As a few bloggers requested …
Here’s the 30 page handout and the glosssary from last night’s
ABC’s of 40B housing
by Chuck Tanowitz | May 2, 2014 | Newton | 28 comments
Categories
[youtube-feed feed=1]
Archives
Tags
40B (20)
alien abductions (61)
Alison Leary (19)
Amy Sangiolo (21)
april fools (40)
Austin Street (48)
Barney Frank (76)
Bob Kraft (36)
Brooke Lipsitt (102)
Charter Commission (27)
Chestnut Hill (25)
Chestnut Hill Square (76)
David Fleishman (30)
Donald Trump (25)
Emily Norton (28)
Frank Santo (20)
Gail Spector (18)
history (2269)
jacobson (20)
Jake Auchincloss (38)
Joe Kennedy III (30)
MBTA (25)
NewCAL (23)
Newton (45)
Newton Centre (36)
Newton Highlands (74)
Newton Nomadic Theater (28)
Newton people (19)
Newton Public Schools (19)
Newtonville (60)
NewTV (48)
Northland (34)
politics (83)
recreational marijuana (35)
Ruthanne Fuller (77)
Scott Lennon (44)
Senate (65)
Setti Warren (38)
Susan Albright (26)
trees (39)
Upper Falls (81)
video (23)
Village 14 blog (144)
Washington Place (22)
Webster Woods (21)
Thanks for uploading this, Jerry. We hope residents download it and keep it nearby as a reference tool! It is chock full of CORRECT information as of May 1, 2014.
It may be ‘correct information’, but is it information the city wants to hear ? It’s obvious the community has no say over 40b. You heard the panel speaking. The Historic Commission has no say over 40b. Local government is friends with developers and local government wants housing. Local government will not fight it they will only encourage it or at best throw up there hands and say there is nothing we can do about it. Expect to see in the not too distant future a 5 story housing project proposed at Chestnut and Beacon at the St Phillip Neri Church site, and at the Waban T stop parking lot. Just ask Candace Havens.
Bill: Forget Austin St or any other specific property for a minute and explain exactly why it is wrong for local governments to want affordable housing?
blueprintbill, there is nothing inherently wrong per se with affordable housing.
Unfortunately, supporters of the 40B law are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that the 40B law has been a poor way to create affordable housing in Massachusetts. They are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that 40B projects don’t make affordable housing but they do privatize profits for developers while socializing costs to Newton’s taxpayers.
40B should be called “The Affordable Housing In Name Only & Corporate Welfare for Developers Law” for the following reasons:
1. 40B has been on the books for 45 years and “affordable housing units” created by 40B represent 1% of all Massachusetts housing units
2. It subsidizes developers with lavish profits and
3. it creates an intractable cost burden on local taxpayers because the increased costs associated with increased demand for city services more than offset any incremental tax revenues associated with the development.
Read more: http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/newton/2014/01/14/newton-residents-want-their-gym-to-stay/#ixzz30gMzLR3N
Follow us: @WickedLocal on Twitter | 119311408344 on Facebook
@Joshua – While I think 40B is a very imperfect tool with various shortcomings, I’m not sure I follow some of the logic of your critique.
While we may wish there were more, isn’t that a very substantial number of units that would otherwise have been market rate apartments or not built at all?
As I understand 40B there is no inherent financial subsidy. The big benefit to the the developer is that they get to sidestep various regulations. By design, 40B is based on private development. If a developer makes a bundle on a given project (40B or not) isn’t that just capitalism?
If some number of apartments are build in the city aren’t the associated costs for city services pretty much the same whether or not they are 40B. It sounds like you just making a general case against further residential development rather than 40B.
