Conservation Based Affordable Housing Report

109 Pages·2006·2.24 MB·English

CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn--BBaasseedd
AAffffoorrddaabbllee HHoouussiinngg
Improving the Nature
of Affordable Housing
to Protect Place and People
THE CONSERVATION FUND
by Kendra J. Briechle
About The Conservation Fund
The Conservation Fund is the nation’s foremost nonprofit dedicated to protecting America’s
land and water legacy. Seeking innovative conservation solutions for the 21st century, the Fund
integrates economic and environmental goals. Since its founding in 1985, the Fund has helped
its partners safeguard wildlife habitat, working landscapes, community “greenspace,” and his-
toric sites totaling more than 5 million acres. The Fund assists business, government, communi-
ty and conservation nonprofit organizations work toward sustainable use of natural resources as
a tool for economic development. With 1% fund raising costs and 96% program allocation, The
Conservation Fund has gained top ratings by both the American Institute of Philanthropy and
Charity Navigator.
This study of Conservation Based Affordable Housing is a project of The Fund’s Center for
Conservation and Development. Working with the private sector, conservation and professional
organizations, and public officials, the Center seeks to enhance the quality of life in communities
by strengthening local economic opportunities and ensuring protection of the nation’s green
infrastructure. Center initiatives are improving American land protection and land use through a
unique vision pairing smarter conservation with smarter development.
The Conservation Fund
National Office
1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1300
Arlington, VA 22209-2156
703-525-6300
www.conservationfund.org
June 2006
© The Conservation Fund
ISBN 0-9705292-3-6
Contents
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Why this Link?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Connection Between Land Conservation and Affordable Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Why Not? Traditional Barriers To Conservation Based Affordable Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Profile Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Profiled Developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Lessons Learned: The Relevance of Conservation-Based Affordable Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Next Steps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Development Profiles
Battle Road Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Beacon Hill Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Codman Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Great Elms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Greenways–Paine Estate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Island Cohousing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Jay Village. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Lime Kiln Apartments/Winooski Gorge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Loomis Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Martin Farms and Taylor Meadow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
OPAL Commons and Bonnie Brae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Sepiessa Point Apartments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Stapleton—Syracuse Village and Roslyn Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Starlake Housing and Farrell Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Wellington Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Sources and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Executive Summary
Conservation-Based Affordable Housing: Improving the Vegas and Lincoln, Seattle and Sarasota, and places in
Nature of Affordable Housing to Protect Place and between, housing prices are accelerating faster than
Peoplespotlights the opportunity to develop wage increases, exacerbating the housing shortage for
housing for low- and moderate-income residents and low- and moderate-income community members such as
also protect natural and working landscapes. These case teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police officers. The
studies, information about limited development as a National Low Income Housing Coalition reports that
conservation tool, and a perspective on where this trend low-income workers are priced out of housing markets
may be headed are part of the Fund’s report. across the country. In 2005, nearly 95 million people—35
percent of U.S. households—had some type of housing
For decades, proponents of land conservation and problem.
affordable housing have rarely seen the common ground
they might occupy. Instead of collaborating, principals The Response
from these two interests competed over development The Conservation Fund recognizes that sustainable
proposals and scarce funding. Thankfully, new communities have good jobs, adequate housing, and a
approaches are helping communities move away from strong sense of place derived from local natural and cul-
an “us-versus- them” debate and toward recognition of tural resources. To this end, the Fund pioneers a bal-
the connections, and even the benefits, of integrating anced approach to land conservation that integrates eco-
land conservation and development. nomic and environmental objectives.
Smart growth is prompting new partnerships between The Conservation Fund embarked on its Conservation
former adversaries in communities nationwide. “Sus- Based Affordable Housing study to discover whether
tainability” has moved beyond a mere buzzword to conservation-based collaboration and market-based
become a way of doing business for an increasing num- mechanisms could integrate community, economic, and
ber of businesses and government leaders. Increasingly environmental goals. “Green building” focuses on mate-
business, land development, and environmental profes- rial composition, energy, and water use, but “conserva-
sionals, along with local and state government officials, tion development” adds more emphasis on protection of
are recognizing the benefits of greater integration the land and water resources. While the body of case
between the built environment and nature. material for conservation developments is growing, the
well-known project examples are limited almost exclu-
At the same time, land conservation and housing profes- sively to the upper end of the housing market. To this
sionals are experiencing unprecedented challenges to end, The Conservation Fund set out to uncover and doc-
protecting places and providing for people. The acceler- ument conservation developments for the low- and mid-
ating consumption and fragmentation of open space is dle-income housing market.
