Hey, there! Log in / Register
Developers could soon have to pay more into an affordable-housing fund to build in the city's fastest-growing areas
By adamg on Tue, 12/08/2015 - 9:40pm
The Dorchester Reporter has details on Mayor Walsh's changes to affordable-housing requirements for new development in Boston.
Developers in Boston Proper and the South Boston waterfront who would rather pay into a city fund than include affordable units in their buildings will have to pay more than they would now. The idea is to try to spur development in the city's more torpid regions from Dorchester down to Readville.
But along with this comes a move that some say could make new affordable units less affordable, by increasing maximum income allowed for tenants from 70% of the area median income to 100%.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Gentrification process almost
Gentrification process almost complete ...say goodbye to the true character of Boston forever ... All well have is the movies to reminisce, smh
true character
..true character = angry, racist, criminal minded townies. They ruined Boston...but we are now cleaning up their mess.
Because what made Boston a
Because what made Boston a great city was preventing people from moving there in the first place!
I'm sick and tired of people whining that they're entitled to special treatment because they lived in Boston first. It's a city, not a race.
So what that your parents and grandparents lived here? What did they ever do for this city aside from let it fall into decay and decline with the same xenophobia and neophobia the current generation of "native" Bostonians has inherited?
Well said
you should hear some of the few left over townies here. they'll say "i've lived here my whole life" as if it were some great achievement.
my first thought is, "what a pathetic and sheltered life that is".
It sounds like you are not a
It sounds like you are not a Bostonian , well I am. The irish immigrants like my four grandparents worked really hard and bought there own property and maintained it beautifully .... My moms house was at 60 wait street Mission Hill and my dads house where I was born was 15 levant street which was lovely ..... Now look at this Dorchester neighborhood destroyed..... Both my grandparents paid off their mortgages in the 1940s my uncle martiin j Kelly had a large construction co and fixed all the bridges in the 40s 59s and 69s as well as building great buildings my grandfather was the houseman at the house of good Shepard .....they all fought the n ww2 as officers.... I can go on and on they were successful even though they lost there mother to childbirth in 1927 /10 kids left with no mother
And guess what no section 8 no welfare no food stamps why should anyone pay for you or anyone else.get a job..... Buy a house pay your bills ...I say no free benifits unless everyone gets the same benifits stop having kids without a job just to live off the system get a job.... Stop ruining neighborhoods that were once nice respect your neighborhood or move to a cheaper state like Alabama or Louisiana no one should be living off the backs of hard working people that can hardly make it themselves and stop having kids you can't afford or raise properly
So let me get this straight
The objective is to increase the production of houses. So the city's solution is to increase the cost of the house which means you have less profit (so less supply) or developers increase the cost (so less demand).
The solution to the city's housing problem is simple. Just get rid of all this affordable housing crap and the market will sort it out - at lower cost - than these crazy government kluges ever will.
Oh - and fix the stupid restrictive zoning.
Also build some more roads
and widen and straighten some cowpaths while you're at it so that the 'affordable' housing farther away becomes more practical for working people to live in.
Right
We will start by flattening your house to that end to put in a bypass.
After all, the plans have been available in the planning office for the last nine months!
Pay me market rate
and moving costs and you won't here a peep out of me.
WHOOSH!
WHOOSH!
Also, don't forget your towel
Also, don't forget your towel.
Widening the roads so
Widening the roads so "working people" to live in? What does "working people" mean, people that have jobs they commute to? Widening the roads in Boston only helps the well off who can afford to park downtown. Improve and expand the T so all people with jobs can get to them.
Most of the T
is buses that run on roads.
That isn't efficient
But, hey, you can always spend some time in China or India if you think that it is.
See also: induced demand
If you're trying to make the
If you're trying to make the city more dense, induced demand is kind of the point swirls.
Could be more efficient
Just change some roads with heavy bus traffic to one lane for cars and one lane exclusively for buses. Mass Ave in Arlington, to start with
Most of the T...
