Lynch has had considerable experience with affordable-housing issues and 40B specifically for a couple of decades. His city has successfully added to the stock of middle-class and lower affordable units. Yet, he doesn't see 40B as a panacea. He describes in detail what he sees as problems with implementation.
He describes that tenuous balance of enabling profitable development opportunities that will inspire building types, while not driving all but the wealthiest citizens away.
Most unfortunately, tweaking 40B is not part of the ballot question. That would be keep it or kill it. We all need to get smart on this issue.
Please share widely!
…and the entrenched developers profiting from this well-intentioned law have prevented sensible reform…time to start over, dump the law and have the legitimate interests of affordable housing muster support for a better approach. While well intentioned, the current 40B law is nothing but a club developers use to either shove developments down the throats of communities (without building truly affordable housing), and/or, a tool to defraud communities and local taxpayers, struggling to pay for local services like public education.)
<
p>40B reminds me of rent control when I lived in Cambridge…I lived in a non rent controlled apartment and I had a roommate–from a well to do family, with a good job–who spent weeks literally working full time to find a rent controlled apartment and do so. Her greedy, self-centered efforts to deprive a needy person of needed affordable housing convinced me to vote to repeal the measure (there was wide spread abuse–not just this case). Same is true with 40B…
between 40B and rent control in Cambridge. The former is mandatory and the second was a local option, until the state took that option away.
<
p>To my mind the best outcome would be if the repeal effort gathered enough steam to force real changes to the law.
is what I hope happens: that the very nature of this being up for election will force some positive change by those who don’t want to see 40b go away.
<
p>Despite what Mike said in the post, I’m actually on the fence over whether or not I think repeal is a good idea (and to be frank — that is a recent position, due to some conversations I’ve had with friends who are strong advocates of 40b, as just a few weeks ago I wrote posts on my site that were universally opposed). I’m not sure if I made my fence-sitting clear on the show, but at this point I just don’t know what to feel or what’s the best ‘strategy’ to improve 40b.
<
p>40B manages to be bad on both ends — it doesn’t do anywhere near enough to address affordable housing, while it also doesn’t treat communities effected by it fairly (for example, the 25/75 split in affordable/normal prices doesn’t bring towns any closer to state-established goals).
<
p>I’d hate to nix it for the good things that it does, but I want to see this effort draw enough steam to force reform. Unfortunately, a point which Bernie makes on the show is probably most likely to come true: if it wins, the state will decide the people want no affordable housing and won’t touch the issue with a ten-foot pole, if it loses the state will decide that the people love 40b and won’t touch the law either. That’s a scary proposition, because this law badly needs the tweaking.
<
p>We need the legislature to realize this is a complex issue with people who will vote for or against this repeal effort based on complex opinions on the law — and we need them to come together and create some reasonable changes that can increase the number of affordable units, while treating towns in this state more fairly. A reasonable start would be for homes in communities that cost as much or less than 40b’s “affordable units” to be considered affordable under 40b’s standards. If an affordable unit costs $200-250k in a town, and there’s 30 homes or units on the market that cost less than that and are in good condition, those homes should be applied to the state’s goal of 10% (or more) affordable units in every community.
<
p>Maybe the state also needs to think about alternatives toward addressing afford-ability issues that treats every community the same — such as banning any town’s NIMBY laws that, for example, mandate large sections of land per unit for zoning laws — as well as some carrots for towns that alter zoning laws to increase density, etc. Another approach could be some tax write-offs and incentives for turning larger, single-family homes into duplexes, etc. At the end of the day, I think more housing in communities can do a lot to foster more affordable housing without policies like 40b by simple market forces, at least if we axe most of the NIMBY zoning bylaws some towns are known for.
Ryan, I am glad to see the serious thought you are putting into this. There are a couple facts I think could help.
<
p>First, over the 41-year history of the law only about half of the developments were created by private, limited-dividend developers. The rest were built by non-profits like Habitat for Humanity and municipal agencies like Worcester Housing. In recent decades, and in some parts of the state such as the Cape, a large majority of these developments were built by non-profits and government.
