Do the Affordable Housing Laws Work?

Stupid idea that could actually work: put together a list of obnoxious apartment/condo buzzwords and increase the affordable housing requirements for any development that uses words from the list in their marketing:

I'd start with these:
-"Luxury"
-"Premier"
-"Exclusive"
-"Unrivaled"

Maybe penalizing developers for marketing only to the rich could nudge them away from designing only for the rich.
 
Priced Out: Boston’s Real Estate Boom And What We Lose If Only The Rich Can Buy In

Mon, Dec 07, 2015
by Mike Broida

Over the past several years, it seems that the most common sight on the Boston skyline has become the construction crane: More than $7 billion in construction is reportedly pouring into several of the city’s core neighborhoods, including the Seaport, Back Bay and Fenway. Yet despite all the new developments, Boston’s residents are in an unprecedented housing pinch: Rents are rising at five times the rates of incomes, and households making $80,000 a year can access only the bottom quarter of the housing market, shutting them out of entire neighborhoods.

...

We cannot afford to wait. The city can raise already-existing building fees on luxury condos to redirect a portion of the billions of dollars coming into the city to directly subsidize and incentivize the building cost of affordable housing. While raising building fees will also contribute to rising rents, much of the units currently under development are already well beyond the means of Boston’s struggling young professional population and eroding middle class. In addition, state and city government can start to replace some of the cuts caused by the broad-scale reductions in HUD block grants and HOME program funding. With resident approval, the city can loosen some of the zoning policies that eliminate larger, denser, building developments that are more likely to cater to affordable or middle-income renters...
Click to expand...

Full article:
http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2015/12/07/boston-real-estate-crunch-mike-broida
 
With resident approval, the city can loosen some of the zoning policies that eliminate larger, denser, building developments that are more likely to cater to affordable or middle-income renters.
Click to expand...

LOL! "With resident approval".

Does he really believe that the selfish pricks who have been making it nearly impossible to build housing for the past several decades are going to suddenly change their mind?
 
Mike Ross was on Radio Boston yesterday talking about density and upzoning. Good to have the more in-the-weeds conversation being addressed.
 
And, as always, it is imperative that we don't conflate the removal of barriers to development:

the city can loosen some of the zoning policies that eliminate larger, denser, building developments that are more likely to cater to affordable or middle-income renters
Click to expand...

with enacting barriers to development:

The city can raise already-existing building fees on luxury condos to redirect a portion of the billions of dollars coming into the city to directly subsidize and incentivize the building cost of affordable housing.
Click to expand...

The first provides more housing that appeals to people currently being squeezed out of the market.

The second just removes profitability, thus screwing developers, and ultimately, every single person who wants to live in better/cheaper housing.

A household making $80,000 a year is priced out of most neighborhoods, as the article indicates. This is not a failure of capitalism, but rather the lack of capitalism due to insane barriers to development we have in Boston. Allow developers to build housing, and be profitable while doing so and guess what....they will build housing!

Does anyone else find it infuriating that payments made in the name of "affordable housing" have to be made by developers who are the only people making housing more affordable, thus dis-incentivizing them from building and making housing less affordable! Let's cut off our nose to spite our face a little more, why don't we.

If anything, this should be paid through a land-based tax assessment encouraging land owners who own under-utilized lots to develop and spur affordable housing development.
 
dwash59 said:
Boston to double affordable housing fees for developers
Click to expand...

Why can't people understand that capitalism applies to housing:

If wheat is scarce and prices are too high, we don't force farmers to pay high fees into a social program to combat hunger. That would be counterproductive.

If shoes are scarce and prices are too high, we don't force shoe manufacturers to pay high fees into a social program to combat shoeless-ness. That would be counterproductive.

Why do we use our lack of affordable housing to justify disincentivizing housing production. It's counterproductive!
 
I think the larger issue with raising fees is, fine, raise the fees in an attempt to force affordable unit construction. Now where the hell are you gonna put those units? You gonna help developers push passed the NIMBYs? Because if not, all you've done is increased the price of housing construction and you haven't done a single thing to increase the stock of affordable units.
 
That is also true! It's almost as if, with no grounding in reality an no consultation with economists or housing experts, they said:

"If we say we're going after the 'fat-cats' in the name of affordable housing, our voters are stupid enough to think we're doing something positive."
 
underground said:
I think the larger issue with raising fees is, fine, raise the fees in an attempt to force affordable unit construction. Now where the hell are you gonna put those units? You gonna help developers push passed the NIMBYs? Because if not, all you've done is increased the price of housing construction and you haven't done a single thing to increase the stock of affordable units.
Click to expand...

Affordable units should be included onsite or in close proximity to these developments. Mixed income neighborhoods are important for a variety of reasons. Otherwise we are back to putting all the poor people in projects.
 
tangent said:
Affordable units should be included onsite or in close proximity to these developments. Mixed income neighborhoods are important for a variety of reasons. Otherwise we are back to putting all the poor people in projects.
Click to expand...

This entire argument is completely moot if we keep enacting barriers to development. Some cities have done something great: incentivized development. Giving actual money to developers who build a lot of units downtown. This money offsets forcing the developers to build affordable units on-site.

Whatever you are saying doesn't matter if it is made more and more difficult and costly to construct what you actually want to see constructed.

EDIT: And that's without even considering the restricted supply it encourages.
 
bigeman312 said:
This entire argument is completely moot if we keep enacting barriers to development. Some cities have done something great: incentivized development. Giving actual money to developers who build a lot of units downtown. This money offsets forcing the developers to build affordable units on-site.

