Great points and thanks for sharing your experience on your local housing trust committee. The Baker policy is pretty standard - spur construction of more housing, with 10 or 20 percent set aside at below market rents or prices. The devil is in the details, for the affordable units may not be so affordable based on the metrics the individual town is using. That said, I'd argue we need more housing of all types, especially but no limited to affordable units.
No arguments about needing all forms of housing. But I do take exception though about conflating the MBTA law as an instrument for affordable housing. It is not and the media (ie The Boston Globe and you) consistently conflates the two. It is not accurate. Maybe it's OK for advocates for the MBTA law to conflate it, but how is it OK for journalists to do the same? (For the record, I'm very much in favor of the INTENT of the MBTA law to build [affordable] multifamily housing near public transportation hubs. But I'm left scratching my head wondering how that translates into forcing many communities that don't even have water and sewer systems in their communities and require them to support cluster housing--never mind the fact they have NO public transportation in the community. Even the regional transit bus system does not stop in my community. Yet, we are part of this "one size fits all" approach.)
We can agree on lots of things. I do agree there is a lot on NIMBYism in my community and elsewhere. I also agree with your statement "the devil is in the details" and I wish the Globe and you would remember that as you cover this issue. Lastly, thank you for what you do. It's very important.
The average multifamily home built under MBTA Communities zoning is going to be less expensive than single-family homes in all of these suburbs, so it’s not a stretch to call them more affordable.
MBTA Communities is hardly one size fits all—smaller communities with less transit service are required to produce a fraction of the homes of larger communities with more transit service.
Sure a condo or multifamily unit is USUALLY less expensive that a single family home, but not by much and certainly not if it's build next to a T station, giving developers more of an incentive to go high end. Nothing stops this from happening and the market clearly drives construction towards the high end.
As for the MBTA not being a one size fits all...you omit the fact that smaller communities had to raise wholly hell to point out the incredibly disproportionate increases in housing units they initially were required to zone for. Your first comment seem to be based on wishful thinking and you provide no facts to back it up. Your second comment was a half truth, in that it took a massive push back to make a obvious correction in a poorly thought out regulation.
I'm learning, as a member of my local housing trust committee which is focused on creating affordable housing in my community, that creating more affordable housing in MA is complex. For example, I've recently learned that the housing units controlled by local housing authorities do not count towards a town's 10% threshold of affordable housing, which is needed to be in compliance with 40B. That just reenforces your point that Baker's actions will have no impact on the towns and are punishing entities that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
At the same time, you (and the Boston Globe) overstate the impact and intent of the MBTA Communities law. As I'm sure you know, unfortunately this law has no impact on creating affordable housing near T stations. Rather it requires mutlifamily zoning in every city and town (except Boston and, strangely, Avon) in the outer-greater Boston area (west to Ashby and Holden, north to NH, south to Fall River). IF you have a T station in your community, the zoning must be near the station. THAT is what this law does.
With regards to building multifamily housing around actual T stations, there are NO INCENTIVES for a developer to build affordable housing instead of market rate housing. In fact, it's a gift too developers to force this zoning in a Medford or anywhere, so they can build high end housing and market them as a easy commute to work in Boston. Why the lack of an affordability component in this law is not viewed as a huge flaw escapes me. In 10 years, it can have the unintended consequences of making the problem worse.
As for the impact of this on non-communities with a one-size fits all approach, it's to nice of a day out, so...that's it.
The 40B threshold is not really 10% affordable homes—it can be as low as 2.5%. If a town builds a project under 40B with 25% affordable homes, it can count 100% of the homes in that project as part of its “Subsidized Housing Inventory.” It would be great if it really was 10%, but why shouldn’t be 20%?
We have a long-standing, massive housing crisis; we should increase both the 40B and the MBTA Communities requirements. We need to follow California’s lead and stop letting every exclusionary town block all new housing and then complain loudly about even the smallest attempts to push back. We can’t even pass a statewide ADU law despite broad support.
Great points and thanks for sharing your experience on your local housing trust committee. The Baker policy is pretty standard - spur construction of more housing, with 10 or 20 percent set aside at below market rents or prices. The devil is in the details, for the affordable units may not be so affordable based on the metrics the individual town is using. That said, I'd argue we need more housing of all types, especially but no limited to affordable units.
