• Home
  • About Albany Data Stories
  • Albany's AIM Funding
  • Albany's Budget 2017-2025
  • Albany's Vendors
  • Albany's Population
  • Albany's Poverty
  • Albany's Taxable Property
  • Albany's Developable Land
  • Albany's Vacant Buildings
  • Albany's Housing
  • Albany's LowInc Housing
  • Albany's APD Complaints
  • Albany Crime Reports Pt 1
  • Albany Crime Reports Pt 2
  • Albany's Speed Cams Pt 1
  • Albany Speed Cam Contract
  • Albany's PILOT program
  • Albany's Financial State
  • Albany's Finances - 2024
  • Albany's Mayoral Election
  • Albany's Auditor Election
  • Alb County v City Finance
  • Albany's Mayoral Spending
  • Albany's 2026 Budget, Pt1
  • Albany's 2026 Budget, Pt2
  • Albany's FOIL Responses
  • Albany's Pedestrian Crash
  • Albany's Open Data
  • Albany's Parking Tickets
  • Albany's Audit Savings PR
  • Albany's City Salaries
  • Albany's Rooftop Solar
  • Albany's InclusiveHousing
  • Albany's Property Taxes
  • What's Next
  • More
    • Home
    • About Albany Data Stories
    • Albany's AIM Funding
    • Albany's Budget 2017-2025
    • Albany's Vendors
    • Albany's Population
    • Albany's Poverty
    • Albany's Taxable Property
    • Albany's Developable Land
    • Albany's Vacant Buildings
    • Albany's Housing
    • Albany's LowInc Housing
    • Albany's APD Complaints
    • Albany Crime Reports Pt 1
    • Albany Crime Reports Pt 2
    • Albany's Speed Cams Pt 1
    • Albany Speed Cam Contract
    • Albany's PILOT program
    • Albany's Financial State
    • Albany's Finances - 2024
    • Albany's Mayoral Election
    • Albany's Auditor Election
    • Alb County v City Finance
    • Albany's Mayoral Spending
    • Albany's 2026 Budget, Pt1
    • Albany's 2026 Budget, Pt2
    • Albany's FOIL Responses
    • Albany's Pedestrian Crash
    • Albany's Open Data
    • Albany's Parking Tickets
    • Albany's Audit Savings PR
    • Albany's City Salaries
    • Albany's Rooftop Solar
    • Albany's InclusiveHousing
    • Albany's Property Taxes
    • What's Next
  • Home
  • About Albany Data Stories
  • Albany's AIM Funding
  • Albany's Budget 2017-2025
  • Albany's Vendors
  • Albany's Population
  • Albany's Poverty
  • Albany's Taxable Property
  • Albany's Developable Land
  • Albany's Vacant Buildings
  • Albany's Housing
  • Albany's LowInc Housing
  • Albany's APD Complaints
  • Albany Crime Reports Pt 1
  • Albany Crime Reports Pt 2
  • Albany's Speed Cams Pt 1
  • Albany Speed Cam Contract
  • Albany's PILOT program
  • Albany's Financial State
  • Albany's Finances - 2024
  • Albany's Mayoral Election
  • Albany's Auditor Election
  • Alb County v City Finance
  • Albany's Mayoral Spending
  • Albany's 2026 Budget, Pt1
  • Albany's 2026 Budget, Pt2
  • Albany's FOIL Responses
  • Albany's Pedestrian Crash
  • Albany's Open Data
  • Albany's Parking Tickets
  • Albany's Audit Savings PR
  • Albany's City Salaries
  • Albany's Rooftop Solar
  • Albany's InclusiveHousing
  • Albany's Property Taxes
  • What's Next

Albany Data Stories

Albany Data StoriesAlbany Data StoriesAlbany Data Stories

THe Future of Albany's Affordable Housing Law

Published April 2026


At Albany Data Stories this is one of many things on our minds:  The City of Albany needs thousands of additional housing units for all socioeconomic strata, in all wards and neighborhoods, for households in all stages of life, for today’s residents and future residents as the City’s population grows.  A significant portion of the need is for lower income households.  


Is the City of Albany’s Affordable Housing ordinance an effective strategy for building low income housing and should the City of Albany utilize this program as a tool?


On April 20th, 2026 the Common Council will be voting on an amendment to the existing Affordable Housing law, also known as an Inclusive Housing (IH) or Inclusive Zoning (IZ) program.  The ordinance overview is:


AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 375 (UNIFIED SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ALBANY IN RELATION TO ADJUSTING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT AND ADDING EXCEPTIONS TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT


The amendment, if passed, would allow for developers to pay a fee rather than abide by the provisions of the affordable housing requirement.  These fees would be collected by the City and then be directed into housing programs.  This amendment will effectively gut the affordable housing requirement and turn the program into a tax on developers.


On April 6th we sat in on the Common Council Public Hearing where 6 people spoke passionately in opposition to the ordinance amendment.  Listen to the speakers on the Common Council Youtube here at the 1:02:00 mark.


