Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordability Requirements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs inclusionary requirements, definitions of low/moderate income and enforceability
Summary
Members discussed whether to require a 20% inclusionary affordability share, how to define low and moderate income, the duration of affordability obligations, and difficulties enforcing long-term affordability absent funded partners.
House General and Housing members on May 1 debated how the housing infrastructure bill should advance affordability goals — whether through a numeric inclusionary requirement, a purpose clause, or defined income thresholds and duration requirements.
Members recapped testimony urging a 20% inclusionary requirement and 15-year affordability term; Commerce’s draft instead embedded affordability in the bill’s purpose clause and referred back to that purpose in multiple provisions. Committee chair said the commerce approach is intentionally purpose-based and that the committee could tighten it by defining “low and moderate income” in statute.
Members discussed several definitions: a debt-to-income/cost-burden standard (30% of income toward housing costs) used in some programs and statutory definitions used by agencies. The committee proposed adding statutory definitions for low and moderate income for both owner-occupied and rental units so the purpose clause has operational meaning.
Members also discussed enforcement and long-term affordability: nonprofit partners such as Champlain Housing Trust can monitor resale restrictions and access outside subsidies, while standalone private landlords are harder to regulate absent external funding. Testimony summarized in committee described two possible outcomes when an inclusionary requirement is imposed without subsidy: projects may not proceed, or market-rate rents may rise to offset affordability obligations.
The committee asked staff to circulate a statutory definition handout and proposed adding language tying board variance findings to the statute’s purpose. Members did not adopt a numeric inclusionary mandate at the meeting; they instructed counsel to draft clarified definitions of low and moderate income and to return with suggested affordability-duration language for further consideration.
