in developments that are either on state lands or are receive state funding such as brownfields and then there’s several regional planning areas

Here the Pinelands the Meadowlands the Highlands where 20% of new housing is required to be affordable as well resulted in tremendous increase of in municipalities that would otherwise keep out even non affordable but middle-class owners and renters there has been along with the affordable housing and inclusionary developments significant

Development of housing that’s affordable to people who might not be lower-income but are just barely not we reach down to 30% of median income in New Jersey which i think is without any form of public subsidy probably close to the best if not the best rate of affordability for

Purposes of providing opportunities in high opportunity suburban municipalities that otherwise would be denied and compared to many other places I think including California the for-profit sector here has actually been incentivized to provide affordable housing it’s in many ways I think the price of admission here I don’t think the developers are are necessarily

Looking to do it but they realize that it may be the only way that they can develop and while they still might trying to shake the obligation at the end of the day it’s been the primary way that we’ve developed affordable housing almost always without any form of public

Subsidy the the impact is we’ve been tremendous we know on families that have been eligible to take advantage of the affordable housing that’s been built by Mount Laurel it is resulted in and this is you see here a the cover of a book called climbing Mount Laurel by sociologist of

Princeton University called by the name of Doug Massie he and his team of researchers did this study over the past several years it came out in 2013 and it’s been won multiple awards and the reason is because I think that is a well-documented example sociological study of the impact

Of housing on people and the this is a development called a Thorens homes in Mount Laurel itself some way connected to the original rejection of that mayor and decades later was realized it’s been around for a little over ten years built with federal low income housing tax credits and substantial subsidies gets

Down to ten percent of median income as social services and education component on site and really it you know although I don’t address it here the book which has been covered by the New York Times and other outlets shows that so many of the fears they went through the Planning

Board transcript when neighbors came in and shows that so many of the fears of people were just that fears and the reality and I urge you if you’re ever coming up against NIMBY folks to take a look at this and and I think it’ll give you some some basis to tell people that

Their fears are probably unjustified it shows really positive impacts for adults reducing exposure to disordered violence having improved mental health increased economic independence and one of the suggestions was well if lower-income folks moved from Camden nearby to Mount Laurel they’re gonna lose their their social network that was shown not to be

The case for adults one of the things that came of this though is really important a really important anecdote was a woman who had lived in Camden high poverty high crime area that is not a place where unfortunately employers are very often going to look in the region

Are going to look for employees this woman was a paralegal by all indications accomplished in what she did and and worthy of an interview but when her address said Camden on it she couldn’t get on a resume she didn’t get in calls she moved to Mount Laurel then she

Started to get interviews in it that is really unfortunate nothing to be encouraged but it shows the reality of how some people think and why it’s important I think for people to be given these opportunities for should the the results on children I think are most exciting and one of the

Things that keeps us going and doing this work shows improve learning conditions at home more studying kids of course are going to better schools and the the exposure to disorder and violence was also reduced within schools it also showed that while the kids grades may not have substantially

Increased he didn’t go down given some of the schools they were they were coming from where there was lower levels of achievement that’s that was an accomplishment this shows you what the what the development looks like in Mount Laurel and one of the things we’re really proud of and there are although

That development is unique with its affordability range and the provision of social services it really shows at the same time how it is that checking exclusionary zoning in in really direct ways can help lower-income families with the opportunities they have the the next thing I’m going to discuss is now sort

Of showing you what we’ve succeeded in what the history has been and I’m going to discuss briefly how the Mount Laurel doctrine has been perhaps because of its effectiveness some may say in the past decade or so the subject of pretty substantial political resistance and and

The manner in which that was done and Mount Laurel has always been enforced with a fair share approach and about a decade or so ago the state of New Jersey could started to promote something called growth share which was a direct linkage between municipal decisions and to grow with with regard to residential

Growth and with non-residential growth and there was formulas established ratios established by which municipalities would in effect determine their own affordable housing obligations Wow by determining whether or not to grow this has been rejected in court decisions repeatedly in 2007 again in much the same form in 2010 and then most

Recently by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a September 2013 decision and the reason it well the cases and going back to Mel oral – is that the Mount Laurel doctrine is not simply about creating affordable housing opportunities it is also about creating affordable housing opportunities in ways that check

