RI House approves compromise to abate concerns about too much affordable housing

PROVIDENCE − The only question in the weeks ahead as the Rhode Island House debates and votes on the pieces in the housing package backed by Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi's leadership team: how many, if any, of their fellow Democrats echo the local control concerns of some mayors, planners and other local officials?

But that was not an issue on Tuesday when the House voted on three comparatively non-controversial bills that in one case, rolls back a move made last year in response to the strong "blowback" from some communities leery of encouraging developers to make one out of every four units they build available at "below-market" rates.

Current law allows developments that have at least 25% income-restricted units to build more market-rate units than local zoning would normally allow.

More: Defend the suburbs: Why towns and planners are pushing back against Shekarchi's housing reforms

The legislation up for a vote Tuesday would allow − but not require − these "density bonuses" for proposed developments with 15% affordable units.

House Judiciary Chairman Robert Craven acknowledged the legislation introduced by Rep. Joseph Solomon that was up for a vote Tuesday was a response to the "blowback" to last year's move.

There was only a smattering of opposition, but Rep. David Morales − who was one of the three nay votes − decried the House's response to what he called "NIMBYism" by communities that view the current "affordable housing" threshold as "excessive."

"During a time [of the] crisis that we're seeing before us, where we say we need to build housing at all levels, we need to be clear that the utmost priority is building housing for those of lower incomes and working people that deserve an opportunity to have access to affordable housing."

The final vote was 65-to-3, however.

H. Philip West, writing on behalf of The Village Common of Rhode Island, was the only advocate speaking one way or the other during the hearing on the bill. He told legislators: "Slightly greater density in attractive market-rate projects will translate into higher potential sales or rental income, and it will boost profits."

The other two bills approved Tuesday deal with permitting and the financial guarantees a municipality may require when a development includes public improvements (street extensions, sidewalks, etc.). The financial guaranty is in place in case a developer does not complete the required improvements.

More: RI unions throw support behind new public housing. Could a 'house flipper' tax also be coming?

The legislation does not remove the ability of a municipality to require bonds on public improvements or for maintenance bonds − it just requires that there be options.

Other bills in the package are slated for committee votes on Tuesday, on their way to potential votes by the full House on Thursday, ahead of the lawmakers' weeklong spring break.

Earlier in the session, the House approved − and sent to the Senate − one of the more controversial pieces in the package earlier: this year's bill to allow homeowners to put accessory apartments or "granny flats" on their properties. The Senate killed it last year.

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Legislation that was up for a vote was in response to 'blowback' from communities last year.