The Newton-Needham Regional Chamber released this video today and here’s a story about it from today’s Globe.
Chamber: Greater Boston’s housing shortage is holding back our businesses
by Greg Reibman | May 3, 2019 | Affordable housing, Business, Chamber of Commerce, housing | 36 comments
Fantastic. Combine work force housing with strong public transportation that operates after 11:30 at night. If Newton doesn’t build and develop, we are looking at another override. We haven’t gotten rid of the structural deficit because there hasn’t been any development large enough to move the needle.
The Chamber makes a compelling case for more housing and better public transportation. We have pretty overwhelming evidence that we’re in a housing crisis. Newton needs to be part of the solution, and we should be all working together to make sure we do that in a way that creates housing for people at a variety of income levels and brings community benefits as well.
.. because living in a affluent city with excellent schools is a god given right.
I have to commute 40 to 50 mins to work because I cant afford to live in Boston or Brookline. I dont expect Boston or Brookline to lower their house prices for ME. I expect myself to live where i can afford or try to make more $
I can’t really afford to live in Newton, but we live in a small outdated house on an ugly part of the street. It isn’t my god given right, but it’s nice that at the time that we bought our house there was enough diversity in the housing stock that we found something for us. It’d also be nice if other people had that opportunity.
This headline could also be changed to
“Newton business want access to cheap labor, too cheap to pay competitive wages”
Trust me, if the businesses increased wages they would have no problems finding workers. Cry me a river if the businesses have to pay more than minimum wage to attract workers…
Please name a single city in the United states with an abundance of affordable housing options, 5-8 miles to a booming job market (30-40 min commute) and excellent schools and low crime. It doesn’t exist and will never exist outside a socialist/communist country..
Was the banner for the 68 Luxury Apartments – the banner for Austin Street? Odd that while the speakers are all talking about lack of workforce and affordable housing.
MMQC,
If you are really concerned about other people affording Newton, you can always sell you home ‘below market’ so a family can afford it. Essentially, this is what this post is asking all of us to do: reduce the price of our largest assets so people can afford to buy here. In other word, we should transfer our wealth to others.
For most folks, this is their largest asset, they need it to finance kids, grandkids college, to retire early and enjoy your life. This post wants to lower your home prices(retirement money) to make Newton affordable and to provide cheap labor for business too cheap to provide competitive wages..
I would love to live in the same city as workplace. I simply can’t… but I don’t blame others and don’t expect others to sacrifice for me
I think what the post is actually asking is for the City of Newton to update our zoning codes which have resulted in overly burdensome requirements making it more complicated and more expensive to build anything other than large 1 or 2 family homes. Some housing advocates make the argument that by stifling development of multifamily housing, homeowners are actually artificially increasing their own home values and thus increasing the cost for everybody else. It’s true that Newton has always held home values very well due to many factors including the high quality of the schools, the safe, tree lined neighborhoods and the proximity to Boston to name just a few…
I am a strong believer that if we upzone in appropriate locations in order to build more multi-family housing we must tie this to affordability requirements and consider other public benefits such as street and intersection improvements, public open space and greenways for walking and biking.
We need more housing and we have an obligation to build more diverse housing that is affordable to a range of incomes, and not just for the benefit for local businesses but also because it is the moral thing to do and we need to attract younger families and have options for our seniors when they can no longer manage in their homes. There is also a persuasive environmental argument to be made; by building density near transit, near village centers with amenities we can reduce reliance on personal vehicles helping to cut down on carbon emissions. In the end, we create a more sustainable, inclusive and resilient city for all.
“obligation to build more diverse housing that is affordable to a range of incomes”
I would argue that the City of Newton main priorities are
– keep the community safe
– maintain high quality schools
– keep the city on a fiscally responsible track
– encourage residents to be neighborly
Lowering home prices would be a distant last. If you want to lower prices then pray for a jobs recession in Boston or put out the welcome sign for bad criminals. The prices are high because of short commute to boston(high paying jobs) and good schools.. the higher wage earners will always bid up the prices because we live in a market based society
You are trying to lower the price of bottled water in the desert filled with people who have money…
@Bugek – Three of the four items in your list are directly tied to the issues mentioned in the video. Relative to our neighbors, Newton is disproportionately reliant on residential property taxes. Efforts to expand the commercial tax base run headlong into these housing issues – which has a direct impact on how we pay to “keep the community safe”, “maintain high quality schools”, “keep the city on a fiscally responsible track”.
Without new commercial development we can look forward to endless tax overrides to continue to pay for those things.
Jerry
Definitely agree Newton needs more commercial base(high tech industry) to grow its tax revenue…
We dont need the thousands of ‘affordable’ housing units to go along with it.. the extra resouces the city would have to provide would likely just offset the new commercial revenue.
Its a fallacy that most people live where they work, the majority of ppl have a 30 to 40 commute. No one with a family can realistically afford to live in a safe/good school area in Boston but yet jobs are booming because their high salaries offset this inconvenience
Businesses (office space) should be built walking distance to the T to attract workers who live in/near boston and the commuter rail schedule should be increased to attract more workers in nearby towns.
