This just in from Newton Mayor Ruthanne Fuller’s weekly email newsletter …
The Boston Foundation recently released its Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2019 looking at housing affordability and housing production in the 147 cities and towns in the five counties surrounding Boston.
We’re expensive. More specifically, the Report found that metro-Boston, which includes Newton, is one of the nation’s most expensive places to buy (4th in the U.S.) or rent (3rd in the U.S.). The authors highlighted that the limited supply of housing stock and high cost contributes to persistent racial segregation.
The Report evaluated each city and town. Newton had low scores except for housing best practices, e.g., accessory dwelling and inclusionary zoning ordinances. The scale goes from 0.0 to the best grade of 1.0.
Newton’s Grades
0.83 Incorporating housing best practices
0.38 Percent of multi-family rental housing
0.35 Affordability of current housing stock
0.30 Community’s racial composition
0.09 Production of multi-family housing
Read the full Report here.
It’s not her fault. The primary responsibility for our poor showing here are the vocal NIMBY minority and their enablers on the City Council. In an ideal world, Newton would be blessed with visionary leaders capable of implementing a fair and transparent zoning ordinance that made it easy for people who owned property to use it as they see fit. Instead we have a group whose backbone rivals that of Congressional Republicans. Either that or they actually believe the obstructionist ooze that seeps from City Hall.
Good for Mayor Fuller for publicizing this, rather than hoping this research gathered dust on a shelf as many politicians would. Here’s hoping she can parlay this into action.
We have participants on this blog who have repeatedly argued that Newton doesn’t have a housing crisis. It’s like our own version of climate change deniers. This is real and we are failing.
@Greg: I don’t know of anyone who denies we have an AFFORDABLE housing crisis. It’s getting worse with teardowns and the construction of luxury units. Speaking of denial, I have yet to hear you acknowledge THAT.
I was surprised to see Newton’s housing grades included in the Mayor’s newsletter. Hmmm, I wonder if she might have a political reason for that? Like Pat mentioned above, I’m much more concerned about Newton’s AFFORDABLE housing…
In my opinion the city should have a stated objective of 12.5% real affordability. We could make tremendous progress toward that goal by requiring the Northland developer to designate 30% of the housing units as affordable…
The only reason Newton does not have a 30% affordable commitment from Northland, is that city “leaders” haven’t asked. The Land Use Committee has been so focused on silliness like the number of parking spaces, they have missed the two biggest issues with Northland… the lack of affordable housing, and that project’s impact on Newton’s schools.
I’d like to see more affordable housing constructed and fewer luxury units. The vast majority of units in these proposed mega-projects are way beyond the reach of those of limited means. Even the set-asides for “affordable” housing consist of units of challenging expense. That’s what happens when Newton relies exclusively on private developers to create “affordable” housing as a small portion of developments largely targeting the affluent.
Creating expensive housing may benefit Newton’s tax coffers but hardly meets the need to create housing for the less privileged. How is it anti-Nimby to support Northland and Korff? Coupled with tear-downs and McMansions, these developments only accelerate Newton’s move away from a place where our grown-up children and our grandparents can afford to live. Who can deny that?
Greg will try, Bob. Be patient. ;)
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-affordable-housing-gets-built
Have a look at this article about how affordable housing gets built. This particular article focuses on tax credits – which are few and far between.
With inclusionary zoing the market rate units subsidize the afforadable units. Below is a link to an article about how inclusionary units get financed.
https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Economics-of-Inclusionary-Zoning.pdf
@Greg the lack of affordable housing is not specific to Newton. But like most societal issues not easily resolved by the free market ( e.g healthcare ) the solutions are multi dimensional. I submit that “simply” building more housing will not do much to the price. That is substantiated by the non free market approach of requiring developers to have below market rate units. If we add 40000 new apartments to Newton the price might come down slightly, but not enough.
