by Alain Jehlen in Development and Zoning, Housing, Neighborhoods and Squares, Transportation
Posted on July 21, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Last Modified on July 22, 2008 at 9:46 am
loading…
Note: We’re planning to run a range of views on the rezoning of Union Square.
This one is from Matt McLaughlin, president of Save Our Somerville.
“The Green Line is coming through, which is a great step forward for Somerville. I look forward to jumping on the Green Line and going into Boston. But where am I going to live?
“Working class people can’t afford to live in Davis. So I hope the city will give assurances that people will not be pushed out the way they were in Davis.
“The Green Line expansion will change the culture. I don’t want Somerville to turn into Allston-Brighton, a college town with no community, that caters to the young upper class who have no intention of staying in the neighborhood. Somerville has been family-oriented, immigrant-oriented, working class oriented—people feel comfortable living there, sending their kids to school. In Davis Square, sometimes I feel like an outsider in my own community. There’s a store for crepes, 4 or 5 coffee shops, but the only thing I go there for is the bowling alley or the movie theater.
“Union Square today has its own identity, with the ethnic shops, the Portuguese deli, Tibetan and Mexican restaurants and other shops, all run by people who live in the community and contribute to it. But when the Green Line comes through, they might not be able to live here. You might still have the restaurants, and everyone can sit around and eat their sushi and talk about how much they love the diversity of Somerville, but the only thing diverse about it will be the food, because the people who run the restaurants will be pushed out.
“I’m not sure I have the big answer for that. We’re fighting this tide, and you do what you can. SOS and AHOC and the Somerville Community Corporation want 15 percent affordable housing throughout Union Square, and it’s something like 12 now. Boston, Chelsea, Cambridge, they all have more affordable housing than we do. So I think it’s a very modest proposal.
“And we need to maintain the community feeling so that people who do own property feel like they want to stay instead of selling and moving out.”
loading…
I guess maybe a workable definition of “affordable housing” would be helpful. How do you design housing to be affordable to build & maintain, but not too attractive to folks who could afford a fancier place but just want to save some money? You can’t just require documentation of need, since the well-to-do can usually buy either “documentation” or a workaround, and even a hefty bribe would pay for itself quickly with real estate prices as high as they are.
The Green Line will obviate the need for designated parking for new housing, so that’s one HUGE hurdle out of the way.
So what do you do? Keep the apartments small? And how do you prevent ghettoization and concentration of crime? It’s hard to scatter affordable housing among other housing because of NIMBY concerns over property value.
I do think that a designated percentage of required affordable housing is a good start. But how to attract willing developers? How about tying the percent to midrange and luxury development (for every X unit above $Y, require same developer to add Z units below $Q?)
Total word-play tangent here – if the stone-countertop contingent is what’s bleaching the character out of our neighborhoods, what would you call the other people, Formica? “Formica” sounds like a word for “ant,” which of course brings up the tale of the ants and the grasshopper. The workers can support one or two folks who figure the world owes them a living, but we have to remember to take pride in the fact that we “ants” are the ones who really create value!
loading...
I live near Union Square and work in affordable housing so this story and Columbine’s points caught my eye.
I like what you said about the worker ants being the ones who create the value…it’s not the majority of developers who create value, who often come in just to make a buck. It’s the community groups and local people who live here and love it and get involved to make it great…which is a great argument for why there is a limit to the amount of profit a developer is entitled to.
Anyway, my short answer to your specific questions is: There are many many really great and experienced non profit affordable housing developers in greater Boston, including the Somerville Community Corporation. The field really knows how to build great affordable housing.
To respond to some of your specific points:
Documentation: Every officially “affordable” unit, meaning the ones that have some kind of legal restriction on the rent or sales price, require the tenant or buyer to show proof of income. 9 times out of 10, that means both recent tax returns as well as current paystubs and other documentation of income. Documenting income can be a complex business, but it is done. People who want the affordable units provide that information because it’s worth it to them to share what they earn in order to get a nice home they can afford. In reality, wealthier people don’t buy off folks in charge to get an affordable unit. It really just doesn’t happen. The people living in affordable housing in Massachusetts really are low income families who have few or no other decent housing options.
