If you haven’t had a chance, I urge you to watch the Ward 2 Candidate Forum hosted by Uniting Citizens for Housing Affordability in Newton (U-CHAN). The forum was, to use U-CHAN’s words, “primarily focused on affordable housing for the most vulnerable and housing insecure families.” And, it was terrifically revealing. Some takeaways after the embedded video.
Moment of the forum: Tarik Lucas’s incredibly powerful and topical answer to a question about the connection between housing affordability and increasing racial diversity in our city:
And as far as achieving racial justice in Newton, this is the second time I’ve run for City Council, but the first time when I ran for City Council, I would knock on peoples’ doors and I would say, “My name’s Tarik Lucas. I’m running for City Council,” and they would pause for a second and then they would say, “Oh, you mean Boston City Council?” And, I’m like, “No. Newton City Council.” So, we certainly do have a long way to go to create an inclusive community. And, that’s something I’d like to be.
It really drove home the impact of nearly a hundred years of intentional and unintentional segregation in Newton.
—
I’ve watched a few candidate forums and debates over the last few years. The U-CHAN questions were, hands down, the best questions I’ve ever heard. Thoughtful. Thought-provoking. Challenging. Well written. And, ably asked by Emily Cagwin. The questions were, according to U-CHAN Co-Chair (and former Aldercritter) Marcia Johnson, a U-CHAN team effort.
My favorite cited the recent Boston University research about the disproportionately older, whiter, and more home-owning participants at municipal land-use meetings and asked what the candidates would do to improve the diversity of civic participation. That’s some knowledgeable advocacy.
—
Finally, at 23:20 or so in the video, clear distinction between/among the candidates emerged.
While housing and development are thought by many to be the defining issues of this special election, some have found it challenging to distinguish the candidates, with the two early (and serious) candidates — Candidate Lucas and Bryan Barash — both advocating for affordable housing, more housing choice, and, in particular, more housing near transit.
A question about the state Housing Choice Act burned away the fog. Candidate Barash is a huge fan, having helped shepherd the bill through the State House in his day job as counsel to State Senator Harriete Chandler. He noted that lowering the threshold for certain special permit and zoning decisions to a simple majority makes it harder for a small group of councilors to hold up housing projects that have broad popular support. David Micley is also supportive, particularly of the requirement for a transit-oriented district with greater housing density.
Candidate Lucas is not happy with the new law, and his critique revealed that affordable housing is not as much of a priority as it is for the other candidates. He said it looks like the Housing Choice Act was written by special interests, though well-respected housing advocacy groups like the Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA) are big supporters. He says the state has “changed the law on Newton” and that “every city and town in Massachusetts should have the ultimate say in their zoning laws and should not be dictated by the state,” when it is state law that authorizes municipal land-use laws and state law that set the two-thirds majority requirement in the first place. And, he said that the current super-majority requirement leads to better projects in Newton, when it’s indisputable that both Riverside and Northland would have had more affordable units if their special permits had been subject to a simple majority.
You can be unhappy with the Housing Choice Act for a variety of reasons, but it’s tough to square with claiming to be an advocate for affordable housing. Ultimately, the candidate’s stance on the Housing Choice Act is a stance on change.
—
Ms. Cagwin posed an interesting question about what the candidates wish they had done differently to support housing for the needy, Candidate Barash was the only one of the three to have sufficient experience to answer the question. From his long association with Engine 6 to his work in the State House on the Housing Choice Act, his housing bona fides are solid. As he put it, he’s been in the fight for years. He said that he wished he’d done more with direct-service housing agencies. Nice.
—
Candidate Micley, the newcomer, was poised, thoughtful, and comfortable with the issues. He cut to the core of the problems we have in Newton and delivered the simple truth about why housing is expensive in Newton: demand has been steadily growing and supply has been capped by zoning, by regulation, by bureaucracy. The remedy: allow more housing to be built, which will put downward pressure on price. But, it won’t happen overnight.
—
It’s more than a bit ironic that, in a race to succeed a city councilor who is in Congress because, arguably, multiple candidates split the progressive vote, Candidate Micley, without mounting a credible campaign, might end up the spoiler to the detriment of the candidate with whom he shares the same values and to the benefit of the candidate with whom he does not. I hope that doesn’t end up the case and that he makes a serious run for office in the fall, perhaps for the ward seat against an incumbent with whom he does not share the same values.
