Task Force ReportAffordableRequirementsOrdinanceProposed EnhancementsDecember 2014C I T1 YO FC H I C A G O

AROAffordable Requirements OrdinanceImproving Chicago’s Inclusionary Housing ToolINTRODUCTIONThe Affordable Requirements Ordinance (ARO) is one of the City’s strongest, most efficient toolsto create affordable housing. Established in 2003 and expanded in 2007, the ARO applies to newor rehabilitated housing developments with 10 or more units that involve a zoning increase ordowntown Planned Development designation, City-owned land, or City financial assistance.Residential projects that utilize a zoning increase or City land are required to set aside 10% oftotal units as affordable to low- to moderate-income families. Residential projects that receiveCity financial assistance, such as Tax Increment Financing, are required to set aside 20% of totalunits as affordable.The ARO also offers real estate developers the option to pay a fee-in-lieu of 100,000 per required unit into the Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund (AHOF).Chicago was one of the first large cities in the country to pass an inclusionary housing ordinancelike the ARO. With its companion ordinance, the Downtown Density Bonus, the ARO has led tonearly 1,800 homes for very-low and moderate-income households, including 189 units withinnew, market rate housing developments and 1,600 units financed, in part, by in-lieu funds.While the ARO has proved useful in setting a framework for creating and providing resources foraffordable housing as a byproduct of market-rate activity, the resurgence of Chicago’s housingmarket and the modest number of on-site units generated by the ARO led Mayor Rahm Emanuelto identify an update to the ARO as one of the top policy objectives of the City’s “Five-Year Housing Plan.” Adopted by City Council in February 2014, the housing plan is coordinating 1.3 billionin spending to create, improve, and preserve more than 41,000 units of housing citywide over thenext five years.MAYORAL MANDATEWithin months of the City Council’s approval of the Five-Year Housing Plan, Mayor Emanuelnamed 26 local leaders to the ARO Advisory Task Force. He charged the Task Force to makerecommendations that would: Add 1,000 new affordable housing units to the City’s inventory over the next five years Generate additional revenue for the Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund (AHOF) And add affordable housing in high-growth neighborhoods where supply is minimal2

Task Force ReportTASK FORCE PARTICIPANTSProcess Chair: Ald. Ray Suarez (31st), Vice Mayor, Chairman of the Committee on Housing & Real EstateCo-Chairs Joy Aruguete, Executive Director, Bickerdike Redevelopment Corp.Jack Markowski, President, Community Investment Corp.Craig Huffman, Co-Founder and Principal, Ascendance PartnersMembers Ald. Walter Burnett (27th), Chairman of the Committee on Pedestrian and Traffic SafetyAld. Will Burns (4th)Ald. James Cappleman (46th)Ald. Deborah Graham (29th)Ald. Michelle Harris (8th), Chairman of the Committee on Committees, Rules, and EthicsAld. Natashia Holmes (7th)Ald. Deb Mell (33rd)Ald. Emma Mitts (37th) Chairman of the Committee on License and Consumer ProtectionAld. Ameya Pawar (47th)Ald. Ariel Reboyras (30th), Chairman of the Committee on Human RelationsAld. JoAnn Thompson (16th)Curt Bailey, President, Related MidwestBrian Bernardoni, Director of Governmental Affairs, Chicago, Illinois Association of RealtorsAlan Lev, President/CEO Belgravia Group, Past President of Homebuilders Association of Greater ChicagoAdam Gross, Director of Affordable Housing, Business and Professional People in the Public InterestCalvin Holmes, President, Chicago Community Loan FundRafael Leon, Executive Director, Chicago Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Mary Lynch-Dungy, Community Organizer – Housing, ONE NorthsideEithne McMenamin, Associate Director of Policy, Chicago Coalition for the HomelessShirley Newsome, Board Chair, Quad Communities Development Corp.Guacolda Reyes, Vice President of Real Estate Development, The Resurrection ProjectRev. Dr. Richard Tolliver, St. Edmund's Episcopal ChurchTASK FORCE PROCESS2014 MeetingsPublic Comment PeriodAugust 14September 4October 1November 25July 22 through August 19A comprehensive report summarizing public comments was preparedand presented to the Task Force for review and formed the basis ofthe Task Force’s deliberations.3

