community controlled housing for ma for publishing · Community Controlled Housing for Massachusetts 7 PolicyLink/Action for Regional Equity Community Controlled Housing: Action!

Community Controlled Housing forMassachusetts:Securing Affordability for the Long Term

An Action for Regional Equity Case Statement

August 2006

Action for Regional Equity

Design: Leslie Yang

Cover photos courtesy of (from left to right): Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Development Corporation (JPNDC). D Samuel MarshPhotography, JPNDC, and JPNDC.

PolicyLink is a national nonprofit research, communications,capacity building, and advocacy organization dedicated toadvancing policies to achieve economic and social equitybased on the wisdom, voice, and experience of localconstituencies.

Action for Regional Equity (Action!) is a coalition of 20Massachusetts organizations united to advocate for economicand social equity and working to address critical developmentchallenges facing the Commonwealth.

Community Controlled Housing forMassachusetts:Securing Affordability for the Long Term

Ann L. Silverman, Community Development andManagement Consultant, Principal Author

Kalima Rose, PolicyLink, Editor

Dwayne S. Marsh, PolicyLink

All Rights Reserved.Copyright © 2006


AcknowledgmentsThe completion of this document would not have been possible withoutthe tireless efforts of the leadership team of Action for Regional Equity,and the input of many local and national housing and communitydevelopment experts. Through their active participation, they providedthoughtful guidance, analysis, and perspective, and their real worldexperience brought credibility to the findings of this report. In particular,members Kathy Brown, Tom Callahan, Aaron Gornstein, and SteveMeacham were joined by allies Mary Regan of Cambridge Eviction FreeZone and Joe Kreisberg of Massachusetts Association of CommunityDevelopment Corporations in meeting frequently to develop theprinciples that focus recommendations on nonprofit and tenant control.

Action for Regional Equity Leaders include:

Gene Benson and Penn Loh, Alternatives for Community andEnvironment (ACE)

Lyn Billman-Golemme, American Planning Association, MassachusettsChapter

Jeremy Lui and Alex Zhang, Asian Community Development Corporation

Kathy Brown, Boston Tenant Coalition

Ed Marakovitz, Chelsea Human Services Collaborative

Lydia Lowe and Alice Leung, Chinese Progressive Association

Aaron Gornstein, Citizens' Housing and Planning Association

Juan Leyton and Steve Meacham, City Life/Vida Urbana

Cindy Luppi and Brian Thurber, Clean Water Action

Lisa Clauson, Community Labor United

Carrie Russell, Conservation Law Foundation

Nancy Goodman, Environmental League of Massachusetts

Ed Becker, Essex County Greenbelt

Marvin Martin, Greater Four Corners Action Coalition

David Harris, Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston

Nadine Cohen, Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

Tom Callahan, Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance

Danny LeBlanc and Meridith Levy, Somerville Community DevelopmentCorporation

Philip Bronder-Giroux, Tri-City Community Action Program

Alex Marthews, Waltham Alliance to Create Housing (WATCH)

Former leaders who made significant contributions include:

Erica Schwarz, formerly of WATCH

Warren-Goldstein-Gelb, formerly of ACE

Contents

Introduction 7

The Housing Crisis of Massachusetts 9

Potential Actions 11

Preserving and Developing Long Term 11Affordable Housing

Funding and Encouraging Long Term 16Affordable Housing

Opportunities for Action! 20

Notes 23

Appendices 25

PolicyLink/Action for Regional Equity 6 Community Controlled Housing for Massachusetts

Massachusetts is one of the most expensive places tolive in the United States. In recent years, the stategovernment has asked each community in theCommonwealth to examine its ability to serve itslower income members, and generally to increaseproduction of housing for people at or below 80percent of median income (for Massachusetts,$60,560 for a family of four), particularly incommunities that lagged in maintaining their share ofaffordable units. But these efforts have not beenenough to reduce the housing crisis in the state.People of low, moderate, and even middle incomesare threatened by displacement every day, as thebuildings they live in are bought and converted tocondominiums or luxury rentals. Neighborhoods andcommunities that were once categorized as "workingclass" or "less desirable" are experiencing intensemarket pressures, as new transit stops and otherimprovements attract people to these communities.For people of color and new immigrants displaced bythese housing trends, discrimination adds anadditional challenge to accessing housingopportunities.

Action for Regional Equity (Action!) seeks strategiesto protect and provide affordable housing andcatalyze neighborhood improvement and economicdevelopment to benefit all members of Massachusettscommunities, now and into the foreseeable future.

This study examines the means by which long-termaffordable housing is currently being preserved inMassachusetts, and especially in Greater Boston. Ithighlights some current and past efforts to acquireunregulated or market-rate housing and land forcommunity control. Researchers spoke with morethan 25 diverse experts on affordable housingdevelopment in Massachusetts and reviewed a sampleof the available literature. It draws on experiences inother states, and identifies a range of advocacy,educational, financial, and other tools to build theinventory of community controlled housing inMassachusetts. The focus of the research was onstrategies that meet the needs of people at or below80 percent of median income ($60,560 for a family offour), with a particular interest in strategies thatachieve affordability for people at or below 50percent of median income ($37,850 for a family offour).

Action! recommends immediate efforts in threearenas to advance the creation of communitycontrolled housing.

I. Move 10,000 units of unregulated or expiring-subsidy housing into nonprofit or cooperativetenant ownership by 2015.

Research reveals growing support from advocates and

Introduction

7 PolicyLink/Action for Regional EquityCommunity Controlled Housing for Massachusetts

Community Controlled Housing: Action! has adopted the term "community controlled housing" to meanhousing that is owned by nonprofit organizations, tenants’ cooperatives, or a combination of the two. Incommunity controlled housing, affordability is ensured for the long term: developer fees and overhead arelimited; sales prices on the ownership units are restricted; and community members are involved in theownership or regulation of the housing. Action! adopted this term to encapsulate the goals of increasing thesupply of affordable housing in Massachusetts communities, ensuring that housing will remain affordable asdevelopment pressures continue to drive up real estate costs in our communities.

elected officials for nonprofit and tenant acquisitionsstrategies. This level of commitment from theCommonwealth will allow Massachusetts to competewith other states in the region and elsewhere thatoffer comparable quality of life with much greateraffordability. Numerous effective strategies aredetailed in this report that will allow the state topursue this goal aggressively. No single strategy willsolve this crisis.

II. Advance the conversion goal through a broad-based community education campaign focusedon the benefits of community controlledhousing.

Massachusetts has a history of organizing andadvocacy for community or tenant controlledhousing, but there has not been a recent broad-basedcampaign that specifically focuses on the mountingpublic need and opportunities to promote communitycontrolled housing. A larger, more coordinatedcampaign can strengthen and expand currenteffective efforts.

III. Structure support to enable tenant andnonprofit ownership.

Successful community controlled housing examplesexist in many local communities, but structures thatsupport the finance and operation of communitycontrolled housing are currently limited. Action! willwork with state and local government to structurefinancial and legal resources, and build the base ofsupporters who can effectively advance communitycontrolled housing, including residents of suchhousing, tenants at risk, and their allies.

