Tags: According to this story from Globe West’s Evan Allen, the pace of federally-funded affordable housing has slowed in Newton since Mayor Setti Warren took office, which led the city housing manager to quit last month.
“I understand that the mayor characterizes his administration as being advocates of affordable housing. However, I still see that there are problems in realizing the affordable housing goals the city has identified,” said Trisha Guditz, a 14-year city employee who worked as Newton’s housing program manager before resigning last month.
“I came to feel as though it was getting harder and harder for me to do affordable housing work that I really believed in,” said Guditz, who administered federal funding for affordable housing in the city. “I felt that there were institutional obstacles within the city that were making it more difficult for projects to get funded, and for programs to be able to run efficiently and effectively.”
It’s also worth noting that former Mayor David Cohen commented. Check it out and come back to discuss.
I’m having difficulty equating Trisha Guditz’s cited “institutional obstacles within the city” with the tightened bidding requirements for developing affordable housing that the article mentions.
Is this a process problem, a policy problem, or something else?
Completely unprofessional on Guditz’s part.
Candidate THH says: ” “You can’t just point to a developer’s 40B project and claim an accomplishment for that, as though you’re responsible for the sun rising.” As far as I’m aware, the city has never built anyone’s home — so for which accomplishments does anyone deserve credit?
I also agree with Jane. The smell of burning bridges in the article, including w Can-Do, is really thick
So, the revolving door keeps moving. You guys don’t believe that employees or ex-employees should be able to state why they are leaving a job? Thats too mean? A job that in this economy would be hard to replace, so there must be a real good reason for leaving.
In a private email, I explained the frequent tone of this blog to a fellow Newtonian as follows:
Well, well, someone in the catbird seat has declared that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to the status of affordable housing projects in this city. That takes courage.
Well, Joshua Norman didn’t need to be in the catbird to declare that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to the status of fiscal issues in this city. That took courage especially when people were claiming that Setti Warren saved $200M while Newton’s annual spending increased from $287.5M in 2010 to $331M in 2014 to $379M in 2018.
Fortunately for me, Ted Hess-Mahan and Kevin Dutt were able to do a better job than I did in articulating that things have not changed in any material way and that whatever changes that have been made were superficial at best.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/lifestyle/columnists/x997478595/Kevin-Dutt-Its-time-to-examine-Newtons-fiscal-performance
So bogus that the affordable housing team point to slowed growth as a critique. Everything in our economy has ebbs and flows but the only thing that should grow exponentially is affordable housing.
I appreciate Warren’s diligence. Guy is doing a great job. He’s not caving to the knee jerk liberals like Ted (whom I love btw) who just want to turn every space over to affordable housing without explaining the impact on schools, traffic etc…
We need more affordable housing in Newton. The solution is to let people build dense and compact multifamily housing as long they have the parking spaces for it (1.5 spaces per bedroom). The free market can solve this problem, but only if the zoning laws let it happen.
Actually, Kim, the irony is that the City’s failure to fund the creation of more housing opportunities could have an adverse impact on neighborhoods like Court Street in Newtonville, where a 36 unit 40B development is proposed. While I strongly advocate for the creation of affordable housing, I also believe that the current proposal would overwhelm that neighborhood, which is why the Housing Partnership that is reviewing the proposal has asked for revisions to the proposal. If the city would honor its commitment to funding affordable housing with the federal funds allocated to the city for that purpose, more existing housing stock or structures like Engine 6 could be renovated and made affordable for low to moderate income families and individuals. This so-called “in fill” affordable housing is less likely to have the same adverse impact on existing neighborhoods, schools and infrastructure as large 40B developments.
As importantly, the Fair Housing Act imposes on the city, not only a prohibition against discrimination, but also a duty to “affirmatively further fair housing” to end housing discrimination and segregation in the community. Enforcement has increased in recent years, and Newton could be at risk of losing its federal funding if it does not fulfill its duty to further fair housing. I firmly believe that not funding programs like Engine 6 and diverting federal funds intended for affordable housing to other purposes does exactly that.