Affordable Requirements OrdinanceINCLUSIONARY HOUSING: A PRIMERSince the 1970s, more than 500 local governmentsin 27 states and the District of Columbia have implemented inclusionary housing programs resultingin the production and preservation of hundreds ofthousands of moderately priced homes.Inclusionary housing programs require or provideincentives for the development of affordable homesfor low-income and working-class households aspart of the development of market-rate housing. Inmost cases, this takes the form of a local ordinanceor policy that requires all developments of a certainsize to include a minimum percentage of affordablehousing.Many programs allow developers to comply in alternative ways such as through the payment of an “inlieu” fee that can be used to create or preserve affordable housing in other programs. Because theseaffordable homes are produced within market-ratedevelopments, many of them are built in very desirable locations near jobs, good schools and amenities. In addition, because inclusionary programstypically rely on zoning incentives, the creation ofmoderately priced homes often does not require anynew sources of public funding.Most programs apply to both ownership and rentaldevelopments, and mandate that 10 to 20 percent ofthe homes developed be moderately priced. Incomeeligibility varies widely, but most programs servehouseholds with incomes ranging from 50 to 120percent of area median income.Most jurisdictions require the homes to remain affordable for the long term; 30 to 50 years is not uncommon. In some high-cost jurisdictions, the homesmust be maintained as affordable in perpetuity.In order for a jurisdiction to be successful with longterm affordability requirements, the jurisdiction mustprovide a robust administrative function and continuous education and support to the households thatbenefit from the program.4

Task Force ReportCHICAGO’S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TOOLSAffordable Requirements Ordinance (ARO)Downtown Density BonusThe current ARO is triggered by new and rehabilitated housing developments with 10 or moreunits that involve a zoning increase or downtown Planned Development designation, Cityowned land, or City financial assistance.The current affordable housing Density Bonuswas passed by City Council in 2004.The Density Bonus allows real estate projectsin downtown zoning districts to receive additional density in exchange for on-site affordableunits or a fee paid to the Affordable HousingOpportunity Fund (AHOF).Residential projects that utilize a zoning increase or City land are required to set aside10% of total units as affordable to middle-income families. Residential projects that receiveCity financial assistance, such as Tax IncrementFinancing, are required to set aside 20% of totalunits as affordable.In the last 10 years, the Density Bonus hasresulted in the construction of five on-site unitsand the collection of 34 million in in-lieu fees.The current ordinance provides downtowndevelopers with the option to pay the lower ofthe in-lieu fees calculated under the ARO or theDensity Bonus. The option provides a financialloophole that has diminished potential AHOFcollections by more than 20 million since2007.The ARO also offers real estate developersthe option to pay a fee-in-lieu of 100,000 perrequired unit into the Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund (AHOF).The ARO applies to both rental and for-sale unittypes.Rental Units: Affordable for households earning up to60% of the Area Median Income (AMI), or 43,440 for a family of four. Rental units arerequired to remain affordable for a term of30 years.For-Sale Units: Affordable for households earning up to100% of AMI, or 72,400 for a family of four.Most for-sale units are administered throughthe Chicago Community Land Trust, whichmaintains their affordability in perpetuity.Existing fee structure for projects that receive a Downtown DensityBonus.5

GoalsAffordable Requirements OrdinanceKey outcomesBased on input from the Task Force and members of the public, the following series of recommendations would generate an estimated 1,200 affordable units over the next five years, exceedingMayor Emanuel’s goal by nearly 20%.The recommendations would create more units in more neighborhoods, including 600 affordablehomes within or near market rate developments and more than 95 million in in-lieu fees by 2020.The recommendations include ideas that originated directly from Task Force members, including provisions that will encourage affordable development near transit stations and harness thehousing market to jumpstart investment in neighborhoods where recovery from the recession hasstalled.The ordinance would also continue to balance the increase in affordable housing with the financialneeds of the development community while continuing to generate funds to build and subsidizehousing for very-low-income families and individuals.Specifically, the proposals would: Create three zones in the city to reflect different housing markets and priorities: downtown;higher-income census tracts; and low-moderate income census tracts. Require at least 25% of a project’s affordability requirement to be provided as on-site housing units. It would also provide the option for rental projects downtown and rental or for-saleprojects in higher-income census tracts to build, buy, or rehab the required units with a comparable investment within one mile of the subject properties; and offer for-sale projects downtownthe additional option to build, buy, or rehab the required units with a comparable investmentanywhere in the city, or forego the 25% unit requirement by paying a 225,000 in-lieu fee perrequired unit. Reduce the in-lieu fee for a project’s remaining affordability obligation to 50,000 in low-moderate census tracts; increase the in-lieu fee to 125,000 per unit in higher-income census tracts;and increase the base in-lieu fee to 175,000 downtown. Enable the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) or other authorized agencies to purchase or leaseARO units; in exchange, developers would pay a reduced in-lieu fee for remaining unit obligations. Provide additional density incentives to developers that place more than 50% of a project’s affordable unit requirement on-site in Transit-Served Locations (TSL). And increase income targets for for-sale affordable units from 100% area median income (AMI)to 120% AMI ( 72,400 to 88,300 for a family of four).An effective date for the changes would be included in the amendment, after which pending development projects would be subject to the new affordability provisions.6

