County Council Aims to Increase Affordable Housing

The generally accepted philosophy in Howard County is that there must be a delicate balance between growth and sprawl. Some would argue that it is too restrictive. Some would like to see even more careful planning and direct citizen voting on how that planning is decided upon and executed.

Another critical issue in the county is that of affordable housing. Working for a nonprofit considered one of the national authorities on the subject, I am naturally a supporter of publicly-designed and privately-executed affordable housing plans.

Right now, the county's Adequate Public Facilities Act requires developers in the county to acquire housing credits for each unit they want to build. The County allots approximately 1500 per year based upon their expectations of housing growth between now and 2020. Also, developers must set aside between 10 and 15 percent of their developments to be sold to buyers with incomes below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). [That's a problem unto itself. There needs to be more broad classification than just that if it doesn't exist already.]

The rub is that only 100 credits are set aside each year for those moderate-income housing units. So, if developers want to build more than 100 moderate-income units per year, they cannot do so under current law.

In an attempt to alleviate the issue, County County chair Mary Kay Sigaty sponsored a bill that would no longer require developers to acquire credits for moderate-income housing units. The intent is to allow developers to build more of this class of units. Also, the bill would allow developers to reserve up to one-third of a development's units for moderate-income housing before having to acquire credits for them. All developments would still have to fulfill sufficient infrastructure requirements before approval.

Critics of the bill included Greg Fox, who said that removing the credits would cause too much growth in the County that would not be accounted for in the general plan. It's a valid concern.

County housing and community development director, Stacy Spann, approved of the bill and noted that the economy will compel higher demand for affordable housing.

All sides appear to be happy with the intent of the bill, as am I. Mixed-income communities seem to work best in the affordable housing world, though there has been evidence in Memphis that the presence of mixed-income communities alone do not make a city better. The issue we face is how best strike a balance between managed growth and the demand for affordable housing.

First, we have to not be short-sighted. Ms. Spann does note that the demand for affordable housing will increase given this economy. It is likely that more people will default, lose their homes, and have to go into rental communities. Demand for housing - existing and new construction - has dropped dramatically and brought prices down with it. It is expected that the market has not yet reached bottom because of a coming wave of mortgage resets in the Alt A and Option ARM markets. The housing market is in a corrective phase and its ending point is still anyone's guess. The 1500 units that the County expects to see annually will not happen for some time because of depressed demand. Therefore, we should not address this issue through the prism of current housing market conditions. This depression in the market represents an anamoly.

Second, we should continue to strike the balance between growth and a desire for mixed-income communities. We have seen sprawl in Columbia as commercial development has outpaced housing growth. Infrastructure concerns and urban design do not appear to have been adequately considered in making these approvals, so it is difficult to not call for serious pause when discussing modifying County-wide development regulations on the residential side.

In this market, the credit program works. It may be in our interests to keep the allocation schedule concept, but increase its flexibility without going quite as far as what Sigaty supports.

Let me provide an exteme example. Say a single county development would encompass all 1500 units provided under the general plan. If a developer were keen, they could set aside 500 units of moderate-income housing before having to get any credits. They could then allow for an additional 500 replacement units. Now, we've approved 2000 units provided that the infrastructure is there or could be developed to provide for the expected growth. That's the worst case scenario for the County - a 33% overage in the number of units ok'd by the County.

Perhaps, then, we should make the credits more flexible. Instead of setting aside just 100 credits for moderate-income housing, the County allows for some percentage of the total allocation of credits to be used for either moderate-income or market rate housing.

As it relates to the debate over the Downtown Columbia Master Plan, critics are hoping that 25% of the proposed 5500 units added to downtown in the 30 year plan could be deemed affordable (up to 120% of AMI). So, why not allow for an additional 15% of "flexible" credits each year? The County could allocate a floor of 100 credits, and a maximum of 325 (or round it off to 350). That would seem more likely to appeal to both off the County's development concerns.