Design and building costs: It’s just as expensive to build affordable housing as market rate housing because any reputable developer will build housing that is just as energy efficient, attractive, functional, and generally well designed, regardless of the income of its intended residents. With any affordable housing development, the developer must apply for grants and subsidies from government and private sources to fill in the gap that is created because you’ll be selling or renting the units at a price that a regular family or individual can afford – not at the crazy market price. Those grants and subsidies come with restrictions that require the units to remain affordable for a certain income level for a certain time period (generally in MA, for at least 99 years or in perpetuity)
Crime: The idea that developing lots of affordable housing will concentrate crime is something of a myth. Being poor doesn’t make you a criminal! It makes you someone who doesn’t have enough money to pay $1000 a month for an apartment. And that myth doesn’t play out in places where a non profit or other developer has built a really well designed, yet large affordable housing development…they work when they’re done right – just like anything else.
I like your idea that for every unit costing above a certain amount, the developer is required to provide units below a certain amount…that’s somewhat similar to Cambridge’s inclusionary zoning law where I think the affordable units you must provide must AVERAGE out to meet a certain income leve…so it gives developers some flexibility. If they want to make a few of them for higher (moderate) income people, then they must balance it by creating others for very low income people.
Anyway, thanks for the conversation about this! I think we all have to really hold the City’s feet to the fire on this to be sure we don’t move backwards when the new zoning eventually goes through.
loading...
Wow – nothing but good news! Yeah, I wasn’t sure about the “concentrations of affordable units nucleating crime” thing, but it’s a common basis for NIMBY complaints. I was actually psyched to learn that Trolley Square (over the line in Cambridge; I live right on the border) was built for “real people” (it’s for first-time homeowners) but mostly because it meant, perhaps, a longer time before I get squeezed out (I’m a wage-earner “ant” too.) My landlord’s on the up-and-up, but like all the other landowners around here, he’s getting blown out of the water by skyrocketing property taxes.
I was sort of guessing that affordable housing cost at least a little more to build, because I imagine it involves more units per area, so that’d be more plumbing and such. But if it’s more or less comparable, so much the better.
How specific can zoning be, anyway? e.g., can bits apportioned to commercial use be tied to job creation? If the city decided to, could we flat-out say “this much of the commercial square footage must be dedicated to daycare” or “businesses in the commercial part must employ X% residents of Somerville,” or would that be too cumbersome?
loading...
SOS and AHOC and the Somerville Community Corporation want 15 percent affordable housing throughout Union Square, and it’s something like 12 now.
Actually, if my understanding is correct, it’s something like 0% now. The proposed new zoning for Union Square brings it up from 0% to 12.5% for new development (you can’t really do much about the affordability of existing housing). I believe the original proposal had it at 10%, but this has been increased to 12.5% in the most recent iteration.
loading...
I surely hope that the Green Line will change the culture of Somerville, that’s the reason I bought a house in Somerville – close to the future T Station. And as many more people from around the Metro area are moving to Somerville with hopes of it becoming a quality residential town I do hope that the NIMBY attitude starts to take hold and no more affordable housing (projects really) are placed within city limits – as Somerville already has its fair share.
In regard to the post of a person who claims that poor areas are not necessarily prone to crime, I beg to differ. You can look at any map that shows the graphical representation of crime (http://www.universalhub.com/crime/ for example) and the correlation between wealth and crime is rather easy to spot.
And finally there is a sure fire way to make sure that people can insure themselves against rising rents in the future – buy a property! Nobody is forcing any person or family to rent forever!
loading...
KD – leaving aside the fact that the folks who need to “insure themselves against rising rents” only rent because they can’t afford to buy, I suspect you may be confusing AFFORDABLE housing with SUBSIDIZED (“projects”) housing.
Affordable housing is non-luxury housing, housing that young professionals or established wage-earners can buy (thereby heeding your advice). Since these folks are often parents as well, they have a vested interest not only in working with the police to prevent crime, but in promoting other safety issues (like traffic management) and improving the school system, which are of less importance to high-powered executives whose careers take precedence over their home lives.
loading...
