In comments to an earlier post on the Khan v. Swiston race, Aldercritter Ted cited Greer’s opposition to the Comprehensive Permit Act (aka 40B) as a reason he’s supporting Kay. From her website, here’s Greer’s position on housing:
The Comprehensive Permit Act: Chapter 40B was passed with the intent to provide much needed affordable housing, bypassing local zoning laws if necessary. However, the implementation of the law, as currently written, has resulted in turning it into a weapon ultimately creating resource burdens on communities without truly serving those in need and making community adversaries of our much needed developers.
Smart integrated development is at the heart of a thriving community. We should not have to be in conflict with those that are helping our community to survive and grow.
Greer will adress the inequities of the Comprehensive Permit Act and look to make changes that would address the real affordable housing situation that Newton and other communities have in a way that works better for the communities and the residents in need.
Citizens of V14, what do you think? Greer, what specific changes to 40B do you propose? Kay, what’s your position on 40B and affordable housing?
Correct answer here.
I know absolutely nothing about this law but I’m for anything that can help prevent the building of more homes in Newton. This may work well in other cities and towns but it’s time to wave the white flag here in Newton. Enough is enough. GTS sounds like she is thinking of our community first. I want someone standing up to developers.
Oh my god! Am I a Republican now????????
Kim says:
Could be. Or you could choose from the following multiple choice list:
__ NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard)
__ BANANA (Build-Absolutely-Nothing-Anywhere-Near-Anything)
__ CAVE Person (Citizens Against Virtually Everything)
jk
But, seriously, Newton’s population used to be higher, and its public school population was much higher, than it is now. (Although I used to be able to access the historical demographic information from the Newton city website, regrettably, since the “new and improved” website was installed I can no longer get this information.) More people lived in smaller houses. Household sizes have declined while house sizes have increased. Go figure.
Someday, Kim, over a beer, we can discuss why a lack of affordable housing is what is holding back the Massachusetts economy and job growth. Sean is mostly right: density restrictions are hampering our ability to build the kind of housing that empty nesters and young people without kids can live in, which has the least net fiscal impact on the city. And, yes, families with kids. Chapter 40B allows developers to get around those density restrictions. When it was passed, it was called “anti-snob” zoning, because some of the “W” towns (which shall remain nameless) excluded the “hoi polloi” by requiring lot sizes of up to two acres per dwelling unit. That very effectively kept out all but the wealthiest homeowners.
Affordable housing is essential to our economy, because for every highly compensated CEO, we need a lot of folks who do the real work that supports our economy. Without it, we have no workers to draw businesses to our state. That is why a lot of corporations go to the midwest, where the property values are far lower.
Just sayin’.
How many units are going for affordable housing in the big development that is being built on Derby Street in West Newton? And will the affordable housing be the New houses that they built or the Old house that they are renovating?
@Kim– You’re about as much of a Republican as President Obama, Ted, and me. You must have just had a bad dream or something.
@Ted– I’m personally in favor of more density in village centers. But, if “affordable housing” is the objective and an important issue to the people who live in Newton, then that sentiment should be crafted into and reflected by our local zoning ordinances. There’s no debate that 40b allows private developers [like me] to circumvent local zoning ordinances.
I can understand why concerned citizen, Ted Hess-Mahan, may think 40b is a good thing. But I can’t understand why Alderman Hess-Mahan, as part of the elected body that’s charged with authoring our zoning regulations, would be so willing to void that authority and allow private developers more control than the Board of Aldermen.
Ted,
I’m going to take you up (read: force you) on that beer.
No where in your reply did you mention the strain that is already on our school system. This law seems to ignore the impact on our public services. These blogs are filled with complaints of shortcomings when it comes to our education budget. Most everyone is concerned about paying for NNHS and the other schools we need to fix. We are laying off teachers and aids.
Do you Affordable Housing people think about that? It seems to me that you are just trying to force population on us at all costs just because it meets legal standards.
