Dinosaur Rowe, LLC, the developer of the proposed 135-unit affordable housing complex on Rowe Street in Auburndale told the Zoning Board of Appeals last week there would be no major changes would be made to the proposal, The TAB reports.
Last week’s public hearing was a resumption of the process that’s been on hold since December when the ZBA said Newton had met the Chapter 40B’s “safe harbor” percent threshold for affordable housing on at least 1.5 percent of developable land. But the 1.5 percent claim was rejected by Department of Housing and Community Development and Housing Appeals Committee and now Dinosaur Rowe wants to move forward without any changes to the pla
[Dinosaur Rowe] was prepared to present a modified proposal at a meeting in February but the ZBA wouldn’t allow them to present. Since then, he said, “The facts have changed,” and the developer is no longer interested in presenting those revisions, the specifics of which he would not discuss.
Here’s my question: Was the city’s decision to make the 1.5. percent claim a wise one? Or will the end result be that residents will end up living next to a development that might have been smaller (or as ZBA Chair Brooke Lipsitt suggested last week a mix of commercial/residential with fewer housing units)?
Animosity aside, I’m not sure I understand how Dinosaur’s bargaining position has improved. Isn’t it just status quo?
@Adam: Under 40B, I’m not sure Dinosaur has to negotiate. Previously, I suspect they might have wanted to negotiate to avoid being delayed by either this 1.5 percent argument or something similar.
If you’re suggesting that the February proposal was quid pro quo for bypassing or postponing the 1.5 claim already in motion, then without any claim in the first place, Dinosaur would have still had no incentive to offer any concessions. Perhaps you’re just questioning the ZBA’s choice not to use the claim for leverage? Was that even an option?
Seems like even the normal 40B process has enough process to bring out some concessions from the developer, but goodwill may play a role.
All I know about this project is what I’ve read. But it stands to reason that any person — be it a developer, a home buyer, a person going through a divorce, someone looking a have a repair done to their car, etc. — may feel they have more financial flexibility in negotiating if they can close the deal on their schedule.
But lets presume it is just hard feelings because your question sidesteps the question I feel is more important, which is whether or not it was a mistake for the city to argue the 1.5 percent claim?
I think it was rushed, with not enough documentation at first and eliminating golf courses next, to hold off developments in hopes the developers would decide to go elsewhere. It was a gamble.
I don’t know if it was a mistake. We don’t know what the alternate proposal might have been? It’s just speculation now.
Didn’t it hold up another development too during the hearing process?
I don’t recall the exact number, but back then, in what appeared to be an act of desperation, Dinosaur were talking about 75 units instead of 135.
Having done so, I will find it interesting to see how they can argue that anything less that 135 will make the project unprofitable!
That said, I thought the 40B appeal was heading towards a proper court?
@Greg: Let’s talk about the WHOLE process. I am not a lawyer and what I am about to relate is what I have gleaned from talking with others (some of whom are lawyers). The next step, as I understand it, if the ZBA denies the 40B proposal when next they meet, is to go back to the State’s HAC. At that point, if HAC says Newton must approve the proposal, Newton can appeal to the State’s Judicial Courts and up to the State Supreme Court. The HAC is not the final arbiter in the argument, the State Supreme Court is. This process could take several years. If Dinosaur Rowe wants to wait it out, they certainly could do so. Same for the lined up 40 B proposals behind Rowe Street. Tying their money up for years is not profitable to the developers (or anyone!), so they have an incentive to negotiate or sell to someone else. Dinosaur will probably come back with a negotiable plan (which is what most residents want anyway) to the ZBA or cash out. Darn right, claiming the 1.5% is wise. The assertion that Newton reached 1.5% by unreasonably counting golf courses as non-developable land is far from clear-cut and should be adjudicated in the judicial system. It is not obvious that our golf courses (which have paid reduced taxes for eons) would ever be accessible financially for development as residences. Back taxes would have to be paid in full and the high cost of land in Newton would make a purchase of such a parcel exorbitant even to the most foolhardy developer. Newton needs to be able to take control of our future development. We need to shape it so that we expand our commercial base, while containing density and retaining character. No, I am not opposed to subsidized housing as a part of a proposed development in the context of a Special Permit. I am opposed to the arrogance of developers who profit from a State Regulation(40B) that says one size fits all and try to shove Cinderella’s step-sister’s foot into Cinderella’s shoe!