Jerry, thanks for your post. Let me clarify further:
1. 40B has been on the books for 45 years and yet affordable housing units created under the program only accounted for 1% cumulative of all of Massachusetts’s housing units. Despite what program advocates say, affordable housing units created under the 40B housing law represent a statistical error relative to the total number of households in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. ~20,000 affordable housing units have been created statewide since 40B passed 45 years ago. There are 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts. 40B has resulted in an average of 1.266 affordable housing units per community per year since it was passed. Massachusetts’s population has grown by 1 Million people since 40B passed in 1969 and affordable housing units created under 40B represent 2% of its cumulative population growth during this period.
2. Lifelong residents of Newton don’t want to see Newton urbanized with huge, multi-unit housing developments under 40B. Not only does the state administer a number of subsidy programs, but developers can use state government to override local governmental zoning regulations in order to make lavish profits. 40B is crony capitalism for developers and an example of an unfunded mandate by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on cities and towns.
http://www.mass.gov/hed/community/40b-plan/developers-guide.html
3. The problem with 40B residential development is that unless a community meets the 10% affordable housing unit target or has an Affordable Housing Production Plan, it is subject to the whims of developers pushing non-rateable development projects under 40B.
I wish the city were as concerned with market-affordable housing as they purport to be with official affordable housing. As I noted on a previous thread here http://village14.com/newton-ma/2014/04/fire-headquarters-being-torn-down/#comment-46571 we are rapidly losing the $400,000 and $500,000 houses because the still-too-liberal FARs make it worthwhile to tear down those houses and build $1.5 million houses.
As an example, the house in that video link, 21 Parmenter Terrace, per the Assessor’s Database, was a 1925 ranch, 1,100sq.ft. (occupied, I was told, by a woman in her early 60s who died, too young, of cancer). FY 2012, 2013 &2014 assessment was $374,900. It sold on 8/2/13 for $432,000, and then for $1 to an LLC (the developer) in January 2014. The house is still under construction so it’s too early to say what the selling price will be, but I expect from the size, at least $1 million.
Unless the Board of Alderman, planning, and administration do something soon, not waiting for the holy grail of zoning reform, the loss of these houses will continue. Families who can manage to live in a house where the kids and parents share a bathroom will be a thing of the past, because there won’t be any small houses left in 20 or 30 years as current owner die or sell.
Just today I was talking to someone on Webster Street who said a developer had threatened a 40B if he didn’t get to build a string of townhouses. Nothing new there; old story. I suspect 40B may have actually decreased the percent of affordable housing in places like Newton, when you add together the non-affordable units built in 40B projects, and all the non-affordable units built by developers who threatened a 40B unless they got to build what they really wanted to build.
I’ve talked to enough thoughtful and reasonable people in all parts of Newton to know that this is an issue whose time has finally come. We should be able to find some middle ground between residents who don’t want anything to change in a neighborhood and developers who want to build as big as possible regardless of what it does to the character and cohesiveness of a street, block or entire neighborhood.
Also, we are repeatedly told that large and ostentatious is what new buyers to Newton want. From talking with some new neighbors in our street, I’m not entirely certain this is always true. Some bought simply because the house was where it was. They would have been perfectly happy with something smaller. It just wasn’t available where they wanted to buy in the Highlands. . I know what I say isn’t based on a scientific survey, but I’ll bet it’s more prevalent than some developers would like you to think it is.
Changing FAR ratios will help, but there are other subtle and not too subtle aesthetic considerations that would help to maintain the character of a street and neighborhood. Just shaping a house to blend in more with an existing neighborhood would help. Also, I will never understand why some developers feel they have to clear all the old trees from a property and plant hideous, bland and almost cookie cutter like bushes and plants. I also can’t understand why some other items from a replaced or rehabilitated home have to be destroyed. We have lost three or four beautiful and inviting 4′ tall white picket fences in our neighborhood that were replaced in some instances with huge and garish 8′ tall monstrosities.
There used to be 4 homes in my immediate neighborhood that had beautiful
arrangements of apple, cherry and dogwood trees along with red azalea buses and some yellow blossoms that came into bloom almost simultaneously each spring. The were all ripped out when major renovations took place on the property, and the shrubs and trees that have replaced them are drab and colorless substitutes.
