Idea for fixing the housing shortage

[Justbuildit]

First part just dropped. Haven't read through it yet but it looks like the first victim under the, well, spotlight, will be...Milton. Boil it in a spoon, tie me off, and inject this shit straight into my veins.

Milton home prices: A Boston Globe Spotlight Team report on the housing crisis

In recent decades, suburban towns have doubled down on the status quo, or made zoning even more restrictive, all but guaranteeing that single-family home prices will remain shockingly high.

apps.bostonglobe.com

One fact became obvious in the course of this review: The sense of urgency here does not match this brewing crisis. Not even close.

One reason may be that swelling property values don’t feel like a crisis for those who bought into the market years or decades ago, they feel like a windfall. This region, Milton included, is awash in paper millionaires.

But standing pat will suffocate hope — the hope of many now trying to enter this mad housing market, from empty-nesters hoping to downsize in the town they know, to newcomers seeking to buy a first home as careers and prosperity grow.

They are the new neighbors, so to say, that Milton, and other desirable suburbs, may never know.

How did it come to this? And what can be done?

 

[jklo]

But standing pat will suffocate hope — the hope of many now trying to enter this mad housing market, from empty-nesters hoping to downsize in the town they know, to newcomers seeking to buy a first home as careers and prosperity grow.

Thing is, by "home" they mean SFH.

 

[Blackbird]

Do people here have strong feelings about the governor’s new housing act?

Healey-Driscoll Administration Unveils $4 Billion Affordable Homes Act to Increase Production and Lower Costs

Largest housing investment in state history will create more than 40,000 new homes

www.mass.gov

 

[ritchiew]

Well, this is kind of interesting. The Spotlight article shows which cities need to comply with which new housing regulations, based on whether they have rapid transit, commuter rail, etc. I was surprised to see Chelsea and Everett are "rapid transit" communities.

MBTA Communities law: See how it affects your town

Use our interactive map to see your town's obligation to rezone under the MBTA Communities Act.

apps.bostonglobe.com

Digging through the definitions, Chelsea has "rapid transit" because of the Silver Line. Everett has "rapid transit" because it has more than 100 acres of "developable area" within a half mile of a rapid transit stop. (None of those are meant to be scare quotes. They're just defined, technical terms for this law. I think they're fine.)

For Everett, that means there's developable land around Wellington Station (even though the station is actually in Medford). Actually walking or biking from Everett to Wellington looks pretty bad. My first peak on Google Street View showed one pedestrian trying to talk along a snowbank where there should be a sidewalk.

With all that in mind, any idea how much it would cost to build a pedestrian bridge, roughly here?

 

[ritchiew]

Do people here have strong feelings about the governor’s new housing act?

Healey-Driscoll Administration Unveils $4 Billion Affordable Homes Act to Increase Production and Lower Costs

Largest housing investment in state history will create more than 40,000 new homes

www.mass.gov

I am also curious what people think, so I'll throw out my own opinions and hope more knowledgeable people will correct me here.

Broad strokes it looks good. Making it easier to build ADUs is great. Committing money to build and restore public housing is great. Allowing cities to tax real estate transfers to fund affordable housing looks good. That's something some cities have been wanting to do for a while. And tax breaks for developers to build more is... fine. Some criticisms below. But broadly, this all looks promising, and people will be combing through it to make sure the details work, too.

For a bit of perspective, Healey says this plan could spur the creation of 40,000 new homes in the next few years. But housing advocates have been saying for years that Massachusetts needs >100,000 new homes to start catching up with demand. That's not to knock this plan. This is a hell of lot more than anyone has done to try to fix the housing problem so far. But this is more like a good first step.

And as for the tax breaks for developers, I am at least wary that this is an effective strategy. I have never seen anywhere that taxes are some big obstacle preventing development. The problem is local regulations that outright ban development, and tax cuts can't get around outright bans. Or local regulations make the permitting so costly and cumbersome that it often isn't worth the risk. Tax cuts don't solve any of that. Some tax cuts would help spur development at the margins, but most of the tax cuts would likely be going to deep-pocketed developers who were going to build anyways, I think. I'll guess that Healey will promote this as a great way to promote new development, but the effect will probably be small comparted to the cost of giving up that tax revenue. Just cut more zoning laws, instead. People will build, and it'd be more fair for everyone.

 

[Blackbird]

And as for the tax breaks for developers, I am at least wary that this is an effective strategy. I have never seen anywhere that taxes are some big obstacle preventing development. The problem is local regulations that outright ban development, and tax cuts can't get around outright bans. Or local regulations make the permitting so costly and cumbersome that it often isn't worth the risk. Tax cuts don't solve any of that….Just cut more zoning laws, instead. People will build, and it'd be more fair for everyone.