Exclusionary zoning in which municipalities aren’t allowed to use their zoning powers for ulterior purposes which is to keep out working folks that one of the lines from Mount Laurel – is if we’re gonna have factories we have have places for workers and as the Supreme Court said in Mount Laurel to municipal population

Projections are based on many factors but in no case that we know of do they include a value judgment that such municipality should bear its fair share of the region’s lower income housing need and the court goes on in effect to say that municipalities too often can’t

Be trusted to meet regional needs so we’re not going to base growth projections or the actual fair share obligations on what municipalities think is right because they’re too often planning for their own politically popular needs not planning for the actual needs of the region when you have five hundred and sixty-five one two

Towns just recently merged 565 municipalities in New Jersey it’s it’s sort of a race to the bottom the New Jersey Supreme Court in its 2013 decision accepted that and just to a note – to your national organization then to the New Jersey chapter the the APA which argued that the growth share

Approach is unconstitutional because it doesn’t ensure that municipalities will be required to provide to meet the regional need an effect allows the owning – – to be used to keep people out and thanks to the AP for that and other groups that joined in that were special needs providers for people with

Disabilities civil rights groups religious groups even a couple of municipalities that thought that they had done their fair share and they were right and they said that that that other municipalities if they don’t do their fair share that will be detrimental to municipalities that have done their fair

Share and it’s not fair when municipalities can use their powers in ways that disadvantaged others like that these are you also joined on and the September 2000 13 decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court directs the State Council on affordable housing to go back to the system that worked previously they were

Originally supposed to be adopted in March of this year but the Supreme Court gave them more time until number 2013 while the court somewhat suggested that it’s open to changes the legislature thus far has not gone along with that the Christie administration and the legislature here in New Jersey don’t see

Eye to eye on that it used to be that the judiciary was the one that was holding the line on this and while it still is the public opinion on this and the politicians in the legislature also recognized that housing that folks can afford is is a legitimate issue that is

Not any longer quite as politically toxic to discuss it’s now a positive as the state legislature has in recent years either rejected really bad things that the Christie administration has proposed or actually passed good legislation they signed into law that improved affordable housing opportunities throughout the state the

Court as you say the bottom of the screen there the court affirmed that it is going to continue to enforce the constitutional obligation and will not allow the general welfare to be harmed by proposals to change the way in which the Mount Laurel doctrine is implemented but we still have our challenges and

Those challenges remind us every day that as I’m sure of all of you on the phone no planning decisions and housing decisions our fundamental fundamentally still political decisions and the fight for this never ends one of our big challenges is this man who has made it his Governor Christie if he’s not in

Your neighborhood now he will be someday soon going around the country raising money one of the big things that he’s attempted to do is undermine fair housing laws in New Jersey even though he makes it his point to talk about how he’s helping working-class folks in fact that has not happened through

Foreclosure policies and his continued veto of laws intended to help people facing foreclosure and through his effort to allow municipalities to exclude by using zonings red tape he has made it his priority to undermine oral thankfully the legislature and the judiciary have continuously pushed back in his efforts to do so the business

Community as well not just home builders but also folks that want to see our economy strong have also rejected his efforts to to put in place a law that emphasizes home rule over regional responsibilities and the fight continues though governor just recently pushed through some proposed rules to it to

Comply with the Supreme Court September 2013 decision that have so many problems that we have asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to convene we’ve now been about 15 years without strong consistent reliable and legal law rules in place and if the governor has his way that

Will go on for another 15 years because he is doing everything he can to undermine Mount Laurel another challenge that we have is that the state agency which was a place where planners primarily worked to help me Nissa polities come into compliance to evaluate their compliance to mediate

Disputes has been largely dismantled the governor has even removed the words Council on affordable housing from their their nice brochure that they hand out and give taken their there what they do and in terms you see there I pulled out that one thing that that ensuring that municipalities meet their affordable

Housing applications is now one of you know two dozen things that they’re required to do and so they’re not doing a very good job on it anymore and that’s one of the reasons why we’ve asked the Supreme Court to allow local courts to take back over the process of ensuring

Municipalities meet their affordable housing obligations because at the end of the day even if this agency came up with good rules it can’t be trusted to to make decision that are neutral rather everything is happening now with a with looking over your shoulder about which politician you might upset

