I live in Portland Oregon.  Moved here last December.

Last year Oregon's legislature removed a prohibition on Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) which now allows cities to require a percentage of Affordable Housing units in new buildings of 20 units or more.  The Portland City Council unanimously voted to put an IZ ordinance in place.  Recently I have had a number of folks from around the country and from Portland ask me what I think about IZ.  I have had a hard time coming up with a response that does not shut down the conversation. I get really exorcised over this topic.  To be blunt, IZ makes me nuts and I tend to go off on the people who innocently ask me about it.  Clearly, I need to craft a more grownup response.

I respect the motivation behind wanting to see more affordable housing get delivered. I am appalled by the naive methods being employed toward that very positive goal.  I get frustrated with smart and sincere people who are serious about the delivery of housing if I think they have not made a serious effort to understand the basics of how housing gets delivered.  Maybe that information has not been available to them if they are not in the business.  It's not reasonable to hold people accountable for information they don't have, so let's start by laying out the basics of how a building makes money and how people decide if they want to construct a building in a given location.

If you can't get the rent, you shouldn't build the building.  The rental income for a building needs to cover the Total Project Cost.  This includes cost of buying the site, , paying the impact fees, designing, bidding, financing, building and leasing the building.  The rental income also needs to allow for some of the units not paying rent from time to time because nobody is living in them (Vacancy).  Finally, the rental income needs to be able to cover the building's Operating Expenses which include property taxes, insurance, property management, maintenance, water, sewer and trash, and replacements reserves of $300-$500 per unit set aside each year.

In addition to covering these costs, a building need to make a profit to justify why someone is going to put up 20% - 40% of the cash need to make the building happen.  Whoever puts that money up (and signs a guaranty to repay the construction loan that will provide the rest)  has other things they can do with that money and they can reasonably expect to get paid something for the risk they are taking in undertaking a construction project.  A construction project has more risk than a savings account, treasury bond or mutual fund, so money put into a real estate project has to pay a higher return than alternative investments with lower risk.  A workable rule of thumb is that $1 in monthly rent can typically support $100 in Total Project Costs and yield a reasonable return of 10-12% on the cash you put in the building.

What happens if 20% of the units in a building don't pay their way because the rent you can charge has been limited by the IZ Ordinance?  The assumption is that you will have to convince the potential tenants for the other 80% of the market rate units to pay higher rent, or find a way to  reduce the Total Project Cost.  Reducing Total Project Costs will come down to convincing the person selling you the site that you need to pay less for it.

In Part II we can walk through the math on how this works on a example building.

Last weekend I was working on a charrette crew that included my colleague and partner, Bruce B. Tolar.  Searching through my hard drive today I came across my (improvised) remarks from when the New Urban Guild gave the 2015 Barranco Award to Bruce, the Developer/Builder of Cottage Square in Ocean Springs Mississippi.

"For those of us who knew Michael Barranco and were there for the Katrina charrettes, this is a person who really made a mark on our lives, not just because we showed up and did work together, but because his character was such that it was like playing in a pro-am: You really upped your game when playing around Michael. Very genuine. No artifice. No phoniness. He was genuinely concerned about every person he ever met, and wanted everyone’s life to be better. He decided that architecture was his way to do that.

With his passing, there is a hole in the CNU, but the New Urban Guild offers the Barranco Award to practitioners who are that kind of stand-up guy. It’s about the character with which you comport yourself. It’s about how hungry you are to learn. It’s about how much you care about your community. It’s about how much you love and encourage your fellow-citizens. With that said, I’d like to introduce you to this year’s award-winner, Bruce Tolar, through some of his work. <begin slides of Bruce's projects>

The original Katrina Cottage which by itself was great, but Bruce took it out of the total chaos and mayhem and bad financial circumstances that were pretty much an everyday deal in Ocean Springs at that time, and all along the coast. And from nothing, he created the peaceful excellence of Cottage Square, where he put the pieces together into something amazing which that community cherishes. It has even become a tourist destination. Imagine that: an interim housing solution after a hurricane has become a tourist destination!

So Bruce pulled together all the Katrina Cottages that were built as prototypes for demonstration purposes and brought them to Cottage Square. And he made something out of the pieces, just as we all try to do, which is to aggregate a great place from small incremental parts. It is a modest place, with gravel sidewalks; a place where you can operate a tiny business out of those tiny buildings. And the community that has formed there has become a real anchor to Ocean Springs. From there, Bruce launched an expansion, which was an incredibly ambitious project in a place governed by FEMA… <cough> <laughs and applause> … a terrible environment to work under, but he is doing amazing, excellent work with modest little pieces.

He reached out to nonprofits in the area; he connects with so many people; he’s been in that town forever, serving on many boards; and the idea that there was something to be done after a hurricane, and fixing civilization in general, was a natural thing for Bruce. The people love this neighborhood. The nonprofits he’s been working with have been tremendously empowered by seeing one guy’s ability to put people together and make things work. Bruce is the best design caulking gun you can imagine, pulling everything together on modest means and making things happen. So with that, I’d like to present this year’s Barranco Award to Bruce Tolar."

If you are traveling along the Gulf of Mexico between New Orleans and Mobile you should give yourself a treat and stop to walk around Cottage Square.  It is a special place built in tough circumstances by a remarkable guy.

The following is PG-13 version of a piece of an interview which was cleaned up a bit for this piece by Rob Studeville on Public Square. (thanks Rob).

Incremental Development does sound like you need a lot of capital and that there would be a lot of risk if you don't know what it is. If you didn't know what indoor plumbing is and how it works, that might also sound like a crazy risky idea. But Incremental Development is not that complicated nor that risky. The biggest barrier to entry is the initial step. What is the road map? What is the territory? It's a black box in a lot of people's minds.

Developers are held in very low-esteem.  I see that as more of a feature than a bug because if the bar is low, it's pretty easy to under-promise and over-deliver. On the spectrum of all possible developers that might arrive in your neighborhood from Mahatma Gandhi to Darth Vader,  people expect a developer to resemble Darth Vader.

A small developer just needs to be a noticeably less shitty version of Darth Vader."