While I agree with this, does the state even have the power to directly alter individual town and city zoning laws?

 

[JeffDowntown]

I am also curious what people think, so I'll throw out my own opinions and hope more knowledgeable people will correct me here.

Broad strokes it looks good. Making it easier to build ADUs is great. Committing money to build and restore public housing is great. Allowing cities to tax real estate transfers to fund affordable housing looks good. That's something some cities have been wanting to do for a while. And tax breaks for developers to build more is... fine. Some criticisms below. But broadly, this all looks promising, and people will be combing through it to make sure the details work, too.

For a bit of perspective, Healey says this plan could spur the creation of 40,000 new homes in the next few years. But housing advocates have been saying for years that Massachusetts needs >100,000 new homes to start catching up with demand. That's not to knock this plan. This is a hell of lot more than anyone has done to try to fix the housing problem so far. But this is more like a good first step.

And as for the tax breaks for developers, I am at least wary that this is an effective strategy. I have never seen anywhere that taxes are some big obstacle preventing development. The problem is local regulations that outright ban development, and tax cuts can't get around outright bans. Or local regulations make the permitting so costly and cumbersome that it often isn't worth the risk. Tax cuts don't solve any of that. Some tax cuts would help spur development at the margins, but most of the tax cuts would likely be going to deep-pocketed developers who were going to build anyways, I think. I'll guess that Healey will promote this as a great way to promote new development, but the effect will probably be small comparted to the cost of giving up that tax revenue. Just cut more zoning laws, instead. People will build, and it'd be more fair for everyone.

I think your assessment, including the questions about the tax breaks is pretty on target.

One issue with wholesale confronting the zoning prohibitions is that rapidly becomes a political non-starter with the big money interests behind the current NIMBY zoning.

Incentives to developers basically give them the cash to tackle the issue project by project, by basically financing zoning appeals with tax incentives. It is a work around for the political morass that is zoning reforms.

 

[ritchiew]

While I agree with this, does the state even have the power to directly alter individual town and city zoning laws?

The state can pass its own zoning laws, and those would supersede town and city laws. The state generally delegates zoning authority to towns and cities, but it can take back that authority at any time. And the state does get involved in zoning in some ways already. It has zoned designated port areas along the coast that have to be maintained for maritime uses. That one is an issue when it comes to a possible Rev's soccer stadium being built along the water in Everett. The other state zoning example would be the MBTA Communities law. The state law sets limits and requirements on town and city zoning laws, but then leaves the municipalities to write the laws themselves.

One issue with wholesale confronting the zoning prohibitions is that rapidly becomes a political non-starter with the big money interests behind the current NIMBY zoning.

Yeah that makes sense. It seems like focusing first on easing ADU regulations is a reasonable political calculation. The expected impact would be 8,000 new homes, which is small compared to the size of the problem, but a real step forward. And there will be political pushback, but a lot less than if she wanted to focus on height restrictions, say. ADUs seem like some balance of impactful and achievable, but that's my outsiders perspective.

 

[dhawkins]

I'll be surprised if this paragraph is kept in the proposed law.
-"adopting a real estate transaction fee of 0.5 percent to 2 percent on the portion of a property sale over $1 million – or the county median home sale price. This fee–projected to affect fewer than 14 percent of all residential sales--would be paid by the seller of the property with the money to be used to fund affordable housing developments within the community."

The law should at least specify in writing that the money is earmarked for housing only to avoid it being siphoned off.

 

[jklo]

The law should at least specify in writing that the money is earmarked for housing only to avoid it being siphoned off.

Umm... I imagine that's the point of the tax. See the Millionaire tax.

 

[ritchiew]

I'll be surprised if this paragraph is kept in the proposed law.
-"adopting a real estate transaction fee of 0.5 percent to 2 percent on the portion of a property sale over $1 million – or the county median home sale price. This fee–projected to affect fewer than 14 percent of all residential sales--would be paid by the seller of the property with the money to be used to fund affordable housing developments within the community."

The law should at least specify in writing that the money is earmarked for housing only to avoid it being siphoned off.

The full text of the proposed law is here

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2023/10/18/Housing%20Bond%20Bill%20and%20Filing%20Letter%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf

And it looks like it's pretty clear the money can only go towards housing.

any such money received from section 55D [real estate transfer tax] shall be used exclusively for adaptive reuse, production or preservation of affordable housing, uses allowed by the municipal affordable housing trust fund established hereunder or a regional affordable housing commission fund established by general or special law, for assistance to a housing authority as defined under section 1 of chapter 121B or other affordable housing purposes as determined by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities.