8PolicyLink/Action for Regional Equity Community Controlled Housing for Massachusetts

High Cost. In 2004, Greater Boston had the highestcost of living of any metropolitan area. Monthlyhousing costs are one of the biggest factors (rivaledonly by child care) in a Boston family's total monthlybudget. Other parts of Massachusetts are not farbehind. Average monthly housing costs for a familyof four in the Boston, Lowell, and Brockton areasexceed monthly housing costs in New York City,Minneapolis, and Chicago.1

Massachusetts was the only state in the nation to losepopulation in 2004, particularly among those ages20–24. Housing costs are a factor in attracting andretaining employees. These costs have continued toclimb, eroding affordability for both renters andhomeowners. The Greater Boston Housing ReportCard documents that, overall, Boston area rentersfared worse in 2004 than at the "peak of themarket" in 2001. In 18 out of 20 Boston area citiesand towns, median advertised rents for two-bedroomapartments exceeded the recommended federalstandard of 30 percent of the median renter income.In the lowest income communities (Revere, Boston,and Chelsea), families earning the median renterincome had to pay 47, 50, and 54 percent of theirearnings, respectively, to afford the median advertisedrents. In eight out of 15 Boston neighborhoods,tenants earning the median renter income needed to

pay at least half of that income for the median rent.The number of communities where the median singlefamily home was affordable to a family earning thatcommunity's median household income droppedfrom 92 percent in 1998 to 17 percent in 2004.Boston area home prices increased more than 37percent between 2001 and 2004. Simply put, rentsand home prices increased faster than incomes.2

Limited Production. The Housing Report Card notesthat the slight overall housing production increases in2004 are below what is needed to bring housingcosts in line with household incomes.3 This suggeststhat the slow pace of construction in Massachusettswill most likely result in only a modest decline inoverall rents and a leveling off of housing priceappreciation.

Building permits issued in Greater Bostoncommunities increased by 12 percent overall from2003 to 2004, but more than half of those 13,556permits were for single-family homes. New single-family production is increasing at the edges of theregion, with age-restricted housing (i.e., for people 55or over) contributing significantly to that inventory.Multifamily housing production continues to beconcentrated in Boston and in the other cities in theregion.

The Housing Crisis in Massachusetts

9

2 Parents / 2 children

Boston Washington Lowell Brockton New York City San Francisco

MonthlyHousing Cost

$1266 $1187 $1102 $1086 $1075 $1539

Monthly TotalCost

$5388 $5120 $5103 $5076 $4888 $4802

Note that San Francisco's monthly housing costs exceed all, including Boston, but San Francisco's total monthly costs are lower, due toconsiderably lower childcare and tax costs. Source: Economic Policy Institute Family Budget Calculator

PolicyLink/Action for Regional EquityCommunity Controlled Housing for Massachusetts

While federal funding for housingin Massachusetts increased from1989 to 2002, it declined by nearlyfour percent from FY2004 toFY2005. Total state spending onaffordable housing remains 10percent below 2002 levels, and atroughly half of what it was in1989. While nearly 2,000affordable units were added in2004 (a six percent increase over2003), much of this productiontargets those earning 70 to 80percent of median income, failingto reach the lowest-incomehouseholds.4

Loss of affordable units. Peoplefind affordable housing inMassachusetts in subsidized andnon-subsidized units, in rental properties, inhomeownership opportunities, and in the limited poolof community controlled housing. Some affordableunits are lost when subsidies used to support thehousing expire. Advocacy and financing efforts havehelped to preserve some "expiring use" properties—sites where subsidies and affordability restrictions areending—as affordable housing. There are alsoproperties where unsubsidized rents have beenrelatively low (in some cases, with poor conditionsand "benevolent neglect" allowing for overcrowding,and fear of eviction preventing people from speakingup about habitability problems). Affordability is alsolost when owners of affordable properties takeadvantage of a rising real estate market or as elderlyowners of unsubsidized affordable units pass away.

Condominium conversion, particularly in olderproperties, is a concern in cities like Boston andCambridge. The city of Boston reports nearly 1,000two- to four- family properties converted tocondominiums from 1999 to 2004.5 Investor-ownedcondominiums have dramatically increased in recentyears in places like Boston and Cambridge, with unitsreportedly being rented out to students or youngprofessionals paying high rents. Experts interviewedfor this report hypothesize that 50 percent or more ofBoston and Cambridge condominiums are investor-owned.

Ownership Changes Trigger RentHikes and Displacement:Gardencrest, a 696-unit rentaldevelopment went up for sale inWaltham in 2001. Roughly one-third ofthe residents responded to a survey bythe nonprofit developer, WalthamAlliance to Create Housing (WATCH).The survey showed that 70 percent ofthe households had incomes below$50,000; 46 percent had incomesbelow $35,000. The average tenancywas 10 years and the average rent was$958 per month. When Gardencrest'selderly owner passed away, his childrensought a price of approximately$175,000 per unit at sale. WATCHoffered $100,000 per unit, plus the

value of a "bargain sale" in which the owners wouldclaim a percentage of the property's sales value as atax-exempt donation to the nonprofit. WATCH staffestimate that the value of their offer including the taxbreak, was closer to $117,000 per unit. The realtorchastised WATCH for effectively slowing down theprocess and quite possibly discouraging other bidderswith their organizing and purchase efforts. Theowners refused WATCH's offer. The property waseventually sold for $122,000 per unit, to a large out-of-town entity. WATCH staff report that rents rosesignificantly, vacancies increased, conditionsdeteriorated and a very cohesive community was lost.To deter the displacement, WATCH began organizinganew at Gardencrest and negotiated a cap on rentincreases of no more than five percent a year for fouryears.6

Stories of rising prices and missed opportunities raiseseveral critical questions: What is being done inMassachusetts and elsewhere to protect or recoup theloss of units through sales and removal ofrestrictions? What else can be done to preserveaffordable homes? If there is some softening in theoverall real estate market, is now a good time tocapture some of this market shift for those most inneed? Interviews conducted for this study revealed anumber of efforts to capture unregulated housingand produce affordable community controlledhousing, as summarized in the next section.


Long-Term Affordable HousingControlled by Nonprofit Interests.Wheatland Street Condominiumsinvolved the adaptive reuse andexpansion of a piano factory, andincludes eight affordable homeownershipunits ranging from one to threebedrooms. Source: Somerville CommunityDevelopment Corporation

Preserve and DevelopAffordable Housing for theLong Term

Several steps will be required to move more housinginto nonprofit and community control. It will requirerenewed cooperation of the public, private, andnonprofit sectors.

1. Organize for Affordability

Across the state, tenants have organized againstdisplacement and for affordablehousing. In the Boston area, CityLife/Vida Urbana has helpedtenants employ a collectivebargaining strategy on abuilding-by-building basis tonegotiate specific agreementswith landlords who haveproposed large rent increases. Asimilar model has been followedby several communitydevelopment corporations(CDCs). In a number of cases,CDCs worked to acquirebuildings and were outbid, butultimately helped the tenantsnegotiate caps on rent increasesfor limited time periods. Ingeneral, these agreements areproviding relief, but they aretypically short term (three to fiveyears), and do not remove the threat of futureincreases.