Newton is packed. The impact of this law (that I know nothing about) has to be different from city to city. Hingham, Harvard, Newburyport would not suffer the way Newton would if we were to just add 300 more living units.
No where in your argument do you talk about the impact of the additional population. This is a population that, by definition, will be adding 20% less tax base than the average in our city. What’s good about that? We are struggling with what we have now.
One question only: when is the next Blogger’s Ball? We’ve got Ted and Kim down for a beer and I still owe Sean one from a million comments ago . . .
Mike says: “I’m personally in favor of more density in village centers. But, if “affordable housing” is the objective and an important issue to the people who live in Newton, then that sentiment should be crafted into and reflected by our local zoning ordinances. There’s no debate that 40b allows private developers [like me] to circumvent local zoning ordinances.”
Mike, affordable housing IS incorporated into our inclusionary zoning ordinance, which requires developers to make at least 15% of units affordable and gives a “density bonus” to developers who provide more than that. In Newton, for the most part, we have had “friendly” 40Bs that provide mixed income housing developments. We also, at least in the past, have used federal CDBG funding to support “in fill” affordable housing, in multi-family dwellings within neighborhoods of two and three family houses (which is one of the main things CDBG funds are for). (Say what you want about David Cohen, but he was a strong supporter of affordable housing and the numbers show it: the number of affordable units increased 50% during his tenure and brought us much closer to the 10% threshhold set by Chapter 40B. I would like to see the current administration do more to create affordable housing than it has so far. Much, much more.). And, for the most part, the city has over time strived to locate affordable units near village centers and public transit. But the problem we are seeing, as with a recent special permit proposal in West Newton to build 13 units near the village center that would be mostly 1 bedroom apartments–include 3 affordable units–that will attract young people who commute rather than families, is that neighbors resist density. That is unfortunate, because we have a dearth of one bedroom apartments inn village centers, precisely the kind of “smart growth” we need to contribute to the vitality of our village centers and fill an important niche in our housing stock. Chapter 40B, used judiciously for “friendly” 40Bs that have developers and the planning departments of communities working together, can be used to achieve the density we need in our village centers.
Kim, there are a lot of myths about adding housing to the city and the impact on the schools. The Riverside Station special permit application includes a net fiscal impact analysis which quantifies the impact of a mixed use, transit oriented development adding 290 additional housing units, 225,000 sf of office space, and 20,000 sf of retail, and it comes out a net half million dollars of revenue to the city. That doesn’t include the $3.5 million in building permit fees up front. The challenge, as always, is in planning for development. With respect to the schools, that is the job of the school committee and administration, and the plans to renovate or replace Angier, Cabot and Zervas must accommodate potential growth. But here is the not so dirty little secret that most people don’t understand: in a city with 5% annual turnover, a good school system, and an exodus of empty nesters who would like to stay in Newton but cannot find enough housing near village centers to allow them to “downsize” or age in place (which they could more easily do if our outdated, antideluvian accessory apartment ordinance could be liberalized, a task I embarked upon 9 years ago and am still pursuing against a mostly anti-density board of aldermen), when they sell, the likelihood is that a young family with (gasp!) children will buy their house. Combine that with a downturn in the economy, which means some people who would otherwise send their kids to private school opt for public school instead, and you have enrollment increases. In other words, there are a lot of factors that affect school populations and it is becoming increasingly clear that decisions to close schools in the 1980s was a really bad idea and has led to absurdities like having two middle schools located literally side by side on the south side of the city and one very large middle school that had to be expanded to accommodate growth on the north side.
If I were king (and it would have to be a king or queen, since neither the mayor nor the BOA can do it alone), I would be doing exactly what Sean is asking for and work with developers to do more friendly 40Bs in village centers. Austin Street shows some promise, although it would add relatively little affordable housing and might not add enough density to revitalize Newtonville without more density in and around the village center.
To be continued. It is time for me to get ready to go to church.
@Lisap “when is the next Blogger’s Ball? ”
Considering that Village14 has never had a get together … I think we’re due.
