I’ve been obsessed (as one Facebook commenter said) with trying to disentangle the recommendations of the HALA Committee from the Grand Bargain. The ideas in HALA are not dependent on the Grand Bargain’s mandatory inclusionary zoning scheme. And it is crucial as the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing requirements are discussed that everyone think the proposal all the way through. Are there better, more effective options like the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program?

But do mandatory schemes even work? Here’s what one study called, “Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work?” found:

Inclusionary zoning has failed to produce a significant number of affordable homes due to the incentives created by the price controls. Even the few inclusionary zoning units produced have cost builders, homeowners, and governments greatly. By restricting the supply of new homes and driving up the price of both newly constructed market- rate homes and the existing stock of homes, inclusionary zoning makes housing less affordable. Inclusionary zoning ordinances will continue to make housing less affordable by restricting the supply of new homes. If more affordable housing is the goal, governments should pursue policies that encourage the production of new housing. Ending the price controls of inclusionary zoning would be a good start.

Even better would be to never pass one of these schemes in the first place. This study was on mandatory programs for sales not rentals. But the same market principles apply; mandates to build price controlled housing of any kind make things worse. We still have a lot of work to do to demonstrate the negative impact of MIZ on supply of  housing to City leaders. Making housing harder and more expensive to build won’t lower its overall price.

But hopefully the more questions that get asked, the more people will try to use what’s already working, especially MFTE.