The elephant in the room however is wage stagnation and the hollowing out of the middle class. And that’s largely beyond any towns ability to change, it is a problem caused by the zero sum game of increasing living standard in China and other countries where our manufacturing jobs have moved to. Those who want to build there way to affordable housing are going to be disappointed with the end result.
Apologies for the typos cause by the “artificial intelligence” in my iPad LOL
Why don’t we just annex South Waltham? Then we’ll have plenty of affordable housing, and get Moody Street in the trade as well.
@Yuppie – We’d be buying it back. Newton sold it (“The Chemistry”) to Waltham in 1849 for $1,000. Story (possibly apocryphal) is that Waltham wanted to split the cost of a new bridge or dam with us and we balked, selling them the affected area of town instead.
…and before anyone else says something, yes Newton was a Town back then.
This report was about metro-boston.
It is all expensive. The only way to lower prices in Newton is to have people not want to live or move to newton. And given the whole area is expensive, you would really have to screw up newton to achieve the mayor’s goal of lowering its housing prices relative to its neighbors.
Zillow data on newton, smallest sized apartments with any number of beds:
750-1000 sq feet : ~$2300 rent
1000-1250 sq feet: ~$2500 rent
1250-1500 sq feet: ~$2800 rent
I met three people in last 6 months planning on moving to newton. That’s for a reason.
Here is a progressive idea for the city – It should raise property taxes to pay for its debt instead of constructing ugly buildings in poorer areas that no one wants. It should also focus on improving its services (efficient management, good programs, schools, and transit). Services would encourage people to continue to move to newton and improve the lives of its residents already living here.
I visited alewife towers when my wife and I were first in the market. The broker said it is a horrible place to live and that people were urinating in the elevators.
Why do so many affordable housing advocates reject supply and demand. New housing goes for higher pricing than older properties. If newton was full of newer constructions, the prices would be even higher on average – unless we had a king or queen running the place with the power to dictate that a few lucky few could live below market rate.
The lack of affordable housing can be viewed as a market failure, that is, the free market has failed to provide goods and services that the economy needs; in this particular case, housing. But let’s think it through from some other angles. Let’s divide Newton up into smaller villages. Prince street in West Newton hill and surrounding four blocks. Every thing on the street and nearby is between 2 and 4 million dollars. Does prince street have an affordable housing problem? Do I have a right to affordable housing on prince street? Why not? Does Mercedes have an affordable car problem? Healthcare is another market failure, one that is a bit more obvious. But these things are only market failures of consequence if we believe that everyone has a right to care ( regardless of cost) and a right to housing in the community of their choice. In the case of healthcare, it seems like the US is the only remaining wealthy country that doesn’t imagine that healthcare is a right, and that everyone should get it regardless of ability to pay; “to each according to their needs”. The thing that has most driven up costs in healthcare is not bureaucracy; it’s not dying. How can I say this? I write software for medical devices ( as a consultant), such things as image guided semi robotic surgery, radiation dose detection for prostate cancer treatments, things like this. 30 years ago these things didn’t exist, and dying is a lot cheaper. It can cost 10 million dollars to bring one of the devices I work on to market. And, our society believes that everyone should be able to have access to these devices. They save lives. At the same time, who would invest 10 million dollars and not expect to get paid back?
A free market implies rationing, to some degree. To the extent we want the market to work, not everyone can afford a house on prince street. Not everyone, by the same logic, can afford to live in Newton.
Does our society believe that healthcare belongs in the free market, and those that can afford the medical care given by a device that sells for 500,000.00 will get it and those that can’t won’t?
Life or death is an easier choice. But what about a knee replacement. “Wear and tear” should be paid for by health insurance? If you need a new knee because you ran races for 30 years you should be on your own. (Amirite?)
I know I digress. But housing, let’s say it’s a right. But is it a right to live in Newton?
I’m not claiming any answers- just thinking out loud.
Here’s more on the impact of wage stagnation, which in my opinion is the real problem, and unfortunately has very few solutions.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/families-go-deep-in-debt-to-stay-in-the-middle-class-11564673734