The Tennessean reports, Nashville sued over new affordable housing law.

by Joey Garrison , USA Today Network - Tennessee -Metro Nashville was hit with a highly anticipated lawsuit on Monday by the free market think-tank Beacon Center of Tennessee over a new Metro policy that is aimed at jump-starting more affordable housing. 

"We are filing this lawsuit not just because we disagree with this 'affordable housing' plan, but because Nashville is acting unconstitutionally and in defiance of state law," Braden Boucek, director of litigation for the Beacon Center, said.

"Tennessee has expressly told cities they cannot pass these sorts of laws, which makes Nashville's mandate on 'affordable housing' both illegal and unconstitutional. Cities are not independent and cannot pick and choose what laws they want to follow."

But supporters of the ordinance, including bill sponsor Councilwoman Burkley Allen, have argued that the policy is a voluntary inclusionary zoning policy based on development incentives and not a mandate because the requirement is only triggered when a developer chooses to apply for new development rights. (link)

Top Stories

Homebuilder Association sues Metro to overturn the Inclusionary housing law.

The below story is Reposted from The Beacon Center.

The Story

 Imagine being a young, hardworking professional who can already barely afford to pay rent in the city where you are just beginning your career. Next, imagine that your landlord raises your rent so that a person even poorer than you can afford to move in next door and pay less. Now you will have to move further away from your job and live somewhere less desirable because you can no longer afford your rent.

Are you mad? You should be. This is just one of the many unfair scenarios that Nashville’s leaders are about to bring into being thanks to their unconstitutional “affordable” housing plans. When Nashville government officials decided housing wasn’t affordable enough, they decided that homebuilders should solve the problem instead of government. Nashville recently enacted a law that, in certain instances, requires homebuilders to sell a fixed percentage of the homes they build at below market value. In other words, Nashville is demanding that people lose money on an investment in order to promote social welfare. Ironically enough, the people that Nashville thinks should bear the cost of addressing affordable housing—homebuilders—are the very ones who are most directly addressing the problem in the first place.

Homebuilders, like the thousands of small business owners and individuals our client the Homebuilders Association of Middle Tennessee (HBAMT) represents, increase the supply of housing, thereby lowering the cost of housing. The homebuilders want nothing more than to address any affordable housing issues by increasing the supply of housing. The biggest obstacles are Nashville’s restrictions on their ability to build homes, obstacles which increase with Nashville’s new “affordable housing” mandate. John Sheley, the trade organization’s Executive Vice President, has worked in his field for nearly 30 years and decided to take action on behalf of all builders to challenge Nashville’s new law.

And for good reason. This plan is illegal and unconstitutional, as it demands that private individuals bear the burden of addressing what some have decided is a public concern. It is no more acceptable to expect property owners to address public housing by losing money on the houses they build than it is to expect grocers to lose money on the food they sell to address hunger. If there truly is a lack of affordable housing in Nashville, then the government should get out of the way and let the free market and the builders solve it naturally by creating a larger supply. But they should not force private parties to do it on their behalf. Their current plan will make housing more scarce and decrease the availability of affordable housing. This is fundamental to the constitutional protection of private property rights. What’s more, it is also illegal because the state of Tennessee has a law that bans local governments from passing mandates forcing homebuilders to set aside residential apartment units as “affordable.”

The Problem

In September 2016, the city of Nashville passed a law that, with limited exceptions, requires homebuilders to set aside a portion of their development as “affordable” or “workforce” housing or instead pay a significant fee into a slush fund. As anyone who has been paying attention knows, a government program that begins with the term affordable is typically anything but. Need proof? Look no further than the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. That redistribution of wealth scheme has left working-class Americans with astronomically higher prices and fewer health insurance options, all in exchange for a worthless guarantee that it will be more “affordable.”

“Affordable” housing is essentially the Obamacare of housing. It makes it more expensive to build. This will result in developers building fewer homes, which will cause housing supply to dwindle. The extra costs will be passed on to buyers and renters, increasing their expenses. In both scenarios, it will cause prices to rise for those who can afford it the least: lower- and middle-income earners. If you think housing is expensive now, just wait until it’s “affordable.”

Not only will this mandate make housing less affordable, it will also create the same fiscal cliffs as many other welfare programs. If a person will have to pay more for their housing as their income increases, then they will be less likely to pursue moderate increases in pay or take on more work to move up in life. This scheme by Nashville’s government creates a disincentive for the poor to improve their lives.

A requirement that property owners set aside a certain percentage of their housing inventory to sell at below the market price (or setting price controls at all) is more than just inconsistent with the American tradition and offensive to rudimentary notions of free markets. Forcing developers to sell the apartments they build at a loss poses very serious legal and constitutional problems. Governments can’t condition things like building permits on the surrender of constitutional rights, such as the right to seek full value of one’s private property. Taking private property for a public purpose without just compensation is a takings issue that courts have ruled to be unconstitutional countless times. Cities can’t get around that by conditioning their agreement on the surrender of this or any other constitutional right.

On top of the constitutional and economic issues with this law, Nashville does not have the authority to enforce this plan in the first place. The state has never given cities the power to address affordable housing in this manner, and if there was any lingering confusion on this issue, the Tennessee General Assembly cleared it up in 2016 when affordable housing mandates began to surface in Tennessee. In response to the spread of these ordinances, the legislature passed a law prohibiting local governments from enacting affordable housing mandates as they relate to rental properties. Nashville passed its law anyway, even though it is illegal under state law.

The matter has already garnered a good deal of local media attention, as it should. And, given the spread of similar ordinances across the southeast (including an anticipated ordinance in Atlanta sometime next year), this trend of liberal cities thwarting constitutional protections set by state governments will only continue to worsen.

Bad policies that take hold in cities such as Nashville have a tendency to spread throughout the state. Nashville is blatantly disrespecting state lawmakers (and thereby the will of the people) who already voted to ban this practice. If Nashville can pass an affordable housing law in defiance of state law, then it can pass a $15 minimum wage law or a gun ban. We don’t want our cities to become sanctuary cities for liberal policies, therefore Nashville needs to be reigned in here and now.

In late July 2016, before the proposed ordinance was brought up for a second of three readings before the Metro Nashville Council, the Southeastern Legal Foundation and Beacon sent a letter to city officials analyzing the proposed ordinance from a legal perspective. We explained that the proposed ordinance not only violated state law, but that it was patently unconstitutional. The letter was raised by the Metro Council’s attorney and discussed in the hearing. The Council passed the ordinance anyway. Their willful disregard for the rule of law proves that, in this situation, the only way to protect the Constitution is in the courtroom.

It is now imperative that we take action to protect the property rights of Tennesseans and their values from out-of-control local governments.

