Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Commonwealth Housing Task Force
Quarterly Summary of Progress as of March 31, 2012
Note: in order to reduce the size of these reports, we have condensed the description of
regular ongoing activities, and have moved much of the Chapter 40R update to
Appendix I of this report. For background, please visit www.tbf.org/chtf and click on
“Quarterly Updates”. A key to the Appendices and the Appendices themselves follow at
the end of this quarter’s report.
During the very active first Quarter of 2012, the Commonwealth Housing Task
Force focused its efforts on:
1. The implementation and monitoring of Chapter 40R, including advocacy for
pending legislation and funding.
2. The call for an increase in state funding for affordability, and monitoring of both
state and federal legislation and programmatic developments.
3. Strategic planning for new initiatives of the Task Force, including assuring that
the benefits of new construction under 40R and other state programs are available
to the widest range of households, work with the committee to focus on public
housing, and work with ULI to strengthen the State Historic Tax Credit program.
4. An expansion in participation in the Task Force itself, with a focus on diversity.
5. Seeking further financial support for the work of CHTF.
Barry Bluestone, Eleanor White, and Ted Carman, working through the
Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University, have carried
out the staff work in coordination with active subcommittees and Boston Foundation
staff.
Housing Market Updates
As reported, the last Quarter’s news about the housing market was at best mixed
and at worst pessimistic. The news this Quarter has continued to be mixed, but ended the
month on an optimistic note. Included in Appendix II to this Report are the results of a
survey issued on January 2, 2012 by Banker and Tradesman, which shows this mixed
response from professionals in real estate in Massachusetts. And the theme is carried
forward by Scott Van Voorhis’ columns in that same issue, and in the B&T of January
30, 2012 (see Appendix II).
We have been writing for some quarters about the escalating rental rates in the
Boston area. The Center for Housing Policy’s recently-released report, “Paycheck to
Paycheck”, identifies Boston and Cambridge as tied for the 16th
highest rents in the
country, exceeded (at $1349 average HUD Fair Market Rent for a 2-bedroom apartment)
only by several markets in California, Hawaii, the DC metro area, and NY/NJ. The full
report can be accessed at www.nhc.org . This creates an interesting paradox of rents
rising in the middle of the weak economy. Barry Bluestone has posited three reasons for
this: (1) Foreclosed households adding to the demand for rental housing as they have
lost their homes, (2) Young family renters staying put … too anxious to buy a home in
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 2
these unstable times or cannot because they lack credit, and (3) A sharp increase in the
graduate student population: +20,000 between 2000 and 2010, and only 8% of them live
on campus. This is underscored by a Boston Globe article of January 26, 2012, quoting
Barry Bluestone, also found in Appendix II.
Further, as highlighted in the 2011 Greater Boston Housing Report Card, 2011
was shaping up to have the lowest housing production rate in at least two decades and
less than 30 percent of the rate in the most recent peak year (2005). The rental vacancy
rate at just over 4 percent is at its lowest since 2003.And the national Center for Housing
Policy issued a report at the end of February, 2012, painting a grim picture of
affordability of housing in today’s economy. The Center’s own summary of its report
and a Boston Globe story on its conclusions (of February 25, 2012) are included in
Appendix II.
Finally, on March 28, 2012, Banker and Tradesman ended the month with good
news about home and condominium sales in Massachusetts, with the highest February
numbers in five years. Since housing starts and sales are important bellwethers of the
economy, with substantial spin-off effects as new owners and renters purchase
equipment, furnishings, etc., that number is very good news for Massachusetts. That
story is also included in Appendix II to this Report.
New Research on Rental Affordability and Programs
In response to a request from the Boston Indicators Project of the Boston
Foundation, Barry Bluestone and Chase Billingham of Northeastern University have
begun an intensive analysis of American Community Survey data for 2005 through 2010
to ascertain with much greater accuracy the impact of rising rents on rental affordability.
In this new analysis, changes in rental affordability – as measured by the
percentage of subpopulations paying more than 33% and more than 50% of their
household income on rent -- are being estimated for racial and ethnic groups, for
differences in income, and differences in age. This report should be available later in
2012.
And between January and April, 2012, Barry Bluestone is directing a graduate
level directed study of the Section 8 Housing Voucher program in Massachusetts. The
research, to be completed by May 1, will review Section 8 policies regarding the
distribution of vouchers with suggestions for improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and
equity of the program. The research is being undertaken by Justine Cabrera who will
complete her Master’s degree in urban and regional policy this spring. Justine has
worked at Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership (MBHP), the state’s largest regional
provider of rental housing vouchers. She has worked in the Family Self- Sufficiency
(FSS) Program, the Moving to Work Program, and the Community Choice Voucher
Program where she provided mobility counseling and support services to minority
families interested in moving to more diverse neighborhoods. We anticipate that this
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 3
research will provide interesting conclusions about the operation of the Section 8 voucher
program in the state.
Student Housing Effort
Barry Bluestone continues to pursue efforts to deal with the issues in the housing
market presented by Boston’s being such a center of higher education. We house more
than 100,000 full-time 4-year college students on campus in the Boston area, but nearly
180,000 live off campus, putting huge pressure on an already-overheated rental housing
market. Further, whereas 50 percent of undergraduates live on campus, only 8 percent of
graduate students do. Barry has developed an innovative model of seeking to develop
graduate student villages (described in several past CHTF Quarterly Reports).
Barry continues to meet regularly with various interested parties to explore where
and how such a multi-university graduate student village can be built. On January 9,
2012, Barry met with architect David Geller and developer Patrick Kennedy of graduate
student housing in San Francisco to discuss the potential for developing a Multi-
University Graduate Student Village in Greater Boston based on the developer’s “Smart
City” design of 425 sq.ft. apartments for one person and 850 sq.ft. apartments for three
people. And on March 8, 2012, Barry met with Joe Corcoran, Jr. of Corcoran Jennison to
discuss possible plans for a Greater Boston Multi-University Graduate Student Village.
We are hopeful that this idea can be implemented in the near future.
Other Programmatic Developments
CHAPA will be launching a new Welcome Home educational campaign to
advance affordable housing at the local level throughout Massachusetts in April, 2012.
The initiative will include a comprehensive online guide on local housing
strategies; a new web site to provide timely information and support to grassroots
volunteers and municipal officials around the state; and new communications tools to
gain greater local support for affordable housing. If you are interested signing up as a
supporter of the initiative, please contact Carol Marine at [email protected]. CHTF
Leadership has signed onto this initiative. See the CHAPA introductory letter in
Appendix III of this Report, as well as a copy of the current CHAPA fact sheet on
Welcome Home. The fact sheet can also be found on CHAPA’s website at
http://www.chapa.org/sites/default/files/WelcomeHomeMaFactSheetFeb.pdf
And, under the headline “MetroWest Towns Trading Individual Priorities For
Regional Needs: How A Group Of Planners Is Getting 37 Communities On Board With
One Vision”, Banker and Tradesman reports on January 9, 2012 about an interesting new
initiative for cooperation among towns west of Boston. CHTF applauds this program to
coordinate planning in a critical and fast-growing area of the Commonwealth. The full
text of this article can be found in Appendix III of this Report. The MetroWest
Partnership has also developed a 9-page chart of Regionally Significant Priority
Development Areas (PDAs)—too lengthy for inclusion in this Report, but probably of
great interest to developer members of CHTF. Please refer to the Partnership’s website at
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 4
http://www.495partnership.org or email Eleanor White at
[email protected] to request a copy of the chart.
As reported previously, construction is underway or very close for two projects
in the Reading, MA Chapter 40R districts (Reading has passed two 40R districts). One
will result in the development of more than 400 condominium and townhouse units, 200
of which will be age-restricted, on an underutilized previously-commercial parcel
(expected to start construction soon), and the other—now under construction-- will be 56
units of multifamily housing in downtown Reading.
In other good news, we are looking forward to construction beginning on the
Tritown Landing Phase II project in Lunenburg, MA—33 units in addition to phase I
of 66 units-- funded by the MA Department of Housing and Community Development
(DHCD) in the 2011 Rental Round funded in October of 2011, and to be financed by
MassHousing. This project is located in the Chapter 40R District approved by the Town
of Lunenburg. In Appendix III you will find the complete list of projects funded by
DHCD in the rental housing round of 2011, a total of more than $64 million funding
more than 1000 housing units and creating more than 1500 jobs in the Commonwealth.
DHCD’s early 2012 rental housing round is now underway, with proposals submitted in
February. Decisions should be announced in late Spring.
With litigation settled in an ongoing Chapter 40R case in Natick, we expect
construction to begin by the Spring of 2012 on The Mills of Natick project.
We were also very pleased to see the report in Banker and Tradesman (February
20, 2012) that the first project under the new Chapter 40T preservation legislation has
begun implementation in Cambridge, preserving 25 units as affordable in a project of 50
units. The full text of this article can be found in Appendix III.
The lack of planning grant funds for 40R continues to be a significant
challenge, especially in view of the fact that 40R is the program with the most promise
for facilitating large-scale housing production in Massachusetts in the coming years, and
with the most potential to avert the effects of the projected housing shortage and increase
in rents over the next decade. During the last three years, DHCD has made critically-
important planning grants to communities under the Priority Development Fund (PDF)
program. The MassHousing Guideline for its PDF program identifies eligible projects
as including those that “promote transit oriented development and/or smart growth
initiatives particularly in the early stages of development, through the provision of seed
capital, technical assistance and/or funding of pre-development activities.” We would
hope to see affordable housing developers explore the use of this source of funding to
assist in the creation of Chapter 40R districts. The full Guideline text can be found at
https://www.masshousing.com/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_4485_0_0_18/PD
F_Guidelines.pdf . Please refer also later in this Report to the results of important
discussions with DHCD relative to Chapter 40R funding.
In previous CHTF Quarterly Reports, we have mentioned the MassWorks
Infrastructure Program, which is now operational. Full final Guidelines can be found
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 5
at www.mass.gov/Ehed/docs/permitting/2011-
12%20MassWorks%20Infrastructure%20Program%20Guidelines%20-%205-1-
11%20v2.pdf. As described on the website of the Executive Office of Housing and
Economic Development, “the MassWorks Infrastructure Program, which is overseen by
HED, consolidates six capital budget programs administered across three different
agencies, giving communities a single entry point and one set of requirements for state
public infrastructure grants, rather than requiring them to expend resources ‘shopping
around’ different agencies at different times to gain support for their projects. The
program will provide infrastructure grants for market rate and affordable housing
development projects; transportation improvements to enhance safety in small and rural
communities; community revitalization and sustainable development; and economic
development and job creation.” This state program for financing infrastructure
improvements should be a natural complement to development in Chapter 40R districts
across the state.
In November, 2011, the Patrick-Murray Administration approved 23
new MassWorks Infrastructure Program grants to advance local development projects in
Massachusetts. The new grants bring the state’s total investment in MassWorks to nearly
$61 million, supporting thousands of jobs in Massachusetts communities,
including Athol, Bernardston, Chelmsford, Florida, Gardner, Hubbardston,
Littleton, Lowell, Lynn, Newton, New Bedford, Peabody, Pittsfield, Princeton, Quincy,
Revere, Rockland, Saugus, Springfield, Taunton, and Williamsburg.
CHTF has long supported and advocated for passage of H-368, the Supportive
Housing bill. A copy of our support letter was provided in the Appendix to last Quarter’s
Report. We are delighted to report that the legislature passed this legislation
unanimously and it was sent to the Governor for approval on March 12, 2012. The two
major components of the legislation are: 1) A requirement for an Interagency Action Plan
among a host of state agencies to create a coordinated process to create permanent
supportive housing, and 2) a goal of 1,000 new units of supportive housing within three
years of the Interagency Agreement being signed. This piece of legislation is a major
step forward in coordinating services provided to residents in supportive housing, and we
thank the many members of CHTF who lent their support to this statute.
And, under the leadership of newly-appointed Undersecretary Aaron Gornstein,
the MA Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) has requested
comments on the new Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP—Chapter
40V) to facilitate the development of primarily market rate housing in existing non-
residential properties in new Housing Development Zones in “Gateway” Cities in
Massachusetts. The program is limited to developments in which at least 80% of the
units will be priced at “market rate” (the level affordable to households at 110% of area
median, using a flexible definition of area). Municipalities that participate must offer at
least a partial property tax exemption on the increase in value attributable to the market
rate units, and developers can apply for a state tax credit for to up to 10% of the cost of
developing the market rate units. The total value of state credits that can be authorized is
capped at $5 million a year, and DHCD is proposing a per-project cap of $1 million.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 6
DHCD held program information sessions on March 27, as well as public hearings.
Comments were due by March 29.
The draft regulations for HDIP can be found at www.mass.gov/dhcd under “News and
Updates”, and draft program guidelines can be found at www.mass.gov/dhcd (search
keyword HDIP).
Implementing Smart Growth Zoning: Continuing Interest from Municipalities and
Local Groups
Chapters 40R and 40S have now been on the books for over five years. The
programs have resulted in the passage of 33 Chapter 40R smart growth zoning districts in
31 municipalities, totaling approximately 12,350 zoned units supported by their
communities, with continuing interest in many more. Approved 40R Districts are
demonstrating the substantial opportunities for innovative planning built into the
program, and as these Districts gain increasing attention, other cities and towns are
recognizing the opportunity that 40R provides for both housing and economic
development, as well as neighborhood revitalization. Please refer to Appendix I to this
report for the regular detailed update on progress under the Chapter 40R program.
A small working group, including representatives of CHTF, DHCD and others,
has met under the direction of Jennifer Raitt of MAPC to discuss 40R issues, and the
group plans to continue these discussions. In the group, there is general consensus on
support for adequate funding for 40R, for more PDF planning money, and for repealing
the “clawback”/recapture provision in the 40R statute.
CHTF feels strongly that the Legislature should repeal the “clawback” provision
in Chapter 40R, which states that communities have three years after the passage of a
Chapter 40R Smart Growth Zoning District and drawdown of incentive funds to issue
building permits and have construction commence. Absent a construction start, the
community must repay the State for the amount of the initial Incentive Payment. The
three year window is coming up for a number of communities where construction has not
yet commenced (often due to the state of the economy) for reasons beyond the control of
the community, and repeal of this provision would be highly desirable. Its existence
makes it more difficult to obtain local approval if new districts.
It is estimated that half a dozen communities received letters from DHCD in the
fall of 2011 informing them that three years have passed since their Smart Growth
Zoning Districts were enacted, and requesting documentation of either a start of
construction or, in the absence of such start, a statement of “good cause” as to the reason
for construction not starting.
We have reported previously that Senator Chandler has refiled a bill to repeal this
provision, and we are very pleased to note that the bill—S. 584-- was reported favorably
from the Joint Committee on Housing in March, 2012. We are very grateful to Senator
Chandler for her support on this bill.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 7
As mentioned above, local resources to plan smart growth districts are scarce, and
are expected to remain so, especially if state planning funds available through the Priority
Development Fund grants remain at their currently very low level. In this time of fiscal
stress, these funds often represent the only way that many communities can find the
resources to plan for smart growth, which leaves many communities without the
resources to pursue such initiatives. We believe there is an opportunity, however, for
property owners and developers to step forward to contribute the funds necessary and to
work in partnership with municipalities to plan 40R districts. The time for communities
to be proactive and plan for their future is when the construction industry is somewhat
dormant; when the economy does improve to the point where new housing construction
is determined to be feasible, these projects will be ready to go.
With the affirmation of the state’s affordable housing program under Chapter
40B, the interest level in Chapter 40R is continuing, although (as expected) at a reduced
rate due to concerns relating to the Smart Growth Trust Fund running out of funds,
discussed in detail below and in Appendix I. Increasing funding to local communities to
pursue smart growth districts is the prudent way to provide a “relief valve” for
communities facing Chapter 40B developments that may be considered to be
inappropriate for the location based on local comprehensive planning, site conditions, etc.
And Chapter 40R is an important tool for facilitating the development of new affordable
housing units at a time when some units may leave the inventory as a result of the
expiration of their federal contracts (an issue which has been discussed at length
previously).
Other states have also taken notice of the results that 40R has produced, most
especially in Connecticut and New Jersey, as described in detail in previous Quarterly
Reports.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 8
Implementation of Chapter 40R and 40S (the School Cost “Insurance Policy”),
Funding for both Chapters 40R and 40S, and a Technical Amendment to 40R
The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) issued an “Informational
Guideline Release” for Chapter 40S, dated June 2010.