It was not a mistake for the City to assert its claim of meeting the 40B threshold. It was however a giant mistake not hiring outside counsel. Newton has an excellent City Solicitor. But the 1.5% exemption is rarely used, and requires an attorney who specializes in real estate law. I do not believe it was ever Mayor Warren’s intention to win the case, just use the case for political cover.
Hiring specialized counsel sounds eminently prudent to me!
@Mike Striar,
It is my understanding that at the time the City began pursuing the claimed 1.5 percent, they did have someone in the City Solicitor’s office with specialized real estate experience, but that individual left the office. (Regrettably, I do not know the individual’s name.) I agree with you though; it would be quite prudent for the office to have someone with specialized knowledge and experience to deal with this, and other similar real estate development matters that are sure to arise. Litigation is not one size fits all.
I think his name was Jay something and he was a 40B expert.
Correction…his name was Dennis Murphy.
So Sallee: Just to be clear, is it correct to say that you fall into the category of people who favor using any legal maneuver available (even if you eventually lose) to delay the city from following Massachusetts 40B law?
Did you ever consider that going to the courts would be exercising your rights and that you just might win because you are right? Then local control and rational thought could prevail over misguided dollar driven destruction of the fabric of our City? And…if you lose, you have lived another year.
So I will take that to be a yes.
My interpretation of Sallee’s comments is that she thinks there is a good chance the City *is* following Mass. 40B law, and that we should let the courts determine if that is indeed the case.
@Alderman Norton: Yes I believe and respect that Salle believes there’s a good chance that the city is following 40B law, but her comments also suggest that she supports a legal challenge either way as a delay tactic.
So let me put the question to you Alderman Norton: Do you think Newton has met the 1.5 percent threshold? If so, please help me understand how golf course properties are not “developable.”
And just to be clear, I’m in favor of Newton’s ability to manage our affordable housing destiny but I’m also in favor having my municipality follow state laws and not using delay tactics simply as a means to thwart the law.
It would be fascinating to hear what Mr. Murphy had to say about the city’s 40B immunity case. How strongly he feels about the supporting documentation for 1.5%. How he feels the administration has handled the case.
Does anyone know the details of his departure from City Hall, or his current whereabouts?
Come on Greg, the city is following the law. While 40b does relieve the developer of many zoning restraints, it does not require a municipality to simply accept every 40b proposal “as is”. And successfully asserting the 1.5% does not magically prevent any more 40bs in Newton, it just gives a little more control back to the city. Implying that support for Newton availing itself of the legal process to gain some control back means that one is actually opposed to any 40b/affordable housing project is the kind of thing that just shuts down conversation.
The intention of the process is to prevail, not simply delay. But if the delay leads to a better project – still within the 40b process – that is in no way thwarting the law.
@Greg: Administration decided to pursue the 40b challenge. It is unfortunate that the developer has decided to continue to pursue the larger proposal despite working with the community on a smaller proposal that was admittedly still larger than the community was willing to support – yet much more in keeping with the character of the surrounding environment. Hopefully, the developer will consider moving forward with a reduced proposal than the 135 unit proposal which very few appear to support.
@Greg: it’s a current legal case so I’m not going to get into except to say we agree that the law should be followed.
For anyone interested, you can listen to audio of the August 20 ZBA hearing here: http://yourlisten.com/NewtonVillagesAlliance/zoning-board-of-appeals-aug-20-2015-rowe-street
It’s important to note, as Residents for Responsible Development-Auburndale does in their presentation, that Dinosaur’s original application represented their property acquisition cost as $10 million, but their actual purchase cost was $5.4 million, so it’s even harder for them to argue that the original number of units is necessary for a viable project.
The property is now leased by Dinosaur to Verizon, a similar commercial use to the previous use, and acceptable to the neighbors, which benefits the city not only by the property continuing to be taxed at the higher commercial rate, but by the excise taxes that will be generated by the Verizon fleet vehicles based there.