<
p>Second, the 25/75 split is a minimum. Many of these developments are 100% affordable. Others have a different split. Especially because most developers are not for profit and even some of the for-profit developers are socially motivated (they exist really), developers often use this as a tool to build fully affordable housing. There’s a reason the state’s affordable housing community has signed on to the vote no campaign.
<
p>But, what is affordability? The minimum under the law is a rent or sales price at 30% of 80% of area median income. For a family of four in Greater Boston, that works down to somewhere around $1100/month for an apartment. But again, that’s a minimum. Most developers strive for a diverse income mix. Many combine the comprehensive permit with other programs like tax credits or vouchers to create units affordable to very low income families and seniors as well as moderate income.
<
p>And why don’t cheap market rate units count as “affordable”? Ask someone who lived in the western half of Somerville more than ten years ago. Homes built under the affordable housing law have long-term restrictions on affordability. They are market and gentrification proof. Also, there is a big difference between a newly constructed home and a fixer-upper.
<
p>If affordable housing wins with a big no vote, it will become easier to press for new laws, regulations, and funding streams for your above ideas and other affordable housing needs.
<
p>(disclosure: I work for the campaign. Go to http://www.protectaffordablehousing.org)
Your response is very misleading, if not outright wrong.
<
p>First of all, since 1998, when 40B became opened to for-profit developers, for-profit developers have dominated 40B projects. That is fact.
<
p>Second, under 40B rules, most Habitat for Humanity homes don’t qualify as “affordable units” either because they dont use state subsidies, or because they’re “lottery system” is too restrictive.
<
p>Third, it is a bold-faced lie to claim that most of the 40B projects are 100% affordable. The percentage of affordable units being built has plummeted over the past decade, despite the number of affordble housing projects skyrocketing.
<
p>Fourth, affordable homes may have long-term restrictions, if you consider 15 years “long-term.” The state is in danger of losing 20,000 affordable units over the next five years because their deed restrictions are expiring.
Sorry, the system that’s broken is the failure of certain towns to meet a reasonable goal of maintaining 10% of their housing stock as affordable.
<
p>The law is simple, make 10% of units in town affordable and you can tell developers to take a walk. As a Globe story recently pointed out, towns like Bedford and Lexington don’t have to worry about any of the problems with the law, because they actually do their job and have enough affordable housing.
<
p>
<
p>If the folks looking to repeal this law actually spent their time working to encourage smart, responsible affordable housing in their communities we’d have smart, responsible affordable housing – they don’t, because that’s not their goal. They can wrap themselves in the guise of fighting greedy developers all they want, this is about whether wealthy suburbs can keep the unwashed masses out of their town.
however, as someone who lives in a dense wealthy suburb…
<
p>there’s not a whole lot of opportunity for new affordable development in my Town; we’re relatively built out. Furthermore, it’s not at all clear that building a few large 100% affordable housing developments is really a good idea; this is the model of previous generations and it tends to create and foster all sorts of ugly social problems.
<
p>So we’ve got the HAB who works with the Town to “buy in” to make units affordable from time to time, and that’s slow progress. Occasionally we get a new development, and those tend to include affordable one way or another. Still, we need something like 500+ more units to be in compliance, and I’d much rather we get there 2 to 10 units at a time than 100 units at a time.
<
p>Zoning is important, and at times, effective. The flip side is that many communities have zoning laws which are awful, archaic, counterproductive, unfair, inappropriate, and I could go on and on. Hell, consider the home I live in: about 250 units and 250 parking spaces in a garage, all built in the 1920s. Were it built today, the same 250 homes would require about 600 parking spaces. 600!?!? It’s worked just fine for 85 years with it’s 250 spaces, but zoning would make the development impossible now because of the parking requirement. Examples like this are all over the place. It’s brutal. 40B allowing the avoidance of some of these regulations makes an awful lot of sense because some of the regulations are flat out awful.
<
p>Of course 40B has problems, and those problems are quite different depending on who you talk to. The question is: can 40B be reformed in a way which still puts pressure on cities and towns to encourage affordable housing development? 40B is a club, not a flyswatter. That’s why it works where it works, and that’s why it creates problems where it creates problems.