Successful city or neighborhood-wide campaigns canwin more resources for affordable housing, againstdisplacement, and for tenant protections. Keycomponents of strong campaigns include an ability tobring together a broad coalition of participants, andspecific agreed-upon goals (e.g., for more public landdedicated to affordable housing, protections againstunfair evictions and speculation in a strong market,and/or the ability to put together capital to makecredible offers on land acquisition).

2. Acquire Buildings and Land

Nonprofit developers in the Boston area arecompeting with private developersto acquire properties at market orclose to market prices. Lacking thedeep pockets of for-profitdevelopers, the nonprofits mustcobble together resources from arange of public and privatesources to win the purchase. Theythen hold and operateproperties,8 often with existingtenants in place, while they waitin line for the scarce permanentfinancing resources needed toredevelop the housing (mostly asrentals owned by a subsidiary ofthe nonprofit, but in some casesas limited equity cooperatives orcondominiums), to secure it forthe long term. Operating andshort-term repair issues inproperties that may not have beenwell cared for, in combination

with the cost and complexity of assembling financingfor major rehabilitation work, necessitate that these

11

Potential Actions


Collective Bargaining as anOrganizing Strategy: Steve Meacham of City Life/Vida Urbana,cites collective bargaining as an"immediate, organizing, movement-building response to the threat ofdisplacement that arises from thedemand for profit. Collective bargainingcan hold the line while other options formaintaining housing have time to takeeffect. The increase in the value of suchhousing results from public investmentsto improve neighborhoods. Communitycontrolled housing is an effective optionto ensure that communities benefit fromthat investment. Those who did thework to improve the neighborhoodshould benefit. It's a sound policyoption.”7

developers bring both expertise and an appetite forrisk, backed by some financial strength, to the table.

In the redevelopment of unregulated properties, rentsmay need to be raised to "affordable" levels (i.e., 30percent of income) that are higher than what people

were previouslypaying. Some existingtenants may not meetsubsidy or financingcriteria, and maytherefore requirerelocation andrelocation payments.In addition, obtainingpermanent financingfor preservation ofexisting housing isnot easy, with thecurrent stateadministration's clearpreference for newhousing production.Despite these barriers,nonprofit leaderssuggest that suchacquisitions can becompleted at a lowercost than newconstruction.Elements that drivesuccess in theseacquisitions include: afriendly investor, localbank, or other

funding source(s) willing to put in early funds withextremely flexible terms; existing residents who holdrental subsidies; limited renovation needs; and short-term tenancies (e.g., students paying market rentsthat help support operating costs).

Like WATCH's attempt to secure a bargain sale ofGardencrest in Waltham, others have sought toeducate sellers about bargain sales. Thesetransactions require a sophisticated owner who iswilling to examine the analysis and has the ability totake advantage of the charitable tax breaks. To date,few groups have succeeded in carrying out a bargainsale. Owners want the full cash payment. Like thelow-income housing tax credit syndication industry

that has evolved to translate tax credits into both for-profit and nonprofit housing development capital,similar advising and institutional brokering of bargainsale tax deductions could make these transactionsmore standard capital practice.

Timing and institutional ownership can play importantroles in the acquisition of buildings at below-marketrates. Through organizing at particular buildings orcommunity-wide campaigns, groups have had somesuccess in acquiring buildings for less than marketvalue. Religious institutions have sometimes beenwilling to forego market price in the sales of theirsurplus buildings. Nonprofits were able to purchaseproperties from banks and from the Resolution TrustCorporation in the 1990s, when there were largeforeclosures on investor owners. Advocates andnonprofits report success negotiating below-marketprices during that time from banks that did not wantthe negative publicity of evicting low-income tenantsor being seen as slum landlords. With another rise inforeclosures, there may be an increase inopportunities fornonprofit acquisitionof multifamilyproperties owned byinvestor owners.

An increasing numberof nonprofit, for-profit,and even publichousing developers aretaking advantage ofthe market bystructuring housingdevelopments in whichthe sale of market-rateunits helps to coverthe costs of the low-to moderate-incomeunits.9 BostonRedevelopmentAuthority's inclusionaryhousing requirementexemplifies this (inother high costmarkets (e.g., theMontgomery County (MD) Housing Authority nearWashington, D.C.) market-rate housing helps tofinance affordable housing development.)


Organizing Campaigns:City Life/Vida Urbana andJPNDC began theirCampaign of Conscience inJamaica Plain in 1998. CityLife has organized “Anti-Displacement Zones” inseveral Bostonneighborhoods. SomervilleCommunity Corporationhas begun a “publicbuildings for communitybenefits” campaign andalso staffs the SomervilleAffordable HousingOrganizing Committee(AHOC), which successfullyadvocated to increaseSomerville’s contribution toaffordable housingdevelopment, raising thecity linkage fee on everysquare foot developed over30 from $2.30 per squarefoot to $3.90 per squarefoot.

Below MarketAcquisitions: Tworeligious school buildingswere purchased from theCatholic Archdiocese bythe Coalition for a BetterAcre in Lowell. Thesebuildings, acquired for$10,000, serve asrenovated office andcommunity space, and willinclude 15 affordablehousing units. Sometowns and cities have soldtheir buildings or land forless than market value.The Town of Belmont soldtwo lots that it owned fora nominal amount, inorder to create the town’sfirst three long-termaffordablecondominiums.10

3. Create and Sustain Community ControlledHousing

In the mid- to late 1980s, there was a push byMassachusetts affordable housing advocates to createlimited equity cooperatives.11 The CooperativeHousing Task Force (later renamed Association forResident Control of Housing, or ARCH) providedsupport and training to co-ops and to peopledeveloping co-ops. ARCH succeeded in expandingseveral state rental financing programs to encompassco-ops.

As affordable housing became increasingly dependenton structuring partnerships with investors, there wasa shift from co-ops owned solely by the residents tolimited partnerships, where the resident cooperativecorporation became one of the general partnersand/or had the potential of buying out the

partnership after 15 years. ARCH expanded toprovide information about and support to a range ofresident-controlled housing models, including co-ops,limited equity condominiums, and resident andcommunity partnerships. Later, with scarce resourcesthat challenged sustainablity of its operations, ARCHrestructured from an independent, staffedorganization to a committee at Citizens’ Housing andPlanning Association (CHAPA), which has focusedprimarily on organizing an annual trainingconference. CHAPA has continued to support theannual training, though it has been unable to obtainfinancial support for additional trainings, research,and advocacy activities that could structure morefinancing capital to expand these types ofownerships.12 Co-op residents and advocates havebemoaned the loss of ARCH.