the number one challenge to the preservation of natural
areas. Each year more than two million acres of farms, The Findings
woodlands, and natural areas are developed. The results The study details 16 successful examples of conserva-
too often have produced subdivisions amid Civil War tion-based affordable housing, ranging across urban,
battlefields, isolated and unproductive farms, fragment- suburban, and rural communities. The profiles docu-
ed wildlife habitat, and damaging stormwater discharges ment each development’s housing and conservation fea-
into wetlands and waterways. tures, while providing background on design and
financing, as well as information on the protection and
These headlines are joined with others that report a stewardship of the housing and conservation land. The
widening gap between wages and housing costs. In Las study also provides the lessons learned from the devel-
T H E C O N S E RVAT I O N F U N D Conservation-Based Affordable Housing
v
opers, land trusts, local governments, and housing (cid:2) By addressing community needs for housing and nat-
organizations behind these developments, including site ural resource protection together and engaging com-
assessment, public support, and financing. The study munity members in the process, conservation-based
includes promising trends for conservation-based affordable housing developments can forge new pub-
affordable housing and strategies for forging more cre- lic and political support.
ative partnerships between land conservation and
affordable housing. Of note, (cid:2) The best conservation-based affordable housing
examples reflect the need for connections to ensure
(cid:2) Communities can provide well-designed homes for the strategic protection of conservation areas, appro-
low- and moderate-income residents as well as pre- priate to the conservation intent, and the location of
serve treasured community lands. The profiled devel- housing in a pattern that least disturbs the resources
opments provided between 2 and 1,200 affordable while ideally placed close to jobs, services, and transit
homes and from 7 to 1,500 acres of open space. All opportunities, appropriate to the landscape setting.
but two of the developments—both urban infill rede-
velopment sites—provided more than 50 percent open Next Steps
space for a variety of conservation purposes. The Fund hopes its study will encourage more commu-
nities to develop affordable housing that values the sur-
(cid:2) Conservation-based affordable housing can exist in rounding natural resources. These developments can
urban, suburban, and rural settings. Successful exam- and should reflect innovative site design and green
ples range in age from 30 years old to as recent as building techniques that meet the needs of people,
2005. whether of modest, moderate, or wealthier means. There
is a great need in the United States for a more strategic
(cid:2) The innovative leadership behind these developments vision to achieve sustainable development protective of
required varied and unusual partnerships between irreplaceable landscapes, finite natural resources, and
private developers, local governments, land trusts, unique community character, while enhancing econom-
housing organizations, and other nonprofit groups. ic opportunities for all.
(cid:2) Partnerships among diverse organizations allow them The Conservation Fund calls for a summit on conserva-
to share skills and reduce risk to any one organiza- tion-based affordable housing. Leaders from all affected
tion. interests need to pioneer new partnerships to advance
land conservation and development that serves people
(cid:2) New funding sources can spring from the pairing of and places. The Fund welcomes information on other
land conservation and affordable housing. This coun- examples of conservation-based affordable housing to
ters the assumption that affordable housing or land further promote the will, commitment, and leadership
conservation drives up costs. that guide such successful strategic initiatives.
