Skip to main content

An Affordable Housing Paradox: A Look at the City of Bonita Springs' Zoning Code

     As a recent economics and real estate graduate, now working as an appraiser, I spend time every week reading the zoning codes and comprehensive plans of many local municipalities in Southwest Florida. Now, to be transparent from the get-go, I should disclaim that I have never been a huge advocate for zoning, especially due to its impact on restricting affordable housing. I believe that free markets have more power than local zoning boards to create an affordable future here in Southwest Florida. As we dive deeper, I hope to inform our community about the impact that zoning has on creating affordable housing, and to open the minds of readers that zoning may actually be doing more damage than good. As we take a brief look at the zoning code of the City of Bonita Springs, we will analyze the impact of density bonuses, take a look at the City of Bonita Springs’ Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and wrap up with my opinion regarding why many people may not support the fight to make housing more affordable.

    Many municipalities, not just the City of Bonita Springs, offer bonus density to developers if they meet certain criteria, which vary between municipalities. Take, for example, a property that is located within the T5 zoning district within the City of Bonita Springs’ Downtown Redevelopment Overlay District, which is subject to its Downtown Form-Based Code. According to the Form-Based Code, the T5 zone “consists of higher density mixed-use buildings that accommodate retail, offices, rowhouses, and multi-family.” Multifamily developments over 6 units per acre are permissible with this zoning district, up to a maximum density of 15 units per acre. The code allows for developers in this district to obtain up to 20 units per acre if they meet certain requirements, one of which we will be analyzing. 

    Before we analyze this requirement, I should mention, to any readers who are unfamiliar with commercial real estate or economics, that an increase in density directly translates to an increase in the supply of housing for people who demand housing. Ceteris paribus, an increase in supply leads to lower prices for those who want to pay for housing. Increasing density is a great thing to make housing more affordable, and seemingly, City of Bonita Springs officials are willing to allow developers to increase density, but only under certain conditions. I think it would be much more beneficial for the community to not restrict density at all, allowing developers to adequately serve the community through whatever density is economically optimal. I don’t think there is any need for city officials to join the equation and decide arbitrarily what amount of density will serve the public best. I believe that suppliers (developers) and demanders (housing dwellers) can act on their own to create a market that is optimal for both parties.

    One of the requirements that developers are able to opt in for is to make a cash contribution to the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. On the surface, that doesn’t seem malicious at all, but as we take a closer look, your thoughts may change. First of all, the city itself is the one that is restricting extra density and more affordable housing. They are clearly willing to offer it, per the possibility of bonus density, but why not just let developers build up to this limit in the first place? Better yet, why not just let developers build as much density as they want? In a way, the city is saying to developers, “We will let you increase density, thereby making housing more affordable, only if you donate to our fund that supposedly will make housing more affordable.” Making a developer pay a cash contribution in order to obtain more density creates two contradicting forces. Extra density allows developers to be more profitable and create more housing, but extra development costs in the form of “cash donations” per the zoning code, make upfront costs higher, which will in part be passed on to consumers (people who demand housing) in the form of higher prices or rent.

    You may be wondering or thinking about the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.  According to the Form Based Code, the central purpose of the fund is “to obtain home ownership for eligible households. In any given fiscal year, at least 75 percent of the fund must be used to assist eligible households.” When I think about affordable housing, I don’t think about the people who are on the fence financially of purchasing a home. In my opinion, those are not the people who need housing to be more affordable the most. The people living paycheck to paycheck, the people in 2–3-bedroom houses with 10+ people living inside, or the people living in dwelling units under 300 square feet are the people that I think of when I think of the fight for affordable housing. Even then, just as I can berate the City of Bonita Springs for thinking that they are omniscient enough to be able to decide who should receive more affordable housing, who am I to think the same of myself? I don’t think any one person can successfully decide such a thing, but I do think that the open market does. While I do think that home ownership is important, is an important aspect of society, and is something that zoning regulations do an adverse job at attempting to make more affordable, I’m not sure it is the best use of funds for the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

    This leads me into my final point: that perhaps the general public really doesn’t want housing to become more affordable. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, in 2023 (most recent data), the homeownership rate in Lee County was 72.69%. Overall, there are more homeowners in Lee County than renters. All of these homeowners have a financial interest in their homes. The more their home appreciates in value, the higher their net worth becomes. When housing becomes more affordable, their home doesn’t become worth as much. I wouldn’t even blame homeowners for not wanting affordable housing; it isn’t the job of homeowners to create a more affordable housing market for others when it costs them directly. Now, who I can seem to blame though, is homeowners advocating for the restriction of housing supply, and for the segregation of zoning districts. I don’t think any homeowner individually should have the ability to restrict where others can or cannot live (assuming all laws are being followed). I think this final point was worthy of being mentioned, as policymakers (or the free market) attempt to create a more affordable future. I think it is vital to understand the framework by which our society works so we can create a better future. Going forward, I believe that society would be better served and more affordable for all, if zoning restrictions were heavily altered/reduced, allowing the free market to supply resources and housing as needed, exactly when and where the market demands it.

Below is a map of the City of Bonita Springs’ Downtown Redevelopment Overlay District Zoning Map. 



Sources: 

https://library.municode.com/fl/bonita_springs/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIILADECO_CH4ZO_ARTVDIRE_DIV11REOVDI

https://library.municode.com/fl/bonita_springs/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIILADECO_CH4ZO_ARTVISUDIRE_DIV12DE_SDIIIBODEPR_S4-1317AFHOSIECDEBOOP1

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOWNRATEACS012071


Popular posts from this blog

Ways Zoning Contributes to Housing Unaffordability - Part 1

       While there are numerous ways zoning creates an unaffordable housing market, in this article, we will examine parking requirements, setback requirements, and minimum lot sizes. We will analyze these factors from an economic lens while also looking locally at the specifics of the City of Bonita Springs' Zoning Code. You will notice a theme—that many of these factors lead to a reduction in density, which in turn leads to a decrease in affordability. Through these articles, we will also examine how deed-restricted communities can offer housing options that cater to those seeking uniform neighborhoods with stricter rules and regulations, while maintaining a more affordable housing market for everyone, without restricting development opportunities for those who prefer less restrictive housing.      First, it should be mentioned that government intervention, even at the local level, is incredibly inefficient and drives up housing costs. The National A...
Read more

Ways Zoning Contributes to Housing Unaffordability - Part 2

     In continuation of the previous post, this article will examine how the restrictions on accessory dwelling units, various housing typologies, and maximum building heights impact housing affordability. I will also offer a solution that should please both NIMBYs and YIMBYs. We will analyze not only how housing affordability is impacted, but also how society would be better off overall in terms of happiness, in the absence of these policies.  Accessory Dwelling Units   First, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are additional individual dwelling units that exist on an existing improved parcel. Oftentimes, owners of the primary improved structure will rent out an ADU. Still, other times, investors will own the entire property and rent out the main residence and the accessory dwelling unit. Many people wince at the idea of any ADUs entering their neighborhood. They would likely complain about the potential increase in traffic or crime associated with more people liv...
Read more