In 2013 the daily breakdown worked like this:
Orange+Green+Blue+Red Lines: 766,960
Commuter Rail: 129,075
All buses (including Silver Line): 387,815
Also, several of the existing bus lines (all of the Silver Line and the #1 bus, among others), would actually make sense to convert to underground rail if we had the stomach to pay for it.
Most of the T is decidedly trains that run on rails, and extending the subway to parts of Everett, Medford, Roxbury, Roslindale, Arlington, etc. would do a lot to help hold down the cost of housing near existing train stations.
The rate of return on widening roads is minuscule compared to transit, which is one of the reasons why so few cities that have functional transit systems are opting to do it.
How?
would extending T coverage (a good idea BTW), hold down the cost of housing? I really think the impact of parking spaces is not a huge driver of development costs vs. land acquisition, labor and materials. For example in Roslindale the two most recent developments have parking below them. I don't know that you're adding tons of cost by putting in those spaces.
I'd argue that if Roslindale were to magically be at the end of the Orange Line tomorrow, housing prices would go up not down.
It costs about $95/square
It costs about $95/square foot to build an underground parking space in Boston. A fairly tight garage, as is often constructed in places like Roslindale or JP, requires about 280 square feet per space, amounting to an added cost of $26,600. But I believe the lost opportunity cost is actually much higher. Because there are a lot of restrictions on the size of the buildings in Roslindale, every 280 square feet devoted to a parking space is basically 280 square feet that was not devoted to building housing. Housing sells for $200-300/square foot, but parking only rents for about $75-100/month (which works out to about $18k across a 30 year mortgage), so the forfeited $ is $54-66k per space, not counting any differences in construction cost between a square foot of parking space and a square foot of condo (which I suspect are minimal). Assuming every space rents out, that $54-66k cost will be pushed onto the other units in the building. If the building is on a main street and store-front property needs to be sacrificed to provide access to the garage, that makes the lost opportunity costs even higher. And keep in mind that for most big projects, adding a bunch of parking also means doing traffic studies and (in many cases) paying to redesign the intersection immediately in front of the building. The above figures don't even touch those costs. In short, parking actually adds quite a lot to construction costs. (Here's a whole paper written on the topic: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/HighCost.pdf)
I suspect you're right that if the T were *only* extended to Roslindale, prices there would go up (probably substantially). I'm talking about what would happen if we were to extend the T to all of the near-in suburbs in relatively short succession. I believe this would keep costs down because it would make it harder to charge a premium for land with good access to public transportation. If you still think I'm wrong, that is an implicit acknowledgement that there is actually so much un-met demand for transit accessible housing in Boston that providing every house inside 128 with easy access to transit still would not be enough to meet it. That would, I suppose, be a good problem for Boston to have.
Some points
I think you are incorrectly making the same assumptions about how development might work in an outlying neighborhood vs. an urban core neighborhood.
You refer to housing costs per sales per sq/ft but then refer to rental parking prices which reveals an issue with this data set I think. There is big difference in the factors behind building in urban density like the recent growth along Boylston St. vs. what might be expected to happen in an outer neighborhood like Roslindale. I don't think there is much expectation that people are going to rent parking in Rosi, HP, WR, etc... like they would in the Back Bay, Beacon Hill or Fenway. So I don't think wrapping the perceived cost of a theoretical rented parking spot in Roslindale to Roslindale housing costs isn't applicable.
Secondly, you go from stating that an underground parking spot needs 280 sq ft to then assuming that's space otherwise which could be used for living space? I don't think the housing crisis will be resolved with subterranean homes in Roslindale. You're also making the false assumption that there is a huge demand for store front space in Roslindale which is being sacrificed for garage access and that's simply not the case. A development like the one on Roberts St or the Cummins Hwy development don't sacrifice any needed space to provide that access.
Thirdly, you are assuming that the additional cost of parking automatically causes housing costs to go up. I'd counter that there is a set of condos on my particular street which are selling for more than my house, with no parking at all. Anecdotal, I know, but real estate prices are high mostly due to supply and demand, not the added costs, real or not, of providing parking. Parking space costs are secondary.