—
All three candidates acknowledged the segregating effect of Newton’s single-family-only zoning, but none were willing to advocate to end it. I continue not to understand this incoherence on exclusionary zoning among elected officials and candidates. If it’s a morally bad policy that has had bad outcomes, let’s just be done with it. Acknowledging the adverse impact of single-family-only zoning on opportunity for Black people and then saying “let’s add more density, but only around transit” or, as Candidate Micley put it, “in select parts of Newton” is just another way of saying the adverse impact of single-family-only zoning on opportunity for Black people is okay everywhere else.
As for Candidate Lucas’s concern that two-family homes by-right everywhere in the city will just create large, expensive townhouse condos, the City Council could easily specify dimensional controls on multi-family units that would prevent the 3,000 sq.ft. condos he’s worried about. A problem under our current zoning is an argument for new zoning.
—
There was clear consensus among the three candidates on the issue of local preferences for affordable housing. If we want to increase the racial diversity of our city, we’re going to have to include more people from outside the city.
—
At bottom, the forum revealed two very different approaches to affordable and other housing in Newton. Candidate Barash cited his active support for Northland and other projects that created lots of affordable housing units. This is the way affordable housing has been built in the city: cross-subsidized with market-rate housing. Proven method. (Candidate Barash also strongly supports building a trust fund for directly subsidized affordable housing. All the tools in the toolbox, to use his phrase.)
Both Candidates Barash and Micley spoke of the need for a variety of market-rate options to create what Candidate Micley referred to as housing opportunities for more people at different life stages and different economic needs. They very clearly intend for the city to grow and change to meet the needs of the times.
Candidate Lucas seems to sincerely want to add truly affordable housing to Newton, but only under very narrow conditions that are either unrealistic or just not that common. Over and over, he has opposed development, even when that development promises truly affordable housing.
As for middle-income housing, Candidate Lucas doesn’t talk as much about adding housing options. He offers the false hope that we can provide middle-income housing by preserving our existing housing stock … so-called naturally affordable housing. If we can prevent teardowns and McMansions, the argument goes, the existing housing stock will somehow remain affordable to folks of modest means. Candidate Micley provide a very clear rebuttal. So long as we cap supply, prices are just going to go up. Prevent a modest-sized home from becoming a very expensive McMansion, what you’re going to end up with, given Newton land cost, is a very expensive modest-sized home. If nothing else, the willingness of people to buy the million-dollar-plus town home condos that Candidate Lucas wants to stop should signal that single-family starter homes are no longer the future.
Ultimately, it’s a progressive view of the world versus a very conservative view, in the sense of conservative as wishing to preserve, with little change.
This comment is paternalistic and seems designed to marginalize a bright and committed fellow who is approaching the campaign in a different way: “Candidate Micley, without mounting a credible campaign, might end up the spoiler to the detriment of the candidate with whom he shares the same values and to the benefit of the candidate with whom he does not.” It also make a whole range of unwarranted and unsupported assumptions about the full set of David’s values, along with Bryan’s and Tarik’s.
Paul,
As for being paternalistic, David is deliberately and explicitly not fundraising in a very abbreviated race against two opponents who have 1) already run recently and have name recognition, 2) are deeply connected to formal and informal, politically active organizations and networks across the city, and 3) have raised well over $75K for this election. He is not going to win. That is not even debatable.
I’m not making assumption about his values. I watched — three times — a 45-minute forum on housing where David made crisp and clear statements of his values as they relate to housing. I don’t know what he believes in the deepest recesses of his soul and I am not privy to what he says behind closed door. But, the public expression of his values, which are all that matter in a political campaign, align much more closely to one candidate than the other.
It doesn’t take a whole lotta assuming to figure out who he hurts and who he helps in this race.
I’m stunned to read that Tarik and Bryan have already raised well over $75K between them. That’s with four weeks to go.
It’s not a “false hope” that low and moderate income people will be able to live in existing naturally affordable housing… that’s where they’re largely living now, in the north part of the city where I live. In fact 2 of the Ward 2 candidates rent in existing housing, not new construction. Renters are all around my neighborhood, paying significantly less than the new units in Austin Street and Washington Place/Trio.
