Regarding renting vs owning: there are many reasons to want to own your own home, but the common perception that owning is a much better way to accumulate wealth is not necessarily one of them.
See, for example: Owner-occupation is not always a better deal than renting <https://www.economist.com/special-report/2020/01/16/owner-occupation-is-not-always-a-better-deal-than-renting> This may be behind a paywall, but there are other resources online that provide a similar financial analysis. {Please, I am in no way arguing against the need for more affordable housing.) On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 4:12 PM Sara Mattes <samat...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > >
-- 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.
