As the growth of our region continues to accelerate, so does the need for affordable housing. Addressing this challenge and ensuring our communities remain accessible for everyone requires a multi-faceted strategy that leverages public assets and encourages private sector participation. Policies that offer strong incentives for builders to include affordable units in their projects are a crucial tool to meet this demand. When these incentives are strategically targeted in areas with low displacement risk, they create diverse, fair, and stable communities. 

WALC has identified two complementary strategies that have the potential to provide essential housing, build stronger, more inclusive neighborhoods, and secure the long-term prosperity of our region: 

1. Utilize Surplus Public Land to Support Housing Goals: Harnessing underutilized public assets for the development of affordable housing.
2. Implement Incentives to Boost Affordable Housing Creation, Leveraging New and Existing Development: Encouraging private sector partners to voluntarily deliver affordable units.

Strategy 1: Utilize Surplus Public Land to Support Housing Goals 

Publicly-owned surplus land is a cost-effective resource that can be leveraged to create more affordable housing projects without altering cities’ existing structural identity. Many cities in the United States are currently inventorying public lands and streamlining their accessibility for local builders dedicated to low to moderate-income housing. Following a review of successful programs undertaken by other cities and counties, these policy measures can be implemented to accelerate the creation of attainable housing in our region:

Policy Goals to Achieve Strategy:

• Establish a Public Land Inventory for Affordable Housing Planning

A comprehensive public land inventory is a foundational tool for strategic planning and equitable land use in communities. A centralized inventory enables data-driven decision-making, enhances coordination across city departments, and ensures transparency in how public land assets are managed. This inventory should identify all unused or underutilized publicly-owned parcels across every city department and affiliated agency, digitized into a GIS-enabled database (a digital map) and updated regularly (i.e., annually). Parcels identified as potentially suitable for housing should be flagged for feasibility analysis and prioritized in affordable housing strategies. Examples of places that utilize these public land inventories to guide and accelerate their housing goals include New York, Montgomery County (MD), King County (WA), and Massachusetts. 

• Determine Suitability for Housing and Allocate Land Accordingly

Local governments should establish a standardized process to evaluate surplus land for housing suitability. Parcels viable for residential use should be reserved for affordable housing, while proceeds from the sale of unsuitable land should be reinvested into affordable housing funds or projects. This approach, successfully used in Seattle, ensures that every public asset either provides a site for housing or the capital to build it.

• Require “Housing First” Disposition of Suitable Parcels and Establish First Preference for Affordable Housing Developers

Following models like California state law and King County’s ordinance (WA), local governments should adopt a “Housing First” principle for surplus public land. This requires that any land suitable for residential use be offered to affordable housing providers (such as non-profit or mission-driven developers) before it is considered for other uses or sold on the private market. By formally codifying this preference, cities ensure public assets are prioritized for low- and moderate-income housing.

• Authorize Below-Market Disposition of Surplus Land for Public Benefit

Counties and municipalities should be authorized to sell or provide long-term leases for surplus public land at below-market value (including for a nominal amount like $1) when the transfer serves an overriding, specific public purpose, such as the development of affordable housing, preserving land for recreation or conservation, or critical community facilities such as childcare centers or clinics. To maintain public trust, the land’s true market value should be fully disclosed during the transaction process. This approach is modeled after Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30B, which empowers local governments to maximize the public benefit of their real estate assets while ensuring a competitive and transparent disposition process.

• Facilitate Nonprofit Access and Enable No-Cost or Low-Cost Transfers to Mission-Driven Developers

Cities should evaluate all surplus land for affordable housing potential and reserve it whenever feasible. To ensure long-term public benefit, a city should retain land ownership and offer community-based or nonprofit developers long-term ground leases. If a surplus parcel is unsuitable for housing and must be sold, a significant percentage of proceeds should be reinvested directly into an affordable housing fund. To promote equity, partnerships should prioritize culturally rooted organizations in areas at high risk of displacement. Additionally, cities should be authorized to transfer land at no cost to nonprofits for projects that serve extremely low-income residents or are located in transit-rich or high-opportunity areas. This strategy, modeled by cities like Tacoma, requires a formal public land inventory and a transparent process for approving these high-impact transfers.

• Partner With Land Banks to Donate Properties for Housing

Counties and cities should formalize strategic partnerships with local land banks or redevelopment authorities, donating vacant or underutilized city-owned parcels for the creation of affordable rental and homeownership opportunities. Chattanooga’s initiative offers a replicable model for utilizing public land assets to expand affordable housing without incurring direct municipal development costs. 

Strategy 2: Implement Incentives to Boost Affordable Housing Creation 

A city’s ability to provide affordable housing is a key factor in its overall health and vitality. To address this challenge effectively, many cities around the country are adopting market-based incentives to encourage the private sector to build and preserve homes that are accessible to people of all income levels. These policies ensure that growth is inclusive and sustainable.

Policy Goals for New Development: 

Policy 1: Expand Housing Types and Density Incentives

Cities and counties must modernize zoning to permit a wider range of housing types, such as twin homes, row houses, side-by-side duplexes, and cottage developments in districts where they are currently restricted. This should be coupled with offering increased allowable density and lot subdivision flexibility for developments that meet defined affordability thresholds.

Salt Lake City’s Affordable Housing Incentive (AHI) program provides a highly effective model–allowing expanded housing types in specific zones (Type A and C), enabling up to four units per lot and easing lot size and frontage requirements. This approach strategically increases the affordable housing supply without large-scale rezoning efforts.

