Inclusionary Housing Inclusionary Housing In North Carolina – In North Carolina – An Exploratory Case An Exploratory Case Study AnalysisStudy Analysis

Joella Schiepan, MCRP, MPH

Recent Graduate UNC – Chapel Hill

OutlineOutline

Thesis BackgroundNorth Carolina Inclusionary Housing (IH)

SnapshotInitial Conceptual ModelRevised Conceptual ModelKey FindingsRecommendations

Project BackgroundProject Background

Literature Review – Health/Housing Connection◦Quality◦Location◦Affordability

Overall Project Goal◦To understand why some municipalities in North

Carolina have created an inclusionary housing policy, while others have not

Data Collection◦Exploratory Case Study

4 Municipalities, 29 interviews

North Carolina IH SnapshotNorth Carolina IH Snapshot

NameInclusionary

Housing?

Population Projection

(2006)

Growth Rate (2000-2006 estimated)

Median Household

Income

Median House Value

Percentage of Total

Households paying 30% or

more on housing

United States* N/A 301,621,157 7.2% $48,451 $185,200 35.4%

North Carolina* No 9,061,032 12.6% $42,625 $137,200 31.1%

CarrboroYes

(Voluntary)16,577 -1.2% $33,527 $172,800 39.7%

Chapel HillYes

(Conditional)49,919 2.5% $39,140

$229,100(331,794)**

38%

Dare CountyYes

(Ordinance)33,935 13.2% $42,411 $137,200 26.3%

DavidsonYes

(Ordinance)8,760 22.7% $78,370 $270,000 18%

Kill Devil HillsYes

(Ordinance)6,614 12.2% $39,713 $104,500 28.4%

ManteoYes

(Ordinance)1,290 22.6% $29,803 $116,100 27.8%

Source: US Census *2006 American Community Survey Data

**Data from Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce (2003)

Initial Conceptual ModelInitial Conceptual Model

Policy-Development Context

Local Government Identifies Need for

Affordable Housing (AH)

Social Factors

Economic Factors

Political Factors

Inclusionary Housing Policy

Other AH Policy Solutions

Policy Decision

Revised Conceptual ModelRevised Conceptual Model

Policy-Development Context Policy-Development Context

Local Gov’t Identifies Need for

Affordable Housing

Social FactorsNIMBYismEconomic DiversityAccess to AH by WorkforceRacial DiversityHomelessness

Economic FactorsFinancing/FundingIncreasing Property ValuesDisplacement of Residents/ GentrificationMarket ForcesPhysical Quality of HousingLiving Wage

Political FactorsPublic Recognition of the need for AHPolitical Advocacy Enabling Legislation Not NeededPolitical WillEnabling Legislation NeededPolitical Power (Opposed) Inclusionary

Housing Policy

Other AH Policy Solutions

Policy Decision

Key:High Level of Importance in both Municipality typesHigh Level of Importance in IH MunicipalitiesHigh Level of Importance in non-IH Municipalities

Key Findings: Economic FactorsKey Findings: Economic Factors

Financing/FundingIncreasing Property ValuesDisplacement of Residents/GentrificationMarket Forces Physical Quality of HousingLiving Wage

Key Findings: Social FactorsKey Findings: Social Factors

Not in My Back Yard (NIMBYism)Economic DiversityAccess to AH by WorkforceRacial DiversityHomelessness

Key Findings: Political FactorsKey Findings: Political Factors

Enabling Legislation Political Power (Opposed) Political Advocacy Political WillPublic Recognition of the need for AH

RecommendationsRecommendations

Clarify the IH legality issueAdvocate for IH through electing

political advocatesBuild Political Support by Bringing

ALL Voices to the TableMedia advocacy to decrease the

negative views and beliefs about affordable housing