Jerry wrote:
That sure sounds like someone volunteering to chair a committee!
Ted,
Red herring. “an exodus of empty nesters who would like to stay in Newton but cannot find enough housing near village centers to allow them to “downsize” or age in place (which they could more easily do if our outdated, antideluvian accessory apartment ordinance could be liberalized”
There are tons of empty nesters living in Newton, myself included. And many, many empty nesters move south because they really don’t like the cold weather, not because they can’t afford Newton. Moreover, Newton is not homogeneous, like Weston or other suburbs. There’s a wide range of housing sizes and prices. And every city doesn’t have to reflect and include every demographic, does it?
Think about why you aren’t getting strong support at the BOA.
What is it that you really want?
Ted– If the City’s zoning regs already require 15% affordable and include a “density bonus,” we can achieve the same 20-25% affordable ratio without 40b. I know we can’t just jettison 40b, because the State mandates compliance. But if you’re telling me we can approach the same ratio of affordable units under our own regs that 40b requires, please tell me how it benefits Newton [specifically] to give private developers more control?
The term “friendly” 40b always cracks me up. They’re only “friendly” because the developer has us by the balls to begin with, and we don’t fight back hard enough.
Let’s talk about HOW David Cohen increased affordable housing in Newton. [Even though I’d rather forget]. He did it by allowing Avalon to build an enormous apartment building on Needham Street that was completely out of character with the surrounding neighborhood.
As you know, Ted, but others may not, there is a different formula for calculating the number of units the State considers “affordable” in an apartment building vs. condominiums. If a developer builds a 40b apartment building with 20-25% affordable units, the city or town receives credit for every unit in the building [not just the “affordable” units]. If a developer builds a 40b condominium, the city or town only receives credit for the “affordable” units. So you’re giving David Cohen credit for [literally] hundreds of market rate units, that are not actually “affordable.”
Here’s the problem. Massive apartment buildings generally attract a transient population, not people who are looking to plant roots and stay in a community long term. And that’s exactly what has happened at Avalon, where there is a constant turnover.
Most unfortunately, that one building initially brought in so many new school age children to the area that Countryside Elementary was forced to expand. The taxpayers of Newton had to pay for that expansion, not the developer. And of course the taxpayers also had to shell out $13K per year for each of the new students added, not the developer.
Seriously, Ted, do you think that’s a good thing worthy of praise?
Mike, as you should know, Avalon Bay on Needham Street was a failure by the Board of Aldermen, combined with a comprehensive permit granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Had the BOA granted a special permit for the Stop & Shop on Needham Street, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The current mayor had a chance to support a 40B that would have provided 16 affordable units for empty nesters on Dedham Street and he was MIA. And I don’t mean Miami.
Speaking of which, Barry, welcome back. What do I want? Why, I would love for you to move to Florida. It is too cold for you up here!
Great comeback, Ted. Says a lot.
So, really, you’re still talking about “empty-nesters”. I don’t know everyone in Newton, but I don’t see us clamoring for “affordable housing”. I think you want to bring in a bunch of low-income people that will strain the school system, pay us less taxes on a per capita basis. but make your bleeding-heart liberal psyche feel good because you won’t feel like you live in a less homogeneous city than your guilt will tolerate.
I mean, would you also be in favor of “affordable” high end housing for people to be able to move to Brockton or such suburbs that have too many low-income people. Will Obama give me money to allow me to sell my house in Newton and buy some brand-new house there that’s beyond my current ability to pay?
Investors and homeowners alike in Brockton certainly ARE saying they need high end housing and are sick and tired that certain communities aren’t pulling their weight by more evenly distributing the burden on low income housing! Bleed on Ted!
I think I meant “more” homogeneous, but you get the idea, Ted. You are wracked with guilt and fit a perfect description of an Obama-Democrat-style bleeding-heart-liberal. You better hope there are enough of you to re-elect the phony Obama and elect the phony Elizabeth Warren.
