By adamg on Wed., 2/12/2025 - 3:19 pm
The Dorchester Reporter reports that Josh Kraft says if elected he would reduce the percentage of new housing units that have to be rented or sold as affordable from 20% to the 13% level before Michelle Wu became mayor. Kraft says this, coupled with tax breaks for landlords who agree to limit annual rent increases, would boost housing.
Topics:
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Boosted
By Angry Dan
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 4:00pm
We'll finally have enough 2 million dollar condos to meet demand!
So
By anon
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 4:16pm
Is it better to have 100,000 units built with 0% of them affordable, or 0 units built with 100% of them affordable?
Out of curiosity, do you
By xyz
Thu, 02/13/2025 - 3:16pm
Out of curiosity, do you actually think those are the only two options, or are you arguing out of bad faith?
Empty condos for out of towners
By No more billionaires
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 4:28pm
Empty promises for empty investment condos
separate problem
By anon
Thu, 02/13/2025 - 1:45pm
Legislation is needed to increase taxes on investment property that would otherwise be owner occupied.
The property tax on a $2 million is about $20,000/year. The city gets that money. The tax on a $250k Affordable condo is maybe a thousand dollars.
It's like an Onion headline
By Former Westroxer
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 4:56pm
"Billionaire proposes tax break, says it will fix everything"
Let me see if I can untangle this:
-Lowering the requirement for affordable units = fewer affordable units
-Tax breaks for landlords = less money for the city
-Capping rent increases = nice little gesture for people who don't need or want to move; meaningless for anyone looking to move within, or to, Boston
But I suppose this is the way you think when you live in a condo bought by Daddy's company.
He must be joshing.
By CopleyScott17
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 5:01pm
Does he think developers are scared off by that extra 7%? Doubtful, especially when they are often allowed to shunt the required affordable units off to lesser buildings in other neighborhoods.
This proposal is a joke.
Whether they're scared or not,
By anon
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 5:10pm
Every additional dollar of mandated requirements reduces the amount of housing that gets built.
I saw …
By Lee
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 8:02pm
… what you did there. Lol.Â
Not a Joke
By FenwayFrank
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 10:00pm
…multiple local developers have said the change from 13% to 20% made them rethink or cancel projects.
Other cities who had similarly high inclusionary zoning requirements have walked them back in part because of the negative impact the requirements can have on housing development. There appears to be a link between high inclusionary zoning requirements and reduced housing production, but the strength of the relationship is disputed. Â
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/sf-breed-signs-housing-stimulu...Â
https://furmancenter.org/research/publication/the-effects-of-inclusionar...
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/4/10/is-inclusionary-zoning-cre...
Contrary to popular belief, developers do not have bottomless pockets to subsidize affordable units (because the money has to come from somewhere). Requirements like this may not single-handedly kill a project, but they certainly contribute to the death-by-a-thousand cuts that kill so many projects in Boston.Â
Suffice to say, you may not agree with the policy, and that’s fine, but it’s certainly not a joke of a proposal. It’s at least worth considering as a practical step to increase housing production. After all, we were certainly building more housing under the Walsh policy than under the current one (for many reasons of course, not just inclusionary zoning, but it’s worth considering).Â
Â
Â
Billionaire
By Bostoneer
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 5:54pm
A billionaire is proposing a reduction to affordable housing and tax breaks for landlords claiming it will make housing more affordable. Why is any of the media taking him at his word? This is a subsidy to the already wealthy. It seems everything in his campaign will ultimately amount to that.
Nice slant
By anon
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 6:44pm
In Boston we’re only building housing for the rich and the poor.
The people in the middle need housing too.
Affordable Units are for the middle class
By Hansic
Thu, 02/13/2025 - 10:27am
I bought an affordable condo through the city's lottery. I make a bit over $55,000 a year, a middle class income.
Unfortunate Messenger but Legitimate Concern
By anon
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 7:02pm
Given most of what has come from Kraft so far, everyone here will dunk on him as out of touch and call this a hand-out to developers. However, there is merit to this proposal even if "reducing affordable housing requirements" is taboo at first blush.
Similar to the Laffer Curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve), there is almost certainly an affordable housing percentage that maximizes the total number of affordable units built in Boston annually. If, for instance, the city required all construction to be 100% affordable, developers would not be able to make money and we would likely end up with almost no new housing. At the same time, without an affordable housing requirement, there would similarly be almost no new income-restricted units. In both cases, we would likely end up with only charities building those units. The key point here is that it is not clear what exact percentage actually maximizes affordable construction and it is possible, seemingly paradoxically, that a lower affordable housing requirement could result in more affordable housing units being built by making more development projects pencil out.
Also, study after study shows that additional market-rate units, even if they're luxury, can bring down rents and house prices at all levels. A new luxury apartment building without any affordable units can still help residents who will never live there by preventing the wealthier residents who would have looked elsewhere if the luxury housing did not exist.
All of that said, anger at mammoth development corporations that are reshaping neighborhoods is fully justified. But until the city or state starts building housing at a completely different scale than they have been, construction needs to remain financially viable if new housing is going to get built. With higher interest rates and increased material costs, construction is just much more expensive than it was pre-pandemic and less projects can get financed. Affordable housing, despite all of its benefits, will always be a financial headwind for developers (and the 7% difference would absolutely move the needle on some projects). So, despite how out of touch Kraft is on so many issues, this is one of the first things I've seen from him that actually merits discussion.