The release is at www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dls/publ/igr/2010/igr10_301.pdf. More detail
can be accessed in previous CHTF Quarterly Reports. The final state budget for
FY2012—line 1233-2401–has made available approximately $364,000 to cover Chapter
40S reimbursements for FY2010, as required by the Chapter 40S statute.
In FY 2010, two communities received funds under Chapter 40S: Chelsea
($276,314) and Lakeville ($87,385). In 2012 it is anticipated that the Chelsea payment
will go down because of an offsetting increase in Chapter 70 funds. Lakeville is
expected to get $166,000 in FY 2012. One other community, North Reading, applied for
40S funding, but did not meet the funding criteria. The Department of Revenue is
requesting $500,000 in the budget for payments in 2012.
The fact that these projects are eligible for the payments is evidence that in some
situations communities need the financial assistance Chapter 40S was designed to
provide. Chapter 40S payments are made when the cost of educating the children in new
developments in Chapter 40R districts exceeds the sum of one half of the property taxes
and the incremental new Chapter 70 money that is allocated to the community because of
the increase in the school population.
The map below, provided by the MA Department of Housing and Community
Development--DHCD, indicates the communities that have already implemented Chapter
40R and those in the process of doing so. The table following the map outlines the
current funding sources and obligations for Chapter 40R.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 9
Note: Updated through March 26, 2012. Source: DHCD
Communities currently considering Chapter 40R districts include Ludlow,
Beverly, Southampton, Easthampton, Lowell (expansion of an existing district), Dennis,
Medford, and a second project in Haverhill, in the Bradford section. Permitting for
specific developments and construction activity is underway in Brockton, Lawrence,
Pittsfield, Natick, and in both of the Districts in Reading.
Status of Chapter 40R Payments and Obligations
Initial Funds from sale of Surplus State Land $3,349,370
Appropriations – Transfers, October, 2007 $10,000,000
Sales of Surplus State Property, 2007 $78,000
Sales of Surplus State Property, 2008 $7,772,440
Sales of Surplus State Property, 2009 $12,000,000
Total Sources of Funds $33,199,810
Less Transfer to General Fund, 2009 ($18,004,810)
Net Sources $15,195,810
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 10
Less Payments and Obligations to Communities: ($14.289,000)
Balance in Fund as of March 26, 2012 $ 906,000
At this time in March of 2012, and absent a new source of funding, it appears that
the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund may not have sufficient resources to make the
payments that will become due to communities through the end of Fiscal Year 2012. The
December issue of Commonwealth Magazine covers this issue in its excellent Back Story
by Paul McMorrow on December 22, 2011. See the full text of this story in Appendix I
of this report or at the MassInc website: www.MassInc.org . Additional funds will
clearly be required as more districts are passed and as more specific properties begin
construction. Without a new appropriation of funds, it is possible that some 40R
communities will not receive funding they are due and new communities will have no
incentive to join the program.
During this Quarter, CHTF leadership has worked hard to bring this issue to the
attention of the Governor’s office and legislative leadership. A copy of the CHTF
advocacy letter to the Governor of March 5, 2012 can be found in Appendix IV. Similar
letters went to legislative leaders. We continue to work with the leaders of the House and
Senate and the Administration (through the Executive Office of Housing and Economic
Development—EOHED-- and Administration & Finance—A&F) on this problem.
Limited funds, $240,000 ±, are now available under the Priority Development
Fund (PDF) program through DHCD for planning in communities with approved
Housing Production Plans which have specific, eligible plan implementation needs. 40R
Communities with current HPPs include Amesbury, Easton, North Andover, Plymouth,
Reading, and Sharon. Medford and Dennis have HPPs, and are giving consideration to
Smart Growth Districts.
To date, 12 communities have either permitted or started construction on housing
within 40R Districts, comprising 1394 Units.
As reported previously, identical legislation was filed by Rep. Kevin Honan
(House 990) and Senator Harriette Chandler (Senate 75, co-sponsored by Rep. Carolyn
Dykema) to provide for a continuing and reliable source of funding of the Smart Growth
Housing Trust Fund, as discussed in detail in previous Quarterly Reports. This bill was
re-filed in the current session, and we are very grateful to Rep. Honan and Sen. Chandler
for their strong and continuing leadership on this legislative effort. Ted Carman
provided testimony on behalf of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force to the
Committee on the importance of this legislation at a hearing before the Joint Committee
on Community Development and Small Business on April 13, 2011. We are very pleased
to report that the bill was reported favorably by the Committee on Community
Development and Small Business and is now before the House Committee on Ways and
Means. Since the bill is still pending, for ready reference the full text of Ted’s testimony
can be found in Appendix IV to this Report. In view of the impending depletion of the
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 11
Smart Growth Trust Fund, it has become critical that this bill pass as soon as possible.
Refer also to the previous section for a detailed discussion of the bill filed by
Senator Harriette Chandler to repeal the “clawback” provision of Chapter 40R.
Spreading the Word about Chapter 40R and Smart Growth
Barry Bluestone, Eleanor White, and Ted Carman continue to respond to
requests for meetings, discussions, and presentation of material about Chapter 40R from
planning officials, local elected officials, affordable housing advocates, realtors and
others to assure widespread education about the benefits of Chapter 40R. Please visit the
Boston Foundation/CHTF website, www.tbf.org/chtf and consult previous Quarterly
Reports for a detailed description of this ongoing activity. Chapter 40R is often the
subject of news and feature articles in the general press and other media. The topic has
also continued to attract interest from trade and industry groups, and is regularly featured
as a topic at various conferences and workshops. This Quarter has been an especially
busy one, with appearances and presentations that included the following:
On January 23, 2012, Barry Bluestone participated as a panelist in a Boston
Federal Reserve Regional Conference where he made a presentation on smart growth and
affordable rental housing and ensuring housing availability for a diverse population.
On February 24, 2012, Barry Bluestone presented a keynote address to the
University of Connecticut Law School in Hartford, Connecticut on “How Changing
Demographics are affecting the Housing Market.”
On February 28, 2012, Barry Bluestone moderated an Urban Land Institute panel
in Boston on Demography and Housing.
On March 16, 2012, Ted Carman and Barry Bluestone met with the new
housing leadership team at the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic
Development (EOHED) and the Department of Housing and Community Development
(DHCD) to review proposed revisions to Chapter 40R regulations and the proposed
“Compact Cities” housing program. Both offered that some of the proposed revisions
would likely result in a greater regulatory burden, leading to fewer cities and towns
developing Smart Growth Overlay Zoning Districts under Chapter 40R. In particular,
there is concern over the imposition of strict minimum densities which might preclude
zoning districts which cannot reasonably meet such criteria, and a new proposed
regulation requiring at least 10 percent 3-bedroom units in all Chapter 40R districts.
Carman and Bluestone will be offering written feedback to EOHED and DHCD on these
new regulations, and we will be following these issues closely.
And on March 26, 2012, Barry Bluestone presented to the Kennedy School
Inequality Seminar at Harvard University a discussion of “Is Homeownership Now Just a
Dream: Implications of Potential New Federal Housing Policies on the Distribution of
Homeownership”.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 12
We encourage you to regularly visit the CHTF website, and we welcome all
comments and suggestions for improvement. The website serves as the central repository
for documents, status reports and resource material on the Task Force itself, Chapter 40R,
Chapter 40S, press coverage, and related matters. Dukakis Center staff, led by Barry
Bluestone, is responsible along with Tim Gassert at the Boston Foundation for updating
the CHTF website on a regular basis.
Funding and Legislation for Affordability
A coalition of affordable housing and homelessness prevention organizations
convened by CHAPA, including many members of CHTF, has established the list of
FY’13 state budget requests the groups will work together to advocate for in the coming
year. The group will seek:
- $46 million for MRVP, matching the Governor’s House Two proposal and
representing a $10 million increase;
- $71 million for state public housing operations, $4.5 million above the
Governor’s House Two proposal;
- $4.7 million for the Alternative Housing Voucher Program, $250,000 above the
Governor’s House Two proposal and the amount necessary to avoid losing AHVP
vouchers;
- $8.75 million for RAFT homelessness prevention, matching the Governor’s
House Two proposal and representing a $8.45 million increase;
- $3 million for Housing Consumer Education Centers, double the Governor’s
House Two proposal;
- $700,000 for the Tenancy Preservation Program, matching the Governor’s
House Two proposal;
- $2.24 million for Home and Healthy for Good, matching the Governor’s House
Two proposal and representing a $1 million increase;
- $80,000 for the Mass Access Affordable Housing Registry, matching the
Governor’s House Two proposal and representing level funding from FY’12; and
- $2 million in dedicated funding for Foreclosure Prevention counseling.
Beginning August 1, 2011, the Patrick-Murray Administration began testing a
significant reform to the way homeless families are assisted by creating a new time-
limited rental assistance option paired with support services for homeless families,
called HomeBase. However, the demand for the assistance exceeded budget
authorization and the short term rental assistance option for new households that apply
for assistance has been eliminated. Instead, the Administration proposes to make a
maximum of $4,000 in financial assistance available to a family within a 12-month
period, and also proposes to reduce the maximum length of assistance to a family that
began receiving HomeBase rental assistance when it was available from 36 months to 24
months.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 13
The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center has issued a useful “first look” at
how the Governor’s budget deals with housing for low-income and homeless households,
a copy of which can be found in Appendix III of this Report.
Governor Patrick and the Legislature have approved legislation to double the
amount of State Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) available for 2013 and
2014 from $10 million to $20 million. The effort is aimed at addressing the backlog of
shovel-ready affordable rental developments that have been seeking State or Federal
LIHTCs from DHCD. The gap between resources compared to the overwhelming
demand for affordable housing development funding was increased further by the HUD
award of HOPE VI commitments in Boston and Taunton. And a bill has been filed,
discussed later in this report, to increase the State Historic Tax Credit from $50 million
to $100 million.
On November 17, 2011, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance
released the FY’12 capital budget, which can be found at
http://www.mass.gov/bb/cap/fy2009/dnld/fy12capplan.pdf . The budget provides a small
increase over last year’s capital budget for housing. Last year, the Housing Innovations
Fund – a program that primarily funds housing developments that serve homeless
families and individuals – was cut from $9 million to $6 million. This year, HIF is
funded at $8 million. Affordable housing groups also advocated for a restoration of
capital budget spending for housing to the FY’09 funding level of $193 million. The
Patrick-Murray Administration has unilateral authority to increase or decrease capital
spending for general obligation bond spending up to the amounts authorized by the
Legislature in the 2008 Housing Bond bill.
Federal Housing Budget
In November, 2011, the President signed a bill containing FY’12 appropriations
for HUD and several other agencies. HUD’s FY’12 budget authority is cut 9.2% below
the 2011 budget, totaling over 13% in cuts since April of 2011. While tenant-based and
project-based Section 8 programs will be mostly unharmed, many other programs see
sharp reductions. Public housing capital repairs, Section 8 voucher program
administration, the production of new affordable housing under HOME, 202 housing for
the elderly, 811 housing for persons with disabilities and community development block
grants, all see significant reductions, including a 38% cut in the HOME Program.
Funding for housing counseling was restored and funded at $45 million, but that
authorization is well below the FY’10 level. FY’12 funding for Sustainable
Communities Grants was eliminated.
2011-2012 State Legislation
The 2011-2012 state legislative session is underway, and legislative committees
are holding hearings on various proposals that increase or relate to affordable housing.
Last session, CHTF worked on several bills that did not become law, and Task Force
members are in the process of reviewing our legislative priorities again this year. We
would appreciate any input and advice from CHTF members concerning these bills:
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 14
S. 75 and H. 990 would fund the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund (which
in turn funds the Chapter 40R program) by diverting the income taxes of residents living
in housing in approved Chapter 40R districts. Last year the bill cleared the Community
Development Committee and was in House Ways and Means but did not advance before
the end of the session. This bill has been supported by CHTF since its first introduction
in the legislature; it would have a major effect upon the ability of Chapter 40R to be
financially self-sustaining. We also encourage members to submit other suggestions on
how to fund the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund.
This legislation received a public hearing before the Joint Committee on
Community Development and Small Business in April of last year (see Ted Carman’s
testimony, as previously mentioned, in Appendix IV to this Report) and the bill was
reported favorably to the House Committee on Ways and Means once again.
Comprehensive Zoning Reform legislation cleared the Committee on
Municipalities and Regional Government for the first time in decades last session and
died in the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. The comprehensive bill carries
many provisions, including mandating that local zoning be consistent with planning,
barring exclusionary zoning practices, authorizing impact fees for limited uses,
rewriting Ch. 40A into clear statements, reforming vesting and grandfathering, and
replacing the Approval Not Required process with a minor subdivision review process.
The bill also creates the ability of communities to opt into defined planning and zoning
benchmarks for housing in exchange for additional authority to regulate developments.
CHTF was represented on the Governor’s Zoning Reform Task Force which debated
many elements of this bill over the last three years. We believe that the existing Zoning
Enabling Act and related Planning and Subdivision Acts continue to be significant
deterrents to creating the local planning and zoning we need to produce affordable
housing and economic growth; we look forward to continuing the discussion on how to
improve these critical statutes.
The comprehensive zoning legislation, S. 1019 and the Land Use Partnership
Act, S. 1008/ H. 1443, received a public hearing before the Joint Committee on
Municipalities and Regional Government in May, 2011 but action has not been taken
to advance the bill yet. While the comprehensive zoning reform legislation remains in
Committee, the House has given initial approval to a smaller change to Ch. 40A
through H. 370 that would promote open space residential design, where homes could
be built on a more compact area of a site and the remainder of the site could be set
aside as conservation land.
Legislation to promote innovative strategies in public housing was filed by
Rep. Sanchez and Sen. Chandler: (http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht01pdf/ht01237.pdf. This legislation
would reduce and streamline regulatory and statutory requirements for participating
housing authorities. The program would maximize the efficient use of funds received
by a housing authority. By not restricting the use of appropriated funds to one narrow
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 15
purpose, housing authorities would be able to more effectively address local needs,
which differ by locality. The bill would also authorize innovative program design on
issues such as rent calculation, to reduce the administrative burden and cost on the
housing authority, and to lighten the burden on tenants to produce the personal
information often necessary to document income and exclusions.
Last session, the bill was reported favorably by the Housing Committee. The
legislation, H. 4544, did not advance from the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This session, the Housing Committee favorably reported the legislation once
again. The Senate version is currently before the Senate Committee on Ways and
Means and the House version is before the House Committee on Ways and Means.
CHTF has been supportive of this legislation as a way to promote innovative
strategies to manage and rehabilitate state public housing.
Legislation to coordinate new supportive housing filed by Rep. Honan and
Sen. Jehlen. In order to build supportive housing for people with disabilities, elders, or
extremely low income households, a developer must now access three separate pots of
capital, operating, and supportive service funds through multiple applications. This
consensus proposal would coordinate the process to build supportive housing by
establishing formal relationships and shared principles among the relevant state
agencies involved in the process. As mentioned above, we are delighted that the
legislature has enacted this legislation. CHTF has been supportive of this bill
throughout the process.
Legislation to dedicate energy efficiency funding for improvements in
affordable rental housing was filed by Rep. Honan and Sen. DiDomenico:
(http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st01/st01546.htm). There is a significant
capital cost to constructing or rehabilitating housing to ensure that the structures
minimize energy use. However, if the capital investment can be absorbed, the energy
savings are significant, and can reduce both the rent necessary to maintain the property
and the impact on the environment. This legislation dedicates funding to make new and
existing multifamily affordable housing more energy efficient. Last session, the House
bill was favorably advanced and was before the House Committee on Ways and Means,
but did not advance further before the end of the session. A public hearing was held
and the bill was reported favorably. Despite this progress, CHAPA is putting less
energy into this bill as the LEAN Multifamily Energy Retrofit Program is a promising
approach to fill this need and is now open to for-profit and non-profit affordable
housing owners.
Members interested in supporting or learning more about these proposals should
contact Eleanor White at [email protected] or Sean Caron at
Foreclosures and the “Stuck” Home Mortgage Market
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 16
Foreclosure issues continue to be a serious problem for both homeowners and
municipalities in Massachusetts. Foreclosure starts in Massachusetts more than doubled
in February, rising to 1,394 from 694 during the same month last year, according to the
latest (March 20, 2012) report from The Warren Group, publisher of Banker &
Tradesman. (See their full article in Appendix IV of this Report.)
