Large Dorchester Avenue project approved in contentious meeting

While I appreciate your providing citations, neither of those studies prove your point.

The Philadelphia Fed study focused on the effects of gentrification, not new construction. They define gentrification as follows: To be eligible to gentrify: Census tract must have had a median household income below the citywide median in 2000. To be classified as gentrifying: Tract must be eligible to gentrify, and must have experienced both an above citywide median increase in share of college-educated residents between 2000 and 2009–2013, and an above citywide median increase in either median gross rent or median home value over the 2000–2013 period.

Note the absence of any indicators related to new construction. As a result, the study makes no conclusions about the effect of new construction on housing prices or displacement. The important factors that are documented include loss of rental units to condo conversion and the loss of deed restricted units with expiring affordability use restrictions, both of which, I would posit, are forces that can are mitigated, not worsened, by the introduction or more rental stock with an affordability component.

The other paper by Anenburg and Kung is thought provoking, but is a simulation model with so many caveats it is hard to determine its applicability here. For example, the city is treated as a closed system in which households move neither in nor out, there is little differentiation in the attractiveness fo neighborhoods for different groups, and finally "Thus, we caution against extrapolating our model’s elasticities to very large changes to the housing stock," and very large changes to the city's housing stock is exactly the Mayor's strategy which anti-development advocates are trying to undermine.

For a more comprehensive review of literature related to the effects of supply, please see Been, et. al http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Been%20Ellen%20O%27Regan%20su.... They search the literature for evidence to address the concerns that new supply worsens conditions for existing low income residents and find:

"Many of the arguments are plausible, and we take them seriously, but we ultimately conclude, from both theory and empirical evidence, that adding new homes moderates price increases and therefore makes housing more affordable to low and moderate income families. Moderating prices does not mean prices won’t rise at all; but they won’t rise as much as they would otherwise."

Importantly, they also conclude that "Adding new market-rate units will not generally address the housing needs of very low income households. Thus, it is critical to provide housing at different price points through inclusionary zoning, subsidies, or other tools for ensuring that communities remain (or become) economically diverse as they grow."

This finding suggests those concerned about the plight of low0income households should spend less time fighting projects like DOT Block from happening at all, and spend more time figuring out how to raise the affordability requirements, get more state and federal funding for subsidized units, protect units with expiring affordability restrictions, and improving the region's transportation system so that more affordable neighborhoods can provide better opportunity for their residents.

Wait, 60% inclusionary units, or the inclusionary units affordable at 60% AMI?