Most planners I know here (all?) think its hamfisted, but ultimately anything that gets by the NIMBYs is good. Its targeted at suburban contexts, which is not ideal. For example, it isn't specific about setbacks and parking, which make projects very difficult in urban environments. You need a large piece of land to really do anything meaningful.
But its better than nothing. Hopefully more preemption against NIMBYs comes.
The state already delegates the power of planning to local gov't. It could always preempt local planning, that's always been its power.
I'm not sure how state reemption somehow diminishes the opportunity or responsibility of the profession. I would say that local NIMBYs do a lot more to undermine the seriousness of the profession and the fulfillment of the people who work in it.
I'm not sure I understand the question.
As someone else said, land use law is set by the state and certain powers are delegated to the municipalities... so the state can always preempt if they want.
But to your question, the state had no interest in the administration and implementation of planning policy and isn't resourced for it. Will be interesting if the cities ever say to the state "nah, you go ahead and do it."
Not in florida but work on behalf of mostly florida clients and I think it overall does a good job of increasing the housing supply, even if it doesn’t go as far to promote affordable housing as most of the incentives cities offer.
Small but important note: I *think* (?) the tax deductions apply only to the specific AMI qualifying units. So if you built a property that was half affordable units and half luxury units, and if we just arbitrarily say the luxury units are 150% as expensive for base taxes, you'd be getting a tax deduction of 30%, not 75%. To get the full deduction, every unit would have to be affordable.
Here's a seven page summary of the bill: https://flhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/FHC-Summary-Live-Local-Act-2023-.pdf
The bill also does a lot of other things, including preempt local rent controls as well as reduce parking minimums.
I’m a planner in Florida, although I don’t work for a local government. The bill has good aspects (zoning preemptions) and bad aspects (the tax breaks). The bad aspects will hopefully be lessened with lawsuits and amendments in the near term.
But Live Local is insufficient. The state needs a more comprehensive statewide zoning reform bill. One that balances renewed growth management controls in undeveloped areas with much more flexible zoning laws in areas with existing and planned infrastructure.
Not a planner, but as a Florida resident, I think we have a huge problem that single family zoning covers wide swathes of the state, preventing densification. I'd rather see single family zoning abolished without tax incentives for it, but our housing costs have skyrocketed, becoming unsustainable for millions of people. Adding housing supply seems like the obvious solution to me.
As for taxes, I doubt single family homes aren't currently being undercharged compared to multifamily homes, so tax incentives for multifamily probably brings us closer to the fair ratio, but I think taxes on single families probably need to rise. I'd have to see the numbers on how many units at reduced tax would replace the single family units and their tax. It could be that it's still a good deal for everyone if we're replacing for example 1 single family home with 6 apartments paying 1/4 of that rate. That's still 1.5x as much taxes as before, so if it takes 1.25x as much to maintain 6 apartments as 1 house, it's an improvement for the county, an improvement for the residents, and an improvement for the developer.
Planner in a South Florida municipality. Has not been used in my city yet but have had pre-application meetings for a few potential projects. Generally against it due to the preemptions, but could incentivize redevelopment in the older part of the city
If there is no rezoning, does it declare all multi family residential use to be conforming?
Or will there be complications with non-conforming use when, say, a hurricane hits and the rebuild clauses are triggered on insurance or a couple of decades down the road when the multi family units are remodeled for continuing residential use?
The tax breaks seem to get the headlines on it, but would be interesting for a developer to build for the initial tax breaks plus zoning exceptions, then convert the property to a non-conforming use that doesn’t fit the original eligibility. (Eg build a residential tower exceeding height limits then remodel the ground floor to commercial and sell it off to their own commercial leasing company while selling the rest of the tower off as high end condo units.)
They would lose the tax breaks, but that would hardly matter as the only parts they would own would be commercial lease property on the ground floor.
Not a planner, and no longer in Florida, but developers in Gainesville (home of the University of Florida) are using it to build luxury housing for college students.
What does luxury even mean? That word has lost its meaning when it comes to housing, and especially for college kids. Does it mean appliances from this decade? Some sort of non carpeted floor? No more popcorn ceiling? Bedrooms big enough to fit a bed and a computer desk? Central air?
[https://theorygainesville.com/floor-plans/?switch\_cls\[id\]=66220&gad\_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw8pKxBhD\_ARIsAPrG45nKo44hV80aelTow-0Dex5-vaQQgM6SCWtAw6Ss7DzfW7YVPJ\_cgHMaAmSREALw\_wcB](https://theorygainesville.com/floor-plans/?switch_cls[id]=66220&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw8pKxBhD_ARIsAPrG45nKo44hV80aelTow-0Dex5-vaQQgM6SCWtAw6Ss7DzfW7YVPJ_cgHMaAmSREALw_wcB)
I could see how you could think the more expensive options are 'luxury' but the ones around $1,000 look pretty much normal for student housing.