After trying to decipher the impact of SJC rulings in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez and
more recently in Bevilaqua v. Rodrgiuez, the housing community is anxiously awaiting
the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Eaton v. Fannie Mae, expected soon. The
rulings in Ibanez and Bevilaqua each cast clouds on the titles of third party purchasers of
foreclosed properties where the bank conducted an invalid foreclosure. Eaton also has
broad ramifications on foreclosed property acquisition. The court will decide whether to
uphold a Superior Court decision that a lender must possess both the mortgage and the
note in order to foreclose. Possessing both the note and the mortgage is a rarity in
Massachusetts foreclosure practice, and upholding that requirement may throw thousands
of titles owned by bona fide third parties that purchased the foreclosed property into
limbo.
In the meantime, in February, 2012, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha
Coakley announced that Massachusetts had joined a settlement under which the state is
likely to receive more than $315 million, part of roughly $25 billion in relief for
distressed borrowers, states and the federal government. After many months of
negotiation, 49 state attorneys general and the federal government have reached
agreement on a historic joint state-federal settlement with the country’s five largest loan
servicers: Ally/GMAC, Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. The
settlement will provide as much as $25 billion in relief to distressed borrowers and direct
payments to states and the federal government. It is reportedly the largest multi-state
settlement since the Tobacco Settlement in 1998. The settlement provides benefits to
borrowers whose loans are owned by the settling banks as well as to many of the
borrowers whose loans they service. For a full presentation and discussion of this
settlement, go to www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com .
Also in February, the federal government announced a new refinancing program
to assist families at risk of foreclosure. Please refer to the Washington Post article of
February 1, 2012, included in Appendix IV of this Report.
We would also recommend that you take a look at Recap Advisors’ David
Smith’s interesting analysis of the foreclosure issue at www.recapadvisors.com/state-of-
the-market#42.
Further, housing advocates are seeking funding for Neighborhood Stabilization.
Since 2008, the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) has helped transform
foreclosed properties, which are negatively impacting neighborhoods and are often
magnets for vandalism and crime, into well-maintained, affordable homes for low- and
moderate-income families. Overall, CHAPA estimates that NSP funds have purchased
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 17
and rehabilitated more than 1,323 units throughout Massachusetts at an efficient cost of
$62,000 in NSP funding per unit. Unfortunately, all of the state’s NSP funds have been
obligated. Housing advocates and local leaders are seeking state funding through an
FY’12 supplemental budget appropriation, and will also seek funding from legal
settlements with foreclosing lenders.
The Expanding Opportunities Committee This committee, meeting since July of 2006, and co-chaired by Sarah Lamitie
and Jackie Cooper, was formed to explore possible diversity initiatives, both to increase
participation in CHTF by people of color and other underrepresented groups, and to
assure that programs supported by CHTF will have a positive effect on social justice and
equity issues. The committee is implementing an action agenda to enhance inclusiveness
in housing in cities and towns throughout the state. In connection with this diversity
initiative, please extend an invitation to colleagues you may know who would be
interested in joining the Task Force. They can join the CHTF at no cost by sending their
contact information to Eleanor White at [email protected].
Please refer to the CHTF website, www.tbf/chtf and review previous Quarterly
Reports for a general description of this committee, and prior initiatives of the group.
On September 23, 2011, Stephanie Pollack (Associate Research Director of the
Dukakis Center) presented to the Expanding Opportunities Committee the results of the
Center’s latest study on the impact of new public transit stations on possible
gentrification, and steps that communities can take to maintain neighborhood diversity.
The full report can be obtained from the Dukakis Center website: www.curp.neu.edu.
On November 8, 2011, Barry Bluestone presented the results of the Expanding
Opportunities statistical analysis to a gathering of fair housing advocates in Newburyport,
Massachusetts. The statistical report demonstrated that an increase in minority residency
in Massachusetts communities has had no adverse effect on home values, household
income, crime rates, or education spending.
As previously reported, the Expanding Opportunities Committee held two
“Welcoming Communities” Conferences at the Boston Private Bank. The forums met
with great success.
The ideas explored at the Welcoming events have the potential to result in the
creation of an extremely useful (and user-friendly) interactive website. The Committee’s
goal is to create a website that will offer the resource guide and other helpful information,
and also an online discussion forum to facilitate the sharing of ideas, successes and
challenges of communities engaged in this effort. The Committee would work closely
with Tim Gassert, the Boston Foundation webmaster, to provide content/updates to
content, etc. We believe that this could develop into an extremely valuable resource for
increasing the level of “welcome-ability” of communities throughout the state. We also
hope that the website would prove to be a valuable resource for families searching for
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 18
welcoming communities in which to settle, both those households already in
Massachusetts and those moving to the Commonwealth from other states.
The committee will be discussing the website, the possibility of a 2012
Welcoming Communities Forum and other action items, and will establish a regular
quarterly schedule at its next meeting in April. If you would like more information about
the Welcoming Communities event or the upcoming meeting, please contact Sarah
Lamitie at [email protected].
All are welcome to join the Expanding Opportunities Committee; please send
your contact information to both Barbara Shea, (formerly Barbara McDonald—note
change of name) committee member, at [email protected] and Maura Fogarty at the
Boston Foundation, at [email protected] . Only those who have signed up for this
committee will receive notices of future meetings. Comments about the agenda for the
EO Committee should be addressed to Sarah Lamitie and Jacqueline Cooper, the co-
chairs of the Committee. They can be reached at [email protected]
(Sarah) and [email protected] (Jackie) respectively. Thanks to both Jackie and
Sarah for their leadership of this effort, and to Boston Private Bank for providing the
regular meeting space for this committee.
The Public Housing Committee
CHTF has lent strong advocacy support to the effort to significantly increase
funding for state-assisted public housing development and management over the last
year. Although current levels of funding are higher than at any point in almost 20 years,
they are clearly inadequate to support either the needs of low-income households or of
aging public housing buildings. Public housing programs represent the most efficient
and effective means of providing housing for low-income people, and include traditional
public housing as well as demand-side voucher programs and major redevelopment
efforts. This committee will continue to identify programs and legislation that could
benefit from CHTF support and will bring new program initiatives forward to CHTF.
Charles Eisenberg, an affordable housing consultant with extensive experience
with public housing, and Jim Stockard, currently Curator of the Loeb Fellowship
Program at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, are serving as co-chairs of this
CHTF committee. As with all CHTF committees, membership is open to all. We
particularly invite local public housing authority staff and board members, and members
of community-based nonprofit organizations, to consider participating in this committee.
Please refer to the last several CHTF Quarterly Reports for a comprehensive
discussion of the issues currently being addressed by this committee, and see detailed
descriptions of funding for public housing programs in the Programmatic Developments,
Funding and State Legislation sections earlier in this report. We were also pleased to
note the allocation of $52 million in HUD funding for the improvement and preservation
of the public housing stock in Massachusetts. (See a full discussion of this funding in a
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 19
Banker and Tradesman article of February 13, 2012, included in Appendix III of this
Report.)
The Public Housing Committee met on February 27, 2012. Due in no small part to
the current focus on the Chelsea Housing Authority and the subsequent creation of the
Governor’s Commission for Public Housing Reform, a number of additional housing
authority Executive Directors have joined the Committee and attended the meeting.
Lizbeth Heyer, a Committee member and the Associate Director of Public Housing and
Rental Assistance at the MA Department of Housing and Community Development
(DHCD) also joined the group. Refer to Appendix III of this Report for an excellent
summary of the Governor’s Commission on January 25, 2012, from MA NAHRO
(National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials).
The discussion at the February meeting covered many areas involving State
public housing and continued for several hours. Issues ranged from regionalization of the
public housing delivery system, to the regulatory structure imposed by MGL 121 B, and
the financial struggles faced by housing authorities across the Commonwealth. In the end
the members present decided that the Public Housing Committee should try to develop a
set of recommendations to send to CHTF leadership so that they might be forwarded to
the Governor’s Commission.
To accomplish this within a relatively short time-frame, three sub-committees
were established. The Regionalization Committee, chaired by Patrick Dober of the
Brookline Housing Authority, will deal with the question of whether and how to achieve
financial and operating efficiencies by consolidating smaller authorities (or at least some
of their functions) into regional bodies, without eliminating local participation. The
Regulations Committee, chaired by Colleen Doherty of the Taunton Housing Authority,
was established to study ways to reform the currently regulatory structure which was
universally acknowledged to be cumbersome, confusing and prone to resulting in
unintended consequences. Finally, the Resources Committee, chaired by Jim Stockard
of the Cambridge Housing Authority and Harvard University, will examine the realities
of chronic underfunding of operating and capital budgets in an attempt to identify other
sources of potential savings or revenue through policy changes or other initiatives.
Through CHTF, the Public Housing Committee hopes to serve both as a forum for
debate and discussion as well as a resource and incubator for new ideas and policies for
consideration by the Governor’s Commission. This is a critical time for public housing in
Massachusetts and the members are pleased to be of assistance. We are very grateful for
the participation of the new members, the sub-committee chairs, and for the personal
participation of Lizbeth Heyer of DHCD.
CHTF members interested in signing up for this committee and receiving notices
of future meetings can reach Charles Eisenberg at 617-901-3378 or
[email protected] , and Jim Stockard at (617) 495-5988 or
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 20
[email protected] . Many thanks to Nixon Peabody for providing the meeting
space for this committee.
Work with the Urban Land Institute Housing and Economic Development Council
Eleanor White and Ted Carman have represented CHTF in a series of meetings
and communications with the local district council of the Urban Land Institute,
particularly with the newly-renamed Housing and Economic Development (H and ED)
Council (formerly the Public/Private Partnership (“P3”) Committee), chaired by Nancy
Ludwig, President of ICON architecture, and co-chair, Bert Rodiger of Schochet
Associates.
This multi-disciplinary group is intended to build on the membership of for-profit
housing developers, multi-family lenders & investors, CDC’s, public officials, and
housing design and construction firms, and will be topically focused around the creation,
development and financing of multi-family housing and economic development. Council
meetings will be held bi-monthly with guest speakers, and sub-committees will meet on
the alternate months. The H & ED Council will continue to work on initiatives and
pursue strategic alliances that can effect change on a regional basis:
Ted Carman continues to provide information to assist the Administration and
the Legislature in considering an increase in the annual amount of the State Historic Tax
Credit (currently capped at $50 million) and to prioritize a portion of State Historic Tax
credits towards Gateway Cities to help spur development in economically-challenged
communities. A bill was filed by Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral of New Bedford (House
2987) to increase funding for the program to $100 million and provide forward funding
(i.e. assurance of full funding) of 10% of the total allocation for projects located in
Gateway Cities. A hearing on the bill was held on October 6, 2011. There was broad
support for the proposal. Ted has developed a cost-benefit analysis showing the impact of
the program on the State’s economy. ULI Members of the H& ED Council have given
input and helped vet the assumptions and costs, and Ted is seeking input from other
NGOs who might partner with ULI Boston in this effort. Ted presented a further revision
at the H and ED Council’s January meeting, and made a presentation to the Gateway
Cities Joint (House and Senate) Caucus on January 31, 2012 at the Statehouse. Additional
work has been done to further refine the cost benefit analysis and to strengthen the
credibility of the assumptions used. Preservation Mass is coordinating efforts to have
additional funding for the State Historic Tax Credits contained in the 2012 budget of the
House and Senate.
Stephanie Wasser confirmed that ULI Boston has received a grant from Target
to help launch a Mayors’ Forum, initially aimed at Gateway Cities’ mayors. The goal is
to provide a non-partisan environment where mayors determine the agenda, and can share
and discuss common challenges and successes in land use and economic development.
The program will be launched in April, 2012.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 21
The ULI Housing & Economic Development Council meets approximately six
times each year, usually on the second Wednesday of the month. A meeting was held on
January 11, 2012, with Secretary Bialecki as the guest speaker, and another on February
29, 2012.
The next meeting of the ULI Boston H&ED Council will be April 10, 2012 from
8:00AM-9:30AM at the offices of Edwards Wildman Palmer, LLP, 111 Huntington
Avenue, 20th Floor. (Note change of location for this meeting.) The speakers will be
Joseph Lieber of Klein Hornig, who represented the Jamaica Plain NDC and Boston
Health Care for the Homeless Program in their application and permitting process for a
residential/medical facility in Jamaica Plain, and Art Kreiger of Anderson & Kreiger,
who represented them in the litigation opposing the project. They will address the
practical, political and legal issues involved in successfully permitting and defending an
urban renewal project like this one, even in the face of vigorous neighborhood
opposition.
CHTF members who may wish to attend a meeting of this Council and contribute
to its efforts should get in touch with the current council Chair, Nancy Ludwig, at
[email protected], or Co-chair, Bert Rodiger at [email protected].
Litigation Involving Chapter 40R We are not aware of any current litigation involving policy issues relating to
Chapter 40R at this time. CHTF members are welcome to bring any such litigation to our
attention. Please contact the Chair of the Legal Committee (and co-Chair of the CHTF)
Larry DiCara at [email protected] .
Working with the Local, State, and Federal Administrations
We begin this section on a terribly sad note, offering condolences from CHTF to
the family and friends of Lowell Richards, III on his sudden and unexpected death in
February, 2012. Lowell was a great friend over many years to many members of CHTF,
was an active and very helpful member of CHTF, and will be sorely missed. His
obituary from the Boston Globe of February 7, 2012 can be found in Appendix V.
As mentioned in the last CHTF Quarterly Report, CHTF member Aaron
Gornstein, Executive Director of CHAPA, was appointed by Secretary of Housing and
Economic Development Greg Bialecki on December 22, 2011 as Undersecretary of the
Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Aaron
succeeds Tina Brooks, who resigned the position some months ago. Aaron has, as
expected after a highly-successful 20-year tenure as Executive Director of CHAPA, hit
the ground running, and we anticipate that he will prove to be one of the outstanding
leaders of DHCD, of which there have been many.
With its usual efficiency and excellent outcome, as we go to press,
Susan Schlesinger, Board President and Karen Wiener, Acting Executive Director of
CHAPA, have just announced the appointment of a successor to Aaron Gornstein.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 22
CHAPA conducted a wide search and several rounds of interviews with a reportedly
outstanding group of candidates for this position. Brenda Clement, an experienced and
much-honored housing professional—most recently Executive Director of the Housing
Action Coalition of Rhode Island, a statewide advocacy organization—begins her work
as the new Executive Director of CHAPA on April 16, 2012. CHTF welcomes Brenda
and stands ready to provide any assistance and support that may be helpful in her new
position, which is one of the most important positions relating to advocacy for affordable
housing in the United States. We look forward to continuing the close partnership with
CHAPA that has been a hallmark of CHTF since its inception. (Disclosure: Eleanor
White is a long-time CHAPA Board member and a former President of the Board, and
CHTF membership includes many active members, board members and past and present
officers of CHAPA.) A copy of the Banker & Tradesman story on March 20, 2012 about
this appointment can be found in Appendix V to this Report.
Many members of CHTF have provided advice and guidance (both formally and
informally) to the staff of Governor Deval Patrick, Secretary of Housing and Economic
Development Greg Bialecki, and new Undersecretary Aaron Gornstein. We have been
encouraged by Governor Patrick’s support of both 40R and 40S and the smart growth and
affordable housing concepts underlying these initiatives, as well as his demonstrated
support for increased funding for affordability, and his statements in support of retaining
Chapter 40B. Clearly the state fiscal situation is still difficult, and we appreciate all
efforts to prioritize affordable housing.
As mentioned earlier in this Report, The Commonwealth Housing Task Force sent
letters in early March to key administration and legislative leaders urging appropriate
funding for Chapters 40R and 40S, and Ted Carman and Barry Bluestone have met
with various Administration officials to make the case in person.
As previously reported, Eleanor White represented the CHTF in a series of
meetings of the Governor’s Zoning Reform Task Force, and CHTF has been represented
in a series of Stakeholders’ Meetings with the Secretary for Elder Affairs of the
Commonwealth, Ann Hartstein. The Elderly Stakeholders’ group includes
representation from more than 20 organizations and coalitions dealing with issues
affecting older adults in Massachusetts. The most recent meeting of the group was held
on February 23, 2012.
The Coalition for Senior Housing, an advocacy group co-chaired by Mark
Hinderlie of HEARTH and Sean Caron of CHAPA and made up of representatives of
sixteen organizations involved in advocacy for seniors—of which Eleanor White is a
founding member—in December released a letter to the Governor, commenting on
budget issues facing seniors in the Commonwealth. See the full text of the letter of
December 14, 2011 in Appendix III of this Report. The Coalition also released a letter to
the Governor advocating for an increase in funding for fuel assistance (see that letter of
February 13, 2012 also in Appendix III), and we are very pleased to report that the
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 23
requested fuel assistance funding was included in the Supplemental Budget and approved
by the Governor on February 17, 2012.
