Inclusionary Housing Sunset Debate Continues

The battle over the future of Baltimore’s inclusionary housing law continued Wednesday as a City Council committee debated whether to eliminate a "sunset" clause in the law that would force it to expire next year.

Council President Bernard "Jack" Young introduced a bill in September that calls for removing the clause from the city's Inclusionary Housing Law. Young and other council members argued at a committee hearing Wednesday that the legislation has been effective and should continue. 

The city’s Inclusionary Housing Law requires developers that receive public subsidies on housing projects of more than 30 residential units set aside at least 20 percent of their projects for affordable units.

City planning and housing officials, however, have argued that the sunset clause should not be removed. Instead they want to extend it until 2020, so that they can fully assess the legislation to determine if it should be continued.

Representatives from the Planning Department and Housing Department have argued a sunset clause gives the city a chance to review whether the law is working. Last month the Planning Commission voted to amend the bill to include a sunset clause.

The Baltimore Development Work Group also argued against eliminating the sunset clause because it believes the impact of the law should be reviewed before it’s extended.

Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke, D-District 14, argued that if a sunset clause is included in the bill, it should be for a longer term than 2020.

She argued that about 30 years is a better time frame to judge the legislation's effectiveness.

“Leave [the proposed legislation] alone, take off the sunset and let it play out,” Clarke said.

Councilman Bill Henry, D-District 4, also argued in favor of removing the sunset clause from the inclusionary housing bill. He said including a sunset clause assumes the law is flawed in some way.

“Sunsets are simply a matter of are you presuming innocence or not,” Henry said.