by fberman in Development and Zoning, Government Reform, Housing
Posted on February 23, 2009 at 3:01 am
Last Modified on February 24, 2009 at 10:21 pm
loading…
On March 3rd, the Somerville Board of Aldermen will hold its hearing on the proposed Condo Conversion Ordinance. If you are a Somerville homeowner, you know that the Libertarian, Cambridge-based Small Property Owners Association (SPOA) — which mailed letters to every Somerville homeowner — is seeking to derail that legislation by disseminating inflammatory and baseless claims about how passage will result in plummeting property values and escalating property taxes.
Supporters of the legislation, including Mayor Curtatone and the staff at OSPCD, are hoping that dissemination of accurate information will overcome SPOA’s campaign of fear, and inspire the Board of Aldermen to pass the legislation. But facts alone won’t win the battle if Aldermen don’t hear from constituents who support the proposed legislation. Please call or email your Ward Alderman AND the four At-Large Aldermen BEFORE the March 3 hearing date (contact info at the end of this posting). A simple statement of support will suffice. And if you can, please come to the hearing to show your support.
Informational Resources
When his initial effort to update the Condo Ordinance was sandbagged by a SPOA campaign disingenuously labeling the legislation as “back door rent control,” Mayor Curtatone tapped Alderman Rebekah Gewirtz to chair a committee consisting of two advocates for property owners, two tenant advocates, and relevant City staff, that was charged with finding common ground. The proposed ordinance is the product of 12+ months of work by that committee, with subsequent refinements informed by feedback from attendees at City-sponsored public meetings.
· City Website: To download a copy of the proposed ordinance, a City-produced PowerPoint presentation highlighting key features and answering questions about the Ordinance, and a chart comparing the proposed Ordinance to the City’s existing Ordinance, to the proposal filed by Mayor Curtatone a couple of years ago, and to relevant State law, go to www.somervillema.gov/spotlight.cfm?id=72.
· SCAT Interview: A little while ago, I interviewed Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services (CASLS) lawyer Ellen Shachter, a fellow member of the Affordable Housing Organizing Committee (AHOC), and a fellow participant on the Committee that drafted the proposed legislation. View the interview at www.blip.tv/file/1459794.
· Responding to SPOA: SPOA’s claims need to be answered. Here are my attempts at providing those answers:
(1) We already have a Condo Conversion Ordinance; why do we need a new one?
Somerville’s existing ordinance is outdated and difficult-to-enforce. It was never updated to achieve consistency with State legislation that prohibited communities from regulating the removal of rental units from the markets, but that allowed communities to protect the tenants in those units, and that established baseline tenant protections that apply in the absence of local laws. Because Somerville has its own ordinance, State protections don’t apply to Somerville tenants. Because the City’s ordinance was never updated to parallel State law, there has been a reluctance to hold property owners accountable for adhering to its provisions. In the absence of an enforceable standard, an untold number of tenants have been displaced without adequate opportunity and support for finding alternate housing in Somerville.
(2) Why don’t we just repeal Somerville’s ordinance and rely on the protections in State law?
Somerville’s ordinance has two key provisions that are absent in State law: (1) it protects tenants in buildings with fewer than four apartments, and (2) it provides for a local Condo Review Board to ensure that the law is followed.
If the Board of Aldermen were to simply repeal Somerville’s existing ordinance, Somerville tenants in 68% of the City’s housing stock — 2 family and 3 family buildings — would lose all protections. The remaining tenants — in buildings with four or more units — would have only one recourse if their landlords violated State law: going to Court to assert their right to the required notice period or relocation assistance. Many tenants don’t even know that State law affords them those rights…
(3) Does the proposed ordinance increase the burden on small property owners and landlords?
No. Just the opposite: the proposed ordinance actually reduces the burden on small property owners by reducing the required notice period by 50-75%, by eliminating the current restriction against rent increases during the notice period, and by simplifying the conversion approval process.
Under the proposed ordinance, some small property owners would be required to make slightly higher relocation payments, while others would incur slightly lower costs. The proposed ordinance requires payments of $2,000 to elders, people with disabilities, and low/moderate income tenants and $1,000 to other tenants, as compared with the current ordinance which requires a payment equal to one month’s rent or $300, whichever is larger. (When was the last time you heard of $300/month rent?) Based on HUD Fair Market Rents, relocation payments under the current ordinance might be expected to range from $1,146 for tenants in 1BR units to $1,609 for tenants in 3BR apartments, not much different than the $1-2,000 relocation payments called for in the proposed ordinance.
(4) Will passage of the proposed ordinance reduce property values and raise property taxes in Somerville?
