Part 3: The Impacts on Affordable Housing of the Amendments to Howard County's Draft General Plan HoCo By Design
This is a continuation of the analysis of the 116 amendments to draft General Plan, CB28-2023.
Note: this is part 3 of a series of reports analyzing the 116 amendments introduced by the county council and county executive. The amendments maybe found here.
Affordable Housing Tenant Protections
Introduction
The development lobby’s influence on housing advocacy leaders in Howard County is abundantly clear. The housing lobby correctly points out that housing is expensive and proposes to make it more affordable by increasing supply. To that end there were several public testimonies that called for an allocation of 2,000 units annually with 25% set aside for those making less than 60% AMI.
The draft General Plan proposed to add over 12 thousand rental units over 18 years -nearly half of the total units. In other words, the county wants to “increase” affordability by adding large rental apartments similar to those built in Downtown Columbia. It is worth noting that Howard Hughes Corporation has yet to deliver on the hundreds of affordable units under its obligation in the Downtown Columbia Plan.
Homeownership versus Rentals
Councilmember Rigby’s Amendment 14 proposes to “Incentivize the production of Low Income Housing Units (LIHU) and Disability Income Housing Units (DIHU) housing units affordable to low- and moderate-income households, beyond what is currently required by the Moderate Income Housing Unit (MIHU) program” and “Establish a goal of zero net loss of existing housing affordable to households with income below 60% of the area median income while adding new affordable units to the County’s housing inventory.”
In 2019, the County Executive signed into law legislation that would allow developers to reduce their affordable housing obligations. In CB50-2019, developers that request to provide DIHU’s would be allowed to meet the MIHU requirement with fewer units. For example, 1 DIHU on-side for every 3 to 4 MIHUs required by the zoning regulations. No attempt is made in Councilmember Rigby’s legislation to address this significant giveaway.
Similarly, the County Executive proposes Amendment 44, which would “[P]reserve mobile home parks as affordable housing opportunities when possible (emphasis added) and continue to support their revitalization. If redevelopment occurs, the County should strive for a minimum of a one-to-one replacement of affordable units and evaluate ways to provide relocation assistance that maintains social and familial connections.”
There is a proposal in Amendment 52, proposed by the County Executive, to “[E]stablish a working group that evaluates and sets goals for the targeted incentive program for affordable and accessible housing and establish criteria for the Affordable Housing set aside in the APFO Allocations Chart.” This amendment does two things, it coninues to use affordable housing as a wedge issue to dismantle APFO and it establishes another task force thereby kicking the can on the issue of providing affordable housing.
Councilmember David Yungmann’s Amendment 15, creates a new policy statement to promote home ownership by building on existing programs that are geared toward helping buyers become homeowners, develop methods that encourage ownership over renting, and expand public awareness of various programs to assist home buyers.
Councilmember Deb Jung’s Amendment 100, also encourages home ownership by proposing an implementing action to “Consider establishing housing scenarios that support for-sale units to households making 60% or less of AMI that are financially feasible for the developers. Require mixed use and activity centers to reflect home-ownership opportunities.”
Tenant Protections
Councilmember Liz Walsh proposes Amendment 70, which requires allocation of 300 units to income less than 60% AMI by reducing allocations in other categories. And requires the county process is adjusted to meet a certain targeted affordable housing annually.
It also adds a whole host of implementing actions to advance tenant protections and expand affordable housing.
Specifically:
Continue rental assistance programs begun during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Expand and re-allocate Housing Commission inventory until housing supply gaps at low-income and moderate-income affordability levels meaningfully diminish.
Expand the locally enacted County right-of-first refusal to include mobile home parks and transitional housing, and to make available to the Commission significant additional funding for acquisition and rehabilitation.
Legislate rent stabilization measures similar to those already enacted in neighboring counties.
Establish corporate landlord and rental property registries, to include disclosure of unit sizes, rental rates, and associated fees assessed.
Enforce and expand local inclusionary zoning and other requirements specific to the count and cost of affordable units provided in existing and new rental communities.
Preserve, rehabilitate and enhance existing inventory of more affordable privately-held multi-family rental communities by acceptance of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs).
Support State-level reforms to landlord-tenant law.
Councilmember Deb Jung’s Amendment 78 proposes to “expand our landlord-tenant division and the enforcement component to support the maintenance and revitalization of multi-family communities.”
The amendments introduced by Councilmembers Walsh and Jung expand tenant protections, increase home ownership, while also recognizing the real constraints created by any adjustment of allocations. Councilmember Yungmann’s amendments add to this effort.
The nuanced difference here is that Councilmember Yungmann’s amendments, which are primarily focused on the Rural West find various ways to discourage housing in the Rural West.
In conclusion, if the amendments geared toward encouraging home ownership as well as promoting strong tenant protections are passed, the draft General Plan would be a vastly improved plan. Conversely, if the amendments encouraging significant rentals and ADUs are advanced, the benefits would accrue to the developers. In either case, it is crucial to consider the constraints created by the impacts on infrastructure and mitigate the rate of increase of residential development.