Do the Affordable Housing Laws Work?

Affordable housing laws are an imperfect solution to a politically difficult problem. Part of it is that zoning is inherently inequitable and creates all sorts of problems, but getting rid of zoning is politically impossible. And even without zoning, the market can be very harsh. Affordable housing laws can act as a buffer. And they are one way of pursuing larger social goals (e.g. integration, equity). So I think there's always going to be a need for such laws. The question is how to do it with the least side-effects and the most overall good. Inclusionary zoning seems to be the best answer we have yet.

Actually, I find the issues surrounding Chapter 40B to possibly be more relevant. Why has it been so ineffective?

But that mostly deals with outside Boston development.
 
Affordable Housing laws are basically a waste of time, they do almost nothing to deal with the problems of out of control housing costs pricing out everybody who isn't a high income earner. Unfortunately, as Matthew notes, they are pretty much all we have right now. So I am in favor of them even though they are kind of pathetic.

Here is an article that gives a basic overview of some problems with "inclusionary zoning";

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/10/de-blasios-doomed-housing-plan/

If we want to solve the problem there is really only one solution and that is to move housing out of the market completely and distribute it some other way - ie public housing and lots of it. We need to start viewing shelter less as a commodity and more of a basic need, as we've started to with health care. Housing should not be a means for accumulating and storing wealth, but that's how we treat it.

Of course the necessary changes are politically impossible right now for numerous reasons but long term if current trends continue, there are no other solutions. It's not exactly unheard of for even the most capitalist urban societies to champion public housing on mass scales (ie, Hong Kong). Right now we have a model of housing that worked in a post WWII developing society that we are trying to impose on what's rapidly becoming a more urban society. It just doesn't work for maintaining any sort of equity.

Thanks to the housing issue we are moving towards a society where those with means can live in culturally relevant cities with economic opportunity, and those without are relegated to far flung exurbs and suburbs with little access to opportunity for upward mobility. This kind of stratification by location is very bad for society long term, it will create a "caste" type system that will make it very hard if not impossible for those not born into means to move up. Really we are already at that point, but the housing issue is preventing us from dealing with it.
 
There are some southeast Asian cities that do a lot of public housing (for everyone) but I'm not convinced that is the model for us.

Actually, one model that I find interesting is that of larger scale, not-for-profit ownership of buildings and land. We have Community Development Corporations already, but they are not usually in the business of doing much normal-market work. What I'm thinking about is extending the concept of CDCs. They don't just focus on providing affordable housing for a limited low-income segment of the market, but instead focus on increasing housing supply (and commercial space supply, where appropriate) in general, but in a way such that instead of windfall profits (stemming from gov't regulatory and/or infrastructural changes) going into private pockets, they get reinvested back into the community.

I haven't really had time to research and sketch out the concept more. I'm pretty sure it exists in some other places, though.
 
Thanks for the feedback. I tend to lean towards being an libertarian politically, but I like to see ways to stimulate more housing stock in the area that creates more affordable. Wouldn't reducing zoning and planning processes help? What about better home buying financing programs for locals?

What about foreigners and people buy properties as second homes, ect.? Does this drive up costs and reduce stock?

Seems like the best approach is to not require an allocated number of units, which are subsidized through a number of things (including higher rents on the non-allocated units), but to roll these back, reduce the red tape and overcome the NIMBY-ism, and construct more housing than its current pace.


I just find that strange that people are some how have this mindset that they should be subsidized by others to live in select and desirable areas just because they want to live there. Boston is a desirable city. Which makes it competitive. I guess the big question, are these programs and the mindset really "fair?" Should living in Boston be able "fairness," or about that's how life is--you can't get or do what you always want--people move away from these markets to more affordable places to improve their quality-of-life all the time.
 
I presume that you agree with me that both economic and racial segregation are bad for overall city health. Let me know if I need to explain that one...

Much of the driving rationale behind the creation of zoning in American cities was to segregate people. Sometimes by race, until that was made illegal (technically). And always by class.

But zoning isn't the only force acting to economically segregate people. Market forces can do that too. And prior to zoning (and often still) there were contracts called "restrictive covenants" that governed land use.

So yes, I share your libertarian tendency to want to reduce the red tape, reduce the NIMBYism, and reduce needless zoning regulation. Especially to reduce the segregating effects of zoning. (Aside: Too bad that most "libertarians" don't think this way, they're usually Republicans in disguise, and the GOP loves segregation. That's why I cannot affiliate with the Libertarian party.).