Several Boston area land trusts, including the BostonCitywide Land Trust and Dudley Neighbors Inc., werecreated to act as nonprofit community developers andholders of ground leases. More recently, nonprofitownership and resident-community partnerships haveincreased in popularity in Massachusetts. Partnershipsbetween residents and community controllednonprofit developers often provide a healthyinfrastructure and allow residents increased authorityin their housing options while providing solidtechnical expertise. All of these ownership structuresare premised on resale restrictions that limit equity tomaintain housing affordability for subsequent owners.While some maintain that the resale restrictions inlimited equity housing keep people from buildingassets to "move up" into market-rate housing, therestrictions are generally seen as providing morestability and higher quality housing to lower-incomehouseholds who would otherwise be vulnerable tothe unregulated rental market.

A variety of financing sources and eligibilityrequirements, combined with the lack of a centralized


The Walnut Street Apartments are a 12-unit affordable rentalbuilding with one- and two-bedroom units. The rehabilitationproject was completed in 2004. Source: SomervilleCommunity Development Corporation

Why aren't co-ops and land trusts more utilized in Massachusetts? Co-ops are much more popular inNew York City than they are in Massachusetts. Contributing factors may be the strong history of co-ops in NewYork started by unions in the 1920s, the prevalent multi-unit housing structure of New York city building types,and more local financing resources for co-ops in New York. Land trusts are more widely utilized in Vermont.Some hypothesize that co-ops and land trusts never achieved critical mass in the Commonwealth, in partbecause nonprofit community development corporations became so strong. One interviewee asked whetherboth co-ops and CDCs are needed in the same market. Others thought that nonprofits should provide thecatalyst to get housing started, with resident or community ownership following.

source of information and referral (since ARCHtransitioned out of this role), have made the climatefor developing and operating resident-controlledhousing challenging. Still, there are an estimated20,000 or more units in co-ops and other residentcontrolled housing in Boston, Cambridge, andelsewhere across the state.13 The Jamaica PlainNeighborhood Development Corporation (JPNDC)developed three limited equity cooperatives totaling75 units and has another 49 units in development.Kate Casa, asset manager at JPNDC, acts as anadvisor to the Co-op Umbrella Network, which thecorporation helped organize this past year for theleaders of the co-ops it has developed.

Co-op advocates maintain that well-operated co-opsoffer an attractive form of housing that is more aboutshared control and equity than unregulatedownership or rentals. Kate Casa believes that ongoingleadership development and training plus adequatefunding, including asset management support, arekey to making co-ops work.14 Resident leaders oftenbegin their efforts organizing against a problemlandlord. Then, as co-op leaders, they may organizetheir members to participate in efforts to sustain keysubsidy programs that help make their co-op work.They become responsible for working closely with thenonprofit developer in overseeing propertymanagement and managing day-to-day issues,including parking and managing fee increases tocover operating costs. The nonprofit developer in turnhas to support resident decision making, while alsoproviding valuable expertise.

4. Attach Affordability and Resale Restrictionsand Options to Purchase.

Many tools exist to capitalize community controlledhousing and maintain the affordability of the financestream. Long-term affordability restrictions arerequired by many of the state affordable housingprograms. For example, use of state HousingStabilization Fund resources comes with arequirement of 40 years of affordability for people ator below 80 percent of median income, followed by10 years of affordability for people at 100 percent ofmedian income or below.

Specific resale restrictions may be attached to a unitdeed rider in an affordable condominium or to a saleof shares of stock in a limited equity cooperative.There is often a right of first refusal, allowing thesubsidizing entity (i.e., a city agency) or the co-op tobuy back the unit or shares of stock, and then sell itto a qualified buyer at the restricted price.

Ground leases also maintain affordability. Theownership of the housing is separated from theownership of the land, with a local land trust or otherentity maintaining the ownership of the land. Theground leaseholder may collect a fee for monitoringsales and ensuring compliance with resale restrictions,and for marketing the units. The landowner usuallyhas an option to purchase units on resale.

Ground leases have also been used as a tool to helpbuy out investors in limited partnerships, where co-ops were one of the partners but not the sole owner.For example, in Fensgate, a mixed-income co-op, the


Comprehensive Community Controlled Housing: The Anti-Displacement Project (A-DP), serving Springfield andsurrounding Pioneer Valley communities, has developed bold initiatives to integrate housing, social services,community building, and economic development to build collective power and move people out of poverty. Theorganization has mobilized residents to preserve housing and create community-owned businesses. During the lastdozen years, A-DP has secured more than $60 million in federal, state, and local funds to purchase and rehabilitate1,400 units of at-risk housing and convert them to tenant-owned, permanently affordable cooperatives.

A-DP members are racially diverse, low-wage workers with little job security, often single parents pushed off welfare,or senior citizens on fixed incomes. One notable complement to the organization's community controlled housingstrategy has been the creation of locally owned businesses, such as United Landscaping and Painting, LLC, a worker-owned cooperative with profit sharing, minority-led contracting, and a share in a real estate venture. Memberscurrently are negotiating with Springfield political leadership in a campaign to stem the destabilizing rash of singlefamily homes flipping ownership. More than 500 trained leaders have helped to shape tenant control over theirhousing and their lives.

Fenway Community Trust held the land to maintainaffordability and held an option to buy the propertyfor an agreed-upon price.

Lender familiarity and acceptability has sometimesbeen an issue with deed restrictions and groundleases. Some banks will not lend on restrictedhousing. More typically, lenders have made therestrictions subordinate to their loan. These loans

usually have not been able to sell on the secondarymortgage market. CHAPA has been working withMass Housing and Fannie Mae to come up with astandard deed rider that could make it possible to sellthese loans on the secondary mortgage market.Effective May 1, 2006, Fannie Mae issued newprovisions in their Lenders Guide regardingpurchasing loans with long-term affordabilityrestrictions.15

A real concern in maintaining affordability lies withthe effectiveness of the monitoring of sales andmarketing of units. One nonprofit leader interviewedfor the study questioned the commitment of the localgovernment agency to maintain resale restrictionsafter the government entity's representative said thathe could not find a buyer for a limited equitycondominium unit. In that case, the unit's restrictionscould be lifted. Another agency's representativereported discovering side agreements among buyersand sellers to circumvent its restrictions. That agencyendeavored to prevent further side agreementsthrough education and penalties. Many agree thatresale restrictions are still not well understood bybuyers and sellers.


Partnerships Meet Affordability and TenantMarketing Objectives: Chapter 40B is the state'scomprehensive planning tool to increase housingaffordability across the Commonwealth. It requirescommunities throughout the state to make progresstoward making 10 percent of all housing available tolow-income residents. CHAPA has served as amonitoring agent for Chapter 40B projects since2000, reviewing marketing plans, overseeing lotteriesfor units, and conducting income certification. Theyalso counsel people who are purchasing affordableunits, and review unit sales and refinancing to makesure that resale restrictions are being complied with.CHAPA collects an upfront monitoring services feeand gets a fee on sales. They have received requeststo monitor non-40B projects but are not currentlydoing that work. The Massachusetts NonprofitHousing Association and some of its memberorganizations are monitoring affordablehomeownership units under their Homes for Goodprogram.

Holding Ground: Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) has led the revitalization of Boston's poor but diverseDudley neighborhood through the use of a community land trust. In 1984, residents formed DSNI as they grewconcerned about a plan to redevelop the Dudley Triangle, a move they feared could gentrify the community anddisplace its residents.