On the good side, there was a recent tear down of an old house next to ours a few years back. I wish the developer hadn’t built as large a replacement as he did, but I appreciate the fact that he bent over backwards to protect our property and keep noise to a minimum. Even more important, he saved almost all of the beautiful old oak trees that grace both of our properties.
I strongly disagree with Joshua’s comments and assertions which are based on flawed and incomplete research and analysis. First, 40B has produced more than 60,000 units as of 2100, not 20,000 as he asserts and is the most productive affordable housing program in the state. Secondly, the argument that 40B has failed because it has only produced 1% of the State’s housing stock (it’s actually slightly over 2%) is an argument against itself. If the opponents would like it to be more successful, then stop opposing it, or create a more productive approach to solving the State’s housing needs. Thirdly, it does not subsidize developers with lavish profits; there is no financial subsidy from the State; private for profit or non profit developers or public sector developers have to provide the affordable unit mix out of their own development budgets; they get a zoning override to allow greater densities but the cost of producing housing is typically $250,000+ higher than what affordable units can be sold for (and the equivalent gap holds for rental units), so those losses have to be covered by the market units – and the total project has a profit limit which is less than builders and developers realize from non-40B developments. Fourthly,the cost burden on municipalities is often “break even” or better, not a drain as he alleges, and is clearly better than 3+ bedroom single family homes which are definitely a cost burden on any community. The cost burden is directly related to school costs and since most 40B developments produce very few 3 bedroom units, the cost burden involved in these developments is far less than the sub-divisions most suburbanites would rather see.
The fundamental reason 40B was passed 45 years ago was because suburban communities had restrictive zoning which effectively eliminated affordable units being constructed in their localities; that fact has not changed as a recent MIT study shows that the average open land in the Boston suburbs is zoned 1+ acre – no chance of constructing what every community professes to want which is economic diversity and the need to house their own workforce. There is no land available in Newton under current zoning which would enable economically viable mixed income housing to be created. That’s why over 45 years the City has only 5% of its housing stock restricted to income eligible households (the number of affordable units is greater but all those units are not actually affordable). Thus, the publically stated objective of adding more affordable units is growing more difficult every year.
Obtaining a 2/3 vote to change zoning, which requires 16 aldermen to approve, makes it even more unlikely. Ask why the City’s inclusionary housing bylaw which requires some percentage of affordable units to be built with any special permit has produced so few units over the past 20 years – as is the case with other inclusionary bylaws in other communities – because these bylaws simply do not recognize the economics of housing production and the true cost gap between what households earning less than 80% of the area median income can afford relative to what it costs to build or buy/rehab housing in today’s market.
Our firm was retained to write the first housing needs study for DHCD in 1970 and the needs are even greater now. Yet, there is no state housing policy (other than 40B) which is where such approaches need to be created. If left to 351 municipalities, it will remain as an unrealized mandate. And if neighbors continue to oppose almost every affordable housing effort, the City will continue to grow with mega-homes and little else (note: see what happened to our 16 unit 40B proposal on Dedham Street which did not get funded by the aldermen and now has 4 monster houses much closer to the neighbors’ properties than we ever proposed.)
Check the facts…
@Bob. Thanks for taking the time to share that.
*** A comment was deleted here after complaints from the readership.
The commenter is welcome to continue the discussion, just please tone down the personal attacks a bit. A general good simple rule is that it’s never a good idea to mention Nazis, rape or genocide, etc unless the discussion is about one of those topics.
@blueprintbill – Bob Engler took the time to respond thoughtfully to Joshua Normans comments with lots of specific information. If you disagree with anything he said, by all means respond and show where he’s wrong.
Instead you called him names, ignored what he said, question his motives and didn’t provide any additional information that contradicts him. That’s not having a conversation and isn’t helpful to anyone.
Thanks, Bob, for bringing the 411.