But even if we started producing loads of housing tomorrow, I think there would still be problems. First of all, injecting loads of money into any place will cause jarring change. And there would still be displacement as the market reshuffles and settles. It's quite possible that the end result would be significantly more affordable overall but you can't just leave people on the street while everything sorts itself out. Housing is a basic necessity, people need to go somewhere. But can they just "move away" and everything will be okay? I don't believe so.

That's because cities are not just buildings and machines, cities are primarily composed of people and their relationships (of all forms) between each other. Displacement of people also usually means snapping ties between them. A neighborhood loses its "human capital" so to speak, and becomes less able to advocate for itself. People move away or pass away over the normal course of events, but at a much slower pace, which allows new relationships to form that replace the old. But not in the case of mass displacement.

So there are a few things outside the normal "market" that are important for cities to maintain and therefore I think that some kind of market intervention may be justified on the basis of preserving those values. The question is how to do it in the least obtrusive, most effective way. And I think that inclusionary zoning is thus far our best answer for smoothing over displacement and tackling the economic segregation caused by zoning.

It's not an ideal answer, it's just the best that I know about.
 
Matthew your principles conflict. It is supremely hard to resolve the conflict between.
- Mixing of unlike people
- Stable social connection

Almost by definition, you are unlike the people you're not socially connected to and you find it near-impossible to make social connections with people you are unlike. If you made a connection (perhaps defying race or class), then you're alike (perhaps in religion, career, sexual orientation, education, or party-affiliation)

It isn't just Republicans-masquerading-as-Libertarians who are in favor of homogeneous neighborhoods. It is Everybody. (http://www.thebigsort.com/) Lynnfield may be cartoonishly exclusive and Republican, but Cambridge is also absurdly conformist and homogeneous, and its minority populations as exactlingly isolated on Rindge and Washington St as any you'll find anywhere.

Quick, what's your mental picture when I say Southy? South End? North End? Eastie? Malden? Dorchester? Wellesley? Those stereotypes--and the connections they catalyze-- are reassuring to the locals even when they are alien to outsiders. LGBT enclaves defy near-all racial and social sorting hangups and are superior at doing the "city mixing" thing, but you still gotta meet one key test of alikeness: being LGBT-friendly.

The only places we get mixing of unlikes are the ones where the locals are freaking the loudest over "gentrification". Most people view integration like skyscrapers and highways: good for for everyone's neighborhood but theirs.

When blacks oppose "gentrification" they're generally opposing white people, not middle class blacks. On what basis should I oppose the desire of middle class blacks to move to enclaves of their peers like Prince George's County, Maryland?

That you would hold affordable housing hostage until we can solve that paradox is even sillier.

The key opportunity we have right now is Generational-- to help the boomers downsize into denser housing in their current neighborhood, freeing up space for newcomers--who are likely to be socially-conforming. The law should make two kinds of housing really easy to build:
- Dense apartment "neighborhood senior living"
- One-notch-denser anything

Doing so statewide would be like an overnight devaluation of a currency, you'd just say whatever units-per-acre were permitted by local ordinance on Day-1, on Day+1 that number is 40% higher, or 20% or 100%. (Pick 1 number and apply it universally). Mostly, people's property values would go up, too, as their parcels got more useful.

Senior living is a huge opportunity. Even Mitt Romney's personal choices (and social network) favored moving from this house on Marsh Road, Belmont:
11859480-large.jpg

To this denser, attached, walkable (to Waverly), house built on excess McLean Hospital Land (also in Belmont):
11859467-large.jpg

^ This is what a push for affordable housing happens to look like in Belmont, when it preserves social networks. We have to be OK with that.

Giving "Mom" cheap-and-plentiful senior living choices *in her neighborhood* (same hairdresser, church, and supermarket) makes it perfect for downsizing (easing her choices, freeing up her "big" house for a "working family"), while preserving her social network.

Accessory dwellings (eg. over the garage in owner-occupied homes) are another way for older folks to downsize (or really, just house more people in the house they have).

Yes, there's going to be opposition. Belmontagnards freaked out (initially) at the thought of attached homes on what had been an open field, but simply being one-notch-denser, the houses added way more than building another set of Marsh Road mansions would have. And that Mitt Romney actually moved there, that's a big win.
 
Last edited:
Cambridge is conformist and homogeneous? Perhaps there aren't many NRA members, but you'd be hard pressed to find a more economically, culturally, and age diverse city in the entire commonwealth.