No. The two most important determinants of property taxes in Somerville are the amount of State Aid (also known as “Local Aid”) and the Prop 2½ cap constraining the City’s ability to make up revenue shortfalls caused by, for example, cuts in State Aid. Holding owners of buildings with four or more units to the same standards that apply to the rest of the State will not depress property values or lead to elevated property taxes. For example, until the current economic downturn — which has dampened real estate prices everywhere — Boston buildings with four or more units experienced annual increases in value, notwithstanding that City’s even stiffer requirements on developers converting rentals to condominiums.
Similarly, there is no reason to believe that a six month notice requirement and modest relocation fees will have any impact at all on property values or property taxes on two- and three-unit dwellings in Somerville. Compared to the bank fees and legal fees and realtor fees associated with conversion, the relocation payments are extremely modest. And the six month notice period is too short to cause much if any delay in most condo conversions. In short, there is nothing in the proposed law that will inhibit owners from converting rental properties to condominiums, and therefore nothing in the proposed law which will lower property values.
(5) Is the current economic downturn the wrong time to pass this kind of legislation?
No. Free-market purists have made the same argument when it comes to regulating Wall Street. They say “now is the wrong time to impose or tighten enforcement of regulations.” Of course, from a Libertarians perspective, there is no right time. In fact, however, now is a perfect time to fix a broken system, before the market heats up, and before more tenants are needlessly denied the time and relocation assistance that could help them stay in Somerville.
(6) Inaction is always the safest political course of action. Why should the Board of Aldermen vote to enact the proposed Ordinance?
Doing nothing leaves Somerville tenants without real protections, and leaves Somerville property owners with ambiguous ground rules for condo conversion.
· Enacting the proposed legislation would give tenants in buildings with four or more units the protections available under State law, plus the benefit of administrative oversight by a Condo Review Board operating under an enforceable Ordinance. For real estate developers who purchase and convert properties with four or more units, the proposed 1-2 year notice period and $2-4,000 relocation fee would constitute a relatively small cost of doing business, compared to returns from condo conversion, and compared to the fees routinely charged by banks, lawyers, and real estate intermediaries. (Like State law, the longer notice period and higher fees would apply to elderly, disabled, and low/moderate income tenants, and shorter notice period and lower fee would apply to other tenants.)
· Enacting the proposed legislation would give tenants in buildings with two or three units — 68% of all Somerville housing — more modest, but enforceable, protections (six months notice and $1-2,000 in relocation assistance, again depending on whether the tenant qualifies as elderly, disabled, or low/moderate income), and the benefits of administrative oversight by the aforementioned Condo Review Board, while streamlining the conversion approval process and reducing the overall obligation of small property owners, as compared with the existing Somerville ordinance.
===================================
Contact Info for Aldermen
-
Alderman At Large – Jack Connolly, Vice President of the BOA — 617-628-1076 or AldermanConnolly@gmail.com
-
Alderman at Large Bruce Desmond — 617-666-1757 or BruceMDesmond@yahoo.com
-
Alderman at Large Dennis Sullivan — 617-628-1857 or AldermanSullivan@aol.com
-
Alderman at Large Bill White — 617-625-9110 or william.a.white@verizon.net
-
Ward 1 – Bill Roche — 617-623-6661 or aldermanroche@comcast.net
-
Ward 2 – Maryann Heuston — 617-492-5331 or mheuston@hotmail.com
-
Ward 3 – Tom Taylor — 617-776-1618 or TFTAld32@aol.com
-
Ward 4 – Walter Pero, President of the BOA — 617-628-0137 or wpero@comcast.net
-
Ward 5 – Sean O’Donovan — 617-776-6456 or sean@odonovanlaw.com
-
Ward 6 – Rebekah Gewirtz — 617-718-0792 or rebekah@RCN.com
-
Ward 7 – Bob Trane — 617-623-5767 or RobertTrane@aol.com
loading…
Fred, with all due respect; why should Somerville be the only city in this state to regulate 2-3 and 3-family houses? I can dfinitely see 4 units and over as those are different properties meant to bring in revenue via rents or as condo sales.
A 2 family house is just a 2 family house. A majority of the 2 family proeprty owners are like me. Owner occupied in one unit and the other unit not bringing in enough rent to cover the bills (tax/water/repairs). Now you want to add this burden to us?
Again, why does Somerville need a condo conversion law separate from the state one? It is just an extra cost to the city taxpayers to have a review board and makes way for more bureaucracy and nepotism filling those seats. Don’t we already have ENOUGH boards and regulations in this city? Another Koty will get a seat here, right? I’ve been here forever and I can guarantee I know some of the people that will sit on the “review” board. No thanks. None of them were the brightest bulbs on the Xmas tree growing up and they haven’t gotten any smarter since. Greedier – that is for sure.