Columbine,
Affordable = Subsidized because every ‘affordable’ apt is one way or another subsidized through tax dollars or by reduction in taxes paid by developers.
On the other hand allocating money from the whole community (not that rich of a community) to benefit few individual or families at the expense of projects that could benefit the entire city does not seem right. Although I agree with you that perhaps high powered executives might care less about the school system or crime, I must say that you don’t honestly believe that’s the type of residents that live in Somerville or the type of new residents that are coming to Somerville. In fact most residents that are moving here and are ‘gentryfying’ the neighborhood are those that can’t afford to live in Cambridge or Brookline but are able to make ends meet here, in Somerville, at honest market rates.
Don’t get me wrong because I really want all Somerville to be as prosperous as possible. But for every tax rebate to a developer, for every subsidy to an apt, I see one less teacher in public school, one less cop on the streets, one more pothole in the pavement.
And although there is nothing wrong with being poorer or richer, there is something wrong with living beyond one’s means, or offering others an opportunity to live beyond their means at other’s expense. I lived in Cambridge for 8 years, but could not buy there because it was too expensive – so I moved to Somerville and now I’m a homeowner. If someone else can’t afford to live in Somerville, well Chelsea and Malden are just around the corner — and that’s AFFORDABLE housing.
loading...
KD – that’s definitely an interesting take on subsidization. I was referring to subsidized housing as the “project” units that you cited as nucleating crime (although that’s a chicken-or-egg problem, really; as they tend to be constructed in places that are already low-income because the existing residents don’t have the power to enforce NIMBY initiatives).
But isn’t financing tax breaks for luxury developers by continuing to tax existing homeowners disproportionately “subsidizing” the luxury developers? As a Somerville homeowner, you’re familiar with our property taxes. Are well-to-do neighbors – who can afford to insulate themselves from community problems until graft and neglect take a sufficient toll for them to flip their property and move on – worth squeezing out neighbors who work for a living and have a genuine interest in staying and making Somerville a better place?
loading...
Columbine,
I must say that I’ve followed a few of your posts and I’m not quite sure what you mean by well-to-do neighbors. I feel that you view this whole concept almost on a class warfare level, where the capitalistic Andrew Carnegies are oppressing the poor proletariat (I grew up in a communist country so I’m well versed in the lingo). But to answer your, perhaps rhetorical question I say: Yes! If you have a home or rent and can make your monthly mortgage/rent payments, you pay your taxes, you don’t become the reason cops are called to your neighborhood every week, you keep your property updated, you don’t make too much noise and bother your neighbors – then 10 times Yes, even if you don’t participate in civic government or your local PTA.. yes, yes, yes. Such neighbors are definitely worth squeezing out those that can’t afford to live there and may or may not contribute to the overall problems plaguing the city.
loading...
KD – I can’t seem to explain clearly that “affordable” means “non-luxury” rather than “subsidized,” or to convey that taxpaying wage-earners and entry-level professionals aren’t by definition criminals, noisemakers, or people who let their homes go to pieces.
Working people are the tax base of Somerville – not luxury developers who employ foreigners, not luxury residents who can afford to lawyer their way out of paying taxes and who spend their money on global investments.
I’m talking about the foundation, the source, the people whose earnings stay local because they, and their families, stay local. I’m talking about people who go to work, pay their parking tickets and patronize the restaurants and shops, unclog your drains and repair your engine – and who look out for each other to keep crime, noise, and decay from happening. Ask your alderman. When we see these things happening, they hear about them. At length.
Are the people you’re happy to squeeze out the “welfare cheaters” so belabored by talk show hosts? If so, I don’t like them either, but they’re not a big problem around here.
loading...
All I’m trying to say is that Somerville being the most crowded city in the North East there is no room to build ‘non-luxury’ apartment complexes anymore, because of the relatively high prices of land. Therefore in order to break even the apts or condos must be of higher value. So in order to make ‘non-luxury’ housing possible there must be some sort equalizer in the market in the form of regulation, back room shady deals with the local politician, or straight out subsidy.
loading...
I think the equalizer will be market pressure, and not too far in the future. The current high price of land is itself an artificial phenomenon brought about by speculation and by injudicious borrowing and lending, and is already starting to level out.