Sorry, Sean, maybe I wasn’t being clear or we are talking past each other (not the first time both of those have happened!) I don’t think any “third party” candidate has an obligation to desist from running if he or she happens to agree with one or the other candidate on a given set of issues. There are many issues that are before the public, and any person has an absolute right to run and make the case that they are worthy of our votes. If a “leading” candidate is threatened by that entrant, then they just have to do a better job in persuading the public that they are worth our vote. It’s not persuasive to say, “vote for me because the other guy is a spoiler,” and it is paternalistic to assert that the third person should withdraw because he or she “doesn’t have a chance.”
Your statement, by the way, implied that they agree on all values, too, not just those related to housing.
Paul, how about a little wager. I doubt David gets more than 5% of the vote. Great for his name recognition, but he isn’t running a real campaign. I wish folks could get elected to office on the strength of debates and electronic postings alone, but that just isn’t reality. I also tend to doubt it raises any money for the food banks, although I applaud the nice thought.
As for it hurting Bryan, who knows?
I don’t think it is out of bounds to game out how a candidate in a three person election can change results.
It certainly isn’t paternalistic. You may not agree with it, but elections are not just won or lost on the strength of ideas alone. Personality matters. Vote dilution matters. Do you think the Republicans ran Kanye West’s campaign in a bunch of midwest states because they liked his music? (for the record, I’m a fan of Kanye’s old stuff)…
Emily, we’ve argued this for years, but 10 years ago you could make the same argument for Newtonville too. Not much left in affordable rentals in Newtonville south of the Pike, far less when I was looking 10 year ago. Far far less. With home prices skyrocketing, the supply of naturally affordable housing is shrinking. Hard to see how that is a sustainable structure for affordability, and it does put tenants at risk of displacement every time a landlord takes the sale price and retires to Florida.
I can always point to some degree of naturally affordable units even in the most expensive community. But if you look at them over 20 years, you’ll see the affordability numbers collapse. In 2001 you could buy a large home in Newton for under $600,000. That same home is now $2,000,000.
Maybe Covid and work from home changes that a bit. But I actually think it will make it worse, with less folks moving to the city.
There are many, many affordable rental units north of the Pike. It would be interesting to actually pull together the number, and communicate with those landlords to ask ‘what can we do to support you continuing to offer these affordable housing options?”
Also please note state subsidized units are not everlasting either. Several years ago the data from our Planning Department was that 40% of our SHI units would revert to market rate within 20 years.
Emily, you got me curious so I did a search on Realtor.com rentals in Newton under $2000. Results brought back 29
https://www.realtor.com/apartments/Newton_MA/price-na-1875
Fig. I will take the over on that bet.
If David does not win this election, the winner will be someone who has run in a city election, and lost. If this campaign is David’s debutante ball and a practice-run a future campaign, why shouldn’t he take the opportunity?
David is the only candidate with kids. He says, “I share in the frustration with how the reopening of schools has been mismanaged during the pandemic.” Tariq and David both would sign the letter from council members urging action from the school committee, although David is clear that mismanagement is to blame. On the other hand, Bryan gets it wrong and blames things on Federal and State officials. Ask any parent and they will tell you the NPS disaster was inflicted by local bureaucrats and elected officials.
As a parent who just pulled one my kids out of NPS (at great expense) and has watched my other child stare in front of a screen for year, I am glad that this election will shed light on David’s perspective.
Claire – exactly! That’s pretty reasonable. And I don’t know how comprehensive that list is, there may be additional ones on Craigslist. When I rented out a room (pre-covid) I only used craigslist. Also, your list doesn’t include people living in affordable rentals which are not vacant, which would have to be included in a comprehensive list. And now do a search for the cost of rentals at Austin St and Trio.
Prices and rentals will be relative to brookline and Boston. Always has been and always will be (unless crime increases and schools become terrible)
Paul,
I don’t know whether or not we’re talking past each other, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t suggest that David shouldn’t run. I did characterize his chances. I did note a likely consequence of his participating in a zero-sum activity. And, I most definitely gave David some sincere, unqualified praise.
One thing that I most definitely did not do is “assert that the third person should withdraw.”
As for, “Your statement, by the way, implied that they agree on all values, too, not just those related to housing,” my bad. I thought from the context (an entire long post devoted to housing) that my reference to values pretty clearly implied values as they relate to housing. Having re-read the paragraph in the light of your comment, I realize that I should have been clearer, so I will update the post.
