commonwealth housing task force - tbf/media/4aaddcee56... · the call for an increase in state...

Commonwealth Housing Task Force

Quarterly Summary of Progress as of June 30, 2011

Note: in order to reduce the size of these reports, we have condensed the description of

regular ongoing activities, and have moved much of the Chapter 40R update to

Appendix I of this Report. For background, please visit www.tbf.org/chtf and click on

“Quarterly Updates”. The Appendix follows at the end of this quarter’s Report.

During the second Quarter of 2011, the Commonwealth Housing Task Force

focused its efforts on:

1. The implementation and monitoring of Chapter 40R, including responding to

cities’ and towns’ requests for information about the program and advocacy for

pending legislation.

2. The call for an increase in state funding for affordability and monitoring of both

state and federal legislation and programmatic developments.

3. Strategic planning for new initiatives of the Task Force, including assuring that

the benefits of new construction under 40R and other state programs are available

to the widest range of households, work with the committee to focus on public

housing, and work with ULI to strengthen the State Historic Tax Credit program.

4. An expansion in participation in the Task Force itself, with a focus on diversity;

and

5. Seeking further financial support for the work of CHTF.

Barry Bluestone, Eleanor White, and Ted Carman, working through the

Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University, have carried

out the staff work in coordination with active subcommittees and Boston Foundation

staff.

Housing Market Updates and Trends

As reported, the last Quarter began with encouraging news about the housing

market. The Boston Herald led off with an article on January 5, 2011, titled “Optimism

in Market” and quoted Barry Bluestone, indicating that “the dark clouds are starting to

lift”. Nationally, however, as covered by Banker & Tradesman on February 1, 2011,

housing markets remained unstable and “fragile”. And on March 2, 2011, the Boston

Globe reported on a panel sponsored by the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and

Sovereign Bank that predicted that the economy and housing market were entering a

“rebound phase”. In a contrasting mood, on March 15, 2011, Banker & Tradesman

reported that realtors, primarily of single-family homes, were not optimistic. We

expected at that time that the coming spring buying season would help to clarify the true

situation.

As the spring wore on, the news about the economy and housing nationwide

began to darken. Unemployment was rising again and home sales and prices were once

again falling. Making this worse are data that demonstrate rents rising not only in

http://www.tbf.org/chtf

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report

June 30, 2011

Boston but in most housing markets for the reasons outlined in last year’s Greater

Boston Housing Report Card. With foreclosed households forced into the rental market

and many younger families either continuing to rent rather than test the housing market,

or frozen out of home buying as a result of tightened credit requirements, demand for

rental housing is rising sharply. Meanwhile, the lack of production of rental housing is

limiting supply. The result is low rental vacancies and rising rents, adversely affecting

low and moderate income families who also face lingering high rates of unemployment

and stagnant wages. Barry Bluestone was quoted in a number of news articles in May

and June regarding the continuing housing saga.

We have included numerous articles in Appendix II of this Report covering

varying perspectives on the housing market and affordability issues.

Student Housing Effort

Past Quarterly Reports commented on The Dukakis Center’s Greater Boston

Housing Report Card 2010’s chapter on Student Housing and the resulting Boston City

Council’s hearing on November 30, 2010; the hearing dealt with the impact of students

on neighborhood housing markets and rents. The Boston Herald followed up with an

editorial on January 7, 2011 supporting the idea of college student villages in both

Fitchburg and Boston. For ready reference, please find Barry Bluestone’s memo to the

Boston City Council and the Herald piece in Appendix III of this Report and Appendices

V and VI of the Quarterly Report for December 31, 2010.

Barry Bluestone continues to meet regularly with members of the Boston City

Council and the Cambridge City Council, with developers, and with builders to explore

where and how such a multi-university graduate student village can be built. In early

June, 2011, Joe Corcoran, Sr. and Joe Corcoran, Jr. of the Corcoran Jennison Company—

a major real estate development, construction and management firm based in Boston--

met with Bluestone to discuss the possibility of developing a Multi-University Graduate

Student Village on the Bay Side Mall site that the company owns on the Columbia Point

peninsula. This could lead to a full-blown proposal for such a development.

Other Programmatic Developments

Construction is approaching for a large project in one of the Reading, MA

Chapter 40R districts (Reading has passed two 40R districts). Originally called

Addison-Wesley, the district is now called Gateway. We are advised that Pulte Homes

has submitted plans to the town of Reading seeking to develop more than 400

condominium and townhouse units, 200 of which will be age-restricted, and a percentage

of the development will be within the 40R district. Banker & Tradesman quoted a

member of the development team: "The market for land sites to support multifamily

residential development continues to remain strong in greater Boston," …. "With its

proximity to I-93 and I-95, and in place, by-right development potential [emphasis

added], One Jacob Way generated interest from several investors." In addition, in the


June 30, 2011

second Reading 40R District in downtown Reading, Oaktree Development is nearing

construction for a 53-unit multifamily development at 30 Haven Street.

