Read this if you believe Newton doesn’t have a moral obligation to build affordable housing
by Greg Reibman | Aug 16, 2018 | Affordable housing, Newton | 22 comments
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
This error message is only visible to WordPress admins
Error 403: Requests from referer https://village14.com are blocked..
Domain code: global
Reason code: forbidden
Those who are concerned are free to:
Create an acessory unit and rent it out below market rate
Rent out rooms in their own homes below market rate
Can buy investment properties and rent it out below cost
You would have an immediate affect and would not involve forcing your beliefs on others
So Bugek: Should we assume that “your belief” is, “this is not my responsibility”?
My responsibility is to my family, i need to work hard enough to pay for property taxes, mortgage, food.
In would be in my best interest to try to keep property taxes low and prevent schools from being over crowded. If i felt schools were not currently overcrowded, then yes i would be open to increasing the units.
Any increase in housing should be tied to bringing in tax revenues via businesses wanting to relocate here… not because of social justice.
In the same way i wouldnt prevent you from creating an accessory unit/renting out room.. you shouldnt prevent those who dont want increased housing for social justice.
I applaud anyone who will open up their home in order for lower income folks to live in Newton.
You could even pool money from like minded folks to buy housing and rent them out at a loss
“Any increase in housing should be tied to bringing in tax revenues via businesses wanting to relocate here… not because of social justice.”
That’s exactly the point. The more varied housing we have for varying income levels, thereby increasing the density, the more businesses we can attract. Companies move to more urban locations so they can attract the talent they want. If that talent doesn’t want to travel, then the companies move to them. This is different from a decade or so ago when companies made location decisions based almost entirely on the homes of the top executives.
We need the housing to bring in the businesses. These are not separate.
Chuck,
The companies likely to relocate to newton to access skills will likely be stem based (tech,bio) they will likely want market based housing not subsidized.
Thr housing built for these folk will do nothing to make newton affordable to folks who are currently living in storage lockers. As long as this is understood then we should build housing to meet the needs of these high paying employees.
The increased proptery tax revenue from these folks should be able to support any expansion for schools/services
Bugek, you assume that everyone concerned about this is privileged enough to offer a solution. My family is jammed into a 1000 square foot house with inadequate off-street parking and a lot not much bigger than our house. We do it because we like the neighborhood, the school, etc, and we feel very lucky that we have our house but there’s no possible way we could do any of those things you listed. And a lot of people in my neighborhood are in the same boat – living in condos, small houses, renting, etc. We’re concerned and horrified, but personally cannot solve the problem.
@Bugek
You are so wrong – they will want housing that young workers out of college can afford. Maybe not subsidized, but most 20-somethings can’t afford the current market rate plus most want affordable 1 bedroom places, not a whole house. Many of my young co-workers are sharing apartments because they can’t afford to live on their own, not because they want to.
@Bugek – or we can become compliant with State law and not try to wiggle out of this social (and I would argue moral) obligation.
how about building 550 units of affordable housing
on west newton hill
we could take two large estates
it would be more than enough room
Patricia,
If it really keeps you up at night then I would encourage people who care deeply to donate money into a pool and subsidize rents for those deserving.
You are essentially asking the rest of us to solve the problem a small percentage of folks care about via increased property taxes and school crowding.
Every 4 ppl who donate 100 dollars a month into your pool can reduce 1br rental from 2000 to 1600 for a family. That help would be immediate, no wait and no relying on the rest of us.
It’s OK for you think that social justice should be left to private initiatives, like in Dickensian times. But the fact is that we are not in compliance with the law.
Mmqc.
Of course, if you cannot afford to contribute then no one should expect you to. The question then is, what makes you think everyone else can afford to contribute via increased property taxes & school crowding?
Do you not think the majority of Newton residents are struggling with mortgage, property tax, healthcare, child costs? Their first responsibility should be to their family
If we build more housing then the people who eventually move here should be expected to pay for the increased services… if so, build away!