Barry Bluestone continues to serve as a member of Governor Patrick’s
Economic Development Strategy Council which, under legislative directive, is tasked
with coming up with a full-scale strategic plan for economic development in the
Commonwealth by the Spring of 2012. Barry serves on the full committee along with
membership on two of its seven subcommittees. Among the final recommendations of
the Council will likely be streamlined permitting that should allow not only expedited
review of commercial and industrial developments, but affordable housing developments
as well.
Barry Bluestone has also been appointed to the “kitchen cabinet” of Jay
Gonzalez, Secretary of Administration and Finance of the Commonwealth. Among its
various responsibilities, the “cabinet”, which meets regularly with the Secretary, is tasked
with coming up with ideas that can be used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
government programs. Based on the success of Chapter 40R, Barry has been suggesting
in these kitchen cabinet meetings that the Commonwealth should consider tying a portion
of future local aid to a set of incentives for local action on economic development
initiatives.
Barry Bluestone also helped establish the Governor’s Advanced Manufacturing
Task Force, which is charged with providing the Governor and the legislature with
recommendations for ways to help encourage the growth of manufacturing in the
Commonwealth and assure it a well-trained workforce well into the future.
Expansion of the Task Force and the Search for Resources
We have been gratified again this Quarter with requests from new people to
participate in the Task Force, especially those interested in diversity initiatives, public
housing and historic tax credits. As mentioned above, we are particularly interested in
increasing our representation of people of color on our email list, and in their active
participation in committees and plenary meetings. As covered in the section on the
Public Housing Committee, we have been very pleased to see a major expansion of
membership in that committee, particularly by executive directors of local housing
authorities across Massachusetts, and look forward to their active engagement in CHTF.
The Boston Foundation, under the leadership of Paul Grogan and Mary Jo
Meisner, continues to play the critical role of both convener and a major funder of the
Commonwealth Housing Task Force. Finally, a committee of the Task Force, under the
leadership of Paul Grogan and Mary Jo Meisner, continues the effort to raise the
resources necessary to support the ongoing work as outlined above. Many thanks to the
Boston Foundation, which continues to be our major financial supporter, to allow CHTF
work to go forward without interruption. In June of last year, the Boston Foundation
Board voted support for CHTF for the following three years. We are particularly grateful
for their ongoing confidence in CHTF and for their support during these difficult
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 24
economic times. The staff is investigating other institutional sources of support, which
are scarce, and financial contributions from the business community and individuals are
always most appreciated.
Also thank you to all of the CHTF participants for your continued enthusiasm
and participation. Please send updates to your contact information to
[email protected]. We welcome comments and suggestions. You can
continue to reach Eleanor White at Housing Partners, Inc. (617-965-1065 before 4PM
Boston time or [email protected]); Barry Bluestone at the Northeastern
Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy (617-373-8595 or [email protected]) ;
and Ted Carman at Concord Square Planning and Development (617-482-1997 or
[email protected]). Please note that email messages about CHTF will often
be coming from Maura Fogarty at The Boston Foundation ([email protected]).
Respectfully submitted: Eleanor White, Barry Bluestone, Ted Carman
April, 2012
(APPENDICES FOLLOW)
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 25
NOTES TO APPENDICES
As we have provided increasing amounts of source documents in the Appendices,
we thought it would be helpful to point you to the various sections. This should make it
easier for you to find specific documents that you may want to review in their full and
original context.
Appendix Starts on Page
Appendix I: Progress of Chapter 40R 26
Appendix II: The Housing Market 32
Appendix III: Programmatic Developments/ 46
Budget Issues
Appendix IV: Foreclosures/
Spreading the Word about 40R 64
Appendix V: Working with Others 71
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 26
Appendix I to CHTF Quarterly Report March 30, 2012
Update of Progress under Chapter 40R: Smart Growth Zoning
and Housing Production Act The current housing market in Massachusetts appears to be stabilizing, with rents
increasing. Nonetheless, housing markets are just beginning to show more vigor, and it will be
months before the return of what we formerly considered normal--and even that will depend on
the country avoiding a double dip recession. New home construction continues to be far below its
past levels. In this environment, communities across Massachusetts continued to explore the
adoption of Chapter 40R smart growth zoning districts during this period. As was the original
intent of Chapter 40R, these districts and the expedited as-of-right permitting process they
offer will make it possible to increase production rapidly once the economy and housing
market strengthen, thus providing the opportunity for housing supply to keep up with demand
when market conditions warrant.
Other states—notably Connecticut and New Jersey—have also taken notice of the results
that 40R has produced. Specific information has been provided in previous Quarterly Reports.
As detailed in this Appendix, more than 50 cities and towns in the Commonwealth have
either passed Chapter 40R districts, or are in some stage of consideration. The map in this
Appendix shows these municipalities, their district status, and data regarding their districts.
Many thanks to Ted Carman of Concord Square Planning & Development, and DHCD for the
preparation of this information.
Since 2006, in Massachusetts the towns of Belmont, Grafton, Lunenburg, Norwood,
North Reading, Plymouth, Dartmouth, Lakeville, Natick, Amesbury, Kingston, Lynnfield, North
Andover, Reading (two districts), Bridgewater, Easton, Westfield, Marblehead (two districts),
Sharon, and the cities of Boston, Brockton, Chelsea, Chicopee, Easthampton, Haverhill, Holyoke,
Lawrence, Lowell, Northampton, Fitchburg, and Pittsfield have all successfully had Chapter 40R
applications approved by DHCD and have passed Chapter 40R districts. Among them, these 31
localities have provided zoning as-of-right for over 12,350 units of housing, at least 20 percent
of which will be affordable to households earning less than 80% of the area median income.
Within the 40R Districts, 1,394 building permits have already been issued. And we believe that
an additional 879 residential units have received Plan Approval from the permit granting
authority, but have not yet applied for building permits due to other permitting (MEPA) and
market conditions.
More municipalities are actively exploring 40R. In addition to those having passed
districts, Andover has received a 40R Letter of Eligibility from DHCD, with one district totaling
254 Future Zoned Units. The vote on the district is being held in abeyance while various issues
with relocation of the DPD are explored. The Town of Weymouth is currently not proceeding
with a proposed 40R district under consideration there. That district was proposed to have a total
of 38 housing units. At least five localities have applied for or received state Priority
Development Fund planning grants to pursue 40R zoning, including: Amesbury (a second
district), Dennis, Ludlow-Southampton (combined), and Norfolk.
Although not all the news is rosy these days, progress continues on 40R; with the
economic problems facing both municipalities and property owners, four towns that had been
considering using 40R have recently decided to abandon their efforts at least for the time being.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 27
Attleboro and Holden have discontinued their preliminary investigations, Rockland is moving
forward without 40R, and Weymouth has voted 40R down.
On the bright side, we are seeing movement in project construction, with Easthampton
granting local approval for the conversion of an old mill building into 50 affordable units (project
is now awaiting tax credits), Easton’s 40R developer is activating the MEPA process,
construction has started on Pittsfield Silk Mill project, Reading is currently reviewing a site plan
for 200 units in their Gateway District (with construction expected very soon) and a developer in
Reading’s Downtown District has begun construction for 56 units.
Regarding the Silk Mill project in Pittsfield, developer Jon Rudzinski of Rees-Larkin
Development of Boston said that he would not have been interested in renovating the former mill
property into 45 housing units if the Chapter 40R zoning had not been in place. “That was the
single reason I was interested in this building” said Rudzinski.
We are aware of interest in Chapter 40R (or additional districts under 40R) in 16 other
cities and towns, including: Amesbury, Attleboro, Concord, Dennis, Holden, Ludlow, Medway,
Nantucket, New Bedford, Newburyport, Norfolk, Northbridge, Rockland, Southampton, Walpole,
and Waltham. Other cities and towns and local groups have expressed preliminary interest in the
program. In addition, we have observed that developers – both nonprofit and for-profit – are
starting to explore the use of Chapter 40R in partnership with localities now that the economy is
beginning to show signs of revival. 40R continues to be regularly featured in conferences and
seminars for real estate professionals.
However, it should be noted that the fact that the funding for the program is in serious
question has dramatically reduced the appetite for taking on the difficult task of pursuing a 40R
District. At this time, no proponent can assure the leadership in a community that if the 40R
District is passed the community will actually receive the state funds promised by the program.
This has been a major factor in the decision of some communities to withdraw or proceed in
another direction.
It is noteworthy that, with only three exceptions, every locally approved 40R district that
has been brought to a vote has received the required approval of 2/3 of the local governing body.
This includes votes in smaller communities such as Lynnfield and Kingston in which 40R bylaws
allowing significant growth were approved at Town Meetings with the largest attendance on
record. We attribute this to the positive nature of the collaborative local process required to
develop the 40R plan and most particularly the local municipality’s right to develop their own
design standards. It appears that because so much input and cooperation is required locally to
develop the district proposal, by the time the question is put to a vote, most stakeholders in the
city or town have contributed ideas to the plan and are supportive of the concept.
We also ask that you please let CHTF staff know where you have heard of particular
interest in learning more about Chapters 40R and 40S (or where you believe that Chapter 40R
would be especially beneficial to a city or town), and we will respond with outreach to those
localities. Just send a message to [email protected] and we will follow up with the
locality to offer support as may be needed. It will be helpful if you include the name of a contact
person in the city or town with phone number and email address, but if you cannot provide that,
just send the name of the city or town.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 28
Many of the 16 communities that are currently in the planning stages for 40R districts
have not yet determined or estimated the number of Future Zoned Units, and it is possible that the
total number will increase dramatically in the coming years. It is also true, however, that the
weakened economy has had and will likely continue to have an impact on the degree to which
communities will focus on this program in the year ahead.
With the affirmation in 2010 of the state’s affordable housing program under Chapter
40B, the interest level in Chapter 40R is likely to be strong. Increasing funding to local
communities to pursue smart growth districts is the prudent way to provide a “relief valve” for
communities facing Chapter 40B developments that are inappropriate for the location based on
local comprehensive planning, site conditions, etc. Please refer to the map below, provided by
DHCD, showing the distribution of 40R localities throughout the Commonwealth. We are
particularly gratified that interest is being expressed by cities and towns of all sizes and types.
Note: Updated through March 26, 2012 Source: DHCD
Our conversations with Regional Planning Agencies and others who regularly
provide technical assistance to municipalities indicate that many more of them are now
expressing interest in 40R. Unfortunately, we are also aware of a number of localities
that, after careful consideration of 40R adoption, decided against pursuing a 40R District
because of local leaders’ concern about the long-term stability of the funding source for
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 29
40R and 40S. We are working to assure that a stable funding source is available to
support the program’s continued success in the future. In that connection, see the article
immediately following.
Commonwealth Magazine re: Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund
December 22, 2011
Commonwealth Magazine
Back Story
December 22, 2011 Smart growth funds running out
The account that funds the state’s smart growth law is running out of cash, raising the prospect that the state’s first major effort at using incentives to promote housing construction could grind to a halt before it really gets rolling.
Less than $1.4 million remains in the state’s Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund, which pays municipalities bonuses for approving and building dense housing developments. Budgeted payments over the next few months will further deplete the fund, leaving just $177,000 left in the account.
“I hope the commonwealth would honor its own legislation,” says Barry Bluestone, an economist at Northeastern University’s Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy. “We’re starting to get some real results. Housing is finally going up, even in this weak economy, and with a very strong market for rental housing, I’m hoping we’ll see a lot more.”
The smart growth trust fund finances Chapter 40R, the state development statute that was enacted in 2004 to promote dense, transit-oriented development. Under Chapter 40R, municipalities designate smart growth development areas, pre-zoning them for dense housing or mixed-use construction. The trust fund pays cash bonuses, based on the number of units approved in each
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 30
smart growth district. Payments range from $10,000, for allowing the construction of 20 new housing units, to $600,000 for approving more than 500 units. In addition, the trust fund pays out $3,000-per-unit density bonuses when developers break ground on construction projects in 40R districts.
Chapter 40R is an incentive-based alternative to Chapter 40B, the affordable housing law that allows developers to bypass local zoning in communities with a paucity of affordable housing. Chapter 40B projects often put municipalities in a reactive stance, responding to housing projects developers put on the table. By contrast, Chapter 40R allows municipalities to proactively identify and zone growth districts.
To date, the state has approved 33 Chapter 40R districts in 31 municipalities. Those municipalities have built or begun construction on 1,270 housing units, with an additional 1,275 units expected to break ground over the next six months, and 9,000 pre-zoned units remaining in the development pipeline. The Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund has paid out $14 million connected to this development activity. Grants range from a $10,000 payment to support a project in Belmont to $1.7 million for the revitalization of Haverhill’s downtown.
The dwindling trust fund balance throws Chapter 40R’s future into doubt. There isn’t enough money in the fund to meet density bonus commitments to every municipality that has created a smart growth district, and the smart growth program becomes less attractive to municipalities without financial incentives.
“It would be incredibly challenging to pitch 40R without the incentive package,” says Jennifer Raitt, chief housing planner at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Raitt says Chapter 40R is attractive to cities and towns as a zoning overlay district, but one of the program’s chief selling points has been the availability of grants that help offset development impacts on local budgets.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 31
Bluestone says the trust fund is “about more than just 40R or affordable housing.” When the Legislature was fashioning Chapter 40R, he says, municipalities were worried that the state would fail to follow through on the statute’s financial incentives. Policymakers are now considering incentive-based programs to shape a range of municipal behavior, from budget management to regionalization.
“It would be a terrible thing to now have one of the first [incentive] programs remain unfunded,” Bluestone argues. “It would be a signal to communities that if the state develops analogous programs, the state cannot be trusted.”
The trust fund has seen its balance diminish because there’s no steady revenue stream to support it. Currently, the fund is backed by surplus land sales. Rep. Kevin Honan, co-chair of the Legislature’s housing committee, has filed a bill that would replenish the trust fund by dedicating a portion of the income taxes paid by residents of Chapter 40R districts. The bill’s legislative prospects are unclear.
“At the time, taking revenue from the sale of state land struck me as a short-term solution,” says Doug Foy, the Romney administration official who spearheaded Chapter 40R’s creation. “The advantage to having communities embrace zoning reform is, it saves everyone a lot of money. You save on transportation and sewer infrastructure, kids are able to walk to school, housing is more affordable. The benefits dwarf incentive costs, so it would be a pity if they were allowed to fall apart.”
PAUL MCMORROW
MassINC 18 Tremont Street Suite 1120 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 US
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 32
APPENDIX II: CHTF Quarterly Report March 30, 2012
Articles about the Housing Market
Banker &Tradesman: January 2, 2012
Survey about the Housing Market—See Next Page
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 33
II. Banker & Tradesman: January 2, 2012
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 34
Commercial Interests
Two Steps Forward, One Step Back Why 2012 Will Make For Interesting Theater, But Produce Modest Gains
By Scott Van Voorhis, Banker & Tradesman Columnist
Last year at this time I predicted 2011 would be “the year of the big rebound.” So much for bold
predictions.
Instead, 2011 turned into another “we survived” year full of hapless Congressional
brinksmanship, Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street insanity, and fears the economy would slide
back into recession.
But as we head into 2012, the economy – especially here in the Bay State – is slowly but surely
moving into growth mode.
It’s no boom out there, but hiring is picking up, home prices are starting to stabilize, and we are
looking at a pretty sizeable wave of apartment construction headed our way as well.
Challenges remain, with the possibility of a Eurozone meltdown particularly disconcerting.
But at the very least, 2012 is shaping up to be another year of forward progress, even if it is likely
to be another one of those two-steps- forward-and-one-back years that we have seen so much of
lately.
Here’s my list of the biggest stories, locally and nationally, to keep an eye on – or, in some cases,
to blissfully ignore.
Casino gambling meets local politics: After years of debate, Las Vegas-style wagering, as least
in theory, is finally legal here in Massachusetts. But getting something built in Massachusetts as
large and as contentious as a casino is going to be no walk in the park, no matter how many
billions various and sundry Las Vegas moguls have stashed away in the bank. Look for Robert
Kraft and Steve Wynn to drop their casino plans after failing to win over Foxborough voters,
leaving Caesars-based Suffolk Downs with the lucrative Eastern Massachusetts casino license.
Home sales and prices stabilize: At least here in Massachusetts, it looks like the double-dip in
prices and sales is finally over. The last few months heading into 2012 have seen sales steadily
pick up across the state and prices begin to slowly firm up. Meanwhile, in elite markets like
Cambridge, Weston and Sherborn, prices will just keep rising.
Apartment construction soars – but so do rents: Developers are rushing out there to build new
apartments, both in Downtown Boston and in the suburbs. But it won’t be enough to keep up with
years of pent up demand, which will drive double digit rent increases in 2012.