By the way, if you want to see someone on their high horse jump ugly on spoiler candidates, I suggest you check out this classic post by someone truly livid with unserious candidates. Be thankful I did not channel that guy’s energy.
(I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that either or both Jerry or Le Fig will know who the author is before clicking the link.)
I apologize for suggesting that you wanted David to withdraw, Sean. What you apparently want is for people to ignore him, for fear that he will draw from another candidate. Now I see the big difference in our views. You say, “I did note a likely consequence of his participating in a zero-sum activity.”
Given the usual low turnout in city elections, especially in special elections, there is a good possibility that a previously little known candidate can capture the imagination of people who would otherwise not have voted.
Thus, this does not have to be a zero-sum activity. The third person can actually produce an improvement in the democratic process by stimulating more people to vote. He might or might not make any difference in the relative votes of the two mainstream candidates.
Emily,
If a landlord has a decent sized 2br for $2000 and they see Trio renting 2Br for $4000 a few blocks away… why wouldn’t the landlord start renovations and start testing the market at $3000? I definitely would
These high end luxury rentals is simply gentrification. Good or bad depending on your point of view.
Yes, Trio has created new affordable units… but has raised everyone elses rent as a side affect
@Bugek – Excellent point.
I know many people who rent in my greater neighborhood – West Newton, Newtonville, Watertown, and Waltham. In my experience, the best apartments rent through word of mouth and that way you do not get wrapped up in all kinds of extra fees, ie parking or realtor fee. It will be very interesting to see what the post-covid world looks like and what the macro-changes are in the Boston, greater Boston, and Massachusetts market will be.
On a side note, I have been driving up to the north shore once a week since covid. Today was the first time, I experienced traffic on Route 95 North and South.
Bugek (and Councilor Norton),
Do you really think that Newton landlords are that dumb?
They own property in an inner-ring suburb of one of the country’s major cities, in a region with an epic housing shortage, a region, by the way, that is building so-called luxury apartments all over the place, but these landlords only realized that they could raise rents with a little investment when they saw what happened with two very specific apartment buildings?
The fact is, we don’t need to guess what happens when you build more housing in an area. It’s been studied. Rents go down. There’s even a reasonably straightforward explanation. When supply is constrained, prices go up. When supply is increased, prices go down.
“Given the usual low turnout in city elections, especially in special elections, there is a good possibility that a previously little known candidate can capture the imagination of people who would otherwise not have voted.”
Good possibility? C’mon.
This isn’t a thought experiment. It’s an actual election.
You’re right, it’s going to be a (relatively) low-turnout election. Who votes in low-turnout elections? High-information voters.
We have two candidates backed by motivated, focused, and engaged networks that sense — accurately, to my mind — that this is a critical election. The candidates are well-funded, active, and taking nothing for granted.
Could an outsider win in the face of such inhospitable conditions? Almost certainly not. I can think of no city election in the last twenty years that provides a precedent.
Have outsiders won? Sure. Bill Brandel, Dick Blazer, Brenda Noel, Jake Auchincloss, Setti Warren, Greg Schwartz, Alicia Bowman. In every case, the fresh face outraised, outspent, and outworked their opponent(s). There’s no example of a candidate “captur[ing] the imagination of people” with anything but an all-out effort.
So, no, there’s not a “good” possibility.
@Ellen – “I know many people who rent in my greater neighborhood – West Newton, Newtonville, Watertown, and Waltham. In my experience, the best apartments rent through word of mouth and that way you do not get wrapped up in all kinds of extra fees, ie parking or realtor fee.”
If this is the case, it’s worth considering if that means the “best apartments” go to people who are already well connected in Newton, and people who don’t already live here don’t get the same opportunity.
The one thing that I fail to understand is the lack of ecosystem – “holistic” if you will – thinking on this issue. All these words – ecosystem, ecology, economics – share the same root; eco, which I recall means home, or household; an inclusive term. But typically one idea is plucked out as a solution to a problem. Lowering taxes is the answer. Getting rid of regulations is the answer. Building more housing is the answer. But as the article Sean linked to in his *studied* link points out, increase housing stock by 10% and rents decline by 1%.
Assuming a linear function then increase housing by 50% and rents decline by 5%? Hardly a solution to affordable housing.
