With the approval of both chambers, the affordable housing legislation needs only one more vote before it goes to the governor.

08:17 AM EDT on Wednesday, June 23, 2004

BY RANDAL EDGAR
Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE -- Looking to fix a mistake they made two years ago, lawmakers yesterday passed a bill that would remake state housing policy, creating a balance between the need for housing and the ability of communities to control growth.

Votes of 61-3 in the House and 36-0 in the Senate left the bill one step away from adoption, which will come as soon as one chamber passes the other's identical version. Then it goes to Governor Carcieri for his signature.

A final vote is expected tomorrow at the latest, and then the days when developers could walk into communities and dictate where local zoning should be bypassed will be over, backers said.

So will the days when communities could ignore the housing needs of people with low, modest or fixed incomes.

Under the new system outlined in the 51-page bill, communities would decide where the local rules should be relaxed to encourage less-costly housing. The state will review those local plans and set production goals for each community, based on local need.

As long as communities win state approval for their plans and approve reasonable development proposals, they would be able to limit fast-track applications and control where the housing is built.

The result, backers said, will be more housing, but without the flood of applications that overran suburban and rural towns after lawmakers amended the Low and Moderate Income Housing Act in 2002.

"What this legislation does is create a fair and balanced system," said Rep. Brian Patrick Kennedy, D-Hopkinton, one of the bill's chief sponsors. "It is legislation in which the General Assembly can take pride."

Drafted with input from housing advocates, developers and local leaders, the bill drew praise for Kennedy and Sen. John J. Tassoni, D-Smithfield, the bill's other chief sponsor.

Still, the votes, did not come without objections.

In the House, Rep. Nicholas Gorham, R-Coventry, proposed an amendment that would add protections for the rural Pawcatuck Borderlands, saying the bill, as written, would allow rural areas to be overrun with development. His comments echoed those of other observers who believe the bill would place too much emphasis on development in suburban and rural areas and not enough in cities.

"Mark my words, I'm telling you, rural Rhode Island is not going to prosper from this bill," Gorham said before his amendment was voted down. "The areas of this state that are rural today will not be rural in 10 years."

In the Senate, Sen. Leo R. Blais, R-Coventry, proposed a bill that would have retroactively repealed the 2002 housing amendment, effectively throwing out all pending fast-track applications from for-profit developers.

"We need to take action today, while [Tassoni's] bill is on the floor, to fix the problem that we made in 2002," Blais said. But Tassoni and others objected, saying Blais' bill would invite lawsuits from developers, and it was defeated, 29-5.

The debate was a far cry from 2002, when lawmakers amended the affordable housing law with virtually no discussion. The change opened the Low and Moderate Income Housing Act to private developers, sparking a wave of fast-track applications that prompted lawmakers to revisit the state's housing policies.

The fast-track applications from private developers have been on hold since February, when lawmakers passed a moratorium. The new bill goes easier on the applications than some local officials wanted, letting them go forward if the state Housing Appeals Board deems them to be substantially complete. The moratorium affected applications to build more than 4,800 units, according to the Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation.

But the bill contains many measures local officials wanted. For one thing, it limits fast-track applications from private developers, stopping them when the proposed units in all applications equals 1 percent of the existing housing stock. It also requires that one of every four units in fast-track proposals be subsidized and income-restricted, up from the current requirement of one of every five. The bill also lets communities decide whether the planning or zoning board will handle fast-track applications.

"This is a huge step forward," Tassoni said.

Staff writer Bruce Landis contributed to this report.