Talk:Inclusionary zoning/Archive 1

ques.
Beyond prioritizing under-privileged families to the detriment of wealthy families, are there disadvantages to inclusionary zoning? LegCircus 22:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Question about relevance
I think parts of this article may be misplaced. I tried to add detail to the definition of the term as it is used. In general, inclusionary zoning is not really zoning per se. It is more of a planning guideline that developers negotiate on a per-project basis, sometimes to get conditional use permits or variances, and sometimes just to get permission to build. All it refers to is the practice of including a set number of below-market-rate units in a given project.

The stuff about zoning being used to exclude people is perfectly true, and it is probably more true now than ever, but I'm not sure it's germane to this item. Ie the fact that zoning excludes people is not really addressed by inclusionary zoning; if that were the case existing neighborhoods would be rezoned to accomodate more modest houses, and lets not hold our breath. The two issues are different and happen to have similar names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.79.49 (talk • contribs) April 4, 2006


 * Thank you for your contributions, and posting to this talk page. Your edits are helpful, they reflect some study on zoning and planning.  The exclusionary nature of zoning practices is necessary to explain the term "inclusionary", so that is why it is germane to this article.  At the level of editing you are doing, it useful to register with Wikipedia and sign your comments using four tildes (~&#126;) to reflect who is making the edits.  I'm out of time right now to respond to your edits, but while I agree with many of things you added, some is unsupported and controversial, and some content you removed need to be restored. Castellanet 16:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Seeing no response, I have restored deletions, and revised the section for accuracy. Please respond on this page with any objections to those edits.  Thanks. Castellanet 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the references should be removed
I did not want to remove it without a second opinion, but I think that "Inclusionary Housing for the City of Chicago: Facts and Myths" should be removed from references. It is not scholarly at all, is undetailed, and claims that many arguments regarding inclusionary zoning which have not completely been disproven are actually "myths". The claim that "[inclusionary housing] will stop or slow development" is a myth is wrong, in my opinion. Perhaps inclusionary housing does stop or slow growth under some circumstances (a poorly administered program, for example). In any case, it does not even give hard evidence to disprove it. PGScooter (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing
I think this article should go under the category "Urban studies and planning terminology." And, if it does, the article Zoning should go in that category, too. DAK4Blizzard (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

References in the "Controversy" section
There are insufficient citation to support the claims made in this section. I'm new to wikipedia so I don't know a better way than this to do something about it. If someone else has a better solution, or knows how to flag that section I would be grateful. Goldfront (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Notes/External links are not working
I have reviewed most of the notes and external links that should be able to give readers accesses to more detailed information regarding this topic. However, I have found that many of them are not working, or not leading to the correct report directly, although the report is available if you search using Google or other searching engines.

Under "Notes" section links that are not working, for example: - Gamaliel - CAR - North Park - BPI Chicago.

Under "External Links" section links that are not working, for example: - The Inclusionary Housing Debate: The Effectiveness of Mandatory Programs Over Voluntary Programs, American Planning Association - End, Don't Mend, County's Inclusionary Housing Program, Reason Foundation - Scrapping the Zoning Code to Solve LA’s Housing Crisis, Reason Foundation.

Some of the links would go to the websites that are still available, but cannot go to the page that contains relevant information: - Resources from the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California - Los Angeles business community's 2004 alternative to mandatory Inclusionary Zoning proposal, Central City Association of Los Angeles - California Inclusionary Housing Reader, Institute for Local Government.

Some of the link not working but the reports exist: - Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California and the Home Builders Association of Northern California On Common Ground: Joint Principles on Inclusionary Housing, July 2005. - Inclusionary Housing in California: 30 Years of Innovation California Coalition for Rural Housing and Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, 2003. - Inclusionary Zoning: The California Experience National Housing Conference, 2004.

Cannyccl (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Problems regarding the section "alternative solution"
One of the aims of the policy "Inclusionary zoning" is about providing affordable housing to low-income personnel or families. Regarding this aim, the alternative solution of "Housing Choice Voucher Program"(or the "Section 8") has been included in this article. However, according to one of the page operated by USA.gov, there should at least be 3 types of program that would provide affordable rental housings, in which "Public Housing, which is state-owned, affordable rental houses or apartments for low-income families, people who are elderly, and people with disabilities" is not included in this article.

Apart from this, the existing explanation and information about "Housing Choice Voucher Program" seem irrelevant for explaining why this would be one alternative solution. The passage seems to aim at criticizing the "Housing Choice Voucher Program" by raising the problems brought by this policy, without stating clearly the basic concepts, and both pros and cons of the policy. This would be problematic and misleading to make readers believe the "Inclusionary zoning" is by far the most successful policy or tool in offering affordable housings or solving "residential economic segregation", as stated in the article. Cannyccl (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Insufficient and not properly referenced information in the section "Differences in ordinances"
In the above-mentioned section, a small number of citations or links have been used or attached. For one of the differences, the phrase "(see below)" is used for indicating that there is additional information available in this article. However, without direct link or more detailed description, I believe user cannot find out which section is "below" referring to. Moreover, In this section, readers can only find many differences in ordinances from different states/counties, without knowing the exact origins of that ordinances, and also more details of that. I believe the information listed in this article, especially without proper external links and references being used, would be insufficient for users to understand such complex policy approach. To make things worse, some vague words and descriptions have been used under this section. For example, for the difference"Appearance and integration of inclusionary housing units", the description is that "Many jurisdictions require that inclusionary housing units be indistinguishable from market-rate units, but this can increase costs". It would be confusing to users as there's no definition or examples explaining what "indistinguishable from market-rate units" refers to, and also hard for users to understand why is that increasing the costs. In general, for differences stated in this section, the information and descriptions are too brief and the terms or wordings would be too general or vague for users to understand. Cannyccl (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

More controversies could be added
Kwok Ting Yan (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)The debate about whether the bonus that the property developed received is reasonable or not could be added into the controversy section.

It is difficult to determine the right amount of bonus. According to the department of city planning in New York, a bonus of 33 percent above the base floor area is given to inclusionary designated housing area if 20% or more housings are zoned as affordable housings. Therefore, it is important to have a right amount of bonus or inclusionary zoning may be used by the property developers as a tool to earn more profits and cause unfairness to other parties, such as tenants.

Large variety of external links provided
The external links provided are from different kinds of sources, which could enable readers to extend their readings in different perspectives. There are sources published by planners, university and non-governmental organisations. For example, the American Planning Association, University of California, Irvine and Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California and the Home Builders. Kwok Ting Yan (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)