July 2004

The Statehouse

By James Lawlor

Rhode Island: Affordable housing. A bill addressing the rising proportion of family income needed to pay for housing passed both houses in late June, and is now awaiting action by Gov. Donald L. Carcieri. The Rhode Island APA chapter strongly supports H. 8574, with a few reservations, it noted in a June 15 letter to the General Assembly's Joint Committee on Affordable Housing.

In a policy statement issued in June, the chapter outlined the factors contributing to an "affordability crisis" in Rhode Island and the failure of previous attempts to solve the problem. Low mortgage rates and favorable tax treatment of capital gains make housing an attractive investment, even at elevated prices. The lower cost of houses in Rhode Island compared with comparable homes in the metropolitan Boston area has lured homebuyers from Massachusetts. At the same time, current zoning and a lack of suitable land for new construction have pushed up the price of house lots. In recent years, the policy statement says, production of housing has trailed new household formation. The shortfall has been particularly severe in multifamily construction. All of these factors conspire to drive up the cost of housing.

In 2002, the legislature attempted to increase production of subsidized housing for low- and moderate-income households by extending a comprehensive permit process available under the state's Low and Moderate Income Housing Act to include units offered for sale by "for-profit" developers. Developers responded with 59 proposals in 22 communities that would have resulted in more than 7,800 new housing units, of which about 1,700 would be affordable units. The volume of projects, the siting of many proposed projects in sensitive areas lacking infrastructure, and the large density increases proposed generated stiff opposition from citizens and local officials. The legislature responded in January 2004 by enacting a moratorium on processing of applications.

H. 8574 establishes a state Housing Resources Agency and a Housing Resources Commission. The commission's purpose is to develop state policies and plans for housing and housing production, including facilitating private for-profit production and rehabilitation of housing. It is charged with developing by 2006 a five-year strategic plan for production and rehabilitation of housing for senior citizens, workers, students, low- and very low-income households, persons with disabilities, and vulnerable individuals and families. It also requires local comprehensive plans to include promotion of production and rehabilitation of housing while taking into account growth management and the need to pace development in areas of rapid growth. The plan also must include an affordable housing element.

In its June 15 letter, the chapter pointed out that H. 8574 assigns numerous planning responsibilities to the Statewide Planning Program, but makes no mention of providing adequate staffing and resources to ensure those duties can be carried out. The chapter also criticized a provision in the bill giving municipalities the option of assigning responsibility for reviewing comprehensive permit applications to either the planning board or the board of zoning review. The planning board is the logical body to perform those duties, the chapter said, and in the interest of statewide uniformity, all municipalities should have a uniform review process. Finally, the chapter said, it was not clear what body had the responsibility to determine whether a municipality was in fact executing its affordable housing plan. Because disagreements and litigation over this issue can be expected, a body such as the Statewide Planning Program should be clearly designated as the reviewing agency.

California: Staying alive. Chapter legislative representative Sande George reports that the large number of planning-related bills in the legislative hopper at the beginning of 2004 has been greatly reduced, due in part to the chapter's opposition to "bad" bills, and in part to the lack of money in the state coffers to reimburse local governments for the cost of new programs.

Some bills remain alive and kicking, however. The chapter supports a few of them without reservation, could support others if amended, and opposes a few. Among the live bills are:

• A.B. 406, which would prohibit enforcement of a confidentiality agreement barring disclosure of information and data pertinent to projects being reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act

• A.B. 1903, requiring local government to treat religious uses of land under standards no less favorable than those applied to nonreligious uses

• A.B. 2158, relating to reform of the regional housing need process

• A.B. 2702, limiting local government authority to restrict second-unit housing (granny flats) in single-family neighborhoods

• S.B. 744, creating a state "Housing Accountability Committee"

The chapter is opposed to a provision in A.B. 1903 requiring localities to treat religious uses of private residences the same as nonreligious uses. It could support the bill if the reference to the use of private residences is removed, and language is inserted requiring officials to treat religious institutions as they would "similarly situated" nonreligious institutions.

The chapter supports A.B. 2158. It is opposed to A.B. 2702, noting that it is less than nine months since the legislature restricted localities' ability to conduct discretionary reviews of applications for second units. Among other things, the bill would limit localities' ability to bar absentee-landlord duplexes in single-family districts, loosen the parking standards that may be imposed on second units, and dictate minimum lot and unit sizes without consideration of lot dimensions.

The chapter also opposes S.B. 744, establishing the Housing Accountability Committee, in its present form. The bill would permit developers who propose developments meeting specified affordable housing criteria to appeal local land-use decisions that resulted in denial of a project or imposition of conditions that, in the developer's opinion, rendered the project financially infeasible. If the committee agreed with a developer, it could order the local government to rescind its denial or remove the condition deemed to make the project infeasible.

North Carolina: Break for billboards. The General Assembly has enacted legislation (H.B. 429) requiring cities and towns to compensate owners of nonconforming billboards that the local government orders removed. Compensation is limited to five times the average annual income from the billboard over the five years preceding the removal order. Compensation is defined as the fair market value of the advertising before its removal less the fair market value immediately after its removal. There are exceptions in the bill for billboards determined to be a public nuisance or detrimental to the health or safety of the to public, and for removals required for road widening or other government development projects if the local government permits relocation to an equally visible site.

H.B. 429 is the second step in a process that began last year when the legislature enacted a 16-month moratorium on amortization of billboards. In April, the North Carolina APA Chapter, joined by the North Carolina League of Municipalities, the Sierra Club, Preservation North Carolina, and Scenic North Carolina, issued a report urging the legislature to permit local governments to continue using amortization periods, usually five years, as an alternative to cash compensation. However, the appeal to allow localities to determine their own destiny in such matters fell on deaf ears in the assembly, by and large. H.B. 429 passed both the house and senate by veto-proof margins.