The office market revives as the jobless rate falls: At 7 percent, the Massachusetts
unemployment rate is well below the national average of 8.6 percent. Look for our local rate to
fall below 7 percent and possibly all the way down to 6 percent, a tightening of the labor market
that could drive office rents and soak up empty space. New construction should pick up,
especially for lab and retail projects, along the Cambridge/128 corridor.
More big power outages: Better start praying hard for a mild winter. The disastrously slow
response by the region’s top power companies left hundreds of thousands of homeowners and
businesses without power for a week this fall. Twice.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 35
There’s a crisis brewing here – years of neglected maintenance combined with a growing bean-
counter culture at the top of our local utilities – that doesn’t bode well for keeping the lights on
during stormy weather. And while the utilities are clearly starting to feel the sting of public
outrage, it may take another round of epic outages in 2012 for this situation to hit bottom.
The presidential election comes and goes. And the economy shrugs: Yes, politicians and
policy makers do have an impact on the economy – look at the near disaster that happened this
summer with the showdown over the national debt. And on the other end of the spectrum, Federal
Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has shown he’s got a steady hand, which has been enough so
far to keep another Depression at bay.
But count me as a skeptic on pledges by presidents and presidential candidates to light a fire
under the economy. The idea that a Republican president is going to usher in some boom is about
as a foolish as the half-baked fear that President Barack Obama is about to unveil some sort of
grand socialist takeover. Don’t get me wrong, the 2012 presidential campaign should be great
theater – but I wouldn’t be making any major business plans one way or another based on the
outcome. And ditto for that other big race, Scott Brown versus Elizabeth Warren. Fun to watch,
but don’t bet the house on it.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 36
II. Banker & Tradesman: January 30, 2012
Say Goodbye to Short-Lived Buyers’ Market
Many Expect Local Home Prices To Bump Along The Bottom This Year. But Not
Everyone.
By Scott Van Voorhis
Banker & Tradesman Columnist
Here’s betting on a V-shaped recovery for home prices here in Massachusetts.
Despite a now years-long real estate downturn that has shattered housing markets nationwide, we
still have some of the highest home prices in the country. And it appears our lofty prices, after a
breather of sorts, are poised to take off yet again.
A number of upscale suburbs gained pricing altitude during an otherwise grim 2011, according to
data obtained from The Warren Group, publisher of Banker & Tradesman.
Predicting that anything will rise in the real estate market these days is unfashionable, of course,
unless it is foreclosures or short sales. And the conventional wisdom says prices will stabilize and
bump around the bottom for several years, just like the 1990s, before starting to get traction.
But as one Wall Street wag once noted, history does indeed repeat itself, just never in the same
way.
No ’90s Re-Run
There are a couple big reasons why we are not likely to see a repeat of the ’90s, when home
prices flatlined for several years after the erstwhile Massachusetts Miracle went bust.
The Great Recession was truly traumatic, no matter where in this country you rode it out.
But arguably, Massachusetts took a harder hit in the early 1990s, when a relatively shallow
national recession hit New England with the force of a mini Depression.
The unemployment rate soared above 8 percent in 1991 and stayed in that territory through 1993.
And our bevy of regional, Boston-based banks – since largely scooped up in mergers – suddenly
buckled under the weight of rash condo and office buildings loans doled out like candy during the
boom years of the 1980s.
It took years for lenders to dig out and the local economy to get on its feet, years in which home
prices, which crashed around the same time as the regional economy, skidded around the bottom.
By contrast, the jobless rate in Massachusetts today is now down to 6.8 percent – and falling fast.
And while the early 1990s saw a painful contraction in the local defense industry, our current
stable of leading industries – biotech, high-tech and health care – are bright spots nationally.
There is a second big difference, too.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 37
Back in the 19’90s, we had a significant amount of new homes and condos to burn off after a
surge in residential construction in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
As it turned out, the 1980s appear increasingly to have been a last hurrah for local home builders,
a time when tens of thousands of new homes were built across Massachusetts. While new
construction has bumped up here and there over the past two decades, it has consistently fallen
short of what’s needed to replenish an aging housing stock.
From 1960 to 1975, the size of the Greater Boston housing market rose by 27 percent, according
to a report from Harvard’s Rappaport Institute. But from 1990 to 2006, the local housing market
expanded by a relatively paltry 9 percent.
Nor, like many other states, do we have a mountain of foreclosures to work through.
Sales of bank-owned properties accounted for just 3.8 percent of the single-family market last
year in Massachusetts, according to The Warren Group, compared to a third or more in many
hard-hit Sunbelt states.
Bargain Hunting
The 1990s were bad years for sellers – I remember my parents taking a bath trying to unload my
childhood home in Norfolk. But frankly, it wasn’t so bad for homebuyers who found themselves
increasingly locked out of the market as real estate prices soared during the sunnier 1980s.
However, given the relatively robust local economy, and years of anemic building levels, buyers
may not get the same kind of breather this time around. Already price pressure is building up in
some upscale suburbs, with some towns posting significant gains in 2011.
Newton, Concord, Lexington, Dover, Sherborn, Weston, Wayland, Sudbury and Acton all saw
home prices rise tom some degree in 2011 – ranging from 1 percent in Lexington to more than 13
percent in Dover.
And bidding wars are even erupting in less affluent suburbs like Natick, where Brendan Cavalier
and his wife Emily lost out in a bidding war for a 1950s colonial that eventually fetched
$450,000.
“I haven’t seen a bargain in months - no house has hit the market that’s made me drop everything
and run out there to go see it,” Cavalier said. “It’s all fixer-uppers, interior decoration trapped in
the 1970s, houses built into hillsides, bizarre additions and renovations, crowded lots with
neighbors on top of them.”
And unfortunately for buyers like Cavalier, the price escalation machine may already be kicking
in once again, especially in always pricey Greater Boston.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 38
II. Center for Housing Policy Report: February, 2012
A new study by the Center for Housing Policy confirms that falling home prices have not solved the housing affordability problems of the nation's working households. In fact, the Center's Housing Landscape 2012 report found that the share of working households paying more than half their income for housing rose significantly between 2008 and 2010 for both renters and owners. This annual report explores the latest Census data from 2008 to 2010 on housing costs and income, including housing cost burden data from the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Among other conclusions, Housing Landscape 2012 finds that nearly one in four working households in the U.S. spends more than half of total income on housing. Housing cost burden for working households grew over the two-year period studied largely due to falling incomes and rising rental housing costs. Report author Laura Williams says rents rose due to increased demand for rental housing which has outstripped supply, partly due to the crisis on the homeownership side of the market. "More and more people are interested in renting," Williams remarked. "Some prefer it because it allows them to be more mobile in a tough job market. Others are postponing purchasing a home or facing difficulties obtaining a mortgage. Given the long lead times involved in responding to increased demand with increased supply, the rental market has tightened somewhat and rents increased." For working homeowners over the same two-year period, incomes slid more than twice as much as housing costs. In fact, incomes for working homeowners fell even more sharply than they did for working renters. Jeffrey Lubell, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Housing Policy, said this phenomenon was primarily due to a drop in average hours worked among moderate-income homeowners. "The data show that homeowners have been hit hard by the housing crisis in more ways than just lost equity," Lubell explained. "Many working homeowners have been laid off or had their hours cut." Additionally, the housing costs of most working homeowners are still tied to homes bought before the sharp drop in home prices and thus do not reflect today's lower home purchase prices. "Most of today's homeowners bought their homes at a time when housing prices were much higher than they are today," Lubell continued. "As a result, their housing costs have not declined nearly as much as you would expect from looking at the broader market declines in home sale prices."
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 39
Read the Housing Landscape 2012 report Key National Findings
Nearly one in four working households spends more than half of its income on housing. The share of working households with a severe housing cost burden increased significantly between 2008 and 2010, rising from 21.8 percent to 23.6 percent.
Despite falling home prices and values, housing affordability worsened for working homeowners. Median housing costs for working homeowners declined modestly between 2008 and 2010. Meanwhile, the incomes of working homeowners declined even more, driven in large part by a decrease in the median number of hours worked per week between 2008 and 2010.
Working renters fared even worse, with both increased rents and decreased incomes between 2008 and 2010. While incomes increased somewhat between 2009 and 2010, over the two-year period renters saw a four percent decline in household income. The housing costs of renters rose over the two-year period by four percent.
State and Local Findings Between 2008 and 2010, the share of working households with a severe housing cost burden increased significantly in 24 states and decreased significantly in only one state: Maine. Eight other states that saw no significant increase in the percentage of such households already had steadily high rates of severe housing cost burden. Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the following five had the highest share of working households with a severe housing cost burden in 2010: California 34% Florida 33% New Jersey 32% Hawaii 30% Nevada 29% Among the 50 largest metropolitan areas, the following five metropolitan areas had the highest share of working households with a severe housing cost burden in 2010: Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 43% Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 38% San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 37% Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 35% New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 35% A closer look at the data reveals that the share of working households with a severe housing cost burden increased significantly over the two years studied in 19 of the 50 largest metropolitan areas, yet decreased significantly only in the Riverside, Calif., area. Of these 19 metro areas, 13 are located in the South and two more are in California. Overall, the level of severe housing cost burden among working households displayed a high level of variation at the metropolitan level. Levels ranged from a high of 43 percent in the Miami area to a low of 15 percent in Pittsburgh. Methodology
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 40
This report is based on Center for Housing Policy tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data collected by the U .S. Census Bureau in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Estimates in this report were generated by the Center using Public-Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) population and housing files made publicly available by the Census Bureau. Each file includes roughly 40 percent of the full ACS sample for its respective year, resulting in over 3 million records in each population file and over 1.2 million records in each housing file.The Center for Housing Policy analyzed these data to develop national, state, and metropolitan area estimates of working households with severe housing cost burdens. Notes: For purposes of this report, "working households" are defined as those with a household income of no more than 120 percent of the area median income in which the household members worked an average of at least 20 hours per week for the preceding 12 months. "Severe housing cost burden" is defined as monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 50 percent of household income. Acknowledgements The Center for Housing Policy gratefully acknowledges the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for this work. Any opinions or conclusions expressed, however, are those of the authors alone. Learn more about the National Housing Conference and its research affiliate the Center for Housing Policy. For the latest information on housing policy, please visit: HousingPolicy.org | Foreclosure-Response.org | Online Discussion Forum | Open House Blog
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 41
II. The Boston Globe: January 26, 2012
In tight local market, no relief for renters, apartment hunters
By Jenifer B. McKim
Globe Staff
Rents in the Boston area hit record highs in the last quarter of 2011, pushed up by
increased demand and declining inventory, maintaining the region’s reputation as one of
the country’s most expensive places to live.
Average asking rents in Greater Boston
Average monthly rents in the metropolitan Boston area, loosely defined as within
Interstate 495, jumped to $1,686 between October and December, compared with $1,649 during
the same period the previous year and $1,600 in 2009.
At the same time, the vacancy rate dropped to a nine-year low of 4 percent in the fourth
quarter, according to new data from Reis Inc., a New York company that tracks commercial real
estate.
Nationally, Boston rents ranked fifth highest, after New York City, San Francisco,
Westchester County in New York, and Fairfield County in Connecticut, according to Reis.
Locally, rental prices have been climbing for almost two years, despite a slumbering housing
market. Many people have chosen to stay in apartments rather than buy during the downturn,
while others have been forced to rent because of unemployment or uncertainty about their job
status, housing analysts say. Even with a recent burst in construction of rental housing,
economists expect monthly rents to keep increasing for several years.
“It shows there is strength in one side of the Boston housing market,’’ said Eric S.
Belsky, managing director of Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, of the rising
prices. “Boston is a desirable place to live.’’
While the increases can benefit landlords, contractors, and the overall economy, they are
causing hardship for those trying to keep up with the cost of living in the Boston area, housing
advocates say. More families are struggling to pay their rents and cover other household expenses
as federal assistance dollars shrink, while students and young professionals - many on their own
for the first time - are finding fewer rental properties to choose from at higher prices.
“My listing volume is a third of what it was two years ago,’’ said Linda Patton, assistant
director of off-campus housing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. “It’s
beginning to scare me.’’
Marie Thompson, 21, a Massachusetts College of Art and Design student, is well aware
of the challenge she faces. She and three roommates want to move into a four-bedroom apartment
in May or June, and are willing to pay up to $3,000 a month. Even at that price, Thompson said,
the selection has been slim. She hopes that will change in coming weeks.
“I would hope to be able to stay in Boston,’’ Thompson said. “There’s much more
opportunities and exciting things going on.’’
Rents and housing prices do not always follow the same path, but the current gap - rents
way up, home values still down - is dramatic, housing analysts say. In the Boston area, years of
rapidly ascending home values peaked in late 2005. By March 2009, they had tumbled about 20
percent, before beginning to bounce along what many perceive to be a pricing bottom. Home
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 42
values are now about 16 percent less than they were in 2005, according the S&P/Case-Shiller
Home Price Indices, which track national real estate data.
Rents climbed less dramatically than home prices, rising through the third quarter of 2008
before being slammed by the country’s financial crisis. Monthly averages topped out at $1,659
that year, and then fell through mid 2010, when they started going up again, according to Reis.
Since the state’s housing price peak in late 2005, average monthly rents in the area have risen
about 12.5 percent, Reis said.
Barry Bluestone, dean of the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern
University, said government officials, universities, and developers need to work together to
produce more affordable rental housing.
“Just at the time when people’s incomes are stagnating, rents continue to rise,’’ he said.
Bluestone said it is becoming more expensive to rent because many people lost their homes to
foreclosure and others are shying away from buying a house out of fear values will erode even
further, or they cannot get approved for a mortgage. Also, he said, the city’s graduate-school
population keeps expanding and there are not enough new apartments to keep pace. All of that
adds up to more people hunting for apartments.
There are some signs that the shortage could ease. Developers, drawn by the prospect of
healthy profits in the rental market, are stepping up apartment construction. In Boston alone,
developers broke ground for 1,912 housing units last year, the largest number since 2006, said
Sheila Dillon, the city’s housing adviser. Dillon said 418 of the new units are considered
affordable.
“We have been hard at work approving new rental projects,’’ Dillon said. “People want
to live here. We need to make sure we are building affordable housing.’’
Eric Rosengren, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, said recently that the federal
government should help developers convert large groups of foreclosed homes into rental
properties as a way to cut rents and improve blighted neighborhoods.
“There is this oddity, we have rents going up and all these vacant homes,’’ he said during
a meeting with Globe reporters and editors.
Meanwhile, many landlords already are signing leases with tenants for Sept. 1, the city’s
traditional change-over date, said Ishay Grinberg, president of Rental Beast Inc., a Massachusetts
rental service company based in Somerville. Grinberg said that about 25 percent of inventory in
the downtown market will be available by the end of February and prospective tenants will get
better deals the earlier they sign a lease. More apartments in parts of Brookline, Cambridge, and
some Boston suburbs will become available in April and May, he said.
“They either have to start earlier or pay through the nose,’’ Grinberg said of people on
the hunt for an apartment or rental house.
Jenifer B. McKim can be reached at [email protected].
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 43
II. The Boston Globe: February 25, 2012
A steep roof over their heads
Housing is taking bigger bite of income
By Jenifer B. McKim
Globe Staff / February 25, 2012
Nearly a quarter of working households in Massachusetts and across the United States
spend more than half their income on housing, according to a study released yesterday by the
Washington, D.C.-based Center for Housing Policy.
More than 231,000 Massachusetts households, or 24 percent of working families,
suffered from a “severe housing cost burden’’ of spending more than 50 percent of their income
on housing in 2010, up from 22 percent in 2009, according to the center, which based its analysis
on recent census data.
Nationwide, the percentage of working households that spent more than half their income
on housing grew to 23.6 percent in 2010, up from 22.8 percent in 2009, the study said.
The report emphasizes what many working people know firsthand: They are increasingly
struggling to keep a roof over their heads and cover other expenses. The task is even harder for
many tenants, who have seen rents rise despite the sluggish economy and high unemployment
rate, the report said.
“In Greater Boston we are seeing huge challenges in rents rising at the same time that
incomes are stagnating,’’ said Sean Caron, director of public policy at the Boston-based
affordable housing nonprofit, Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association. “Working people are
struggling.’’
Housing specialists generally agree that people should not spend more than 30 percent of
their household income on housing, Caron said. “The fact that one in four is spending more than
50 percent is troubling,’’ he said.
Indeed, homeowners in general are doing better than tenants. The report found that nearly
22 percent of working homeowners were paying more than 50 percent of their income toward
housing while almost 26 percent of renters were doing so. The report defines working households
as those who work at least 20 hours a week and earn no more than 120 percent of the area median
income.