In 2025 we wrote about the Affordable Housing program, our focus was to understand, explain and quantify the program including answering the question, “How much affordable housing is being built through Inclusionary Housing provisions?”  We found 108 housing units developed from the Inclusionary Housing provisions between January 2018 and February 2024, roughly 20 units per year.  


Our goal in our latest research is to understand and communicate what we can find about the effectiveness of Affordable Housing programs (aka Inclusionary Housing and Inclusionary Zoning) and, based on that, suggest what we could or should do as a City.

Our Research

What did we set out to find?  Let’s start with what we didn’t want to look for; we weren’t looking for basic statistics on the number of housing units built through Affordable Housing programs.  For example, Grounded Solutions is one of the lead organizations championing Inclusionary Housing and their website states “Inclusionary housing policies have created over 100,000 housing units (nationwide).”  


Counts of units built are interesting however we want to understand the value and cost of IH/IZ programs in aggregate.  IH/IZ opponents state that these programs can have negative consequences including that they:

  • Promote rising housing costs
  • Catalyze gentrification
  • Disincent developers who will take their capital elsewhere and develop in other cities


We’re fans of academic studies and unbiased research so our goal was to look for three things:

  • Is there academic research on IH/IZ and what does it say?
  • For any of the city-specific IH/IZ implementations is there any data that tracks the implementation?
  • Any Albany-specific data or research?


If we find quality data and research we can then see if it supports or does not support IH/IZ.

Analyzing City-specific Implementations

Grounded Solutions Network has a map that tracks IH/IZ programs nationwide.  We picked 10 cities from the map.  For each city we searched for any research, analysis or data that would suggest a careful examination of the success, return on investment, and/or consequences of the program.  


For analysis or research we were looking for any data-driven examination of IH/IZ housing units, non-IH/IZ housing units, government investments, trend analysis, examination of secondary benefits, examination of unintended consequences.  We took a very broad view of what we would consider “research” and we would accept any research performed within the last 5 years. 


This is what we found for each City’s IH/IZ program. 

  1. Hamburg, NY - no research/analysis found
  2. Annapolis, MD - no research/analysis found
  3. Wilmington, NC - the City publishes a housing study however there is not a critical examination of cost and benefits of their IH/IZ program
  4. Linwood City, NJ - no research/analysis found
  5. Virginia Beach, VA - no research/analysis found
  6. Charleston, SC - the City has a very neat communication tool to show the locations and background of their IH/IZ program, however this is not an analytical tool that looks at the ROI of their program
  7. San Antonio, TX - no research/analysis found
  8. Littleton, CO - no research/analysis found
  9. West Sacramento, CA - no research/analysis found
  10. Fishkill, NY - no research/analysis found


Our takeaway is that at the local level IH/IZ programs are not given a rigorous study to determine if they are or aren’t making an impact when looking at costs, benefits and the unintended consequences.  IH/IZ programs generally are solely evaluated based on housing units created.


This takeaway makes the City of Albany no different than other IH/IZ local governments; until the recent City of Albany Housing Audit we have not engaged in any rigorous analysis to identify the benefits and/or consequences of our IH/IZ program.

Analyzing the Academic Research

As we were studying City-specific implementation analysis we also reviewed around two dozen academic papers on IH/IZ.  There is significant research that is dated (prior to 2015), too specific and not applicable to Albany, or just looked like bad research; we didn’t include any of these papers.  


We teased out the 6 most interesting studies and included our takeaway below.   Different people can read research and will find different points compelling; we are always open to hearing where a reader thinks we are misconstruing the findings.


Do Inclusionary Zoning Policies Affect Local Housing Markets? An Empirical Study in the United States

Our main takeaway:

“By leveraging a national dataset … we have demonstrated that mandatory IZ policies can lead to a shift towards multifamily housing developments without decreasing overall housing permits or increasing rents.  Additionally, we observed a modest increase in home prices, and these effects varied based on policy stringency and market conditions.”


Upzoning With Strings Attached: Evidence From Seattle’s Affordable Housing Mandate 

Our main takeaway:

“Overall, this study’s findings suggest preliminary mixed results for the (IH/IZ). Although upzoning allows for the construction of larger, taller multifamily buildings, it appears that (IH/IZ)’s affordability requirements act as a tax on some additional development.”


Inclusionary Zoning and Housing Market Outcomes

Our main takeaway:

“Despite its intentions, inclusionary zoning may exacerbate regulatory constraints and affordability challenges by acting as a tax on new housing construction.”


Before the ground breaks: Is inclusionary zoning a shield or a signal of gentrification?, 

Our main takeaway:  

This was an interesting paper that looked at the benefit or cost, geographically, from IH/IZ.  It is challenging to describe a single major point from this paper, plus it also focuses on New York City which is dissimilar to Albany.  There are two preliminary points that this paper suggests:

  1. “the results suggest that one of the fears associated with IZ—an undue rise in housing prices—is perhaps unfounded”
  2. “our findings suggest that IZ has complex, uneven effects on local housing markets, at least in New York City. While both home sales prices and rental incomes increased over time, the most consistent and statistically significant growth occurred not within IZ designated areas, but in their immediate surroundings”


Inclusionary Zoning: What Does the Research Tell Us about the Effectiveness of Local Action?