Tenants are protected through state laws and the court system. This doesn’t protect tenants in any way shape or form and may be illegal. I can now see property owners shying away from renting to the very people this is ordinance meant to protect (low/elderly/disabled). This is truly a lose-lose ordinance.
We can’t afford it. It’s the wrong ordinance, at the wrong time and in the wrong place. I urge everyone to call their alderman or woman and say NO to this regulation/ordinance. Do not let this ordinance pass. We will all pay a huge price if this passes.
loading...
I have to agree with Harry. This ordinance will just make it harder for low income/elderly and disabled folks to get rented to and will be a burden to anyone owning a 2 family or 3 family here in Somerville. It will create another review board where none is needed and no other city regulates their 2 and 3 family properties. Why us?
To all Alderman: please vote no on this.
loading...
I also disagree with this proposed ordinance. My husband and I own a 2 family and these regulations would do nothing positive. We usually support progressive causes, but this one seems very misguided. I hope the alderpeople all vote no on this ordinance.
- Helen
loading...
I hear your argument, but respectfully disagree about (a) whether targeting protections to tenants in two and three-unit buildings is unnecessary, and (b) whether relying on the Courts to ensure adherence to the law is as good as preserving that role fo the Condo Review Board.
Renters in two- and three-unit buildings are no less likely to have been involved in a long-term tenancy than renters in larger buildings. Renters in two- and three-unit buildings are no less likely to desire housing stability than renters in larger buildings. Renters in two- and three-unit buildings being converted to condos are no less likely to face displacement and difficulties finding comparable housing in Somerville than renters in larger buildings being converted to condos.
Eliminating protections for tenants in two- and three-unit buildings would abruptly pull the rug out from under renters in 68% of the City’s housing stock.
Retaining the Condo Review Board gives the City the opportunity to standardize the notice process, and to standardize the forms used to inform landlords and tenants of their respective rights and responsibilities.
The Review Board is not simply an unnecessary bureaucratic structure: it is a community-based mechanism for ensuring that the provisions of the Condo Ordinance are followed. How many elderly, disabled, and low income tenants will be savvy enough to know their rights and responsibilities vis-a-vis conversion, and how many will be willing to pursue a court case?
Eliminating the Review Board would essentially leaves it up to landlords to decide whether and how to inform tenants of their rights. In reality, eliminating the Review Board would leaves it up to tenants to know their rights and to be prepared to assert those rights in court. There is a dramatic difference between knowing that you have six months or a year to find alternate housing, and knowing that a Court could order you to vacate inside of a few days. For elders, persons with disabilities, and low income households, being forced to go to court to protect your housing, and having to live with uncertainty about the outcome. is a potential nightmare.
Six months of notice to tenants in a two- or three-unit house would hardly create a burden for homeowners, given the multiple time-consuming steps already entailed in condo conversion, and the relocation payments to one or two tenants hardly compares to the profit generated by conversion or the costs exacted by the bank, the lender, and/or the mortgage broker.
By comparison, Somerville’s existing statute already requires a 1-2 year notice period and a one month’s rent relocation fee for tenants in two and three-unit buildings. Those provisions hardly dampened interest in condo conversion when the real estate market was more robust. The proposed, more modest protections will hardly dampen interest in conversions when the housing market rebounds.
loading...
Fred, it looks from your response that this ordinance is – as suspected – a tenant benefits only ordinance. That’s fine, but it should be promoted as a “tenant benefit” ordinance as they are the only ones that will benefit from this. Please do not pass this off as helping anyone other than tenants. It doesn’t and it’s dubious it will help tenants most in need of help. I foresee less housing available to low/elderly/disabled as who is going to rent to them with the added burdens/regulations/costs? Better to leave the place vacant than incur that liability/cost.
You really need to grasp the idea that a typical 2 family house owner (living in one unit) is barely making enough now to make renting the 2nd unit worthwhile. If you put in these extra regulations and cost then some are going to just say that the extra cost/liability of renting to a low income/disabled or elderly tenant just ins’t worth it and they’ll leave it vacant. Who wins then?
Lastly, the question – again – is why only Somerville to regulate 2/3s in the state? Are you saying that our tenants are dumber than tenants in the other 364 citites/towns in the commonwealth and need extra protection? All the other cities/towns do not have separate review boards and processes from what the state has setup. Why do we have to incur this extra tax cost/fees and overhead?
I agree that 4 units and up need to be regulated (and are by the state) and we should continue to use the existing state statues for that. Eliminate this review board and reduce this overhead.
loading...