I don't think developments need to provide a space for every apartment, but I do think we need to cognizant of where no parking developments need to happen, like at the MBTA lot at Forrest Hills or the Fenway area vs. assuming outlying car centric neighborhoods have the same cost structures and demands.
As has been said in many other posts on this topic, we need lots of all kinds of housing - condos, rentals, with parking, without parking.
hey it's working in LA...
...uh, oops, no it isn't.
Fixing zoning removes
Fixing zoning removes opportunities for corrupt bargaining. Outdated zoning is strangling the city's future in its crib and greedy crooks don't care enough about the city to do the right thing by fixing it.
Don't try to be rational, now
Don't try to be rational, now. The government is going to try to "fix" this problem by distorting the market, then a couple years from now when things are worse, the government can step in and pledge to "fix" it some more. They're gonna "fix" the hell outta it.
This will help?
It seems like doubling the amount developers must pay for linkage will either increase the cost of each unit they build, or reduce their profit margin so fewer developers want to build in high-demand areas. And fewer developers will mean fewer units, which will mean higher costs. The Globe article quotes someone who developed this plan who says they aren't sure how much they can squeeze developers without forcing them out of the market. It's odd they have so little understanding of supply and demand principles. More housing means cheaper units. Less housing means more expensive units.
had a similar thought
but i am no expert so i really dont know
deal struck behind closed doors
What's being built downtown and adjacent to downtown are luxury units so a lot is being spent to build them and the margins are bigger.
The current linkage is for every new unit build ~,15 affordable units would also be built but the value for luxury units is so much greater that they want luxury unit builders to pay-in at a higher rate for affordable.
This is being done in NYC as well and at a much larger scale.
Walsh is reacting to an issue he's let go on too long without addressing. Moreover, this does nothing to help folks getting pushed out of the neighborhoods because of rent inflation.
This deal was struck behind closed with a narrow set of interested parties without public hearings. Walsh is protecting monied interests.
Yes I think this will help
The market is hot. People are buying $800,000 condos like they are Krispie Kreme donuts. Tack on another $25,000 to cover linkage and people won't even blink. Now is the time to do this (congrats to Walsh for this.) Of course the builders will moan and whine but it's not going to stop even one unit from being built.
buying condos like theyre krispy kreme...in boston?
so, they're not buying condos then? :-)
It was a historical reference
Back to those giddy days when they needed the cops to handle crowd control at the first couple of KK's that opened locally (and yes subsequently closed.)
lol
sure
It's exactly this attitude
It's exactly this attitude about price (that people are already paying $800k so they won't complain about $825k) that has been used to rationalize all of the other things we've tacked on over the years "because rich people can afford it," like extra parking spaces, smaller massing (which means fewer units to defray the fixed costs of construction), rebuilding the intersection for "traffic mitigation" and basically everything required for handicap accessibility (which are great in theory but in practice tend to add substantial costs--like elevators--to small, 3-5 story construction projects).
so wait
So wait a second... to me this sounds like "Sorry we don't want poor people living in our buildings, so we're going to pay for them to be elsewhere".
because that's what it sounds like...
No, it's why should I build
No, it's why should I build and sell a $225,000 condo when I could build and sell a $800,000 condo in the same space?
It's not personal, just business.
Affordable Housing: Euphemism?
Can somebody please clear up or define "Affordable Housing"
Who pays for it ultimately?
Is "Affordable Housing" a code word or euphemism for projects?
No, it's not a euphemism for projects
The euphemism for projects remains projects.
Affordable means people who serve you at your restaurants, pick up your garbage, watch your kids at preschool, etc.
Who picks up the tab ?
Is this a case where a building has 100 units and 10 units are deemed "affordable"
90 Units are $3,000/ month ?
10 Units are $800 / month ?
Do the developers or building owners absorb the cost? Or taxpayers?
I'm not quite sure how this works.
Thank you
Nature of BRA affordable units
When units are deemed affordable by the city/BRA, a portion of the units are set aside to be available to renters earning anywhere from 80% to 120% of Area Median Income (AMI). Per Boston's inclusionary zoning code, I think that it's 10% of units that must be available as such. It's a rather simple calculation based on annual AMI released for the Boston-Quincy-Cambridge MSA (30% x AMI / 12 months = max monthly income for whatever income level).