I suspect that surplus luxury units will eventually be subdivided into family housing once Somerville realizes that it’s losing its revenue base as wage-earners move out. The only question is when.
loading...
This is claptrap about affordability. An affordable unit in Somerville is a 1 bedroom at $1100/month: The HUD definition of affordable. Capuano’s Affordable Housing Task Force recognized this 10 years ago, and we then suggested a transfer tax – a SALES TAX ON REAL ESTATE – to generate enough cash to buy units and take them off the retail market forever. THOSE could then become REALLY AFFORDABLE for long term residents. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY since any other strategy depends on the whims of Congress to protect Section 8.
This was all discussed ad nauseum on this list several weeks ago. Don’t people read?
Rationales about “the market” and about welfare, luxury rates, rental vs. condo, are all smoke in this context: transit access will drive up prices and encourage speculation unless there is a clear means of discouraging that speculation. A sales tax is one well proven way, that meets constitutional standards, producing a retained trust fund to assure permanent affordability. It has worked on the Cape to protect nature reserves, and it has worked in places as different as Charleston, South Carolina (to protect historic buildings) or Ontario (to guarantee adequate housing). We did that research 10 years ago, and it could probably be updated, but it is the ONLY way to generate adequate affordability. Haggling with developers about 12% or 15% or 10% is all smoke in that context. Those are, frankly, naive and stupid discussions in a setting as volatile as the Somerville housing market facing the pressure of a $600,000,000 transportation improvement.
I sure hope people are smokin’ good stuff to get so distracted by such trivia.
loading...
I’m reading these stories and I notice some of the usual themes. I will try to address them, one by one. First, I’ve checked a reliable source and found that in the Davis Sq/Tufts area, apartments which once families occupied went to young singles around 30-40 years ago. By 1990, that trend had stabilized. But who is to blame? The kids moving in because of the “cheap rent?” Or is it the greedy landlords who found out they can collect more money from stuffing three, four, five college kids, or groups of young singles instead of renting to a family? Who raises kids in an apartment now? There was once a great hue and cry about groups of unrelated adults living together, maybe 30, 40 years ago but not now, not since the days of Seinfeld.
Let’s look at the demographics of Union Square. I notice discussions of “diversity.” My reckoning is much of the population that constitutes such “diversity,” is also newcomers to town. How many of them have been here more than two generations? And, again I bet there was an uproar about “immigrants moving in and ruining the property values,” “bringing in crime,” etc.
Which brings me to the third point, the relation between wealth and crime. Now, they may be coincident, thus related, but let us avoid the fallacy that one CAUSES the other. That poverty is a cause of crime is a left-wing story, something that the “do-goody-goods” always bring up so they can throw taxpayer money down the toilet on social services (read: “give some MSW “social engineer” a job). Conversely, maybe the wealthy moved to segregate themselves from the “unwashed masses.” Likewise, some would like to say that density of population is a cause of crime. Why did Boston in 1947 which much more population than today, have ONLY SEVEN murders, when now and for about 40 years, some streets have been “shooting galleries.” Somerville is still quite safe, with less than one murder a year, in spite of its density. And, how come New York City is so much safer than Los Angeles, a much less densely populated place.
Next, taxes: remember Proposition 2 1/2? The opponents were right: a lot of schools and fire houses closed. But what happened? The property values, and thus the assessments went up. When the wild real estate speculation started about ten years ago, guess what also went up. YES, your taxes! And, for those who rent, your rent. Did you have to absorb a 50% rent increase like I had to? Can’t have it both ways: either you have a high property value and pay the taxes or have lower taxes but it will probably come from a lower property value. Don’t thing a lower tax rate’s going to come anytime soon. That will happen only if the tax base, to wit, some people will fill the vacant lots or improve on what they already have, increases. Since the factories left, where are all these “working class” people, anyway? Or are we talking about “service workers” now rather than “factory workers?’
I want transit to INCREASE property values. That’s the whole point of building the danged thing in the first place. More traffic on the streets, then the businesses make money, too.
Increase the welath; increase the peace.
loading...