Building and then hoping the mbta will fix its issues is totally backwards. Fixing transportation in an affluent town is an absolutely last priority for mbta both in terms of optics and finances
Both mathworks and tripadvisor were able to be successful without high density housing in the suburbs… they simply pay more to attract workers.
Unless we’re building blocks of soviet style affordable housing.. its just going to be token amounts to pretend we really care. The demand for housing in safe, good school and short commute will always be bid up because that is what EVERYONE wants
So then the answer becomes to keep building vertically until either house prices drop 30 to 40% or until property taxes become unaffordable… not fair to the current residents of newton whose retirement is tied to their home (no fault of their own, why would they want to city to screw them over?)
A few thoughts:
-We do need a better variety of housing stock, what would normally be starter homes are instead being torn down for 4k+ sqft condos. The proposed zoning redesign would help by restricting size and making it easier to build smaller.
-Density is not a magic bullet for affordability. Smaller houses are still going to be expensive, just less so than the current giant rebuilds. Short of an economic collapse in Boston this area is going to stay expensive. I’d argue even if Newton’s schools tank our distance to Boston, I90/95 and rail access would carry prices.
-Density has to be more distributed. All of the GL stops should be zoned for R3/R4,not just the northern villages and CR stops. How about R3 zoning all along Rt.30 and Rt.9 to match how the areas around I90 are zoned?
-We need the transportation infrastructure to support the developments being proposed. Lots of potential to turn the CR into a real rapid transit option (Indigo line) which would be a game changer but that’s just theory right now. People see all the large developments but then transportation and traffic is all hypothetical, the problem is if our infrastructure can’t handle things we can’t go back and demolish Northland/Riverside/Washington after they’re built. Transportation and infrastructure needs to be a requirement for these projects.
The “We need cheap housing in Newton so we can hire cheap labor” mantra is getting old.
I live and work in Newton. I am an exception to the rule.
Almost everyone I know who lives in Newton works elsewhere–case in point, Bryan Barash. If we build cheap-dense housing, the new residents will most likely not work in Newton.
I work for BC. The professors we hire in finance can afford to live Newton. If they are young and single, they move to the Back Bay. Professors with families opt to live in places like Weston and Wellesley. These professors want to raise their families in homes with big yards in LESS dense cities.
Patrick,
CR converted to indigo line in exchange for high density.. done deal!
The current proposal really gives nothing back to CURRENT residents. A guarantee of indigo line within x years would go a long way to alleviate resident objections. It will definitely 100% reduce cars and benefit ALL surrounding towns along the rail line.
Newton should make it a condition.. and trust me, the developers will have their lobbyists work their magic. We’re literally giving away the farm to developers in exchange for nothing .. lets at least get the indigo line out of it
Also, the video keeps mentioning “workforce” housing in addition to Affordable Housing, what exactly is the difference? I know Affordable Housing has specific requirements around rent as a percentage of income but from what I see on google workforce housing just means smaller units intended for people who work in close proximity. Just making smaller apartments isn’t going to help that situation if they’re market priced, so unless they’re specifically under Affordable Housing restrictions how would the prices be controlled?
Boston has plenty of units that would fit the size constraint of workforce housing but are still priced as luxury unit. I recall a ~350sqft condo in either Sommerville or Cambridge that was listed for $300k recently, I don’t think that’s going to be workable for the population that workforce housing is intended for. Unless it’s a scenario like the armory where Newton would directly manage the units I’m hard pressed to see a private developer making small units AND pricing them low enough for the employees that a Dunn-Gaherins type business would need. What we would actually get is whatever the percentage of Affordable Housing units and then everything else inflated to market price to make up the difference for the developer.
@Bugek – Exactly. Bundle in a commitment with Washington St/Riverside to actually fund and develop an Indigo line hooked through the Riverside spur and I think there would be a lot more support. I’m fairly close to Riverside and would gladly take the 18 story buildings if we had a commitment like that. Right now we’re getting nothing – a direct connection from one side of the I95 and the thought that Riverside’s current ~40m travel time into Boston along with the CR’s commuter schedule is going to be enough to absorb the traffic impact of 650 units. Haven’t been keeping as close an eye on Washington St/Northland but I’m assuming they are in similar situations.
I think that a key takeaway from this discussion (policymakers take note!) is that BC finance professors want to live in a less-dense city with large backyards, and that all of this growth in Newton is scaring them away to Weston, Wellesley, and other amazing locales which they can quite easily afford.
@Patrick – I think definitions vary by region, but around here, workforce housing typically means income-restricted (‘big A’) affordable housing, but with higher income limits. For example if a new development has affordable units set aside at the 50%, 80% and 110% AMI levels, the ones at 110% are considered workforce housing.