Policy 2: Reduce Parking Requirements for New Affordable Projects

Cities should reduce or eliminate off-street parking requirements for housing projects that meet affordability criteria. This policy should provide flexibility in parking location and design to lower construction costs and optimize land use for people, rather than cars. Minimum parking requirements have been shown to undermine affordability and prevent infill and the creation of missing middle housing. Building parking significantly raises the per-unit cost of construction and space used for excessive parking could instead be used for additional housing. These requirements disproportionately affect lower-income residents who may rely on public transit but are forced to pay for the "hidden" cost of parking included in their rent.

Under Salt Lake City’s AHI program, affordable developments often require only one space per unit, even in multifamily zones, reducing cost burdens and allowing more space for housing and green space. Other examples include Minneapolis, which eliminated citywide parking mandates in 2021, positively impacting the city’s affordable housing situation and Oregon’s “Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities” initiative, which allows affordable housing projects to choose their own parking ratios. Homeless shelters, as well as all small homes and those close to relatively frequent transit, also benefit from this flexibility. By decoupling housing from parking mandates, cities can lower the cost of living and foster more convenient, equitable neighborhoods.

Policy 3: Expedite Affordable Housing Projects Through Fast-Tracking

To significantly reduce development costs and construction times, cities should remove legislative and procedural barriers and fast-track the permitting process for projects that meet dedicated affordable housing thresholds. This includes creating dedicated review teams, guaranteeing timelines, and consolidating approval steps. Examples of success include California’s SB 35, which mandates that cities falling short of their housing production goals must automatically approve qualifying affordable projects within an expedited timeline, as well as Austin, Texas’s “Affordability Unlocked” program, which pairs significant zoning flexibility with guaranteed faster reviews. By relaxing certain regulations for developers who include high levels of affordability, Austin has successfully accelerated the construction of thousands of new units. 

Policy 4: Provide Tax Exemption to Development Projects with Affordable Units 

To encourage the inclusion of affordable units in private developments, cities should offer long-term property tax exemptions or abatements. These incentives should be scaled proportionally to the percentage of affordable units provided, ensuring that deeper affordability results in greater tax relief. Local authorities should establish a clear matrix that defines eligibility based on the number of affordable units, the income levels targeted (e.g., 60% vs. 80% AMI), and the duration of the benefit. New York’s Affordable Neighborhoods for New Yorkers Tax Incentive Program (421-a, also known as Affordable New York) offers a model for structuring this type of high-impact, temporary tax incentive to achieve sustained affordability. 

Policy Goals for Existing Development: 

Policy 1: Establish a Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF)

Cities should establish a Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) as a dedicated, sustainable financing mechanism to expand housing affordability. Drawing on proven models like Seattle’s Housing Levy and Chicago’s Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund, a LHTF can provide a reliable stream of capital for the creation, preservation, and rehabilitation of both rental and ownership housing. This strategy leverages new development by capturing value through impact fees and leverages existing development by utilizing property tax revenues to protect and upgrade the city's current housing supply. 

The fund can provide critical rental assistance to prevent homelessness and offer wage stabilization for the supportive housing workforce. The LHTF will be capitalized through diverse revenue streams, including:

• General fund allocations 
• Dedicated property tax revenue 
• Development impact fees
• Proceeds from municipal land sales 

By institutionalizing this fund, a city can establish a durable, transparent, and accountable framework for fostering inclusive, resilient communities and long-term housing stability. 

Policy 2 : Expand the Scope of Local Housing Voucher Program 

Cities should establish a Local Rental Assistance Program to provide monthly rental subsidies for extremely low-income households (those earning ≤ 30% of the Area Median Income) and families facing risk of eviction or displacement. 

Inspired by successful models such as Washington, D.C.’s Local Rent Supplement Program (LRSP) and New York City’s Family Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement (FHEPS), this initiative can bridge the gap between a household’s ability to pay and actual market-rate rental costs. Eligible participants will contribute 30% of their adjusted income toward rent and utilities, with the program paying the remaining balance directly to the landlord. The program provides both eviction-prevention support for those currently housed and transition pathways for individuals and families moving out of the shelter system. To ensure long-term stability, participants will receive referrals and case management through a network of partner social service agencies. By funding and administering this program locally, a city ensures a sustainable and accountable framework for stabilizing vulnerable residents and proactively preventing homelessness. 

Policy 3 : Expand the Scope of Homeowner Assistance Programs 

Cities should launch a Homeownership Support Program to help first-time and income-qualified buyers overcome the financial barriers of buying a home. Drawing on successful models like Philadelphia’s Philly First Home grant, Denver’s metroDPA down payment loans, and Boston’s ONE+Boston reduced-rate mortgage program, the program can offer a mix of grants, low- or no-interest loans, and affordable financing options. To ensure long-term success and prevent foreclosures, participants would be required to complete certified homeownership counseling. By pairing direct financial aid with education, cities can bridge the wealth gap, increase housing security, and foster stable, thriving neighborhoods.

Policy 4: Prioritize Adaptive Reuse of Underutilized Buildings

Cities should prioritize the adaptive reuse of underutilized non-residential buildings to expand attainable housing. By transforming vacant or obsolete buildings into vibrant residential communities, cities can address housing needs while revitalizing the existing built environment.

For example, the city of Cleveland, Ohio converted a vacant school into senior housing, and models like California’s Project Homekey demonstrate how motels can be quickly converted into permanent supportive housing for unhoused residents. Similarly, outdated office towers in Washington, D.C have been successfully converted into mixed-income housing. Underused industrial warehouses or retail centers offer significant potential for conversion into mixed-income housing. Converting existing structures is often faster than traditional ground-up construction, repurposing buildings reduces environmental impact, and transforming vacant structures into active residential hubs improves community safety and boosts local economies. By establishing clear zoning pathways and financial incentives for these conversions, cities can turn “obsolete” assets into essential housing infrastructure.