Our main takeaway:

While this paper is somewhat old (2019) it does suggest the potential for positive outcomes, “IZ may also increase economic opportunity by providing access to low-poverty schools and

improving educational outcomes for children”, “The limited literature evaluating IZ policies’ effects on integration suggests that they do generally improve economic integration and provide low-income residents access to high-opportunity neighborhoods”, “evidence that IZ laws negatively affect private market prices and development is mixed.”


Can Inclusionary Zoning Be an Effective Housing Policy in Greater Boston? Evidence from Lynn

and Revere

The main takeaway:

“We find that Inclusionary Zoning policies are most effective when targeted at affordable rental

units for low to moderate income earners. IZ is unlikely to produce substantial units for

extremely low income households. Tools that are particularly effective for supporting IZ are

parking requirements and density bonuses. Since IZ is dependent on market-rate construction,

it is most likely to be successful in robust housing markets that have consistent housing

production”


We also found this research paper to be interesting from a policy design perspective although it was adjacent to our search goals.


What do we get from these papers?  In aggregate these papers add up to neither a compelling case for or against IH/IZ.  There is no compelling, generally agreed upon research that suggests that IH/IZ is a slam dunk for communities as a primary tool for advancing low income housing and related goals.

What is missing from the research?

The City of Albany is the only Capital District local government to have an IH/IZ law or ordinance.  If you believe, as we do, that capital flows to the opportunities that provide the biggest return then this is a concern.  A real or perceived impediment to a return on investment in the City of Albany could cause real estate development capital to flow to Troy, Schenectady, Saratoga or any other area community.


We looked for any research and analysis on the impact of IH/IZ programs on real estate development decision-making; we found none.  

What about the City of Albany Housing Audit?

While we have some concerns about a portion of the data and outcomes of the 2025 Housing Audit, the audit speaks to the City’s IH/IZ program.  From slide 21:


“IZ has discouraged new market-rate production. The tightening of requirements has led to fewer projects advancing, reducing the overall housing supply needed to attract and retain residents and exacerbating the City’s longterm growth and competitiveness challenges”

Summary

We appreciate that the intentions behind the Affordable Housing ordinance are genuine.  Our findings through looking at the research and data suggest three things:


  1. As local governments across the nation (including the City of Albany) have implemented Inclusive Housing or Inclusive Zoning (IH/IZ) programs there is little to no evaluation of the aggregate benefit (or lack thereof) of the IH/IZ programs other than basic housing unit counts.  
  2. Reviewing a cross-section of academic research on IH/IZ programs there is little compelling evidence that suggests these programs provide a consistent and material benefit.
  3. There is no research that we found that would disprove a concern about the City of Albany’s IH/IZ program - that the program disincents developers to build in the City without significant additional benefits acting as a counterweight, for example large Industrial Development Agency tax breaks.  

What would we do?

So what would we do?  This is our train of thought:

  • There is little compelling evidence (from academic research and the City’s own data) that the City’s Affordable Housing Requirement provides a scalable benefit to the City, addressing a meaningful portion of the City’s housing problem
  • The Affordable Housing Requirement almost certainly disincents development capital from flowing into the City’s housing projects OR those development projects that are executed require additional incentives that the City may not be able to afford
  • The Affordable Housing ordinance amendment that is being discussed turns the Affordable Housing Requirement into a tax, effectively gutting the ordinance
  • This tax revenue is then directed to a fund that purportedly has many of the same objectives as the Affordable Housing Requirement, however the operations and benefit of this are speculative at best


We would recommend the elimination of the Affordable Housing Requirement and any amendments to the program should be withdrawn.  There are other programs and initiatives that are worth spending our energy on:

  • The championing of Federal Opportunity Zones - OZs were passed with bipartisan Congressional support in 2017 and early academic research shows that they are exceptionally promising for supporting housing growth.  A significant portion of the City’s land is covered within an OZ
  • Implement the Strong Towns Housing Ready City program - if you haven’t heard about Strong Towns, give them a read, there is a lot to like about their support for missing middle housing
  • Invest in our City government’s organizations and processes that support real estate development - make our City easy-to-do-business-with for anyone who wants to build or rehabilitate housing from single family homes to duplexes to larger MDUs.  Yes, our City is in a financial crisis right now; yes, this is an area worth investing more money in
  • Evaluate the Industrial Development Authority’s efficacy in supporting and catalyzing economic - maybe the IDA helps the City’s housing development, maybe it hurts it, let’s find out  


Copyright © 2026 Albany Data Stories - All Rights Reserved.

This website uses cookies.

We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.

Accept