Also in regard to Reading, we note that MassHousing has taken 40R participation

into account when making decisions about a project proposed for a 40B permit in

Reading. MassHousing’s discussion of this issue can be found in Appendix IV to this

Report.

The lack of planning grant funds for 40R continues to be a significant challenge,

especially in view of the fact that 40R is the program with the most promise for

facilitating large-scale housing production in Massachusetts in the coming years, and

with the most potential to avert the effects of the projected housing shortage over the

next decade. During the last three years, DHCD has made critically-important planning

grants to communities under the Priority Development Fund (PDF) program. See

previous Quarterly Reports for a full discussion of this issue.

In addition, studies by the Dukakis Center at Northeastern University have

demonstrated that over the next ten to twenty years, the preponderance of household

growth in the Commonwealth will be in over-55 age cohorts, followed shortly by a need

for housing for young households who are part of the “Millennial” generation of “echo

boomers” – the children of the baby boomers.

Also in Appendix IV you will find draft guidelines for the MassWorks

Infrastructure Program. This state program for financing infrastructure improvements,

once implemented, should be a natural complement to development in Chapter 40R

districts across the state. Please send any comments on these proposed guidelines to the

Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development.

We were pleased to note that the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston hosted a major

discussion on April 21, 2011 about the need to see housing as part of a holistic quality of

life, a theme which has been supported and advocated by the Commonwealth Housing

Task Force throughout its history. Paul Grogan of the Boston Foundation, and convener

of CHTF, delivered the keynote address. A report of the conference as covered by

Banker & Tradesman is included in Appendix IV.

And CHAPA reports (Housing Briefs, June 17, 2011) on the new HomeBase

Program in Massachusetts, whose goal is to “make housing assistance, not shelter, the

primary response to assisting families that are homeless.“ CHAPA’s full description of

the program, to be implemented in July, 2011, can be found in Appendix IV to this

Report.

In other news, the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance announced the

allocation of $1.5 million in funding to five development projects in Massachusetts

embodying the goals of smart growth: dense development near public transit. The

Boston Globe’s detailed report on this can be found in Appendix IV to this Report.


June 30, 2011

Finally, we were very pleased to see Boston Mayor Thomas Menino declare that

“More collaboration is needed between developers, neighborhood groups and

communities” in the development process in Boston. Speaking at a forum on June 23,

2011 sponsored by the Smart Growth Alliance, Mayor Menino supported both the goals

of smart growth development and the need for cooperation at the local level to spur

needed construction of affordable housing. The Banker & Tradesman story about this

forum can be found in Appendix IV to this Report.

Implementing Smart Growth Zoning: Increasing Interest from Municipalities and

Local Groups

Chapters 40R and 40S have now been on the books for over five years. The

programs have resulted in the passage of 33 Chapter 40R smart growth zoning districts in

31 municipalities, totaling approximately 12,350 zoned units supported by their

communities, with continuing interest in many more. Approved 40R Districts are

demonstrating the substantial opportunities for innovative planning built into the

program, and as these Districts gain increasing attention, other cities and towns are

recognizing the opportunity that 40R provides for both housing and economic

development, as well as neighborhood revitalization. Please refer to Appendix I to this

Report for the regular detailed update on progress under the Chapter 40R program.

A small working group, including representatives of CHTF, DHCD and others,

has met under the direction of Jennifer Raitt of MAPC to discuss 40R issues, and the

group plans to continue these discussions. In the group, there is general consensus on

support for adequate funding for 40R, for more PDF planning money, and for repealing

the “clawback”/recapture provision in the 40R statute (discussed more fully later in this

Report).

Local resources to plan smart growth districts are scarce, and are expected to

remain so, especially if state planning funds available through the Priority Development

Fund grants remain unavailable. In this time of fiscal stress, these funds often represent

the only way many communities can find the resources to plan for smart growth, which

leaves many communities without the resources to begin such initiatives. We believe

there is an opportunity, however, for property owners and developers to step forward to

contribute the funds necessary and to work in partnership with municipalities to plan 40R

districts. The time for communities to be proactive and plan for their future is when the

construction industry is somewhat dormant; when the economy does improve to the point

where new housing construction is determined to be feasible, these projects will be ready

to go.