We’re also though face and opportunities and that’s what I think often keeps us going in this the opportunities include a legislature that supports Mount Laurel we have the basic illegal require and said every municipality must provide its fair share of the region need for affordable housing the private sector is

Mentioned supports the check on exclusionary zoning supports efforts to curb abuses through Home Rule and one of the other exciting things organization we’re working on is that federal law requires efforts promote racial integration it’s something that that has too often gone unrecognized and it’s something here in New Jersey with our

Recovery from Hurricane sandy with five to six billion dollars in funding that has some of which already been spent most of which hasn’t requires that Anisa polities in the state look at these local zoning decisions and other similar processes by which we say where housing

Can go and where it can’t and plan for that in ways that that don’t exacerbate the divide and try to close it we’re so that that concludes my work if you’re interested in hearing about our organization there’s our website you can also get information for the text and if

You do it in the next three seconds you can also scan that with your phone I am now gonna hand this over to Ben thank you for listening and I welcome your questions at the end thanks Kevin as we’re making this transition to my

Screen I think you can see it now I just want to thank Chelsea and Kevin for being on today’s webcast I saw them in a presentation at the National planning conference in Atlanta this year and asked them after that was over if they’d be really and interested to do this

Webcast and they both eagerly agreed and and here we are so thanks to you both I think it’s it’s really people who planners are who are in in smaller jurisdictions like New Hampshire to pay attention to what’s going on in the heavy hitters like California generally because if it’s its massive

Economy and robust judicial structure and also places like New Jersey with its really strong history of affordable housing litigation because places like New Hampshire don’t have the same robustness of case law our courts are in particular the Supreme Court tends to look outside of our jurisdiction to see

What’s going on elsewhere for some guidance and that has certainly happened here what I want to do is to conclude these presentations with kind of a small state perspective the view from New Hampshire on inclusionary and affordable housing and just to orient you New Hampshire there we are

It’s where the second northeastern most state in the country a little but big in comparison in in terms of our first in the nation presidential primary and of course I think everyone knows our state motto live free or die and it’s it’s more than just a joke

Although it does get regular play on The Daily Show it actually is a reflection of the political ethos of the States we had a governor in the 70s named Mel Thompson a three-term governor who was well infamous in some circles for inviting Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket to secede from Massachusetts so they

Could annex to New Hampshire to enjoy our tax benefits but Mel Thompson also was known to have made a citizen’s arrest of someone who had covered over the state’s motto on his license plate people take this really seriously and this is reflected in well first off New

Hampshire is although it’s not a home rule state or a Dylan’s rule state meaning that municipalities have to find a grant of authority from the legislature to do anything people believe it’s a home rule state so there’s a really strong history of local control but sometimes the state does

Step in either acting through the legislature or through our courts and that has happened in the law of affordable housing in New Hampshire Britain versus Chester is our moral – I was decided in 1991 after like five or six years of litigation the trial court in in this case looked at

The town zoning ordinance and this was brought by a number of different people one of whom was a builder in town the town of Chester which is a small bedroom community outside of the city of Manchester is our largest community at a hundred and ten thousand but Chester is

Only a couple thousand people it’s really a crossroads rural town and people would commute to Manchester or Nashua or even the Greater Boston metro area for work in a local builder who want to build some affordable housing on his property he found that he couldn’t do it because of the zoning ordinance a

Couple other parties to the litigation were someone who was a renter in town couldn’t afford to buy and someone who lived in a different town and couldn’t afford to move into Chester the the case was litigated by New Hampshire legal assistance which is our statewide nonprofit low income law firm and New

Hampshire Housing my employer acted in kind of an expert role in support of that litigation way back when but the town’s zoning ordinance when the court looked at it and needed some some mathematical calculations determined that after you you eliminate wetlands and steep slopes only 1.7 three percent

Of the town’s surface area was suitable for multifamily housing and the court said frankly that’s not enough the trial court throughout the entirety of the town zoning ordinance on constitutional grounds this got appealed and the Supreme Court we don’t have an intermediate appellate court in New

Hampshire so it’s a direct appeal to the Supreme Court that’s New Hampshire Supreme Court backed away from that constitutional cliff and instead turned to our rezoning enabling statute which is really based on the standard state zoning and abling Act that was promulgated by the US Department of