Even many homeowners have seen a decline in affordability because of a drop in
incomes, said Jeffrey Lubell, executive director of the housing center. Incomes for working
homeowners fell more steeply than incomes for working tenants, dropping about 5 percent
between 2008 and 2010, the report said. Also many homeowners purchased their properties at
higher prices and do not benefit from a drop in values.
“Homeowners have been hit hard by the housing crisis in more ways than just lost
equity,’’ said Lubell. “Many working homeowners have been laid off or had their hours cut.’’
If there is good news to be found in the report it is that despite the relatively high cost of housing
in Massachusetts, local residents do not appear to be more burdened, on average, by housing costs
than the rest of the nation, the report shows.
The four states with the largest share of households with high housing costs - 30 percent
or above - are California, Florida, New Jersey, and Hawaii, the center said.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 44
Barry Bluestone, dean of the School of Public Policy & Urban Affairs at Northeastern University,
said Massachusetts residents also generally have higher incomes than workers around the
country. Unemployment also is lower than the national average. “Right now we are doing
significantly better than the rest of the country,’’ Bluestone said.
At the same time, Bluestone agrees that tenants are the hardest hit. Nationwide, the
median income for renter households dropped by 4 percent between 2008 and 2010 while housing
costs rose by the same amount, the report said.
“The real problem in Greater Boston is low-income people are overwhelmingly renters
and have seen no decline in rents,’’ he said. “The poor have been very badly hit by this great
recession.’’
Clark Ziegler, executive director of the public nonprofit Massachusetts Housing
Partnership, said the state needs to expand its affordable housing to remain competitive in
drawing workers from out of state. “Even with the drop in housing prices, we are still a very
expensive state,’’ he said.
Jenifer B. McKim can be reached at [email protected].
© Copyright 2012 Globe Newspaper Company.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 45
II. Banker & Tradesman: March 28, 2012
Mass. Home Sales Rise Again In February
Condo Sales, Prices Increase Last Month The Warren Group
The Warren Group CEO Timothy M. Warren Jr. said three factors contributed to the spike in
home prices.
A total of 2,350 single-family homes sold in Massachusetts last month, the highest sales volume
for the month of February in five years, according to a recent report by The Warren Group,
publisher of Banker & Tradesman.
February home sales rose 33 percent statewide - an increase from 1,765 sales in February 2011.
This is the largest sales volume recorded during the month since 2007, when there were 2,628
transactions. The 33 percent gain represents the sharpest increase in year-over-year sales volume
since May 2010 when sales rose almost 35 percent. This is the second consecutive month that
sales are on the upswing.
So far this year, single-family home sales are up 15.8 percent from a year ago. Statewide, a total
of 4,764 transactions were completed in the first two months in the year, up from 4,114 during the
same period in 2011.
"Sales volume has increased in seven of the past eight months. This rebound in the market is
starting to look pretty solid," said Timothy M. Warren Jr., CEO of The Warren Group. "The mild
winter weather certainly helped, but it's not the only factor boosting sales. Lower unemployment
rates, low mortgage rates and attractive pricing are fueling a gradual recovery."
The median price for a single-family home dropped almost 3 percent last month to $245,000 from
$252,500 in February 2011. The year-to-date median home price is down about 4 percent -
dropping to $250,000 from $260,250 last year.
"It's typical to see sales volume pick up before prices rebound again," Warren said. "Until sellers
start to see a flood of interested buyers at open houses, prices will remain depressed."
February condominium sales also increased last month. There were 892 condo sales in February,
up almost 18 percent from 757 sales during the same month last year. Year-to-date condo sales
also rose 5.3 percent to 1,789 from 1,699 last year.
The median price for condos sold statewide in February increased 4.7 percent to $235,535 from
$225,000 during the same month last year.
The median selling price for condos sold in January and February was $240,000, a 1.3 percent
increase from the $236,900 median price recorded a year ago.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 46
Appendix III: CHTF Quarterly Report March 30, 2012
Programmatic Developments and Budget Issues
CHAPA “Welcome Home” Initiative
Welcome Home Massachusetts – Endorsers- Be sure your name is
included… November 28, 2011
Dear Affordable Housing Supporter,
It is just a year since the resounding victory for affordable housing in Massachusetts when voters
defeated the repeal of the state’s affordable housing law, known as Chapter 40B. CHAPA, in conjunction
with its coalition partners, is pleased to launch a three year campaign, Welcome Home Massachusetts, with
the goal of increasing affordable housing throughout the state. The Welcome Home Massachusetts
campaign has three components:
Communications and messaging – a statewide messaging and media initiative
to highlight the increasing need for affordable housing;
Education and information – the development of new tools, including a
website and an online guide, highlighting how to build local support and
implement local housing strategies; and
Community Support – technical assistance to as many as 15 diverse
community based groups across the state to support their outreach efforts.
You are receiving this email because you were included in the most diverse coalition to come
together in support of affordable housing in the state – over 1700 leaders representing business, civic, faith
based, academic, human rights, municipal, elected representatives at the local and state levels and housing
interests joined together in support of affordable housing. It is exactly this broad based coalition that will
make Welcome Home Massachusetts successful in achieving its goals. We welcome your continued
support as we move toward a website launch in early 2012. Please confirm that we may include you in
our list of endorsers by replying to this email. Once you have responded, you will receive updated
communications from the Welcome Home Massachusetts campaign.
After reading the Welcome Home Massachusetts campaign proposal (next page), should you have
any questions or comments, please contact Carol Marine at [email protected] or 617-742-0820.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 47
III. CHAPA Welcome Home Campaign Fact Sheet
As of February, 2012
The Welcome Home Massachusetts campaign emerged from clearly affirmed grassroots support for access to affordable housing throughout the Commonwealth. Since 2010 there has been a strong desire on the part of housing advocates, civic and business leaders, religious institutions across all faiths, service organizations, municipal and elected officials and others to continue to build popular support for affordable housing. In response, Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA) is launching Welcome Home Massachusetts. Over the course of three years, Welcome Home Massachusetts will: (1) increase the amount of affordable housing in urban, suburban and rural communities, and (2) provide support to local groups so they can advance affordable housing initiatives in their communities. The concept for Welcome Home Massachusetts emerged from 14 community meetings across the state, attended by over 300 people. Participants determined the best way to advance affordable housing at the local level is through an organized, statewide campaign. The campaign will be overseen by a diverse steering committee representing key stakeholders. Welcome Home Massachusetts will focus on three primary strategies: Communications and Messaging: Based on focus groups and polling, the campaign will develop a statewide messaging and media campaign highlighting the need for affordable housing. Written and online materials will be made available and tailored to build local support among municipal officials, town meeting members, civic leaders, and local media. Resources such as the “faces and places” of affordable housing and the connection between affordable housing and a vibrant economy will be created. A statewide “call to action” will elevate awareness of affordable housing needs and solutions in every city and town. Education and Information: At our community meetings, participants voiced a strong need for clear information about housing tools. The Welcome Home web site, set to launch this spring, will feature an extensive online guide to implementing local housing strategies. The online guide will highlight the housing development process, how to build local support, zoning options, and funding opportunities. Other features of the web site will include fact sheets on the importance of affordable housing; photos and descriptions of exemplary developments; connections to an active statewide network of supporters (including use of social media); links to localized housing and census data for every municipality; updates on local activities and meetings; and a directory of local housing committees and trusts.
Accomplishments…
Over 350 individuals and
organizations have
endorsed the Welcome
Home Massachusetts
campaign to create more
affordable housing!
Endorsers include housing
advocates, civic and
business leaders, faith
based organizations,
service providers,
municipal employees, low
income tenants and
homeowners, elected
officials, and others.
Watch for the launch of
the Welcome Home
Massachusetts website
this spring!
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 48
Local Support: The campaign will add capacity to community-based groups that will champion affordable housing at the local level. If funding allows, the steering committee will select several communities across the state to receive in-depth assistance in order to achieve local affordable housing goals. Assistance may include funding a local organizer, assisting with a media strategy, or developing educational materials. We will evaluate the progress of these local campaigns to determine what strategies have been most successful. Beyond the target communities, we will make resources available on-line and will provide limited technical assistance to others seeking to advance affordable housing. For more information, please contact Carol Marine at CHAPA - [email protected] or 617-742-0820.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 49
III. Banker & Tradesman: January 9, 2012
Gathering Together
MetroWest Towns Trading Individual Priorities for Regional Needs
How a Group Of Planners Is Getting 37 Communities On Board With
One Vision
By Jim Cronin, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
To see a full listing of sites identified by the compact, click here.
The task seems downright Herculean: Get representatives and residents from 37
MetroWest municipalities to agree on the area’s highest priority development and
preservation projects, potentially placing the good of the region over the wants of its
towns and cities.
But that’s the effort undertaken by the 495/MetroWest Partnership, along with the
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the state Office of Housing and Economic
Development and other public and private entities.
They call it the 495/MetroWest Development Compact. Much of the compact’s efforts
have been focused on identifying areas where transportation and utility infrastructure
already exist. That way, local agencies and planning boards can help push forward
projects or development sites that don’t require millions of dollars the state doesn’t have
just to lay the groundwork.
“This should create a road map of development locations that municipal government is
on board with, what are thought to be regional priorities, and that the state is on board
with … and will encourage,” said Paul Matthews, 495/MetroWest Partnership Executive
Director.
The group started with a list of several hundred priority sites for development and
preservation across the 37 municipalities, stretching from Worcester and Westford to
Plainville and Natick. They have winnowed that list to 91 sites, evaluating them on
criteria including whether they have access to municipal water sources and the fragility of
their environments, said George Preble, a principal with Beals and Thomas, an
environmental and engineering consulting firm with offices in Southborough and
Plymouth.
“For the first time, we’ve really developed an understanding of what the priorities for
development and preservation need to look at for the entire [Interstate] 495 region,”
Preble told Banker & Tradesman.
One priority in particular is job growth. The Partnership performed a critical analysis of
the region and identified “a very strong band of job growth” between Worcester and
Natick around the Route 9 corridor that could prove to be a focus for potential
development. Preserving historically important commercial sites is also a priority,
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 50
including the Pullman Street Industrial Park in Worcester, the Golden Triangle retail
district in Framingham, and the former HP and Fidelity properties in Marlborough.
“If a municipality has clear priorities and has done studies, they will be very well
positioned to get help from the state to get things started,” Matthews said. “I would guess
that the former Fidelity and HP campuses … are in the top echelon for locations ready to
go for new tenants.”
Now, the group is working on modeling to see how feasible sites are from a
transportation standpoint. They want to answer questions like, “if certain locations were
developed, what are the implications for the region’s transportation network?” The
compact will then present its findings to state planning agencies, which are developing
their own list of priority sites in the region, Matthews said.
Creating Homes
“This is not some sort of state blueprint that’s being slapped down over the region,” he
continued. “It’s more of a roadmap … to show the interrelationship of land use and
development and the issues before them, issues of land preservation, transportation,
aquifer recharge, active use of sewers and wells.”
With the anticipation of job growth in the region, a consideration of particular importance
is workforce housing, said Kevin McLaughlin, a partner with Arlington-based Oxbow
Partners, a developer of mostly affordable or mixed-income housing. Since the firm does
not currently have any projects underway in the area, McLaughlin said he is positioned to
help decide what types of housing are most appropriate for a given area, like larger
apartment buildings versus a town square or village feel.
While areas along the Mass Pike and I-495 are ideal for their proximity to transportation
and major highways, there are farther flung areas – like Maynard, for example – that have
existing septic and other infrastructure needed for large-scale housing that help drive
down the costs of new development.
“But when you identify an area like that, you have the challenge of things like
transportation to and from Maynard Center,” which is a couple towns away from major
highways, McLaughlin said.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 51
III. Results of DHCD Rental Funding Round October, 2011
Source: CHAPA 10-17-11
2011-1 AWARDED
Project Name City Sponsor
4% LIHTC (Fed)
9% LIHTC (Fed)
SLIHTC (State)
Total DHCD
Subsidy Aff
Units Total Units
30% AMI
Jobs Created
McCarthy Village II ACTON
Acton Housing Authority 0 0 0 1,230,000 12 12 6 28
Capitol Square Apartments ARLINGTON
Housing Corporation of Arlington 241,233 0 0 2,165,000 32 32 3 25
Holcroft Park Homes – Phase 2 BEVERLY
YMCA of North Shore/North Shore CDC 0 558,350 267,890 2,900,000 29 29 3 47
Monserrat Affordable Housing BEVERLY
Beverly Housing Authority 0 0 0 500,000 5 5 5 12
Condor Havre BOSTON
East Boston Community Development Corporation 0 0 0 945,000 7 7 7 11
Family House Shelter BOSTON
Roxbury Multi-Service 0 0 0 231,272 22 22 22 2
LBB Housing BOSTON
Lena Park Community Development Corporation 657,589 0 0 3,500,000 96 103 11 65
Mattapan Heights Phase 5A BOSTON
Trinity Financial 770,649 0 2,860,000 3,500,000 60 60 18 162
Parcel 24 – Affordable Rental Apartments – Phase I BOSTON
Asian Community Development Corporation 0 1,125,000 600,000 3,215,371 50 50 16 123
Parcel 24 Affordable Rental BOSTON
Asian Community Development 0 1,012,500 445,000 3,220,327 45 45 15 111
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 52
Apartments – Phase II
Corporation
Quincy Heights I & II BOSTON
Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation 1,985,000 0 0 1,500,000 129 129 13 260
Spencer House II BOSTON
Rogerson Communities 0 0 0 2,849,000 37 37 19 72
Wayne at Blue Hill BOSTON
Cruz Development 0 755,998 100,000 535,523 48 48 5 45
Temple Place CAMBRIDGE
Cambridge Affordable Housing Corporation 0 752,300 0 2,450,000 42 42 7 102
Ames Privilege – Unit 1 CHICOPEE HallKeen 0 0 0 1,000,000 27 94 0 21
Ames Privilege – Unit 2 CHICOPEE HallKeen 0 362,498 519,600 0 20 40 4 53
Conifer Hill Commons Phase I DANVERS
Kavanagh Advisory Group 0 813,176 0 1,550,000 48 48 5 75
Home Together GLOUCESTER Action Inc. 0 0 0 575,145 4 4 0 9
57 Main LEE
Berkshire Housing Development Corporation 0 0 0 1,820,000 16 16 3 15
Tritown Landing – Phase II LUNENBURG
Great Bridge Properties 0 439,475 0 1,465,000 33 33 4 37
Breezy Acres Expansion MASHPEE
Housing Assistance Corporation 0 0 0 937,418 10 10 3 22
Allen Street Apartments
NEW BEDFORD
Community Action for Better Housing 0 0 0 1,625,818 12 12 8 16
75 Cross Street SOMERVILLE
Somerville Community Corporation 0 0 0 1,000,000 8 8 8 12
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 53
Saint Polycarp Village Phase III SOMERVILLE
Somerville Community Corporation 0 619,550 0 2,259,000 31 31 5 55
Concord Heights SPRINGFIELD
First Resource Development Company 0 1,000,000 909,400 2,350,000 104 104 11 107
Tapley Court SPRINGFIELD
Better Homes 0 0 0 1,950,000 30 30 8 16
Austin Corridor II WORCESTER
Worcester Common Ground Inc 0 338,050 0 2,169,153 20 20 5 38
Total Awarded 3,654,471 7,776,897 5,701,890 47,443,027 977 1,071 214 1,539
###
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 54
III. Banker & Tradesman: February 20, 2012
Opening The Door
Bay State’s First 40T Project Finds Home in Cambridge Despite Being Two Years Old, Untested 40T Finds Early Success
By Colleen M. Sullivan
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
The state’s newest affordable housing law – Chapter 40T, passed in 2009 – recently
chalked up its first victory, helping to preserve 25 affordable units in a 50-unit apartment
building in the heart of Harvard Square in Cambridge.
The statute has several provisions aimed at giving tenants of affordable housing plenty of
notice and resources if their landlord decides to pursue conversion of the property to
market rate.
Perhaps the most important – from a development perspective – is a provision in the bill
giving the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)
the right of first refusal when a building with affordable units comes up for sale. DHCD
doesn’t aim to buy the properties outright; instead it has a pre-approved list of affordable
housing developers with whom it works to help acquire and manage the property.
Despite the fact that the law is more than two years old, the tight, slow, declining market
has largely kept multi-family owners on the sidelines and state pocketbooks firmly
buttoned – leaving untested a law many owners regarded warily, fearing state
involvement could only delay a sale.