It is virtually impossible for a town to hit 10% and most of the towns that have reached it have done so WITHOUT the use of 40B. Here’s why:
<
p>First, if you use 40B home ownership, than for every 1 affordable, you get 3 market rate. Which means for every step towards 10%, you take 3 steps back. In fact, the average town in Massachusetts would have to grow its total housing stock by 61% to reach 10% “affordable”. Obviously that is not realistic…or reasonable.
<
p>Second, if you use the rental option of Chapter 40B, where all of the units are counted as “affordable” than every ten years, when the census comes out, you will have those units counted and be required to create MORE housing, and not get very much affordable housing.
<
p>So either way requires the community to continue to build non-affordable housing…forever. Regardless of infrestructure limits, regardless of environmental limits, regardless of overcrowded schools, regardless of EVERYTHING.
<
p>This law simply needs to be removed. It doesnt create anywhere NEAR the amount of affordable housing we need. We should not be the 3rd most expensive housing market in the country. We can find a way to do better. But the developers and other special interests who profit from 40B will not allow a real affordable housing plan, as long as 40B is around.
<
p>And thats without talking about the need for redevelopment of the thousands of mills and vacant buildings and rehab of the existing affordable housing, much of which is in deplorable condition.
Heck, when I have personal knowledge of many people in Cambridge who abused it. The mayor himself had a rent controlled apartment.
<
p>Under rent control in Cambridge owners were incentivized to find low cost easy to manage tenants – that was young professionals right out of college- like I was.
<
p>My friend had a good job, and lived alone and was at work most of the time. The controlled rents were so low it was embarassing. He paid the retired woman who was forced to subsidize him more than the statutory rent because it was so unjust.
<
p>Poor families of course paid full price in Cambridge.
<
p>40B is similarily abused. Few 40B apartments are ever built. It’s used by land developers as a sledgehammer to force towns to overbuild. If your apartment complex is denied a variance the developer files for 40B. That means potentially an influx of poor families, with children that need school, and with all the social needs the poor have.
<
p>So the towns cave to the developer and they build whatever they want so long as they drop the 40B.
<
p>Ever see inappropriately sited apartment complexes sticking out of R1 residential neighborhoods? You probably have some in your neighborhood. You can thank 40B.
It seems that everyone agrees that 40B did not work well enough to expand affordable housing, particularly outside of our few big cities around here. Developers have gamed this largely static system in its four decades.
<
p>Cambridge rent control is decidedly not a good example, even from an emotional and experiential perspective, though. I can take your roommate tale and trump it with a landlord one. A chum from Inc. Magazine days ended up with several very large Harvard Square apartment buildings through deals with his siblings over inheritance. He was one of the prime movers in overturning rent control. His motivations were pure greed, but he successfully played ordinary renters and landlords with a couple of units in the market. “Woe to us. We are so abused. Blah blah.”
<
p>In this case for the election, I don’t see the case for scrubbing 40B. Maybe the anti forces will make that argument convincingly. They haven’t so far.
<
p>For real estate, saying the “free market” (a.k.a. this oligopoly) will take care of it left to its own mechanisms is far too lame. We learned better, which brought us rent control in the first place.
<
p>To your other point though, the legislators have been ignoring this complex problem for a long time.
Communities have gamed this system too.
<
p>Senior housing counts as affordable. Some communities are near their 10% goal mostly with senior units, which are advertised to existing town residents.
<
p>Turns out that poor seniors are a lot less trouble than poor families.
Are you implying that senior housing should not count toward the affordable threshold? Low-income seniors are just as much in need of housing as any other low-income group. Or is it the “advertised to existing town residents” part that you find objectionable? I do not – these people generally have been paying taxes to the town for many years, and it’s their home. Why should they not have preference?
but I do think it is important to offer affordable housing across the spectrum of family types…
Are you suggesting that 40B helps poor people?? It most certainly does not.
<
p>It helps 99% middle-income and upper-middle-income residents. Now, everyone needs help, so I’m not suggesting otherwise. I’m just pointing out that it doesnt help the working poor.
<
p>40Bs are not section 8’s and they are almost NEVER low-income units. That’s why all the descriptions say “low and moderate income”. It is almost exclusively the latter of those two.