The Law

We intend to challenge Nashville’s affordable housing mandate as illegal under Tennessee law and unconstitutional in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Ordinance Violates the Fifth Amendment.

The Takings Clause prohibits the government from taking one’s property without just compensation. Here, Nashville is not “taking” the developers property outright, it is demanding that they lose money in exchange for the city’s permission to develop, and if they do not want to do that, they can just kick into a slush fund to avoid the mandate. The courts have recognized these sorts of shenanigans before and have stated that a demand for a person to surrender a right in exchange for a permit is still an unconstitutional taking.

The Takings Clause exists because the Founders did not envision a country where governments could strong-arm private parties into paying for things the government did not care to pay for itself. The Supreme Court has made clear that the Fifth Amendment not only protects one from a physical taking, but also from governments that misuse the power of land-use regulation.

To prevent governments from circumventing the Takings Clause and from trying to accomplish indirectly what they cannot do directly, the Supreme Court applies the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine.” Under this well-settled doctrine, “the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right…in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the benefit sought has little or no relationship to the property.” In other words, the Takings Clause prohibits Nashville from forcing homebuilders to choose between the permission they need to build and the right to receive just compensation from a taking. This “affordable housing” mandate is a prime example of the “gimmickry” that the Supreme Court so harshly rejected over two decades ago.

The Ordinance Violates Tennessee Law

The law passed in 2016 by the Tennessee legislature prohibiting local governments from enacting affordable housing mandates took direct aim at measures such as the one presented in this ordinance. Despite Nashville officials’ statements otherwise, the ordinance is not an incentive-based approach, which would be allowed under the new state law. The ordinance requires property owners comply as long as financial incentives are available. But when the incentives are available, not when they are provided to the property owner, the property owner must comply. The property owner has no ability to opt out.

The way Nashville’s zoning is currently structured, there is almost no place left to build. So homebuilders almost always have to ask the city to rezone the land to allow for buildings of a greater height or density before a project can go forward. And the city will not allow any changes (and thus will deny permission to build) unless homebuilders agree to its onerous demand that they address affordable housing by losing money on some of their homes. By requiring homebuilders to do so before Nashville will give them the permission they need to build, Nashville has imposed a kind of a condition on development. That’s exactly the sort of law that the state of Tennessee has said is illegal.

Due to the aforementioned reasons, the Beacon Center is filing a lawsuit against the city of Nashville and seeking an overturning of the city’s “affordable” housing mandate.

Case Logistics

The plaintiff in this case is John Shely with the Home Builders Association of Middle Tennessee. They are seeking clarification on the law and the overturning of Nashville’s affordable housing mandate. The defendant is the Nashville Metro Government.

Legal Documents

Complaint

The Legal Team

Braden Boucek is the Director of Litigation for the Beacon Center. Prior to joining the Beacon Center, he worked as an Assistant United States Attorney, and before that for the State of Tennessee as a trial and appellate prosecutor.

Justin Owen is the president and CEO of the Beacon Center and is licensed to practice law in Tennessee.

The Beacon Center will work this case in conjunction with Southeastern Legal Foundation in Atlanta, one of the most established and well respected free market litigation groups in the nation. SLF will be represented by Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel for SLF. Prior to working for SLF, she was in private practice and an accountant for an international accounting firm.

Top Stories

Bill Freeman's company chosen to serve as administrator of Nashville's Housing Incentive Pilot Program.

HIPP will allow developers and apartment owners to seek grants from Metro to offer mixed-income workforce housing in new and existing developments

Metro Press release - At a networking reception hosted at Emma Bistro on Tuesday night, Mayor Megan Barry announced the start of the Housing Incentive Pilot Program. Created by the Mayor’s Office and approved by the Metro Council, HIPP was designed with feedback from the developer and housing advocate communities to help address the need for workforce housing in Nashville.

“In order to meet the unique housing needs of people of all economic strata, we need a diverse set of tools and policies that will result in more individuals and families finding the housing options they need to succeed,” said Mayor Megan Barry. “HIPP will help us to incentivize mixed-income housing developments that will preserve the option for teachers, construction workers, service employees, and others to live and work in Nashville.”

HIPP was developed to work in concert with the Metro Council’s Inclusionary Housing Policy, BL2016-133, while also operating as a stand-alone incentive program for apartment owners and developers in Nashville. The Freeman Webb Company, which has experience administering programs for MDHA and other affordable housing developments throughout the county, was recently awarded the contract to serve as the administrative agency for the program.

Under the program, developers wishing to take advantage of the incentive program would need to provide affordable or workforce housing at a rate that is equal to or less than 30% of an individual or family’s household income. For example, utilizing the 2015 figures, the maximum monthly rental for a family of four making 60% of MHI, or $35,882 would be $897. For a family of four at the workforce level making $71,764, or 120% of MHI, the maximum rent would be $1,794.

Developers who meet these terms can apply for a grant to cover the difference between the price of market-rate housing and the price of the affordable or workforce housing units. For example, a developer who has market-rate apartments at $1,500 a month and offers comparable below-market housing units for $1,200 would get a grant for the difference of $300 per unit. For new construction the total grant will not exceed the cap of 50% of the increase in property tax value. The program also allows for existing residential units to be converted with the total grant not exceeding the cap of 20% of the property tax value.

“Having diverse housing options is critical to Nashville’s continued success,” said Adriane Harris, Senior Advisor –Affordable Housing. “We’re excited to announce an additional tool for developers to assist in increasing the housing supply needed to retain our teachers, hospitality workers, recent college graduates, and other residents who simply need a place to call home.”

The Metro Council approved a supplemental appropriation of $500,000 that will allow the program to operate for the remainder of FY16-17. Mayor Barry has proposed $2 million in the FY17-18 budget to continue the pilot program into the next year. For housing managers and developers seeking more information or wishing to apply, please visit http://hipp.nashville.gov

My Comment:  While Nashville's Inclusionary Housing Policy is likely to be invalidated by legislation working its way through the State legislature, the Housing Incentive Pilot Program would not be affected. The two policies were designed to work together. The Inclusionary Housing Policy was the stick and the Housing Incentive Pilot Program was the carrot. For more on this issue see, State legislature to stop Nashville's rental price-fixing policy from taking effect.
.

Top Stories

State legislature to stop Nashville's rental price-fixing policy from taking effect.

Thanks to the State legislature, Nashville again is being stymied in becoming the beacon of liberalism it would like to be. It we are not yet the San Francisco of the South, it is thanks to the State legislature. In September of 2016 the Metro Council passed SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2016-133  which  was a rental housing price-fixing measure often called "inclusionary zoning." The bill passed unanimously.  While there is a small handful of self-identified Republicans in the Council, they almost always vote just like everyone else.  This would have been an opportunity for those Republicans to take a principled stand against a very liberal proposal, but they did not. The "conservatives" in the metro council routinely vote for things like limousine price-fixing and rental price-fixing and corporate welfare and seldom take a stand against Nashville's liberal policies.

