Roundtable 3: Workforce Housing
· What others doing
· Dev. Capacity in-house and with nonprofit partners
· Inclusionary zoning pros and cons (tool require new dev. To provide % deed restricted housing)
· Framework for linking transportation and housing...many people like
· What is a reasonable place to start and engage the development community?
· Do we give away land for it… is it fair to community?
· Public-Private partnership (RFP or RFQ?)
· Any ideas to have the market provide anything for us?
· Residential parking areas
Issue 1 discussed in depth: Framework for linking transportation and housing
· Disconnect between political commitment and reality and nimbys (Not in my backyard)
· Just modified affordable housing regs and mitigation rules (Jackson, WY)
o 6-7 months public engagement
o Assumption when adopted, we could move to implementation… problem is elected officials
· Transportation demand model attached to resort destrict – the resorts had to adhere to removing vehicles from roads; consideration of how to attached these demand models to more rural areas
· Funding for buses = difficult
· Distance to work can be an equity issue – poor people commute further costs money; quality of life and can ultimately keep people poor
· Some communities huge ‘greenies’ – make placement of housing = relate to carbon, wildlife roadkill
· Zermott—if a guest then you only have a cog-train option
· Beavercreek – only allows residents to drive; guests take a bus
· If have to pay more to mitigate for employees, will effect business
o Will cost push out Mom/Pop? Is that already happening b/c cost so high
o How address increase in service for existing services (more massage therapists)? How accommodate
· One challenge is that housing exactations could be shot down politically as it was in Idaho
Issue 2 discussed in depth: Inclusionary zoning pros and cons
· Linking jobs to housing = one tool. Inclusionary housing is zoning that requires both (Boulder for awhile had this and it pushed commercial growth over housing. Now a huge fee on commercial for affordable housing = no commercial growth …)
· One trial= workforce housing (ketchum) with no parking. Hmm, will it work? Three of those are deed restricted
· Is anyone tying funding for housing to funding for transportation? Jackson tried but it was shot down (b/c general population didn’t think that the elected officials could be responsible with open-ended check; governance around bus system not well-regarded—low confidence in management; and the housing authority had been dissolved/reconfigured…)
o Should have made clear 40% transport; 40% housing and 20% cons.
· Affordable housing = must think location, location, location, location
· In Vancouver, gas tax supports transportation