 | This is a user sandbox of Cannyccl. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
The trend of going mandatory over voluntary
editWhile inclusionary zoning can be either mandatory or voluntary, some studies have shown that mandatory approaches could be crucial to the success of inclusionary zoning programs in terms of providing a larger number of affordable housing[1]. Below are some examples showing the greater effect of mandatory practice over voluntary practice[2]:
| Municipality or County | Under voluntary practice | Under mandatory practice |
|---|---|---|
| Cambridge, MA | Cannot generate any affordable housing within 10 years | Switching to a mandatory program in 1999, 135 housing units was produced and 58 more were in pipeline as of June 2004. |
| Irvine, CA | Confusion and uncertainty were found under a voluntary program, which motivated developers to einitiat a switch to a mandatory ordinance | A new mandatory ordinance, which was enforced in 2003 with uniform expectations and rewards for developers,led to the creation of 3,400 affordable housings, with 750 more in the pipeline in June 2004. |
| Orange County, CA | 952 units were produced over eleven years (1983-1994). | 6,389 units of affordable housing were produced in four years (1979-1983) |
Moreover, the fact that Denver’s mandatory ordinance has contributed to the supply of around 3,400 units of affordable housing, including both constructed one or those in the development pipeline) since the law was passed in 2002, further showcase the greater effect of mandatory programs.