By Ben Clark
The Evanston City Council could be guilty of tokenism. Guilty of trying to appease affordable housing advocates by passing a toothless ordinance only verbally committed to change. Let’s hope not, but after ir passed an amended inclusionary housing ordinance Monday night, I find reason to be skeptical.
In the early 1970s, Washington suburb Montgomery County, Md., passed innovative affordable housing legislation that would become known around the country as “inclusionary zoning.” Maryland advocates envisioned a policy that could provide local housing for residents and employees unable to afford suitable housing because of an inflated market. The solution called for developers to set aside a certain percentage of the housing for families earning below the area median income. Since Montgomery County’s groundbreaking ordinance, countless other towns have followed its lead. Evanston’s ordinance, which owes serious debts to Montgomery County’s, is one of about 200 around the country.
Affordable housing advocates are apt to point to professions that every locality needs as justification for such a policy: On the North Shore, teachers, fire fighters and service personnel of all sorts pay more than the standard 30 percent of their income to live close to their jobs. Opponents of inclusionary zoning tend to object on two grounds: the politically correct lament burdens put on developers (which can be offset through the use of a number of incentives), while others quietly or virulently object to living near “poor people.”
In a pamphlet sent to Montgomery County residents more than 30 years ago, the League of Women Voters and Suburban Maryland Fair Housing candidly answered why they asked for a 15 percent set-aside. Their words: “The percentage was arrived at as an estimate of a figure which would create a significant, not a token, increase in the supply of needed housing.”
Evanston’s inclusionary zoning ordinance calls for 10 percent of units to be affordable: certainly not a “token” percentage, but still less than the 20 percent and later 15 percent set-aside that affordable housing experts suggested is necessary to make a dent in Evanston’s pricey housing market. What’s most alarming is that the ordinance only calls for 3 percent of units to be built on site and lets developers pay an “in-lieu fee” of $40,000 per unit for the remaining 7 percent. The money will be added to an affordable housing trust fund for Evanston and would-be Evanston residents.
By national standards, this is a weak ordinance: Other cities, such as our own neighbor Highland Park, charge a $100,000 in-lieu fee, or do not even leave it as an option. More disturbing is that this payment, more or less a cop-out for developers, moves away from the mixed-income ideal of inclusionary zoning. In a 100-unit development, only 3 units will need to be affordable.
There are two ways to look at the ordinance: as a beginning or an end. The amended ordinance outshines its pathetic October 2006 predecessor, which did not require any on-site construction. Also, city staff will have to think hard about affordable housing in Evanston while administering the ordinance and make responsible and transparent decisions with the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. History also shows that once some towns, such as Santa Fe, N.M., commit to creating affordable housing, even in a weak way, local governments strengthen ordinances as the public becomes more receptive. Maybe Evanston residents can look forward to an updated ordinance.
Pessimists, however, can look at the long history that led up to this point and see the council’s blatant disregard for expert opinion. This ordinance could be the last gasp from a split council in which certain members repeatedly tried to stymie a true inclusionary zoning ordinance. As such, the resulting ordinance looks like skin with no skeleton: a way for opponents to pay lip service to affordability without sacrificing their own interest.
Let’s be optimistic and cautiously applaud the council’s step in the right direction while letting them know that we don’t think they’ve done enough.
Weinberg senior Ben Clark co-leads a student-organized SESP seminar on housing. He can be reached at [email protected].