Commerce in the 20s and so you’ll see similar language in our zoning enabling act as you as you find in in many other states including language that says that the purpose of Zoning is for the public health safety and welfare of the community well central to this case was the the

Courts interpretation of what the word community means and it means not just the municipality itself but the region within which the municipality is situated it’s neighborhood really and the court said municipalities are not isolated enclaves and they actually put this into the opinion there that they can’t dig moats around themselves and

Pull up the drawbridge and then in in this case the New Hampshire Supreme Court looked at Mount Laurel – and said well that’s very interesting and we understand that you know the the New Jersey Supreme Court has taken this approach of if every of imposing mathematical calculations on

Municipalities but we’re not going to do that when in fact the the court said they that they issue that sort of imposition rather they left it very vague and so they thought central holding of this case is that every municipality in the state has an obligation to provide a reasonable and

Realistic opportunity for the development of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income families and also that every community has an obligation to provide for its fair share of the region’s need and that’s where the the question of the word community comes in the region’s need for affordable housing the Builders

Remedy was awarded here well then what happened 1991 many of you may remember what the housing market was like nationally the late 90s that recession was really New Hampshire’s Great Recession that’s when the housing values in in the state really really tanked this the past recession we got hit hard

Like many others did but not quite so hard as as we had in this recession well then what happened not much except that the remaining 233 municipalities in the state effectively whiter brows and said thank God were not Chester well Chester did proceeded and amended its zoning ordinance

And the Builder ultimately got to build on his property economy notwithstanding but not much else happened with regard to other municipalities responding to this case law but there are a couple other decisions I did not provide a citation to this case because it’s not published if you’re interested in seeing the court’s

Order in Great Bridge properties just email me and I’ll be happy to send it you this is a simply a trial case that was not appealed and there’s we have a a for-profit builder here Great Bridge properties that wanted to build some affordable housing ASSA P again is a

Kind of a bedroom community and and the developer was faced with these limitations based on the zoning ordinance and variances multifamily was allowed but you could only build it on on water and sewer and only in existing buildings and only one principal building was allowed on a lot which precludes multi building by

Developments and a maximum of four units per buildings you you do the math and you can you can figure out pretty easily that affordable housing is not going to happen well the star of this case of the the variance hearings was the chairman himself and I put this in really um for

Entertainment value this is probably far worse than the what the mayor of Mount Laurel said to that group gathered because this was on the record and the CBA chairman said when this ordinance was written it was known at the time that it was exclusionary it was written

Exactly for that reason so not only you saying does our ordinance have a discriminatory impact it has a discriminatory purpose that was its intention so you can put yourself in the position of being the the developers the applicants lawyer at that hearing this was probably the best day of his life so

What happened yes it got built and that’s what they look like builders remedy was not awarded here rather the court said you got to go back to the Planning Board they’ll give you their variances but you’ve got to go back to the Planning Board where by all accounts the applicants treated actually pretty

Well and through the years since our our Mount Laurel Britain versus Chester in 1991 the New Hampshire legislature looking at the the impact of high housing cost on our state’s economy and the inability of people to afford housing not just lower-income people but moderate income people as well

Middle income the middle class the New Hampshire legislature studied this over and over and over again and finally in 2008 adopted the New Hampshire workforce housing law and it has this language in it that harkens back to Britain versus Chester and harkens back to Laurel too reasonable and realistic opportunities

Including multifamily rental but in particular that the New Hampshire workforce housing statute like the Supreme Court decision here does not contain mathematical calculations it is it’s very broad and very general and imposes an a kind of a Horta t’v obligation on municipalities to figure out what they’re supposed to do to meet

This general obligation but there are a couple of things that are really standout one is that they have to look at the collective impact of all land use regulations so zoning subdivision site plan regulations impact fees all of those have to be piled together and then they have the Planning Board has to

Assess what the impact is on a developer’s ability to profitably build affordable housing a couple of definitions here and I was thinking as Kevin was speaking about the the depth of targeting in New Jersey 30% is really low and deep targeting and that’s wonderful our statute is is based at 60%