“A lot of the sellers were unsure [about the law]. They love to have a free hand when
they want to sell their property,” said Peter Daly, executive director of Homeowners
Rehab Inc., a Cambridge affordable housing developer brought in by DHCD for the
Harvard Square project, located at 122 Mt. Auburn St. “I think sellers were anxious about
the 40T legislation – would it work, and would it work with the timetable that they need.”
But this first 40T deal proves the statute can be used in a way that meet seller’s
expectations, Daly said.
“It was a deal that was fair to all sides, and we had the resources held in reserve to help
the buyer perform,” he told Banker & Tradesman.
‘A Foot In The Door’
It certainly didn’t hurt that the project was in Cambridge, a community with a long-time
commitment to affordable housing preservation – 80 percent of the city’s federal
Community Protection Act grant funds are dedicated to that goal, according to the city.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 55
“The unified purpose of the Cambridge City Council was always to protect and preserve
affordable housing in the city of Cambridge,” said Cambridge City Manager Robert
Healy.
The deal required an $8.1 million acquisition loan from Community Economic
Development Assistance Corp. (CEDAC), a quasi-public finance agency which aims to
help community groups fund economic development projects. CEDAC created a
dedicated $150 million loan pool and a list of expiring-use projects to help make non-
profits and community development corporations aware of potential 40T sites in their
area.
“The law is very strict in terms of the timeframes that DHCD and its designee are
allowed to complete a complex purchase transaction,” said Roger Herzog, executive
director of CEDAC. “CEDAC has the ability to move very quickly to meet those
constraints.”
According to Herzog, the Harvard Square project was first put on the market in April
2011, at which time DHCD notified the sellers in of their interest. HRI was designated in
May, and by December they had acquired the property.
This first implementation of the program has attracted watchful eyes from around the
country, with representatives from national affordable housing network Neighborworks, a
partner of HRI, attending a recent ceremony held to mark the successful deal.
Affordable housing advocates said they hope it will prove a model for future acquisitions.
The bill “gave us a foot in the door...and that’s what we needed to move forward.
Without 40T, I’m not sure this project would have been preserved,” said Daly.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 56
III. MA Budget and Policy Center “First Look” at Governor’s Budget 1-25-12
HOUSING
The Governor's Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 budget changes how the state provides shelter
and housing to low-income homeless families. It shifts funding away from shelter
and other services provided through the Emergency Assistance (EA) program and
dedicates more state resources for affordable housing.
Some of these changes include:
Cutting $18.4 million from the Emergency Assistance (EA) program (from
$118.8 in FY 2012 million to $100.4 million in FY 2013). This reflects a
change in the structure of the program, which is providing shelter and services to a smaller number of people.
The FY 2012 General Appropriations Act (GAA) reorganized how shelter and
services are provided to homeless families by shifting funding away from the
Emergency Assistance (EA) program and into a new, short term housing
assistance program called Home Base. The Governor's FY 2013 budget
proposes additional changes to EA. Currently, most low-income families living
at or below 115 percent of poverty, who previously received shelter through
EA are now eligible to get help from Home Base to secure permanent housing.
EA is generally limited to families who have lost housing due to domestic
violence, fire or other natural disaster or whose head of household is under
21. If, however, families are unable to find housing immediately through
Home Base they are currently allowed to receive temporary shelter through
EA. In his FY 2013 budget for EA, the Governor proposes providing shelter for
a maximum of 8 months, serving only a limited population of homeless
families similar to those in current law, and no longer allowing families who cannot find permanent housing through Home Base to stay in EA shelters.
Increasing funding for Home Base, the short term housing assistance
program, by $25.4 million above FY 2012
Increasing funding for the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) by
$10.0 million above the amount appropriated in FY 2012
Providing $8.8 million for the Residential Assistance for Families in Transition
(RAFT). During FY 2010, the federal stimulus bill provided temporary funding
for a rapid rehousing program that was similar to RAFT—and so the state
shifted its funds elsewhere. Now that the federal funds have run out, the
Governor recommends restoring funding for RAFT.
Increasing funding for public housing authorities by $4 million above the FY
2012 current budget to $66.5 million. According to documents accompanying
the Governor's budget, he will also institute rules to streamline the
management of local housing authorities and create a commission to provide additional recommendations for improvement.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 57
III. Banker & Tradesman: February 13, 2012
Article re: HUD Funding for Public Housing Improvements
HUD Awards Mass. $52.2M to Improve, Preserve Public Housing Stock
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has awarded public
housing authorities in Massachusetts more than $52 million in funding that will be used
to make major large-scale improvements to public housing units.
Housing authorities from Lowell to Chicopee will benefit from the funding. To see a
complete list of Massachusetts recipients, click here.
The grants are provided through HUD's Capital Fund Program, which provides annual
funding to all public housing authorities to build, repair, renovate and/or modernize the
public housing in their communities. The funding can be used to make large-scale
improvements such as new roofs and to make energy-efficient upgrades to replace old
plumbing and electrical systems.
"This funding will help housing authorities address long-standing capital improvements,
but it only scratches the surface in addressing the deep backlog we're seeing across the
country," said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. "Today, we are closer to helping housing
authorities and our private sector partners undertake their capital needs over the long
haul. With the passage of HUD's 2012 budget, Congress gave HUD the go-ahead for a
new, comprehensive and critical demonstration tool that we believe will help preserve
and enhance America's affordable housing, including public housing."
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 58
III. MA NAHRO Summary of Governor Patrick’s Commission on
Public Housing Reform
January 25, 2012
Governor Patrick announced reforms to Local Housing Authorities today with his FY13
Budget Recommendations. Please see excerpt below. (Also available online:
http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy13h1/exec_13/hbudbrief5.htm)
FY 2013 Budget Recommendation:
Issues in Brief
Deval L. Patrick, Governor
Timothy P. Murray, Lt. Governor
In the FY 2013 budget, the Patrick-Murray Administration proposes a series of reforms to
address the governance structure, financial transparency and management of the state’s
public housing portfolio.
There are roughly 80,000 public housing units in Massachusetts, of which 50,000 are state
funded. This public housing is the largest source of affordable housing for extremely
low-income residents across the state. Many of the units are more than 60 years old. The
combination of age and a lack of investment by prior Administrations has left much of the
portfolio at risk of being uninhabitable.
Since 2007, the Patrick-Murray Administration has invested nearly $400 M in capital
improvements to the public housing portfolio in an effort to preserve public housing for
those who need it most. The Administration has also increased operating subsidies to
help maintain housing and will propose another modest increase in this budget.
As the Administration increases funding for public housing, it is also proposing a number
of reforms to improve the management and increase efficiency and transparency of local
housing authorities to ensure that we are meeting the goal of housing for low-income
families.
Financial and Reporting Reforms
There are 242 Local Housing Authorities (LHAs) in Massachusetts. Each LHA is an
independent authority, overseen by a Board of Directors. The Board is responsible for
oversight of the finances and operations of the LHA. Most LHAs are funded by a
combination of state, federal and local funding.
The proposed reforms recognize that while the state provides funding to LHAs, it does
not directly manage or oversee the authorities’ finances. These reforms focus on
increasing transparency, setting standards in line with those of other independent
authorities and reviewing the rules and penalties for non-compliance.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 59
Enhanced Reporting and Financial Reforms
Governor Patrick will file legislation to eliminate compensation, where it exists, for LHA
board members.
Effective immediately via administrative action, the Department of Housing and
Community Development (DHCD) will:
Require LHAs with state public housing to provide DHCD with the top five
salaries of the highest-paid management staff;
Set a maximum salary for LHA Executive Directors;
Require LHA board members to certify Executive Director salaries and detailed
benefits every year when budgets are submitted. Boards also would be required to
match payroll documents to actual expenditures;
Cap annual salary increases at a level consistent with comparable municipal
employees.
Prohibit state subsidies from being utilized for Executive Directors’ buyouts that
are above and beyond what a state employee would be eligible for;
Require reports to confirm monthly meetings occur and to confirm the attendance
of board members;
Make ethics and other training in best practices from the National Association of
Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), in collaboration with DHCD,
mandatory for public housing employees and board members and required to
receive state funding;
Require more detailed auditing procedures including verifying director
compensation and salary schedule, and work with the State Auditor to review and
potentially revise their auditing process;
Require year-end Financial Certification that would require Executive Directors to
present year-end financials to their respective Boards. Boards and Executive
Directors would then jointly certify and submit statements to DHCD. Currently
LHA Executive Directors and Fee Accountants complete and submit a form to
DHCD certifying year-end financials;
Re-examine delegated Authority for Procurement to allow authority for purchases,
where they already exist, to continue to be delegated from the Board to the
Executive Director, but that purchases above certain thresholds be required to be
approved by the Board; and
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 60
Deem any LHA which does not comply with all of DHCD’s existing and enhanced
reporting requirements a LHA “Not in Good Standing” with the Department.
Make any LHA “Not in Good Standing” ineligible to receive state funding until
current on all reporting.
Review the Rules
A comprehensive review of existing regulations, contracts and agreements that help
DHCD manage the LHAs should be the final phase and should reflect all decisions and
changes made regarding the actions presented above.
Changes in Governance and Management
Governor Patrick recognizes the importance of public housing in Massachusetts and has
increased funding for public housing throughout his term. However, in light of recent
events, he believes that reforms should be considered that will improve the accountability
of housing authorities to the local, state and federal funders as well as to the residents,
including whether to regionalize or otherwise consolidate oversight into fewer separate
authorities. To this end, Governor Patrick will sign an Executive Order establishing a
Commission on Housing Authority Governance Reform. The Commission will confer
with public housing stakeholders in Massachusetts and in other states, and develop, within
60 days, recommendations to the Governor for ways to strengthen housing authority
oversight.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 61
III. Letter to Governor on Budget Issues Facing
Seniors: 12-14-11
Coalition for Senior Housing **
● 18 Tremont Street, Suite 401● Boston, MA 02108 ● (617) 742-0820
December 14, 2011
His Excellency Deval Patrick
Governor of the Commonwealth
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Governor Patrick:
The Coalition for Senior Housing is a group of organizations working together to advocate for
accessible, affordable and appropriately supported housing to enable seniors to age in the
community while maintaining the highest level of dignity and independence. We are writing to
encourage the Patrick-Murray Administration to prioritize investment in housing and services for
seniors in the FY2013 budget, including the Group Adult Foster Care Program (GAFC – included
within 4000-0600) and public housing operating subsidies (7004-9005).
Our state is aging at tremendous rates and that demographic shift creates additional demand for
affordable housing that is accessible and/or has support services. According to the Executive
Office of Elder Affairs, our population of seniors aged 65 and over will grow by 37% to over 1
million between now and 2030. Addressing this challenge will require a collaborative effort
across state government and increased investment to enable seniors to stay in community-based
housing.
Group Adult Foster Care
GAFC is a critical tool to help elders avoid or delay costly institutional living. The program is
funded by Mass Health and administered through the Executive Office of Elder Affairs (Elder
Affairs). The care and services offered are vital in assisting low income elders and persons with
disabilities to stay in the community, in assisted living and other supportive housing
environments. The program provides a variety of home and community based services that allow
elders and others to age in place with the highest level of dignity and independence. Our most
recent data shows that over 4,200 seniors and over 1,000 persons with disabilities rely on the
program for assistance. Reducing GAFC investment and cutting the program rates jeopardizes
the willingness of providers to offer this option. Furthermore, the providers that continue to offer
GAFC will not be able to offer adequate care with fewer resources.
State Public Housing Operating Support
The cost of housing is a major issue for many seniors whose incomes can not keep pace with
rising housing costs. The state public housing inventory includes 32,000 units of affordable
Coalition for Senior Housing
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 62
housing for seniors with low, fixed incomes. This inventory of affordable housing is suffering
from years of neglect. Many housing authorities are being forced to take units off-line because
they don’t have adequate resources to maintain the apartments. We support $71 million in FY’12
Public Housing Operating Subsidies to ensure that housing authorities have the resources
necessary to return vacant units to availability and improve building maintenance and services.
These two programs and many others enable thousands of seniors to be able to live in affordable
homes in their own communities. As the Commonwealth’s demographics change, we will face
serious housing challenges. It is vital that Massachusetts maintain and build the infrastructure
and programs necessary to serve existing seniors and baby boomers soon to retire with affordable
housing and services. Thank you for your leadership and support in advancing spending
proposals and policies that meets the housing and services needs of older Massachusetts residents.
Sincerely,
Mark Hinderlie Sean Caron
President and CEO, Hearth, Inc Director of Public Policy,. CHAPA
Co-Chair, Coalition for Senior Housing Co-Chair, Coalition for Senior Housing
Cc:
Jay Gonzalez, Secretary of the Executive Office for Administration and Finance
Dr. Judith Ann Bigby, Secretary of the Executive Office of Human Services
Ann Hartstein, Secretary of the Executive Office of Elder Affairs
Steve Carvalho, Acting Undersecretary, Department of Housing and Community Development
**Members of the Coalition for Senior Housing: AARP Massachusetts
B’nai B’rith Housing New England
Boston Partnership for Older Adults
CenterPoint Foundation
Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association
HEARTH
Hebrew Senior Life
Jewish Community Housing for the Elderly
Leading Age Massachusetts
MA Association of Older Americans
MA NAHRO
MA Assisted Living Facilities Association
MA Councils on Aging
MA Home Care Association
MA Senior Action Council
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 63
III. Coalition for Senior Housing: Letter Advocating for Fuel
Assistance Funding: February 13, 2012 February 13, 2012
His Excellency Deval Patrick
The State House
Boston, MA 02133
RE: Supplemental Budget Appropriations for Fuel Assistance
Dear Governor Patrick,
The mission of the Coalition for Senior Housing is to advocate for programs and initiatives that enable
seniors to live in community-based housing while maintaining the highest level of dignity and
independence.
We are writing to respectfully request your approval of $21,187,407 in state appropriations for fuel
assistance as provided in Senate Bill 2112, which was laid before you on February 9th
. As you know,
Congress cut Massachusetts LIHEAP fuel assistance funding by approximately $50 million this year. This
assistance is a critical resource for fixed-income seniors across the Commonwealth. According to 2011
Census data, 71,435 Massachusetts households aged 65 or older are living below the federal poverty line,
with an annual income below $14,710 for a household of two. For these older residents, fuel assistance
means not having to choose between turning on the heat and paying for rent, food or other basic necessities.
Thank you for your consideration and for your commitment to safe, stable housing for seniors.
Sincerely,
Sean Caron Mark Hinderlie
Director of Public Policy, CHAPA President and CEO, Hearth, Inc.
Co-Chair, Coalition for Senior Housing Co-Chair, Coalition for Senior Housing
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 64
APPENDIX IV: CHTF Quarterly Report March 30, 2012
Spreading the Word about Chapter 40R and Smart Growth
CHTF Advocacy Letter re 40R Funding
March 5, 2012
The Honorable Deval Patrick
Governor
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
State House, Room 280
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Governor Patrick:
This letter is to call your attention to the fact that there is a funding shortfall in the Smart Growth
Housing Trust Fund and seek your help in replenishing the Fund to sufficiently cover the state’s
obligations. As the leadership of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force, we believe that the
failure to address this shortfall will jeopardize the ongoing success of Smart Growth Zoning
through Chapters 40R and 40S and could also dramatically compromise other programs being
implemented by the Commonwealth to stimulate economic growth in Massachusetts. The
amounts required are not large. It is anticipated that the Trust Fund may need $100,000 by the
end of this fiscal year, and could need an additional $4,000,000 next year.
To date, Chapter 40R has been responsible for new zoning in 33 communities allowing for the
construction of more than 12,000 housing units. Payments in the amount of $13,800,000 have
been made to these communities to date. More than 1,500 units have gone under construction.
As the economy continues to improve and as financing for new housing development becomes
more available, we anticipate that many more of the allowed units will begin construction over
the next few years. However, the viability of Smart Growth Zoning will be at risk if the funds are
not made available for the promised Incentive, Bonus and School Cost (Ch. 40S) Payments.
In addition, Secretary Bialecki and Secretary Gonzalez are both implementing new programs to
provide positive incentives to communities to take actions that will stimulate the state’s economic
growth. All of these efforts require a great commitment of energy and time from local
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 65
government officials, staff and the private sector. Much of this effort takes place months –
sometimes even years - before ideas even become public.
Our concern beyond the immediate need of funding 40R is that a failure to make good on the
commitments under Chapter 40R and Chapter 40S will send the signal to the private sector and to
local communities that they can’t rely on the Commonwealth to make good on its promises. This
can only have a chilling effect.
