Perfectly said Carolyn!

Kind Regards,

Scott Clary
617-968-5769

Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and errors

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 11:57 AM cmontie montie.net <cmon...@montie.net>
wrote:

> While I’m chiming in regarding the HCA, I feel the need to separately
> address the issue of affordability:
>
> I understand the Act as written limits affordable units to 10% of the
> housing built.  This really gets me steamed.  The housing challenge in the
> greater Boston area isn’t simply a lack of housing units, it's also the *lack
> of affordable housing units*.  I just looked on Zillow and saw that in
> Boston, Cambridge, Arlington, Newton, and Brookline combined right now,
> there are almost 7000 rental listings (some of which have multiple units
> per building open)—empty and wanting residents.  Another search in Wayland
> finds 21 vacant market rate units in the big development on Boston Post Rd.
>    If these were affordable, they would be occupied.
>
> I attended an event at the Stone House in Roxbury this week and spoke with
> their housing coordinators about the challenges they face in trying to
> rehouse the people they serve: survivors of domestic abuse who need safe
> shelter away from their abusers.  Their story is the same:  it’s not a lack
> of housing—it’s a lack of affordable housing.  The housing coordinators are
> veterans and experts in networking and navigating Massachusetts‘ affordable
> and transitional housing resources and private landlords—but the reality is
> that there aren’t enough options that are affordable and stable to meet the
> need.  (And here, I’ll also put in a plug about the amazing wraparound
> services being provided by The Stone House for survivors of trauma—both
> adults and children. October is Domestic Violence  Awareness and Prevention
> Month: please consider a donation to the *Stone House* to support their
> critical work! https://www.stonehouseinc.org/ ).
>
> Adding potentially 635 units of high density housing here--of which 90% is
> at market rate--will not solve the greater Boston area’s housing problem.
> Anyone spinning it this way is being disingenuous. 571 units at around
> $4000/month? This act will line the pockets of developers.  If we’re
> concerned about social issues related to housing, we would demand that the
> 10% limit be raised.  Not only that, but we would be in active
> conversations with the HCAWG’s of surrounding towns to push back en masse
> on this poorly written act.
>
> Another way I look at it is this:  if I were willing to pay $4000/month on
> my housing, I could conceivably purchase a home for roughly around
> $500,000.00 (with no downpayment) and still cover my taxes and insurance.
> This is based on a quick calculation using an online mortgage
> calculator—it’s an imprecise sketch and I realize that a minimum of 20%
> down is more realistic, but it’s something to base a conversation on. My
> main point is:  Instead of kissing goodbye to $4000 in rent every month,
> I’d be building capital. Homeownership is a catalyst for building wealth.
> Average people caught in a cycle of paying exorbitant rent have less
> ability to build wealth and savings over time. How can one save for that
> 20% down when rents are so high?  Google “homeownership and social justice“
> and you’ll see plenty of articles that address the connection between
> property ownership, systemic racism, and the growing wealth gap.  This Act
> does nothing to address these issues—and it could be said that it
> perpetuates them by mandating 90% of the units be available at market rate.
>
>
> It’s all well and good to talk about supply and demand, but the fact
> remains that there are plenty (thousands) of vacant rentals in the Boston
> area right now, and they appear to be immune to market pressures. I’m not
> against increasing housing in Lincoln, but this blanket mandate seems
> really poorly conceived by limiting affordable units to 10%.
>
> I hope that just as this act was changed in August to include commercial
> areas within the building zone (and I commend those who saw that
> refinements were necessary!), there is still time to refine the act further
> with regard to an increase in the percentage of allowable affordable
> housing.  In fact it should incentivize more affordable housing.  I hope a
> coalition of towns with similar concerns can collaborate and push for
>  improvements in this act.  It may have been conceived with good
> intentions, but—well, we all know where that road can go ;)
>
> Best
>
> Carolyn
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply via email to