Task Force ReportPROPOSED ARO ZONESThe ARO Zone map should be updated every five years. In-lieu fees should differ based on the zone in which a project isconstructed.7

1Affordable Requirements OrdinanceCreate more affordable units in neighborhoods with strong housing markets.Under the current ARO, developers of market-rate residential projects can choose to meet applicable inclusionary housing requirements by paying a fee or by building the affordable homes on-site.This has largely led developers in strong-market neighborhoods to pay the in-lieu fee rather thanincluding units on-site.The Task Force heard concerns from developers that it is significantly more expensive to build andsell an affordable home within a market-oriented development than it is to pay the fee-in-lieu.The Task Force also looked at the important benefits of including affordable units in market-ratedevelopments, specifically the public amenities that neighborhoods with strong real estate markets typically possess, including quality schools, access to public transit, and other assets that arebeneficial to families of all income levels.1 For example, the research included the “Housing Policyis School Policy”2 study, which examines the different academic outcomes experienced by childrenresiding in two different public housing settings: Children in low poverty, mixed-income settingsperformed substantially better in reading and math standardized testing over the six to seven yearsthat they were tracked.Recommendations: The updated ARO should require that 25% of required affordable units be provided on-site, upfrom 0%. Developers of units downtown and higher-income census tracts should have several options tomeet the on-site requirement, as described in Recommendation 2. As before, for projects that are subject to the ARO, 10% of all units in a development receivinga zoning increase or City land would be required to be affordable, or 20% for developments withCity financial assistance. Affordable for-sale units should be targeted for families earning 120% of theAMI ( 88,300 for a family of four), upfrom 100%.As before, affordable rental units shouldbe targeted to households earning 60%of the AMI ( 43,440 for a family of four).Volume of SalesAttached Single-FamilySales Volume6,000Number of Units estSouthSouthwestWestChicagoAPPLIED REAL ESTATE ANALYSIS (AREA), INC.1 Opportunity Mapping Issue Brief Place Matters: Using Mapping to Plan for Opportunity, Equity, and SustainabilityPrepared by: Jason Reece, David Norris, Jillian Olinger, Kip Holley, Matt Martin; The Kirwan Institute2 Housing Policy Is School Policy: Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic Success in Montgomery County, Maryland, the CenturyFoundation, 20108