Conservation-Based Affordable Housing T H E C O N S E RVAT I O N F U N D
vi
Introduction
L
AND CONSERVATION is guided by a passion for reduce the construction footprint, and create livable
special places and natural resources coupled communities. With conservation development,
with the desire to protect this legacy for future landowners conserve natural resources on private lands
generations. In recent years, the stunning increase in providing a different consumer housing choice in the
land development and the accompanying consumption marketplace: residences alongside high-quality protected
and fragmentation of farms, forests, and green space conservation land.
have led to the realization that environmental protec-
tion must stretch beyond traditional bounds. In Conservation development communities such as Prairie
response, some in the conservation community have Crossing, Jackson Meadows, and the Fields of St. Croix
developed a richer strategy toward land protection, rec- reflect high standards of development and conservation.
ognizing, for example, that economic growth can and Those private developments demonstrate that business-
should complement land conservation and that develop- es and individuals value a good view and access to green
ment can also be the means to preserve, protect, and space, that adjacency to protected land translates to a
maintain land. Green infrastructure, conservation devel- sales premium, and that private resources can provide
opment, and the protection of working farms and the means to permanently protect natural resources.
forests all reflect new practices in land conservation that Other conservation developments have been led by con-
shift from preservation of “nature for nature’s sake,” or servation land trusts, local governments, and other non-
a single-purpose approach, towards a conservation strat- profit organizations.
egy that realizes multiple goals and benefits.
While the body of case material for conservation devel-
In a parallel vein, the concern for people and their need opments is growing, project examples are limited almost
for quality housing guide affordable housing advocates. exclusively to the upper end of the housing market. For
Forces similar to those challenging land conservation the low- to middle-income housing market, little
organizations are also prompting housing advocates to research has been done to document case studies of
become more strategic. The real estate boom and rising development projects. This study aims to address that
land and housing prices have increased the housing cri- gap.
sis in communities across the country. Low- and moder-
ate-income workers are priced out of housing markets The link between land conservation and affordable
across the country as increases in housing costs surpass housing is usually at the forefront when a community is
wage increases. Affordable housing organizations have growing rapidly, threatening both natural areas as well
responded by forging partnerships with traditional and as the ability of low-income residents to find or retain a
nontraditional allies, advocating for smart growth, com- home. But, as in the smart growth movement, those two
munity revitalization, adaptive reuse, and economic issues have typically remained separate sides of a coin.
development. Both conservation and housing advocates Affordable housing is proposed in one place, usually a
have realized the benefits of addressing multiple com- downtown or urban center, and land conservation in
munity goals. another area, usually a rural or exurban area facing
development pressures. Or municipal bonds fund both
Communities can benefit from more strategic and inte- affordable housing and land conservation but on sepa-
grated approaches to housing and conservation. One rate sites. Rarely are solutions proffered that address
tool for more strategic conservation pairs land conserva- both issues simultaneously. Rarer still is the active mar-
tion and development, using environmentally sensitive riage between the two areas. However, this research
design to protect specific natural features or systems, explores the potential for affordable housing and land
T H E C O N S E RVAT I O N F U N D Conservation-Based Affordable Housing
1
Why This Link?
conservation to be thoughtfully planned and developed
on the same site (or at the least considered within the
same transaction), at a mix of scales, and in a variety of The Connection between Land Conservation
landscapes. and Affordable Housing
Such an approach harks back to the very passion for Forty years ago, the passage of the Land and Water Con-
conservation—the desire to protect special places and servation Fund provided federal funds for parks, natural
their unique character—that is woven tightly with con- areas, and outdoor recreation, resulting in millions of
cern for the people and the broader community. Good acres of protected land across the country. But since the
land stewardship depends on meeting human needs and 1980s the amount of federal and state monies for land
relating those needs to the landscape’s protection. conservation has slowly dropped. At the same time, the
Achieving long-term land protection hinges on meeting pace of development across the United States has accel-
community needs like jobs and housing and acknowl- erated dramatically, reaching 11.2 million total acres
edging the fundamental human needs—regardless of developed in the years between 1992 and 1997.
financial situation—for food, shelter, clean air and water,
and green space. Too often, affordable housing and land While grassroots support for land conservation has
conservation are viewed as either-or propositions. All swelled, the conservation community just does not have
people deserve well-designed housing as well as access to enough funds to purchase all the land it wants to pro-
green space and the benefits of protected natural sys- tect. In addition, the land conservation community has
tems and habitat. Gus Selig, executive director of the frequently worked fervently to “save the farm” but in its
Vermont Housing and Conservation Board spoke of the singular focus on one property, has “lost the farming”,
integration of conservation and housing in The Provi- or a similar broad conservation purpose. It is vitally
dence Journal,“It’s all about the relationship between important to step back, identify the root causes of loss
land and people,” and making room “for all species, of natural areas, set community priorities, and use con-
including human beings.” servation techniques and resources to resolve those
problems and realize those priorities.
