Gardiner Zoning Revisions and Inclusionary Housing

As Gardiner town board continues the debate and discussions over the new Zoning regulations, it's hard to decide which of the sections of the document are the most oppressive to property owners rights. The one that we object to vigorously is the entire new section on Inclusionary Housing.

The Inclusionary Housing regulation (220-42 ) of the proposed zoning law should be eliminated in it’s entirety from the zoning regulations. Although the law is cited as a goal of the 2004 Master Plan, nowhere in the plan is his type of housing discussed as being mandated by a zoning regulation. Nor does this seem to be the intent of the Master Plan, which mentions “affordable housing” as only one of a list of possible concessions to the town in exchange for more density by builders.

Indeed, this regulation would cause an immediate increase in the size, power and intrusiveness of town government by creating an entirely new group called the Housing Authority. This department could be appointed from untrained volunteers, or worse, delegated to outside third party entities who would determine who and under what conditions ownership of the homes would be allowed. It sets up the town government as a Landlord, real estate agent and “superintendent of buildings” all rolled into one. This new “authority” will oversee the selection of home buyers or renters and have the power to oversee the selection of who be allowed to live in the community. They will have ultimate authority to permit or deny the sale, renovation, or even emergency repair of homes in the community. Free will and choice are taken out of the homeowners hands. This should not be a proper role of town government but instead driven by a natural marketplace where free will and choice can be exercised by both home buyers and builders.

This regulation is also harmful in that it would cap the investment potential of the properties for buyers, eliminating one of the most basic and important reasons for home ownership, which is to create a secure and stable investment and asset that could grow equity over time.

This section doesn’t allow for another basic benefit of home ownership which is the ability to improve and expand ones home as necessary. This regulation discourages healthy family growth, since a homeowner is not allowed to expand the footprint of their property, or make improvements that reflect pride of ownership. Indeed, the regulation institutes perpetual restrictions on occupancy and resale, regardless of the status of neighboring properties in the development or throughout the town.

Homeowners are not the only ones hurt by this regulation. Builders are penalized as well in having this section mandatory, which creates an inequality in housing types in the same neighborhood. This causes non-restricted homes to be more costly which negatively impacts other middle class home buyers. Instead, the town should encourage, but not mandate a diversity of home types by lifting regulations and guidelines, not by creating more. The town should offer tax breaks or other bonus concessions to builders who willingly create lower priced starter and senior homes as part of their developments, but they should not try to force these mandates in areas where there is no proof that these types of housing are either needed or wanted.