Jerry,… Indeed Mr Engler took the time to respond to Joshua Normans comments, just like he took the time monopolizing the conversation at the War Memorial 40b ‘unveiling at city hall May 1st.
The only name I called this developer was Bob. Otherwise I simply accused him of a hypocritical cloaking of his greedy move in enlisting the state to help him line his pockets at the cost to his community.
All of his assertions of 40b’s numbers, percentages,costs, profits, losses, market analysis, break even calculations, cost burdens, suburban acreage, economic viability, zoning issues, aldermanic strategizing, economics of housing production, household earnings ( how about his ), are nothing more than a big smoke screen for his blatant attempt to exploit a broken piece of legislation for his own profit. And there will be profit !
What is not discussed in his diatribe, is the ‘cost’ to the community in the disruption of the suburban context into which this alien housing project will be prized !
5 stories, long shadows, and 36 units, plus all the attendant traffic, noise, etc. on site which previously contained 4 units of ‘affordable ‘ housing, in two handsome, historic, victorian homes, is a violation of community character which can only be likened to environmental rape !
To cloak this avaricious land grab in terms of ‘the housing needs of the city’, is by any measure a hypocritical move
of epic proportion, and I stand by that assertion, name calling or not.
An Alderman informed me of Bob Engler’s response. This alderman was surprised that anyone would try to contradict my analysis and evaluation of anything in general and 40B in particular.
First, Engler made a big deal that nearly 60,000 housing units were created under 40B. The reality is that the 40B law is sold to the public as promoting “affordable housing” yet only 20,000 units created under 40B actually qualify as “affordable housing”. I was surprised Engler’s response was the best argument he could make in order to attempt to refute my point?!
Second, the law doesn’t work because people oppose it. People oppose it because the law doesn’t work the way it is was sold to the public and because it is corporate welfare for real estate developers. Engler is unable or unwilling to acknowledge that Massachusetts is 49th in housing affordability despite 45 years of the 40B law being on the books.
Third, I was quite surprised that Engler claimed that 40B doesn’t give developers subsidies after I previously linked to all the subsidy programs available for developers from the state. In addition, developers are able to get a 20% profit margin on the project (which is well ahead of most other industries).
Furthermore, Engler refuses to acknowledge that that the Massachusetts Inspector General’s Office has cited the rampant waste, fraud and abuse in the program. The Inspector General also noted that 40B’s allowances for developers to bypass local planning and zoning if the project was more than 25 percent affordable and the town had less than 10 percent affordable housing, was a “loophole you could drive a truck through.”
Finally, Engler refused to acknowledge that the four biggest rental developments in Newton are non-rateable developments due to the high levels of student enrollment dwarfing the incremental tax revenues generated from each development.
No wonder why Bob Engler and his boy Geoff gave $15,000 to fight the 40B Repeal Ballot Question in 2010.
http://ocpf.cloudapp.net/Reports/SearchItems?PageSize=50&CurrentIndex=1&SortField=&SortDirection=ASC&&SearchType=A&ContributorName=Engler&Employer=seb&StartDate=12/31/2009&EndDate=12/31/2010
The 40B law is a public-private partnership between communities and developers because it privatizes profits for developers while burdening the taxpaying public in Massachusetts’s communities with high expenses for increased enrollment and governmental programs that aid developers.
Do you think perhaps he/she was just pulling your leg?
No Greg, for two reasons:
1. He’s a well-spoken gentleman whereas you respond with snarky sarcasm to those who don’t meet your little political litmus tests.
2. He called me over to his office to discuss the LWVN questionnaire for aldermanic candidates last year.
http://www.wabanareacouncil.com/40Bwac has a video of the forum that was held at city hall. I think everyone learned something.