Whatever you are saying doesn't matter if it is made more and more difficult and costly to construct what you actually want to see constructed.

EDIT: And that's without even considering the restricted supply it encourages.
Click to expand...


And I don't disagree. But last time I checked there were a variety of subsidies for low income housing. What I think especially doesn't work is this affordable housing slush fund idea. If the requirement is to provide a certain percentage of housing which is affordable, then that should be the requirement. Don't have a slush fund alternative which may or may not actually go towards affordable housing.
 
tangent said:
And I don't disagree. But last time I checked there were a variety of subsidies for low income housing. What I think especially doesn't work is this affordable housing slush fund idea. If the requirement is to provide a certain percentage of housing which is affordable, then that should be the requirement. Don't have a slush fund alternative which may or may not actually go towards affordable housing.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, as well. Hey tangent, we agree for the first time ever.

ADDITION: In a perfect world, subsidized housing is provided only for those who truly need it, is provided in mixed-income developments, within mixed-income neighborhoods, and is funded by land-based tax assessments, that encourage developments of underutilized parcels. What do you think?
 
tangent said:
Affordable units should be included onsite or in close proximity to these developments. Mixed income neighborhoods are important for a variety of reasons. Otherwise we are back to putting all the poor people in projects.
Click to expand...

I 100% disagree on the several fronts--philosophically/politically--but this is a bigger problem that goes way beyond the scope of this debate. Boston is kind of an unique place for a variety reasons, including the massive amount of land that colleges and universities own (and pay no taxes in terms of property or business) and the amount of college students here--combine with the land and development restrictions here--it will never be solved.

bigeman312 said:
Why can't people understand that capitalism applies to housing:

If wheat is scarce and prices are too high, we don't force farmers to pay high fees into a social program to combat hunger. That would be counterproductive.

If shoes are scarce and prices are too high, we don't force shoe manufacturers to pay high fees into a social program to combat shoeless-ness. That would be counterproductive.

Why do we use our lack of affordable housing to justify disincentivizing housing production. It's counterproductive!
Click to expand...

I'll be interested to see how the ability, and the cost analysis, to fund these developments changes at all once federal interest rates start hiking.
 
tangent said:
And I don't disagree. But last time I checked there were a variety of subsidies for low income housing. What I think especially doesn't work is this affordable housing slush fund idea. If the requirement is to provide a certain percentage of housing which is affordable, then that should be the requirement. Don't have a slush fund alternative which may or may not actually go towards affordable housing.
Click to expand...

I was surprised during the BRA meeting on Wednesday that (a) Harvard has to pay into the housing slush fund to build an auditorium and (b) that the BRA board wasn't sure they were paying enough.

I could understand for development that induces housing demand (e.g. a large new office building); but it seems crazy to me for an auditorium that is replacing another auditorium.
 
The mayor tonight announced a new "Office of Housing Stability" during his State of the City Address:

As Bostonians share their hopes with me, they also share their challenges. More often than not, housing is at the top of the list. Graduates in Allston, families in East Boston, seniors in Roslindale: people are struggling to pay rents and find homes they can afford.

We’ve worked relentlessly to meet the demand that’s driving this pressure. We’re not letting up. Recently we strengthened one of our most successful policies: inclusionary development. You can see its impact in places like the Hong Lok House in Chinatown, which kept longtime residents in their neighborhood. The new policy will bring more affordable homes where they are needed most. And it will spur middle-class housing across the city.

New homes will help bring costs back to working people’s budgets. But many just want a fair deal where they live right now. Last year, we doubled the compensation people get when their apartments are turned into condos. But we should do more than compensate. We should help people stay in their communities. Tonight, I can announce a new Office of Housing Stability, to do just that. It’s going to develop resources for tenants, incentives for landlords who do the right thing, and partnerships with developers to keep more of our housing stock affordable.
Click to expand...

Without details, it may just be another useless layer of bureaucracy. I also have never been fan of housing stability efforts that result in SFH homes becoming single occupancy for widows in their late 80's. That, to me, has always struck me as a way of keeping housing unaffordable.
 
Please tell me that it's at least a wing of DND, and not some new stand alone.
 
Cambridge is legalizing an unknown number of currently illegal basement apartments, and making it legal to build or convert new ones. The proponent estimates about a thousand units could be created across the city: http://www.cambridgeday.com/2016/01...legally-as-of-may-1-joining-the-illegal-ones/

"Soft" density has a role to play in housing supply and affordability. Here Cambridge is creating housing without suffering the excruciating public process of actually going through with infill development. Somerville and Medford on the other hand are destroying housing with requirements that no more than three or four unrelated adults live together.
 
Scipio said:
Cambridge is legalizing an unknown number of currently illegal basement apartments, and making it legal to build or convert new ones. The proponent estimates about a thousand units could be created across the city: http://www.cambridgeday.com/2016/01...legally-as-of-may-1-joining-the-illegal-ones/

"Soft" density has a role to play in housing supply and affordability. Here Cambridge is creating housing without suffering the excruciating public process of actually going through with infill development. Somerville and Medford on the other hand are destroying housing with requirements that no more than three or four unrelated adults live together.
Click to expand...

Bravo, Cambridge. This unlocks spare capacity in the existing housing stock and should both put downward pressure on rents AND upward pressure on existing home values. A great public policy change that both renters and owners can celebrate.

Regarding those Somerville and Medford requirements: are they ever really enforced? My housemates and landlord and I openly flaunt our violation of them. I think the cities only care if you're in violation of the rules while also enrolled at Tufts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top