With the affirmation last fall of the state’s affordable housing program under

Chapter 40B, the interest level in Chapter 40R is likely to be strong. Increasing funding

to local communities to pursue smart growth districts is the prudent way to provide a

“relief valve” for communities facing Chapter 40B developments that may be considered

to be inappropriate for the location based on local comprehensive planning, site


June 30, 2011

conditions, etc. And Chapter 40R is an important tool for facilitating the development of

new affordable housing units at a time when some units may leave the inventory as a

result of the expiration of their federal contracts (an issue which has been discussed at

length previously).

Other states have also taken notice of the results that 40R has produced, most

especially in Connecticut and New Jersey, as described in detail in previous Quarterly

Reports.

Implementation of Chapter 40S (the School Cost “Insurance Policy”), Funding for

both Chapters 40R and 40S, and a Proposed Technical Amendment to 40R

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) issued an “Informational

Guideline Release” for Chapter 40S, dated June 2010.

The release is at www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dls/publ/igr/2010/igr10_301.pdf. More detail

can be accessed in previous CHTF Quarterly Reports.

The map below, prepared by Ted Carman of Concord Square Planning and

Development, indicates the communities that have already implemented Chapter 40R and

those in the process of doing so. The table following the map outlines the current funding

sources and obligations for Chapter 40R.

http://www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dls/publ/igr/2010/igr10_301.pdf


June 30, 2011


June 30, 2011

Status of Chapter 40R Payments and Obligations Initial Funds from sale of Surplus State Land $3,349,370

Appropriations - Transfers, October, 2007 $10,000,000

Sales of Surplus State Property, 2007 $78,000

Sales of Surplus State Property, 2008 $7,772,440

Sales of Surplus State Property, 2009 $12,000,000

Sources of Funds $33,199,810

Less Transfer to General Fund, 2009 ($18,000,000)

Net Sources $15,199,810

Less Payments and Obligations to Communities: ($13, 699,370)

Balance in Fund as of June 30, 2011 $ 1, 500,440

At this time in the summer of 2011, and absent a new source of funding, it

appears that the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund is unlikely to have sufficient

resources to make the payments that will become due to communities through the end of

Fiscal Year 2012.

As reported previously, identical legislation was filed by Rep. Kevin Honan

(House 197) and Senator Harriette Chandler (Senate 75, co-sponsored by Rep. Carolyn

Dykema) to provide for a continuing and reliable source of funding of the Smart Growth

Housing Trust Fund, as discussed in detail in previous Quarterly Reports. This bill was

refiled in the current session, and we are very grateful to Rep. Honan and Sen. Chandler

for their strong and continuing leadership on this legislative effort. Ted Carman

provided testimony on behalf of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force to the

Committee on the importance of this legislation at a hearing before the Joint Committee

on Community Development and Small Business on April 13, 2011. The full text of

Ted’s testimony can be found in Appendix V to this Report. We have also discussed at

length the desirability of a technical amendment to Chapter 40R. In the final stages of

passing Chapter 40R in June of 2004, a provision was added to the bill requiring DHCD

to recapture incentive payments made to localities if construction had not begun in a 40R

Smart Growth Zoning District within 3 years of the initial bonus payment having been

received by the locality. See previous Quarterly Reports for a detailed discussion of this

issue. We have suggested that repealing this provision would not only remove a

disincentive to localities to participate in Chapter 40R, it would also make the program

administratively easier for DHCD. Senator Harriette Chandler has refiled this bill in the

current session to correct this situation, and we are very grateful to her and her staff.

Spreading the Word about Chapter 40R

Barry Bluestone, Eleanor White, and Ted Carman continue to respond to

requests for meetings, discussions, and presentation of material about Chapter 40R from

planning officials, local elected officials, affordable housing advocates, realtors and


June 30, 2011

others to assure widespread education about the benefits of Chapter 40R. Please visit the

Boston Foundation/CHTF website, www.tbf.org/chtf and consult previous Quarterly

Reports for a detailed description of this ongoing activity. Chapter 40R is often the

subject of news and feature articles in the general press and other media. The topic has

also continued to attract interest from trade and industry groups, and is regularly featured

as a topic at various conferences and workshops.

In this connection, the National Association of Realtors recently completed a

survey about attitudes to smart growth development. According to Banker & Tradesman

of April 5, 2011 (‘Survey: Homebuyers want Smart Growth Amenities’), “Americans

favor walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods, with 56 percent preferring smart growth

neighborhoods over neighborhoods that require more driving between home, work and

recreation.” This reaction tracks closely to what CHTF staff reports in discussions in

Massachusetts, and has been the basis of community interest in Chapter 40R. The story

goes on to say:

“Walkable communities are defined as those where shops, restaurants, and local

businesses are within walking distance from homes. According to the survey, when

considering a home purchase, 77 percent of respondents said they would look for

neighborhoods with abundant sidewalks and other pedestrian-friendly features, and 50

percent would like to see improvements to existing public transportation rather than

initiatives to build new roads and developments.