Proponents of the Council's inclusionary zoning bill will tell you that it is really not inclusionary zoning, because technically it does not mandate that a developer build affordable housing.  Before Nashville passed its version of inclusionary zoning, the State legislature had already passed a bill to prohibit cities from mandating that a portion of any new construction had to be set aside as "affordable."  The law tried to make it clear that a city could not mandate directly or indirectly that a portion of housing had to be set aside for work-force or affordable housing.

Nashville's mayor and metro council and planning bureaucrats thought they would work around the intend of the State legislature.  The plan devised by Nashville did not mandate directly but set conditions that made it almost impossible to develop rental housing without  sitting aside affordable units. Nashville's version of inclusionary zoning, scheduled to take effect in June of this year, said that any developer seeking to build five or more rental units and who requested a zoning variance of any kind would have to include a percentage of affordable housing.  A variance may allow greater height, for instance, than allowed by the standard zoning.  In order to make the math work and the development possible almost all developers of rental complexes have to get a variance.

Glen Casada is sponsoring a bill that would prohibit Nashville's version of inclusionary zoning. Below is the bill summary from the State legislative website.

Bill Summary

Present law:

(1) Prohibits a local governmental unit from enacting, maintaining, or enforcing any zoning regulation, requirement, or condition of development imposed by land use or zoning ordinances, resolutions, or regulations or pursuant to any special permit, special exception, or subdivision plan that requires the direct or indirect allocation of a percentage of existing or newly constructed private residential or commercial rental units for long-term retention as affordable or workforce housing; and
(2) Authorizes a local governmental unit to create or implement an incentive-based program designed to increase the construction and rehabilitation of moderate or lower-cost private residential or commercial rental units.

This bill rewrites (1) and (2) above as follows:

(1) Prohibits a local government unit, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof, from enacting, maintaining, or enforcing any ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule, or other requirement that:

(A) Requires the direct or indirect allocation of existing or newly constructed private residential or commercial rental units to be sold or rented at below market rates;
(B) Conditions any zoning change, variance, building permit, or any change in land use restrictions or requirements, on the allocation of existing or newly constructed private residential or commercial rental units to be sold or rented at below market rates; or
(C) Requires a person to waive the person's constitutionally protected rights related to real property in order that the local government unit can increase the number of existing or newly constructed private residential or commercial rental units that would be available for purchase or lease at below market rates within the jurisdiction of the local government unit; and

(2) Authorizes a local government unit to create or implement a purely voluntary incentive-based program designed to increase the construction or rehabilitation of workforce or affordable private residential or commercial rental units, which may include providing local tax incentives, subsidization, real property or infrastructure assistance, or any other incentive that makes construction of affordable housing more economical, so long as no power or authority granted to the local government unit to regulate zoning or land use planning is used to incentivize or leverage a person to develop, build, sell, or rent housing at below market value.

This bill declares as void and unenforceable any local regulations that are in conflict with this bill.

I have spoken with Glen Casada about this issue from time to time and am pleased that he has taken the action he has taken.  If there is one person who gets the credit for keeping Nashville a relatively sane city, it is Glen Casada. 

I was never convinced that Nashville's version of inclusionary zoning would take effect.  Even before the Council passed the plan, Casada and other legislators where aware of what was happening.  Also, if the State would not have acted, a law suit would have likely been filed challenging the legality of the measure. State legislation is a much more certain way to resolve this than a lawsuit. Casada's bill seems likely to pass.  It has already passed the house and is scheduled for a Senate committee action tomorrow.

For everything I have posted reporting on this issue follow this link.

Top Stories

State legislature my undo Metro's "inclusionary zoning" price-fixing scheme.

by Joey Garrison , USA Today Network - Tennessee - A landmark Nashville ordinance passed last year to spur more workforce housing in new residential development faces the threat of repeal this year in the Tennessee General Assembly.

House Republican Majority Leader Glen Casada and Sen. Ferrell Haile, R-Gallatin, introduced legislation Thursday that singles out the Nashville law. It would outlaw local governments from requiring that developers include below-market rate units in exchange for greater development rights.(link)

Top Stories

Beacon Issues Second Warning to Nashville Metro Council

BY BRADEN H. BOUCEK, The Beacon Center, December 8, 2016  -Today, we, along with Southeastern Legal Foundation, wrote the Nashville council for a second time regarding their affordable housing mandates. If this is the first you have heard of the issue, an affordable housing mandate forces developers of residences to use a complicated formula set by the city to sell their homes at below-market prices. In other words, the city is forcing people to lose money on something they sell. All of this is just to address an alleged crisis in affordable housing that does not exist.

This is price control, pure and simple. It is unnecessary. It does more harm than good. It does nothing to address the larger problem even in the best of cases. And even if none of this was true, forcing a property owner to lose money on homes that they build makes as much sense as addressing hunger by making a grocer lose money on the produce they sell.

We have written this second letter in the hopes that Nashville will fix the law. The law is illegal and unconstitutional for the reasons we explain at length in the letter. So ultimately Nashville will be forced to fix the law after ordered by a court. Responsible lawmaking can avoid this. We are happy to help.

There’s a particular reason to revisit the law. It was only supposed to be about residential apartment units. Everyone involved believed this to be true. Yet, buried in the law is an easily overlooked loophole that demands that “all proposed residential developments” who trigger the law “shall comply.” Nashville officials have told concerned parties to ignore that “shall” because the law is not supposed to impose the same obligations on residential units. The plain language says different. If this is a mistake, Nashville should fix it.

For us, litigation is a last resort. But when cities are willfully indifferent to the rights of others and won’t change even when warned, there is no choice. Litigation, however unfortunate, is sometimes necessary. It is all too easy for lawmakers to figure people will just bend instead of spending the time and money to protect their constitutional rights (which is why public interest litigation is so important). They may be right in most cases. This is not how a constitutional republic is supposed to work.

We hope for the responsible consideration of Nashville lawmakers.
You can read the full text of the second letter here.

My Comment: I am immensely pleased with the work of the Beacon Center. They are one of the organizations I financially support.  I appreciate their successful efforts to combat Nashville government's progressive agenda and defend our constitutional rights. To learn more about The Beacon Center, to get on their mailing list,  or make a contribution, follow this link. 

Top Stories

To stop Nashville from becoming "the San Francisco of the South," conservatives must engage and get organized.

The following is a report from an organization supporting inclusionary zoning urging their supporters to be ready to spring into action to advance the inclusionary zoning bill that is on tomorrow night's council agenda, should the bill appear to be in trouble.  I think it is worthwhile that those on the right, know what their adversaries on the left or up to, so that is why I am posting the below communications.  A VOICE is a progressive activist group and one of the leading agents responsible for Nashville's leftward tilt in the last few years.  

