Housing

curcuas

Active Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
566
Reaction score
352

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
2,755
Reaction score
970
I think that is certainly true at the macro level, but for the small municipalities in Massachusetts, it's often not true, because the incremental costs do not scale with the population increase. If your school system is maxed out, you have to build a new school, not just buy 25 more student desks. However, there are solutions to such problems, such as regional governance.
 

JumboBuc

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
1,103
Here's a detailed MHP report: the costs of new housing for towns are covered by 31% of the prop tax revenue they generate:

Here's some more from MAPC:

I think there was a more recent MHP or MAPC report, too.
That MHP working paper shows that, of 6 housing developments analyzed, 3 generated local costs greater than local property tax revenue and 3 generated local costs less than local property tax revenue. Then, for the communities where local costs exceed local tax revenue, 31% of STATE tax revenue would be required to cover the local revenue shortfall. It also concedes that state tax revenues are largely zero sum (someone moving to one town in MA is in all likelihood moving from another town in MA, so net MA taxes are unaffected) and attempts to adjust for this, but uses an arbitrary 75% assumption that doesn't really address the question. Also, the working paper considers a sample of just 224 housing units.

That is hardly a convincing finding to one worried about stress of development on local finances. The authors also make it clear that even outside of their findings, stress of developments on school districts is highly dependent on local school district capacity, and that high-need students put much more fiscal pressure on schools than "average" students.
Our analysis also suggests that development planning should consider the capacity of the local school district to absorb new students. This would limit the chance that a community would approve housing developments that exceed its service capacity, resulting in net negative local fiscal impacts. [...] Additionally, this analysis does not address the potential for the unexpected and substantial costs associated with providing services to school-age children with special educational and other needs, which is often a concern for smaller communities. In some cases, the risks associated with the potential for new high-need students may deter some communities from supporting new residential developments, even when the community has the capacity to serve more average new residents.
The MAPC document basically just highlights that the population is aging and total school enrollment is dropping.

I'm a YIMBY who absolutely supports expanding the housing stock, but the concerns of small communities around housing growth's impact on schools do make a lot of sense, and this research does little to dispel them. School systems are HIGHLY local in MA and this has a lot of positives but also a lot of negatives. Other parts of the country think we're nuts for having pretty much every single town run its own independent school district (and police department, and fire department, and etc...), but that's just how we do it. In that context, small population growths can really throw off the balance in our hyper-local services, even if they don't move the needle much on the net state level.
 

bigpicture7

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
2,153
Though on the opposite coast, this is pretty big news:

Berkeley, CA's city council just voted to eliminate single-family zoning, "[allowing] for multifamily housing on lots that currently are zoned for only one home."

If Berkeley can do this, hmmm, I wonder if any cities/towns around Boston follow suit. (**sigh**)
 

393b40

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
1,947
Reaction score
817
Though on the opposite coast, this is pretty big news:

Berkeley, CA's city council just voted to eliminate single-family zoning, "[allowing] for multifamily housing on lots that currently are zoned for only one home."

If Berkeley can do this, hmmm, I wonder if any cities/towns around Boston follow suit. (**sigh**)
They didn't actually do that at all. They adopted a resolution stating their intent to reform the zoning code by the end of next year, a non-binding and thoroughly unambitious bit of foot-dragging.

Better coverage: Berkeley may eliminate historically racist single family zoning (berkeleyside.com)
 

bigpicture7

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
2,153
^ Fair enough; yet, somehow, sadly, it would still be downright monumental for local elected officials here to put their name on such a resolution. In case you didn't notice, many local officials here (hoping to get reelected) are flat-out scared to so much as imply that zoning changes to promote density are on the way (in certain locales in particular). I'll adopt your skepticism, but I'll still be watching what happens in Berkeley on this.
 
Last edited:

bigpicture7

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
2,153
^ Apparently I'm not the only one sensing at least a shred of optimism in the Berkeley city council's referendum vote:

EDIT: also, the comments section of this article is a joy (and by that I mean it's the wreck you'd expect it to be). People have a really messed up interpretation of property rights (e.g., "property rights means that my property will forever remained isolated from society and that I am guaranteed a perennially increasing value regardless of how much of a dumpster fire society is - AND, it also means my neighbor CAN'T do what they want with their property, since 'rights' means that I get what I want in the spaces OUTSIDE of my property, even if someone else paid for rights for those spaces"). Fascinating.
 