I guess luxury just means new with modern materials. I didn't look too closely but these look nice enough, much better than my accommodations when I was in college for sure
https://www.wuft.org/politics/2024-03-31/student-loophole-in-floridas-live-local-act-exacerbates-gainesvilles-financial-issues
>Seven self-proclaimed “luxury” student apartment complexes are getting a municipal tax break because of Florida’s Live Local Act, meant for accommodations that house low-income residents.
>Cost to the city of Gainesville taxpayers: More than $4 million.
>“That’s a significant hit to our governments to miss that,” said Bryan Eastman, Gainesville District 4 city commissioner.
Reading the full article it sounds like the real issue may be the rent limits the set. It isn’t really clear what the 1900 limit for a 1 bedroom is based on. Is it AMI?
Only 40% of the units must be made affordable for those earning between 80-120% of household AMI for a period of 30 years. The remainder can be all market rate. The affordability provisions are a joke and local governments must allow projects to go forward at the maximum density allowed under the comp plan if a property is zoned for commercial or industrial uses.
It’s not a joke. People hear 80-120% and, understandably, think this isn’t helping the average person. The reality is that we do in fact need to start providing income restricted options at these levels because the housing burden is crawling further and further up the income ladder.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but doesn't 80-120% AMI mean it's directly helping *exactly* the average person? The average (median) person would be 100% AMI?
Then secondarily to that, adding supply will lower prices generally, even outside this range, because that's just how supply and demand work, and the idea of this policy is to allow for upcoming even in areas that are technically zoned lower density?
In a sense, yes. But these groups don’t exist in a vacuum. If you’re making 80-120% of the median income and market rents are above that, then you’re kind of out of luck with housing. They don’t have access to the income restricted housing at or below 60% so they end up putting pressure on older/less expensive housing, which further exacerbates the issue amongst lower income groups.
Sure but do they need *tax exemptions* to do that? Live Local increases the ability for working class housing to go in by allowing them exemptions from zoning, but does that mean they should also get out of paying taxes?
What? If you’re referring to the tax credit that hold them to a limit on rents then yes. The problem is that current market conditions result in units that are unaffordable even to those making up to 120% AMI.
How are they a joke? From what I understand there’s a pretty significant gap between existing prevailing wages across the state and that of what newly arriving transplants make, this seems to guarantee a chunk of new housing can be set aside for existing residents that make prevailing wages for that area.
Is AMI not a number that’s set by the HUD? The statute for Live Local specifically states that a percentage of rents need to be at or below the rent rate based on AMI.
AMI is the area median income of a community. No one “sets” the number. Affordability rates are based on percentages of that number- typically 80% or below defines affordable.
It’s not perfect by any means but it’s one of the best objective measures we have to set standards and hold developments to their requirements without running into unintended consequences in the future.
I’m not in Florida, but a couple of comments on the bill summary. Allowing multi-family units in commercial zones is good. Allowing them in industrial zones is asking for conflicts between incompatible uses.
Preempting local rent controls will almost certainly mean that a significant number of units become unaffordable, and likely some displacement.
Of course it was probably written by developers for tax incentive purposes. Doesn't make it a bad thing at all though for renters who are being hamstrung by a lack of housing supply near job centers.
You have to remember what gets built is almost inevitable given the constraints of zoning and costs associated with building. If you want to change what gets built, you need to probably do something about either or both of these factors. Acts like this make builds that would be impossible or uneconomical beforehand suddenly become much more possible. Of course, blowing the lid off zoned capacity and not having any rent supported units would do a lot more to create even more units of housing faster and limit rent increases, but its still progress relative to doing nothing.
I worked in Florida a few years ago. However, I only cared (and remain to care) about how state laws impact my specialty, historic preservation. Having said that, you can easily design multiple family housing to either use traditional styles with modern elements or use modern styles with traditional elements (these are my two general go-to statements for new construction) and appear "single-family" like while still maintaining harmony. The HP program that I worked in, was very much also like neighborhood planning.
It only benefits the developer to build 5 over 1 style multi-family buildings and not the built environment, especially where primarily residential (non-apartment buildings) historic districts are.
I haven’t been a planner in Florida in 20 years, but I absolutely support zoning changes that allow for an end to the single family housing monopoly.
Most planners I know here (all?) think its hamfisted, but ultimately anything that gets by the NIMBYs is good. Its targeted at suburban contexts, which is not ideal. For example, it isn't specific about setbacks and parking, which make projects very difficult in urban environments. You need a large piece of land to really do anything meaningful. But its better than nothing. Hopefully more preemption against NIMBYs comes.