For these reasons, we urge you to work as soon as possible with the legislature to fund the Smart
Growth Housing Trust Fund sufficiently to cover the State’s obligations for Chapter 40R and the
School Cost Insurance / Reimbursement program, Chapter 40S. Your efforts on this matter are
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, and on behalf of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force leadership,
Lawrence S. Di Cara Paul S. Grogan
Partner President & CEO
Nixon Peabody The Boston Foundation
Co-Chair Convener
Eleanor White Jerry Rappaport, Jr.
President Owner
Housing Partners, Inc. New Boston Fund, Inc.
Co-Chair
Robert E. Smyth
Former President & CEO
Citizens Bank of Massachusetts
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 66
IV. CHTF Testimony re: Long-Term Funding for Chapter 40R
April 13, 2011
Testimony by Ted Carman for the Commonwealth Housing Task Force
to The Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business
10:00 am, April 13, 2011
Chair Linda Dorcena Forry for the House Chair Sal D. Domenico for the Senate
Senate, No. 75
Petition of Senator Harriette L. Chandler.
House No. 990
Petition of Representative Kevin G. Honan
Chairwoman Forry. Chairman Domenico. Members of the Committee. My name is Ted Carman. I am President of Concord Square Planning & Development, Inc. I have been working with the Commonwealth Housing Task Force (CHTF) since 2003 on Smart Growth Zoning, Chapter 40R and Chapter 40S. The CHTF is an organization made up of housing advocates in the business, real estate, education, organized labor, and medical communities, as well as many state and local officials. The Task Force is convened by the Boston Foundation. The Task Force sponsored the reports that led to 40R and 40S and has continued to provide extensive support for the implementation of Chapter 40R Districts as they have been considered throughout the State. Senate 75 and House 990 are strongly supported by the Commonwealth Housing Task Force. We believe that the passage of this bill is essential to the long term economic development prospects of the State. It is essential for the ongoing success of Smart Growth Zoning under 40R, as these comments will outline. It will provide a high degree of certainty that the financial incentives promised from the State to local communities under Chapter 40R will in fact be met, even in fiscally difficult times. Chapter 40R has resulted in over 12,000 units zoned since the first approvals in 2006. We expect that there will be a continuing increase in the number of units approved. Currently there is no mechanism to assure annual funding for the State’s obligations under Chapter 40R and 40S. This lack of certainty for funding provides a reason for communities to be hesitant about pursuing 40R. Even worse, at this time, the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund contains only $1,300,000. It is anticipated that these funds will be exhausted during this calendar year by new projects and by payments for housing units that are getting under construction. As a result, it is not possible at this time to assure communities that they will receive the funds called for under the program.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 67
This substantially reduces the incentives for the local communities to participate in the program. It dramatically increases the risk for a prospective housing developer to undertake needed zoning using Chapter 40R. So far only three communities have turned down Ch. 40R proposals – a total of 31 out of 34 proposals have received a two-thirds vote from either Town Meeting or the City Council. The housing is in smart growth locations. This approach to providing for new housing construction throughout the commonwealth is one in which divisiveness and contention have been replaced with consensus. This is a major step forward. We are also pleased to report that the Department of Housing and Community Development has continued to implement workable regulatory and administrative procedures. This amount of zoning for new housing units – over 12,000 to date – represents real success towards the goal of producing a surplus of zoned land for multifamily housing. Creating such a surplus of zoned land is an integral part of a strategy to moderate the price of housing over the next decade. Moderation in housing price increases over the next decade is an essential component in having the State be competitive in attracting new, young, professionals and blue collar workers to the State. Attracting such workers is an essential component to having a healthy, growing economy in the State. Although the last three years have seen foreclosures, home price declines, and reductions in home prices and rents, recent studies and articles by the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy – and others – strongly suggest that this dynamic is changing. For example:
1. That while housing prices in Massachusetts have gone down in the last few years they did not go down as much as in other parts of the country;
2. The housing markets are now stabilizing; 3. Apartment rents have been increasing over the last year, and market rate new
construction is now taking place 4. Massachusetts is emerging from the recession faster than other parts of the country.
The net result of the above will be to continue and worsen the competitive economic disadvantage that is experienced by Massachusetts. Consequently, it is highly important now to continue with 40R zoning proposals, so that as the markets call for more housing to be built, the zoned land will be available on which they can be built as-of-right. As stated above, currently there is no mechanism to assure annual funding for the State’s obligations under Chapter 40R and 40S. This lack of certainty for funding provides a reason for communities to be hesitant about pursuing 40R. Concord Square is currently working on or evaluating three specific projects with the potential to produce over 1,000 housing units. Each of the three projects will require new zoning. In each case, Chapter 40R, Smart Growth Zoning offers the best alternative in terms of obtaining the zoning. In each case, the cost to move through the approval process will exceed $50,000 and will exceed $100,000 in one complex case.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 68
The shortfall in funds in the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund is a major element in making a determination as to whether it makes good business sense for the developers to move forward with these projects. The incentive and bonus payments are essential in providing a strong motivation for local public officials to participate in the overall process. Absent sufficient funding the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund, it can be expected that substantially fewer proposals will be brought forward. The cost and risk are simply too high. The subject bill annually captures income tax payments from those living in 40R smart growth districts, and directs that the money be deposited temporarily in the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund. The Trust Fund will then make the required payments to communities under Ch. 40R and 40S. Annually, after reserves are retained, any balance will be returned to the General Fund. This mechanism will provide, on an ongoing basis, without specific legislative or administrative action each year, for the funds needed to fund Chapters 40R and 40S and thus will result in their becoming self-sustaining. It is important to note that this bill will not increase the costs of 40R or 40S. It will simply assure that funds will be available to make the payments when the payments are due, as required by statute. Both the Governor and the Legislature have detailed plans and strategies to encourage companies to move to Massachusetts, and to encourage companies already here to expand their employment. Success in these efforts is clearly of utmost importance to the economy of the Commonwealth. The question that should be asked is: where will the people filling these new jobs live? Unlike in many parts of the country, current housing market studies show that there are not many vacant homes or apartments in Greater Boston. The State does not have a substantial number of homes sitting vacant waiting for these new workers. Therefore, once there are more jobs, once more people – particularly young people – begin to return to Massachusetts, the predictable result will be, first: an increase in housing demand; second: absent enough zoned land, stasis with regard to production, and third: a return to double digit inflation in home prices. A damper will once again be thrown over the Massachusetts economy, setting the stage for another economic bust. Unless, that is, the current success of Chapter 40R is continued. It is clear that success in these efforts requires long term assurance of funding. For all of these reasons, the Commonwealth Housing Task Force strongly recommends that the Legislature take up and pass Senate 75 and House 990. Without a credible plan to assure communities that the long term funding of Ch. 40R and 40S will be available, and particularly if the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund is allowed to be depleted, it is highly unlikely that Chapter 40R will continue its enviable early record of success. It is not an exaggeration to say that the long term economic well-being of the Commonwealth is at stake. As always, the Commonwealth Housing Task Force stands ready to provide technical and research assistance to the Legislature in these matters.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 69
IV. Banker and Tradesman: March 20, 2012
Mass. Foreclosure Activity Jumps in February
Backlog of Cases in Pipeline Moving Forward
Foreclosure starts in Massachusetts more than doubled in February, rising to 1,394 from
694 during the same month last year, according to the latest report from The Warren
Group, publisher of Banker & Tradesman.
Foreclosures activity was significantly slower in 2011 due to several factors. A national
foreclosure suit against lenders coupled with a new law extending the right-to-cure period
to 150 days caused for a major slowdown in foreclosure activity.
Despite the significant year-over-year increase, monthly foreclosure activity was slower
than in years past. By contrast, more than 2,000 foreclosure petitions were filed in
February 2010 and 2009. Foreclosure petitions - the first step in the foreclosure process
in Massachusetts - was nearly unchanged from a month earlier when there were 1,333
starts.
"The large year-over-year increase doesn't necessarily indicate another wave of
foreclosures," said Timothy M. Warren Jr., CEO of The Warren Group. "Foreclosure
activity was nearly frozen a year ago and now they're beginning to thaw again."
In February, 736 foreclosure deeds were filed statewide, up 41 percent from 521 in
February 2011. Foreclosure deeds represent completed foreclosures. Year-to-date
foreclosure deeds also increased 33 percent. A total of 1,398 deeds have been filed so far
this year, compared to 1,050 during the same period in 2011.
Year-to-date foreclosure petitions are up 83 percent to 2,727 from 1,487 during the first
two months in 2011. The Warren Group also tracked an increase in auction
announcements in February. A total of 1,315 auctions were announced last month, a near
48 percent increase from 889 in February 2011. Year-to-date announcements totaled
2,891 - a 42 percent increase from 2,039 during the same period last year.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 70
IV. Washington Post: February 1, 2012
Obama announces new housing refinance plan
At the start of his term, Obama promised that up to 9 million homeowners at risk of foreclosure would
receive aid through a broad refinance program or a mortgage modification program run through the
Treasury Department. In the three years since then, fewer than 2 million have been helped.
“I’ll be honest — it didn’t work at the scale we’d hoped,” Obama said Wednesday. “Mortgage rates are as
low as they’ve been in half a century, and when that happens, homeowners usually flock to refinance their
mortgages. But this time, too many families haven’t been able to take advantage of the low rates.”
How the president’s refinancing plan would work
As part of his new plan, Obama also proposed encouraging borrowers who refinance their mortgages to
take on shorter-term loans and direct the savings to rebuilding equity in their homes. As an incentive, the
administration is willing to have the government pay the closing costs associated with refinancing —
usually about $3,000.
The number of borrowers who might be eligible for the program is large: 3.5 million who do not have
federally backed mortgages and 11 million who hold government-backed loans, according to administration
officials. But previous estimates suggest that just a fraction of that population would take part in the
program.
Christopher Mayer, an economics professor at Columbia who has gained attention for his mortgage
proposals, said he’s “a big fan of what the president has proposed for refinancing government-guaranteed
mortgages.. . The program really says for the first time everybody is eligible.”
But he raised concerns about the new FHA program that would refinance mortgages not already owned by
the government. “I think it is taking a lot of risk for the government, and I think taxpayers have a legitimate
question of whether they have already taken on a lot of risk,” he said.
Other steps announced Wednesday include a decision by the Treasury Department to triple incentives paid
to banks in exchange for forgiving part of the debts owed by homeowners, as well as a program run by the
Federal Housing Finance Agency to sell batches of foreclosed properties to investors, who would rent them
out. That could restart housing activity and put a floor under housing prices in struggling communities.
Staff writer Brady Dennis contributed to this article.
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 71
Appendix V: CHTF Quarterly Report March 30, 2012
Work with Other Organizations and Officials
The Boston Globe: February 7, 2012
Farewell to Lowell Richards
Lowell Richards, Boston visionary, dies
Multitalented public servant worked behind scenes
By Brian MacQuarrie | G L O B E S T A F F
F E B R U A R Y 0 7 , 2 0 1 2
Lowell Richards, 64, died Sunday in Cambridge.
Devoted, tireless, brilliant, caring.
Stunned family and colleagues are using those words to describe Lowell Richards, chief of development for the Massachusetts Port Authority, who died of a suspected heart attack Sunday in his Cambridge condominium.
Mr. Richards, who had shunned the limelight since his days as a young lieutenant of former mayor Kevin H. White, was remembered yesterday as a rare combination of public visionary and technocrat. He was 64 and had been part of the honor guard during the recent memorial services for White.
“He devoted his life to public service,’’ said David Mackey, the interim chief executive at Massport. “He was, I think, about the hardest worker I ever encountered in my professional life. He has done more for Massport on more different dimensions than anybody I can think of.’’
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 72
Mr. Richards, who was deputy mayor under White and later served as the top development official on Beacon Hill, played a key role in the airport’s modernization and the creation of the South Boston Seaport District. But that role, which involved the arcane and complicated minutiae of development deals, almost always occurred outside public view.
“I think his greatest legacy will be his behind-the-scenes ability to advance complex projects,’’ said Thomas Kinton, former chief executive of Massport, where Mr. Richards had worked since 1999. “He wasn’t a headline grabber. He was somebody who worked diligently for many, many bases that needed to be touched. He was just so good at it.’’
“The breadth of his work is incredible,’’ said Jim Rooney, executive director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority. “The major infrastructure projects that one can think about in Boston over the last quarter of a century have Lowell’s fingerprints on them some place.’’
In addition to the seaport and the airport, those projects include the Big Dig, the new Boston Convention & Exhibition Center, and the efforts to redevelop the East Boston waterfront.
“These are major, major public investments. Lowell wasn’t necessarily involved in the management of them, but in figuring out how to pay the bills,’’ Rooney said. “He really had a devoted sense of purpose about these projects and what the larger value was to the city, the Commonwealth, and the citizens.’’
His wife, Karen, said Mr. Richards, a fit man who loved skiing, had spent part of his last day working at home on Massport business. Mr. Richards had been writing job reviews and working on a possible trip to Japan to lure air connections to Boston, said his wife of 40 years.
“Lowell was always one of those people who knew what he wanted to do next,’’ Karen Richards said.
Mayor Thomas M. Menino echoed that sense of Mr. Richards’s determination.
“He built the airport to where it is today, its prominence,’’ Menino said. “The city is going to miss him, and I’m going to miss him.’’
Mr. Richards’s career in public service began with an internship at the Boston Redevelopment Authority, his wife said. After graduating from Dartmouth College in 1969 and earning a master’s in city planning from MIT in 1971, Mr. Richards studied law at Harvard while holding a full-time job at the BRA.
From 1976 to 1984, he worked at City Hall, where he rose to be deputy mayor for fiscal affairs. Micho Spring, chief of staff under White, said Mr. Richards “was committed to Boston, he was committed to public service, and he had a deep understanding of government, how it worked, and how to get things done.’’
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 73
He had a run-in with the state Ethics Commission, which determined in 1984 that Mr. Richards had violated the law by dismissing about $800 in parking tickets for the daughter of House Speaker Thomas McGee. Mr. Richards testified that each of the tickets was dismissed for a valid reason.
From 1994 to 1999, Mr. Richards served on Beacon Hill as director of debt finance and chief development officer.
Rooney, the Convention Center executive director who previously worked as deputy director of the Central Artery project, recalled that Mr. Richards toiled unfazed on the multibillion-dollar Big Dig while rival political factions assailed each other over the controversial project.
“There was a job to do, and Lowell just let the personal stuff go on while rolling up his sleeves,’’ Rooney said.
Mr. Richards brought an invaluable skill set to the table, Rooney said.
“His understanding of broader public policy objectives in a political environment, and how to be strategic about financial planning and public policy, was critical over a very long period of time,’’ Rooney said.
Peter Meade, the current BRA chief, who knew Mr. Richards for 40 years, became emotional as he described his friend.
“If you wanted to pick a perfect public servant, you’d pick Lowell,’’ Meade said. “He was incredibly bright, doggedly hard-working, a superior human being, and just a very competent guy who cared about this city and cared about this state.’’
The day before he died, Mr. Richards had participated in a forum in Chatham to share the findings of a November trip to Barcelona by the World Class Cities Partnership program, based at Northeastern University.
Michael Lake, executive director of the program, said Mr. Richards appeared in great spirits and remained “full of ideas and energy.’’
“If there’s one comfort in all of this,’’ Lake said, “it’s that Lowell lived right up until his passing. He not only lived his own life, but lived his life to serve others.’’
Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report
March 30, 2012
Page 74
V. Banker & Tradesman: March 20, 2012
CHAPA Hires New Executive Director
By Colleen M. Sullivan, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
The Citizens Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA) has hired a new executive director,
Brenda Clement. She will take over her new role on April 16.
"We had a full [search] process, advertising nationally and in New England, and she just really
rose to the top, because she has both policy experience and managerial experience, and we
needed both," said Karen Wiener, acting executive director. "CHAPA's become a larger
organization than it used to be 20 years ago, when we were primarily an advocacy organization
with three people on staff. We needed someone who could do it all, and Brenda seems qualified
for that."
Clement's predecessor, Aaron Gornstein, had served as executive director of CHAPA for over 20
years, before taking a position with Gov. Deval Patrick's administration earlier this year as
undersecretary of the Department of Housing and Community Development.
Clement currently serves as the executive director of the Housing Action Coalition of Rhode
Island, a statewide advocacy organization. Formerly, she was executive director of the Housing
Network, the Rhode Island trade association for CDCs. Clement is also a founding member of
the New England Housing Network, the regional organization initiated by CHAPA in 1995, and
serves on the Board of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
Clement is a former Fannie Mae Fellow and recipient of Bank of America's Local Hero Award
and the Channel 6 Freedom Torch Award.