But it’s likely wrong in general anyways; possibly correct in the one or two areas studied, but in any event more likely showing just how un elastic rental pricing is. In my years of renting as a young adult I never had my rent go down. It’s like “bank error in your favor”- never had one of those either.
Wages have been stagnant for decades. Middle class- defined as you want – is disappearing. Unions have declined. Even the upper middle was convinced of the scam that 401ks were better than pensions – much to the delight of fee hungry money managers.
Build as much housing as you want- it will lower rents in theory 1 % for every 10%. But it won’t get us to affordable housing.
The only single thing I can think of that could lead to a price stabilization is rent control. The government has to step in when the market fails.
I lived in a rent controlled apartment in Brookline.
My aunt lived for nearly 60 years ( and died at the age of 95) in a rent controlled apartment in NY.
I think that may be the only quick fix to this problem.
There is no question that we have a shortage of housing that is brutal for working-class people and challenging even for those with very good incomes but limited wealth. Sticking with the status quo and counting on those 29 affordable units (in a a city of 90,000 people) to remain affordable is a doomed strategy. Adding a handful of affordable-housing complexes is great for those lucky (or connected) enough to land those spots, but a drop in the bucket. With a massive, metro-wide housing shortage, we can’t make Newton housing truly affordable, but we can mitigate the problem by increasing the supply of both affordable and market-rate units, changing the zoning rules to allow more small-footprint apartments, and (in my dreams) constructing a modern transit system to relieve the pressure. I support Bryan because he shares my views on this important issue.
Could someone summarize the theoretical math?
To get thousands of NEW built 2br to rent at $2000 we must build X units and increase Newton’s population by Y%
I suspect Newton’s population would have to increase at least 50% which would cause property taxes to force fixed income seniors and many struggling middle class to leave Newton
Definitely, you can keep building supply until demand falls but what is the collateral damage to get to that tipping point.
Lets be honest
@Bugek exactly.
I tried to do some math based on the data that Sean reported, but math is hard.
We have a market failure here. Like the bank bailout of 2008, or the stock market crash of 29, markets fail. The housing market has failed – or rather, the whole eco-market had failed, if success is defined as “lifting all boats”. I’m not sure that lifting all boats is a shared goal these days.
This is what is in denial here. The lack of affordable housing is the lack of life sustainable jobs, among many other factors- lack of investment in public transit and infrastructure, education, training, all to raise the incomes and wealth of the already moneyed population. The supply of housing is part of a much bigger problem and cannot solve it by itself.
@Bryan “If this is the case, it’s worth considering if that means the “best apartments” go to people who are already well connected in Newton, and people who don’t already live here don’t get the same opportunity.”
That is stretch. Of course I guess it depends upon how we define “best” but since this thread is basically about affordability I will stipulate that is what is best in this context. If I am walking in my neighborhood and see a for rent by owner sign on an apartment in a two family, and if I alert my co-worker, or my sister who wants to move to Newton, neither of whom currently lives in Newton, who is that a negative thing?
@John We can mitigate the problem by increasing the supply of both affordable and market-rate units, changing the zoning rules to allow more small-footprint apartments, and (in my dreams) constructing a modern transit system to relieve the pressure. I support Bryan because he shares my views on this important issue”
While the goal is good, the premise and strategy is completely flawed. It isn’t about ALLOWING more small foot print homes (available to purchase or rent). Newton can allow it until “the cows come home” but developers aren’t going to build it. The only way it will happen is with public-private partnerships.
Also in your dreams, who is going to be constructing the modern transit system? As relevant, who is going to be riding it? It has yet to be seen how this vast experiment in remote working, foisted upon us by Covid-19, will impact the demand for public transit and thus the desire or need to live close to it.
@ Bryan Barash
That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying word of mouth meaning when you live in a community and you have a network (just the like the world of jobs), then you hear about places to live or perhaps you see something on Craig’s List. I have not had to look for an apartment recently, but both of my kids have in different cities. If you have unlimited dollars, then you probably don’t look as hard than if perhaps you are on a budget.
It would be interesting to see the data of what percentage of housing is owner versus rental in Newton. Can I get that on the City of Newton website? And then take it a step further to see where the rentals are in Newton. I am literally surrounded by 2,3,4,5, and 6 families in West Newton. There are so many young families living here. I am so happy to see our local park filled with children and parents. It’s really amazing and vibrant!