Ted Hess-Mahan — You’re conveniently mixing in chronically homeless individuals, those by definition that are incapable of living independently, into the massive need for affordable housing. It’s an apple meet orange discussion in terms of resident needs and neighborhood burden.
The part about Ted’s argument that is a distraction to me is that if 36 low income situations might overwhelm an area, why is that different from 36 high income situations? It’s a discussion of big development, nothing else. If the former Mayor added 800 or so 40b units in his term, that volume needs to slow, which it has, otherwise the landscape of Newton becomes Waltham.
Hoss, your response highlights the reason why the Mayor should not have refused to allow a community meeting with the developer and city staff to share accurate information with the general public. Among other things, the city’s housing plan specifically identified the need to provide housing for this population, and the tenant selection process was intended to choose formerly homeless people who had the best chance of thriving in a supported residential environment. Please come to the Eliot Church in Newton Corner tonight at 7:30 p.m. to hear the other side of the story which the public never got to hear.
Sorry for the double post, Hoss, but you are missing the fact that Chapter 40B allows developers to circumvent density restrictions by seeking a comprehensive permit. Unless and until a community reaches the 10% threshold for affordable housing units, the burden of proof for developers to show they are entitled to a permit is fairly low. A development including only market rate units cannot take advantage of Chapter 40B, and is therefore subject to density restrictions.
40B only counts “official” affordable housing. That is, SHI listed units. It does not include affordable units available in ,any owner occupied 2&3 family homes.
Many (not ,any) sorry about the typo
THM — There is a very large segment of need for low income housing where children are part of the picture. (I realize that I’m not telling you anything new — that was part of your focus as well) While the 15% formula has it’s drawbacks in density, the 100% formula is quite a problem w children in the scenario. Children are where the benefits of true diversity, including income diversity, has it’s greatest impact. I don’t think we want Engine 6-type buildings to be low income buildings where children are involved. We clearly need to recognise that the 10% formula is either unreasonable for our community, or encourage more one-offs in Section 8 rental situations. I don’t know what HUB office serves Newton — they should reach out more to landlords.
Bob, the SHI includes affordable housing in two and three family houses that meet the state criteria for being counted. It should be noted that every unit in a 40B rental property counts toward the SHI, whether they are market rate or affordable. So if there are 100 units and only 25 of them qualify under the federal quidelines as “affordable,” all 100 still count in the SHI.
Hoss, it is important to note that it was the administration that prioritized housing for formerly homeless people in its annual plan. All of the other beneficiaries of affordable housing are part of the picture as well, but for this year CDBG and HOME funds were prioritized to serve a population of formerly homeless people.
Ted, I’ll let this be my final comment. I am flattered that youre addressing a some resident by internet (me!) at the same time as your running a campaign.
“Chronically homeless” individuals are a very small segment of “formerly homeless”individuals. Very small. Woman w children as one segment of homelessness greatly outnumber chronically homeless individuals. Chronicallly homeless individuals have been given the chance to live independently and through mental issues, drugs and/or other issues could not. That is not a typical “formerly homeless” picture and saying those words in the context of Engine 6 is deceptive.
Thanks again.
Interesting distinction Hoss.
Ted – did the administration prioritize housing for “formerly homeless” or “chronically homeless”?
Hoss is right about this. I helped enumerate homeless people at the very beginning of the 2010 census. We found homeless people with kids in two or three places. This was at the bottom of the economic crash and many people we counted lived in homes or apartments, some only a year before we found them. Very sad. We did this in the rain and I was extremely grateful to return to a warm home a few hours later.
Newton’s annual plan refers to providing permanent housing for “chronically homeless” individuals. These are people who have been homeless 4 times in 3 years or homeless for a year and have a disability.
