Few gains in low-cost housing
For communities feeling pressure to provide more affordable housing, the idea seems reasonable: Encourage developers of new projects to include some homes that are within the reach of people with modest incomes.
It's an increasingly popular approach that several communities in Boston's western suburbs, aiming to gain some control over how land is developed, have taken.
But such laws, which have been on the books in some towns since the 1980s, have yet to create much affordable housing.
A recent report by the Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based public policy think tank, found that at least 40 percent of communities that have tried such ''inclusionary zoning laws" in Greater Boston have developed no affordable units under the laws.
Many more increased their housing stock by only a few units, while only a handful of communities, including Newton, reported developing more than 50 affordable units, according to the report.
Aaron Gornstein, executive director of the Citizens' Housing and Planning Association, which advocates for affordable housing, said more communities are considering such laws. The laws have been helpful in some places, said Gornstein, who wants to wait to see whether they are effective in communities where they are relatively new.
''From my perspective, it's a little too early to tell," he said.
Under the inclusionary zoning laws, some communities grant ''bonuses" -- approving, for example, several more homes than normally allowed under local regulations -- to developers willing to include affordable units in their projects.
Developers say the incentives are crucial in allowing them to offset the costs of building less-profitable affordable housing. In towns where the incentives are not available, projects may not be worth the investment involved.
''If the economics of the project don't work, no one's going to build," said Finley Perry, a Hopkinton builder who is president of the Home Builders Association of Massachusetts.
The report noted that several communities, including Bolton, Framingham, and Stow, have only recently begun asking developers to include affordable housing in projects and may not have had time to test their new laws.
Southborough has had a version of the law since 1987, said its town planner, Vera Kolias. It has resulted in four units of affordable housing as well as $275,000 in cash payments that developers made instead of building affordable units. The town expects to use some of that money to build affordable homes on town land, Kolias said.
Massachusetts requires that 10 percent of a community's housing stock be considered affordable. Many communities fall short of that goal, leaving themselves susceptible to a controversial state law known as Chapter 40B, which allows developers to sidestep local zoning regulations if a portion of their proposed housing sells or rents at affordable rates.
Some communities have begun talking about inclusionary zoning laws as a possible alternative to Chapter 40B that would give them more say over development.
But the benefits of these local provisions often aren't enough to woo developers away from the state law, which usually allows developers to build bigger projects.
''That's the problem," said Jon Witten, a land-use lawyer who is town counsel in Stow.
Northborough recently tried to update its inclusionary zoning law, which dates to 1987 and applied only to certain kinds of developments, said the town planner, Kathy Joubert.
The law had never been used, and Northborough officials sought to replace it with a version that required affordable housing in all new developments of five units or more. The measure failed at Town Meeting.
Joubert said the town's Planning Board considered the provision to be one tool for creating more affordable housing along with other possible measures, such as encouraging more apartments.
''It certainly was not going to be . . . the be-all and the end-all," she said. ''This was a way for us to take some local control."
Mark Fidrych, a Northborough land owner, criticized the proposal, saying he was concerned that owners would lose money because a certain number of homes had to sell at affordable prices. He owns 97 acres, which he said he might develop some day.
''I can't do what I want with it?" asked Fidrych, a town native who was a pitcher for the Detroit Tigers. He believes the town should develop affordable housing on town-owned land.
Ben Fierro, legal counsel to the Home Builders Association of Massachusetts, said the benefits of inclusionary zoning provisions, when they are offered, usually aren't helpful enough to developers. He believes communities have no right to require affordable housing with no additional bonus to the developer, and calls those laws ''patently illegal."
Ultimately, Fierro said, developers have to raise the price of market-rate units to cover their costs. ''It's a tax on the market-rate buyers in that community," he said.
Inclusionary zoning proposals continue to generate discussion in many communities, including Medway, where a study group is looking at several ideas for providing more affordable housing.
Susan Affleck-Childs, the Medway Planning Board's assistant, said the town recognizes the need and, in the face of several Chapter 40B applications, is interested in gaining some control.
''There is a desire to not always be beholden," she said.
Inclusionary zoning is on the board's radar, Affleck-Childs said, but the discussion is still in the early stages.
''It's questions of fairness, and spreading the responsibility, and how do we do it in a way that is going to be effective and workable," she said.
Emily Shartin can be reached at eshartin@globe.com. 