While the Chamber of Commerce and some others will work to oppose inclusionary zoning and while ad hoc groups spring up from time to time to do things like save the fairgrounds or stop the AMP, there is no consistent conservative activist group working day in and day out to stop the progressive agenda and advance a conservative agenda. 

When a mayor proposes a tax hike, conservatives will rally for one council meeting.  That is only about once every four or eight years. Conservatives contributed and worked for the election of David Fox, during the last mayoral election and some conservatives ran for council and worked in council campaigns, but liberals work day in and day out without ceasing, always campaigning for more government interference and more government spending. Every year at budget time, numerous advocates for greater government spending take to the podium and not a single conservative speaks for lower taxes and cutting government waste.

Notice that the communication below says "hundreds" of emails and phone calls were made to support inclusionary zoning.  That has an impact.  I doubt there were not half a dozen calls in opposition.  By our inactivity, we kind of get the type of government we deserve. 

Luckily conservatives hold the seats of power at the state legislature and some of what Metro Nashville might like to do can be thwarted at the state level.  Even if inclusionary zoning is passed locally, there is a chance it will be ruled to violate a state law.  The State can only protect Nashville from its leftward tilt so far, however.  If we really want to stop Nashville from becoming "the San Francisco of the South," conservatives must engage and get organized.

A VOICE Steering Committee …

 Sent this out tonight … hope you can do the same to your own professional/social lists … if not tonight early AM.

 A VOICE For the Reduction of Poverty

Affordable Housing Campaign Update

With so much happening on the Affordable Housing front, thought we would send this summary out just to circle the wagons a bit.  While there are several pieces of legislation A VOICE has called for and helped influence … what we are immediately concerned with is Inclusionary Zoning Bill 133 (which addresses where affordable and workforce housing will be placed) and Incentives Bill 342 (which legislates incentives to builders to create housing for working people in need).   Both bills address workforce housing, are now tracking simultaneously for adoption, and if adopted represent a significant first step to addressing our housing dilemma.  Soooo … here are some bits and pieces just to keep you up-to-date:

1.    First of all … applause/applause and much appreciation goes out to you, our membership, for responding so robustly to last week’s Call to Action.  Last week we asked you to contact members of City Council in support of Inclusionary Zoning Bill 133, as well as join us at its Second Reading and Public Hearing.  You response was significant and overwhelming … a good part of the reason the bill moved forward with unanimous affirmation from the Council floor.  Council members reported that they received literally hundreds of emails and phone calls in support of this measure and were impressed that 100+ were in attendance at the Hearing in support of this bill and 40 among us spoke in favor.  Registering your voice with ours most certainly sent a strong message.  Thank you!!!

2.    Inclusionary Zoning Bill 133 now heads to Council for a third and final reading on Tuesday, September 6^th.  The A VOICE Steering Committee will monitor any significant changes recommended between now and this final vote.  We remain concerned that forces opposed to this bill (primarily developers and the Nashville Regional Chamber of Commerce) will continue to petition Council to water it down, something we will continue to oppose.  Should we need you to share your voice again on this bill later this month we will let you know. 

3.    Inclusionary Zoning Bill 133 is now tracking on the same schedule as the Incentives Bill 342 – the incentives based bill Council asked the Mayor’s office to take a lead on.  The City Council Ad Hoc Affordable Housing Committee will be meeting tomorrow (Monday) to review and perhaps modify this bill before sending it to Council for a full vote on Tuesday.  If we find there are substantive changes we do not favor … we may be reaching out to you late on Monday evening to raise your voice regarding Bill 342 as you did for Bill 133.  We are hoping that doing so will be unnecessary but wanted to put you on hold “just in case” we need you again.  If we do … expect another email from us tomorrow night to immediately act on.

4.    There are a few other pieces of legislation you should be aware of that will hopefully move forward, as part of an Affordable and Workforce Housing package.  First of all, earlier this month Council passed a resolution calling for the Ad Hoc Task Force and the Mayor’s Office to prepare a Comprehensive Plan for Affordable and Workforce Housing.  A VOICE will continue to participate in this process as it unfolds.  Other legislation being considered by Council will allow for the creation of PILOT grants to encourage the development of affordable and workforce housing and modification of the rules that govern the Barnes Housing Trust Fund.

While the steps Council is considering are definitely movement in the right direction, much work lies ahead for us.  We need to continue to lobby for aggressive funding of the Barnes Trust Fund and assure that dedicated monies for affordable housing are devoted to that purpose.  We must continually keep the demand for housing for those with the least among us at the top of our city’s agenda.  We will keep you informed of these issues as well as other issues related to the reduction of poverty.  In the meantime … please be on the alert for other Calls for Action.  Please know how much we appreciate partnering with you. 

Thank you …

The A VOICE Steering Committee

Top Stories

(final update) What happened at the 8-2-16 Council meeting? Rent control/Inclusionary zoning advances, Fontanel expansion approved. Free parking for old people dies.

 
The Rent Control/Inclusionary zoning bill, SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2016-133, was the hot topic of the evening. It passed second reading by voice vote and was then deferred one meeting. It will be debated on third reading. . The inclusionary zoning proposal was on public hearing and had more than 40 people speak on the bill, many more proponents than opponents. Proponents included those involved in affordable housing development and liberal advocacy groups and several members of the clergy.  Opponents included the Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Nashville Apartment Association and the Nashville Association of Realtors. To view the public hearing on the bill see timestamp 9:20 to 2:22:02.

The proposal would both mandate and incentivize Inclusionary Housing. It would require that any developer who builds more than five rental units and who seeks additional development entitlements beyond that permitted by the current base zoning  would have to set aside a certain percentage of the units as "work force housing" or "affordable housing."  I do not know  how many developers who develop more than five units must currently seek variances to current base zoning. The variances or entitlements beyond base zoning may be for things such as greater height or greater density.  I am trying to determine if most developers must now get variances beyond what is allowed by current base zoning in order to make development feasible.  I suspect they do. If it is such that a developer can not not make a development work without a variance, then this is a bill that really relies much more on  punitive measures than incentive measures

Under this proposal, to partially offset the loss of profit the developer would have made had he not been required to build "affordable" units,  the developer would be given a grant.  This bill applies only to rental units, not units for sale as was originally considered.  The set-aside units would have to be maintained as affordable rental units for 15 years.  This very likely violates a state law which prohibits rent control.  No doubt if this passes it will be challenged in court.