“The survey also revealed that while space is important to homebuyers, many are

willing to sacrifice square footage for less driving. Eighty percent of those surveyed

would prefer to live in a single-family, detached home as long as it didn't require a longer

commute, but nearly three out of five of those surveyed - 59 percent - would choose a

smaller home if it meant a commute time of 20 minutes or less. The survey also found

that community characteristics are very important to most people. When considering a

home purchase, 88 percent of respondents placed more value on the quality of the

neighborhood than the size of the home, and 77 percent of those surveyed want

communities with high-quality schools.’

‘NAR's survey reveals what many real estate developers are seeing across the

country: smart growth strategies are the best way to meet market demand for walkable

neighborhoods with shorter commutes, diverse housing options and transportation

choices,’ said Chris Leinberger, president of the group LOCUS, which promotes smart

growth real estate investments. ‘Demographic shifts in the United States along with the

changing consumer preferences highlighted in NAR's survey illustrate that consumers

want neighborhoods with more walkable housing and transportation choices.’”

On April 28, 2011, Ted Carman gave a lengthy presentation on “Chapter 40R and

Innovative Financing Techniques” to a workshop at a Boston Society of Architects

conference at the World Trade Center in Boston. The conference was a two day event

titled Residential Design and Construction, 2011 with multiple workshops. As part of his

presentation, Ted made the case for:

http://www.tbf.org/chtf


June 30, 2011

(a) sufficient funding for the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund

(b) an increase in the annual amount of the State Historic Tax Credit

(c) extending the program and continuing the funding for the Federal New Market Tax

Credit Program, and

(d) The importance of older industrial cities in providing the housing needed for the

economy to grow.

As mentioned above, but worth repeating, there are two key legislative issues that

relate to Smart Growth Zoning that should be addressed in 2011.

The first is the repeal of the “clawback” provision, which states that communities

have three years after the passage to of a Chapter 40R Smart Growth Zoning District and

drawdown of incentive funds to issue building permits and have construction commence.

Absent a construction start, the community must repay the State for the amount of the

initial Incentive Payment. The three year window is coming up for a number of

communities where construction has not yet commenced (often due to the state of the

economy) for reasons beyond the control of the community, and repeal of this provision

would be highly desirable. Its existence makes it more difficult to obtain local approval

if new districts.

The second is the need for additional funds for the Smart Growth Housing Trust

Fund. The current balance of $1,500,000 is sufficient for the balance of this fiscal year.

However, additional funds will be required as more districts are passed and as more

specific properties begin construction.

We encourage you to regularly visit the CHTF website, and we welcome all

comments and suggestions for improvement. The website serves as the central repository

for documents, status reports and resource material on the Task Force itself, Chapter 40R,

Chapter 40S, press coverage, and related matters. Dukakis Center staff, led by Barry

Bluestone, is responsible along with Tim Gassert at the Boston Foundation for updating

the CHTF website on a regular basis.

Funding and Legislation for Affordability

Members of the CHTF, in close cooperation with CHAPA, led by Aaron

Gornstein and Sean Caron, continue to focus on advocacy for state funding to support

housing affordable to households at 80 percent of median income and below, especially

for increases in funding for state public housing, the affordable housing trust fund, and

the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP). We will continue to develop

recommendations for priority funding initiatives, and will assist where we can be helpful

with Op-Ed articles, letters to legislators, and other forms of advocacy, in most cases

through or in coordination with CHAPA.

For FY ’11 (the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010) affordable housing programs

were essentially level-funded at FY ’10 levels.


June 30, 2011

The Patrick-Murray Administration released its FY ’12 budget in January,

which again essentially level funds housing programs. The House budget would fund

housing programs at similar levels with a slight increase for MRVP, while the Senate

budget proposes to increase funding for MRVP by $7.3 million through a transfer from

MassHousing and decrease funding for Housing Consumer Education Centers by 11%.

Both House and Senate budgets include a significant reform to the way homeless

families are assisted by creating a new time-limited rental assistance option paired with

support services for homeless families, called HomeBase (see description earlier and in

Appendix IV of this Report). This new approach has been championed by the Patrick-

Murray Administration.

House and Senate Conferees were expected to send the budget to Governor

Patrick for approval during late June, probably just after this Report goes to press. In the

last several budgets, Governor Patrick has vetoed funding for affordable housing but

advocates are hopeful that the Patrick-Murray Administration will approve the full

Conference Committee budget recommendations for housing this year.

Affordable housing advocates are also advocating for a restoration of capital

budget spending for housing to the FY’09 funding level of $193 million. The Patrick-

Murray Administration has unilateral authority to increase or decrease capital spending

for general obligation bond spending up to the amounts authorized by the Legislature in

the 2008 Housing Bond bill. FY’11 capital spending for housing stands at $168 million.