No arguments about needing all forms of housing. But I do take exception though about conflating the MBTA law as an instrument for affordable housing. It is not and the media (ie The Boston Globe and you) consistently conflates the two. It is not accurate. Maybe it's OK for advocates for the MBTA law to conflate it, but how is it OK for journalists to do the same? (For the record, I'm very much in favor of the INTENT of the MBTA law to build [affordable] multifamily housing near public transportation hubs. But I'm left scratching my head wondering how that translates into forcing many communities that don't even have water and sewer systems in their communities and require them to support cluster housing--never mind the fact they have NO public transportation in the community. Even the regional transit bus system does not stop in my community. Yet, we are part of this "one size fits all" approach.)
We can agree on lots of things. I do agree there is a lot on NIMBYism in my community and elsewhere. I also agree with your statement "the devil is in the details" and I wish the Globe and you would remember that as you cover this issue. Lastly, thank you for what you do. It's very important.
The average multifamily home built under MBTA Communities zoning is going to be less expensive than single-family homes in all of these suburbs, so it’s not a stretch to call them more affordable.
MBTA Communities is hardly one size fits all—smaller communities with less transit service are required to produce a fraction of the homes of larger communities with more transit service.
Sure a condo or multifamily unit is USUALLY less expensive that a single family home, but not by much and certainly not if it's build next to a T station, giving developers more of an incentive to go high end. Nothing stops this from happening and the market clearly drives construction towards the high end.
As for the MBTA not being a one size fits all...you omit the fact that smaller communities had to raise wholly hell to point out the incredibly disproportionate increases in housing units they initially were required to zone for. Your first comment seem to be based on wishful thinking and you provide no facts to back it up. Your second comment was a half truth, in that it took a massive push back to make a obvious correction in a poorly thought out regulation.
No, condos are much less expensive than SF homes. Look at Cambridge where everything is close to the T. They are almost double.
https://www.redfin.com/city/2833/MA/Cambridge/housing-market
Your statement that it is “not by much” is incorrect. What data did you provide in our casual comments chat?
And what’s your math on whether the smaller towns were required to have “incredibly disproportionate” increases in homes?
I'm learning, as a member of my local housing trust committee which is focused on creating affordable housing in my community, that creating more affordable housing in MA is complex. For example, I've recently learned that the housing units controlled by local housing authorities do not count towards a town's 10% threshold of affordable housing, which is needed to be in compliance with 40B. That just reenforces your point that Baker's actions will have no impact on the towns and are punishing entities that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
At the same time, you (and the Boston Globe) overstate the impact and intent of the MBTA Communities law. As I'm sure you know, unfortunately this law has no impact on creating affordable housing near T stations. Rather it requires mutlifamily zoning in every city and town (except Boston and, strangely, Avon) in the outer-greater Boston area (west to Ashby and Holden, north to NH, south to Fall River). IF you have a T station in your community, the zoning must be near the station. THAT is what this law does.
With regards to building multifamily housing around actual T stations, there are NO INCENTIVES for a developer to build affordable housing instead of market rate housing. In fact, it's a gift too developers to force this zoning in a Medford or anywhere, so they can build high end housing and market them as a easy commute to work in Boston. Why the lack of an affordability component in this law is not viewed as a huge flaw escapes me. In 10 years, it can have the unintended consequences of making the problem worse.
As for the impact of this on non-communities with a one-size fits all approach, it's to nice of a day out, so...that's it.
The 40B threshold is not really 10% affordable homes—it can be as low as 2.5%. If a town builds a project under 40B with 25% affordable homes, it can count 100% of the homes in that project as part of its “Subsidized Housing Inventory.” It would be great if it really was 10%, but why shouldn’t be 20%?
We have a long-standing, massive housing crisis; we should increase both the 40B and the MBTA Communities requirements. We need to follow California’s lead and stop letting every exclusionary town block all new housing and then complain loudly about even the smallest attempts to push back. We can’t even pass a statewide ADU law despite broad support.