Let's say that we have a piece of development land worth $100. That is the market value of the land based on its highest and best use at this particular point in time. Now let's assume that the land was just encumbered with a new burden: inclusionary zoning. All of a sudden there is now a requirement to make available X% of any residential units built at 50% of average market rents for the area.

Technically, the land is now worth less than $100. And there is a school of thought out there that, in instances like this one, the price of all land should automatically reset downward to offset and account for the inclusionary zoning burden. But as I have argued before on the blog, land prices tend to be fairly sticky, unless the owner is distressed and really needs to sell.

So what can often happen is that the land owner will stubbornly cling to the original $100 number. The thinking being, "I was once told that my land is worth $100 and so that's the minimum price I'm willing to accept." In this scenario, you may need a broad increase in rents in order for a transaction to occur. This way the market rate units might be able to fully subsidize these new affordable units, preserving any margins and justifying the original $100 number.

Of course, the impact of inclusionary zoning is a hotly debated topic and there are a number of variables to consider. And so I will leave it at that for today. The real purpose of this post is to consider another permutation. Let's once again say that we have a piece of development land worth $100. But instead of being owned by 13 siblings -- and 3 cousins that live abroad and can't be reached other than by fax -- it's owned by the government.

In this case, the government wants to sell the land and is considering two options. It can either (1) sell it for $100 and maximize immediate taxpayer revenue or (2) it can sell it for $80 with the condition that the buyer agree to deliver X% of affordable units (and a bunch of other goodies and positive externalities). I would also add that this fictitious town is experiencing what some might call a housing crisis.

If you were a private sector actor, you would probably choose option 1. You would take the additional $20 and retire to Florida (I'm off by a few zeros). But this is the government we're talking about and presumably the government is thinking about the broader public good. Which option do you think is better at maximizing that?

Let's say that we have a piece of development land worth $100. That is the market value of the land based on its highest and best use at this particular point in time. Now let's assume that the land was just encumbered with a new burden: inclusionary zoning. All of a sudden there is now a requirement to make available X% of any residential units built at 50% of average market rents for the area.

Technically, the land is now worth less than $100. And there is a school of thought out there that, in instances like this one, the price of all land should automatically reset downward to offset and account for the inclusionary zoning burden. But as I have argued before on the blog, land prices tend to be fairly sticky, unless the owner is distressed and really needs to sell.

So what can often happen is that the land owner will stubbornly cling to the original $100 number. The thinking being, "I was once told that my land is worth $100 and so that's the minimum price I'm willing to accept." In this scenario, you may need a broad increase in rents in order for a transaction to occur. This way the market rate units might be able to fully subsidize these new affordable units, preserving any margins and justifying the original $100 number.

Of course, the impact of inclusionary zoning is a hotly debated topic and there are a number of variables to consider. And so I will leave it at that for today. The real purpose of this post is to consider another permutation. Let's once again say that we have a piece of development land worth $100. But instead of being owned by 13 siblings -- and 3 cousins that live abroad and can't be reached other than by fax -- it's owned by the government.

In this case, the government wants to sell the land and is considering two options. It can either (1) sell it for $100 and maximize immediate taxpayer revenue or (2) it can sell it for $80 with the condition that the buyer agree to deliver X% of affordable units (and a bunch of other goodies and positive externalities). I would also add that this fictitious town is experiencing what some might call a housing crisis.

If you were a private sector actor, you would probably choose option 1. You would take the additional $20 and retire to Florida (I'm off by a few zeros). But this is the government we're talking about and presumably the government is thinking about the broader public good. Which option do you think is better at maximizing that?