I agree, Ted. It should have been a Stop n’ Shop. I was just adding a little perspective to the credit you were giving Mayor Cohen for bringing “affordable” housing to Newton. In my opinion, Avalon on Needham Street is the best example of why 40b is bad for Newton.
I’ll admit to being conflicted, because I understand the legitimate regional need for truly affordable housing. I’m just a bit of a “townie” I guess, and rightly or wrongly, I put the interest of my hometown first. And I mean this with all due respect, Ted, because quite frankly I think you’re one of the best damn alderman I can remember in my many years here, but my hope would be that all our local office holders put the interests of Newton first as well.
Barry, lighten up. I was funning you.
Seriously though, my neighborhood is full of two family houses that are all going condo. The most recent sale for a condo in a two family house was $515,000, which may not seem like much until you realize the two families in my hood average well under $500,000 assessed value. So, we are losing rental units that are affordable to condos that are not. Young families have no place to go in Newton. Kids who grew up here have no place to go in Newton. And, yes, folks whose kids have grown up and cannot find a place to live here are looking to downsize, and they have no options.
You are fortunate enough to be able to afford to stay in your home. Good for you. But your disbelief notwithstading, there are a lot of empty nesters in Newton who cannot afford to stay here because their 401Ks are more like 201Ks these days. I talked to a whole bunch of them at a forum for seniors who need affordable housing in Newton that was held over at the Carr School a year or so ago. The stories they told me broke my heart. Their friends are here, their connections are here, the things and people they love are here, but they can no longer afford to live here. Sad.
See, Ted, what you said is what is the issue. Just because someone feels bad, which may be sad, doesn’t mean the government has to come in and solve their problems. That’s the implication of a “bleeding-heart-liberal”. Many, if not most people can’t do exactly what they want, so they do something else and adjust. You want to take other people’s money so that these people can be happy.
I actually think that you are still keying on empty-nesters, but in your heart you are thinking of what I said, the low-income people who can’t currently afford to live in Newton. But the empty-nesters is as I said a good red herring. You can’t say that they’ll strain the school system, meaning the city budget.
Life is a bitch, Ted. People have to move all the time and sever their roots, for jobs, schooling, to avoid persecution or discrimination, in times of war, for climate benefits for health issues. Those seniors who fill up south Florida and Arizona seem to have adjusted to the loss.
Barry, with all due respect, you sound a lot like Willard Mitt Romney. Clueless. Out of touch. No empathy. Sad.
I’d like to focus on Ted’s comment about revising the accessory apartments regulations. That seems like it ought to be a no-brainer – allowing them would make it easier for people to stay in their own homes, increases affordable units while being unlikely to lead to greatly increased numbers of kids in the schools, and would legalize something that’s happening anyway to some extent.
@Ted – what are the objections that are making it difficult to get this through the BoA?
Running a government is a solution based job. You don’t want your elected officials to see problems and not do anything about them. What ticks me off is when some of our elected officials are slow at arriving with a solution. If we want to be a diverse community (which should be up for discussion) then economics plays a part in the diversity.
Many of the people that have tennancy in 40b are hard working blue-collared well meaning people. There are exceptions, as in anything, but the vast majority are hard working.
I understand everyone’s concern about the pressure on the schools, etc. but sometimes when you talk the talk we have to make the sacrifices and walk the walk.
PS I share Mike’s feeling of dismissal in giving Mayor Cohen credit for the increase in affordable housing. The CPA was implemented around 2001 which I am sure opened up funds for new projects as well.
“Barry, with all due respect, you sound a lot like Willard Mitt Romney. Clueless. Out of touch. No empathy. Sad.”
Thanks, Ted. At least I don’t sound like Barack Hussein Obama or Elizabeth (the Cherokee) Warren. What they do is like a person spending against his credit card knowing he can’t pay the bill.
And they insidiously and hatefully, not cluelessly, pit one part of our society against another. That’s what Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, etc., did also. Get the rich because we can’t have rich people. It isn’t fair to those who aren’t. Clearly Russia and China have decided that doesn’t work. So, can’t we learn from their experience?
