I don't claim to have any deep understanding of housing prices and pressures beyond my limited experience. But I seem to remember from my student and immediately post-student days that living in new construction was always expensive. I have never lived in any place that was built more recently than 1972 (and my current condo of that date seems amazingly modern to me after my long succession of older houses). My previous house was a cramped little Cape Cod-style brick house built in 1946, and the apartments before that were in even older buildings. If you wanted a cheap place to live, you always went to the older buildings. It seems like almost an oxymoron to me to talk about "new" and "affordable" in the same breath. I guess the problem out here in the suburbs that there were never any apartment/multi family units constructed back in the day that have had the time to naturally become old. And how do you make new construction "affordable" when the cost of materials and labor have soared so high that it costs a fortune to build anything?
I've found this discussion very interesting, and would be interested to hear more details about how this whole "affordable" housing arrangement works. Are affordable units built the same as the market-rate units, but just artificially kept to lower rents? Or are they built to be smaller, or with less expensive interior finishes? Is there some subsidy involved? Does some agency decide who qualifies for affordable units? If it's a condominium, what happens when a major expense is incurred? Do the residents of the affordable units pay less than the residents of market-rate units toward the shared expense? What happens 10 years from now, 20 years from now? Obviously, I am rather ignorant about this whole issue, but would like to understand better how it works. Leslie Turek On Sat, 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.