If a landlord is committed to viewing their tenants as a source of human relationship in addition to a source of monthly income, then that’s probably a humane landlord, who will have no argument with this proposed ordinance.
When renters are informed that they must sever their neighborhood relationships and community ties because their landlord is reaping the fruits of their investment via condo conversion, it’s not reasonable for them to assume that the landlord is doing something that is unfair. Landlords have their market rights, and this ordinance affirms that.
For the renter, however, such a moment is like the other shoe dropping. Renters are just like homeowners except for two important considerations: they can’t freely beautify or improve the building and property they inhabit- and they are always vulnerable to having their home taken from them due to market forces.
Some folks are asking if this ordinance will help or hinder the lives of our Elder and disAbled neighbors who rent. As a longtime Elder/disAbilities advocate, I know for certain that my friends- if they are made aware of their rights and given the proper access to claim them- will definitely benefit from the bit of extra time and relocation assistance that this proposed ordinance affords. The proposed ordinance mitigates acute suffering at the very moment that a renter’s shelter and survival needs become pared down to matters of time and money. And yes, I can also agree, with personal certitude, that inhumane landlords may retaliate when they discover that they are housing tenants who are afforded reasonable protections under the law. However, we need to understand this problem in the context of (un)Fair Housing trends: housing discrimination complaints in MA are most frequently filed on the basis of disAbility discrimination (37.5%), followed by race/color, national origin, familial status , receipt of public assistance, sex, children, lead paint, sexual orientation, age, and marital status (from: 2007 Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) report).
Somerville is among the top 15 respondents of the 217 communities surveyed by the MA Commission Against Discrimination for that section of the above report.
Therefore, if we genuinely wish to protect our most vulnerable renters, these concerns are all the more reason to support this proposed ordinance without delay! Its very passage will educate the general public, and discourage discriminatory actions.
The proposed ordinance also includes an opportunity to purchase the unit before it is placed on the market. This seems very beneficial to our community.
If longterm tenants are able to package the necessary fiscal resources, they will have 90-day rights to purchase their unit. We don’t currently know what percentage of renters are 55 and older, but the opportunities to age in place, in a city of aged housing stock, is a precious commodity and should be protected. By “a city of aged housing stock,” I point to these figures, which are sourced from the City’s Assessing Department: 52% of Somerville’s housing stock was built between 1900-1910; another 20% was built between 1911-1920. (The “housing boom” of the 80′s only increased Somerville’s new housing stock by 2.6%.)
Aging in place is not just a concept important to our Wise Elders. The ability to modify an existing home so that it adapts to our changing circumstances is a necessity for families in general. There are probably many families that needed to rent when they moved into Somerville- and, at this time, have put down roots and are prepared to continue investing in Somerville for years to come. This ordinance will ensure that such tenants aren’t necessarily having to also separate from their circles of neighbors, schools and shops.
This ordinance is also a step in the direction of creating a more livable community. Specifically because it lessens the radical stress that occurs when people are wrenched from their communities, it also lessens some of the barriers for renters to remain engaged in community stability. We don’t currently know how many renters actually work in the multitudes of volunteer opportunities that are available in Somerville, but people that are engaged in their communities will certainly enrich their environment by being involved in increasing the safety and security of their neighborhoods. Mutual community partnerships are also supported by both renters and homeowners, and that has a beneficial ripple effect, both economically and socially.
The consequences of this ordinance might also create a model intervention throughout the State, as we see the effects of the unusual provision to provide non-profit affordable housing developers the concurrent 90 day opportunity to purchase the converting units. If the developer has a good heart and integrity, and is looking to rehabilitate our housing stock so that it is energy-sustainable as well as socially-sustainable (i.e., using energy conservation plus universal design principles, or at the very least, visitability standards), then this proposed ordinance is a complete win-win for all homeowners and visitors within Somerville.
I say go for it- encourage those Yes votes from all our elected officials! This is designed with Somerville’s sustainability and stability in mind.
loading...
Ella, just to be clear that my point is that 2- and 3-family houses should NOT be regulated, but that 4 units and greater already are and should continue to be regulated at the state level. I stress this as I didn’t see anywhere in your post where you differentiate between a person owning a single 2 family house (and residing in one unit) and the guy who owns a 30 unit apartment complex that he is converting. There is a difference.
You also must not own a property to have made this statement “…Renters are just like homeowners except for two important considerations: they can’t freely beautify or improve the building and property they inhabit- and they are always vulnerable to having their home taken from them due to market forces…” . Huh? How about renters don’t have the liability, they don’t have the repair/property tax/insurance/water expenses and they don’t pay the mortgage. How much do you think a 2 or 3-family house in Somerville costs these days to buy and maintain? It’s not cheap.
