It is clear to many residents that Lowell needs a higher quantity and higher quality of affordable housing. Unfortunately, the current affordable housing law, commonly referred to as Chapter 40B, leaves Lowell and other urban neighborhoods out in the cold. Chapter 40B is specifically designed to benefit developers by focusing only on new construction and building high-priced, market-rate units in the suburbs. 40B completely ignores the many benefits of redevelopment, which costs up to 50% less than new construction.
Under current regulations, Chapter 40B allows developers to build projects that contain just 20%-25% affordable units. Not only is this percentage pathetically low, but the affordable units themselves are only barely affordable. The regulations only require 40B “affordable” units to be affordable to people making 80% of the Area Median Income (around $50,000 in Jamaica Plain). This means projects call units “affordable” when they are only affordable to people who make more than about $40,000. In exchange for building these 80% non-affordable projects, the state gives 40B developers hundreds of millions of your tax dollars annually. If the state were to simply take that tax money and spend it on truly affordable housing, two things would happen: 1) Massachusetts would have more affordable housing and 2) it would be real affordable housing, helping those who need it most.
The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) is the sole agency that regulates Chapter 40B. DHCD Undersecretary Tina Brooks has been doing everything she can to use your tax dollars to subsidize non-affordable housing in the suburbs, while ignoring the benefits of redevelopment. This allows 40B developers to make the most profit possible. Every community in Massachusetts needs to share the responsibility for creating affordable housing, including the suburbs. However, the current system not only allows, but encourages predatory developers to ignore urban neighborhoods like Lowell and instead build high-priced, non-affordable housing in the suburbs, where they can make more money.
Lowell barely has room for new construction, most major housing projects in Lowell have been redevelopment of mills and other existing structures. Because of DHCD’s focus on new construction based on 40B, this means millions of dollars that should go to communities like Lowell will instead be funneled out to the suburbs. Repealing the 40B law will free up more than $300,000,000 in taxpayer money annually, that can be focused on redevelopment rather than new development, allowing urban neighborhoods with little land for new construction to get their fair share of affordable housing money.
The proof is in the pudding. Chapter 40B has been on the books for 40 years, and over that time, Massachusetts has fallen to 49th in housing affordability despite the benefits of a stable population and strong economy. The developer-welfare approach championed by Chapter 40B has had its chance and has failed unequivocally. It is time for the legislature to repeal the law and use our tax dollars to produce real affordable housing, while focusing on redevelopment and the needs of urban neighborhoods like JP.
Craig Chemaly
Slow Growth Initiative
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Chelmsford Independent Op-Ed
The following is in response to a recent article titled: "Home On Their Own: Chelmsford family shows other side of controversial housing law"
The story focuses on a particular family in Chelmsford who received some much-needed help from the ineffective law known as Chapter 40B. However, the story might leave readers with the impression that without 40B, this family would not have gotten housing assistance. The real truth is that affordable housing through Chapter 40B is incredibly ineffective and inefficient. Repealing the law would pave the way for more affordable housing, not less. The vast majority of 40B projects have an affordability percentage under 25%. If the same money were spent on projects that were 100% affordable, you would be helping 4 times as many people!
Secondly, Chapter 40B discourages redevelopment and subsidies for existing units, which would allow affordable housing dollars to go much farther than new construction. Massachusetts, and the Merrimack Valley region in particular, have thousands of existing affordable units and redevelopment opportunities, which could be used to create affordable housing without the destabilization caused by 40B construction.
Thirdly, the state should pass an Inclusionary Zoning law, requiring all new developments over a certain size to include an affordable component. This would make Chapter 40B completely unnecessary and simultaneously create more affordable housing. Even without Inclusionary Zoning, there are many affordable housing solutions other than Chapter 40B that are ignored by the state and rejected by the Chelmsford Housing Authority.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Chapter 40B helps a very small sliver of the population and an even smaller sliver of those who need help. In Chelmsford, as noted in the article, 40B projects are affordable to people making 80% of the area median income. For our region that means a family of 4 must make less than around $70,000 to qualify for a 40B unit. But the projects are built so expensively, that on average, the family has to make $63,000 to afford the mortgage. So while it may be helpful to those making between $63,000 and $70,000, it completely ignores those making less. In other words, the working poor are left completely in the cold by Chapter 40B.
The fact is that one story about a well-deserving family getting housing assistance through 40B doesn’t mean the law is working. It only emphasizes the failings in the law and shows the importance of funding affordable housing solutions that make sense instead.
Craig Chemaly, Director
Slow Growth Initiative
The story focuses on a particular family in Chelmsford who received some much-needed help from the ineffective law known as Chapter 40B. However, the story might leave readers with the impression that without 40B, this family would not have gotten housing assistance. The real truth is that affordable housing through Chapter 40B is incredibly ineffective and inefficient. Repealing the law would pave the way for more affordable housing, not less. The vast majority of 40B projects have an affordability percentage under 25%. If the same money were spent on projects that were 100% affordable, you would be helping 4 times as many people!
Secondly, Chapter 40B discourages redevelopment and subsidies for existing units, which would allow affordable housing dollars to go much farther than new construction. Massachusetts, and the Merrimack Valley region in particular, have thousands of existing affordable units and redevelopment opportunities, which could be used to create affordable housing without the destabilization caused by 40B construction.
Thirdly, the state should pass an Inclusionary Zoning law, requiring all new developments over a certain size to include an affordable component. This would make Chapter 40B completely unnecessary and simultaneously create more affordable housing. Even without Inclusionary Zoning, there are many affordable housing solutions other than Chapter 40B that are ignored by the state and rejected by the Chelmsford Housing Authority.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Chapter 40B helps a very small sliver of the population and an even smaller sliver of those who need help. In Chelmsford, as noted in the article, 40B projects are affordable to people making 80% of the area median income. For our region that means a family of 4 must make less than around $70,000 to qualify for a 40B unit. But the projects are built so expensively, that on average, the family has to make $63,000 to afford the mortgage. So while it may be helpful to those making between $63,000 and $70,000, it completely ignores those making less. In other words, the working poor are left completely in the cold by Chapter 40B.
The fact is that one story about a well-deserving family getting housing assistance through 40B doesn’t mean the law is working. It only emphasizes the failings in the law and shows the importance of funding affordable housing solutions that make sense instead.
Craig Chemaly, Director
Slow Growth Initiative
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)