I oppose this bill. It will likely cause developers to develop outside Davidson County which will increase urban sprawl and contribute to our traffic woes. It will lessen financing for development. It will slow the development of new units of rental housing, which may push rental prices even higher. Where it has been enacted, inclsionary zoning has produced very few units of affordable housing. The mayor has a much more attractive proposal in the works that would  truly be voluntary in nature and would rely on providing grants to developers who develop affordable housing units. That is a much better approach.  For those who want a deeper understanding of this issue beyond what I have reported, I suggest you read the bill and the staff analysis. Here is the Tennessean's report on the issue: Affordable housing advocates pack council meeting to demand action.

To access the council agenda, council staff analysis and my agenda commentary follow this link. This is a long meeting at almost four hours. I am only hitting the high points of the meeting.

The prayer is a song by Danny Flowers an award winning song writer and artist. The song is Hush Hush Somebody is Calling my Name, an old slave song from the 1860's. He performs it acappella and it is powerful and chilling. Beautiful!

Below are other bills on Public Hearing of interest:

BILL NO. BL2016-265  which makes modest changes to the process for canceling a Planned Unit Development, making it easier to do so, is deferred one meeting.

BILL NO. BL2016-293 in Scott Davis's district which would rezone 54 acres, comprised of many parcels, from various current zonings to R6-A which is a medium density residential district is withdrawn. I oppose taking away a persons property rights and would not support this unless it had the approval of those whose properties are being rezoned. I was never sure if this had the approval of the property owners whose properties would have been rezoned. This bill was disapproved by the planning commission.

All Resolutions pass. None of them are of much interest.
All bills on First Reading pass without discussion as is customary.

Below are the Bills on Second Reading of interest:

BILL NO. BL2016-239 which would provide free parking for old people was back on the agenda after being deferred from the June 7th meeting. It is deferred indefinitely.  This was a bad bill and I hope it is dead for good. I never understood the logic of this. Why are rich elderly people more deserving of free parking than poor young people?


BILL NO. BL2016-334 is an expansion of the PILOT program (payment in lieu of taxes) for use as a tool to develop more affordable housing. It passes.

BILL NO. BL2016-329  makes 60 changes to the regs governing taxi cabs. The staff analysis calls these changes "housekeeping," but anytime you make that many changes there will be controversy.  Council member Gilmore voices concern about some of the changes in the bill. It passes.


BILL NO. BL2016-257 would allow Codes to issue stop-work orders against illegal, non-permitted short-term rentals and increase the ban on an STR permit at such a property to three years. Now if one is caught operating a short-term rental without a permit, the ban on getting a permit is one year. The Tennessean explains this at this link: Nashville may ramp up penalty for Airbnb permit violators. The bill is deferred indefinitely "by rule" but the sponsor announces he is putting it back on the agenda.

Bills on Third Reading: 

BILL NO. BL2016-282 is the bill to allow Fontanel to expand and build a 136- room hotel. This is of little interest to the general pubic but has been a hot issue is Whites Creek. It passes. Here is The Tennessean's report on the approval of the plan for Fontanel: Fontanel expansion clears Metro Council by two votes.   This is a bill disapproved by the Planning Commission. Councilman Sledge makes a good argument that voting for this plan undermines the integrity of the General Plan which resulted from the NashvilleNext process. Councilman Scott Davis calls into question the importance that should be given to NashvilleNext. I don't have a very informed opinion on this zoning proposal and have not followed it closely, but tend to think that if I was in the Council I would vote for it.  I do think NashvilleNext was a sham and am not persuaded when one uses NashvilleNext as a justification for their position.  Being a disapproved bill it took 27 votes to pass; it got 28. To see the discussion see timestamp 3:19:20 - 3:53:45.

Top Stories

State Senate approves ban on mandatory inclusionary zoning

In a move to stop local governments from adopting mandatory so-called "inclusionary zoning" regulations, the State Senate voted 26-3 yesterday to approve Senate Bill 1636, which would prohibit such policies.  The bill would prohibit mandating that builders build a certain number of affordable units but would not prohibit cities from using incentives that reward builders who include affordable units.

Mandatory inclusionary zoning policies usually mandate that if a builder is approved to build new housing or convert a rental complex to a condo complex, that a certain percent of the units must be set aside as "affordable."  Affordable may mean different things to different people but it is generally agreed that housing is "affordable" if it does not exceed 31% of a persons gross monthly income. Most inclusionary zoning regulations attempt to set aside a certain number of units that will be affordable for a family making 80% of the area median income but some cities require it to be affordable at much lower levels of income.

As an example of what price point we are speaking of, in Nashville 80% of the area median income for a family for four is $53,500. Doing the math ($53,500/12 months x 31%) means this family could afford a house or rent payment of $1383 a month. Given the current prevailing interest rates of 4% on a 30-year fixed mortgage that would finance about a $220,000 house.  That payment would include principal, interest, taxes, insurance, mortgage insurance premium  and any mandatory condo or HOA fees. So if metro had a bill that said 14 percent of all units in a development had to be affordable, and the developers was building 100 units of housing that are priced at $400,000, to sell 14 of them at a price of $220,000 would mean the developer would have to increase the price on all of the other units by about $29,000 in order to generate the same revenue.  The effect of this is that some people who previously could have been able to afford a $400,000 house may not be able to afford a $420,000 house.

If the requirement is that 18% be priced affordable, the price for all other houses in the development would have to be even greater. If the requirement should be that the house be affordable for a family of four making 60% or the area median income, the price of the remaining houses would have to be even higher. If the requirement was that the set aside units be affordable for a family of three or two rather than a family or four, the price would have to be much lower still for the set aside units. An inclusionary zoning policy is essentially taking someones property by forcing them to sell it at a price lower than for what they want to sell it.

Some unanswered questions, or at least questions which I do not know the answer to, is do the "affordable" units have to be of the same size and quality of the affordable units?  Also, when speaking of upscale condo's in a downtown area, the amenities may include valet services, dog walking services, concierge services, swimming pool, gym and fresh cut flowers. Is the person who gets one of the set-aside affordable units entitled to all of the same amenities?  If all of the other units have granite counter tops does the set-aside units also get granite counter tops?

Rental price controls were already illegal in Tennessee, so when Nashville considered an inclusionary zoning proposal they were essentially talking about price control in the homes-for-sale market. In July 2015 the Metro Council passed an ordinance that directed the Planning Commission to develop an inclusionary zoning ordinance to present to the Council. That directives said such rules should establish that 14% of the units in any new development or renovation of existing developments or conversion of existing rental developments to for-purchase units, be set aside as "affordable."  It defined "affordable," as affordable to someone making between 60% and 120% of the area median area income.

Since that time, the Planning Commission hired a consultant and  held hearings and developed a proposal that while still bad, was not near as bad as it could be.  It depended more on incentives than mandates. It shifted some incentives that currently promote "green" and energy efficient development and some incentives that promote other desired objectives to incentives that reward developers for setting aside units that are priced to be affordable.

