Timed for Citizen’s Housing and Planning Association’s (CHAPA) gubernatorial candidates’ housing forum going on right now at Faneuil Hall, the Patrick campaign is releasing its housing plan. We’ve received a copy, which you can look at here (MS Word format) or here (PDF format).
I’ll be soliciting some comments from folks who are supposed to know something about housing. In the meantime, have at it.
And if anyone was at the forum, tell us how it was.
Andy’s liveblogging it. Don’t you just love our MA BlogLefters?
UPDATE: OK, we can run down the major points:
- Why don’t they just re-hire Doug Foy if they get elected? Very pro-transit, pro-smart growth. Seems to be a consensus on that one — although some think it’s a zero-sum choice between transit expansion and maintenance. I’m interested to hear how Patrick — or any candidate, for that matter — squares that circle.
- They seem to be out front on the “credit crisis”, resulting in rising levels of foreclosure. That will be more and more of an issue as interest rates rise.
- What I don’t see is a willingness to do some real zoning reform. That’s a real sticking point in increasing the housing supply, and whoever pursues it is going to piss a lot of people off.
FURTHER UPDATE (by David): Here’s the key portion of Patrick’s 8:44 pm press release on his housing plan:
The housing paper was released earlier today to the Blue Mass Group political website and the entire proposal can be seen at www.bluemassgroup.com.
😉
The Patrick housing plan contains at least two interesting items:
1. He calls for a doubling of the state’s affordable housing trust fund and additionally challenges major employers to contribute private dollars to the trust fund which then the state would match – up to $25 million. A new idea that borrows from a successful housing trust fund in the Silicon Valley that receives employer contributions.
2. Patrick endorses the Homeownership Investment Act which would rein in some 60 or so mortgage companies (Ameriquest included). With the exception of Mihos and Ross, the other candidates have been silent on this issue.
<
p>
There were two interesting exchanges at the forum between Reilly and Patrick – one on Ameriquest (initiated by moderator RD Sahl) and one about Patrick’s second home in the Berkshires (initiated by Reilly).
The Patrick “plan” is merely a set of aspirations rather than anything like a real plan of action. This is most obvious in his treatment of homelessness: end it, with no real understanding of either its cause, its effect, or its treatment.
<
p>
We’ve had at least 15 years of interesting housing policy and innovations that have been raised, never tested, and then reinvented. When Capuano was Mayor of Somerville he empanelled an Affordable Housing Task Force, whose report had plenty of small, incremental innovations easily achieved in a city with few resources. He then went to Congress, his successor mouthed support, and shelved it. Her successor understands none of it. And his support of Patrict underscores the Patrick campaign’s ignorance: housing is not a moral statement, as he claims, but it is a financial, a cultural, and a health priority. Within each of these fields there are remarkable resources to actually solve problems like homelessness.
<
p>
For just one example, Somerville averages between 80 and 120 homeless families a year – a manageable number. Somerville is massively inflated as real estate, but also is home to several hundred single and/or retired homeowners, many with second units in their homes since the city is predominatly multi-unit housing. We proposed, over ten years ago, to lease those units to local churches who could vet, support, and place homeless families as caregivers to local elders in those multiunit houses. That alone could reduce homelessness by at least 50%, perhaps more, and incent additional housing by demonstrating the vitality of community in a mercenary market.
<
p>
For another example, subsidized mortgages to public employees, with subsidies as a non-taxable fringe benefit, would solve both teacher shortages and housing pressure. They were used in the 60’s as a byproduct of NDEA, and have a reasonable history of cost-beneficial public investment.
<
p>
Schemes like these are neither new nor dramatic, but surely beyond anything Patrick even implied. As a source of innovation and “hope,” his campaign is nearly bankrupt on specifics and rampant with goo and naive prattle.
You have a different perspective than I do on Patrick, but what ideas are other candidates floating?
<
p>
Reilly and Gabrielli skipped the forum sponsored by the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance. Patrick, Mihos, and Grace Ross of the Green-Rainbow Party attended.
<
p>
Reilly isn’t even talking about housing. It’s not on his website as a major issue, even though everyone seems to agree that it is one of the biggest problems in this state. The only thing I could find is “Increasing the housing supply and making housing more affordable by identifying a predictable funding source for Chapter 40R and cutting red tape holding back housing production by streamlining the permitting process”.