@Claire, maybe you are right that demand for in-person work will not return to previous levels. That would be great and would help mitigate one of our biggest problems. But demand will remain sky-high for housing in Newton for the foreseeable future. Newton offers a very nice, safe life, with manageable access to the city, and schools that will return to excellence eventually.
There are a couple of ways we might constrain housing to “require” more affordable apartments or condos (not single-family houses). First, we are already doing so, with 15-20% of the new apartments being means-tested and quasi-affordable. Second, we have the power to determine the zoning rules. If we allow multi-family housing throughout the city, we can constrain developers to a max square footage of indvidual apartments or condos, as well as the sizes of overall buildings. This strikes me as a solution that would be agreeable to a large majority of us.
I am all for public-private partnerships, but I don’t think they can be scaled up to be more than a wonderful solution for a lucky few. I believe that we have to be willing to use a well-regulated free market to begin to solve a problem this big.
I don’t fear more high-density housing. It would be helpful to our small businesses and make our lives more interesting. Smart politicians maintain that the increases in tax base will be a net positive for the city, via economies of scale. The transit problem worries me as well, but it has been largely solved in many places with old infrastructure. I am not a young man and have lived quite happily in Newton with very limited car use. As you note, we have bought ourselves some time to work on transit as a consequence of new work-from-home policies.
@Bryan P Barash – Interesting choice of words with “well connected” to describe the scenario. An alternate interpretation would be “it gives people already living in Newton have an opportunity to continue living in Newton.” Let’s not forget that while Newton as a whole is affluent there are many families that would likely be pushed out of the city were it not for those word of mouth/Craigslist units. Also don’t think the people looking at Emily’s spare room on Craigslist are going to be cross-shopping with a unit at Trio or a new McCondo. I think we focus too much on that “what about people not in Newton” view at times when we have plenty of current residents already being pushed out.
Isn’t the problem that rentals (even those at 50% AMI) do not help the renters get home equity? And therefore, those renters stay on a vicious circle: not making enough for a down payment and staying out of home ownership.
Reality check. Zumper reports that the median rent for a Newton one bedroom apartment is $1,800. “Median” means half of apartments are less than $1,800. This is $100 more than November 2014. If you go to Zillow you will see tons of a affordable apartments. Of course, Zillow is not listing “affordable” units as dictated by our silly state laws–which probably cost more. Despite interference by Boston bureaucrats, Newton apartments are LESS expensive than Boston.
From this data on rental prices, housing affordability has nothing to do with the racial make-up of our city.
@Jeffrey Pontiff – I hadn’t heard of Zumper before ….but that doesn’t sound at all right. Today’s listing on Realtor.com show just 16% of Newton rents <= $1800. Zillow shows 24%. If you need 2 bedrooms those percentages below $1800 drop to 4% and 0%.
$1800 median rental price in Newton sounds way low to me based both on this Realtor/Zillow info and personal experience.
I went to Zumper and did see that it claimed the median Newton rental price was $1800 however if you search on Zumper for Newton there are 535 rental properties listed. If you search for rentals <=$1800 it only comes up with 55. Clearly that doesn't add up to a $1800 median.
Jerry, I made two points. First, the median price. I am all ears if someone has a different data source that is more accurate. Zillow used to have aggregate statistics, but I can’t find it now. Knowing median prices of all apartments won’t help, you want to compare apples-to-apples (one bedroom to one bedroom).
Second, the difference between Boston and Newton. Even if the levels might be off, the differences might be fine.
Hopefully, we can focus on data.
Some inconvenient truths:
@Sean posted a link with purported evidence that an increase in housing supply will lower prices. If you actually click through the link and read the articles, you’ll see that actual impact on rents was a 1-2% decrease- not meaningful in a backdrop of mid-single digit annual growth. The one paper that showed a 5-7% decrease was in low-income neighborhoods and clearly doesn’t apply to Newton.
Mayor Warren’s Housing Commission explicitly looked at the issue of supply and prices and concluded that no reasonable increase in supply would lead to an impact on housing prices.
There simply isn’t good evidence that realistic increases in housing stock will help address affordability. No one can point to any metropolitian, high-cost area that has been able to reverse prices through increasing supply. It simply does not exist. Those are the facts.