Point of info, not debate. This is the plan: (PDF) http://www.newtonma.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=32475
Hoss, this is the FY14 Annual Action Plan prepared by the City and presented to the Planning Board for approval: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/52681. The Annual Action Plan contains specific objectives for allocating funding to meet the goals in the Five-Year Consolidated Plan you linked to, including creating permanent housing for chronically homeless people, which was set as a “high priority.” The FY13 plan also cites the need to address creating permanent housing for chronically homeless people: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/38587.
In looking at these plans, it seems that creating permanent housing for chronically homeless people is one of several high priority items. Is there something that sets this priority above other priorities outlined in the report? I noted that the 2012 report stated that “According to the January 26, 2012 Point-in-Time (PIT) and Housing Inventory Count surveys,
there were no “chronically homeless” individuals in Brookline-Newton-WalthamWatertown Continuum of Care” (meaning meeting the strict federal definition Ted outlined above.) Given that there are multiple priorities in need of funding (including current residents of Newton at risk of homelessness) but limited funds available, what places this particular priority/project above others?
I realize that if i put my apt unit permanently under SHI it then counts toward the 10%. That seems like a lot to ask of a homeowner who tries to keep their unit affordable.
Tricia, a major part of creating affordable housing is opportunity. The Engine 6 proposal presented an opportunity to meet a high priority need. Federal, state and local funding for affordable housing is there to allow cities and towns to seize opportunities when they arise. That is what they should be used for.
I get that this project presented an opportunity, but if I understand the article correctly it is one of several projects vying for the same limited pot of money:
There’s clearly not enough money to fund every opportunity; if we do Engine 6, other projects or initiatives won’t get done and vice versa.
Per Tricia
““According to the January 26, 2012 Point-in-Time (PIT) and Housing Inventory Count surveys, there were no “chronically homeless” individuals in Brookline-Newton-WalthamWatertown Continuum of Care” (meaning meeting the strict federal definition Ted outlined above.)
It’s an interesting comment. It seems to me that this obsession with a project like this is a continuation of Ted’s concern for others over the best interests of the residents of the city for which he wants to be mayor. It’s consistent with him wanting to bring a detainee from Guantanamo here.
Personally, and this may seem selfish, I want a mayor who will do some public interest projects, but whose principal goal is to make the city function better and more efficiently for the benefit of the residents and taxpayers who elected him. I think Setti better fits that description. Ted would use the city and its budget as a plaything for his personal agenda.
To be clear, the report does note that the survey found a number of people *close* to meeting the criteria who are at high risk of becoming chronically homeless and I agree that there is a clear need for this type of supportive housing. Unfortunately, the needs far outstrip the funding, so difficult decisions must be made to put our limited funds toward the projects and initiatives with the highest potential for success for the individuals and families involved and for the city.
Barry,
I don’t think that’s a fair statement.
When I had Ted on my show roughly 4 years ago, it was roughly the sametime he endorsed Setti, we had a long discussion about the city. During that discussion, two things became apparent (actually more than 2), Ted and I have roughly the same ideology when it comes to municipal finance (personally, I was a bit shocked). Ted doesn’t ever talk about this, but while he was a practicing attorney and an alderman he also attended many seminars on municipal finances. Does that sound like someone who is out there just to promote his political agenda???
Thats what Ted was doing on his spare time, municipal finance seminars, not chasing ambulances:) or bringing in affordable housing projects…he attended municipal finance seminars. He bleeds Newton and deserves an opportunity to make his case to the voters without being labeled.
Tricia, what I learned last night was that some of the homeless people in shelters and transitional housing for the homeless in Boston and other communities came from Newton. The proponents of Engine 6 were willing to create preferences for chronically homeless persons who have a Newton connection, subject to the requirements of the Fair Housing Act.