I did notice (from your link) that the number of housing discrimination cases is very small in this state — hundreds across 3 years and across the WHOLE STATE. Also, many of those cases were thrown out for being frivolous and just professional tenants looking to play the free-rent card while litigation was on-going.
Ella, can you answer these for me?
1. Why only Somerville? Why not other communities that have large populations and an elderly/disabled/low-income housing need like Boston, Cambridge, Lynn, Lowell, New Bedford, etc? Why burden just Somerville’s 2- and 3-family home owners with these costs and regulations?
2. Would you also be in favor of implementing some form of rent control down the road? I mean if it’s all about protecting affordable housing then why not carry this to the next level and let the city set the rates? Say a one bedroom can rent for no higher than $500 and a 2 bedroom for no higher than $800, etc. Would you advocate for that as well?
Let’s all save the city some tax $$$s (especially in these lean times!) and the bureaucracy & corruption that inevitably shows up with these “agencies” and just drop the idea of “regulating” small home owners. It’s a lose-lose-lose (city-owners-renters) situation as even you acknowledge that many property owners will just avoid renting to the elderly/disabled/low-income.
Sometimes we progressives have to admit that more damage can come from a well-meaning idea. This is surely one of those times.
loading...
The condo conversion bill is superficial, glib, naive, dangerous to community building and even to the diversity it seems to seek to preserve in stone. It replicates arguments from the Cambridge rent wars, and pits owners against renters on the same ideological and unrealistic issues that destroyed the diversity of Cambridge. And it involves the same constituencies involved in that destruction, in total and mindless ignorance of the unique and far more stable characteristics of Somerville.
Let us first establish some framework for this debate, which has largely been manipulated to build one case or another.
1. Somerville is by a large margin the most densely populated community in the Northeast, at nearly 20,000 people per mile. It was once 40% more densely populated, which highlights both how it was built and who and how it was occupied. Working class, not the yuppies or large numbers of Harvard or downtown investor class as in Cambridge, filled the front and rear houses, the two or three bedroom apartments with six to ten people.
2. Somerville is uniquely dense with two and three family houses. That meant multi-generational family housing, with two or three generations sharing this very dense housing stock. It also meant intense use of space – with very, very little open space, and very many people wearing out what constructed space was available.
3. Somerville was, until the 1990′s, relatively cheap. Ill-served by mass transit, it was a city of auto workers from the 30′s to the 50′s, and small business, hand workers thereafter. It was, in its dim past, dense with trolleys and trains, all of which evaporated as oil companies and those same auto manufacturers tore up the infrastructure.
That is NOT a framework for inter-caste collaboration. It IS a framework for sharp, and often angry class conflict as those multi-family residences shift to very small, one or two unit landlords exploiting their timely ownership to cover their mortgage and, if possible, other bills. You’re dealing with Marx, not some suburban city planning exercise. And the rich do quite merrily steal from the poor in communities like this, unless there are some clear and powerful incentives to work together.
Finally, those behind this ordinance, and its progenitor, AHOC, seem immune to the history of past housing reform initiatives in this city. As a former tenant in Cambridge and emigre owner in Somerville, Mayor Capuano put me on his Affordable Housing Task Force, that met for a year and produced a reform package then untimely dumped by his successor(s). We reviewed condo conversion and killed it, because further tension between tenants and landlords only fragments an already divided and often struggling community. Eila is right that people with disabilities need protection; and Harry’s right that many of those protections will inhibit landlords from helping them. Dis-incentives to rent on an open housing basis – just like this ordinance – are all we need to freeze out immigrants, the poor, and Section 8.
Local politics is loaded with paradoxes just like that. We explored them for a year, with hearings, meetings, reports, and forums with Aldermen, city and state agencies. AHOC has yet to review that report, although those members who have seen it cite it.
As a small landlord I find the SPOA literature as full of fraud and self-dealing as AHOC’s, and as irrelevant to the dynamics of Somerville. There are many, many ways around your ordinance, from selling to a family member to immediate and untoward rent increases to scare out current tenants, regardless of their disability or age.
Yet your “solutions” – another of the city’s Commissions, which already have 273 appointments, over 50% holdovers, serving at the exclusive pleasure of an already too strong mayor – only obscure what is probably a worthy goal. That is, IF your goal is to preserve the diversity of the city, to maintain economic and cultural and social vitality, and to avoid the extraordinary gentrification of our neighbor Cambridge, there are plenty of other alternatives.
On the other hand, if your goal is to protect the yuppies who moved in (like I did, but as renters) when Rent Control overplayed its hands in Cambridge, then there is a real problem. It frankly looks just like that.