2Task Force ReportEncourage investment in neighborhoods where housing markets have beenslow to rebound and secure long-term affordability for low-income populations.The updated ARO should address a need that was not as pressing when the ARO was last updated in 2007: the need to jumpstart the housing market in neighborhoods where private investmentessentially halted during the recent recession and has been slow to rebound.Several Task Force aldermen suggested that the ARO be harnessed to help address the lingeringeffects of the market slowdown in their wards. This suggestion, paired with developers’ proposalsto allow ARO compliance through the construction of off-site units, led to the recommendation thatfor-sale development projects in downtown zoning districts can elect to meet their required 25%on-site unit requirement by developing or buying affordable units in low-moderate census tracts.Recommendations: To further encourage private development in low-moderate income census tracts, the updatedARO should reduce the fee-in-lieu in low-moderate income census tracts from 100,000 to 50,000. Developers of units downtown and in higher-income census tracts should be provided an option to meet their on-site requirement by providing for-sale affordable options off-site. Downtown rental projects, and all developments in higher-income census tracts, could buy or buildoff-site units in higher-income census tracts within a one-mile radius of the subject properties.Downtown for-sale projects could buy or build off-site units anywhere in the city. At minimum,the off-site development budget must equal the amount of the required in-lieu fees. Additionally,a 10,000 fee per off-site unit should be implemented to cover administrative and monitoringcosts. By allowing private developers to build, buy or rehab units in lower-cost neighborhoods,this could result in more off-site units being created than the developer’s original on-site affordable obligation would require. Off-site units should be of good quality construction and require project-specific approval fromthe Department of Planning and Development (DPD). The off-site affordable units should beconstructed and completed concurrently with the ARO-subject units. The CHA or other authorized agencies--including the Chicago Low-Income Housing TrustFund-should be eligible to negotiate with with developers to purchase or lease ARO units for a30-year affordability term. Authorized agencies could include other non-profit agencies administering subsidies under HUD’s McKinney-Vento homeless assistance grants program, VeteransAdministration Supportive Housing programs, or other housing assistance programs approvedby the City. When developers agree to sell or lease their required affordable units to the CHA or other authorized agency, they should receive a per-unit reduction of 25,000 of remaining in-lieu fees.9

3Affordable Requirements OrdinanceContinue to generate funds to build and subsidize housing facilities for verylow-income families and individuals.As federal and state resources decline for affordable housing development, the City of Chicago willincreasingly rely on the AHOF to fund new construction and rental assistance. DPD’s allocation offederal HOME dollars, for instance, has been halved from 32 million to 16 million in the last fiveyears.The Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund (AHOF) should continue to be used to fund affordablehousing projects and to subsidize the Chicago Low Income Housing Trust Fund (CLIHTF). TheCLIHTF, an innovative not-for-profit corporation, provides rental subsidies or development capitalthat creates affordable rental housing for households at or below 30% of the AMI.Recommendations: Maintain the fee-in-lieu option for residential real estate projects at 75% of the total obligation. Increase funding dedicated to the CLIHTF from 40% to 50% of AHOF collections and providegreater flexibility to the CLIHTF Board of Directors to allocate funds. 2.3 million in AHOF assistance helped Veterans NewBeginnings create 54 housing units and on-site services forveterans at risk of homelessness in Auburn Gresham 4.3 million in AHOF collections secured the affordabilityof 58 studio units in Uptown and Edgewater in partnership with FLATS LLC.4Encourage the development of greater density around transit facilitieswithout changing the character of residential neighborhoods.A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus was made available through the City’s 2013 Transit Served Location (TSL) ordinance for development projects that are located within 600 feet from a transit station,or on a Pedestrian street and located 1,200 feet from a transit station.Recommendation: TSL projects that provide at least 50% of the required affordable units on-site should be eligiblefor a combined FAR bonus of .75, a 25% parking reduction, and up to 10 feet in building height.10

5Task Force ReportEnsure that the value of the private benefit reflects the public cost withoutslowing the pace of development.The Task Force concluded that the 100,000 in-lieu fee does not adequately value the increaseddensity, land, nor financial assistance provided by the City of Chicago to real estate developmentprojects, especially the 8,600 new residential units projected to be completed downtown in the nexttwo years. The Task Force also recognized how the Density Bonus loophole impairs collections forthe AHOF.To help consider potential changes to the in-lieu fee structure and loophole provisions, DPD lookedat a sample of 22 of the 38 (60%) ARO projects that had been approved since 2007. DPD analysisshowed that projects that could have built an average 15 units could now build 56, an increase of45 units (409%). In exchange, these projects provided the city with an average six on-site units or 466,000 in in-lieu fees (See Appendix D).Task Force members meanwhile expressed concern that a substantial increase in the in-lieu feemay slow or halt the pace of development, thereby slowing job growth and reducing new housingopportunities. Task Force staff conducted a modeling exercise to determine a revised fee structurethat would have a manageable impact on the viability of future development projects. The modeling found that retaining the current fee in most neighborhoods, and reducing it in others, would nothave an overly negative impact on the City’s AHOF collections. (See Appendix A)Recommendations: Increase the in-lieu fee from 100,000 to 175,000 in the downtown zoning districts only. Developers of for-sale projects in downtown zoning districts could elect to pay an in-lieu premiumof 50,000 per required unit – for a total per-unit fee of 225,000 – if fewer than 25% of therequired affordable units are created. Fees in-lieu in higher-income census tracts would increase to 125,000; and be reduced to 50,000 in low-to-moderate income census tracts. Close the Density Bonus loophole by requiring downtown projects that use both Density Bonusand ARO to pay the higher amount that’s calculated through either formula.Proposed In-Lieu FeesLow-moderateincome censustractsHigher incomecensus tractsDowntownCurrent AROProposed 100,000 50,000 100,000 125,000 100,000 175,00011In-Lieu PremiumCHA Option(minimum 25% ofrequired on-siteaffordable units are notprovided)Minimum 25% of unitsare sold or leased to theCHA or authorized agencyn/an/an/a 100,000 225,000 150,000For for-sale projects only