As Adam hinted at earlier, this is typically referred to as "workforce" housing, as rents at these levels are approaching market rate and not really "cheap" by any stretch. When we start talking about true "low income housing" we are talking about units available to renters in the 30% to 60% of AMI range, which is a noticeable discount to market rents. These units are almost exclusively subsidized in the form of monthly rent subsidies, with Section 8 vouchers or a HUD-backed contract, or development/rehab equity subsidies in the form of Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
Actually...
I've heard anecdotally that it often means people that work at city hall. Nothing nefarious - the problem is that there are lots of lower level administrators that meet the income requirements for this housing. When it comes up for sale the city/BRA/developer has to put out a notice of the availability. It's not sold/rented on the open market - it's "won" by lottery. In addition to the public notices - which virtually nobody knows about or they don't pay attention, the notices are posted on bulletin boards at city hall - so they put in for it. The lotteries are totally above board, but because they are aware of the program AND because they have easy access to the notices - they tend to win a disproportionate number of the units.
I'd bet your average college grad making $40-$50 at a startup has no idea this program even exists and that they would qualify.
Or for the city more generally
I suspect somebody who works for Public Works fixing street lights could qualify for such housing, as well, as opposed to, say, Mayor Walsh's cabinet members.
have these college grads heard of the google?
Because try using it to search for "affordable housing Boston" and let us know how many clicks it takes you to find the lottery info. Took me 3. There's also ads for the lotteries constantly in that little-known underground newspaper, the Metro.
If only...
...you think to search on "affordable housing Boston". The typical college grad that grows up in a leafy suburb probably knows there are things like "projects" - per another thread here and market housing. They probably have no idea that such a middle ground program exists for those of modest incomes. I'm not saying it's hard to find - certainly easier than it used to be, but if you don't know something exists - why would you look for it? Hell - the commenters out here are pretty well informed and they don't know the difference between subsidized and affordable housing when the topic is put out here. It's one of those things that even if you saw it many wouldn't know what it was or that they could possibly qualify (and a wide swath of the population does qualify - the harder part is winning the lottery).
I was a local college grad
I was a local college grad with a $40-50k job not working for city hall who happened to get through the housing lottery and now owns an awesome and affordable place thanks to the BRA. It's not actually that hard to find out about the BRA, the hard part is actually completing the hurdles while working a normal job. I imagine it's easier to get the documents you need while working at city hall than having to abruptly leave work to get things notarized / document your entire life. I've told a ton of my friends about it and even offered them help, but so far no one has taken me up on the offer. It's kind of rough to meet the deadlines and made my life really stressful for the better part of a year. I am very lucky in that I have a relatively flexible job that doesn't mind if I run off for an hour or two for important things. But, I've worked jobs in the past which haven't been so nice.
Affordable housing requires
Affordable housing requires an application process proving that you make a certain amount of money - usually a certain amount above the poverty line and no higher - to qualify, and then you pay rent / mortgage at a lower amount than market housing but it's otherwise pretty much the same thing.
Affordable housing is NOT the
Affordable housing is NOT the same as low income housing.
It defined as "middle-income housing opportunities" They are available to households which earn between 70% and 100% of area median income (AMI).
So let's say you are a single person with no kids.
To qualify you would need to make between 48,250 to 68,950.
A studio would cost you between $122,000 to $188,700.
Rent on a studio would cost you $1068 to 1526.
A one bedroom would cost you between $148,000 to 225,700.
Rent on a one bedroom would be $1157 to $1781.
Once you qualify, you can enter into a lottery for specific units. Then the city takes many factors, called "preferences" to weigh your rank within the lottery. It includes handicapped accessible units, Boston resident, first-time homebuyer etc... Some units have resale restrictions on them,
The edict from 2000:
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/449e3e98-f724-...
2015 Limits:
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/0d235a90-12ac-...
