Tales of 40b

The Campaign to Protect our Affordable Housing Law, has, as several of their members, people who live in 40b affordable housing units across the state, showing which housing developments they live in.

I thought I'd take a look at the housing developments.

One of the members lives at Elmwood Village in North Reading. There were 35 townhouse units built there, with 7 of them being "affordable." Those 2-bedroom units all go for $184,000 and are available to first-time home buyers who earn 80% of the median income in North Reading, or less, according to the town's website.

I checked out Realtor.com's listings in North Reading for homes that cost less than $184,000 and found 13 listings (some of them quite cute!), out of 73 total listings in North Reading -- and not a single one of them, as far as I'm aware, would be considered "affordable housing" in North Reading. So, to be accurate, approximately 18% of all the listed homes for sale in North Reading cost less than the seven "affordable" units at Elmwood Village. Furthermore, while North Reading is technically under the 10% state threshold for affordable housing, 18% of their properties currently for sale cost less than the "affordable" units. Wouldn't that mean that almost 20% of North Reading's property on the market is actually affordable, at least compared to whatever metric the state uses for its 40b policy?

Lest anyone think this phenomenon is unique to North Reading, let's check out some of the other "affordable" housing units out of people on the 'coalition for affordable housing.' Take a look at The Ridge Luxury Apartments in Waltham (note how the coalition to protect affordable housing left off the fact that these are luxury apartments). It has 264 units, with a state-required minimum of 25% 'affordable' units... which cost $1,500 a month for rent for a 1 bedroom. It's "affordable" only compared to the other units at the complex. Finding prices for apartments for rent is a bit tougher than homes, but there's literally 73 in the area of Waltham for $1,500 or less, and I found at least 11 at that price or less for rent in Waltham at this site. Few, if any, of those would be considered "affordable" under 40b, as it applies to the 10% threshold.

That's just a small slice of the picture. If people want to look into the other towns and communities, they'll probably see a similar picture. The only town which didn't have a number of homes below the sale price was Marblehead's The Reserve at Oliver's Pond development, which is including 5 affordable units amongst its 15 homes other condos on the market for over $600,000. The affordable units were going for $156,000 and there were only three homes more affordable than that in the town. A town like Marblehead really needs a whole lot more affordable housing -- the town's 500 units away from the state's goal of 10% -- but this 40b approach shows just how frustrating the law is for cities and towns under the threshold. Yes, it created 5 new units toward the 10% goal, but it also created 15 new units against it. For all intents and purposes, this doesn't really get the town any closer to the promised land.

People should be opposed to NIMBY zoning laws that try to prevent ordinary citizens from being able to afford living in the communities of their choice -- and there's a place for a policy like 40b, but it needs to be severely tweaked before election day, or voters should vote to repeal. In fact, as the Wicked Local article I just linked to says, the state has another, friendlier and smarter affordable housing law -- Chapter 40R, which establishes "Smart Growth" zones. However, that's not where developers make their bread and butter -- and, at the end of the day, that's what this is really about.

40b on the Chopping Block?

A friend just asked me to join a 'protect affordable housing' group on Facebook, to which I thought, "affordable housing is in trouble?" I googled to see what it was about... and found out that Chapter 40b is heading for the ballot. This, I'm sorry to inform my old friend, is a good thing -- though I'm not excited that the proposal is to repeal 40b and not reform it.

While I'm generally anathema to ballot questions, this is really one of those times where it makes sense. Why? There are too many powerful interests on Beacon Hill who try to squish any reform of Chapter 40b every year. None of the reform bills ever see the light of day, getting a vote in the full house -- they're all squished in committee.