As someone who has practiced in this area of law for the last ten years, I can say the repeal is not the answer, but the statute needs a major overhaul. On behalf of a 37-town consortium, I drafted and filed legislation last year that would do just that. Sponsored by Sen. Panagiotakos (co-sponsored by Sen. Eldridge) and Rep. Brownsberger in the House, SB657 (HB1192) would restore the balance between municipalities and developers, and would encourage more sensible siting of high-density developments consistent with sustainability and smart growth principles. The last few administrations have paid lip service these principles, favoring a policy of building housing at all costs.
<
p>In response to dhammer’s comment, while some towns can certainly share in the blame, most communities (particularly those don’t start with a “W”) hardly have the resources to build sensible affordable housing on their own. Instead, they’re left with the option of accepting ill-conceived proposals from often unscrupulous developers or fight them in court.
<
p>The biggest failure of 40B is that it only serves a narrow segment of our population that earns between 70-80% of the median income (for ownership housing). We need a policy that encourages housing production at all economic levels, including those who make too much to qualify for 40B housing, but no enough to afford a home in their own community (e.g., “workforce housing”).
<
p>Unfortunately, like every other 40B reform bill that has preceded it, SB657 hit a wall in the Joint Housing Committee in the State House. Supporters of the status quo have some very powerful friends. Perhaps the threat of repeal will finally encourage housing advocates and their allies to join with municipalities to adopt meaningful reform.
This is a list of the members of that committee:
<
p>I would like to see that 25% threshold for the 70-80% niche remain that way… if we got another 15-25% of the units priced so people making 40-60% of median income. If you’re a single parent with 2-3 kids making $35k a year working as a secretary at a doctor’s office, why should they be excluded from “affordable” housing?
Rye, are you suggesting that someone who earns between 40 and 60% of median income is excluded from affordable housing?
I’m suggesting that someone who makes that kind of money would find it difficult to afford “affordable housing” under the 40b guidelines. If “affordable housing” isn’t really affordable, then I’d suggest that aspect of the law needs to be reworked, too.
The ranges are decidedly different for rental.
the hard-working, single parent who’s struggling and just may like to own property, too.
<
p>You know, I don’t mind renting and I think there’s a lot of things that are great about it, but there’s always going to be a difference between having your own place and renting, especially in how people who live in rented apartments tend to treat them and the surrounding area, or how the owners of that property treat it. That crummy bathroom that could cost half a year’s salary to get redone down to the studs would never happen in many rental units, even if it needs doing. (I do get scared of some of the bathrooms my friends have had in their rentals — and none of them were living in particularly cheap units, either.)
<
p>Of course, it’s always nice to be able to call the landlord when X breaks, or not have to be the one who shovels the driveway. So it really depends on what people want. I just don’t like the idea that so many think its okay to deny hardworking Americans the ability to work hard, save hard and be able to have a comfortable place of their own, even if they’re not high wage earners. If we want “affordable” units, we ought to recognize that 40b’s policies can still be pretty darn exclusionary, too. As has been pointed out elsewhere, often times you can find decent market-rate homes cheaper than the 40b affordable units being built in many communities.
and the hard working single parent who wants to vacation in Tahiti doesn’t get to either.
<
p>You’re making a big leap. Lots of liberals (hell, lots of Americans) will argue that we as a society should ensure that there’s a roof over the head of all Americans. You’re making a bigger leap — that we ought to buy part of their roof and give it to ’em. Even if their salary implies that they won’t be able to make payments, and taxes, and repairs, and deal with the unexpected risks related to the roof, the boiler, etc.
<
p>Frankly, I’m not interested in subsidizing the ownership of housing because poor people want to own houses. I’m interested in subsidizing the ownership of housing when it’s a social good to do so. I have little knowledge in this area of public policy or economics, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the data shows that folks in the 70-80 range are able to maintain social status, be long term residents of the home, integrate into the community, etc…. but folks under that 70 threshold simply don’t have the financial or other stability to be able to do so, rendering the increased subsidization of home ownership (instead of renting) a waste of resources. There will always be exceptions on both side of any line, and I’m sure 70 is no different. I’m not even sure that 70 is the right line, or that this phenomenon even exists.
