The Chinese Progressive Association sued the city and the developers of Park Essex, a 439-unit luxury apartment building in Boston (pictured above). In a settlement reached less than two years ago, the developers agreed to increase the number of onsite affordable units from 5 percent to 15 percent and pledged $650,000 for the construction of a single-room occupancy project in Chinatown.

Since Boston adopted a policy four years ago to require housing developers who are building on city land or seeking a zoning variance to include below-market-rate housing as part of their projects, more than 200 lower-cost housing units have been permitted.

The measure has been hailed by some supporters for helping to create housing that would otherwise be unaffordable to many of the city’s working families. But some activists in Boston neighborhoods, including Jamaica Plain, Chinatown and Dorchester, feel the policy – known as inclusionary zoning – could be tweaked to benefit even more low-income families.

The policy previously required developers of 10 or more market-rate housing units to make 10 percent of all the units affordable to households earning between 80 percent and 120 percent of the area median income, or to build the units elsewhere the city. In some cases, developers can make a cash contribution for affordable housing.

The requirement was increased from 10 percent to 13 percent in May as part of Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s Leading the Way Plan II, a campaign to produce 10,000 new homes and preserve 3,000 affordable housing units.

Yet some neighborhood activists argue that developers should be required to set aside even more affordable housing units and that those units should be targeted to people earning much less than 80 percent to 120 percent of the area median income, which in Boston ranges anywhere from $46,240 to $69,360 for an individual.

Some advocates point out that incomes in many Boston neighborhoods fall far below the median income for the region as a whole, which is $57,800 for a single-person household. The Boston metro area includes wealthier suburbs like Weston, Wayland and Duxbury, and the area’s median income is determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

But in Jamaica Plain, for example, the median income for an average-sized household is $38,744. In Chinatown, the median income for Asian households is about $14,000, according to Lydia Lowe, executive director of the Chinese Progressive Association.

Feeling that the inclusionary zoning policy wasn’t serving people living in the community, a group in Jamaica Plain passed a resolution in late June to increase the affordable housing requirement to 25 percent. In addition, the council wants the “affordable” units to be reserved for people earning less than 80 percent of the median income, with the average household income for the affordable units to be 65 percent of the area median income.

By endorsing the new policy, the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council is sending a message to developers that residents want housing that is affordable to people who actually live in the neighborhood, explained Pam Bender, chairwoman of the council’s Housing and Community Development Committee.

Bender said the council’s resolution indicates the group’s zoning members won’t consider zoning variance requests from developers until the developers meet with the Housing and Community Development Committee to discuss affordability. However, even though developers who are seeking zoning variances often present their proposals to neighborhood councils to get community input, they are not required to do so.

“We really feel like this is the right thing to do,” said Bender. “We feel developers are making a lot of money in our community Â… and they should give us something back.”

The Jamaica Plain group wants the Boston Redevelopment Authority to push Mayor Menino to alter the inclusionary zoning policy to increase the affordability requirements.

“I know a growing group of community advocates is concerned that affordable housing resources are going to” people earning 80 percent to 100 percent area median income, said Kathy Brown, a Jamaica Plain resident who heads the Boston Tenant Coalition.

Brown said people earning that much have other housing options and can afford market-rate condos or apartments, whereas people earning 30 percent to 60 percent of the median income have fewer options.

Producing With Purpose

Meredith Baumann, a BRA spokewoman, said the inclusionary zoning policy is not designed to address the housing needs of people earning less than 80 percent of the area’s median income because other programs and city agencies, especially the Department of Neighborhood Development and the Boston Housing Authority, are addressing that need separately.

“There is a need for housing across the spectrum,” said Baumann. “The purpose of inclusionary development is Â… to produce mixed-income projects throughout the city,” she said, noting that the inclusionary zoning policy is meant to help those earning 80 to 120 percent of the area median income.

From 2001 to 2003, 2,200 out of more than 7,900 new housing units created in Boston were considered affordable, and 62.7 percent of those affordable homes, or roughly 1,380, were for people earning less than 60 percent of the area median income.

Developing housing for people with very low incomes requires deep federal, state and local subsidies, whereas the inclusionary zoning policy is meant for mainly market-rate housing that has no public subsidy.

“If you deepen the level of affordability Â… it’s not economically feasible without the public subsidies,” said Baumann.

As for increasing the total number of units that should be sold or rented below market-rates, Baumann said the percentage was chosen after much research and a pilot program. Based on research the city has done and on the pilot program, it would not be practical for a developer to have 25 percent of the units be designated as affordable, as the Jamaica Plain group has suggested, said Baumann. Far from increasing affordability, it might increase housing costs by discouraging new development.

“It’s a delicate balance to determine how to address this need without making it financially unfeasible,” she said.

Still community organizers like Lowe, of the Chinese Progressive Association, and Marvin Martin, director of the Greater Four Corners Action Coalition, agree with the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council that the inclusionary zoning has to be adjusted.

“We need to reevaluate what we consider affordable,” said Martin, whose neighborhood coalition has been pushing for development of housing that is affordable to people with very low incomes – those earning 30 percent of the area median income or less.

“What’s being created is not affordable,” said Marvin. “It’s more affordable [than some other housing], but lets be realistic, it’s not really affordable.”

In Chinatown, longtime residents have been concerned about how affordability is defined, said Lowe. Units that are created for people earning 80 percent to 100 percent of the area median income are unaffordable to most Boston residents, said Lowe, and particularly to people living in Chinatown.

“A lot of people don’t realize that the area median income is much higher” than Boston’s median income, said Lowe.

Chinatown residents have been vocal in expressing opposition to large housing developments that they feel are gentrifying the neighborhood. After much pressure and publicity, Chinatown residents were able to win concessions from developers of luxury apartments in the neighborhood to include more housing for low-income households.

In one case, the Chinese Progressive Association sued the city and the developers of Park Essex, a 439-unit luxury apartment building that was formerly known as Liberty Place. In a settlement reached less than two years ago, the developers agreed to increase the number of onsite affordable units from an initial proposal of 5 percent to 15 percent. In addition, the developers, Archstone-Smith and W. Kevin Fitzgerald, pledged $650,000 for the construction of a single-room occupancy project in Chinatown.

In another case, the developer of Kensington Place, a 346-unit upscale apartment tower in Chinatown, agreed to set aside about 18 percent of the apartments as affordable, rather than the initial proposal of 10 percent. Half of those affordable apartment, or 30, will be for people with very low incomes – those earning up to 60 percent of the area median income.