The result of what the Planning Commission has proposed it that no one is happy.  The Chamber of Commerce and several other pro-development organizations have taken a stand against it because it does too much and places too much of a burden on developers and the liberal groups that advocate for the poor and many in the affordable housing community do not like it because it does not go far enough.

I am pleased to see this bill advance in the Senate. On every occasion I have had to speak one-on-one with a State legislator I have urged them to pass such a prohibition.  Inclusionary zoning is simply wrong and it is also ineffective. To help some people, it prices other people out of the market and in practice where it is in place it has produced very few units of affordable housing. Some studies show that it actually can make housing less affordable. Nashville will still probably grapple with some sort of proposal that will be called "inclusionary zoning" but if what passed the senate passes the house, at least it will not be a mandatory program.

For more on this latest development see, Tennessee Lawmakers Move To Block Mandatory Affordable Housing Requirements.

For much more on Nashville's effort to impose inclusionary zoning, follow this link. 

Top Stories

Draft Housing Policy and Inclusionary Zoning Feasibility Study report now online

3/18/2016, Metro Gov. website - The Metro Planning Department has released the Draft Housing Policy and Inclusionary Zoning Feasibility Study report. The contents of this report reflect not only the research and analysis specified in the city’s request for proposal, but also analysis of specific relevant concerns, data, and issues that arose throughout the process of stakeholder involvement. In terms of involvement, this process included: three meetings with stakeholders (a group of 50 industry representatives, elected officials, developers, and advocates); two meetings with the Planning Commission, which were open to the public; a public open house; individual and group interviews with stakeholders; as well as targeted subject focus groups.
Read the Draft Housing Policy and Inclusionary Zoning Feasibility Study Report
Inclusionary Housing Discussion March 21
Inclusionary Housing Public Meeting March 22

Top Stories

Chamber and others in pro development coalition expresses concern about proposed inclusionary zoning bill.

A coalition of pro development organizations including the Chamber of Commerce, The Greater Nashville Association of Realtors,  and the Greater Nashville Association of Apartment Association have written letter to the Metro Council expressing concerns over the proposed inclusionary zoning proposal before the Council. 

The letter says the coalition shares the desire for a new housing policy that addresses affordable housing, but that "working toward the wisest and most effective policy is not possible on the fast track timetable proposed by the legislative sponsors. " Below is a copy of that letter. 

To read The Tennessean's coverage of this development follow this link:  Nashville chamber, others: Slow down affordable housing plan.

Top Stories

Inclusionary housing public meeting

What: Community meeting regarding the Inclusionary Housing Policy and Feasibility Study and proposed legislation.
When: 3/22/2016,  5:30 PM - 7:30 PM
Where: Location Sonny West Conference Center 700 Second Avenue South Nashville, TN 37210

Top Stories

Update. What happened at the Council meeting of 2-2-16: PILOT to fund affordable housing, no new reg for historic home events, ....

... $10M more for Meharry money pit, inclusionary zoning bills deferred on first reading, Human Relations strengthening bill deferred.



To see my commentary on the agenda a link to the agenda and agenda analysis, follow this link. There are a lot of zoning bills on public hearing and I don't report on them unless they have an impact beyond one community or prove extremely controversial, so if you are particularly interested in a zoning issue, don't rely on my analysis or meeting summary.

Following the prayer and pledge, the meeting starts with a presentation about heart disease and the agenda is not taken up until time stamp 8:23. Below is a summary of the meeting calling attention to the most important actions.
Charles Robert Bone's appointment to the board of MDHA is a approved and all other mayoral appointments to Boards and Commissions are approved. The other appointments were to the NECAT  board.

• BILL NO. BL2015-96 by Councilman Withers which would restrict all “Historic home events” to enclosed areas is withdrawn without explanation. Good. That was a bad bill. An explanation would have been nice.
• BILL NO. BL2016-107 by Councilman Anthony Davis which would expand the Inglewood Place - Jackson Park Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to 454 additional acres has people wearing green "Preserve Inglewood" tee shirts speak in favor of the bill, and several people speak against.  It is approved. To see the discussion on this bill see time stamp 18:15- 41:45.
• BILL NO. BL2016-109 which is a rezoning proposal for property on Kenilwood Drive to allow the construction of large self-story facility generates some negative comments from the public and passes second reading. See time stamp 47:15 -1:14:01 to view the discussion.
• RESOLUTION NO. RS2016-86 which authorizes MDHA to  enter into a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) Agreement with a developer, developing a 240 unit apartment complex of affordable housing is approved on a voice vote. This is the first of its kind program in Nashville to build affordable housing using this tool.  
• RESOLUTION NO. RS2016-100 which request an addition $10 million dollars in operating subsidy for Metro hospital in addition to the $35 million dollar operating subsidy in the FY16 budget is approved unanimously. I am disappointed and think Metro should totally get out of the hospital business.  I am disappointing that none of the council members who identify as conservatives took a stand on this issue. Since poor people can go to the hospital of their choice, there is no need for Metro to have a charity hospital. While passing unanimous, the council does require the Hospital Authority to report report back to the Council on their financial status and questions the timing of the request. If Council had not approved this expenditure, the hospital would not have been able to meet their next payroll. Metro privatized the two nursing homes it used to own and should do the same thing with Meharry Hospital. The way I see it, the only reason we have a Metro General Hospital now is because it is a payoff to the Black Community. Metro General is also know as Meharry Hospital and is the teaching hospital of Meharry Medical College. Meharry Medical College is a Black institution and the Black community takes pride in it. All candidates for Mayor promised they would continue to support it. Due to the desire to curry favor with the Black community, politicians still continue to poor money into the Meharry Hosptial money pit despite there being no logic to funding a charity hospital.  If I am missing something and there is logic to funding Meharry, I would like for someone to explain it. Without a Metro charity hospital, is there anyone served who would not otherwise be served?  Not all cities have charity hospitals. How do cities without charity hospitals care for their indigent? To view the discussion, see time stamp 139:05- 1:56:54. To read The Tennessean report on the issue see Council approves emergency $10M for Metro General Hospital.
• RESOLUTION NO. RS2016-101  refinancing some metro bonds to a more favorable interest rate freeing up some debt capacity, passes unanimously. This sounds like a good deal to me.
• RESOLUTION NO. RS2016-102  which takes out the north shed portion of Farmers Market is deferred two meetings. It is revealed that the $4M that the State is going to pay Metro for releasing the northern sheds, will not flow back to the Metro General fund but will go to subsidize the operation of the Farmers Market. I do not like that and think the money should go to the General Fund and any additional subsidizing of Farmers Market should have to come before the Metro Council. In my view the Farmers Market should not have to be subsidized. I like Farmers Market but think it should be able to cover its own operating cost. Kudos to Council member Jacobia Dowell for speaking out on this issue.  
• RESOLUTION NO. RS2016-113 is a memorizing resolution asking the Davidson County Delegation to oppose House Bill 1412 sponsored by Rep. Mark Pody which responds to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges which forced all states to grant license for same-sex marriage, by saying the Supreme Court's decision in Tennessee is "unauthoritative, void and of no effect." I am no friend of gay marriage but do think HB 1412 is a bad bill. RS2016-113 passes on a voice vote. 
• BILL NO. BL2016-133 and BILL NO. BL2016-134 on First Reading are the inclusionary zoning ordinances and they are deferred indefinitely. Almost never is a bill on First Reading not passed.  For more on this issue, read The Tennessean's report at this link: Affordable housing plan delayed in Metro Council  
• BILL NO. BL2016-99 which would strengthen the Human Relations Commission by removing the term limits for members of the Commission is deferred one meeting.