In terms of what those numbers look like, here are the 2018 income limits and rents for a household size of 2:
50% AMI – $43,150 / $1,079 per mo
80% AMI – $64,900 / $1,623 per mo
110% AMI – $94,930 / $2,373 per mo
PS @Jeffrey Pontiff – If the proponents of cheaper housing aren’t really trying to offer domicile to people who work in Newton like you do (albeit for an employer who doesn’t pay taxes to the city and instead intermittently offers up some measly PILOT payments), then what’s the true goal here? I need to better understand what these scheming agitators are up to. I suspect that they’re just trying to pack the city with poor people – is that it?
Michael,
BC finance professors are unaffected by this density push because Waban, newton centre and historic districts are conveniently not included for high density development…
Michael, my main point, which you missed, is that people who live in Newton, don’t work in Newton. When you build housing, you are doing so for people that work in other cities.
Michael, I am surprised you have not mentioned where you work. The suspense is killing me.
Jeffrey – The greater problem is that many people who work in Newton can’t afford to live in here but would jump at the chance if housing options were available within their price range.
At this point in time, anyone who can afford to live in Newton can work anywhere they like. They’re a whole different demographic than is being discussed on this thread.
Jeffrey, I understood your point, but in a metropolitan economy I don’t see how residents’ actual town of employment is relevant, aside from needing to ensure good transportation across the entire region. If you were to build affordable housing, it may be that the residents would work at the Newton Marriott or they might work at the Needham Sheraton; they might work for a Back Bay corporation or a Newton nonprofit. So what?
Jane and Michael, that is my point. Newton creating workforce housing will not have a material impact on Newton businesses’ ability to hire. We can argue about whether the state should have role helping employers by providing workforce housing (I would argue against), we can argue about whether Newton should have a role providing workforce housing (I would argue against), but I don’t think it makes sense to argue that Newton has a role providing workforce housing BECAUSE it will help local businesses hire.
Jeffrey, nobody’s talking about the economies of individual towns. The video and the article both address the issue of affordable housing across the entire metropolitan region. So it should be of great concern to us when local restaurants can’t hire anyone because the only places they can afford to live require two hour commutes each way, or when young professionals with PhDs decide that the cost of housing in Greater Boston is ridiculous and they’d be better off moving to Orlando and starting a business there. This is about the well-being of the entire Greater Boston economy, not whether Newton residents are going to go to work in Watertown.
“Please name a single city in the United states with an abundance of affordable housing options, 5-8 miles to a booming job market (30-40 min commute) and excellent schools and low crime. It doesn’t exist and will never exist outside a socialist/communist country.” – bugek
@Jeffrey – 70% of affordable (including workforce) units are awarded with a ‘local preference’.
Thus there is a higher likelihood that folks living in affordable/workforce units do in fact work in Newton.
From the Newton Fair Housing Committee’s Guidelines for Uniform Local Resident
Selection Preferences in Affordable Housing:
According to a Fair Housing Compliance: Consideration for Land Use and Planning Decisions developed by the MetroWest Home Consortium and Regional Housing Services Office: “Local Preference Policies can also have a discriminatory effect. State Comprehensive Permit Guidelines state that before requiring Local Preference, a community must: 1)demonstrate the need for local preference (ie. local public housing or subsidized rental waiting list; 2) Justify the need for local preference – At no time can local preference exceed 70% of the affordable units; 3) Demonstrate that allowing local preference will not have a discriminatory effect on protected classes.”
@Amy – are you suggesting that Newton doesn’t meet the non-discriminatory criteria for applying local preference?
@Alison: I am informing folks that there are issues when considering local preference policies – including the fact that they can have a discriminatory effect on protected classes.
Jonathan Cohn raises a solid point regarding Baker’s housing bill’s absence of attention to affordability:
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/dont-let-corporations-limit-our-policy-ambitions/
@Amy – absolutely, it’s a balance and that’s why we have the guidelines capping local preference at 70%. Are you in favor of reducing that percentage?
@Alison: Further research and data analysis would be necessary before I would make that decision.
@Nathan: Thanks for the link to the article!
Part of the issue is just having enough supply for the demand. Boston has this: https://www.boston.gov/departments/new-urban-mechanics/housing-innovation-lab/compact-living#about
Does anyone know how well it is working? Should we examine something like this for Newton?
@Andreae Downs – Interesting concept, not sure how well it would translate to Newton though. Looking over the slide deck there’s a section on transportation guidelines that calls out maximum parking ratios from .25 to .75 per unit depending on how far from a transit stop the development and a restriction that residents cannot apply for off street neighborhood parking permits. Seems like the reduced amount of parking in lieu of other transportation options is a critical component, easier to support in Boston where 23% of households don’t own a car compared to just under 2% in Newton.
Perhaps some potential around the inner green line stops but I’d still wonder how realistic it would be with the parking restrictions in Boston’s pilot. Issue would come back to not having the transportation infrastructure to support the reduced parking maximums needed for that amount of density.
@Patrick—I am always supportive of better transit, but don’t forget buses (which of course can be better—and it looks like we are getting some fixes already). And most of us drive for trips of >3miles, when walking or biking might substitute.
Why? According to national research, it’s the easy parking at both ends, followed by the lack of safe and pleasant walking & biking facilities.