Los Angeles Density Bonus Program vs. New York Inclusionary Housing Program: A Case for the Continuation of Inclusionary Zoning and Density Bonuses
Date
2009
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Producer
Director
Performer
Choreographer
Costume Designer
Music
Videographer
Lighting Designer
Set Designer
Crew Member
Funder
Rehearsal Director
Concert Coordinator
Advisor
Moderator
Panelist
Alternative Title
Department
Haverford College. Department of Political Science
Type
Thesis
Original Format
Running Time
File Format
Place of Publication
Date Span
Copyright Date
Award
Language
eng
Note
Table of Contents
Terms of Use
Rights Holder
Access Restrictions
Haverford users only
Terms of Use
Tripod URL
Identifier
Abstract
The following paper is a detailed examination of the Los Angeles and State of California Density Bonus Programs and the New York Inclusionary Housing Program. Both programs provide incentives to developers to construct affordable housing units. Density bonuses are defined as ordinances that allow developers to increase the number of units allowed in a property under current law if they agree to make some units affordable by restricting those units' rents or sales prices. The conclusion housing program is incentive-based as well, offering a floor-area ratio (FAR) bonus for a development restricting rental prices of a certain number of units. The paper examines the Los Angeles Ordinance No. 179681, California SB 1818, and New York Land Use Resolution No. 962 as well as the political processes that allowed the programs to come to fruition. The paper then evaluates the effectiveness of the programs by detailing how many affordable units have been created or are scheduled to be created and then compares those numbers to the number of affordable units created or scheduled to be created by affordable housing trust funds in the respective cities. The analysis then shifts to how the Los Angeles and New York programs differ and how they can improve by learning lessons from the other program's strengths and weaknesses. The main conclusion is that the programs are effective and should continue to be implemented as a supplemental tool to other programs. The statistical analysis from the paper is cited as is the low-cost of the programs relative to other affordable housing programs, namely affordable housing trust funds.