Everyone who attended last night also learned that Pine Street has a long and successful history of providing permanent housing for chronically homeless persons. That is no accident, and Pine Street takes care in the tenant selection process to find people who have the best chance of thriving in a supportive environment with the services provided. It was clear that Pine Street was willing to address all of the concerns that had been presented by Waban neighbors through the screening process and in managing the property. Their low eviction rate (1%) supports that. The psychiatrist and internist who provide services to Pine Street made clear that the services being provided were appropriate for the residents selected at each location, and that people with serious mental illness or untreated substance or alcohol abuse issues would be referred elsewhere to housing provided by the Department of Mental Health. Two residents and a neighbor of Pine Street’s Paul Sullivan house in Boston put a face on the kinds of people that Engine 6 would serve, which was incredibly compelling.
The meeting provided a lot of helpful, relevant information addressing the many concerns that were raised by neighbors of Engine 6, and questions with the Mayor has asked of the proponents. I came away wondering what else the Mayor could possibly want to know that he has not already been told, and firmly believing that Engine 6 could be just as successful in Waban as the numerous other Pine Street supported residences in Boston and Brookline. But in any event, had the Mayor allowed the community meeting that was previously scheduled by the aldermen from Ward 5, the public would have been far better informed, enlightened, and perhaps even inspired by the stories of formerly homeless people who are putting their lives back together again because they have a place to live and the support to make it possible.
As the president of Pine Street, Lyndia Downie, said last night: “There are two things that will end homelessness: one is housing, the other is courage.” We need more of both from our leaders here in Newton.
I so wish that everyone in this City could have heard the two doctors, the two residents, and the neighbor that we heard from last night, Ted. The two residents put a face to the chronically homeless, particularly the man who told us that he started out with a nice home and three cars. He lost his job, and lost his health insurance. His health deteriorated. He lost his home, and all the trappings, to pay for health insurance. As many homeless do, he became ill. He is, if I remember correctly, in his late 50’s. He is chronically homeless. There but for the grace of G-d……
The neighbors could have heard from these people, including wonderfully articulate 16 yo neighbor Hattie Gawande, had the mayor not slammed the door shut on the project BEFORE the mandatory public hearing period ended.
Before the advent of progressivism, people were helped through the charitable efforts of individuals, especially through religious organizations. Saying that there are people who have problems, as sad as it may be, does not justify stealing from one segment of the population to give to another. Take it upon yourself to donate to charity if you are so troubled.
This is the mentality of a “bleeding-heart liberal”, which I’ve commented on before. They see someone with a problem, which no-one would argue with, and they want to create a government program to deal with it. Then loads of other people see this stash of money, with the only ones controlling it being government bureaucrats who are more concerned with moving money in order that their jobs remain in need, than in being sure that those that are needy actually get it.
Yes there are people, I call them red herrings, who need help, and are held up as examples of why these programs are needed. But that’s not the bigger issue. An ultimately gross misuse of taxpayer money is the issue. It’s rampant in our governments at all levels.
Your indictment of “bleeding heart liberals” is unimportant, Barry. There are programs already in existence, there is money alloted, there are mandates by the federal and state government. There are requirements for public comments, as described by Ted. Our mayor chose to disallow the proponents of this project to properly inform the public. That is the issue, not whether or not you agree with the project or with the government programs that are, I repeat, already in existence. All voices should have been allowed to be heard… all arguments should have been allowed a voice. Simple.
“As the president of Pine Street, Lyndia Downie, said last night: ‘There are two things that will end homelessness: one is housing, the other is courage.’ We need more of both from our leaders here in Newton.” – well said, Ted.
Yup, Susan, you and others see a program and want to get your hands on the money. That’s my issue. People all over the country are trying to figure out how to get their hands on the money.
There is need, Barry. We are not inventing it. Inform yourself.
Susan, I admitted above that there is need. Again, that’s not the issue in my mind. Let me say it again. In programs like this, the payout from the government will far exceed the things you think are where the need lies.
Ask yourself. Out of all the money paid out in government program management, and all the money paid out to people who don’t really need it, but can get it, how much of the money expended for food stamps goes to people who really would be in trouble, and who use the money for its intended purpose, food, were it not for the food stamp program. It’s generally believed that it’s a low percentage. That’s our money, Susan, yours and mine.