Amen! (And thank you for calling our attention to the important work of Stone House).
Sara ------ Sara Mattes > On Oct 21, 2023, at 11:56 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.