6Affordable Requirements OrdinanceContinue to require affordable units only for those developments that receivesomething of value from the City.While many cities have mandatory inclusionary housing programs for all residential developmentsthat exceed a certain unit threshold, Chicago’s program is voluntary. Affordable units are only required when a developer seeks a public benefit that will increase a property’s private value.Recommendations: As before, as-of-right developments should continue to be exempt from the ARO. As before, the ARO should be triggered only when a developer proposes to build 10 or moreunits; seeks a rezoning to build a larger developments than the current zoning allows; is in adowntown Planned Development; or receives land or financial assistance from the City.7Provide a range of options for developers to meet affordability requirements.The updated ARO should include an expanded menu of options that enable developers to meet theaffordability obligations of new projects.Recommendation:Options to meet the AROLow-ModerateIncome CensusTracts: Rentaland For-SaleXHigher IncomeCensus Tracts:Rental e at least 25% of requiredaffordable units on-site and pay afee-in-lieu per any remaining units(Recommendation 1)X 50,000 in-lieufeeX 125,000 inlieu feeX 175,000in-lieu feeX 175,000in-lieu feeAdditional Transit-Served Locationbonus(Recommendation 4)XXXXCHA Fee Reduction(Recommendation 2)XXXOff-Site Option(Recommendation 2)XXXPlace all required affordable unitson-site and pay no in-lieu feeNo on-site units – with in-lieupremium(Recommendation 5)X12

Task Force ReportARO AMENDMENT PHASE-INThe amended ARO should be effective 90 days after City Council approval and publication.Projects submitted prior to the effective date would have nine months following the effective date (roughly one year after City Council publication of the ARO updates) to receive CityCouncil approval.Any project that has not received Council approval within nine months of the ARO effectivedate would be subject to the requirements of the new provisions in the amended ARO.For zoning changes/PDs, “submitted” would be understood to mean applications that wereintroduced to City Council. For land sales or financial assistance, “submitted” would be understood to mean that complete applications were submitted to DPD.OTHER IMPROVEMENTSA rules document intended to make the ARO easier to understand and implement should beavailable on the Department of Planning and Development’s web site at A: Modeling and AssumptionsTo estimate the impact of proposed ARO changes, DPD developed a two-part model that usedthe existing ARO project pipeline as a base and then projected the impact of various change scenarios. Variables included the amount of the in-lieu fee applied citywide and on a zone-by-zonebasis; a CHA in-lieu fee reduction; the percentage of affordable units required; allocation of AHOFfunds; the implications of a transit-served location bonus; and the elimination of the density bonusloophole. The first part of the model estimated the number of affordable units that would be created and the dollars that would be collected compared to current law. The second part of the modelestimated the impact of the policy changes on a standard project pro forma.Comparing theExisting toAROtheto the ProposedARO: ProjectExamplesProject ExamplesComparing the ExistingAROProposedARO:Project DetailsUnitsRental?Location:Downtown?High income census tract?Low/mod income census sYesYesYesPublic Assistance: 010030303000303 100,000 175,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 50,000 100,000 225,000 100,000 125,000 100,000 50,000ARO Policy EffectsAffordable units required under the current AROAffordable units required under the proposed AROAffordable units that must be built on site under current AROAffordable units that must be built on site under proposed AROMaximum per-unit in lieu fee under current AROMaximum per-unit in lieu fee under proposed AROTotal in lieu fee paid if developer builds minimum required units under current AROTotal in lieu fee paid if developer builds minimum required units under proposed ARO 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,225,000 700,000 350,000 2,250,000 875,000 350,000Total value provided to affordable housing (if an on-site unit is worth 300K) under current AROTotal value provided to affordable housing (if an on-site unit is worth 300K) under proposed ARO 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,125,000 1,600,000 1,250,000 2,250,000 1,600,000 1,250,00013

