Very well said, Carolyn. Totally agree. I would not support any of the current proposals under the present law. Would also stand pat on the protection of wildlife and Lincoln’s current 100 foot buffer. Otherwise the only people who win are the developers and their ilk.
Maureen Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 21, 2023, at 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.