Of median income which is pretty good targeting um but it certainly could go more deeper than that and when you look at the definitions of what workforce housing is that is the income targeting and then combine that with the definition of what affordable is which is the 30 percent benchmark you actually

Can come up with a price point for both rental units and for ownership units and again we revisit fair share no statutory numerical standard it simply says that municipalities must provide for their fair share and it’s up to them to figure out what that means this has

Not been litigated since the law was adopted in 2008 but I expect that it will be at some point Appeals we have an accelerated appeal mechanism within our workforce housing law so that a developer who is proposing a workforce housing development and this has to be in writing as part of the application

You can’t spring it upon the Planning Board halfway through the process the developer can challenge the either a denial or unreasonable conditions of an approval and can get a hearing on the merits in six months there have been a couple of cases tried under the workforce housing law within it’s been a

Mix of decisions some denials of the developer’s claims and some approvals of the developer’s claims but generally speaking I think the courts have done a pretty good job both in meeting these this time deadlines and also understanding what the statute means planning boards themselves can impose affordability restrictions and I think

This is really essential for people to understand how they work in and where they should be required but the court can also impose them if the if the Planning Board has not there’s been a lot of reaction a lot of reaction to that the workforce housing law not all

Of it Pleasant but generally speaking the communities that have had to respond as those where development is actually occurring have taken a fairly proactive approach now turning to inclusionary zoning in New Hampshire and and this I think is the student distinguished from a number of other jurisdictions inclusionary zoning in New Hampshire can

Only be voluntary that is a municipality cannot require a developer to build an inclusionary development but can only offer incentives to a developer to do so and that the the admonition I here’s that don’t inadvertently create barriers with unrealistic requirements actually have to look to see what will

Work in the marketplace if you’re serious about pursuing inclusionary zoning and there we have a model that was created by our State Department of Environmental Services so in inclusionary zoning incentives and restrictions what can I develop or get will primarily its density bonuses but also look at other dimensional standards

Lot sizes frontage in particular of well less popularity I’d say is financial assistance you know municipalities tend to be fairly tight fisted also reduced fees and phasing certainly limiting the phasing requirements and limiting growth management requirements is important to help reduce costs by increasing the speed with which a development can be

Built out now what should the municipality get well assurance of long term affordability this is I think the critical factor because we’re a municipality is long Carolee giving a say addenda bonus it should be getting something in return not just the affordable housing but also the assurance that that housing will

Stay affordable over the long run and this is actually an example from that that model guidebook that our state environmental services department created and and what I say these are merely suggestions and the point is follow the money what we’ll actually in a voluntary inclusionary set up what

Will induce a developer actually to want to do this it has to be profitable for the developer also in standards they’ll make sure that the styles of the the forty units are similar or I’d say even if possible indistinguishable from those of the market rate units mix the the

Affordable units in amongst the market rate units don’t get away is them and where you’re phasing don’t and this is a important from a municipal perspective don’t allow all the market rate units to be built before the affordable ones because what happens if the developer goes belly-up after building all the

Market rate units you’re left with strictly a great development and I have a couple of examples this actually is the Britain versus Chester development it was built about twelve years after the the court decision it’s actually a really good conservation subdivision that has built on 23 acres but 19 acres and

Conservation you can see the density bonus it was a 25% density bonus for income targeting and these are for sale townhouses and I just checked some of the prices of them this morning and they’re selling at around 225 thousand dollars which for that particular market and Chester which is relatively high

Income that it gets to about eighty percent ami in Exeter New Hampshire this is a terrific mixed-use infill development that unfortunately required I think six variants izzle to get it built but those EBA wanted the Planning Board wanted that the Board of Selectmen wanted it everyone wanted it to happen

And so it happened because the developer was motivated but this replaced a surface parking lot this is mixed income and mix changers ground-floor retail and they replaced the parking surface parking with an integrated parking structure that tripled the number of parking spaces it’s pretty cool development one thing I really would

Encourage is that people look at their zoning ordinances to make sure that older structures can be converted to multifamily where it is where it’s appropriate this is this example is in Hopkinton New Hampshire it’s a an old farmhouse that was converted into four or five units and it’s virtually

Impossible to tell that it’s multifamily from from the street except if you’re counting the electrical meters but this this only happened because the town zoning ordinance allowed for it to happen there’s no there’s no subsidy here this is just a market rate development on the bottom Bellamy mill