The capital budget is typically released by the Executive Office for Administration and

Finance in the fall.

Federal Housing Budget

In April, Congress and the President completed action on the final FY11

Continuing Resolution, which included deep cuts to HUD Programs. The bill largely

protected the tenant-based and project-based rental assistance program from cuts (except

for a cut in administrative fees), but cut the Public Housing Capital Fund appropriation

by 18% compared to FY2010. It cut CDBG block grants by 16%, HOME block grants by

12% and the Section 202 and Section 811 programs for the elderly and persons with

disabilities by 50%. It eliminated funding for the Housing Counseling Program ($87.5

million in FY2010), which has successfully provided support to millions of homeowner

and renters. It also cut funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative by one third

and funding for HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhoods by 50%.

It is anticipated that the FY12 budget for HUD will be even lower than the Final

FY11 Continuing Resolution. If so, the two years of cuts to the HUD budget will be the

largest in decades.

In May, the Washington Post released a two-part story on problems with the

HOME Program, which advocates fear could undermine support for the program in the


June 30, 2011

coming year. See CHAPA’s excellent response to the Washington Post story, included as

Appendix VII to this report.

2011-2012 State Legislation

The 2011-2012 state legislative session is underway, and legislative committees

are holding hearings on various proposals that increase or relate to affordable housing.

Last session, CHTF worked on several bills that did not become law, and Task Force

members are in the process of reviewing our legislative priorities again this year. We

would appreciate any input and advice from CHTF members concerning these bills:

House bill 197 would fund the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund (which in

turn funds the Chapter 40R program) by diverting the income taxes of residents

living in housing in approved Chapter 40R districts. Last year the bill cleared the

Community Development Committee and was in House Ways and Means but did

not advance before the end of the session. This bill has been supported by CHTF

since its first introduction in the legislature; it would have a major effect upon the

ability of Chapter 40R to be financially self-sustaining. We also encourage

members to submit other suggestions on how to fund the Smart Growth Housing

Trust Fund.

This legislation received a public hearing before the Joint Committee on

Community Development and Small Business in April of this year (see Ted

Carman’s testimony, as previously mentioned, in Appendix V to this Report) but

action has not been taken to advance the bill yet.

Comprehensive Zoning Reform legislation cleared the Committee on

Municipalities and Regional Government for the first time in decades last session

and died in the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. The comprehensive bill

carries many provisions, including mandating that local zoning be consistent with

planning, barring exclusionary zoning practices, authorizing impact fees for

limited uses, rewriting Ch. 40A into clear statements, reforming vesting and

grandfathering, and replacing the Approval Not Required process with a minor

subdivision review process. The bill also creates the ability of communities to opt

into defined planning and zoning benchmarks for housing in exchange for

additional authority to regulate developments. CHTF was represented on the

Governor’s Zoning Reform Task Force which debated many elements of this bill

over the last two years. We believe that the existing Zoning Enabling Act and

related Planning and Subdivision Acts continue to be significant deterrents to

creating the local planning and zoning we need to produce affordable housing and

economic growth; we look forward to continuing the discussion on how to

improve these critical statutes.

The comprehensive zoning legislation, S. 1019 and the Land Use

Partnership Act, S. 1008/ H. 1443, received a public hearing before the Joint


June 30, 2011

Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government in May but action has not

been taken to advance the bill yet.

Legislation to promote innovative strategies in public housing was filed by

Rep. Sanchez and Sen. Chandler:

(http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht01pdf/ht01237.pdf. This legislation

would reduce and streamline regulatory and statutory requirements for

participating housing authorities. The program would maximize the efficient use

of funds received by a housing authority. By not restricting the use of

appropriated funds to one narrow purpose, housing authorities would be able to

more effectively address local needs, which differ by locality. The bill would also

authorize innovative program design on issues such as rent calculation, to reduce

the administrative burden and cost on the housing authority, and to lighten the

burden on tenants to produce the personal information often necessary to

document income and exclusions.

Last session, the bill was reported favorably by the Housing Committee.

The legislation, H. 4544, did not advance from the House Committee on Ways

and Means.

This session, the Housing Committee favorably reported the legislation

once again. The Senate version is currently before the Senate Committee on

Ways and Means and the House version is before the House Committee on Ways

and Means. CHTF has been supportive of this legislation as a way to promote

innovative strategies to manage and rehabilitate state public housing.

Legislation to coordinate new supportive housing filed by Representative

Honan and Senator Jehlen:

(http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht01pdf/ht01222.pdf). In order to

build supportive housing for people with disabilities, elders, or extremely low

income households, a developer must now access three separate pots of capital,

operating, and supportive service funds through multiple applications. This

consensus proposal would coordinate the process to build supportive housing by

establishing formal relationships and shared principles among the relevant state

agencies involved in the process. Last session, this bill was reported favorably

out of Committee but did not advance from the House Committee on Ways and

Means.