When the planning process for the redevelopment area became public, the community came out in large numbers tovoice its opinion about the planning process, the need to ensure the community's input in all pertinent planningdecisions, and the importance of protecting current residents from displacement.

Among other goals, the Dudley Street community hoped to promote homeownership for lower-income residents. In1988, DSNI became the only community group in the nation to win eminent domain power to acquire vacant landfor development. DSNI formed a community land trust, Dudley Neighbors Incorporated (DNI), to hold the land, andinvolved the neighborhood members in the process of planning critical land uses.

Together with other local nonprofits, DSNI has developed half of the 1,300 vacant lots it acquired at market-rateprices with 300 new homes, 300 rehabilitated homes, a Town Common, gardens, urban agriculture, a commercialgreenhouse, and parks and playgrounds. Neighborhood residents purchase the homes and lease the land from DNIon 99-year leases. The homes have a cap on resale prices so that they remain affordable to future resident-owners.

Finance Long-Term AffordableHousing

1. Increase Financial Resources

Nonprofit developers report challenges in making thefinances work for long-term affordable rental orownership housing, with particular concern formeeting the needs of the lowest-income residents.Competition is fierce for the Commonwealth's poolof tax credit financing, in which limited partnershipsare structured between developers and investors toproduce the housing. Debt financing is available froman array of sources, but the amount available fromany one source, the cost of capital, and the

complexity ofassemblingmultiple resourcesrepresentsignificant costsfor projectdevelopers.

CHAPA, Action!and many otherlocal groups areadvocating toincrease theresource pool incritical programsat the state level,particularly in theMassachusettsRental Voucher

Program (MRVP) operating subsidy program and inthe Affordable Housing Trust Fund, as well as toincrease the state bonding cap for affordablehousing.

The Community Preservation Act (CPA) has providedan important new funding mechanism in somecommunities. A city or town must adopt a propertytax surcharge that can be used for affordable housingand for preservation of open space or historic sites. Aminimum of 10 percent of the funds collectedthrough this property tax surcharge must bededicated to affordable housing financing. The statehas been providing a 100 percent match to these

funds. To date, more than 100 Massachusettscommunities have adopted CPA, and some otherstates have followed suit. Although cities overall haveincreased their CPA funding since FY2002, includingthat for housing, the proportion of funding that goestowards housing has consistently declined, fromaround 49 percent in FY2003 to just over 32 percentin FY2006.

HOME Funders is a unique effort by local foundationsto pool resources to target financing for housingpeople at 30 percent of median income or below.Foundations make grants and very low interest loansto a pool of resources that are operated byCommunity Economic Development AssistanceCorporation (CEDAC) for project acquisition andconstruction financing and by Massachusetts HousingPartnership (MHP) for permanent financing. HOMEFunders has raised more than $15 million and begunprogram investments, but has not reached its targetof $26 million. Few dollars are available at this point,due to longer project acquisition and holding periodsthan anticipated. A more robust capital pool wouldhelp make the revolving funds more consistentlyavailable.

Some intermediaries (Neighborworks America, LocalInitiatives Support Corporation) have providedworking capital to capable nonprofit developers. Anumber of the local funding resources have beenlooking at their products and trying to come up withmore flexible tools (e.g., MHIC and city of Bostonproperty acquisition product, CEDAC "gold card,"Boston Community Capital).

At a February 2006 convening by the HyamsFoundation, CDCs advocated for increases in patientcapital, streamlined processing, and pooled risksharing by lenders. They cited a recent New York Citymodel of a $200 million acquisition funding poolstarted to help nonprofit developers acquire privatesites and buildings for affordable housing.16

Alternatively, housing that is built through largeupfront capital grants and then owned and managedby a community-based nonprofit, such as a mutualhousing organization, allows for less complexity andpromotes long-term affordability.17


Examples of Taxation Tools:In Cook County, Illinois, there isa program that reduces taxliability for properties with atleast 35 percent of the unitsaffordable for 10 years. Oneperson noted that there wereunsuccessful efforts by nationalhousing advocates some yearsago to have capital gains taxeswaived for sales to nonprofit orcooperative owners. There wasalso evidence of a demolitiontax on tear downs in suburbanHighland Park, Illinois, withfunds for the local housingtrust fund.

2. Use Local Regulation and Taxation

Localities can utilize regulatory and tax tools tofacilitate building conversion to tenant ownership,slow condominium conversions, and sustainaffordability in low-cost housing. In the "post-rentcontrol" era in cities like Boston, Cambridge, andSomerville, advocates point to failed efforts in the1980s to implement "right of first refusal" legislation,which would allow tenants a certain notice periodand time to purchase their properties, should theowner wish to sell. Absent that policy, most tenantshad no time to respond to the demise of rent controlin 1994. This type of legislation has produced anumber of resident-owned properties andpartnerships among residents and nonprofits inWashington, D.C.

Eviction protections attached to Boston rent controlallowed advocates in the 1990s to identify illegalevictions, particularly in foreclosure situations, and toget some units into nonprofit hands at lower prices.18

Before the end of rent control in Cambridge, therewas a pilot program that allowed rent control tenantsan opportunity to purchase their buildings with citysupport, at a price that was less than what theunregulated price would have been. Various estimatessuggest that the pilot produced up to 100 units ofco-op housing. Had rent control not subsequentlybeen voted down, and additional resources beenmade available, this number would have climbedconsiderably.

A number of cities and towns have implementedcondominium conversion ordinances. For example,Somerville's ordinance provides a one-year noticeperiod to tenants and two years notice to low- and

moderate-income, elderly, and handicapped tenants.Tenants have the right to relocation benefits and theright to purchase their units, but not at morefavorable terms than the general public.

Collective bargaining legislation could formalize theprocess of rent increases. A law proposed in Bostonwould guarantee tenant associations the right toorganize and bargain around rent increases, unjustevictions, and poor living conditions with localgovernment providing convening and enforcement.Like the previously proposed but unsuccessful BostonCommunity Stabilization Act, this effort coulddampen unchecked and speculative rent increases,and at the very least would contain rent increases for


Inclusionary Zoning Ordinances and Updates: Newton's IZ ordinance went into affect in 1977, but it wasbegun as an informal policy under which 10 percent of the units in rental developments of ten units or morehad to be affordable for 15 years. Cash payments to an affordable housing fund were allowed instead of units,for developments with less than 10 units. The affordability term was increased to 40 years in 1987. Thepercentage of affordable units required was also subsequently increased to 15 percent, and the ordinance nowapplies to rental and homeownership housing. Units are deed restricted in perpetuity. The city of Bostonrecently doubled the cash contribution that developers of rental housing must pay into their affordable housingfund, if they are not providing units. Funds collected under the new Boston Inclusionary Development Policycan be used for either new affordable housing production or preservation of affordable housing. Burlington,Vermont places its inclusionary-provided units into its community land trust for perpetual affordability, and SanFrancisco Bay Area developers enter into partnerships with nonprofit developers to produce and manageaffordable portions of development.