With such purpose in hand, The Conservation Fund set
out to research and document examples of conservation- A different course is needed, one that sets priorities,
based affordable housing, that is, housing for low- and stresses multiple benefits, and makes wise use of limited
moderate-income households paired with direct land resources. Gretchen Schuler with the town of Wayland,
protection, to meet a variety of conservation objectives. Massachusetts, says “In today’s world there’s not a way
These 16 development projects (in 15 profiles) show to preserve a lot of land outright so we must work
unique landscapes being protected in conjunction with strategically” in order to protect resources and simulta-
affordable housing. Some of the case studies presented neously achieve multiple goals. The inclusion of afford-
in this paper also include market-rate housing, commer- able housing can, as in the case of other forms of conser-
cial development, or recreational, farm, or forestry uses. vation development, generate new sources of funding to
conserve land, while helping meet a public need.
By recording and analyzing these innovative efforts, we
wish to broaden the reach of conservation, to demon- In addition, many of our country’s significant natural
strate the potential for housing solutions at a variety of areas are also the poorest communities or have sizable
income levels and in a variety of settings, and to numbers of low-income residents. Economically dis-
strengthen the potential for conservation development tressed, high amenity areas, such as the southern
to meet the needs of communities and people who care Appalachians, the South Carolina Sea Islands, or the
about the land. Southwest, have long-time residents being displaced by
second-home, retirement, or resort development, creat-
Conservation-Based Affordable Housing T H E C O N S E RVAT I O N F U N D
2
ing a desperate need for affordable housing. In other course communities without the golf course”. Instead of
treasured natural areas, a visitor industry is driving the the fairways, residents pay a premium for a view of pro-
demand for retirement or second homes, using outside tected farms, forests, wetlands, or waterways. While such
money to push up local housing prices and challenging development projects can, and often do, result in good
the cost of living for long-time residents. conservation outcomes, this study was an attempt to
locate and document the projects that instead paired
Many areas across the country experience a dominant affordablehousing with land conservation.
second-home industry, where visitors attracted by the
natural beauty decide to purchase retirement or vacation While there are not an abundance of such developments,
homes. Other areas just feel the pinch of rapid or poorly the profiles here underscore the diversity of geographies,
planned growth that displaces low-income renters or scales, forms, and techniques. Even more promising is
tenants, as long-time landowners sell land for develop- the strategic mindset of the individuals and organiza-
ment. And so many communities today require larger tions involved in such projects that led to multiple bene-
lots for each proposed dwelling. fits for their communities and neighbors. Such a mind-
set came from housing and conservation advocates as
In many places housing prices are accelerating faster well as developers—and was realized in urban, suburban,
than wage increases, exacerbating the housing shortage. and rural settings.
For example, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission docu-
mented the accelerating housing affordability gap (the Warren Hanson, president and CEO of Greater Min-
gap between maximum home cost eligibility and median nesota Housing Fund stated, “Open space can and
sales price) on the island rose from $182,500 in 2000 to should always figure into the planning of affordable
$343,600 in 2004. On Block Island, which had the housing.” His organization has been pushing for the
state’s highest priced homes in 2005, the gap increased integration of the two areas and its Building Better
198 percent between 1998 and 2004, according to a Communities program holds promise for achieving it.
report from HousingWorks RI. Seasonal variations in
housing demand as well as second-home buyers with Others found it a natural fit. Keith Lewis of Block
high income may pinch the ability of local residents to Island, Rhode Island, wrote in the Block Island Times,“On
locate year-round affordable housing. an island this size, affordable housing and conservation
are related issues simply because both deal with scarce
The conservation-based affordable housing develop- acres. Both have to contend with powerful, external mar-
ments profiled herein tend to be in areas with rapidly ket forces beyond their control. Blaming one another is
rising or high incomes. This does not mean that such counterproductive.” Instead they came together at the
developments could not take place in lower-income island’s Beacon Hill Lane project.
