Do inclusionary zoning ordinances, which require a percentage of new housing be made available to low-income households, really help make housing more affordable? Or, do price controls stifle supply and actually increase home prices?

That was the conundrum posed to an estimated 60 people attending the third in the Randall Lewis Seminar Series at UC, Riverside.

Dr. Adrian Moore, executive director of the Reason Public Policy Institute, said a study by the institute found that inclusionary zoning makes housing less affordable because it further restricts the supply of new homes. Such ordinances also have failed to produce a significant number of affordable homes, the study found. Click here for Dr. Moore’s PowerPoint presentation.

There isn’t enough affordable housing because there isn’t enough housing supply, Moore said. As a result, homeowners can’t “move up the ladder” into other housing units, freeing up more modest housing for entry buyers.

A better solution than inclusionary zoning is to let the housing market work by eliminating restrictions, such as inclusionary zoning, that stifle supply, Moore said.

Dr. Victoria Basolo, professor in the Department of Planning, Policy and Design at UC Irvine, defended inclusionary zoning, describing such programs as one strategy to ease the economic and social stress in communities where a substantial percentage of residents can’t afford to own a home. Click here for Dr. Basolo’s PowerPoint presentation.

Basolo, who also authored a critique of the Reason Foundation’s study on inclusionary zoning, said poor data on affordable housing and flawed research design made the study’s conclusions invalid.

Both speakers said any study is severely limited because cities kept inadequate data about their inclusionary zoning projects.

Janice Rutherford, city council member from Fontana, provided insight into the pressures felt by local government policy makers from all sides of the affordable housing dilemma. An estimated eight to 10 Inland cities are currently considering inclusionary zoning ordinances.

Most local government policy leaders strive for more unaffordable housing – higher-end ho using similar to what is found in coastal areas, Rutherford said. But state policy mandates that local communities provide more affordable housing. At the same time, many of those who already own homes are opposed to less expensive, affordable housing -- such as rental units -- which they perceive will increase crime or lower property values.

What local policy makers need is better data on affordable housing programs, and examples of attractive, appealing affordable housing projects – projects which then can be viewed by current homeowners in an attempt to change their attitudes toward affordable housing, she said.

Rutherford said she would likely oppose inclusionary zoning because it appears illogical and impractical, and because of the lack of data proving it works.

But most city councils likely will pass some type of affordable housing ordinance because of pressure from the state, she said.

After the presentations, audience members made several comments. Topics included the massive involvement by government in housing that began after World War II, and the conundrum created between limiting housing supply to improve equity versus building more housing to increase ownership.