Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
168 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT [24] <br /> benefits—we just want to make builders build lower-income <br /> housing. Let us also assume that we can choose the victims for <br /> this experiment and make them pay. On whom should we place <br /> this burden? <br /> From a public policy perspective, most people would agree <br /> that it should not be the new market home buyers in inclusionary <br /> developments because making them pay will violate traditional <br /> notions of equity. In most cases, these home buyers will consist <br /> of many people who, although not members of the protected <br /> class of lower-income home buyers, may be only marginally <br /> wealthier than the protected class. In fact, the people who are <br /> protected in Orange County (80 to 120 percent of the median) <br /> could be expected to be market buyers in New Jersey's inclusion- <br /> ary developments supporting not only their own homes but also <br /> 25 percent of one inclusionary unit. Wealthy home buyers would <br /> pay nothing because presumably they would not buy in a devel- <br /> opment subject to inclusionary obligations. Making only market . <br /> home buyers,pay would be unacceptable. <br /> Placing the burden on housing developers is certainly a more <br /> politically palatable idea than placing it on new market home <br /> buyers. The problem here is not politics but practicality. Hous- <br /> ing developers are in a position to pass on costs to new home <br /> buyers, and it will be difficult to squeeze away their profits, <br /> keep them from passing on costs, and make them stay in busi- <br /> ness all at the same time with any inclusionary housing delivery <br /> system. Builders could move their business out of your jurisdic- <br /> tion or go into some other business which better rewarded their <br /> intelligence, organizational skill, and willingness to risk substan- <br /> tial capital if you squeeze their profits. We need builders in any <br /> inclusionary housing system and losing them would give the <br /> system a bad name. <br /> Landowners, on th, other hand, are stationary targets who <br /> cannot leave the junsiction. If you believe that government <br /> creates all land valu ; they are logical victims. They are not <br /> particularly popular 4:;.s class. Most people, if pressed between <br /> the three logical victims, would choose the landowners for sac- <br /> rifice to the public good. There is one big problem with picking <br /> on the landowners;he. as nowhere to go except to court, and he <br /> has a major weafOin the "taking" issue. The taking issue can <br /> be a dangerous ofi.for an inclusionary housing advocate, even if <br /> it is the New Jersey Supreme Court, because the taking issue can <br /> take you to federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that <br /> it has little patience with inclusionary constitutionalist; who <br />