I was initially against the moratorium but at the Public Hearing I heard various people draw attention to the density problem created by housing projects and it made me realize 40B projects are much worse. All I know is traffic is already often at a stand still and there is no chance of enlarging most roads, schools are at full capacity, and contrary to the recent party line, the sewersystem is a mess. It seems Bob Engler is attached or directly behind most the 40B projects proposed in Newton. I do not have any sympathy for Mr. Engler when he proposes 50 – 350 unit projects but he has to “give up” 20% for “affordable housing” – he still makes ridiculously serious money off the other market rate 80% while not having to care about the Brooklinization of Newton. Where is the Mayor on this? Where is the Mayor? My bet is he is out to lunch with Bob Engler!
@Lisa
Excellent questions. I keep wondering myself.
I find it hard to believe couple of months ago the city chose Mr Engler and others to work on a large project as they “work well” together. Yet recently at a 40B hearing he bullied the city into complying with his design, threading to see them in court otherwise!
I think it is safe to say the majority of Newton residents despise what is going on in our villages.
It must be tough on the Aldermen. The public work with them. Then they invest much time and effort producing docket items to address the issues, only so see them buried.
And the show goes on.
Lies, damn lies and statistics (Bob Engler?) He asks us to “check the facts”. OK, let us do that.
Newton has 2,436 SHI units as of the April 2013 DHCD count. Sounds pretty good and I am sure that 40B and kind-hearted developers get all of the credit. Aah, but then the messy details.
Almost 41% (992) of these units are in 6 large rental developments. And because of the way 40B works, the market rental units in these developments (744) count as affordable. And people don’t believe in magic! I have only included the 6 developments that have 99 or more units. Perhaps Bob Engler can provide us with how many affordable units in Newton 40B has really created and not the inflated SHI count.
Better still, as the Mayor and Mr. Engler appear to be so cozy maybe they should both come together and present some data on all the good things they are doing for Newton.
I believe they both contribute to our dwindling “garden city”. And our villages, should they be called that any longer???
You are aware that 40B is a state law and that every city and town in Massachusetts must comply with it. Much as some here would like, Newton is not exempt from state and/or federal laws. If you don’t like the law, then contact your state legislators.
Jane…if you were referring to my comment, it was neither pro or anti 40B. I was simply pointing out that the numbers supplied by the developer Bob Engler were a little bit ‘unclear’, ‘disingenuous’, ‘misleading’.
Jane,
Whilst 40B is state law, it is designed to encourage districts to achieve goals that then allow the districts more influence over 40B.
Therefore it is up to individual districts how much control they want over them.
Right now private 40B’s are being abused by opportunists. If they are so good for the neighborhoods they are appearing in why is that so many people oppose them?
And you have to wonder if little if any money is to be made out of them why they are so popular !
Oh, my…just heard about the proposed 40B in Waban. Why do I think that the city (Mayor & Planning Department) will not be as enthusiastic for this project as they were for the 40B on Court Street.
40B is a name that has gained notoriety over the years as cities and towns are challenged to be creative and innovative in promoting 40B goals. I am working alongside Alderwoman Emily Norton, Alderman Jay Harney, Atty Peter Harrington, and a host of others to coordinate with the Newton Housing Authority in implementing a new concept in affordable housing. The goal is to be proactive in identifying locations, to include existing 40B proposal sites, and build affordable housing, and low income housing, without the extra mega-units that guarantee profits, but create chaos in the neighborhoods. Our plan will promote lean builders working with experts in the affordable housing field. We welcome any and all help in promoting this rapidly developing concept as there is no time to debate, its time for action!
Let’s be clear. The 40B law enables developers to circumvent local zoning regs if a community doesn’t have a minimum of 10% of its housing inventory that’s designated as affordable. Until the community achieves that goal, the local community has little to say about what a developer does, especially if it doesn’t attempt to work cooperatively with the developer. In truth, until we achieve the 10% goal, the ball is in the developer’s court. This is the first I’ve heard of Jim Cote’s new concept of working with the Newton Housing Authority and look forward to hearing more about it.
Bob – I wasn’t referring to your comment. I don’t know the person to whom you are referring and was just clarifying what I see as a misconception. This is a state law so all communities in Massachusetts must abide by it.