Full information
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/housing
Lottery factors/preferences:
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/housing/lottery-preferences
Affordable housing unit lists
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/housing/more-housing-resources
http://www.massaccesshousingregistry.org/
An example of a unit. 424 Massachusetts Ave-Two-Bedrooms offered for $380,818
http://www.massaccesshousingregistry.org/unit-type/424-massachusetts-ave...
honestly, whatever at this point
anything that gets more units built that people can actually afford.
I'm no expert...
But I think all this does is make new housing more expensive, thus ensuring that we keep barreling down the highway toward being a city of the super rich, and the poor who they subsidize to live here and serve them. It's sad. It's unnecessary. It doesn't take a mad scientist to figure out that what needs to be done is relax zoning restrictions, and parking requirements. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, then it's time to lock our city leaders up.
The regulation allows for
The regulation allows for back room deals and political grandstanding.
Fixing zoning to allow dense housing with little to no parking as of right along transit corridors would end the nonsense and that's why the city government won't do it.
Ditto for mixed use retail with housing above.
Public policy machinations to address a complicated problem
It's a complicated issue. Advocates want affordable units by whatever means available or possible, and policy makers and elected officials want to tout a unit count that they can point at and claim success, but even with all the affordable inclusionary units that have gone on-line in the recent years we still haven't seen any relief in the housing market. In downtown neighborhoods there is, frankly, an unlimited demand. There's a lot of social equity issues at play, as well as the city trying to pragmatically address where (and more importantly how) everyone can find a place to live.
A few quips as I wax poetic from my desk: this city has a lot of foreign buyers treating Boston area real estate as nothing more than an asset class, and these assets are protected by the development restrictions and endless demand; many (but not all) of the new large housing development units in downtown, South Boston Seaport, Kendall Sq, Lechemere, and Fenway are (even if no one wants to admit it) going to well-heeled students and grad students with many buildings becoming de-facto dorms; and anecdotally from my own observations younger buyers gaining access into the market do so with capital transferred to them from family; then there are older buyers I see cashing out from the suburbs and buying within the urban core. The issue everywhere is no one who doesn't have a huge paying job or start up capital from mom & dad can't get ahead as rents are skyrockets and home prices keep going up.
Deed-restricted affordable units are well-intentioned, but if you're the buyer, then buyer beware, and read your condo docs. You may find yourself on the hook when and if there is a big assessment. Not every city or town has the same regulations on deed-restricted units, and many condo associations are having to place liens against affordable units as the owners can't keep up with the Jones' in terms of capital repairs. Some cities have created programs to reimburse an affordable owner with a per year amount on certain types of repairs as there is a public interest in maintaining the integrity of an affordable unit. But I do think if you're buying an affordable unit in a luxury building you should read the condo docs carefully and understand what you will held responsible for, and if the city or town you're in has any assistance. Bottom line -- you're buying a Bentley at the cost of a Subaru, but it still costs Bentley money to maintain the car.
I really the best long-term plan for affordable units are ones developed by the local nonprofits and for-profit developers of affordable housing, such as the model of a project-based voucher property with professional management to mind the capital needs. Inclusionary private units can be a great choice for someone, but watch out and be careful with where and what you buy. I think increasing the buy-out from private developers would be great if the city can commit to putting the money to wise use across the city, but also trying to match where the buy-outs are paid from to the neighborhood's local nonprofit developers or a private firm trying to put a deal together for affordable housing. $360,000 per unit from the city would be great leverage to get other funds from the state.
Also understand that in many cities and towns the affordable unit you purchase is your home and asset in a sense, but it's not something you leave to your heirs. You may leave them the equity in the home, but the unit would be sold to another income eligible household in the event of your death. And on another note, the deed restrictions can get in the way when and if you want to tap into the equity for a line of credit. Many cities and towns have not let affordable homeowners do this.
Please capitalize Affordable Housing
It has particular meaning that is different from the ordinary generic meaning of the term, in context of housing. Not capitalizing it is misleading, which perhaps was the original political intent.
The idea/label could be good, it could be bad, but misleading is definitely bad.
yikes man
just yikes
Really
It's one of the worst bits of Newspeak in use today. I actually support Affordable Housing in general, but these deceptive terms are misleading and manipulating people, and just bad civics.