The city has backed away from its assertion that it had met Chapter 40B’s “safe harbor” threshold of having affordable housing on at least 1.5 percent of developable land, The TAB’s Andy Levin reports.
According to the memo, the city has 105.6 acres of affordable housing. In order to achieve 1.5 percent, it would require 107.7 acres. In addition to the Auburn Street project, which was approved for a comprehensive permit late last month, the memo states there are several pending projects that could add to the land mass dedicated to affordable housing.
This is a perplexing and foolish decision that puts control of our city’s development back in the hands of developers. I’m mystified as to the thought process behind this reversal. Did the Mayor make this decision?
@Mike: Look no further than to the horror show taking place in Washington for an example of how government works when the folks in charge ignore facts for their own political gain.
The Department of Housing and Community Development and the Housing Appeals Committee both denied the city’s safe harbor claim.
But you want City Hall to ignore the facts and just pretend we’re entitled to make up our own?
If we want to be free from the constraints of 40B, we should build 2.1 acres more of affordable housing. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Ellen Ishkanian in the mayor’s office has sent us the memo and adds:
Greg– It’s my understanding that this remained an active case, with a final result not yet adjudicated. That status provided the City with tremendous leverage over developers. This decision to relinquish that leverage prematurely is simply inexplicable.
Also, Andy Levin’s article indicates the City recalculated the basis for the case that Newton had met the safe harbor threshold. Who asked the Planning Department to “recalculate,” and why?
Andy’s article also says the Planning Department used a new “rounding methodology” that took Newton from above the threshold to below it. Since everything pivoted on this new methodology, I’d like to know with specificity how it was employed.
Newton-where liberals are liberally liberal, liberally providing handouts of other people’s money as long as the poor people don’t try to live here and where “control of our city’s development” is code for “keeping the wrong kind of people out of Newton”.
A lot of my earlier questions were answered by the memorandum from the Mayor’s office that Greg posted above. I think this is a horrible turn of events for the city…
Austin Street and Washington Place are a more than adequate demonstration of this city’s commitment to affordable housing. Both were accomplished after the City met the safe harbor threshold, and offered Newton a superior return…
This “recalculation” of our safe harbor status makes it far less imperative that a developer engage in negotiations with the City, and it’s an open invitation to shove more isolated, stand-alone projects [like Avalon on Needham Street] down our throats.
Elections have consequence. We have a new mayor. We have new housing policy.
We should never have been in this position in the first place.
Good work, Mayor Fuller!
@Sean– According to the memo, the “recalculation” began under the Warren Administration. Not sure you want to give credit to Mayor Fuller. Not at all sure she wants “credit” for this, because the consequences could be staggering.
@Mike Striar I must admit I am not that informed on this issue. What do you perceive to be the impacts and consequences
@Claire– 40B allows developers to supercede local zoning regulations if they dedicate a percentage of their units to affordable housing. The City has very little leverage to make demands. I prefer negotiated development like Washington Place, where the City has the leverage. I cannot fathom why ANY mayor would want to willingly give up that leverage.
Well, there you go. Finally reality dawns.
Doesn’t look like the mayor gave up the leverage, the facts don’t fit anymore (if they ever did). Which is what some of us have been trying to tell folks (ahem) for about a year now. This is going to keep happening if we keep trying to rely on the 1.5% threshold. Why? Because some of those properties are going to go market rate, and then the numerator changes.
Leverage only works if you actually have…leverage. Not fake leverage. DHCD and HAC already told us we didn’t make it. I remember a few arguments here where we discussed this and folks just “assumed” we didn’t need to meet 40B anymore. Including quite a few of our elected officials. I think I’ve posted half a dozen times on this site that this position was likely incorrect and was based on a really rosy view of the facts on the ground. Now I’m just going to say read the memo…
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t negotiate with developers, or push them pretty hard on 40B items. Developers come to Newton with their eyes wide open, we are one of the most difficult cities in which to develop larger properties. We can’t even have a simple study done of a major coridor without infighting (see other thread). But when you come to a conversation like that with B.S., folks see that too.
And hey, we could just build some more affordable housing and meet the threshold fairly. But we’d need to keep doing that as properties drop off and go market rate occasionally. And this city has had limited appetite for any project of size…
Hmmm… That “fake leverage” the City had seemed to work pretty well at Austin Street, where we leveraged 6 additional affordable units out of the developer at the last minute. [Impossible under 40B]. And the “fake leverage” seemed to work well for the City at Washington Place too, where we leveraged more permanent affordable housing units in a shorter building than the developer wanted.
Acreage seems like the wrong metric for determining housing affordability share.
The recalculation was automatically triggered by the pending application for a 40B comprehensive permit for a really neat, VERY affordable 40B on Auburn Street. It is combined with historic preservation and is modest…. eight units. It is a “friendly” 40B. (Will have a story on this in a day or so). The process began in October. The city still claims it is very close to safe harbor. We shall see how it all unfolds.
Yes, the recalculation began while Setti Warren was still mayor. And there has been a response from both mayors that the process is mostly “out of their hands.” I don’t distrust either mayor, but decisions were made somewhere along the line. Agree this seems the proper decision. Said all along the city’s safe harbor case was thought weak by many in the know.
It’s seem like an easy fix, doesn’t it?? The city just needs to proactively find a developer or two who has worked with Newton and Newton residents and create enough affordable housing that goes over the 2.1 acres…or am I missing something??
Who cares who started the process?? We are where we are, lets go from here and get the 2.1 acres. I don’t know what that means in terms of projects, but it seems doable.
I have never agreed with the calculation that Newton had met the 1.5% land area needed to meet the 40b limit (it can be met by having 10% of housing being permanently affordable housing also.) Private golf courses were included in the 1.5%.
Wouldn’t Mt Ida’s sale of property to a developer change the calculation too? It was in the number of not developable land but not anymore.
The 10%–40B safe harbor threshold is made absurd by the way it is calculated. For example, every market rate unit in a 40B apartment building counts toward the community’s 10% affordable goal, not just the affordable units…
I don’t mind people suggesting the 1.5% rule calculation formula is spurious. Just acknowledge the inequity of the alternative that you’re suggesting, because under 40B “10%” is a misleading falsehood…
In my opinion Newton should have an independent goal to reach 12% REAL affordability. That should be one of our guiding principles in determining whether or not a particular residential development proposal is good for Newton.