I'd like to jump in on the larger discussion, but I hate iphone typing and I'm on a plane right now. Short version of my thoughts - inclusionary zoning works against people's racist and classist tendencies and, I believe, has the potential to undermine those biases with time. Everyone in a cosmopolitan society benefits from it being cosmopolitan, even if individuals don't always make individual choices that foster diversity. Market forces alone won't necessarily deliver on diversity. A little light paternalism can go a long way without needing to resort to major public housing.
 
fattony said:
Cambridge is conformist and homogeneous? Perhaps there aren't many NRA members, but you'd be hard pressed to find a more economically, culturally, and age diverse city in the entire commonwealth.
Click to expand...
Yes. 90% Democrat meets any definition of conformist and homogeneous.

Try saying "I voted for Bush both times" aloud in Cambridge and report back here how much diversity-love you feel.

Meanwhile, ask someone from Berkeley, WV, about diversity, and they'll also say they've got all kinds of people..Methodists, Southern Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterian, Church of the Brethern, and the Independent Bible Church ...all kinds of diversity in things that really matter to people. Oh sure, there aren't many non-Protestants, but you'd be hard pressed....

A little more self-awareness, please.
 
Last edited:
Political orientation is one small component of diversity. Thousands of Cantabrigians aren't even Americans, rep/dem doesn't even apply. How many of those will you find in WV.

In cambridge the world is a big place, not a small one. You almost make my point for me.
 
The point for Affordable Housing is that all places have an organizing ethos on which they prefer (and some insist) on conformity. Each will prefer their ethos and give a justification for it why it is the best/right way to organize a place, but they will be invariant in demanding adherence to it, and new people--who wouldn't "naturally" find themselves there threaten that consensus.

However open you think Cambridge is they have bee manifestly closed to increasing housing supply.
 
Arlington said:
The point for Affordable Housing is that all places have an organizing ethos on which they prefer (and some insist) on conformity. Each will prefer their ethos and give a justification for it why it is the best/right way to organize a place, but they will be invariant in demanding adherence to it, and new people--who wouldn't "naturally" find themselves there threaten that consensus.

However open you think Cambridge is they have bee manifestly closed to increasing housing supply.
Click to expand...

Cambridge has been embattled between those demand housing expansion and those opposed. Basically renters vs homeowners. There is nothing uniform at all about development dynamics in Cambridge.
 
Arlington said:
Matthew your principles conflict. It is supremely hard to resolve the conflict between.
- Mixing of unlike people
- Stable social connection

Almost by definition, you are unlike the people you're not socially connected to and you find it near-impossible to make social connections with people you are unlike. If you made a connection (perhaps defying race or class), then you're alike (perhaps in religion, career, sexual orientation, education, or party-affiliation)
Click to expand...

I disagree. The principles don't conflict at all: they are intended to be set that way. The point is that when you have spatial mixing of people with different backgrounds, abilities and motivations, you form social connections across those 'boundaries'. That's how cities work, that's what cities are for: putting a bunch of people in close proximity, who then sprout relationships of various kinds, and ultimately create an economy and society.

You don't have to be different from everybody in every way. It doesn't require extremes. I don't understand why you'd even make that a precondition. With enough people, you'll have more and more opportunity for diversity. And there's network effects: people you know can introduce you to people they know.

And even if you don't form social connections with people unlike you, it's still beneficial for the city to have the mixing. At least it means that the streets are likely to be populated, the shops to be patronized, and businesses to flourish -- particularly the more narrowly focused businesses that depend upon a small fraction of the population for their livelihood.

So I think that it is wise for a city to adopt some policies that encourage mixing and diversity of all sorts, even if it requires market intervention. Of course it should be done with the lightest of touches, with a mind to equity, and without itself causing displacement. You don't want to harm the relationships that already exist. But you do want to offer opportunity for people that want it.

I didn't say it was easy.

But one of the first things to be done is to counteract the malign effect of existing zoning regulation. In the cases that the government has been the source of the segregation effect (say, because of zoning) then the government regulations need to be reformed.
 
fattony said:
In cambridge the world is a big place, not a small one. You almost make my point for me.
Click to expand...
Rather, Cambridge's worldview has proven so totalitarian that you can't even step outside it to see what you are doing: clearly defining who belongs in Cambridge (and holding them up as model citizens) and who does not belong in Cambridge (and dismissing their thoughts and preferences as unimportant in constructing "diversity").

If you can write "In Cambridge the world is" ...whatever ends it is going to be the thing people must conform to.

So far, you've (correctly) noted that the following people do not conform to Cambridge's ethos:
- The NRA (as if 4.5m people don't matter)
- People whose world is "small" (which is probably most of humanity)
- Swing voters / those valuing political diversity (a common group in the 'burbs)

Cambridge is fully-entitled to define its list of "ins" and "outs". So's everyone else. The only thing they're not entitled to (IMO) is to deny that they've done it.

