Stories of Philanthropic Leadership in Advancing Regional and ...

A new report from the National HousingConference entitled, Inclusionary Zoning: TheCalifornia Experience, bolsters Shoemaker’s views.From 1994 to 2003, there was a 67 percentincrease in communities that adopted inclusionaryzoning policies, from 64 to 107 communities. Inthe Bay Area, 60 of the area’s 109 jurisdictionscurrently have an existing IZ policy. Shoemakeradds, “Ultimately focusing on the possibility forand benefits of inclusionary housing is morecritical than ever since the funding of otheraffordable housing programs is being threatened bya tightening federal budget. In particular, withinthe FY 2005 budget proposal, funding for Section8 housing vouchers is much lower than what isneeded to fund all contract renewals under currentprogram rules. The budget proposal also eliminatesthe successful HOPE VI program, which helps toreplace distressed public housing with mixedincome communities.”A former East Palo Alto City Council Member,Duane Bay, also notes the current fiscal climate.“Inclusionary zoning is a commonsense answer tocreating housing that actually meets certain needs ofthe community,” says Bay. “One of its primaryadvantages is that it does not require a largeinvestment—or in some instances, any financialinvestment at all—by local governments. Anotheradvantage is that it helps to integrate those withdifferent ethnic and financial backgrounds. Thecommunities themselves benefit from this integrationbecause of the need for both a low- and moderateincomeworkforce.”cities adopt or revise IZ programs, working with ourcampaign partners and governmental officials, wecan take thoseexamples and sharewith communitiesacross the country.”Lessons LearnedFrom the FannieMae Foundation’sperspective, one ofthe greatest lessonswas learning to be“not tooprescriptive,”“If cities adopt or revise IZprograms, working with ourcampaign partners andgovernmental officials, wecan take those examplesand share with communitiesacross the country.”— Vera de Veraaccording to de Vera. “It was most beneficial to firstlisten to our community partners and then ask themto prioritize their concerns. Also, some fundersthought the campaign was too much advocacy. Animprovement would be to specifically define ‘policywork’ as awareness and education. Everyone wantedpolicymakers to be better educated on these issues.”From the community partner perspective,recognizing the independent nature of its membersalso meant a range of prior interests. And thatrecognition translated into policy negotiations. “Ourgoal,” said Shoemaker, “was getting inclusionaryhousing outcomes and base-building outcomes. Thatkind of regionalism worked—speaking and learningfrom one another. As individual groups we had atremendous capacity.”ResultsFor the Schwab Foundation, this collaborativeapproach had to first recognize that each funderbrought to the discussion its own set of limitations.“We had silo targets,” expresses Benjamin. “Some ofus had silos of target populations or geography. Butour goal of broad impact was respectful of eachfunder. And we knew we were hoping to leverageorganizational names and status to elevate policyreform.” Benjamin adds, “If more citizens adoptreforms, IZ will be seen as the norm. It won’t be apanacea; but it will result in more integratedopportunities for low- and moderate-incomehouseholds.” The Fannie Mae Foundation furtherexpands that same view with de Vera stating that, “IfREGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 94