<
p>I’m merely suggesting that folks have worked hard at this and came up with a structure. Until I understand the reasoning that went into the 70-80 threshold, it’s really hard for me to argue for or against them.
<
p>I’m suggesting that, in one of the most expensive states to live in across the entire country, we ought to do more to ensure that people can afford to work hard and play by the rules and own a home, if they’d so choose, too. Your the one who’s saying that means everyone else has to “give it to ’em.” I don’t think 40b is “giving” homes to people; I wouldn’t think reforming 40b to make it more accessible to more people would be “giving” homes to people, either. Why not go well beyond 40b and require any major development project have at least some affordable units, 40b or not? If a developer is building 500 condos, methinks they could afford to make 3-5 of them affordable without the additional tools and subsidies present in 40b.
<
p>
<
p>A 40ish year old law that’s mainly benefited wealthy developers, with only some tangental benefits to the middle class (29k — affordable — units over those 40ish year) isn’t really reflective of a group of “folks” who have “worked hard” to come up with a truly ideal “structure.” The fact that there’s so many people who have moved outside of this state over the past few decades because they couldn’t afford to live here tells me that 40b is a massive failure. The only question voters have this November on the matter is whether repealing it is more or less likely to force positive change. Quite frankly, I don’t know the answer to that — we certainly haven’t had to political will to bypass the powerful construction lobbies to make the necessarily positive changes since ’69.
<
p>I hear what you’re saying, and I’m not sure that I agree. I do think that we ought to ensure that people who work hard and play by the rules get a fair shake. I do think that we ought to ensure that people have a roof over the head. I think we ought to have consumer loan protection, real estate regulations, and ensure no red lining of neighborhoods. I’m not so sure that subsidizing home ownership is necessarily good policy — for a given income range (70-80, 40-60 (the RyePlan), or even mortgage interest deductions).
<
p>
<
p>Fair enough. Substitute “lending at zero percent interest” and of course it’s not an entire home, but a portion of a home. That’s the subsidy.
<
p>
<
p>That’s a good question. I’d be in favor of requiring some percentage of need-based housing, be it affordable, senior, veterans, disabled, whatever. Don’t know the details; but in general it sounds like a good idea.
<
p>Here’s the problem: what’s 1% (5 of 500) of a single or two family home? The percentages works for large developments or even large developers, but it fails quickly for small developments — which is all that exists in many towns. Are you proposing that we should only be requiring this housing in cities? I doubt it — you strike me as being very aware of the social ramifications of packing our poor into urban neighborhoods. I think part of the elegance of 40B is that it helps to get around this problem.
<
p>
<
p>You’re talking from your backside now. Here’s the thing: it’d be hard to argue that the many, many thousands (100k?) of people who have lived in affordable housing in MA at any time over the past 40 years haven’t benefited. That’s a whole lotta people. I’m not arguing that developers haven’t also benefited; they have. I’m not arguing that 40B is optimal; it isn’t. I’m merely pointing out that clearly there’s been some good from this. Clearly there’s been some harm. When someone who’s arguing that we should scrap it entirely calls the reality that 100kish people have lived in affordable housing a “tangental [sic] benefit”, it’s hard for me to take it seriously.
<
p>
<
p>See, it tells me that our economy is a massive success, and that 40B has done some but not enough to overcome the success of the economy.
<
p>
<
p>My sense is that we’re stuck in a funny equilibrium… it’s working sorta-kinda, and as a result we can’t get enough allies to improve it for those who support affordable housing (everywhere), and it’s working poorly enough that we’re considering getting rid of it.
<
p>Well, it’s not perfect, and I didn’t point out small developers because I don’t think it would be fair or work on smaller projects. Not a panacea, just an idea that seems reasonable and would expand beyond just 40b as the primary vehicle of affordable housing.
<
p>
<
p>Which I wouldn’t disagree with, either, that’s why I’m on the fence and not totally against. If I think that the law can be scaled to be more in the favor of those who need it, and less in the favor of the developers who use it in the most cynical way imaginable, then I’ll argue to vote against repeal.
it can be changed to be more in the favor of those who need it.