In the meantime, a small set of developers are leveraging this debate to profit handsomely at our collective expenses (we change the zoning and the property owners realize the gains), and then turn around and support those candidates helping them realize those profits. The system is pretty corrupt all-around.
Coming back to the issue of the impact that luxury units have on existing units, there’s a lot of speculation in this comment thread but how about a little actual research? Oh, hey… we have some! From the UCLA Lewis Center comes this “Research Roundup: The Effect of Market-Rate Development on Neighborhood Rents”
From the key findings: “Taking advantage of improved data sources and methods, researchers in the past two years have released six working papers on the impact of new market-rate development on neighborhood rents. Five find that market-rate housing makes nearby housing more affordable across the income distribution of rental units, and one finds mixed results.”
So if Newtonville follows the pattern, we should see some easing within the existing housing stock. However, I’m not sure that Newton collects the right data to make a good determination. We can look at listings for rents that are made public (Realor.com, Craigslist, etc.), but we don’t know about those that rent before they go on the market. We also don’t know about existing rents with existing tenants. There is a risk involved in finding a new tenant and a smaller owner (one who may own one or two properties) may find that it’s better to negotiate with an existing tenant than to find a new one. We don’t have any insight into those sorts of transactions. I also see people posting about places on local email lists and asking friends for contacts to tenants. Those sorts of transactions would also be hidden from our local dataset.
Chuck,
You failed to mention who paid for that research report. Its funded by the randall lewis housing initiative..
Oh, who is randall lewis? Only one of the nation’s largest privately held real estate organizations focused on developing planned communities, multifamily project and shopping centers
https://www.linkedin.com/in/randallwlewis
Take that report with a gigantic grain of salt…
Recently heard a great saying, “don’t out-think your eyes.”
Boston had been building like crazy for the past 20 years. The Seaport went from Anthony’s Pier 4 and a few fish markets to one of the busiest neighborhoods in Boston. Same with The Fenway, Brighton, JP and many other neighborhoods. Brookline too.
Yet rents have not gone down in the last 20 years, but quite the opposite…they’ve skyrocketed. Because the more supply we add, the more attractive it is for business to add demand…and it’s been proven that demand will always put pace supply; no matter how much of it we add….until The Garden City is much less “garden” and much more “city”.
Don’t out-think your eyes.
Bugek, not a research report. It’s a roundup of other research. Not just one piece of research but several independent studies all pointing to the same conclusion.
And Matt, While there are times that idea is correct, we also need to look at the research done by those who have expertise. Our “eyes” can only see so far on their own.
@Chuck
Read the papers themselves- these are the same ones Sean cited above (plus a few more). Several show a price decrease of 1-2%, one shows a decrease of 5% but in low income census tracts (not relevant), and one shows a 5% decrease in high rents with a corresponding increase of 0.5% in low rents (so not helping affordability).
So the best data shows decreases of 1-2% following an increase in supply– but we’re in a market that’s increasing much more than that each year– so rates are still going to go up.
As I wrote above– there is no evidence of any metro area showing a sustained decline in housing prices based on increasing supply. The best studies show minimal, transient declines, but the power of demand overwhelms. Mayor Warren’s commission came to the same conclusion.
The intent is well-meaning, its just not good policy.
@Chuck
To quote the great Groucho Marx ” Who are you going to believe, me, or your own eyes?”
@Alec Wilson
Precisely.
This debate reminds me of some recent interviews with Bill Gates on climate change. He points out ( and I’m not a fan of billionaires running the world ) that cement manufacturing is one of the largest contributors to green house emissions. Electric cars are ” low hanging fruit”.
At least his view is the type I’m getting at here. Humans are good at spotlight attention to one thing- we’re much less good at the big picture thinking.
All of these ecosystem problems require big picture thinking. And that’s harder than any of the math involved.
Ok so we break it down into bits we can digest. But building more housing without attacking wealth disparity ( heck it’s not even wealth, it’s just income from jobs) at the very least will not solve the problem.
I play tennis ( well at least pre covid ) 3 -4 times a week. But I don’t lose weight because I still eat too much. One thing doesn’t fix that problem.
Chuck Tanowitz and Matt Lai. You’ve had an interesting back and forth on the credibility of studies used to support or refute specific policy proposals. I have my own thoughts and standards based on a Clean Air Act related assignment to the State of Rhode Island while I was at EPA. I’m sharing my computer with my sister today and will post as soon as I can.