@Greg– Golf courses become “not developable” if they use a provision in the state tax code that allows them to pay a lower property tax rate in exchange for a commitment to not develop their property.
@Greg: Emily and Tricia understand my thinking. The 40B regulation provides relief to developers from local zoning restrictions, but also provides no definitive and clear definitions of developable land to be used in calculating the 1 1/2% satisfaction requirement. The murky area can only be settled through legal challenge. This is not a delay tactic. It is a right that the City has an obligation to defend.
Sallee et al: Thanks for clarifying. As I said, I respect anyone who genuinely believes there’s a sound legal argument here. But I think we know there are some folks in our community who favor delaying tactics, regardless of the merit. And when you — or anyone — posts comments along these lines..
…I believe it’s appropriate to ask if one sincerely believes the merits of this argument. So again, thanks for clearing up your perspective.
BTW, a source I consider reliable tells me that Dennis Murphy, the 40B expert you all keep referring to, included the golf courses in his calculation of developable land prior to leaving the city.
Sallee, well said.
Greg, Sallee appears to be supporting the use of the legal system in a proper way to support a position voiced by the neighbors just as the developer is using the legal system to develop the land for personal gain in a way not wanted by a major portion of the neighbors. Let the legal system decide; that is why it is there.
@Greg & all — there’s more than just a tax code issue here. At least for the city-owned golf course, there is a legal conversation restriction held between the City of Newton and the Newton Conservators that requires the land to remain open space. I’m not a lawyer and haven’t read the agreement, but I believe the agreement is put together in such a way that it can’t simply be over-ridden. Therefore the land is not developable.
Huh, I transposed the letters and cannot edit my post. I meant a conservation restriction, of course.
I think it’s impossible for most people to judge the merits of the city’s 40B threshold claim. As a developer I have some limited expertise in 40B. I’ve read over the material related to the city’s 1.5% immunity claim, and can honestly say I’m not qualified to render an opinion. That’s is exactly why the city should have hired outside counsel to handle this case. The Warren Administration’s failure to do so is either indicative of a lack of judgement, or [as I suspect] a deliberate effort to tank the case.
Dennis Murphy could shed a lot of light on this matter. For all I know, Mr. Murphy may feel like the city did a bang-up job on the immunity case. He may say I’m completely off-base in my contention that it was in Mayor Warren’s political interest to lose the case. In any event, I’m pretty sure Mr. Murphy would be able to shed a lot of light on exactly what went wrong with the city’s 1.5% claim. Where the heck did this guy disappear to?
@Mike: You seem to be attaching a lot of weight to the opinion of someone I believe you’ve never met, and perhaps never even knew of before Sallee mentioned his name yesterday. But did you overlook my comment from morning saying that Murphy reportedly included the golf courses in his calculation of developable land prior to leaving the city?
@Greg: My snarky comment “and if you lose, you have lived another year” was more a written sigh, indicating 1)that you don’t win all battles, 2)there are justified differences of opinions, 3) you live by the rules and expect others to do the same. Sorry I misled you…but I am genuine in my belief that you should obey the law (I have been called “Miss Goody Two-Shoes”) and work to change it if you believe it is unjust!
I would like to comment on what I have heard about the development of the 40B regulation. It is my understanding that the 10% of residential units counted in the SHI was one goal of the 40B Reg. But at the time it was passed, some State legislators argued that it would be most difficult for already built up towns/cities to reach that goal and the 1-1/2% of developable land would address the difficulty of finding appropriate development sites that would not impact the expectations of long time residents of that town/city. But the Reg. was written poorly. It did not define the way the calculation should be made. And the State’s Housing Department (biased to use the 10% satisfaction method over the 1-1/2% challenge) never clarified how cities/towns should calculate the 1-1/2%. It is their lack of clarity that has promoted the legitimate appeal manoeuver of leaving the “quasi-court” (HAC) and going to the (hopefully) non-biased, non-political, neutral and balanced judgment still available in our recognized “genuine” judicial system!
Greg, I may be on an island all by myself (though I do think at least Mike Striar is here someplace). I have no problem using the established laws as a mechanism if solely to delay a proposed action with which I do not agree.