<
p>Is that a likely outcome? I’m not so sure.
You clearly support affordable housing, yet in your frustration with things not going far enough, you’re falling into the trap being set by the folks looking to repeal 40B. It’s not a miserable failure and there are lots and lots of people who are working very hard to make it work.
<
p>Statements like a “…law that mainly benefited wealthy developers, with only some tangential benefits to the middle class…” need some data to back them up. You have to ask the question, how many affordable units would have been developed in the absence of 40B? What would the state look like without the folks you so quickly write off as being completely ineffectual (and disparage by claiming they don’t work hard). Let’s look at what 40B has actually accomplished.
<
p>
<
p>So, while you can say that the construction lobby has blocked any meaningful reform, you ignore the fact that affordable housing advocates pushed for and got passed chapter 40R, a law passed in 2004, which does create a structure for smart, dense growth.
<
p>
<
p>
Because any sensible law that takes the massive power and profits away from land developers will lever get through our corrupt crony legislature.
<
p>Your co-sponsors on that bill are telling – except for Pangy (admittedly powerful), Eldridge and Brownsberger are among the very few conscientious principled legislators we have. You’ll not both of those guys are marginalized in the legislature. You’ll never see either of those guys on Ways and Means or Judiciary.
<
p>In November we need to make sure the two of them come back and that we replace as many hacks ( like DeLeo, Vallee, O’Flaherty, and Creem as we can ). We got rid of Harkins – queen of hacktown – thank god. We need to keep that momentum going.
I’d like to offer a perspective from the other side.
<
p>First, I understand the distinction between affordable housing that is guaranteed to be affordable (via a restriction) versus affordable housing that just happens to be affordable (due to low demand in the community). However, I think that cheap market rate units should count for something. My city, Springfield, has a tremendous amount of cheap market rate units. Yet we’re scored at just 16.6% low-income units — just over 10,000. I would estimate that 90% of our rental units are affordable.
<
p>However, more and more units continue to be given low-income rehabilitation tax credits each year. This is giving developers free money — the rent limits are higher than the market rate rents, so it makes no sense to build anything other than low-income here — they can get $700/month in market-rate rents from people making less than $50k per year, or they can take the tax credits and agree not to charge more than $750/month in rent to people who make less than $55k per year.
<
p>I do appreciate that without these tax credits, the properties would not be rehabbed because the market demand is just not there, the rents don’t support renovations. However, the city of Springfield has no middle class to speak of, particularly in rental housing.
<
p>The concept of creating “affordable” housing is Boston-centric. We need balanced housing. We need programs to turn blighted properties into middle class housing despite the lack of housing demand in this city. Concentrating poverty in a central city does not work.
Boston is exempt, no? I agree that 40B doesn’t seem to have its desired impact in Springfield — but that sounds like an anomaly. In most cities and towns, affordable housing is cheaper than market rate, and that’s the point, no?
Most affordable housing concepts are designed for a real estate market that has a shortage of affordable housing. The incentives are created to compensate for a lack of desire to build housing that won’t fetch the highest return.
<
p>The Boston market (and most communities within 128 and many within 495) suffers from very high prices to the point where teachers or firefighters can’t live in the cities in which they work. That is the Boston-centric viewpoint. In Springfield, teachers and firefighters refuse to live in the city in which they work because of the predominance of affordable housing.
<
p>Springfield isn’t having any problems with 40B — at 16.9% we’re exempt — but from an incentives standpoint, the incentives are skewing our market — low-income housing is worth more than market rate housing, so virtually all redevelopment gravitates toward that.
<
p>We have agreed as a state that 10% affordable is a goal, but people don’t see the other side of the coin — that too much affordable housing is bad — because most of this state lives in a region where there is no such thing as a surplus of affordable housing.
<
p>I’m saying that we need a balanced view of housing. We need to understand that in communities with too much affordable housing, we need incentives to create higher-end market-rate housing. I realize that may sound like a foreign concept to many, but if you believe that affordable can only be good, then I ask you, why aren’t people in this state flocking to the neighborhoods in Springfield where some units of housing are selling for under $25,000 and many are under $75,000? I suggest that it is because too much of the housing there is affordable and people want a balance.
is that it’s simply not true.