The Bow Street Apartments include 18 affordable rental unitswith two to four bedrooms on the upper floors and retailspace on the first floor, currently used by the Mt. AuburnHospital Clinic. This project was a substantial rehab of ahistoric building constructed in the late 1800s. Source:Somerville Community Development Corporation

a certain period of time.

Some limited equity cooperatives, suchas Frankie O'Day Cooperative inBoston, have used 121A/6A taxagreements, which allowed them topay an excise tax in lieu of real estatetaxes, at considerable savings.19 ARCHlobbied (unsuccessfully) the BostonAssessors' office for limited equity co-ops to receive favorable tax treatmenton a consistent basis. Some have alsoraised the possibility of a real estatetransfer tax on investors who flipbuildings within a short time.

3. Leverage Zoning and RelatedMarket Incentives

Zoning is one of the most powerfultools to deliver affordable housing,allowing lower cost multifamilydevelopment, and requiring certainaffordability set-asides for the right tobuild. Under Chapter 40B ofMassachusetts law, a developer mayapply for a comprehensive permit thatoverrides local zoning to produce rental or ownershiphousing in any jurisdiction in which fewer than 10percent of housing units are designated affordable.Twenty-five percent of the units built under thewaiver must be affordable and allocated to people at80 percent of median income or below, or 20 percentmust be affordable to people earning no more than50 percent of median income. Chapter 40B hasproduced long-term affordable units in a number ofcommunities that previously had little affordablehousing. These units must be affordable for at least30 years; many towns and developers agree to an in-perpetuity standard. Developer overhead and fees arelimited through the program. The developer has anincentive to develop affordable units, in order tocreate the other non-regulated units that s/he wantsto produce. The town has an opportunity throughnegotiations to sometimes achieve greateraffordability or other concessions (road or schoolpayments) from the developer. Towns that havealready met the 10 percent standard can still elect towork with developers on 40B comprehensive permitprojects.

Through local inclusionary zoningordinances, individual cities and townsrequire developers to set aside apercentage of the units in anydevelopment that they are building(typically in developments over a certainthreshold number of units) foraffordable housing. Some providedensity bonuses (allowing developers tobuild housing with some affordableunits at a greater density than localzoning permits); some allow cashpayments into an affordable housingfund as a substitute for the provisionof affordable units. Long-termaffordability restrictions are typicallyattached to the units produced.

Inclusionary zoning has produced arelatively small number of units inMassachusetts, in part because of itsrelatively short tenure (while somecommunities have had IZ since the1980s, many others have had it lessthan a decade) and in part because themostly urban jurisdictions that have

adopted it generate a limited number of largedevelopments. However, inclusionary zoning incombination with linkage payments (paid bydevelopers producing commercial developments) intohousing funds have been important in jurisdictionslike Boston, where developers accept the policy aspart of the cost of doing business.20

Chapter 40R of Massachusetts law now sets up aprocess for cities and towns to establish "smartgrowth zoning districts," where density can exceedlocal zoning (up to 20 units per acre forcondominiums and apartments), and in which 20percent of the units must be affordable. Thesedistricts are intended to be in town centers, neartransit stops, or in other areas that the town deemssuitable for higher density housing. State grants ofbetween $10,000 and $600,000, plus $3,000 foreach new home being created, will be made availableto these new districts.21

Under Chapter 40S, additional state funds will beallocated to cities and towns establishing a 40Rdistrict to cover a portion of the school costs


The Linden Street Apartmentsinclude seven buildings and 42affordable rental units. The projectused Low-Income Housing TaxCredits and was built on abrownfields site. It has won greenbuilding awards and has beenrecognized nationally for itssustainability efforts. There is acommon green and tot lot in thecenter of the development, andeach unit has a private porch thatoverlooks the common areas.Source: Somerville CommunityDevelopment Corporation

associated with school-age children moving into thesedistricts.

There have been numerous efforts to updateMassachusetts land use laws to benefit affordablehousing. One current positive effort, the CommunityPlanning Act, proposes to add new sections to theState Zoning Act to allow development impact fees,as many other states do. Impact fees could provide astandardized way for towns to receive payment forschools or services, or another source of revenue foraffordable housing development. Affordable housingdevelopment would be exempted from payment offees.


Action for Regional Equity, its nonprofit andcommunity-based allies, legislators, the governor, andstate administrators can work together for acomprehensive strategy to increase the supply ofcommunity controlled housing in Massachusetts. Byeducating policymakers and others about the toolsthat are available and those that are needed, acombination of funding resources, incentives, andsupports can be structured to grow this housingsector. There is a ready opportunity for a committedcoalition of advocates, developers, and funders topursue these recommendations and achieve impact.Everyone has a role to play, and Action! is prepared tomobilize diverse constituencies to protect and createaffordable housing.

I. Move 10,000 units of unregulated or expiring-subsidy housing into nonprofit or cooperativetenant ownership by 2015.

Build funding and support for acquisitions:

• Join with local CDCs and funders to expandacquisition efforts in progress, including pilotcollaborations among more and less experiencedgroups, to facilitate acquisitions for affordablerental or homeownership on a broad scale.

• Develop local and national philanthropic support foran acquisitions funding pool, modeled after theNew York City program and local leadership effortssuch as HOME Funders.

• Facilitate Community Reinvestment Act investmentsto Massachusetts Housing Partnership as a pivotalsource for the acquisition pool.

• Identify ways to draw more social investors withpatient capital into a nonprofit acquisition andlong-term affordability financing program.

• Encourage public and private affordable housinglenders to adopt streamlined processingrequirements (a simplified "One Stop forAcquisitions" application), risk sharing, and priorityfor funding in acquisition projects that meet long-term affordability goals.

• Convene nonprofit developers, housing advocates,and funders to discuss the challenges of holdingproperties, and examine cases where partnershipsor third party holding is needed.

• Increase rental operating subsidies (MRVP andSection 8) and longer terms for subsidies inacquisitions for community controlled housing.

• Identify and build capacity of nonprofits to"speculate for good," including purchasingmortgages in default and buying foreclosedbuildings.

• Identify banks that have been lending tospeculators and negotiate for financial capitalcontributions to an acquisitions pool.

Lay the groundwork through advocacy:

• Document the inventory of housing that ispotentially available for purchase in Boston andother communities.

• Develop case studies that document howacquisition can be cheaper and provide morestability to the community fabric than newconstruction.

20

Opportunities for Action!

PolicyLink/Action for Regional Equity Community Controlled Housing for Massachusetts

• Develop tools to educate owners and brokers aboutsuccessful bargain sales.

• Define and communicate broadly the concept of a"reasonable return" on sales.

• Highlight the efforts of funders and nonprofitdevelopers that have addressed acquisitionchallenges, and commend local banks and financialinstitutions that have supported acquisition.

• Develop and distribute case studies of publicbuildings or land used for long-term affordablehousing, building on the guide developed byMassachusetts Housing Partnership to encouragemunicipalities to develop affordable housing onpublic land.