The developers are using the established laws to change the character and lifestyle of Newton. They are doing this perhaps for multiple reasons, yet I would guess that personal financial gain is high on their list. Their personal gain adds no value to the city in which I have chosen to live my life and raise a family. I am not obligated to support or help them achieve their goal. If I (or the city on my behalf) can adversely affect their net profit by properly using the legal system, which I did not establish, then that is partial retribution to me for the developers’ efforts to adversely impact my environment.
The Law have been written to guide and protect both sides of the equation. It is the city’s responsibility to press its case on behalf of the residents. It is quite clear the developers are pressing their side of the case. The courts were not established to create kumbaya experiences; they are here to settle disputes based on established law between two disparate positions.
I do support some development projects; I do not support others. If the city wishes to pursue a development plan with which I do not agree, then I have the voting ballot as my recourse. That is the way our founding fathers decided to start this country.
Patrick:
Actually the law I’m most concerned about was written to end exclusionary housing policies.
You’ve lost me on this point. Our aldermen can’t vote down a 40B project. Our mayor can’t vote down a 40B project. And neither can you or I. So what exactly is your voting recourse?
@Greg– I was aware of Mr. Murphy’s work and his departure before he was mentioned on this thread. I’ve never met him or had a conversation with him, so I have no idea how much weight I’d attach to his opinion, which I readily admit may either support or contradict my own. I just know that he did a lot of work to establish the city’s 40B immunity claim, and I think it would be fascinating to hear from him.
Also, I did note that you mentioned Mr. Murphy included golf courses in his calculation of developable land, and I feel that makes this situation all the more interesting. Because it’s my understanding that the city was prepared to move forward with the 1.5% claim based on Murphy’s calculations. So if Murphy included the golf courses as developable land and still felt the city had met the 40B threshold, the reclassification and addition of the golf courses as NOT developable should have put the city well over the 1.5%.
I wonder if the 1.5% includes the undevelopable land that the state took over while putting in the turnpike?
Greg, as it has been pointed out multiple times on V14, the city has the ability, if not the will, to negotiate with 40B developers (and non 40B project developers) to mitigate the adverse impact upon the neighborhood of their developments. I assume the city would aggressively engage these developers if they were proposing projects that were far afield from what the city leaders want to happen. I would not be the first person to question whether the administration really wants to win the current legal action regarding the 1.5% issue.
Collectively over the years the mayors, the BOAs and the SC have 1) eliminated the village library system, implemented a plan to supersize the elementary schools, and accepted the proliferation of excessively large housing projects. These actions are significantly changing the character of Newton into a more urban profile. If I do not agree with these actions, I can use the power of my vote, and encourage others of like mind, to change the city’s leadership.
@Patrick: So while you vote for candidates who favor using obstructionist legal maneuvers to block Newton from solving a housing crisis which is closing Newton to seniors, singles and families of modest means, I will vote for individuals who are committed to thoughtfully solving those same challenges.
Fortunately for future generations, my votes will cancel out your votes!
Meanwhile I have faith that more of our neighbors want Newton to remain a diverse city and don’t want their leaders to use legal tactics to delay a proposed action that you don’t like.
Have a great weekend!
@Greg: I am interested to hear how you think 40B has a role to play in “solving a housing crisis which is closing Newton to seniors and people of modest means.” Because I’m not seeing it. On Court Street the 40B will result in a net loss of affordable units, and a massive increase in exorbitant condos that will increase traffic and congestion on a narrow one-way street.
(If 40B is all about affordable housing, why does the language in the law specifically exclude mobile homes? Does anyone really think mobile homes are anything but affordable housing?)
Wouldn’t it be great if more of the activists in our community and more people on this forum shared ideas about how to solve the housing needs of our community rather than focusing on the evils of 40B and how to thwart it, even if that just means delaying legal tactics?
40B was designed to address exclusionary housing practices. Rather than repeating over and over again what’s wrong with it, I’d like to hear from candidates — or anyone — who has a better idea.
