Do regional approaches to affordable housing actually result in housing production and, if so, how? Regional Approaches to Affordable Housing answers these critical questions and more. Evaluating 23 programs across the nation, the report begins by tracing the history of regional housing planning in the U.S. and defining contemporary big picture issues on housing affordability. It examines fair-share regional housing planning in three states and one metropolitan area, and follows with an appraisal of regional housing trust funds--a new phenomenon. Also assessed are an incentive program in the Twin Cities region and affordable housing appeals statutes in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The study looks at recent private-sector initiatives to promote affordable housing production in the San Francisco Bay area and Chicago. A concluding chapter proposes a set of best and second-best practices. Supplementing the report are appendices containing an extensive annotated bibliography, a research note on housing need forecasting and fair-share allocation formulas, a complete list of state enabling legislation authorizing local housing planning, and two model state acts.

Impact fees are one-time charges that are applied to new residential developments by local governments that are seeking funds to pay for the construction or expansion of public facilities, such as water and sewer systems, schools, libraries, and parks and recreation facilities. In the face of taxpayer revolts against increases in property taxes, impact fees are used increasingly by local governments throughout the U.S. to finance construction or improvement of their infrastructure. Recent estimates suggest that 60 percent of all American cities with over 25,000 residents use some form of impact fees. In California, it is estimated that 90 percent of such cities impose impact fees. For more than thirty years, impact fees have been calculated based on proportionate share of the cost of the infrastructure improvements that are to be funded by the fees. However, neither laws nor courts have ensured that fees charged to new homes are themselves proportionate. For example, the impact fee may be the same for every home in a new development, even when homes vary widely in size and selling price. Data show, however, that smaller and less costly homes have fewer people living in them and thus less impact on facilities than larger homes. This use of a flat impact fee for all residential units disproportionately affects lower-income residents. The purpose of this guidebook is to help practitioners design impact fees that are equitable. It demonstrates exactly how a fair impact fee program can be designed and implemented. In addition, it includes information on the history of impact fees, discusses alternatives to impact fees, and summarizes state legislation that can infl uence the design of local fee programs. Case studies provide useful illustrations of successful programs. This book should be the first place that planning professionals, public officials, land use lawyers, developers, homebuilders, and citizen activists turn for help in crafting (or recrafting) proportionate-share impact fee programs.