This, despite the fact that people widely admit there are deep and serious flaws with Chapter 40b. The biggest flaw of which is while 40b allows developers to go into cities and towns and ignore their own zoning regulations, in favor of many units on postage stamps, the law doesn't actually increase the percentage of units in the town with affordable housing, for all intents and purposes, because the developers only have to make 25% of their units be affordable. 40b only kicks in if towns have less than 10% of their housing considered affordable under the guidelines of 40b. Now, if developers had to make 75% of their units be "affordable," making a real dent in a town's number of affordable units, that may be a different story, but that's just not the case. So, not only do developers get to ignore the town's zoning, but they don't even have to get a town any closer to reaching the minimum requirement for affordable housing.

Another huge problem with chapter 40b is 'affordable housing' is essentially defined as affordable for someone who earns 60% of that community's median income. In many towns across Massachusetts, that's still a very, very tall order to be "affordable" to many people wishing to live in those communities. If you're a single mother of two, making $50,000 a year, trying to get your kids into the Brookline school system, you're not going to have much luck with the state's 'affordable housing' bill. Furthermore, in many of those communities, you'll see dozens or hundreds of homes for sale that cost less than the "affordable units," but aren't considered "affordable" by the state for purposes of the 10% threshold.

There's a whole lot of flaws with Chapter 40b in Massachusetts, and powerful special interests have kept it that way. The only question I have is if a full-scale repeal is the answer. I wish this ballot question reformed Chapter 40b, rather than repealed it. We have a severe need of affordable units in Massachusetts, just to keep our best, brightest and most hardworking young adults here in the state. However, it's fair to say that not only is Chapter 40b failing miserably to do that, but it's primary interest at this point is clearly not to create affordable housing, but allow developers to bypass town zoning laws to make even more money.

Perhaps the only way to move ahead on real affordable housing policies that work in this state is for the people to rise up and say no to this broken, special-interest state law. Maybe at that point, we'd be able to create something both more effective at addressing the problem and fairer for communities.

No Local Cuts: Raise Revenue

Good discussion over at BMG, but we should go much further than stating that Beacon Hill shouldn't cut local aid "smartly." It just shouldn't cut it at all. In fact, in these fiscal times, after so many damaging cuts in the recent past, Beacon Hill should raise local aid.

Of course, we're having a major budget disaster; that's not news. The money's got to come from somewhere. So, what are some smart, sensible measures to raise revenue, specifically for local aid? The obvious one is to bring back the income tax rate we had pre-Celluci, but that's still a tough political pill for some politicians to swallow at this point. So, what else?

Increase the tax on alcohol. Why? For starters, it's absurdly low - around 5% according to those on the BMG thread. We just raised the tax on cigarettes by a $1/pack, why not raise the tax on liquor a $1 for wine, a six pack or for a regular-sized bottle of hard liquor? After all, if local aid is cut, police and fire services will probably be hit the hardest. Alcohol-related problems, from accidents to people doing stupid things while drunk to medical emergencies or diseases, all cost the government - including local cities and towns - a great deal of money, probably measured in the hundreds of millions or billions.

Fewer cops on the road at night means more accidents caused by drunk drivers. Fewer fire departments and trucks means it'll take longer for EMTs to arrive on the scene, meaning more people will die or sustain longterm damage. All that means, in the end, cutting these services will probably cost people more money. A tax on alcohol in keeping with cigarettes is smart policy.

What else? A small local meals and hotel tax would do wonders for many cities and towns. At least three towns already struggling under unfair the unfair Chapter 70 formula, Swampscott, Dartmouth and Saugus, would stand to gain a great deal with a local option meals tax. Dartmouth, which has closed at least two schools in the past five years (probably more) would take in over a million dollars with a 2% meals tax - so would Saugus, a town that's faced massive layoffs and the loss of accreditation of its library (if it hasn't been outright closed by now). Swampscott would take in over $350,000, which would offset state cuts to Chapter 70, should they ultimately be necessary. Such a policy would open millions in new funding for most urban cities throughout the state, from Lynn to New Bedford to Worcester to Springfield.