Top Stories

The Folly of HB1632/SB1636

Josh Stites

by Josh Stites - In my four years on the Council I was considered a reliable conservative vote. But, it always bothered me when people assumed they knew how I would vote simply because an issue was declared “right” or “left”. In our culture of sound bites and snap judgments, consideration of every possible alternative is considered by many a weakness. But, I think the poverty-laced inclusionary zoning discussion is just one of these issues that doesn’t fit nicely into any box. For those who want background on the issue in Nashville you can go here, here, or here.

This week legislation was introduced on the state level to prohibit any local government from enacting legislation requiring inclusionary zoning. I’m not opposed to the state stepping into local affairs when it’s necessary to maintain a cohesive statewide business environment or protect citizens from harmful actions of a local government, but I think HB1632 passes neither of these tests. HB1632 is simply a Williamson County representative’s response to a small number of his financial supporters who themselves have a business interest in the zoning laws in Nashville. I get that and it’s nothing new. It happens across the aisle and at all levels of government. But, that doesn’t make it right or a good idea.

But my frustration is that Casada uses free market reasoning for his bill. I’m a big free market guy. And I agree that the free market could fix our affordable housing problem. Quickly. But, to those who have ever tried developing land or building anything in any big city, they know that land development does not happen in a free market. On the contrary it is a tightly controlled market by unelected but often well-meaning bureaucrats at the local planning departmentand the political and sometimes not well-meaning appointees of the Planning Commission. State law doesn’t just permit such meddling into the free market of local real estate - it requires it in Title 13, Chapter 4 of the state code. Each planning department, by state law, is required to create a general plan every ten years or so. This general plan serves as the tool by which planning departments dictate where a developer can build housing and what type of housing can be built. If Casada really wants to champion free markets, sponsor a bill prohibiting zoning. It’s worked well for Houston.

In Nashville the current plan (Nashville Next) generally calls for affordable and workforce housing to be concentrated in pockets along the major corridors of Nashville. Think: Murfreesboro Road, Lebanon Pike, Charlotte Ave, Dickerson Pike, Franklin Road, West End Avenue, Hillsboro Road. I’m not a class warfare conspiracist, but I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that the number of affordable units built along Hillsboro Pike and West End in the next decade won’t be enough to house the workers required for one downtown hotel. This “free” market that Casada hides behind in defense of his bill is anything but. It’s law already that the local government has the authority to dictate where affordable housing units are to be built, why all of a sudden does he care how many?

And the head scratcher for me is this; when affordable housing is torn down to make way for newer more expensive homes or other uses, where do those people needing affordable housing go? They move to where the affordable houses are - that is gradually further and further from the urban core and ultimately out past the county line. Developers who don’t want to contend with the burdensome regulations and requirements of the Metro Planning Commission are going to go to where land is cheap. So all the suburb representatives and senators, including Senator Haile of Sumner who is sponsor of SB1636, should be delighted that Metro wants to keep the poverty associated with affordable housing in Davidson County.

Advocates of IZ make a convincing case that the worst thing for someone growing up in poverty is to be around more people in poverty. Therefore, concentrating all of the poverty in certain areas by way of mandating the small areas where affordable housing exists is truly an institutionalized disservice to the least among us. The poor we will always have with us, but how we treat them and the opportunities we give them to advance says a lot about our character. And if you want to read more about that you can go here, here or here.

While I have a different view and am pleased to see legislation introduced that would ban mandatory inclusionary zoning, I am pleased to present an alternative point view from my friend, former Councilman Josh Stites. Rod 

Top Stories

State legislation would ban housing price-fixing, mandatory inclusionary zoning.

Bill would ban housing mandates 

Measure’s aim: Block city requirements that builders set aside low-income housing 

by JOEY GARRISON The Tennessean, Jan. 20, 2016 -  Some Nashville poverty advocates continue to push for the creation of a new Metro policy that would mandate affordably priced homes be included in new residential projects.

But newly filed state legislation would prevent cities from adopting such a plan, known as mandatory inclusionary zoning.

 As he promised in the fall, Tennessee Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin, has introduced a bill that would prohibit local governments from requiring that a certain percentage of existing or newly constructed private residential units be reserved for affordable or workforce housing. Sen. Ferrell Haile, R-Gallatin, has signed on as the sponsor of the Senate version of the bill.

Tennessee already has a law that says local municipalities can’t control the cost of rent. Whether that restricts local governments from adopting a zoning policy that mandates affordable housing units among rental properties has been debated. (link)

Top Stories

Planning Commission hearing on Inclusionary Zoning.

This is an eight-hour meeting. I don't think anyone wants to watch the full meeting. The discussion of the inclusionary zoning starts at time-stamp 36:40 and ends at 3:45:20. To summarize the comments, developers don't like it because it goes too far and advocates of affordable housing don't like because it does not go far enough. No one speaks in favor of the proposal. For access to the Planning Commission agenda and staff reports, follow this link. To see the Planning Commission staff report on the proposed inculusionary zoning text see page 5 through page 41.

At time stamp 42:50 the staff begins the explanation of the incusionary zoning  proposal and completes this explanation at 1:02:30. One thing interesting in this proposal is that the set aside affordable units must be similar in size and number of bedrooms to the non set-aside units. So if the units in a condo sale for $500,000 dollars and the bedrooms are very spacious, the units set aside as "affordable" must also be at least 80% as spacious. I have a question: If the non-set-aside units include concierge service, a gym, a spa, a pool, dog-walking service and fresh cut flowers every day, do the set-aside units also get these services and amenities?  If there is a hefty condo fee for the non-set aside units, do the set-aside units have to pay the same fee? Is that monthly condo fee included in calculating affordability?  I don't know.