This single, anecdotal incident is utterly irrelevent to any disussion of public policy, and your preface to it is rather funny. People find “creative” housing solutions everywhere, it doesn’t necessarily have any deep implications.
There’s a lot of talk about a lack of affordable housing. While this is an issue, I think the real problem is that housing in our area is not affordable as explained in this article that Jake Auchincloss recently shared on social media:
https://streets.mn/2018/07/30/two-perspectives-on-the-housing-crisis-affordable-housing-vs-housing-affordability/
We need to remove restrictive zoning rules and allow the market to decide how much housing to build. More housing (of any kind) will increase affordability for all. Focusing on construction of “affordable housing” is not the most productive.
The Herald piece describes a situation that would, I think, be addressed by some type of public housing for the homeless, something the city was cited as being out of compliance with by HUD several years back, in the wake of the Engine 6 debacle. (The city had developed a plan to address the situation, though I am not sure how much of it has been implemented.)
The affordable/workforce housing/mixed-use development/village densification debate has much larger implications for the community than a relatively small number of units for those of very, very low income. Chuck makes much sense, but Bugek has a point as well.
C’mon! Why stop at the affordable housing moral obligation?
Free pizza and beer for all Newton residents every Thursday night (Chestnut Hill college dorms excluded. Void where prohibited).
Moral obligation, what does that mean?
We in Newton ought to provide a quick fix to a housing shortage.
Now how to accomplish this goal?
Some believe we ought to abandon our traditional land use ordinances and build anything any where.
In the economic growth years of the 1920s Newton inacted its zoning laws. There were commercial, industrial, residential and manufacturing zones. These rules protect property owners. Height and density were key components of these laws. Newton maintained a high standard for its residents and business owners.
Why should we abandon these land use policies now? We already have a very diverse housing stock and the city population is growing. We have no moral obligation to grow at an unsustainable rate and erase the property owner laws which people want and need for a good standard/quality of life.
We have many moral obligations
Young children should not go hungry
People have access to affordable healthcare
Children are provided a safe and loving environment
Seniors who have live and their communities should be respected and cared for
….
A moral obligation to provide affordable housing in an affluent suburb is certainly not one of them. We should focus on the important list above especially since we are no where close on the above list.
Our traditional zoning laws are what keeps Newton Center looking like a strip mall, single-story buildings surrounded by parking lots. Density limitations were a part of the plan to keep poor people out of Newton, along with other methods like red lining. 80% of the houses currently in Newton could not be built under our current zoning code because of the density limitations.
Hmmm…..It is funny to see people try to hide their very NIMBY attitudes in moral platitudes. In reality, you don’t want anyone changing the value of the property that you have purchased and you want to keep out the “rif raf”. You already have yours and too bad for everyone else. Just admit that you don’t want other people to move here and don’t try to hide your true feelings.
How about a moral obligation to “preserve affordable housing.” There were 19 people who lived at 1110 Chestnut Street in a single room occupancy SRO situation for years, even decades, since the structure built as a rectory for St.Mary’s Church next to it was sold to a private owner. The City granted a special permit for the reconstruction of the property as 4 units of luxury housing. The structure looks like it will be spectacular, but what has happened to those former former residents who obviously couldn’t afford luxury housing? How many low-income and moderate income people have left the city because of such permits.?
I understand that the new owner here did make laudable efforts to help the previous residents relocate and that the previous units had “safety issues”, Doesn’t HUD give the city money to upgrade to make units safer to inhabit?
Perhaps the city’s housing policy for low and moderate income people should be the housing equivalent of the health policy “first do no harm.”
Moral obligation is a rather dicey term. And so is affordable housing.
Although I guess a group of people can share a similar moral sensibility. I believe morality is ultimately personal.
But just in terms of being good public policy building affordable housing into zoning requirements is certainly healthy productive good thing to do.
If you talking about creating affordable housing opportunities to own, you’re talking about opportunities for those who make at least 90 -100k … which I wouldn’t really call afffordable housing in the spirit of that article you shared. Those folks are on the brink of homelessness.