And, where’s the rule of life that says Newton must be forcibly diverse? You have an affirmative action mentality that says that says all jobs, all schools, all neighborhoods must contain a proportionate representation of all the groups you personally think are important. I know it’s a cliche, but what about the NBA? Should we restrict the number of African-Americans because those high-paying jobs are disproportionately given to them, in spite of their abilities?
Ted, your empathy sounds saintly, but it’s not realistic. Life has it’s ups and downs. In an Obama socialist world, it’ll all be equal but down, except for the elite who are his friends, but control of the press will preclude our knowing that.
Sorry to be late in joining this conversation, it’s been a rather busy weekend.
Sean asks “what specific changes to 40B would [I] propose?” … so for starters, I think the definition of what qualifies and who qualifies as “Affordable” needs to be reviewed.
According to M.G.L Chapter 40B … here is the definition of “low or moderate income housing”
I would have defined “low or moderate income housing” as housing for those with low or moderate income regardless whether federal or state subsidies are involved. If one is surviving on below 50% of the median income, doesn’t that make one low income? If one is low income and being housed somewhere, wouldn’t one’s housing therefore be considered low income housing?
I believe the intent of 40B was to encourage economic diversity and therefore ensuring that low and moderate income families would have somewhere to live. I am willing to believe that 40B may have helped in that regard when it was first established. However, times change and people adapt and I believe that the adaptations have led us to 40B becoming a tool that can be (and has been) used to disrupt our communities without significantly contributing to the economic diversity nor bring people any closer to affording their housing eventually on their own. I agree with much of @Kim’s sentiment shared on this thread in that I do not see where one lives as a right, it is a privilege.
Since I am in real estate and deal quite a bit in rentals, I am aware that one can actually get a 2-3 bedroom rental in certain neighborhoods in Newton for under $2000/mo at market rate. They are units that young professionals, older empty nesters and small families can afford. However, because these units are at these rates naturally and not by regulation, these units are not factored into consideration in calculating the percentage of affordable housing that Newton has to offer though they do count as housing units. Therefore, Newton remains open to 40B developments like Avalon Bay which then builds several luxury units and offers Affordable units for at least $2000/mo (well below market rate compared to the other luxury apartments in the complex … but higher than other units that aren’t considered “Affordable”). That just doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me.
(BTW what one can NOT easily find in Newton are any 1 bedroom or studio units, but that is a slightly different discussion.)
Then there is also the question of how tenants qualify to rent these Affordable units. This is also an area that needs some investigation. I have heard some stories about individuals who earn more than many single parents I know (who live in West Newton that do not take subsidies) qualifying for the Affordable housing at Avalon Bay. I have not been able to verify for lack of access to private information, but I’ve heard the story frequently enough that it needs some closer examination. It has something to do with the “relative to market rate” calculations that are used. This doesn’t seem quite right either.
That would be where I would start with 40B. On the topic of housing in general, I am in agreement with those who have spoken up about density closer to Village Centers. I believe a recent study showed that Newton is particularly missing smaller housing units (in the 500-900 sf size range) which would indeed rent at much more affordable rates.
These units can be provided either with smaller developments or, as someone else had mentioned, loosening up the rules and requirements regarding accessory apartments which would also enable some “downsizing” families to collect additional income (and thus, age in place), potentially provide an ability to protect and/or preserve our older homes (since many accessory apartments could just as easily be restored to a single family home should the owners cycle), and create more inventory into the housing market. Thus creating more housing that is affordable without necessarily bringing down the market value of the homes around it.
You should all pray that a lot of old folks like Joanne and me stay in our homes and that we keep paying our taxes and making the repairs. We don’t overcrowd the schools, tax many of the City’s services or stress the infrastructure here. We’re a great bargain and we’re sweet and lovable at the same time.
I also still shovel my sidewalks.