Alderman Norton: Have you docketed any items that would play a role in solving a housing crisis which is closing Newton to seniors and people of modest means? If so, let’s discuss it. If not, why not? And if the answer is: you haven’t because you don’t have any ideas, how about if folks here suggest some?
One big inequity of 40B is the way it impacts a densely built city like Newton, as opposed to a town with a lot of undeveloped land. In theory, affordable housing is supposed to be a shared burden for all subject communities. But an impactful 40B in Newton usually comes in the form of a giant apartment building, dropped into an established residential neighborhood. In a town with undeveloped land, a 40B might take shape as a subdivision of single family homes. And the law worked that way in the beginning.
But a substantial tightening of environmental regulations on the state level, has made it increasingly more difficult to build subdivisions. While 40B allows developers to supercede local regulations, it does not allow them the same flexibility with state regulations, including the environmental restrictions that have taken thousands of otherwise developable acres off the table for housing.
So 40B developers look for the spots where they would otherwise be restrained by local, rather than state regulations. The point of least resistance, so-to-speak. Despite a great deal of vocal opposition to excessive 40B projects in Newton, it’s much easier to build a giant apartment building here, than it is for example a subdivision in a town like Walpole that still has undeveloped land.
Nevertheless, Newton’s elected leaders, particularly the Mayor, have the ability to push back 40B developers, and negotiate at least some favorable terms. 40B developers have two vulnerabilities, time and money. So most conversations the Mayor has with a 40B developer should start with these words… “We can do this the easy way, or the hard way.” The “easy way” reduces the size of a proposed project and gains other concessions from a developer. The “hard way” forces the developer into a lengthy process that costs them time and money. Regrettably, our Mayor is not particularly good at this game.
@Emily, the simple answer is that, without more, mobile homes cannot meet the other requirements for inclusion in the subsidized housing inventory, including that they are deed restricted to remain affordable, part of a “subsidized” development, and that occupants qualify as low to moderate income households making 50-80% of the area median income. Indeed, census data indicates that almost half (46%) of the state’s 232,000 owner-occupied single family homes, mobile homes and condominiums valued below $200,000 in 2005 were occupied by households with incomes above $50,000, including 24% by households with incomes above $75,000. Including mobile homes in the SHI without satisfying the other criteria for eligibility would therefore be a total sham.
While I cannot comment on the Court Street development, which is currently involved in litigation, I will say that the same considerations apply when we are talking about the “loss” of existing affordable units. Without a permanent deed restriction keeping such units affordable, and the other provisions of local, state and federal law ensuring that those units will be occupied by low to moderate income households, those units are only “affordable” for so long as a particular property owner wants to keep them that way. That hardly furthers the cause of creating and preserving affordable rental and homeownership opportunities fo low to moderate income households, which is the purpose of Chapter 40B.
Sorry for the double post but, well said, Greg. Chapter 40B has resulted in the creation of over 60,000 units of affordable housing in Massachusetts that would not otherwise exist. Those who repeatedly criticize it without offering alternative solutions to the real problem of insufficient affordable housing are “all hat and not cattle.”
all hat and *no* cattle
@Greg: as a matter of fact I joined the accessory apartment subcommittee in order to speed up reforms in this area. Lowering the barriers to allow people to build accessory apartments in their homes can have many benefits:
– increase safety, as there are many illegal units throughout the City that should be brought up to code, and can be if homeowners can be assured they are no longer lawbreakers
– increased income for homeowners, many of whom are likely to be seniors
– increased affordable housing, as a basement apartment is not going to cost $3K a month
– help seniors stay in their homes, not only via increased income but having someone else in the home — important as many seniors do not have family nearby to help them
– reduce likelihood of teardowns if a senior can stay in their home rather than sell to a developer to be torn down
– maintain look and feel of a street, unlike massive 40B developments.
I have also expressed my interest in working with Ald. Crossley on her docket item with Ald. Hess Mahan (140-14) which seeks to bring clarity to our rules around rooming houses. Some might consider rooming houses to be beneath us but I think they can provide an additional opportunity for affordable housing here in Newton.
I am interested in concrete solutions, not ideological battles and name calling. I am quite confident that is what most Newton residents desire as well.
