This part of the MGL c40B law states that relief from 40B mandates also occurs when a town has at least 1.5% of its land area occupied by defined affordable housing units, despite not having the ubiquitous 10%.
Almost ten years ago I brought to the Board of Selectmen a study I conducted, that based on a manual count from our on line assessor’s records, Arlington had attained the required numbers. Since that time and through a number of town planners there has been an ongoing dispute that we were in fact at the 1.5% level. Each time the planning department disputed the numbers and presented their view, adjustments were made between my calculations and theirs and the disputed gaps were brought closer together. The current position is that we need about one more acre of land occupied by affordable units.
What bothers me most is that the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) through their Regulations have made rulings that “tweaked” the criteria to the point that it is extremely difficult to qualify the precise number. What most people don’t know is all Federal, State, and Municipal properties plus bodies of water, streams, conservation land, are deducted from our land area in calculating available land to build calculation. For example, we have numerous properties occupied by State DMH (Department of Mental Health) and DMR (Department of Mental Retardation) affordable units which we can’t identify as their locations are by law not to be identified. If just their land were detailed, we would very likely be over the required 1.5%.
A few points to consider:
Few of our citizens are aware that Arlington has more total public housing units than any other municipality with the exception of Framingham and nine other cities. Arlington is number eleven of the 365 cities and towns of the Commonwealth in total public housing units. Even more significant we are number one in number of public housing units per 1,000 citizens. We have also codified an inclusionary zoning bylaw, and required such units remain affordable in perpetuity. Supporting affordable unit acquisition we voted establishment of the Arlington Housing Corporation whose success has been outstanding. Despite all this success, some bureaucrats in DHCD are hanging their hats on 10% as the epitome of affordable housing status.
To put our affordable housing status in perspective, let’s see where Arlington is, in the big picture of Massachusetts’ affordable housing status. Of our 365 cities and towns, only 35% (144) have an equal or higher percentage (over 5.6%) of affordable units. Of that number only 8% (29) exceed our total number of public housing units and 7% (24) of these are cities. We are an exemplary town in the provision of affordable housing.
Culpability in producing affordable housing rests with the State. Over the past 14 years literally thousands of Bills have been filed seeking improvements to 40B, things which Arlington has done, like inclusionary zoning, mandated perpetuity of affordable 40B developed units, an increased percentage of affordable units above the current 20 – 25%. (Connecticut has already required 30%). None of this legislation has ever gone to the floor for debate and a recorded vote. 40B (which I call “the developer’s welfare program”) is one of the most heavily lobbied law in the State, all protected by the vested interests that benefit by its existence. If you want proof of this, see if my filed Bill (House Bill H-3350) which requires 40B projects to have 30% affordable ever merges from the Joint Committee on Housing!
Our Master Plan would do well to advocate that Arlington deny any submitted 40B projects that do not meet with our best interests. We have done our affordable housing work!
More history: Why the group is more than “anti-40B”
The “anti-40B group” is a title installed by the industry that worked diligently to keep 40B status quo.
The original organization which was formed in 2000 organized as “The Coalition for the Reform of 40B.” Its core group arose from about six individuals that appeared at a public hearing regarding changes to the 40B regulations. These changes among other things, took away the responsibility of the project financiers (The NEF banks) to perform auditing and control over developer profit levels. At the conclusion of my testimony before the committee I made the comment that the abuses occurring in 40B projects if left unchecked by neglecting to provide strict oversight regulations could lead to the same fate as rent control when its abuses were left unchecked and an irate electorate voted it out.
Participants at the hearing from towns like Lexington, Stoughton, Marshfield, Norwell, exchanged contact information and in a meeting held a month later twenty towns participated and agreed to form a united front to seek changes to 40B not only to control predatory development but to enhance the existing law to create a more productive and effective affordable housing program. (They voted a retired guy from Arlington as its Chairman!)
Over the next six years it grew to almost 200 towns represented and included a number of State Legislators. Through the next six years Bills were filed in the Legislature for enhancements like perpetuity of all affordable units developed under 40B, inclusionary zoning mandated statewide so that all developments were required to contain a specific percentage of affordable units, manufactured homes (i.e., trailers) were to be counted as affordable units, etc. None of this legislation ever made it out of the (heavily lobbied) Housing Committee.
This frustration led to the decision to present an initiative petition seeking repeal, placed on the 2008 State ballot. The philosophy was that with repeal, the Legislature would have to create a new affordable housing program and it would be performed in an environment of transparency and hopefully negate some of the industry lobbyist input to the Legislature. The first attempt failed to acquire the almost 70,000 required signatures. With the lessons learned from that failure a second petition was presented seeking placement on the 2010 ballot. Almost 90,000 signature were collected creating the repeal law which was presented to the House in January of 2010 but the Housing Committee sat on it until May forcing us to gather an additional 11,000 signatures in two months and force the State to place the repeal on the November ballot.
The rest is history, despite getting almost 900,000 votes the repeal failed. Being grass roots and with limited funding, the campaign didn’t have the war chest to buy the advertising and media appearances the opposition could afford. We spent four and a half cents per vote, they spent well over a dollar per vote. The industry “bought” their victory with the generosity of the development industry where 90% of their over $1,000 contributors were from out of state. I found it amazing that so many out of state entities were concerned about affordable housing in Massachusetts. Could it be because these donors were major developers of housing?
Anyhow, we still exist as an organization but much of our incentive died down with the lack of 40B projects due to the recession and a depressed market. (We were also a little tired from two signature collections.) As a significant number of 40B projects are now appearing, new members are appearing and people ask if another attempt will be made. We did file for a 2012 ballot appearance but were denied as two election cycles must pass before a similar petition can be sought.
If that 80 year old guy from Arlington does lead another charge it won’t be for repeal but a petition for something like a greater percentage of affordable units or required audits of project profits. (There are over 400 40B projects that are yet to be certified or audited.) His motivation might be how his Bill to require a higher percentage of units (House Bill H-3350) fares before this session, as to date, it still sits in Committee.
Massachusetts needs more affordable housing! 40B does not provide it!
This viewpoint was published Sunday, Nov. 17, 2013, and updated the next day with further comments.