This session, the Housing Committee has favorably reported the

legislation. The Senate version is currently before the Senate Committee on

Ways and Means and the House version is before the House Committee on Ways

and Means. CHTF has been supportive of this bill.

Legislation to dedicate energy efficiency funding for improvements in

affordable rental housing was filed by Representative Honan and Senator

DiDomenico: (http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st01/st01546.htm).

There is a significant capital cost to constructing or rehabilitating housing to

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht01pdf/ht01237.pdf

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht01pdf/ht01222.pdf

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st01/st01546.htm


June 30, 2011

ensure that the structures minimize energy use. However, if the capital investment

can be absorbed, the energy savings are significant, and can reduce both the rent

necessary to maintain the property and the impact on the environment. This

legislation dedicates funding to make new and existing multifamily affordable

housing more energy efficient. Last session, the House bill was favorably

advanced and was before the House Committee on Ways and Means, but did not

advance further before the end of the session. A public hearing is expected in

July.

Members interested in supporting or learning more about these proposals should

contact Eleanor White at [email protected] or Sean Caron at

[email protected].

Foreclosures and the “Stuck” Home Mortgage Market

As foreclosure issues continue to be a serious problem for both homeowners and

municipalities in Massachusetts, the U. S. House of Representatives has voted to

eliminate most of the federal foreclosure programs, including the Neighborhood

Stabilization Program, Emergency Homeowner Loan Program, the FHA Refinancing

Program, and the HAMP Program. However, the Senate is not expected to pass this bill

and the President has threatened a veto.

Further, the Treasury Department and HUD released their plan to reform the so-

called GSE’s (Government Sponsored Entreprises), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The

House Republican leadership has filed eight different bills on GSE reform and the Senate

Banking Committee has begun hearings on the issue. However, most advocates believe

that no action will be taken on GSE reform this year.

The Expanding Opportunities Committee

This committee, meeting since July of 2006, and chaired by Sarah Lamitie and

Jackie Cooper, was formed to explore possible diversity initiatives, both to increase

participation in CHTF by people of color and other underrepresented groups, and to

assure that programs supported by CHTF will have a positive effect on social justice and

equity issues. The committee is implementing an action agenda to enhance inclusiveness

in housing in cities and towns throughout the state. In connection with this diversity

initiative, please extend an invitation to colleagues you may know who would be

interested in joining the Task Force. They can join the CHTF at no coat by sending their

contact information to Eleanor White at [email protected]. Since the

inception of the committee, we have been very pleased to have received “memberships”

in CHTF from more than 75 people of color and from underrepresented professions.

Please refer to the CHTF website, www.tbf/chtf and review previous Quarterly

Reports for a general description of this committee, and prior initiatives of the group.

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.tbf/chtf


June 30, 2011

The Committee held its “Welcoming Communities II” Conference on May 10,

2011 at the Boston Private Bank. Research conducted for the committee by Barry

Bluestone and Jessica Casey was presented at the conference, along with reports on the

experiences of individual communities in opening up housing opportunities for people of

color, younger families with children, and households with disabled members. The

forum brought together more than 60 housing experts and community leaders

representing 15 communities in Massachusetts to consider expanding opportunity “best

practices” and efforts that can be undertaken to make more Greater Boston communities

welcoming to new households and families. The Bluestone-Casey statistical analysis,

carried out under CHTF auspices at the Dukakis Center at Northeastern University,

examined the potential impact that an increase in minority population in Massachusetts

communities can have on home values, spending on education, and crime. Their

extensive analysis revealed that increasing diversity had no adverse effect on

community income, home values, K-12 school spending, or crime rates. A discussion of

the policy implications of the findings followed the presentation.

The agenda also included presentations on strategies that several towns have used

recently to work toward the goal of creating a more welcoming environment. Four

speakers from Westwood, including Mike Jaillet, Town Administrator; Jill Onderdonk,

Housing Director and Human Rights Committee Chair; Michelle Perry, Human Rights

Committee member and former Chair; and Barbara Shea, Human Rights Committee

Vice Chair spoke about the cooperative efforts of the town and the Human Rights

Committee to promote diversity, including offering a series of four well attended

meetings to discuss issues of race using the video “Race, the Power of an Illusion”.

