City Observatory recently published a post called, The 0.1 percent solution: Inclusionary zoning’s fatal scale problem .
I recognize the political attractiveness of this land use policy, but I’ve always been skeptical about its effectiveness.
Here’s an excerpt from the post:
“While inclusionary zoning gets top mention as a preferred policy by many affordable housing advocates , there’s precious little evidence that its ever had more than a token effect on the size of the housing affordability problem in any city. In addition, because inclusionary zoning requirements essentially shift the cost of housing subsidies onto new development, they raise its cost, and likely reduce the number of units that get built–which tends to aggravate housing shortages and further accelerate prices.”
Sadly, I think that many housing policies tend to be more about optics, than about impact. There’s rarely such thing as a free lunch.