Affordable Requirements OrdinanceAppendix B: Research ary HousingSurvey: Measures ofEffectivenessInnovativeHousing Institute,Patrick Maier,David RuskNovember2010Study reviewed 52 of the 400 InclusionaryHousing policies that existed at that timeThe Inclusionary Housing programs studiedhad produced 59,620 affordable housingunits with another 16,278 planned and hadcollected 210.1 million in lieu fees withanother 99.8 million dueEquitableNeighborhoodChange in Transit-RichNeighborhoodsU.S. Dept.of Housingand UrbanDevelopmentFebruary2011Tax policies can discourage affordablehousing development in neighborhoodswith access to transit facilities, but using taxincrement financing can reduce the cost ofproviding affordable housing in transit-richneighborhoods.Restrictive zoning requirements can increasecosts in transit-rich neighborhoods, butreducing parking requirements, unbundlingparking practices, and implementinginclusionary zoning policies can reduce thecost of providing affordable housing in thesehigh opportunity areas.C.Tyler Mulliganand JamesL. Joyce, TheUniversity ofNorth CarolinaSchool ofGovernment2010Examples of ordinance language frominclusionary zoning programs aroundthe country are provided to help withdeveloping or modifying an inclusionaryzoning ordinance by translating policydecisions into a working ordinance.Robert Hickey/National HousingConferenceJuly 2014Tying affordability to upzoning can be aneffective means for cities and urban suburbsto harness the renewed energy of thehousing market to help address growingaffordability challengesthe often voluntary nature of these policiesmay be a way to introduce inclusionaryhousing policies in places where political,legal, and/or market barriers havehistorically impeded the policy’s broaderadoptionInclusionary Zoning: AGuide to Ordinancesand the LawInclusionary Upzoning14

Task Force ReportAppendix B: Research Summaries Cont.Opportunity MappingIssue Brief PlaceMatters: UsingMapping to Plan forOpportunity, Equity,and SustainabilityJason Reece,David Norris,Jillian Olinger,Kip Holley, MattMartin; TheKirwan InstituteHousing Policy Is SchoolPolicy: EconomicallyIntegrative HousingPromotes AcademicSuccess in MontgomeryCounty, MarylandHeatherSchwartz,The CenturyFoundation2010Inclusionary zoning integrated childrenfrom highly disadvantaged families into lowpoverty neighborhoods and low-povertyschools over the long term.Children in public housing benefitacademically from living in low-povertyneighborhoods, but less than fromattending low-poverty schools.Residential stability improved students’academic outcomesAchieving LastingAffordability throughInclusionary HousingRobert Hickey,Lisa Sturtevant,Emily Thaden/National HousingConference,NationalCommunity LandTrust, The LincolnInstitute for LandPolicyJuly 2014507 inclusionary housing programs in 482local jurisdictions.Often one policy applies jurisdiction-wideand a second that applies to a specificneighborhood or district, such as aneighborhood or corridor in which intensiveredevelopment is occurringPrograms were found in 27 states and theDistrict of Columbia.“Inclusionary Zoning:Pros and Cons,” inInclusionary Zoning: AViable Solution to theAffordable HousingCrisis?Dr. Robert W.Burchell andCatherineC. Galley/Washington, D.C.:The Center forHousing Policy,p.72000Describes Inclusionary Housing policyin jurisdictions across the country andidentifies shortcomings in programsattempting to serve very low incomehouseholds.“Renewing the Landof Opportunity”Journal of AffordableHousing & CommunityDevelopment LawNicholas J.Brunick andPatrick O’B.MaierWinter2010Report examines the roots of InclusionaryHousing policy adoption in MontgomeryCounty, MD.Reviews national inclsuionary practices.Identifies the importance of InclusionaryHousing as a means to use land usepracticesfor affordable housing needs.The study identifies tools local jurisdictionsuse to identify high opportunity areas.15


The Affordable Requirements Ordinance (ARO) is one of the City’s strongest, most efficient tools to create affordable housing. Established in 2003 and expanded in 2007, the ARO applies to new or reha