Following the staff explanation, the chairman ask for those who wish to speak in favor of the proposal to come forward. No one does. No one supports the proposal. Opponents are then permitted to speak. Proponents of affordable housing express displeasure saying they want a mandatory program. I am surprised that more people did not speak. NOAH and VOICE representatives spoke but no mainstream housing advocates spoke. No one speaks in opposition from a pro-free-market position. The only developer who speaks is former Metro Councilman Roy Dale.

Following the pubic hearing, the members of the Commission discuss the proposal. There is some interesting discussion. One thing is very clear; without a large Metro subsidy this proposal will simply not work. Those unit build to be affordable for someone at 100% of area median income (AMI) would require more subsidy than those built to be affordable for someone at 80% AMI and so on. Also, this proposal would not address the very low income or the needs of the homeless. This proposal does not and cannot impose rent control, due to state legislation that prevents a city from imposing rent control. This proposal would not incentivize affordable housing in areas that already have adequate affordable housing. To get developers to seek the density or height bonuses proposed in this plan, it takes away established bonuses. This proposal is a "voluntary" inclusionary program but designed to force a developer to seek the bonuses (see time stamp 3:02:00). This is a very complex proposal and while I have a general understanding of what is proposed, I do not fully understand all of the details of the setback, parking, and height bonuses of the proposal. It would take some study to digest all of what is proposed. The proposal does nothing to preserve existing affordable housing stock nor to encourage greater housing density throughout the county. The commission votes unanimously to recommend that the Metro Council disapprove the proposed voluntary inclusionary zoning policy.

Top Stories

Planning Commission rejects "Inclusionary zoning" affordable housing plan. No one likes it.

Affordable housing plan dealt blow by planning commission

by Joey Garrison, The Tennessean, Jan. 15, 2016 - A proposed system of financial incentives designed to spur affordable housing in Nashville was dealt a blow Thursday by the Metro Planning Commission, which voted to reject the plan as they called for more community input on the issue.
After nearly four hours of debate — one that saw both affordable housing advocates and developers vent concerns with the plan — the commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Metro Council disapprove the proposed voluntary inclusionary zoning policy.

Their hope is that the council, which is set to consider the legislation next month and has ultimate say, will send the bill back to the commission, which would then initiate a public engagement process on how to solve affordable housing......

"Half of the folks are thinking we should have gone a lot further, and others think we're crazy for going down this path at all," planning commissioner Stewart Clifton said. "So, there's a certain amount of inevitability that the general public is not going to be for this." (read more)

Nashville Affordable Housing Policy Criticized, Disapproved, Likely Delayed 

By Tony Gonzalez, Nashville Public Radio,  Jan 15, 2016- Nashville’s new affordable housing proposal was dealt a blow Thursday night after three hours of criticisms from poverty advocates, developers and planning commissioners. 

In the end, the commission refused to endorse the affordability blueprint offered by planning staff. During a public hearing, no one spoke in favor of the plan.(read more)

I am among those who think we are crazy for going down this path at all. I am pleased to see the Planning commission reject this proposal.While Nashville's proposed version of inclusionary zoning is a voluntary incentive-based plan and is not a bad as mandatory plans it is still a bad plan which would most likely slow the development of new housing. 

Top Stories

Nashville planners seek delay on affordable housing proposal

by Joey Garrison, The Tennessean, Jan.12, 2016 - Metro Nashville planners have finalized a proposal for a new system of financial incentives that would seek to encourage developers to build more affordable housing in Davidson County. But they don’t want the Metro Council to vote on the measures just yet.  ....the planning department has asked the planning commission to approve... officials have recommended that the council delay consideration until Nashvillians have more time to weigh in. .... proposal hinges on perhaps as much as $10 million in recurring funds that would need to be carved out in Metro’s upcoming budget. .....Planners want more discussion on one of the key elements of the proposal: the elimination of bonuses that are offered to developers who provide public parking, pursue eco-friendly building standards and promote mixed-use development. This bonus system would be replaced by one focused on incentives for affordable housing. (read more)

For more on this topic also see,  Metro planners recommend affordable housing incentives.

Top Stories

Commission to review proposed inclusionary zoning policy

By Linda Bryant, Nashville Post, January 13, 2016 - Nashville’s legislation on affordable and workforce housing faces a key hurdle Thursday when the Metropolitan Planning Commission meets to consider approval of long-awaited inclusionary zoning legislation.

But even as the Metro Planning Department’s IZ proposal moves forward via a commission review, it is paradoxically in the process of slowing down.

Crosscurrents are being created by a few factors including the absence of a funding structure for as much as $10 million in recurring funds needed from Metro’s budget and misgivings about skittish developers seeking eleventh hour changes to the proposal.

Meanwhile, affordable housing advocates are signaling displeasure with the proposal and say they will let their concerns be known at tomorrow's 4 p.m. Metro Planning Commission meeting.....Bill Hostettler, principal broker with Nashville-based HND Realty LLC,  said that the UZO covers building uses beyond residential, such as retail and office. As such, he is concerned that even an incentives-based IZ policy could dissuade mixed-use development that includes residential (if the incentives for the preferred options are not as strong as those for a less-preferred option).....(read more)

This should be deferred by the Planning Commission. No one is happy with it and the Supreme Court may very well rule that this type of "taking" is unconstitutional and there is no source of funding to fund the "incentives." Also, it is doubtful it will result in very many units of affordable housing being built and it will most likely lead to an increase in the price of housing and a decrease in the availability of affordable housing; not an increase.

Advocates of a free market and private property rights should attend the Thursday 4PM  meeting of the Planning Commission and object to this proposal. The meeting will be held in the auditorium of the Howard Office Building, 700 Second Avenue South.

Top Stories

Tennessee's Beacon Center part of of the Supreme Court challenge of Inclusionary zoning

Amicus Brief: California Building Industry Ass’n vs. City of San Jose BY BRADEN H. BOUCEK, Beacon Center, October 19, 2015 - We joined this brief in support of the California Building Industry Association’s request for the Supreme Court to accept review of the California Supreme Court’s decision. There, the California Supreme Court upheld the City of San Jose’s Inclusionary Zoning ordinance that required home builders to sell a certain percentage of their newly-built homes at below market value. Our shared position is that this is an unconstitutional exaction, prohibited under the Constitution’s Takings Clause.

We believe that this issue has great relevance in Nashville and throughout the state with the growing emphasis on “affordable housing,” a major issue in the Nashville mayoral race. Nashville is expected to add 1 million people over the next twenty years. The cost of housing has skyrocketed in many neighborhoods. The City Council voted to draft mandatory inclusion zoning proposal, currently in the works, that, like the San Jose law, would require a certain percentage of newly built homes be priced as affordable. Unconstitutional inclusionary zoning laws are sure to be an issue in the very near future for all Tennesseans, and the Beacon Center intends on insisting that any municipalities stay within constitutional parameters and respect the property rights of Tennesseans.

Top Stories