Nailed it
By FenwayFrank
Thu, 02/13/2025 - 11:01pm
And to piggyback on your comment, misguided policies like this one encourage the type of development that is most unpopular - cookie cutter buildings by national developers. Those are the only developers with pockets deep enough to finance developments in this environment. They recoup their investment by charging higher rents on the market units (i.e. the market rate units subsidize the affordable ones) and cutting corners on construction (building 5-over-1s using that ugly cladding). Ironically, those who are punished are the smaller, less wealthy, local developers who build the more palatable smaller infill developments that Wu encourages.
Your take is legitimately concerning
By Harry K
Wed, 02/26/2025 - 3:56pm
You must be joking trying to repackage trickle down economics with this statement, "A new luxury apartment building without any affordable units can still help residents who will never live there by preventing the wealthier residents who would have looked elsewhere if the luxury housing did not exist."
What Kraft is proposing will only lead to another Seaport situation.
There most certainly are other educated and researched options than build, build, build.
This is reason number what?
By Friartuck
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 7:41pm
Not to vote for him?
excited to see
By anon
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 8:57pm
the mechanism by which anyone will enforce compliance with "agreeing to limit annual rent increases"
an unserious proposal by an unserious man.
don’t worry: this guy’s dad
By Robert Paulson
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 9:51pm
don’t worry: this guy’s dad owns the New England Patriots— he def knows what’s best for those of us still struggling to pay rent here in boston
i’m so tired of these out of touch rich people in politics.
...from 20% to the 13% level
By Don't Panic
Thu, 02/13/2025 - 2:14am
...from 20% to the 13% level before Michelle Wu became mayor. Kraft says this, coupled with tax breaks for landlords who agree to limit annual rent increases, would boost housing. THAT DID NOT WORK Josh. We got condos instead of family housing. While you can live in a condo most families can not afford them.
I'm so shocked
By BubbaLooo
Thu, 02/13/2025 - 7:07am
Really I did not expect a billionaire to slash affordable as one of his first campaign promises, I figured he would just ignore it or lie.
I don't seem to find all those millionaires posting everywhere that they can't find housing.
Btw the affordable housing offered by lottery are not affordable to most of us. The latest lottery in Stoneham had a nice tiny studio for $2,300. And you had to win the lottery to get that price.
He’s not wrong
By Anon-rozzie
Thu, 02/13/2025 - 8:02am
Lowering the percent of required affordable units would spur more housing (and thus more affordable units), but its city council who sets this rate and I’m not sure if this city council would lower the rate. Kraft would have very limited power here.
In all fairness, Wu is trying to relax zoning across the city, but is facing very stiff headwinds.
Where have I heard that before?
By BubbaLooo
Fri, 02/14/2025 - 10:45am
Sounds like trickle down economics. If you build the rich more housing the poor and middle class will get some ?â€â™€ï¸
How about looking at the real reasons builders hold back on building, like the crazy amount of red tape. Builders are still raking in profits with a small percentage of so called affordable housing, which I stated before is not actually affordable when you are looking at a tiny studio for $2,300.
Still has no chance
By Residente
Thu, 02/13/2025 - 10:31am
To win. Odds are currently zero percent chance of winning.
#allBrady
By Former Westroxer
Thu, 02/13/2025 - 3:10pm
Just like his dad, he's not going to win without TB12. You'll see.
Desegregation
By blues_lead
Thu, 02/13/2025 - 11:24am
This type of policy works better as a desegregation measure than an affordability measure.
Whatever the percentage, it should apply to all new builds, especially single-family homes (aka luxury houses). Obviously an SFH builder couldn't add 13% or 20% affordable units, but they can contribute to the city's affordable housing fund 13% or 20% of the build costs.
I do think that 20% is too high. 13% is too high. The best way to create affordability is to allow dense housing everywhere in the city, and remove barriers to building housing, like extra fees and years long negotiations with the neighborhood.
Ye Old Trickle Down
By anon
Thu, 02/13/2025 - 12:06pm
doesn't work...been proven over, and over, and over. Let the corporations pay up for once.
Why not more focus on zoning?
By DoubleL
Thu, 02/13/2025 - 3:44pm
The Jan'25 Boston Planning meeting on Neighborhood Housing Zoning has a slide that says "99% of residential lots have zoning that fails to match what's there." If Kraft is serious about easing the housing shortage, why is he not addressing it from that angle?
https://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/13c2338e-1042-4496-a875-3999e0...
Seems much more effective to change the rules to allow for more housing than to nibble at the problem around the edges with changing back and forth between 13 and 20% inclusionary requirements or tax breaks for landlords.
Plus, even in a 0% CPI world (not the one we live in), if a landlord enrolls in this 10 year program, rent can increase up to 5% per year (+ CPI). Over 10 years, a 5% increase per year would result in a compound rent increase of over 50% from the starting year. Median rent per Zumper (which grain of salt, but the Globe has cited in the past) in Jan. 2025 for a 1 bedroom in Boston is $2,830, whereas it was $2,300 in Feb. 2015. Using that historical baseline, a landlord who enrolled in the program could get a 20% property tax cut for following market rents.
I can't tell if the pols are innumerate or think we are.
Kraft would reduce the number of affordable housing units by dev
By Timothy Sheehan
Fri, 02/14/2025 - 3:32pm
For almost 40 years Boston has insisted that forcing developers to provide 13 %, now 20% of any new development as fitting into some vage formula with the expressed purpose of making housing more affordable for the poorest and near poor. Forty years of results being steady ever increasing costs for the housing developed under this misguided but al always "well intentioned" plans. Forty straight years of the same failed result, and the only thing these extremest can think of is: to repeat the failed policy only with more resources to accomplish the exact same result of higher prices for anyone trying to buy housing in Boston! Failure after failure without a course correction will only produce the same results as the past, namely higher Housing costs foe everyone!
Add comment