Mike says:
Mike, of course there’s such a debate. There are two principal arguments against 40B:
1. It prevents municipalities from building housing like the Avalons, which would not be allowed under local zoning.
2. It gives leverage to developers like New England Development (Chestnut Hill Square) and BH Normandy (Riverside) unfair leverage against the city, because they can threaten a 40B development.
And people make them constantly. It’s what Greer is complaining about.
And, to the critics I have two things to say:
1. If you don’t like the impact 40B has on your town, then develop enough affordable housing so that 40B doesn’t apply.
2. Provide an alternative that will result in as many affordable housing units as 40B has created.
At which point, Kim’s argument becomes relevant. He wrote that additional housing would put an undue strain on our educational system. He’s right, to a point. Additional housing would put demand on our educational system, but that it is a strain is entirely up to us.
We know that we have to increase our affordable housing. Which means we’re going to have to expand our schools. This is neither surprising nor debatable. One follows from the other.
Which means that, to the extent that there is strain, it is self-induced. We need to build more capacity, both physical plant and programming. And, we need to figure out how to pay for it. But, we can’t keep complaining that the sky is falling when we’ve had plenty of time to build a roof.
We should continue to recognize affordable housing as a state/regional problem that is appropriately outside the complete control of our municipal government. If we don’t have 40B, we should have some state program. We’re clearly not going to add affordable housing on our own in any significant numbers. But, the impacts should be borne more by the state. Which boils down to fully state-financed education. Which introduces a whole new set of policy issues and concerns.
Bob writes:
Not me. It makes no sense to keep seniors like Bob and Joanne in housing stock that’s better suited for families. We should offer more senior-tailored housing options to keep folks like the Burkes in the city and encourage families to move to the homes that empty-nesters phase out of.
Old(ish) blood and new blood make a vital community.
Greer,
Some follow-ups …
If housing is not a right, what’s the point of 40B? Why not just repeal it and leave it to municipalities?
On the point of property rights, doesn’t 40B provide greater, not lesser property rights? Municipal zoning restricts what uses I can put my land to. 40B reduces those restrictions. Isn’t it more consistent with property rights?
Whatever issues you may have with the affordability requirements, doesn’t 40B create more housing density, which itself reduces housing costs?
Keeping in mind that you’re running for State Rep, not another term as alderman, what changes do we need to make at a state level to encourage, facilitate, mandate, or otherwise accelerate increased density around village centers? Should we have an equivalent to 40B around transit hubs? If there is not sufficient residential and commercial density around a T station, should a developer be allowed to build more notwithstanding local zoning ordinances?
Sean- do you think that the development on Derby Street in West Newton which used the 40 B card is a good thing ? The only way the developer got that in was by pulling the 40B card. So I wonder which house will be used for affordable housing? The one that they built new or the OLD house that they gutted?? So how much money has the developer made and how will this help with affordable housing when probably only one house is going to be for affordable housing and how much is that house going to cost?? Similar to the one off Lexington Street near the Burr School – how many of those houses went to affordable housing. The 40B card is only making the developers rich. ANd what is the cost of those affordable houses??
@Sean
unless of course those seniors like their house and are quite happy there.
@Bob – yup, folks like you and Joanne definitely hold up more than your share of the civic bargain … and help educate my daughter ! – thanks. Maybe I should shovel your walk this winter and give you a break 🙂
Not sure how I got into the senior category – I too have kids in the NPS.
There are eight units in the development on Derby St. (which I can hear hammering and beeping from right now as it is constructed). As I recall from the ZBA meetings, two of the units are affordable. I don’t believe that both of them are in the “old” house which was preserved. Note: The City requested/required that the “old” house be preserved – the developers requested demolition of all structures and 100% new construction. I believe the preservation of the shell of that (crappy) building is costing them a lot of extra expense.
