Affordable Housing Needs Local Control, Not More Market-Rate Units

State legislation passed in the last three legislative sessions has claimed to be about affordable housing, but in Charlestown the only result has been more market-rate units. Increasing supply might lower housing costs in some communities, but it hasn’t worked in coastal towns like ours.

In 2013 and 2016, the Rhode Island Legislature passed bills requiring that unbuildable land — wetlands buffers, coastal buffers, and steeply sloped areas — be counted when determining buildable lot sizes. Despite environmental concerns, these were justified as a way to increase housing density and make homes more affordable. The result: parcels that couldn’t previously be subdivided now can be, and others are yielding far more units than before. In both southern and northern Charlestown, those homes are selling for over $1 million. Density has increased; affordability has not.

Charlestown sits within three hours of more than 25 million people. That proximity has always mattered for tourism and vacation homes, but since the pandemic normalized remote work, people with high-paying jobs in surrounding metro areas can now live here year-round. The pool of affluent buyers willing to pay top dollar for homes and rentals will absorb any increase in housing supply. In this market, the only path to permanently affordable housing is deed restrictions that require homes to be priced for and occupied by less affluent residents.

Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning is one tool towns can use to make that happen. It requires developers of six or more units to deed-restrict 15% of homes as affordable for low-to-moderate income households, in exchange for an equivalent density bonus. If zoning allows a developer to build six lots, the town requires one affordable unit and grants one additional lot — seven total. The affordable home can be built by the developer, Habitat for Humanity, or another nonprofit, as long as it remains permanently affordable. The approach is meant to be flexible, not punitive.

But making tools like inclusionary zoning work requires local control — and that’s exactly what recent state legislation has undermined. Laws passed between 2023 and 2025 allow developers to increase density by 200% to 900% above local zoning if they designate as little as 25% of units as affordable. In addition, under the current state law, the density bonus is permanent, but the affordability restriction lasts only 30 years — as long as a single mortgage.

Developers in Rhode Island’s rural communities are increasingly using these laws not to build affordable housing, but as leverage. A developer might propose something extremely dense and disruptive, then withdraw it in favor of something closer to what zoning requires — leaving the town and neighbors feeling relieved and grateful for a project that’s “so much better than what was originally proposed.” Or a developer might start with a zoning-compliant proposal, then respond to any community request to better protect a wetland or other environmental feature with a threat to invoke the state’s high-density override instead.

If a town tries to require affordable units while insisting on zoning compliance, will the developer simply walk away and invoke state law? That’s a game of chicken — and the weaker player usually loses.

Local inclusionary zoning, with modest density increases, can allow thoughtful development without harming our groundwater, our coastal and inland ponds, or our Wild and Scenic Pawcatuck River. But only if Charlestown can recover meaningful local control over how our community grows.

You can learn more about the author, Ruth Platner, at her profile page.