Those are just two quick, easy and relatively painless ideas that make good policy sense and would help towns not only deal with the cuts the state's already made in the past, but also potentially expand upon their educational programs or help keep the streets safe. Beacon Hill can't keep cutting - we're at the marrow already. If the State House doesn't have the guts to raise revenue itself, it's got to get out of the way and give cities and towns the resources they need to do it themselves.

How Munis Shouldn't Act

I think this is a serious no no, and not as in a no hitter. It's a complete swing and a miss. The idea that cities and towns should cough up millions to buy things for private entities, like brand new stadiums for minor league teams, and do so at little to no cost for those private entities, is absolutely absurd. There's no promise those entities will stay there for the long haul, it's not going to create a lot of jobs and there's no guarantee the enterprise will be a success. With so little land and so few tax dollars, it's important we invest our resources wisely and take the sure bets - something that will create jobs, or at least bring in more taxpayers.

A note to my fellow bloggers: let's not succumb to conventional wisdom or the same phenomenon politicians often do - wanting to bring the celebrity to the locality, no matter the cost. There's too much at stake to worry about the minor leagues.

I'm a Citizen Journalist? And Other Peculiar New England Conventions

Whoa, Town Meeting does the weirdest things, like inspiring me to write a journalistic blog (of course, readers must click the link to read more on that).

Seriously, though, they're a good time - especially for people who have a sophomoric, political sense of humor (although, avoiding fits of laughter when speakers make silly straw-man points is a must - like when one speaker compared Jamaica Plain to Swampscott last night, as if they were the same). Also, it helps to try to be interested and to think of it like a giant game of clue - figuring out what frack is actually going on behind the scenes and what all those amendments are really about (it helps to have a partner to gossip with bounce ideas off of).

In the meantime, Town Meeting members can actually do some good - like being part of the budget process, creating important bylaws, or voting to move forward an override to build a new school. Town Meeting is a peculiar New England trait, so hopefully readers are taking part in their community as I am in mine. It makes a difference.

Yo, Leg. We have a Deficit!

Usually, when there's a deficit, the government tries to do something about it. It would be nice if Beacon Hill got the memo. The first thing the leg should do is pass the Municipal Partnership Act, which would directly help cities and towns deal with whatever cuts could be facing them. It would also give them the additional funds they need to help firewall our schools and town services from the scary R word that's been floating around recently (Recession). Next, the state needs to end the unnecessary, unfair and improper tax loopholes that result in companies like Walmart actually costing this state more than we tax them. Then, unfortunately, the hard part begins - addressing health care affordability. However, it would be nice to know that at least we could come to the easy decisions fast, right? After all, the cities, towns and people of Massachusetts depend on it.

It's time to get on the phone to Beacon Hill and do something about it.

Shut it Down

Not only has the Salem Power Plant killed three of its workers recently, but the cancer rates in the area are through the roof. I've long had my doubts that it's a coincidence. Furthermore, the plant is old, inefficient and highly polluting - all things that could be improved by shutting the sucker down. Of course, America needs energy and this region of the country is no different, but hopefully this will open up a chance to create more renewable energy - green-lighting projects like Cape Wind and others. Salem, of course, ought to get in the game and find out just where they can build several large wind turbines.

Finally, the mayor worries about losing tax dollars by shutting down the power plant. Here's both a good opportunity for the state to get involved, while also sitting back and taking a breather. The power plant is a huge waterfront property - whatever replaces it will also rake in high amounts of taxes. There's endless possibilities for high end, 1 bedroom condos and a second, even larger, Pickering-Wharf type establishment. Salem has quickly become a top tourist destination all year round, not just during the Halloween season, so why not push to maximize on that potential?

Now - here's where the state should jump in. No municipalities should be held hostage by the whims of large corporations operating up within them. Why not create a law that would cover at least a portion of a city or town's losses in property taxes if a fairly big company either shut down or moved, at least long enough to redevelop the area? Not only will it keep cities and towns fiscally sound, but it could blunt the ability for large businesses to hold communities hostage, essentially buying their own influence by squeezing a municipalities jugular. Anyone else think that a good idea?