Last edited:

donkeybutlers

Active Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
149
Reaction score
198
Boston joins with House America to combat homelessness
As part of Boston’s participation in House America, the city has committed to rehouse 1,100 local households and create 650 housing units for the local homeless population between now and December 2022. Additionally, many of the housing recipients will be paired with services to help them stay consistently housed.
Boston’s annual homeless census counted 1,591 homeless individuals on the night of Jan. 27, 2021
That would be homes for about 40% of the homeless population according to the last census. It would be a decent start, especially if they stick to that time frame, and continue building after 650. It's worth remembering this problem is not as big as it seems and can be solved.
 

dshoost88

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
1,288
Census data has a lag, particularly from the American Community Survey. Most municipal population numbers are based on a ACS 5-year average of the previous years posted... for example, if Revere had the following population estimates for 5 years, their 2019 population would read 53,000 (their listed population was 53,073 for 2019).
2010 - 51,755
...
2015 - 52,000
2016 - 52,500
2017 - 53,000
2018 - 53,500
2019 - 54,000

Another contribution for the lag is that new housing units are not always immediately accounted for in a given year's population estimates. This is generally rectified by the decennial census when the US Census Bureau has address canvassers go to every census tract in the country to corroborate addresses.

Until the 2020 decennial census data is released next summer, we won't have a clear picture of how many people actually live in all municipalities.
I wanted to follow up to some of the concerns raised with my data dump nearly a year ago and Revere’s census numbers looking small. According to the 2020 decennial census, Revere’s population spiked ~20% the last decade and is definitely a regional standout for housing production. If I have downtime soon, I might revisit my housing post from last year to update with decennial census numbers for rate increases compared to regional average to illustrate who’s doing their fair share.
 

tysmith95

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
2,709
Reaction score
207
So schools are a large portion of municipal budgets for most communities.

The one good part for municipalities about most new development is that the burden on schools for studio/1/2 bed apartments is that the number of children per unit is much lower than it is with single family and larger multi family units.

There really isn't much buildable land left inside of 495 for new single family homes. However there is increased demand for smaller apartment units as average household side is much lower than it was in the past. 1 bed apartments attract young childless couples and downsizing retirees. They don't attract families with children.
 

JumboBuc

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
1,103
So schools are a large portion of municipal budgets for most communities.

The one good part for municipalities about most new development is that the burden on schools for studio/1/2 bed apartments is that the number of children per unit is much lower than it is with single family and larger multi family units.

There really isn't much buildable land left inside of 495 for new single family homes. However there is increased demand for smaller apartment units as average household side is much lower than it was in the past. 1 bed apartments attract young childless couples and downsizing retirees. They don't attract families with children.
When empty-nesters downsize out of their old single-family homes, younger families often move in. So one could definitely make the argument that building units aimed at empty-nesters / retirees increases school enrollment in single-family areas. And building “luxury” buildings in the city increases school enrollment in the leafier suburbs. The same could also be said for some extent for units targeted at young professionals and childless people, but they’re generally freeing up smaller units (unless they’re moving out of large-unit with roommate situations).

An interesting angle here is that school enrollment is hyper-local (within a town) but downsizings/moves tend to be more regional (across towns but within Greater Boston). So from a pure fiscal POV, a dense development of smaller “luxury” units in Boston could be worse for municipal finances in, say, Lexington than if that same dense development were in Lexington itself.
 

dshoost88

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
1,288
An interesting angle here is that school enrollment is hyper-local (within a town) but downsizings/moves tend to be more regional (across towns but within Greater Boston). So from a pure fiscal POV, a dense development of smaller “luxury” units in Boston could be worse for municipal finances in, say, Lexington than if that same dense development were in Lexington itself.
That would be true if municipalities were failing to add other taxable real estate to their tax roles, such as commercial and industrial space, Alas, I believe employers in Lexington employ more workers than there are residential homes, and the number of jobs continues to grow there. In a region so thirsty for lab and manufacturing space, the likely outcome is that suburbs growing their commercial real estate footprints will continue to see stable/healthy municipal finances. It’s the BANANA municipalities that are most likely in trouble. (Build absolutely nothing anywhere, not anytime)
 

Top