<
p>
<
p>Boston city employees live in Boston. They’re required to.
<
p>
<
p>As for the Springfield argument, I don’t disagree. It seems to me that once you’ve more than met your 10% goal (say, 15%) that the city should be able to help fund affordable housing elsewhere. Balance is good, both in Springfield (needs more upper priced housing) and in places which need more lower priced housing. At some point the financial incentives should be reduced in places like Springfield and perhaps even be used to fund even more aggressive affordable housing in other places.
Would you say that it is particularly easy for Boston city employees to live in Boston, given the high cost of housing there? I’m guessing that many live in units classified as affordable.
<
p>Do Dover town employees live in Dover? Or Wellesley? Or Weston? Do they own $800k houses on their public salaries? Are they paying $10k in property taxes on those salaries?
<
p>I like the idea of allowing cities to use their funding to fund housing elsewhere, but if that was even floated, it would touch off World War 3. To suburban communities, gateway cities are simply where the poor people live — and where their minimum wage employees live.
The facts? Boston employees do live in Boston. Do they live in affordable housing? I’d bet some do, and I’d bet others don’t qualify. I’m sure some do qualify but don’t live in public housing. Living in Boston is easy. Living in a nice, safe, convenient place is far less easy of course. To my knowledge Boston hasn’t had any problems staffing their departments, which suggests that housing prices aren’t hampering their requirement tremendously.
<
p>As for towns like Dover, Wellesley, Weston, and even to a lesser extent Newton, Brookline — I agree. It would be better for the communities if their employees did live in town. Who wouldn’t want to live next door to a fireman or a cop or a teacher? They’ll all yield benefits for being in the neighborhood. It’s all the more argument to have a program like 40B, to pressure towns like Wellesley to figure out how to increase their housing stocks, to give folks like their own cops a chance to live there.
<
p>
<
p>As for your final paragraph, I don’t think it’s quite as extreme as you make it out to be, but I agree a reaction would exist. Thing is, if 40B survives it’s a pretty nasty remedy. I’d think communities would want to play along. I know my town would — we’re a wealthy suburb, we’re at about 8% affordable, and we want to make that 10% because we’re petrified of a 40B project. If you have the Housing Advisory Board more funds, they’d buy more deed restrictions on existing housing units and move us closer to our 10%.
Hello all, my name is Craig Chemaly and I am the Director of the Slow Growth Initiative, a statewide environmental group that supports the repeal of Chapter 40B.
<
p>Unfortunately, anyone who says “reform not repeal” is simply unrealistic. There were 66 reform bills this year alone. There have been hundreds over the last 10 years. Not a single one has even made it out of committee. The developer lobby and those who profit from 40B make WAY too much money to allow this law to be reformed. The movement to repeal started out as the movement to reform. But after 7 years of getting nowhere, they moved to repeal it.
<
p>Chapter 40B has directly led to a lack of affordable housing and a significant drop in our state’s affordability. Our housing currently ranks as the 3rd most expensive country. Chapter 40B produces nearly 80% non-affordable housing and 75%-90% of the existing affordable units built through the program will be gone by the end of 2010.
<
p>State Inspector General Gregory Sullivan has found that Chapter 40B has not only allowed, but encouraged corruption, fraud, and abuse, and that the regulations put in place by the state are making the situation worse. His letters, warnings, audits, and findings have gone completely ignored by the state, as have the recommendations of former Governor Mitt Romney’s 40B task force. Sullivan has said that Chapter 40B represents “one of the worst abuses in state history”, “the biggest financial scandal in the last 20 years” and “[Chapter 40B] does not protect the financial interests of the public”.
<
p>This law is not doing anyone any good. And history has shown reform to be futile. If you support affordable housing, please vote YES in November to repeal this law. 46 other states are more affordable than Massachusetts. We can do better, we must do better.
<
p>And as a side note, I happen to know that the Coalition to Repeal 40B was not invited to come on the radio program referenced above. The opposition never likes debate, because the facts are on the side of repeal.
<
p>Thank you,
~Craig Chemaly, Director
Slow Growth Initiative
http://www.slow-growth.org
978-319-2051