1. Inclusionary Housing In North Carolina – An Exploratory Case Study Analysis Joella Schiepan, MCRP, MPH Recent Graduate UNC – Chapel Hill

2. Outline Thesis Background North Carolina Inclusionary Housing (IH) Snapshot Initial Conceptual Model Revised Conceptual Model Key Findings Recommendations

3. Project Background Literature Review – Health/Housing Connection ◦ Quality ◦ Location ◦ Affordability Overall Project Goal ◦ To understand why some municipalities in North Carolina have created an inclusionary housing policy, while others have not Data Collection ◦ Exploratory Case Study  4 Municipalities, 29 interviews

4. North Carolina IH Snapshot Name Inclusionary Housing? Population Projection (2006) Growth Rate (2000-2006 estimated) Median Household Income Median House Value Percentage of Total Households paying 30% or more on housing United States*N/A301,621,1577.2%$48,451$185,20035.4% North Carolina*No9,061,03212.6%$42,625$137,20031.1% Carrboro Yes (Voluntary) 16,577-1.2%$33,527$172,80039.7% Chapel Hill Yes (Conditional) 49,9192.5%$39,140 $229,100 (331,794)** 38% Dare County Yes (Ordinance) 33,93513.2%$42,411$137,20026.3% Davidson Yes (Ordinance) 8,76022.7%$78,370$270,00018% Kill Devil Hills Yes (Ordinance) 6,61412.2%$39,713$104,50028.4% Manteo Yes (Ordinance) 1,29022.6%$29,803$116,10027.8% Source: US Census *2006 American Community Survey Data **Data from Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce (2003)

5. Initial Conceptual Model Policy-Development Context Local Government Identifies Need for Affordable Housing (AH) Social Factors Economic Factors Political Factors Inclusionary Housing Policy Other AH Policy Solutions Policy Decision

6. Revised Conceptual Model Policy-Development Context Local Gov’t Identifies Need for Affordable Housing Social Factors  NIMBYism  Economic Diversity  Access to AH by Workforce  Racial Diversity  Homelessness Economic Factors  Financing/Funding  Increasing Property Values  Displacement of Residents/ Gentrification  Market Forces  Physical Quality of Housing  Living Wage Political Factors  Public Recognition of the need for AH  Political Advocacy  Enabling Legislation Not Needed  Political Will  Enabling Legislation Needed  Political Power (Opposed) Inclusionary Housing Policy Other AH Policy Solutions Policy Decision Key: High Level of Importance in both Municipality types High Level of Importance in IH Municipalities High Level of Importance in non-IH Municipalities

7. Key Findings: Economic Factors Financing/Funding Increasing Property Values Displacement of Residents/Gentrification Market Forces Physical Quality of Housing Living Wage

8. Key Findings: Social Factors  Not in My Back Yard (NIMBYism)  Economic Diversity  Access to AH by Workforce  Racial Diversity  Homelessness

9. Key Findings: Political Factors  Enabling Legislation  Political Power (Opposed)  Political Advocacy  Political Will  Public Recognition of the need for AH

10. Recommendations Clarify the IH legality issue Advocate for IH through electing political advocates Build Political Support by Bringing ALL Voices to the Table Media advocacy to decrease the negative views and beliefs about affordable housing