areas. The author uncovered a few developments pro-
posed for lower-income landscapes but these have not Mark Zelnick, former executive director of the Franklin
yet borne fruit. Land Trust and coordinator of the Loomis Farm project,
expressed his view that the conservation community has
The Conservation Fund has always recognized the need a moral imperative to help provide affordable housing.
for a more strategic approach to conservation, one that As land conservation may limit the amount of devel-
achieves both economic and conservation goals. The opable land, land prices may rise due to less land avail-
Fund has engaged in, studied, and promoted conserva- ability or because of the increased desirability of the
tion development as one tool within strategic conserva- community. The community must recognize its broader
tion planning. In so doing, it noted the overwhelming needs and ensure that conservation does not displace
focus on high-end conservation development. Conserva- long-time residents and their offspring from their
tion developments are sometimes described as “golf hometowns.
T H E C O N S E RVAT I O N F U N D Conservation-Based Affordable Housing
3
“It ain’t easy” to combine conservation and affordable Why Not? Traditional Barriers to Conservation-
housing, says Stephen Johnson of Sudbury Valley Trust. Based Affordable Housing
But his involvement in the Greenways project led him to
comment that he “will go to his grave thinking it’s the Given the nascent connections between land conserva-
best project I’ve ever worked on.” Working together tion and affordable housing, there are still several rea-
enabled his group and others to “meet numerous impor- sons why more projects integrating both realms have
tant public purposes that we couldn’t have achieved not occurred. To start with, land conservation and
alone.” Both the results achieved and the partnership affordable housing have traditionally taken place in dif-
between the land trust and the municipality to accom- ferent locations—conservation in rural or exurban areas
plish a variety of public purposes provide a model for and affordable housing in urban or town settings. In
the conservation and housing communities. many ways this takes best advantage of the opportuni-
ties for each area: large blocks of land, relatively undis-
Darby Bradley of the Vermont Land Trust spoke of the turbed natural areas, and lower land values in rural areas
importance of thinking and planning for community make for less complicated conservation while concen-
needs more strategically. VLT tries to get communities trated population, jobs, housing organizations, and
think about where they want conservation and where infrastructure give logical rise to affordable housing.
they want development ahead of time. Land adjacent to Affordable housing has been primarily viewed as an
a village is generally a more logical location for afford- urban problem and urban densities provided an envi-
able housing or a town expansion. VLT set aside several ronment ripe for higher density housing types such as
parcels for affordable housing in more rural locations multifamily apartments, townhouses, and condomini-
but ultimately decided that they weren’t appropriate ums. But such trends discount the need for conservation
given their location far from a village and its services. of natural systems and green areas in urban areas as well
as the need for low- and moderate-income housing in
A more strategic approach to land conservation and rural areas. This research acknowledges that conserva-
development can help make the link between conserva- tion based affordable housing will vary in form depend-
tion and affordable housing. It can also help generate ing on location, recognizing, for example, the economic
funds, new sources to support both areas through a and design challenges associated with providing large
more cooperative approach, a view expressed by profes- blocks of conservation land in urban development loca-
sionals on the nonprofit side and on the private develop- tions.
er side. In addition to being “the right thing to do”,
affordable housing in a conservation setting can also Typically, conservation and housing groups also fol-
provide a market opportunity. lowed a “sector” mentality, as did funding agencies, with
resources and commitment devoted to the single inter-
Land conservation and affordable housing may not be est. Some places witnessed a backlash against conserva-
paired all the time. But what this research demonstrates tion or against affordable housing. Conservation was
is that they can be paired successfully, with good out- charged with taking developable land out of play, result-
comes for both housing access and land conservation. ing in higher housing prices while opposition to afford-
Conservation-based affordable housing should be able housing often centered around fears of negative
viewed as a strategy for project managers in both camps effects on property values or concerns of increased
and indeed for developers and serve as a means to crime. As in so many fields today, the pace of change
broaden a project’s support when well integrated. and the realization of interconnectedness has spawned a
more holistic, integrated approach in land conservation
and in housing. Affordable housing, to meet the needs
of police officers, teachers, and other workers, is best
integrated into the fabric of the community rather than
Conservation-Based Affordable Housing T H E C O N S E RVAT I O N F U N D
4