Development
Still not inclusionary: Council blasts Fenty's inaction
Another Friday, another DC Register with no Inclusionary Zoning regulations despite numerous laws requiring their publication.
In their committee report (large PDF) from this year's budget and oversight hearings, the DC Council's Committee of the Whole lambastes the Mayor for still not publishing the regulations. After pointing out that the Council had given Fenty an extension to February 6, 2009 to publish regulations and April 7 for them to go into effect, it calls Fenty's inaction "an egregious example of the flouting of the law by the Fenty Administration."
Many affordable units never got built in numerous projects as a result of the delay. Since IZ gives developers the right to build extra floors in exchange for providing affordable housing, the city also lost potential housing units overall.
At the April 6, 2009, budget oversight hearing, OP Director Harriet Tregoning, in response to a question that had been asked at the February 26, 2009 performance oversight hearing on this matter, testified that approximately 140 inclusionary zoning affordable units have been lost due to the innumerable delays in the start of this program since October 1, 2007, when IZ implementation funds first became available. Examples of lost potential affordable mixed-income housing opportunities include:Even some developers say that the delay is creating substantial uncertainty. They don't know how tall they can build future buildings or whether they will need to include affordable units. Uncertainty costs money. The administration should publish the regulations now. They should agree with them
- 14th & U Street by-right development project: where at least 8 % of the 250 units would have been IZ affordable units, in Ward 2 on border w/Ward 1.
- Fort Totten Square at Riggs Rd & South Dakota, by-right development: where at least 8% of the 1,000 units would have been IZ affordable units, in Ward 4.
- Dorchester building on 16th St. NW added in Reed Cooke by-right: where at least 8% of the 99 units would have IZ affordable units, in Ward 1.
Although OP Director Tregoning testified that her latest information was that the IZ Final Rulemaking would be published "momentarily," the Committee at this juncture has no confidence that the executive will do so. This situation is an egregious example of the flouting of the law by the Fenty Administration - in this case a law designed to increase mixed income housing opportunities for low and moderate income residents throughout the District of Columbia.
Comments
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park







by Cavan on May 1, 2009 9:40 am • link • report
by Jason on May 1, 2009 10:34 am • link • report
if not, then i'd say we're sunk.
by IMGoph on May 1, 2009 10:50 am • link • report
This town so needs a tabloid that is cynical to politicians that dares to call them out.
by Jason on May 1, 2009 11:22 am • link • report
by MPC on May 1, 2009 12:30 pm • link • report
Why is Fenty doing this? I mean, other than that he's an evil dictator, who commits evil because it's in his nature.
Why?
by ibc on May 1, 2009 12:48 pm • link • report
"Architect Eric Colbert and developer Bob Moore presented new plans ... with the top two floors gone, some extra mass in the back to make up for it..."
So evidently raising the height limit didn't affect the square footage, it just made the developer put it on top, rather than filling out the available space? How is that a good or useful thing? Maybe there is some better incentive to provide -- reduced parking requirements, maybe?
by CG on May 1, 2009 11:23 pm • link • report
Some of the Mayor's biggest donors (and folks who host fundraisers for him) are developers and most developers aren't in favor of IZ despite the fact that it's in place in many other vibrant cities and counties. The Mayor is being a bit Jim Graham-like in his refusal to do something for the good of the people because other people with money (developers) don't like it.
by Adams Morgan on May 2, 2009 3:30 pm • link • report
As far as doing "something for the good of the people": there are lots of people; with many diverging interests, AM pointed out.
by ibc on May 4, 2009 3:20 pm • link • report
by MPC on May 4, 2009 4:02 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on May 4, 2009 7:17 pm • link • report
by bko on May 5, 2009 2:19 pm • link • report
Add a Comment