Barbara Chandler, Fair Housing Manager for the Metropolitan Boston Housing

Partnership, highlighted three local efforts that she was involved with as outcomes of

CHTF’s 2009 Welcoming Communities Forum. These efforts included providing

training for town employees in Winchester on incorporating civil rights and an

inclusionary philosophy into the delivery of town services and day-to-day practices, and a

fair housing training for realtors, attorneys, lenders and property owners in the town. In

Newton, Ms. Chandler conducted a systemic analysis of City policies and procedures to

improve accessibility for persons with disabilities in the delivery of City services. Lastly,

Ms. Chandler highlighted two trainings that she presented for the Massachusetts

Association of Human Rights and Relations Commissions on building fair housing into

town planning, service delivery, and advocacy efforts.

Robert Muollo, Housing Development Planner for the City of Newton, discussed

a fair housing audit that the City undertook to identify fair housing issues, using matched-

pair testing. The audit was very useful for the city’s fair housing committee as they set

their agenda to promote and support the City’s efforts to be a diverse and welcoming

community, with housing choices and opportunities free from housing discrimination.

The event ended with a discussion about ways that participants can support each

others’ efforts in the future. Several people commented that a website highlighting


June 30, 2011

successful strategies and useful resources would be very useful. Further consideration

will be given to the proposed resource guide and website (described below) as an

initiative of CHTF to help Massachusetts communities implement new programs and

approaches to this issue. If you would like more information about the Welcoming

event, please contact Sarah Lamitie at [email protected].

The ideas explored at the Welcoming event have the potential to result in the

creation of an extremely useful (and user-friendly) interactive website. The Committee’s

goal would be to create a website that will offer the resource guide and other helpful

information, and also an online discussion forum to facilitate the sharing of ideas,

successes and challenges of communities engaged in this effort. The Committee would

work closely with Tim Gassert, the Boston Foundation webmaster, to provide

content/updates to content, etc. We believe that this could develop into an extremely

valuable resource for increasing the level of “welcome-ability” of communities

throughout the state. We also hope that the website would prove to be a valuable

resource for families searching for welcoming communities in which to settle, both those

households already in Massachusetts and those moving to the Commonwealth from other

states.

All are welcome to join the Expanding Opportunities Committee; please send

your contact information to both Barbara Shea, (formerly Barbara McDonald—note

change of name) committee member, at [email protected] and Maura Fogarty at the

Boston Foundation, at [email protected] . Only those who have signed up for this

committee will receive notices of future meetings. Comments about the agenda for the

EO Committee should be addressed to Sarah Lamitie and Jacqueline Cooper, the co-

chairs of the Committee. They can be reached at [email protected]

(Sarah) and [email protected] (Jackie) respectively. Thanks to both Jackie and

Sarah for their leadership of this effort, and to Boston Private Bank for providing the

regular meeting space for this committee.

The Public Housing Committee

CHTF has lent strong advocacy support to the effort to significantly increase

funding for state-assisted public housing development and management over the last

year. Although current levels of funding are higher than at any point in almost 20 years,

they are clearly inadequate to support either the needs of low-income households or of

aging public housing buildings. Public housing programs represent the most efficient

and effective means of providing housing for those at 50 percent of area median income

and below, and include traditional public housing as well as demand-side voucher

programs and major redevelopment efforts. This committee will continue to identify

programs and legislation that could benefit from CHTF support and will bring new

program initiatives forward to CHTF.

Charles Eisenberg, an affordable housing consultant with extensive experience

with public housing, and Jim Stockard, currently Curator of the Loeb Fellowship







June 30, 2011

Program at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, are serving as co-chairs of this

CHTF committee. Jim has also been Chairman of the Cambridge Housing Authority for

more than 25 years, and is a long-time affordable housing expert.

As with all CHTF committees, membership is open to all. We particularly invite

local public housing authority staff and board members, and members of community-

based nonprofit organizations, to consider participating in this committee.

Please refer to the last two CHTF Quarterly Reports for a comprehensive

discussion of the issues currently being addressed by this committee.

At the State level, The House and Senate appear to be level funding the operating

subsidy account for State projects; less than before the recession but probably the best

that could have been expected given the current economic situation. The funding for

capital improvements remains significantly below what is needed. HomeBase, the

Governor’s proposal to change the way short- and medium-term homeless cases are

handled, is expected to begin implementation in July, 2011, as the number of families

living in motels has increased significantly from last year. The Housing Innovations Bill

to streamline operating procedures for some housing authorities has been refiled and is

proceeding through the Committee process. See detailed descriptions of these programs

in the Programmatic Developments, Funding and State Legislation sections earlier in this

Report.

The Public Housing Committee is scheduled to meet on June 29, 2011 (after this

Report has gone to press) to discuss these and other issues. CHTF members interested in

signing up for this committee can reach Charles Eisenberg at 617-901-3378 or

[email protected] , and Jim Stockard at (617) 495-5988 or

[email protected] . Many thanks to MHP for providing the meeting space for

this committee.

