Ashland Attainable Housing Project
Why This Project?
Housing, families, schools and Ashland's future
The Ashland Attainable Housing Project did not begin with a particular building design. It grew out of decades of City and School District research showing a widening gap between the people who work in Ashland and the people who can afford to live here.
That gap affects more than individual households. It influences whether young families can remain in Ashland, whether local employers can recruit and retain workers, whether children experience housing instability, and whether the School District has enough students to sustain strong programs over time.
AAHP is one locally initiated response: using publicly owned land, professional development expertise and public-private partnerships to create approximately 93–96 income-restricted rental and ownership homes. It cannot solve Ashland's housing or enrollment challenges by itself, but it can address a part of the need that Ashland has repeatedly documented.
The need in numbers
63%
of Ashland renters were cost burdened (35% severely cost burdened)
2014–2018 census data, Housing Production Strategy
Housing Production Strategy858
additional homes projected as needed through 2041, including ~300 multifamily units
2021 Housing Capacity Analysis
Housing Capacity Analysis2,576 → 2,344
projected student enrollment decline by 2032–33 under the preferred forecast scenario
2022 ASD demographer forecast
2022 Enrollment Forecast0.51 vs 0.13
students per home — Snowberry Brook income-restricted units vs. typical Ashland apartment
2022 ASD demographer forecast, pages 2 and 10
2022 Enrollment ForecastNot all housing has the same effect
The District's demographer found that an average existing Ashland apartment generated approximately 0.13 enrolled students per home. But larger, income-restricted, family-oriented apartments produced substantially different results.
Snowberry Brook's first two phases—consisting primarily of two- and three-bedroom income-restricted apartments—averaged approximately 0.51 Ashland School District students per home. That is nearly four times the citywide apartment average.
This does not establish an enrollment forecast for AAHP. It demonstrates that bedroom count, affordability, household composition and family-oriented design matter when evaluating how housing relates to schools.
Ashland has been discussing this problem for decades
Why use School District land?
Land is one of the largest barriers to affordable housing in Ashland. The City has repeatedly documented the scarcity and cost of suitably located development sites. Using publicly owned land can make it possible to:
- Preserve the property for a community-serving purpose.
- Reduce or restructure the land cost facing the development.
- Establish affordability and development requirements through a long-term agreement.
- Select a qualified developer through a competitive process.
- Combine public, private, philanthropic and housing-program resources.
- Locate homes near schools, services and established infrastructure.
The final AAHP land arrangement has not been determined. It will be established through the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Ashland School District and Edlen & Co.
What AAHP can—and cannot—do
✓AAHP can
- Add a meaningful number of income-restricted homes.
- Create both rental and ownership opportunities.
- Demonstrate how public land can support housing partnerships.
- Give more working households and families the opportunity to live in Ashland.
- Potentially support workforce recruitment, housing stability and enrollment over time.
✕AAHP cannot
- Reverse a decades-long demographic trend by itself.
- Guarantee a particular number of students.
- Guarantee that School District employees will receive a housing preference.
- Guarantee childcare, a specific construction date or an unchanged unit mix.
- Replace the need for citywide housing production and preservation strategies.
AAHP addresses documented conditions associated with enrollment, workforce recruitment and family stability—not a guaranteed outcome.
Similar projects and lessons
These projects share relevant features with AAHP. Each has important differences noted below.
Snowberry Brook, Ashland
120 affordable apartments developed in two phases; many family-sized units.
Provides the strongest local evidence that larger, income-restricted homes house more ASD students than apartments generally.
Not a School District land or employee-housing project.
705 Serramonte, Jefferson Union HSD
122 one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments on district property for district employees.
Demonstrates competitive development of housing on school property as a recruitment and retention strategy.
Employee-exclusive and supported by a voter-approved bond; AAHP expects a broader income-qualified population.
Casa del Maestro, Santa Clara Unified
Below-market employee apartments on a district site.
An early example of a district using its property to reduce a recruitment and retention barrier.
Primarily transitional employee rental housing, rather than a mixed rental/ownership community.
McAuley Place, Bentonville
120 apartments and 40 cottages for school employees and other residents; includes a path-to-ownership model.
Closely resembles AAHP's combination of rental housing, ownership pathways and a broader community benefit.
Developed through a different land and financing structure.
Bend-La Pine / Habitat
32 deed-restricted ownership homes planned on surplus district land, serving households up to 80% and 120% AMI.
A useful Oregon example of district land, nonprofit development and attainable ownership.
Ownership-only and still under development.
San Diego Unified
Multiple district sites offered to developers for housing from 30% to 120% AMI, using long-term agreements and ground-rent structures.
Shows how districts can retain land control while assigning development and operating responsibility to qualified partners.
Much larger district, sites and development pipeline.
Research from UC Berkeley's Terner Center concludes that school-district housing projects work best when districts verify employee needs, use professional development partners, distinguish lower-income staff from middle-income workforce needs and assemble more than one financing source. The research also cautions that conventional Low-Income Housing Tax Credits alone cannot support every income level a workforce project may need to serve.
Terner Center researchBack to the project overview
See the current status, timeline, partners and FAQs for AAHP.