@Alderman Norton: Thanks for the response. I certainly hope you didn’t think I was name calling.
I’ve never understood the objections to accessory apartments. Can you explain what they are or, more to the point, what has kept this from being approved following many years of consideration?
The 40B law credits all units in a rental development to be added to a City’s Subsidized Housing Inventory as “affordable.” That includes the market rate units renting for $3K or $4K or more PER MONTH.
How do more $3-4K/month units contribute to affordability in Newton? Or anywhere?
There is a 1 bedroom apartment that rents around the corner from me for $700/month. There are 2 bedrooms on Court Street that rent for $1200 a month and $1400 a month.
Now these units do not have granite countertops and Viking Ranges but they are decent living options that Newton families and individuals call home.
However under the 40B law, these are not counted as “affordable”.
The $3K+/month rentals in a 40B development count as affordable, but a $700/month apartment not on some state list, does NOT count as affordable.
So Greg if you want to fall on your sword defending 40B, that is fine, but as I said I am more interested in finding solutions to actual affordable housing that actual low and moderate income people can afford.
I am probably not the best person to explain the slow pace of reform toward accessory apartments. Probably best to ask those who have been serving on the Board for many years while progress has stymied 🙂
I only care about the “slow pace” in the hopes of understanding what the objections are.
Greg, Have you no imagination . Re the lack of response re the downside of allowing accessory apartments I can name a few. Let’s start with Fire escapes tacked on the outside of Newtons housing stock. How about the loss of green ground cover and tree canopy when additional asphalt is introduced to accommodate additional cars to help solve our traffic problems. That and the devaluation of properties in a neighborhood of otherwise valuable single family homes.
I can see why Alderman Norton was confused. Clearly it’s Blueprint who is into the name calling.
Bill what’s your solution?
Good intentions don’t cut it. We have a long history of trying to micro-manage the housing market and it has been a history of failure. Remember the housing projects of the 70s? If not Google “Calibrini-Green.” Remember the cities that instituted rent controls 60 years ago. How are their rents today? Have you every tried to find a cheap apartment in rent controlled city? Remember Barney Frank pressuring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower their loan standards in urban neighborhoods, to “help” the people in these neighborhoods buy homes?
Is 40B any different? It has been around for decades. Is housing in MA cheap now thanks to 40B? Have you ever looked at a 40B that lends character to its neighborhood?
I don’t know where Ted is getting his numbers, but people on the opposite side have argued that 40B has produced absolutely NO real affordable housing. I have not checked both sides’ numbers, but I know it is impossible to measure the numbers of genuine affordable units. It is easy to measure the units “created” under the 40B law, but it is hard to measure affordable units that are destroyed. In Newton alone, we have a lot of illegal rentals that will be always be ignored from anyone’s math. BC is building dorms in Brighton. Some of the students will move from apartments in Newton to the new BC dorm. If a building that used to house BC students in Newton is renovated, has Newton lost “affordable” housing?
40B is one of the worst laws because it is so arbitrary. Lawyers and developers make money at the expense of neighbors who randomly have their zoning protections violated. Of course, lawyers and developers also tend to be heavy contributors to politicians who support 40Bs. The people who get to live in affordable units are randomly picked–not a great way to figure out who gets a benefit. Throw fraud into the mix and it gets worse.
OK Jeffrey: So what’s your solution?
Greg,
The best thing we can do is to not create big problems trying to solve little problems.
I think we are kidding ourselves if we think Newton should represent a perfect cross-section of the population. Before I was married, I lived in a downtown, urban environment. When I was married and thinking of having kids, Newton was attractive because it had more open space. When the kids go to college, I may move somewhere else. All of this is OK. I don’t see what the problem is with people picking a city based on their own priorities. If Newton decided to go the high-density route, I would have never moved here. Although I preferred an apartment when I was single, now that I married with kids, I prefer living in a neighborhood with single family ownership. I like it when my neighbors don’t rotate out every year.
This does not mean that I only have friends in Newton, and these friends are like me. I travel to see my friends without kids in JP or Brookline more quickly than I can go to Wells Avenue.