We came up with loads of tactics to reduce displacement and retain diversity. They did not mean that people had to stay in the same apartment for a lifetime – like your solutions. They did mean, however, that the city could preserve and create even greater density while taxing and then investing that tax in new and permanently affordable units. They meant that older owners could, with help from churches and community groups (many of whom should remember this commitment more often), rent to long term moderate income tenants, children of their neighbors, and get help ranging from snow shoveling to an adequate income for retirement.
Read the damn report; get to know your community before you try to install failed tactics from a failed neighbor; and move the hell back to Cambridge if it works so well! That’s where too many of you already work anyway. If it’s so cool, live there.
loading...
Hi there Harry, thanks for your response!
You are right- I do not own a property, and fail to know your point of view. I definitely appreciate what you’ve pointed out! I’ll bet a 2/3 family home costs a bundle, and even more in West Somerville than East. (I took a moment to check: today’s listings for 2 + 3 family homes range between 340,000 – 600,000). In addition, I’m sure there are renters from hell just like there are landlords from hell.
However, if 2/3 family homes are not included in the ordinance, then the majority of constituents would be left out. The most recent (2005) Somerville Housing Needs Assessment states, “Somerville has roughly 31,555 occupied housing units. The majority of these units are located in 2 or 3 family homes and are renter-occupied. An estimated 66% of all units are renter-occupied.. (p.2).” Later in the report (p.17) there’s a chart of types of buildings: 47% are two family and 21% are 3 family. Buildings with 4+ units= 19%, and I’m assuming that includes most of the 40B inventory, which was surveyed in 2002 to include 2900 units. (Of those, 1,294 are listed as affordable Elderly and/or disAbled units.)
Somerville’s 2000 census counted 8,099 residents that are 65+ years, and 9,731 residents 21-64 years that are disAbled. That’s where the issue speaks to me. Clearly, many of these residents are renters living in 2/3 family houses, and, for the most part, this is a population that is likely to have a fixed income. These people are at the mercy of the market and do require some additional time and resources in order to find new housing, should the owner wish to convert.
As for the housing discrimination cases, thanks for following up by examining the report I mentioned! However, some small corrections to your overview: it covers 217 out of the 371 cities and towns in MA, and from 2004 – 2006 (2 yrs.). In addition, your point would be a good one if it weren’t for the fact that only a bare minimum of people that experience discrimination of any kind are likely to report it. There’s a great study on barriers to access to justice in MA that was put out a couple of years ago- I’m sorry I don’t have the time to ferret that out right now, Harry, but I think it was published in 2007. At any rate, it is clear that people that are economically disadvantaged have a much harder time absorbing and responding to discrimination victimization- so the numbers in that DHCD report do only show those who succeeded in accessing the MA Commission Against Discrimination offices, who completed their complaint registration processes.
I do not understand why you claim that most of those MCAD complaints are frivolous, Harry! Your statement, “many of those cases were thrown out for being frivolous and just professional tenants looking to play the free-rent card while litigation was on-going” sounds like a myth to me! Please clarify that?
(In addition, what are the characteristics of a “professional tenant”?! I’m truly curious!)
So, I can only answer one of your last questions. I’m looking at this from the perspective of an advocate for Elderly/DisAbled people, and lack the knowledge and experience to answer your thoughtful questions about rent control, etc. All I can say is that this proposed ordinance is dealing with Somerville’s on-the-ground conditions and it appears that it will shield a majority of our committed neighbors from being ousted from our community in a frantic and traumatic way, if the owner wishes to convert. In addition, it does seem to be an ordinance that should not be toxic to humane landlords, and might even increase some relationship-building between tenant and landlord. Let the numbers speak: Somerville’s constituents are nearly 70% renters; and their existing shelter is mainly within 2/3 family homes.
And why Somerville?: Somerville is where I live, and I consider it a very, very special community, with a multitude of intellectual and creative capital, and an incredibly diverse, stimulating bunch of neighbors – both on the street, and- as you’ve illustrated- also online! Thanks so much for this dialogue, Harry!
loading...
Eila,
Before you go too far out on a limb regarding discrimination, be aware that for two or three unit buildings there IS NO DISCRIMINATION enforcement. They are specifically exempt since they are historically family oriented buildings, wherein tenants were and are still recruited by word of mouth rather than third party placement. Most Section 8 units are NOT in two to three unit buildings, specifically because of this factor. In other words, your condo bill is the first general incentive to encourage precisely the kind of discrimination you seek to reduce.