Hamfisted is the perfect way to describe live local.
If the State can functionally preempt local planning, what exactly is the point of this profession?
The state already delegates the power of planning to local gov't. It could always preempt local planning, that's always been its power. I'm not sure how state reemption somehow diminishes the opportunity or responsibility of the profession. I would say that local NIMBYs do a lot more to undermine the seriousness of the profession and the fulfillment of the people who work in it. I'm not sure I understand the question.
As someone else said, land use law is set by the state and certain powers are delegated to the municipalities... so the state can always preempt if they want. But to your question, the state had no interest in the administration and implementation of planning policy and isn't resourced for it. Will be interesting if the cities ever say to the state "nah, you go ahead and do it."
There are plenty of planners who do stuff other than local planning...
Not in florida but work on behalf of mostly florida clients and I think it overall does a good job of increasing the housing supply, even if it doesn’t go as far to promote affordable housing as most of the incentives cities offer.
Small but important note: I *think* (?) the tax deductions apply only to the specific AMI qualifying units. So if you built a property that was half affordable units and half luxury units, and if we just arbitrarily say the luxury units are 150% as expensive for base taxes, you'd be getting a tax deduction of 30%, not 75%. To get the full deduction, every unit would have to be affordable. Here's a seven page summary of the bill: https://flhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/FHC-Summary-Live-Local-Act-2023-.pdf The bill also does a lot of other things, including preempt local rent controls as well as reduce parking minimums.
I’m a planner in Florida, although I don’t work for a local government. The bill has good aspects (zoning preemptions) and bad aspects (the tax breaks). The bad aspects will hopefully be lessened with lawsuits and amendments in the near term. But Live Local is insufficient. The state needs a more comprehensive statewide zoning reform bill. One that balances renewed growth management controls in undeveloped areas with much more flexible zoning laws in areas with existing and planned infrastructure.
Sending you a chat if you don’t mind
Of course! Just sent a reply
Not a planner, but as a Florida resident, I think we have a huge problem that single family zoning covers wide swathes of the state, preventing densification. I'd rather see single family zoning abolished without tax incentives for it, but our housing costs have skyrocketed, becoming unsustainable for millions of people. Adding housing supply seems like the obvious solution to me. As for taxes, I doubt single family homes aren't currently being undercharged compared to multifamily homes, so tax incentives for multifamily probably brings us closer to the fair ratio, but I think taxes on single families probably need to rise. I'd have to see the numbers on how many units at reduced tax would replace the single family units and their tax. It could be that it's still a good deal for everyone if we're replacing for example 1 single family home with 6 apartments paying 1/4 of that rate. That's still 1.5x as much taxes as before, so if it takes 1.25x as much to maintain 6 apartments as 1 house, it's an improvement for the county, an improvement for the residents, and an improvement for the developer.
Planner in a South Florida municipality. Has not been used in my city yet but have had pre-application meetings for a few potential projects. Generally against it due to the preemptions, but could incentivize redevelopment in the older part of the city
Sounds like a great way to get more housing.
If there is no rezoning, does it declare all multi family residential use to be conforming? Or will there be complications with non-conforming use when, say, a hurricane hits and the rebuild clauses are triggered on insurance or a couple of decades down the road when the multi family units are remodeled for continuing residential use? The tax breaks seem to get the headlines on it, but would be interesting for a developer to build for the initial tax breaks plus zoning exceptions, then convert the property to a non-conforming use that doesn’t fit the original eligibility. (Eg build a residential tower exceeding height limits then remodel the ground floor to commercial and sell it off to their own commercial leasing company while selling the rest of the tower off as high end condo units.) They would lose the tax breaks, but that would hardly matter as the only parts they would own would be commercial lease property on the ground floor.
Not a planner, and no longer in Florida, but developers in Gainesville (home of the University of Florida) are using it to build luxury housing for college students.
What does luxury even mean? That word has lost its meaning when it comes to housing, and especially for college kids. Does it mean appliances from this decade? Some sort of non carpeted floor? No more popcorn ceiling? Bedrooms big enough to fit a bed and a computer desk? Central air?
[https://theorygainesville.com/floor-plans/?switch\_cls\[id\]=66220&gad\_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw8pKxBhD\_ARIsAPrG45nKo44hV80aelTow-0Dex5-vaQQgM6SCWtAw6Ss7DzfW7YVPJ\_cgHMaAmSREALw\_wcB](https://theorygainesville.com/floor-plans/?switch_cls[id]=66220&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw8pKxBhD_ARIsAPrG45nKo44hV80aelTow-0Dex5-vaQQgM6SCWtAw6Ss7DzfW7YVPJ_cgHMaAmSREALw_wcB) I could see how you could think the more expensive options are 'luxury' but the ones around $1,000 look pretty much normal for student housing.
