The Globe Ideas Section story’s headline is “Housing will test white support for Black lives” and it includes multiple references to Newton, even a photo of a “Right Size Newton” sign.
But for Newton, the headline might as well read: “Zoning reform will test white support for Black lives.”
Increasing the housing supply for Black Americans would be one of the quickest and most effective ways to bring about a more just society. Even now, the legacies of “red-lining” and other forms of segregation, predatory lending, and housing discrimination continue to push many Black Americans away from wealthier, better-schooled neighborhoods. But efforts to fix this problem by building affordable housing in suburban communities and affluent parts of cities have often been met with anger from white residents worried about “density” and “crowding.” White progressives in particular have a long history of refusing to integrate their communities, even as they vocally support civil rights movements.
Please read the article and then let’s discuss.
Why don’t we build ONLY affordable housing? That’s what we need. Not luxury apartments.
Other countries do it: the construction is subsidized by the government. Instead, we are getting this glut of luxury residences without solving the housing crisis.
It is not a question of race or color, It’s a question of resources. If we want to have more low-income families (of any color) let’s build some housing that low income families can afford. Let’s not have construction of a majority of luxury housing, with just a few affordable units thrown in!!!
This article implies that it’s somehow “progressive” to promote policies that would, in a best-case scenario, provide housing for a few hundred socioeconomically-disadvantaged minorities in a community that’s 93% White/Asian, thereby allowing the oh-so-benevolent Newtonites to feel good about offering a handful of minority families an escape path from the derelict schools of Chelsea and Mattapan into the promised land of AP classes and Bay State League lacrosse at Newton’s $200 million high school (but let’s just ensure that none of them end up competing for little Junior’s freshman slot at Brown U., OK?).
If white suburbanites truly believed that Black lives mattered, then instead of this “affordable housing in the suburbs” tokenism and profiteering, there would be strong support for the abolition of local government. For true equality of opportunity, schools, infrastructure, and public safety should be funded, administered, and overseen on an equal and uniform basis, whether you’re in Newton Centre or Nubian Square.
But it’s obviously much easier to advocate for a few hundred apartments than it is to imagine what would happen if we suddenly ended up in the same unified school district, and had the same police force and infrastructure, as East Boston or Chelsea.
Ah, but the devil is in the details! No one ever responds to my observation that subdividing single-family houses into two or four units doesn’t guarantee that the families moving in will be minorities and those of moderate income or seniors. More often than not, the new units, even if half or even a quarter as big, cost almost as much as the single-family homes they replace.
If Newton truly wants to create high-density housing for those currently economically and socially excluded, it will have to exercise the political will to place rules on the game. Otherwise, these zoning changes become nothing more than an unbelievable bonanza for wealthy developers already prospering in the shadow of the Pandemic.
Many long-time residents have misgivings about the Garden City becoming more and more crowded. But such a change would be worth it if diversity were the product of the move to high-density. If, instead, the city becomes home to even more wealthy and privileged people, what’s the point?
Agree 100% Bob Jampol
Well put, Bob.
Confused. What if the majority of new residents are eastern European or South east asian?
Then what? Do we then enforce a race-based quota system on rentals?
What you have is a market failure. So, like the market failure of the banks in 2008, you need the government to step in. The market is failing to provide affordable housing, but it’s not only the supply; its wage inequality, which is exacerbated by the current virus, where “knowledge workers” can work remotely and everyone else is laid off.
Probably a universal basic income, universal healthcare, and subsidized apartments are the three things that each by themselves will not solve the problem. I think the asking prices of the trio apartments are good evidence that developers alone cannot solve the problem.
Until we can get the “conservatives” currently in power at the federal level to realize that Milton Friedman wasn’t correct, there’s not a lot that can be done. Pure Ayn Randian capitalism implies winners and losers. Right now we have winners and losers, and that can’t go on indefinitely.
Let’s hope for a change at the top.
In the meantime, be careful what density you wish for; without the other 2 items I mention you will end up with apartments or even crash pads for the winners only.
Isabelle, I agree 100%
@Rick – Actually, this is the opposite of market failure. You have a market that would provide more housing at all price ranges if government restrictions didn’t make that difficult to impossible to do. If you removed all zoning and permitting requirements, I guarantee you housing would be a lot cheaper. But that would also mean that someone might put a gas station next to your house or build a sub-standard house.
So we need to make sure we have the right types of regulation so the market can function effectively while still creating the communities we want. Right now, I would say we are definitely too restrictive, and it’s showing up pretty obviously in the price.
Bryan
“If you removed all zoning and permitting requirements”….
A good example of a country that does this is “hong kong”. Home of one of the most expensive real estate in the world
Does everyone realize that by toying with supply and demand, your home will be worth LESS when it’s time to downsize and sell? Is everyone willing to sell their homes today at a 20% discount (I’m making up that number only to make a point) to support affordable housing? If so, I’d still rather see that be collected as a tax vs in the coffers of Developers as profit.