Boost incentives for sales to residents and nonprofitsfor community controlled housing:

• Promote tenant right of first refusal legislation in atleast two Massachusetts communities.

• Propose set-asides of state and city housing fundsfor acquisition by tenant or nonprofit owners.

• Negotiate a community controlled housing priorityand below-market sales in the disposition ofreligious and educational institutions' properties(including supporting and expanding onMassachusetts Association of CommunityDevelopment Corporations’ efforts to facilitateArchdiocese property sales).

Provide transitional support to those living inproperties that are preserved:

• Require budget counseling and gradual step-ups forthose residents who have been paying less than 30percent of their income for housing.

• Explain relocation options and payments to thosewho are above income ceilings.

II. Advance the conversion goal through abroad-based community education campaignabout the benefits of community controlledhousing.

Ensure crucial policy supports:

• Engage a broad-based campaign to direct housingresources to community control.

• Work with the Community Preservation Coalition towin passage of the Community Preservation Act(CPA) in multiple communities.

• Pass and implement inclusionary zoning in allMassachusetts communities.

• Encourage flexibility in inclusionary zoning to allowdeveloper payments and/or partnerships thatinvolve nonprofits in the production and/orownership of units.

• Encourage all cities and towns to strengtheninclusionary zoning provisions (following Boston'srecent lead), raise linkage rates and the monetaryvalue of off-site contributions, and allow the use ofthe funds for production or preservation.

• Set aside CPA resources, linkage funds and localtrust funds for conversion of public properties orland to community controlled housing.

• Win increases in crucial state resources includingthe Affordable Housing Trust Fund and MRVP andin the state bond cap for housing, with specific set-asides for community controlled housing.

• Negotiate local and state surplus property sales forcommunity controlled housing. Support theMACDC and CHAPA push for disposition ofaffordable housing within the Massachusetts AreaPlanning Council-led coalition that has beenworking on surplus land legislation.

Expand the inventory of regulatory tools:

• Highlight the use of impact fees and windfall taxesin other states and propose similar action forMassachusetts.

• Analyze tax breaks provided to nonprofit andcommunity controlled housing to date in

21Community Controlled Housing for Massachusetts PolicyLink/Action for Regional Equity

Massachusetts in more detail, and proposeopportunities for systematic tax relief forcommunity controlled affordable housing.

III. Structure support to enable tenant andnonprofit ownership.

Gather and share important information:

• Revive or reinvent the support and informationstructure that existed through ARCH, includingstrategic discussions at the 2007 ARCH conferenceand build a public finance stream to sustain itsoperations.

• Structure ongoing training of tenant owners in theirleadership and ownership responsibilities incooperative and other forms of resident-controlledhousing.

• Develop a centralized listing and resale monitoringoperation for all community controlled housingstatewide, building on the work of weown.net andhomesforgood.org, so that consumers can findcommunity controlled housing easily and movewithin the sector when they need to relocate.

Build public awareness:

• Highlight successful resident ownership models,including effective buyouts of limited partners.

• Prioritize organizing of current residents andtenants at risk, while also introducing communitycontrolled housing models and opportunities topeople who want to buy homes but have not beenable to do so.

Next Steps

Action! can play a key role in educating, advocating,and building bridges among groups to carry out thesestrategies. This report serves as a roadmap forsubsequent Action! initiatives. The group will formtask forces focused on: acquisitions, public andcommunity resources for community controlledhousing, and support for tenant and communityownership. Action! will work with its allies to beginprogress towards the 2015 objective.


1 See Bonnie Heudorfer et al., The Greater BostonHousing Report Card 2004 (Boston, MA: Center forUrban and Regional Policy, Northeastern University,2005), p.4 and Appendix A.2 Ibid, p.4-6, 31. 3 Ibid, p.4-6. 4 Ibid, p.7, p.47-48. This figure was deteriminedbefore adjusting for inflation. 5 Ibid, p.23-27. Boston leads in both building permitsissued for new housing (1,079 units), and inaffordable units produced (517) in 2004.6 Erica Schwartz, Waltham Alliance to Create Housingformer director of community organizing, Waltham,MA; Steve Meacham, City Life/Vida Urbana tenantorganizing coordinator, Jamaica Plain, MA.Interviewed by PolicyLink, March 2006.7 Steve Meacham, City Life/Vida Urbana, JamaicaPlain, MA. Interviewed by PolicyLink, April 2006;Email from Steve Meacham, City Life/Vida Urbana, toPolicyLink, May 2006.8 The Boston Citywide Land Trust (nowCommonwealth Land Trust) was set up by CDCs inpart to buy and hold properties. CLT did hold andoperate some property in the 1990s while JamaicaPlain Neighborhood Development Corporationassembled project financing. CLT today is a nonprofitdeveloper and property manager, and holds groundleases on a small number of properties.9 In Belmont, the market rate unit in the 4-unit BStreet project helped subsidize the cost of the threeaffordable condominiums. Sixty percent of the unitsat Somerville Community Corporation's condominiumproject at the former St. Polycarp's School are marketrate condominiums.10 Massachusetts Housing Partnership, DevelopingAffordable Housing on Public Land: A Guide forCommunities (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Housing

Partnership, 2005). 11 Limited equity cooperatives are housing owned bya corporation in which residents own shares of stock.Share ownership entitles people to long-term leaseson units. Resale prices of shares are limited by aformula designed to maintain affordability, and theco-op typically has an option to buy back shares onresale.12 Email from Aaron Gornstein, Citizens Housing andPlanning Association, to PolicyLink, April 13, 2006;see Fannie Mae, Announcement 06-03, March 22,2006.13 The most recent listing of resident controlledhousing in Massachusetts, produced by ARCH, can befound at weown.net. It was last updated in the fall of2003, and shows more than 20,000 units existingand in development in resident controlled housing.This list is in need of further updating. 14 Kate Casa, Jamaica Plain NeighborhoodDevelopment Corporation asset manager, JamaicaPlaing, MA. Interviewed by PolicyLink, March 2006.15 Email from Aaron Gornstein, Citizens Housing andPlanning Association to PolicyLink, April 13, 2006;Fannie Mae, Announcement 06-03, March 22, 2006.16 In 2005, national foundations and intermediariesannounced a $200 million acquisition pool to helpnonprofit developers acquire private sites andbuildings for affordable housing in New York City. SeeCity of New York, Mayor Bloomberg AnnouncedHistoric Collaboration With National Charities andFinancial Institutions For the Building and Preservationof Affordable Housing, October 14, 2005.17 Michael E. Stone et al., A Right to Housing:Foundation for a New Social Agenda (Philadelphia,PA: Temple University Press, draft manuscript), Ch.11.Neighborworks America had a pilot mutual housingdemonstration program in the 1980s and 90s, which

23

Notes

Community Controlled Housing for Massachusetts PolicyLink/Action for Regional Equity

helped to produce units in Connecticut, Texas, andelsewhere. However, this model of financingcommunity controlled housing with upfront capitalgrants and no debt has not been widely adopted inthe U.S.18 Kathy Brown, Boston Tenants Coalition director,Boston, MA. Interviewed by PolicyLink, March 2006.19 Frankie O'Day Co-op's excise tax was about$30,000 per year as compared to an estimated$75,000 per year in real estate taxes without theagreement, according to Dan Violi, consultant to thatco-op.20 Zoning experts suggest that the effectiveness ofparticular inclusionary zoning strategies depends onknowing the local marketplace and taking advantageof the interest in developing there vis à vis thereluctance by some to take on "added costs."21 State funds for this come at least in part from thesale of surplus state properties.