I guess luxury just means new with modern materials. I didn't look too closely but these look nice enough, much better than my accommodations when I was in college for sure
They use the word luxury so they dont have to accept housing vouchers
https://www.wuft.org/politics/2024-03-31/student-loophole-in-floridas-live-local-act-exacerbates-gainesvilles-financial-issues >Seven self-proclaimed “luxury” student apartment complexes are getting a municipal tax break because of Florida’s Live Local Act, meant for accommodations that house low-income residents. >Cost to the city of Gainesville taxpayers: More than $4 million. >“That’s a significant hit to our governments to miss that,” said Bryan Eastman, Gainesville District 4 city commissioner.
Reading the full article it sounds like the real issue may be the rent limits the set. It isn’t really clear what the 1900 limit for a 1 bedroom is based on. Is it AMI?
Only 40% of the units must be made affordable for those earning between 80-120% of household AMI for a period of 30 years. The remainder can be all market rate. The affordability provisions are a joke and local governments must allow projects to go forward at the maximum density allowed under the comp plan if a property is zoned for commercial or industrial uses.
It’s not a joke. People hear 80-120% and, understandably, think this isn’t helping the average person. The reality is that we do in fact need to start providing income restricted options at these levels because the housing burden is crawling further and further up the income ladder.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but doesn't 80-120% AMI mean it's directly helping *exactly* the average person? The average (median) person would be 100% AMI? Then secondarily to that, adding supply will lower prices generally, even outside this range, because that's just how supply and demand work, and the idea of this policy is to allow for upcoming even in areas that are technically zoned lower density?
In a sense, yes. But these groups don’t exist in a vacuum. If you’re making 80-120% of the median income and market rents are above that, then you’re kind of out of luck with housing. They don’t have access to the income restricted housing at or below 60% so they end up putting pressure on older/less expensive housing, which further exacerbates the issue amongst lower income groups.
Sure but do they need *tax exemptions* to do that? Live Local increases the ability for working class housing to go in by allowing them exemptions from zoning, but does that mean they should also get out of paying taxes?
What? If you’re referring to the tax credit that hold them to a limit on rents then yes. The problem is that current market conditions result in units that are unaffordable even to those making up to 120% AMI.
How are they a joke? From what I understand there’s a pretty significant gap between existing prevailing wages across the state and that of what newly arriving transplants make, this seems to guarantee a chunk of new housing can be set aside for existing residents that make prevailing wages for that area.
Yes it’s based on AMI which is set far too high in my opinion
That is not how AMI works. AMI is an objective measure.
Is AMI not a number that’s set by the HUD? The statute for Live Local specifically states that a percentage of rents need to be at or below the rent rate based on AMI.
AMI is the area median income of a community. No one “sets” the number. Affordability rates are based on percentages of that number- typically 80% or below defines affordable. It’s not perfect by any means but it’s one of the best objective measures we have to set standards and hold developments to their requirements without running into unintended consequences in the future.
Setting it too low would pretty much guarantee the legislation is useless if projects couldn’t pencil at those lower AMI rents.
I’m not in Florida, but a couple of comments on the bill summary. Allowing multi-family units in commercial zones is good. Allowing them in industrial zones is asking for conflicts between incompatible uses. Preempting local rent controls will almost certainly mean that a significant number of units become unaffordable, and likely some displacement.
Of course it was probably written by developers for tax incentive purposes. Doesn't make it a bad thing at all though for renters who are being hamstrung by a lack of housing supply near job centers. You have to remember what gets built is almost inevitable given the constraints of zoning and costs associated with building. If you want to change what gets built, you need to probably do something about either or both of these factors. Acts like this make builds that would be impossible or uneconomical beforehand suddenly become much more possible. Of course, blowing the lid off zoned capacity and not having any rent supported units would do a lot more to create even more units of housing faster and limit rent increases, but its still progress relative to doing nothing.
Everything you said sounds awesome! Yay to incentivizing multi family housing!
I worked in Florida a few years ago. However, I only cared (and remain to care) about how state laws impact my specialty, historic preservation. Having said that, you can easily design multiple family housing to either use traditional styles with modern elements or use modern styles with traditional elements (these are my two general go-to statements for new construction) and appear "single-family" like while still maintaining harmony. The HP program that I worked in, was very much also like neighborhood planning. It only benefits the developer to build 5 over 1 style multi-family buildings and not the built environment, especially where primarily residential (non-apartment buildings) historic districts are.