That is a low-income housing tax credit development a former textile mill that was converted by a developer in 2004 again because the this this is the city of Dover the city’s zoning ordinance allowed for it to happen I’m really bullish on accessory apartments I think it is a terrific way

For people to accommodate not only a change in population but also the creasing size of families and the need for older homeowners to get some extra income so this accessory apartment was built over a garage and and it’s otherwise impossible to tell except for the fact that I’ve grown the from the

Box around it and how do I know it was there well I used to live there multifamily developments this again is a tax credit development in Amherst New Hampshire and Amherst is distinguished as one of the most affluent communities in the state it’s very high-income very

High land costs yet in the 1980s even before our seminal affordable housing case Britain versus Chester the Planning Board in Amherst decided that they didn’t like what was happening with the housing costs and they can’t change they can’t they can’t change the market but they can change their zoning ordinance

And allow for affordable housing development so Amherst still one of the the most affluent communities in the state has been for almost three decades now a leader in affordable housing development by simply allowing it to happen and this was done in the town’s historic dirt so it winds up looking really pretty

Spectacular I’m gonna skip over Exeter in the interest of time and I’ll wind up with this list of resources here which I’ll leave up for a couple of seconds and if you have any questions there’s my email address and now Chris I will turn it back to you

Great thank you okay let’s just jump into some questions for the last few remaining minutes that we have all right the first question is for Chelsea our developers being asked to contribute to Nexus studies or can the fees be used for such studies thank you for that question

As far as I know the developers are not being asked to contribute to studies the cities and you know when they I kind of wanted to qualify as I heard Kevin and Ben’s great presentation is that the experience I’ve talked about is not completely uniform I’m thinking moving

For the you know the greater Bay Area experience and either largely progressive cities that are looking to bring in more affordable housing units it’s not necessarily the statewide experience Marin County for example is one area where there’s been some resistance to affordable housing and other jurisdictions have faced some of

The or they’ve they’ve demonstrated some of the same resistance and so it is these progressive cities that are looking to bring in affordable housing units and so for for my experience it is the cities who fund these next two cities and I’m sure they are not cheap but knowing that they will legally

Support the ultimate affordable housing ordinances that will then bring in in lieu fees from developers I think that both cities justify the cost of the studies okay we’ll stay there one more question for you I think it’s for you under Palmer is there a limit to rental

Timeframe that is can at least be 99 years to avoid fees interesting question thinking through that I would imagine that at least 99 year would be stutter to the same restrictions as under the Palmer decision but having haven’t seen that question directly okay um well you

Keep thinking about it and feel free to interrupt any further about okay next question is Kevin how does zoning alone in New Jersey results in affordable housing without subsidy most often it’s done through a density increase and and there’s a minimum required density depending on certain factors that such

As rental units get higher density and for sale units have to occur density of at least 16 it’s per acre and then there’s sometimes sort of negotiating or an eviction process to get the density level up but it generally works by developers coming in an optional and and

Then try to get it very often real owned in a builder’s REME context or municipalities go out and plan and propose to landowners that their lands be rezone is it is process that has the builders association here wishing that they could go back to the good old days

Of density increases even with the municipality being able to pick and choose which sites without a builders remedy without the developer having much leverage because they would be able to do a much better job in their view of meeting the market demands and and it works out in ways that when they can

Develop a high enough density that the it may come out of the end cost but at the right density they can produce 15 and 20% rental and sales set asides all day long in almost any market in the state the downturn has had some impact

On that but we still see even in many cases even 20% in some rental contexts $0.20 affordable housing being being developed great um let’s talk a little bit more about density bonuses there’s a couple questions coming in asking what density bonuses have been found to be an effective incentive particularly with

The voluntary it’s no this has been I can start with that company what ago you you know here in New Jersey it’s usually not voluntary it’s just a man the tour said is that it essentially if you’re gonna develop this resident leave this is a density it’s mandatory you’ve

Gotten your death be increased go forth and prosper there’s that’s how it mode often occurred there are not voluntary components yeah in New Hampshire as I said in a presentation we have a voluntary inclusionary zoning only that as the statute does not allow for mandatory inclusionary zoning density