24 Community Controlled Housing for MassachusettsPolicyLink/Action for Regional Equity

Appendix A.

People Who Contributed Ideas or Information to thisReport

• Kristin Blum, Director of Housing Development,Somerville Community Corporation

• Angela Brown, Program Officer, Hyams Foundation

• Kathy Brown, Director, Boston Tenants Coalition

• Laura Buxbaum, Executive Director, Coalition for aBetter Acre

• Lindolfo Carballo, Director of CommunityOrganizing, Coalition for a Better Acre

• Kate Casa, Asset Manager, Jamaica PlainNeighborhood Development Corporation

• Wendy Hanna Cohen, Deputy Director for Lending,Massachusetts Housing Partnership

• Chris Cotter, Housing Director, City of Cambridge

• Peter Daly, Executive Director, Homeowners Rehab

• Tim Davis, Senior Policy Analyst, City of Boston,Department of Neighborhood Development

• Sheila Dillon, Deputy Director, NeighborhoodHousing, City of Boston Department ofNeighborhood Development

• Joseph Flately, President, Massachusetts HousingInvestment Corporation

• Evelyn Friedman, Executive Director, NuestraComunidad Development Corporation

• Rolf Goetze, Senior Policy Analyst, BostonRedevelopment Authority

• Aaron Gornstein, Executive Director, Citizens’Housing and Planning Association

• Michael Jacobs, MHJ Associates, HousingDevelopment and Finance Consultant

• Margo Kelly, Consultant, former Chief OperatingOfficer, Neighborworks America

• Jonathan Klein, Managing Partner, Klein Hornig LLPCounselors at Law

• Joseph Kriesberg, President and CEO,Massachusetts Association of CDCs

• Connie Kruger, Community Technical AssistanceManager, Massachusetts Housing Partnership

• Danny LeBlanc, CEO, Somerville CommunityCorporation

• Meridith Levy, Director of Community Organizing,Somerville Community Corporation

• Steve Meacham, Tenant Organizing Coordinator,City Life/Vida Urbana

• Edith Netter, Principal, Edith M. Netter andAssociates

• Charleen Regan, Housing Development and PolicyConsultant

• Anne Reitmayer, Housing Development Consultant,former Executive Director of Boston Citywide LandTrust

• Kalima Rose, Associate Director, PolicyLink

• Erica Schwartz, former Director of CommunityOrganizing, WATCH CDC

• Janna Tetrault, Program Manager, Citizens Housingand Planning Association

25

Appendices


• Mathew Thall, former Senior Program Director,Boston office, Local Initiatives Support Corporation

• Bob Van Meter, Executive Director, Allston BrightonCDC

• Dan Violi, Housing Development Consultant,consultant to Frankie O'Day Cooperative

• Eleanor White, President, Housing Partners Inc.

• Clark Ziegler, Executive Director, MassachusettsHousing Partnership

Appendix B.

References

Association for Resident Control of Housing. Availablefrom http://www.weown.net.

City of Boston, Office of the Mayor, "Mayor MeninoBoosts Affordable Housing Requirements." Availablefrom http://www.ci.boston.ma.us/bra/press/press.asp,2005.

City of New York, Office of the Mayor, "MayorBloomberg Announces Historic Collaboration withNational Charities and Financial Institutions for theBuilding and Preservation of Affordable Housing."Available from http://www.nyc.gov.

Davis, Tim, email communication, City of BostonDepartment of Neighborhood Development, March21, 2005.

Emmeus, John. "Rational Decision Making to BalanceIdeological Extremes." Shelterforce, Issue 74.Montclair, NJ: National Housing Institute, 1994.

Emmeus, J. and Demetrowitz, A. PermanentlyAffordable Homeownership: Does the CommunityLand Trust Deliver on Its Promises? Burlington, VT:Burlington Community Land Trust, 2003.

Glaeser, E., Schuetz, J. and Ward, B. Regulation andthe Rise of Housing Prices in Greater Boston. Boston,MA: Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, KennedySchool of Government, Harvard University, 2006.

Hendrickson, C. A Community Guide to CreatingAffordable Housing. Chicago, IL: Business andProfessional People for the Public Interest, 2005.

Heudorfer, B. and Bluestone, B. The Greater BostonHousing Report Card 2004. Boston, MA: The Centerfor Urban and Regional Policy, NortheasternUniversity, 2005.

Homes for Good. Available fromhttp://www.homesforgood.org.

Kostaras, J. Condominium Conversions in Somerville:An Analysis of the City's Condominium Ordinanceand Proposed Revisions. Somerville, MA: Mayor'sOffice of Strategic Planning and CommunityDevelopment, 2005.

Massachusetts Housing Partnership. CommunityPlanning Act at a Glance. Available fromhttp://www.massmunilaw.org/pdf/CPA-II%20Glance.pdf.

Massachusetts Housing Partnership, DevelopingAffordable Housing on Public Land: A Guide forMassachusetts Communities. Boston, MA:Massachusetts Housing Partnership, 2005.

Massachusetts Housing Partnership. Zoning forAffordable Housing: Inclusionary Zoning and Beyond,conference materials. Lexington, MA: MassachusettsHousing Partnership, March 3, 2006.

Menino, T. and McColl, K. Leading the Way II, AReport on Boston's Housing Strategy, FY2004-FY2007. Boston, MA: Department of NeighborhoodDevelopment, 2004.

National Housing Conference, Inclusionary Zoning:Lessons Learned in Massachusetts. Washington, DC:National Housing Conference, 2002.

Massachusetts Office for CommonwealthDevelopment. 40R and 40S Explained: Reaping theBenefits of Compact Development, one page flyer,Boston, MA: Massachusetts Office forCommonwealth, 2006. Contact Donald Schmidt,[email protected].

Stone, Michael E., "Social Ownership," in A Right toHousing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda, ed. R.Bratt, M. Stone, and C. Hartman (Philadelphia, PA:Temple university Press, 2006).

PolicyLink 26PolicyLink/Action for Regional Equity Community Controlled Housing for Massachusetts

27 PolicyLink

Community Controlled Housing for Massachusetts:Securing Affordability for the Long Term

PolicyLink Headquarters:101 BroadwayOakland, CA 94607Tel: 510/663-2333Fax: 510/663-9684

Communications Office:1350 Broadway, Suite 1901New York, NY 10018Tel: 212/629-9570Fax: 212/629-7328

www.policylink.org


www.policylink.org/BostonAction


Documents

community controlled housing for ma for publishing · Community Controlled Housing for Massachusetts 7 PolicyLink/Action for Regional Equity Community Controlled Housing: Action!