I recently heard Greer speak about her position on 40B. I found it to be thoughtful and well reasoned. I can’t imagine anyone with any real knowledge of the topic defending 40B as “perfect” and in no need of any improvement/tweaking. However, there has been very little openness to such change to date. Greer’s thinking is that if we can’t fix it, we need to replace it with something that addresses weaknesses in the current rules. Unless one is suggesting that Greer has a sinister plot to replace it with nothing, then I can’t see how one could have a visceral reaction to her position. And, for the record, agree or disagree with Greer, but she has always exhibited complete transparency as well as impeccable integrity.
@ Joanne – different Joanne, I was talking about Bob Burke’s sister that he mentioned above. Sorry for the confusion.
Sean– I’m an atheist, so I seldom use this term, but it does seem appropriate for most of your argument… OMG!
My quote–“There’s no debate that 40b allows private developers [like me] to circumvent local zoning ordinances.”–was intended to be [and is] a statement of fact, not opinion. That’s what 40b does. It allows developers to get around local zoning ordinances. The “debate” is about whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. There’s no debating the factual implication of the law.
You go on to say, “If you don’t like the impact 40B has on your town, then develop enough affordable housing so that 40B doesn’t apply.”
I’m not sure who you’re addressing that advice to, Sean. It’s certainly not practical advice to any individual resident, so I assume it’s directed at the community as a whole. The way it works in Newton, is we elect a Board of Aldermen, and part of their responsibility is to establish zoning regulations that benefit the City of Newton. They are in no way charged with, or responsible for anyone’s needs other than the citizens of Newton. However, if the citizens of Newton want to prioritize “affordable housing,” I believe the BOA has an obligation to do that. If you read Ted’s posts above, you’d see that’s exactly what has been done in Newton, [in my opinion] without the need for 40b. Here’s what Ted wrote…
“Mike, affordable housing IS incorporated into our inclusionary zoning ordinance, which requires developers to make at least 15% of units affordable and gives a “density bonus” to developers who provide more than that.”
Sean, I believe that approach, which is already part of our local zoning ordinances, not only reflects the sentiment of most Newton residents about the need for affordable housing, it’s also a far superior means to achieving the goal of “affordable housing” as defined within the 40b statute. Here’s why…
First, because it targets roughly the same goal as 4ob, while still affording Newton residents the protection of our zoning regulations.
Second, as I mentioned in one of the posts above, there’s an interesting clause in 40b that most people are not aware of. If a developer builds a 100 unit condominium under 40b, dedicating 20% of the units as “affordable,” the host community would be given credit for 20 “affordable” units. Those 20 units are then added to the total amount of “affordable” housing units in the host community, and applied toward the State’s requirement that each city and town in the Commonwealth have at least 10% “affordable” housing
However, if a developer builds a 100 unit APARTMENT building under 40b, dedicating the same 20% of the units as “affordable,” the State [in its infinite wisdom] credits the host community for all 100 units as being “affordable,” and applies the entire 100 toward the 10% affordability requirement. While that might sound like a good deal in some ways for Newton, it distorts the intention of 40b, while allowing developers to stick the City with huge educational and service costs.
Mike, you’re saying that 100 percent of the units in both Avalon Bay developments count as affordable? Strange.
Bringing God to the heathens!
Mike, where you and I fundamentally disagree is who gets to determine the density in a municipality. Going back to the Mt. Laurel decisions in New Jersey (1970’s) — the first attack judicial attacks on exclusionary zoning — there has been a recognition that it is contrary to public policy for municipalities to use zoning to exclude people. A municipality cannot distort the market in such a way that it denies access to people who wish to live there.
Four (of the many) reasons for state intervention in Newton’s affairs:
1. The lofty — It is morally sketchy to grant access to government provided services on the basis of one’s ability to afford housing. And, yes, that includes schools.
2. Social justice — Denying (indirectly or otherwise) housing to lower income folks imposes huge transportation costs on them. Studies show that what families save by moving farther out gets eaten up by the cost of getting to and from, not to mention the opportunity cost of time lost.
3. Environmental — Regionally, it is much more environmentally friendly to make the near-ring of suburbs denser than to build out exurbia.