Bonuses are pretty put all over the place and I think what what counterbalances the density bonus is the affordability requirement so for example if and this is where I was careful to go Hatem about making sure something actually works in the marketplace you may provide for a 25% duty bonus but if

In fact you’re affordably requirements even meet or even exceed that it’s going to become cost prohibitive for developed a build so there has a kind of a mark testing which means that when if you’re developing these sorts of standards you’ve got to talk to developers figure

Out what will work for them under don’t know hypothetical circumstances within the community great um can you and I think maybe this is Ben can you explain the builders remedy in more detail Ken but I think Kevin would probably would be better suited for that okay so that

Was Kevin okay you know in in New Jersey the way the builders remedy works is a municipality that has not met its affordable housing obligations and does not have a protection by their court which you can issue protective orders or be counts on audible housing can be sued by a

Developer – for a rezoning in which the developer first has to prove and this is very often easy to do that the municipality has not met its fair share the regional need for affordable housing and then the developer has showed that the proposed rezoning is is not bad by

Inning and that the density and that’s often where the arguments occur what is the density that the density is appropriate and for the site and then developer usually provides out of 15 percent or 3 percent Dale’s portable housing and the case is very very often settle because it is very clear that the

Municipality hasn’t met its obligation and the developer may have some room to come down and what the developer might ultimately get from the court and so these cases settle sometimes they don’t sometimes you know towns wanted one of the sayings that a mayor came up with here is that it’s cheaper to litigate

Than it is to educate and so very often the towns do not settle but most often great it’s an interesting question how our HOA fees typically handled and affordability calculations ICANN is that in New Jersey it used to be that the people in the affordable units paid less

And it led to a lot of problems so now they pay more and it’s just justed in other ways with you know a BB unit might sell for less or but generally how people in developments built I think in last decade or so provide pay the same

Rates as others and it leads some problems here sometimes because sometimes the affordable units now don’t have the exact same layout no or they don’t have a driveway with the garage and so there’s still some times where things you know you need some sort of mediation there’s still occasionally

Problems but overall biking people to pay the same rate its dressed the Thor native problems in in New Hampshire under our workforce housing statute that there is no accounting for homeowners association fees so you might have caught on one of my slides the the affordability calculation for workforce housing for

Owners is principal interest taxes and insurance and they pay you know that that should not account for more than 30 percent of their home so I think that that actually is a flaw in our statute because a lot of the affordable ownership housing in New Hampshire is condominiums and and people are paying

These fees and sometimes they are department unaffordable alright um great we’ll take one more question and then we’ll wrap up I guess kind of going along with the workforce housing statute can you bend you discuss the process to get the state to adopt a workforce housing statute that’s that would take a

Lot more than a minute 30 seconds it was actually well that the stories be interesting and it included the partnership between the the low-income housing advocates such in Hampshire Housing a new hampshire legal assistance with our state’s business industry association which is there was a quite came promise and the partnership proved

Be very very strong so that we were then able to negotiate with the new hampshire municipal association which then and when we had a meeting of the minds our groups essentially all went together to the legislature and said we have a solution to this problem but that took

Years years development um chelsea do you want to thank you ben Chelsea do you want to wrap up your response to your previous question to the original question for me about whether under Palmer there’s a limit or rental timeframe whether it leads to be a pendant angling years toward affordable

Housing needs I do not think there is any attrition you know it is what it is if a development as rental that’s what is and just comic decision we happy said X to Steve but one point I wanted to mention in sort of a trend for the feature the market has

Been so hot with rental in the last few years and I’ve sensed it hasn’t already happened will happen very shortly the conversion to condos and though I think that is going to be an issue to watch out for the owners of these multifamily projects want to convert from until to

Kondeh ownership projects arguably then these will be will be allocable at that point so again I think that’s an an issue to look out for and to be aware great all right I think that’s gonna wrap us up for the day so Chelsea mcclain Kevin Walsh and Ben Frost thank

You for speaking today and for the northern New England chapter for hosting this event thank you and everyone have a really great weekend and if you have any questions the contact information hopefully you’ve been able to to take it down or you can always email us have a great weekend everybody thank you

Thank you thanks everyone

ID: rSau2IK8aJk
Time: 1405691790
Date: 2014-07-18 18:26:30
Duration: 01:26:58

منبع