Setting the Record Straight on Affordable Housing in London

I Have Never Been Against Affordable Housing

Recently, I’ve been accused of being against affordable housing. That accusation stems directly from my opposition to the lot size and density approved by the Planning Commission and City Council for the Madison Reserve Planned Unit Development (PUD) on East High Street.

Let me be absolutely clear: I have never been against affordable housing.

In fact, I’ve stated many times — in my campaign materials, in personal conversations, and during public meetings of both the Planning Commission and City Council — that I strongly support affordable and workforce housing for London residents.

What I am against is the improper application of London’s own laws governing lot size and density. The housing prices approved for Madison Reserve did not meet the nationally accepted definitions of lower and moderately priced homes that are required to justify the lot-size reductions granted under the city’s PUD ordinance.

What London’s Law Actually Says

Under Section 1262.08(c) of the London Codified Ordinances, developers may receive bonus reductions in yard, lot area, and setback requirements only when they provide truly affordable homes:

§ 1262.08(c)

“To promote the availability of lower and moderately priced (as determined by the Planning Commission) rental and owner residences within a planned unit development, the Planning Commission may permit a bonus reduction in yard, lot area and setback requirements (with no compensating yard, lot or setback increases required) of one percent for every one percent of the total number of dwelling units that are lower and moderately priced, up to a maximum bonus reduction of twenty-five percent.”

The intention behind this law is clear — smaller lots and higher density are only permitted when affordability is achieved. That affordability must be based on nationally recognized housing standards, not subjective local interpretations.

Nationally Accepted Standards

Across the country, federal housing agencies and organizations use well-established metrics to define affordability and income categories.

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):

  
  

  Defines “affordable housing” as housing that costs no more than 30 percent of a household’s gross income, including utilities.

  
  

  Source: HUD Glossary

  
  

• National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC):

  
  

  Categorizes income levels relative to Area Median Income (AMI):

  • Extremely low income = ≤ 30 % of AMI

  • Very low income = 30–50 % of AMI

  • Low to moderate income = 50–80 % of AMI

    
    

    Source: NLIHC Overview of Key AFFH Definitions (PDF)

    
    

• Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia:

  
  

  Uses the same framework, noting that “low-income” housing serves households earning ≤ 80 % of median family income for the area.

  
  

  Source: Philadelphia Fed Housing Definitions

  
  

Applying These Standards to London, Ohio

According to the U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, the median household income in London, Ohio is $60,364 (2019–2023 five-year estimate, in 2023 dollars).This figure is confirmed by the DataUSA profile for London.

• U.S. Census Bureau – QuickFacts: London city, Ohio

  
  

• DataUSA – London, OH Profile

  
  

Using these nationally accepted HUD/NLIHC standards, the thresholds for London households are as follows:

Category	% of London Median Income	Annual Income	Definition
Lower-Priced Housing	≤ 50 %	≤ $30,182	Affordable to low-income families
Moderately-Priced Housing	≤ 80 %	≤ $48,291	Affordable to working-class families
Median Household Income	100 %	$60,364	Average London household

By these definitions, any development seeking lot-size reductions under § 1262.08(c) should include homes priced for families earning no more than about $48,000 per year.

The homes approved in the Madison Reserve PUD are priced well above those levels, meaning they do not qualify as “lower or moderately priced housing” under nationally accepted standards.

The Real Issue

My concern is not about building homes — it’s about building within the law and ensuring fairness. When we allow higher density without true affordability, we’re not promoting affordable housing — we’re giving away public concessions without public benefit.

This ordinance was written to encourage responsible development, not to serve as a loophole for smaller lots and higher profits.

What I Stand For

I believe London can grow responsibly — through:

1. Honest application of existing law, using nationally accepted affordability definitions.

2. Transparent planning processes, where density bonuses are earned, not assumed.

3. Balanced housing policy, that welcomes growth while protecting affordability and quality of life.

   
   

Affordable housing should be about people, not just permits. And when we define “affordable” by credible national standards — not politics — we can ensure London grows stronger, fairer, and smarter for everyone.

James Boyd

Independent Candidate for London City Council – Ward 1