Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA, High rent and related issues of roadblocks to homeownership

[THERESA KAFINA via Lincoln]

Well said Carolyn. Could not agree more!
Thank you! And Thank you for the Wonderful 
Plug on Stone House. 

Theresa Kafina 



Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 21, 2023, at 11:57 AM, cmontie 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://pa

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA, High rent and related issues of roadblocks to homeownership

[Bijoy Misra]

Well articulated and to the point!  Thank you for the post.
10% is locally manufactured (possibly pushed by the developer like many
other points).
It is said that septic is a constraint.  So we reduce the total number
but keep 25% affordable such that we may accommodate young people.
A new citizens' committee can accomplish this.
Bijoy Misra

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 11:57 AM cmontie 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/li

[LincolnTalk] HCA, High rent and related issues of roadblocks to homeownership

[Louise Bergeron]

Thank you Carolyn!  

Why is Lincoln rushing to follow HCA guidelines and forever changing the town's 
rural character?
Building expensive housing around an inadequate transportation system in 
exchange for possible grants that Lincoln has not yet applied for does not make 
sense to me. 
What problem are we solving? 

If residents want a city center in Lincoln, that is an option; using the HCA 
guidelines as a reason to allow developers to build by rights without town 
meeting approval seems dangerous. 

Louise Bergeron
-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA, High rent and related issues of roadblocks to homeownership

[Sara Mattes]

My point is that for some folks, esp populations who have been denied access, 
this is seen as the best way, the most desirable way to build generational 
wealth.  

DEI is something we, as a community, are committed to.
This is a path to honor that commitment.

The HCA does not help.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 22, 2023, at 12:32 AM, Rich Rosenbaum  wrote:
> 
> 
> Sara,
> 
> The resources that you provide make some very good points but as far as I can 
> tell they do not contradict anything in the article I pointed to. 
> 
> 
-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA, High rent and related issues of roadblocks to homeownership

[Rich Rosenbaum]

Sara,

The resources that you provide make some very good points but as far as I
can tell they do not contradict anything in the article I pointed to.
-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA, High rent and related issues of roadblocks to homeownership

[Rich Rosenbaum]

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


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  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 
> 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

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA, High rent and related issues of roadblocks to homeownership

[Sara Mattes]

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  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/lin

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA, High rent and related issues of roadblocks to homeownership

[Leslie Turek]

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 
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“
> a

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA, High rent and related issues of roadblocks to homeownership

[Maureen Malin]

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  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://p

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA, High rent and related issues of roadblocks to homeownership

[Scott Clary]

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 
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:

[LincolnTalk] HCA, High rent and related issues of roadblocks to homeownership

[cmontie montie . net]

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.