You ought to think of this rental situation from the direction of a real small property owner. I am quite dependent on my tenants’ rent to cover the mortgage. There are very few resources available should they decide to withhold rent. That rental is critical to my financial stability. It is an odd and dangerous paradox that most small property owners are at least as vulnerable as their tenants to issues of displacement, financial insolvency, and litigation. That is precisely why landlords and tenants ought to recognize their mutual dependence rather than be polarized as the current draft bill frames it.
It’s the yuppies who cannot tolerate that paradox, not those of us who like living here.
loading...
Hi Joe!
Absolutely, there are many non discrimination regulations, statutes, legislation, and those are applicable to all facilities, services, activities!
But here’s the reality factor: Who is actually monitoring and enforcing them? Those laws and regs. are absolutely not being monitored or enforced by our local elected leadership and their designated staff.
In Somerville, where vacant units are few, I will make a guess that one hundred percent of available units on the market are utterly inaccessible to mobility impaired and sensory impaired individuals, even after undergoing significant rehabilitation.
In addition, it is mandatory for our city’s OSPCD staff to examine, document, and send to HUD an updated Impediments to Fair Housing report that incorporates the housing affordability and discrimination issues facing low income people with disAbilities (who are more than 30% of the residents in our poverty-concentrated neighborhoods). (This is found in 24 CFR 91.) How unfortunate, that our city’s experts have so far ignored even these HUD-mandated regulations with impunity!
That’s all the more reason for a local ordinance that respects these issues.
Now about the “Historically speaking” argument, you must know that people with severe lifelong disAbilities were, historically speaking, completely sidelined and hidden from society-either kept hidden within family homes, or in institutions, where every day was a misery for everyone concerned.
And in local Planning and Zoning policy, there is certainly an adherence to, and pride in, Somerville’s historic character. Recently I noted how the city’s Planning Staff approved of the removal of a ramp from a beautiful house abutting Summer Street. They said, “The redesigned front porch will be more historically accurate than what previously existed when the structure was operated as a funeral home. ” Well, yeah… before this was a public facility, it was a private house that was inaccessible to wheelchair users. yeah, now it’s back to that.
I agree that most owners will not allow a renter applicant to even see the inside of any available units if they are wheelchair-users, or are Blind, or are Deaf, or are 65+. Yep, I agree, that’s going to happen- and few, if any, applicants will make an MCAD complaint, even if it seems obvious that they were excluded based on disAbility and/or age.
Now, if we look at the current State and federal regulations, we find even more reason to protect the current housing situation of Elderly and disAbled residents:
Since the majority of housing in Somerville was built before 1920, Federal or State accessibility regs will not mandate that they become accessible, until rehabilitated. Here’s a general run down:
-The Fair Housing Amendments Act (as amended) of 1988 only applies to new construction of multifamily housing of 4+ units.
-The State Architectural Access building code only applies to new construction of 3+ units built after 9/1/96, or existing dwelling of 12+ units for rent, hire or lease undergoing major alteration, renovation and reconstruction.
-The ADA only applies, in Title II public housing, to multi-family buildings of 15+ units.
-And Title III of the ADA applies only to common use areas.
Thus, if we engage a historically speaking as well as a conditions-on-the-ground discussion, it is clear that the dearth of housing opportunities for people who are unable to deal with stairs upholds the necessity of this proposed ordinance, which at least provides some small measure of protection on paper for our neighbors on fixed incomes, with lifelong and degenerative disAbilities, who are currently finding a way to afford to live in an independent and integrated manner in our community, in smaller housing buildings.
So, I’m sure I don’t feel your point of view, Joe, because I am not a small-property owner. However, I’d like to understand. Can you or others explain,using figures and facts, how providing low income renters some measure of time and relocation expenses would trigger undue burdens for the small property owner?
And finally (for the moment!) what are the characteristics of Somervillian “YUPPIES,” circa 2009? Please dismantle that term for me so that I know more about what it refers to! And if I meet ‘em on the road, should I kill ‘em?
loading...
Hi Eila, at least you acknowledged that “…there are many non discrimination regulations, statutes, legislation, and those are applicable to all facilities, services, activities…” – so – let me ask – instead of creating new regulations and ordinances (that according to you will just be ignored) why not just enforce those we already have? It’s easier.
And did I read this correctly?
“…Somerville’s 2000 census 9,731 residents 21-64 years that are disAbled…”
Huh? That’s an awful high % of disabled folks between 21 and 64 here in Somerville. Between those under 21 and those over 65 – that probably takes our total population down to ~60,000 (from ~78,000). ~ 10,000 of those are disabled? And 100% of the houses don’t have accommodations for the disabled? Where are they staying now and how will we ever get all the 2 and 3-family house ADA compliant for them? Something doesn’t add up here.