 

[lainpimicaja]

Just read this story in the Globe about Arlington adopting compliance with the MBTA Communities Act - I know NIMBY's are a force to be reckoned with and not going anywhere soon, but I'm honestly surprised that there's been strong support for some munis up-zoning in accordance with the state law (you wouldn't know it reading the headline and the lede though):

"The new zoning was the subject of impassioned debate — both supporters and opponents turned out to public hearings about the plan in droves — but was approved by Arlington’s Town Meeting in a landslide; only 35 of the body’s 252 representatives voted against it. The plan needed a simple majority to pass."

Isn't the story here that there's actually overwhelming democratic support for doing the right thing, addressing the housing crisis, and making much-desired communities more accessible? I know this is not a new phenomenon - local media playing up conflict for coverage, but a handful of NIMBY's drowned out by hundreds of voters is not conflict - it's negligible.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Just read this story in the Globe about Arlington adopting compliance with the MBTA Communities Act - I know NIMBY's are a force to be reckoned with and not going anywhere soon, but I'm honestly surprised that there's been strong support for some munis up-zoning in accordance with the state law (you wouldn't know it reading the headline and the lede though):

"The new zoning was the subject of impassioned debate — both supporters and opponents turned out to public hearings about the plan in droves — but was approved by Arlington’s Town Meeting in a landslide; only 35 of the body’s 252 representatives voted against it. The plan needed a simple majority to pass."

Isn't the story here that there's actually overwhelming democratic support for doing the right thing, addressing the housing crisis, and making much-desired communities more accessible? I know this is not a new phenomenon - local media playing up conflict for coverage, but a handful of NIMBY's drowned out by hundreds of voters is not conflict - it's negligible.

The smell of controversy sells media clicks. Hence the misleading headline and lede.

 

[jklo]

Isn't the story here that there's actually overwhelming democratic support for doing the right thing, addressing the housing crisis, and making much-desired communities more accessible? I know this is not a new phenomenon - local media playing up conflict for coverage, but a handful of NIMBY's drowned out by hundreds of voters is not conflict - it's negligible.

By more accessible, you mean more 600k+ condos. And only maybe. But at least being so close to the Inner Core, you can make the case that it's much more realistic to get people to bite on market rate condos and apartments than say Suburbia. Going carless there might be tough without RLX though.

 

[Justbuildit]

I mean, the median home price in Arlington (ARLINGTON!) is essentially $1M, so $600k for a condo sounds...very reasonable.

Arlington MA Home Prices & Home Values | Zillow

The typical home value of homes in Arlington MA is $993,072. Arlington MA home values have gone down 37.3% over the past year.

www.zillow.com

Hell, here's a $700k condo from 1890 in what could only be some kind of institutional housing, with electric baseboard heating, window AC units, and a dreadful particle board and formica kitchen (note the estimate at $740k).

47 Park St UNIT 47, Arlington, MA 02474 | Zillow

47 Park St Unit 47, Arlington MA.This home last sold for $571,000 in December 2018. The Rent Zestimate for this property is $2,192/mo, which has increased by $2,192/mo in the last 30 days.

www.zillow.com

The upward filtering effects of old housing stock, where people have settled for a craftsman from the great depression made of asbestos and uninsulated wires for $2M, is not the only way to live in New England. Zone for building of all kinds; condos, town-homes, four plexes, etc. Let people have a choice where they live. Good on the town for going along with the new law and providing additional density bonuses for mixed use and additional affordable units.

 

[jklo]

I mean, the median home price in Arlington (ARLINGTON!) is essentially $1M, so $600k for a condo sounds...very reasonable.

600k is like the bare minimum to even think about bothering. Seems most of the new construction condos in the area are starting at a mill.

 

[Justbuildit]

And providing a mix of new construction of various sizes will help make old expensive housing (as the only option) into old slightly less expensive housing as part of a mix. Let there be a surge of $700/sf 900sf condos!

 

[Stlin]

In other news, federally they're getting into pushing Commercial to Residential conversions as well, with the White House publishing a guidebook (PDF warning) to federal funding opportunities and resources, with eligibility for grants and below market loans being expanded to conversions, such as USDOT loans for TOD projects (TIFIA and RRIF) and HUD making conversions eligible for Community development block grants. Additionally, the press release also contains a ton of hyperlinks to some really good research and resources on the office market and conversions.

 

[dhawkins]

GBH story on Youtube
How rebuilding strip malls could help solve Boston’s housing crisis

 

[beck4537]

In addition to strip malls, the burbs also have a ton of underutilized office space that is never going to be leased. Hope they also think of converting some of those spaces too.