<
p>
Is Chapter 40R — which I think is a Romney program — even working? Is a one-time $3,000 payment enough to get any town that was previously resistant to low-income housing to open up their arms to it? I doubt it.
<
p>
Gabrielli also does not identify housing as one of the “issues” in this state. Yet he identifies the death penalty as one.
<
p>
Romney/Healey is just throwing money at the problem, and this is concentrating low-income housing in towns that already have it. This is especially egegious because those towns have no say in the matter — a non-profit takes the state money and converts market-rate housing (albeit often substandard) into low-income housing.
<
p>
I’m glad that Deval Patrick is bringing this important issue up. It tells me that he will work on this as a priority if he is governor. I don’t get that sense from any other candidate.
do you really think Tom Reilly is NOT going to release a housing plan? Judging the candidates’ priorities based on the order in which they release their policy plans is completely arbitrary.
<
p>
Patrick released his plan yesterday. Until today, there was no plan on his website. Did he not care about housing until now? Of course not. Each candidate will have a plan and they should all be debated on the merits.
<
p>
As for “Reilly isn’t even talking about housing,” here is this prominent quote from the kickoff of his “On Your Street, On Your Side Tour”:
<
p>
<
p>
From what I have read, Reilly discusses housing in just about all of his remarks.
I think the plan is missing something.
<
p>
I live in a city with houses that are as low as $100k. Guess what. People don’t want to live in a $100k neighborhood because it means they have to live with people who can only afford a $100k house.
<
p>
You can talk affordable housing all you want, but the reality is that affordable housing brings problems to cities and towns, and there is no money to solve those problems. That’s one of the major reasons there is so much opposition to it. The “school expenses” debate is often subterfuge.
<
p>
There’s something else missing too. From what I can see, no one wants to be an owner-occupant of a two-family house anymore. I don’t know if it’s just out-of-vogue, or, I suspect, way too much of a hassle because there are too many people who know tenant law and are able to manipulate it to their own benefit. But most of the two-family properties in Springfield are owned by out-of-town investors, and many have been illegally chopped up into either three-family houses or, worse yet, rooming houses.
<
p>
The idea of encouraging development is great, but how about giving something back to the communities that currently provide the backbone of affordable housing in this state? How about giving something to us so that our quality of life is even 1/10 of the people who live in the towns with 2-acre lots and pseudo-private schools?
This plan might work better in an area like Boston metro where there are plenty of brownstones and 3 family houses, but…
<
p>
split ’em.
<
p>
There’s no reason why the government (local or state, however it is implemented) can’t buy an easement on 1/3rd of a 3 family unit. Doing so will keep the price “affordable” in perpatuity, and doing this in all areas of the state (and each town in the state) spreads out the low income families, so you don’t get this “ghettoization” that happens so often when a larger low income housing area gets built.
<
p>
Instead of creating a community within the community for lower income people, why not just invite them into our community?
by your suggestion that the government buy portions of three-family houses. They’re only for sale in that way if they get turned into condos. Is that what you mean? Or are you suggesting using eminent domain – which will open a can of worms that believe me no one wants to open?
but not necessarily just when they’re condos.
<
p>
Sure, when they’re condos, they’re easier. But, it can also be done with a single owner who rents two of the units. You set up a contract so that for the next x years, one of the three units is lower income. Then, you subsidize his mortgage and the rent to make it work.
<
p>
Boston was trying a plan like this a few years ago, but I think they didn’t put enough carrot out there — the incentives just weren’t high enough for very much adoption of the plan.
<
p>
So, yes you can do it with condos, but you can also do it with single owners. It absolutely shouldn’t be done with eminent domain IMO.
i got a copy as i entered the forum, i’ve only skimmed it but it seemed in sync with a lot of the discussion tonight. the whole issue is an area i don’t know much about so it was very educational.
<
p>
i got a ton of notes, i’ll try to write up a summary tomorrow.
<
p>
Uh, wow … doesn’t Patrick have his own website? Well, thanks for the publicity, I guess …
<
p>
Hmm…
<
p>
The Patrick folks aren’t blatantly trying to kiss up to BMG,are they?
<
p>
Ok, fine. Even if they were, what’s wrong with that? Perhaps I’m trapped in the politics of cynicism?
<
p>
I guess I just prefer a little subtlety, that’s all.