There is a big question if the government has a role in helping people with low income and low wealth. This blog is not a good place to with deal with this issue, but I think the role should be focused on one-step financial support. We should give everyone who needs assistance financial help, but not in-kind help. People are smart enough to figure how they want to spend their money, and where they want to live, how big their house is, how fancy their car is, etc. We should not say, “Here is a benefit that you will get only if you live on this street.” Certainly, we should not say “Here is a benefit that you will get only if you win a lottery and live on this street.”
So, Emily I am not happy that communities get to include 100% of units in rental projects where 20-25% are actually affordable to low to moderate income families. That was a compromise that allowed communities that were not making very good progress toward achieving their safe harbors to move more quickly toward that goal. It is a regulation and not written into the statute, just like the safe harbors that allow communities that have made incremental progress toward their certified housing production plan goals to get the benefit of temporary safe harbors.
There are low cost units in Newton, but unless there is some sort of legally binding requirement that they be kept affordable, like a deed restriction, progress toward the goal of having enough affordable housing is illusory. The same owner or a new owner could evict the current tenants, renovate, and charge two to three times that rent unless there is something to stop them. ‘Merica.
Jeffrey, how do you “know” it is impossible to measure the number of genuinely affordable units? Cities and towns must provide proof to DHCD that 40B projects have satisfied the legal requirements for inclusion, and that means providing documentation that includes the affordability restrictions, fair housing plans, etc. Where they satisfy that criteria, DHCD puts those units on the SHI, and in the case of rental projects, all of the units in the development may be included. But the numbers do exist and they can be proven. And that is how we know how many genuinely affordable units there are. With all due respect, you “know” bupkis.
Ted,
Here is what I think the difference is between us. Correct me if I am wrong (as I know you will). I uses the word “affordable” to mean what everyone else in the whole world means. You use the word “affordable” to mean based on an obscure regulatory definition. I know “bupkis,” but I also know that anyone who buys anything and asks if it is affordable is using my definition, not your fancy, non-bupkis, definition.
This reminds me of the George Orwell book called 1984. I’ll send you a copy. It is so good.
Jeffrey, “affordable housing” is not based on obscure definitions, but rather HUD’s and DHCD’s regulations and guidelines relating to the creation of housing that is affordable to low to moderate income households. Where we really part ways, I believe, is that on principle you seem to be opposed to creating and preserving housing that is affordable to people of modest means here in Newton. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.
The Fair Housing Act, which was passed shortly after Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, was intended to remedy the harm done by “redlining,” which was a federal policy that prevented people of modest means and people of color from being able to buy homes in places like Newton, or anywhere else for that matter. Part of the FHA, which the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, is the duty of every community to affirmatively further fair housing. Newton gets federal funds for housing for low to moderate income households (CDBG, HOME and ESG), and those funds are meant to be used to create affordable housing in Newton in order to address the barriers to racial integration in housing.
There are still many barriers to racial desegregation in housing, and the lack of affordable housing outside of the inner city is a major one. Not so long ago, testers from the Greater Boston Fair Housing Center determined that alm0ost 50% of the time, people of color were discriminated against by landlords and RE brokers engaging in unfair housing practices, right here in the Garden City. The Fair Housing Act, and the creation of affordable housing helps to remedy that injustice. You may not agree with that policy, but that is the law.
Here’s an idea… What if the Mayor went back to his buddy at Austin Street Partners, and got Newton the six more affordable units that should have been included in that deal?
Thanks Ted. We have clarity. Next time you ask to buy something affordable go into the HUD and DHCD spiel and see how far it gets you.
The orthogonal lecture does not relate to anything that I said, so I’ll assume it is meant for someone else.
Thanks, Jeffrey. You inspired me to look up orthogonal, so it was not a complete waste.
Orthogonal probably was not a great word choice, in that I use it a lot but no one else does!
I am watching a video of a panel discussion of affordable housing now. The panel spans the political spectrum. I am finding it interesting, and Greg especially may find it so. All of the speakers are knowledgeable.
http://www.cato.org/events/death-life-affordable-housing
@Greg
Some nighttime reading for you.
http://www.betternotbigger.org/pdf/Failed%20Strategies%20New%20Directions.pdf