4. You didn’t build that — The value of Newton real estate is not intrinsic to attributes exclusively within city boundaries and/or exclusively provided by the city. Newton has value because we’re at the intersection of two major highways, with significant T, commuter rail, and express bus service. Our schools receive significant contribution from the state — operating and construction. The state has a legitimate interest in seeing that its investments in our community are not captured for the exclusive use of those who can afford one of our expensive homes.
As for Newton’s inclusionary zoning rule: not enough. Count the number of units created through our own mechanism v. 40B. And, we’re still under the 40B threshold.
As for the weirdness of 40B affordability requirements: take it up with the state. I’m not sure why apartments are better than condos. Maybe it ought to be rejiggered. But, however clumsy a tool 40B has been, it is the principal reason we have more affordable housing stock in the city.
At bottom, it always strikes me as a little odd when people argue that the state shouldn’t restrict how the city restricts what I can do with my own parcel.
Gail– I didn’t follow the development of Avalon at Chestnut Hill. I honestly don’t know if that was even a 40b development, so I deliberately left it out of my comments.
As 40b is currently constructed, there is a different formula for apartment buildings than other types of housing units. I believe my comments are an accurate reflection of those differences.
I don’t develop apartment buildings, so I was unaware of the different formula myself until recently, when an apartment developer tried to buy a 40b condo project I have permitted and approved in a nearby community. One of the contingencies they proposed, was converting the project from condos to apartments. When I asked why they wanted to make that change, they told me they needed some additional concessions from the town. I didn’t understand how a change from condos to apartments would prompt the town to view the project more favorably. That’s when I became aware of this variable formula for calculating and crediting “affordable” units.
Sean– Your last post was a succinct and articulate argument. I agree with “1.” & “3.” but disagree with “2.” and “4.”
I do strongly agree with the need for affordable housing in Newton though, because…
1. It affords older residents who have raised their family here, to stay in the community.
2. Allows young people who grew up in Newton to return and live in their hometown.
3. Creates diversity within the city.
So, at least we can agree on the need for affordable housing, while disagreeing about what level of government should address those needs. I believe that our local elected officials are in the best position to make zoning and permitting decisions that reflect the best interest of Newton and it’s residents.
Sean writes:
Well, housing isn’t a right, but it is a basic need for survival. And certainly, the terms of one’s housing is not a right, but one of preference, choice and earned privilege. There is a gorgeous house on 2 acres of land in Weston that my son really loved. Is it his right to live there? Or a matter of opportunity and effort, that if he gets a job and saves up the money and it’s still available, perhaps he can buy it or live there?
The point I see in 40B is to provide a combination of incentive and assistance. Incentive for communities to give those less fortunate a chance to do better. Assistance to those less fortunate to help them do better. Everyone needs a place to live. Everyone needs to start somewhere.
Or perhaps repeal it so it can be replaced with something more effective? I understand the intent of 40B. I just do NOT feel it is fulfilling its promise. I would happily reform it, but there doesn’t seem to be a sense of urgency because we already have 40B. Perhaps, if we didn’t have 40B , the gaping hole we currently have in housing would be more obvious.
Reform or replace, I could go with either. But we have a housing problem and 40B is NOT helping.
That’s just it. In my example, we *did* have units that were affordable (2BR units available for rent for under $2000/mo) however, they were not taken into consideration when calculating our percentage of affordable housing because they were not subsidized. Yet, the 2BR units at Avalon Bay which cost way more than $2000/mo ARE considered affordable, yet are actually more expensive than the ones we already have. How did that help those in need of affordable housing? How did that help our community?
@Greer– Your colleague on the BOA, Ted Hess-Mahan, called my attention [above] to the fact that Newton zoning regulations already include a 15% affordable requirement for residential developments, plus a density bonus. I was unaware that this local requirement existed.
As a member of the BOA, would you support raising that requirement to 25%, [which would match the highest affordable requirement under 40B, while still protecting our other zoning regulations]?