The exclusion of the small-mined, NRA, and swing voting comes easily and naturally to, oh, about 90% of Cambridge. But so far you lack the self-awareness to see that this is a construct for conformity just like everyone else's construct for conformity: it defines who is "in" (and prefers them) and defines who is "out" and dismisses them.
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
Cambridge is fully-entitled to define its list of "ins" and "outs". So's everyone else. The only thing they're not entitled to (IMO) is to deny that they've done it.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just my Cambridge blinders but I can't tell if any of your posts are meant to be serious or satire. Nonetheless, I'll bite. Is "everybody else" still entitled to define it's "ins and outs" when the "outs" clearly step on the boundaries of what should be basic human rights? In this case I'll use your WV example as a list of groups that would clearly discriminate on gay people to be seen as equal citizens.

In other words, is it really an indictment on Cambridge's commitment to diversity and tolerance when they refuse to accommodate hatred/close-mindedness/intolerance? Personally I will gladly sign up to putting certain discriminatory views in the "out" category. Diversity only works when a baseline for civility has been established.
 
By all means be proud of your local ethos. Just be self-aware that all local ethoses(ethe) include people they like and who like them (and assert high-minded principles like Human a Rights, or a Religious Freedom, or Constitutional Rights or Ethnic Pride or solidarity to defend them).

Part of the local ethos will be a conformist preference for their own high-minded principles to those preferred by outsiders.
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
By all means be proud of your local ethos. Just be self-aware that all local ethoses(ethe) include people they like and who like them (and assert high-minded principles like Human a Rights, or a Religious Freedom, or Constitutional Rights or Ethnic Pride or solidarity to defend them).

Part of the local ethos will be a conformist preference for their own high-minded principles to those preferred by outsiders.
Click to expand...

There is an absurdity to "conformity in diversity". The only people who wouldn't "belong" are the intolerant and bigoted. Non-bigots are not the yin to the bigots' yang. You can't honestly put recognition of human rights on the same level as ethnic pride. You are a very small step away from saying "the nazis were misunderstood" and I'm pretty sure you don't mean to take that position.

You can't tell me that the tendency for people to self segregate is a value to be fostered and preserved, especially not when there is an upper class with their boot on the neck of the lower classes. We know from empirical evidence that cosmopolitan, diverse cities are the most powerful economic and cultural engines throughout the history of mankind. The exact definition of diversity has changed from ancient Constantinople to modern Boston, but I don't believe there is any evidence for problems and failures arising from too much tolerance.

So if Cambridge looks different from Lynnfield it is because Lynnfield has exclusionary policies and Cambridge (largely) has inclusionary policies. There isn't any value in having a Lynnfield in the world to "balance" every Cambridge. The 2 are not complementary because not everything has a complement.
 
Cambridge's policies are massively exclusionary. Despite the fact that they have a heavy rail line, a commuter rail station, and a large bus hub, they restrict development ion all but a few places and constantly oppose density increases of "traffic" grounds. I have n o idea about Lynnfield, but Cambridge is either: a: profoundly misguided about how to achieve affordable housing or b: intentionally trying to drive the "poors" out through high cost of living.
 
Cambridge is a mixed bag. I know that there are people who wrote policies to try to exclude. I get frustrated about that too.

But I also know that there are people trying to fix things. And also many people who just go about their lives. Cambridge is not populated by type of person, not even 90% the same, as Arlington suggests.
 
FitchburgLine said:
Cambridge's policies are massively exclusionary. Despite the fact that they have a heavy rail line, a commuter rail station, and a large bus hub, they restrict development ion all but a few places and constantly oppose density increases of "traffic" grounds. I have n o idea about Lynnfield, but Cambridge is either: a: profoundly misguided about how to achieve affordable housing or b: intentionally trying to drive the "poors" out through high cost of living.
Click to expand...

Cambridge has inclusionary affordable housing as a policy exactly for the reasons I stated above. That doesn't mean it has been executed flawlessly nor that there aren't any homeowners and landlords who fight tooth and nail to prevent any change to the status quo.

I'm not sure if our inclusionary zoning policies, as written and implemented currently, are working or will ever work but you can't say they aren't there. In principle, I support any and all policies that give some form of public support to needy/low-income folks in some form other than cramming them into exclusively low-income ghettos. Maybe we need to be more aggressive with inclusionary zoning. Maybe we need a different approach like vouchers funded by new development fees or even by raising our shockingly low property taxes (though good luck with that).

All that said, the primary solution is market driven (supply expansion) with the affordable units/public subsidy/whatever as a supplement. If you mean that the restriction of supply in Cambridge swamps out an positive from inclusionary zoning, well that may be the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top