Small property owners are barely keeping their heads above water now. Why should we have to incur extra time, relocation and regulation expenses for out tenants just to appease a misguided group of tenant advocates trying to pass an ordinance that will not benefit those it claims to want to benefit (elderly/disabled/low-income).
What – I think – Joe was advocating was that the city’s efforts should be more geared to building and providing more affordable housing for the disabled/low-income/elderly. There are already many groups out there that the city should lean on and methods to get proper (and ADA compliant) units available. Strong-arming small property owners – who are barely making it now – into offering perpetual (and non-ADA complaint) housing makes no sense.
I do applaud your efforts to help the disabled, but sadly this isn’t the way.
loading...
Hi again Harry!
America began caring about accessibility and including people with disABilities in 1968, with the Architectural Barriers Act. I don’t know what prevents our leaders and public from implementing civil rights legislation like that, but I am not giving up on any, and all, of these regulations being enforced someday, Harry.
And I can’t tell how you read it, but approximately 20% of Somervillians over the age of 5 are disAbled. I gave the numbers above, because those are more likely the heads of households.
Please tell us more about how you are barely keeping your head above water, if you feel like it, Harry? What kinds of details are not being considered?
And how would this proposed ordinance “strong-arm” you? Are you planning an imminent conversion?
Best to you and thanks!
loading...
Eila,
Kill ‘em only if they don’t kill you first.
You miss my point. There really are no barriers to the worst kind of discrimination in buildings of three units or less, and any incentive to increase what is inevitable discrimination will only hurt those most vulnerable.
A corollary point, incidentally, is that a disproportionate number of units are actually OWNED by those elders you claim to be protecting. They are terrified of restrictions, and, at least fifteen years ago when we did our study, they often kept their second or third units empty rather than deal with a contentious or litigious tenant. THAT helps no one, and that’s why we developed those somewhat elaborate schemes to involve churches and other intermediaries to protect both tenant and landlord from each others’ predations.
My point, once again, is that there is a critical need for a real housing policy that maintains the diversity of a city facing the dramatic inflationary pressures of new mass transit. AHOC has failed – in my opinion failed miserably – to address affordability by and for young adults and others most vulnerable to market pressures. That, incidentally, does NOT include people with disabilities who have recourse to Section 8, as well as modest (but complex) renovation funding to make older units accessible if it is at all economically feasible. What is at risk here is precisely what Cambridge has lost: units more expensive than Section 8, and less expensive than Affordable formulae (or $1200 to $1400/month). They will totally disappear without a serious effort to raise serious money, probably through a tax on real estate transfers, as we suggested over a dozen years ago. The perfect time to install such a tax – and there is both state law and adequate precedent for such a transfer tax based on the Cape’s transfer tax and creation of set aside conservation land – is when the market is DOWN, and when differentials with Cambridge and Medford and Arlington are largely moot.
Instead of a housing policy to assure diversity, you guys have created a housing policy to pit small homeowners against their co-resident tenants. That is idiotic, destructive to both community and policy, and quite typical of the Cambridge policy that failed so miserably there to retain any hint of diverse housing.
loading...
I agree, Joe, attitudinal barriers exist no matter what laws are on paper.
What would it look like, if we as a community, refused to subtract, isolate, discard or marginalize anyone in our distinctive, diverse, colorful urban village (no matter what their socioeconomic status)?
loading...
“…approximately 20% of Somervillians over the age of 5 are disAbled…”
1 in 5 people in this city are disabled over the age of 5? Please define disabled because I have a tough time believeing 20% of the population in this city is disabled. Where are they all hiding? I don’t see them wheeling around or grocery shopping at Johnnies or Stop & Shop. That number cannot be correct unless you’re defining disabled as people who wear glasses.
And what’s with the ‘A’ in the middle of disabled?
loading...
Hi John,
There are many definitions of disAbled, depending on who is doing the defining. The A is capitalized, because people with disAbilities have abilities and should not be dissed. At some point, we’ll describe people in a more evolved manner, and not lump people who require adaptations, assistive technology, or accessible architecture and design all into one word, which can carry stereotypical meanings, depending upon who is using the term.
Some musicians that you may have heard of, that had different types of disAbilities include: Beethoven, Bach, and Schumann.
If you sincerely want to learn more, I offer this link:
Models of Disability from the Connections for Community leadership group in MI. http://www.copower.org/leader/models.htm
In addition, it’s good to check my stats, so please go to the U.S. Census site at the Disability Main page, at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/disability.html
That will help you gain an overview of national statistics and I’m sure you will be able to figure out how to drill down to find out about Somerville’s statistics relevant to current disability knowledge base.
loading...
So what’s the upshot on this issue?
loading...