Work with the Urban Land Institute on Public/Private Partnership Initiatives

Eleanor White and Ted Carman have represented CHTF in a series of meetings

and communications with the local chapter of the Urban Land Institute, particularly with

the Public/Private Partnership (“P3”) Committee, now chaired by Nancy Ludwig of

ICON architecture. Nancy is the President of ICON, with a practice focusing on

sustainable, transit-oriented residential development.

The Committee continues to work on initiatives and pursue strategic alliances that

can effect change on a regional basis:

Ted Carman continues to monitor discussions to prioritize a portion of State

Historic Tax credits towards Gateway Cities to help spur development in

economically-challenged communities. A bill was filed by Representative

Antonio F.D. Cabral of New Bedford to increase funding for the program to




June 30, 2011

$100,000,000 and provide forward funding (i.e. assurance of full funding) of 10%

of the total allocation for projects located in Gateway Cities. No date has been set

for a hearing on the bill.

Stephanie Wasser and Charlie Kendrick will facilitate a trial “Mayor’s Forum”

for a 14-town region in Connecticut, helping to promote regional discussion and

action around development, transportation, housing and employment. .

The P3 committee will host a reception for key New England Mayors as an

adjunct to a July ULI program featuring Tom Murphy, three-term mayor of

Pittsburgh and current ULI fellow, presenting the annual ULI Infrastructure

report. The reception may help gauge mayoral interest in ULI sponsored “best

practice” programs in Massachusetts.

Nancy Ludwig reported out from the recent ULI Workforce Housing webinar the

significant HUD budget reductions that are taking place in fiscal 2011 and 2012.

The committee now meets on the second Wednesday of each month at the offices

of ICON Architecture, 38 Chauncy Street in Boston, although please note that due to

summer vacations, the next meeting will be on August 10, 2011. CHTF members who

may wish to attend meetings of this committee and contribute to its efforts should get in

touch with the current Committee Chair, Nancy Ludwig, at [email protected] .

Litigation Involving Chapter 40R

As reported previously, CHTF, through its Legislative/Legal Committee headed

by CHTF Co-Chair Larry DiCara, is monitoring a lawsuit brought against the Town of

Natick that asserts that the bond that is required to be posted in order to challenge a

“smart growth” (Chapter 40R) project approved by the town’s planning board is

unconstitutional. The plaintiff, The Mills at Natick, has brought several lawsuits against

the Town of Natick and others relating to the planning board’s approval of permits for

the construction of townhouses and apartments in the town’s Chapter 40R Smart Growth

Overlay District. Plaintiff has not yet posted the bond that is required by state law in

order to challenge such projects, and has instead sought a declaration that the bond is an

unconstitutional bar on access to the courts. The parties unsuccessfully attempted to

reach agreement outside of court regarding all six lawsuits in the summer of 2009.

CHTF believes that the bond requirement is constitutional and is an important part

of the Chapter 40R statute.

The Town of Natick and the developer for the project were pleased at CHTF’s

offer to provide legal support through our Legislative/Legal Committee. Kurt Mullen of

the law firm of Nixon Peabody and Larry DiCara, Co-Chair of CHTF, Committee

Chair, and also of Nixon Peabody, have provided pro bono assistance to the Town of

Natick and the project developer on this matter. The requirement to post a bond is

included in the Chapter 40R statute, and was intended by the Legislature to streamline the

development process and discourage frivolous and NIMBY-driven lawsuits. Nixon



June 30, 2011

Peabody believes that there is strong legal precedent to uphold the constitutionality of

this requirement.

In December 2009, the court hearing these lawsuits heard various motions

brought by the parties, including a motion by the project developer to either require the

plaintiff to post the bond required by Chapter 40R or to dismiss the lawsuit. The court

took all motions under advisement and has not yet issued any rulings. In April 2010, the

court heard a motion by the developer concerning drainage rights associated with the

project. Since then, progress on the lawsuits has been stayed, due in part to an

administrative appeal concerning drainage rights and the developer’s filing in bankruptcy

court of a petition to reorganize. We understand that the developer is working to address

any drainage issues, the resolution of which was delayed by the bankruptcy proceeding.

The Court is expected to hold a status conference in the near future on all outstanding

issues. The Legislative/Legal Committee will continue to monitor this case in the coming

months.

Other Initiatives

Members of the Task Force and others are also encouraged to forward ideas to

[email protected] for other housing and development initiatives where

the demonstrated effectiveness of CHTF may make a difference. We have been

approached by various groups interested in transportation, energy, zoning and permitting

issues, as well as the spectrum of affordability concerns, and will be reviewing the

degree to which we can move into new areas. Participation in the foreclosure issue, the

public housing committee, analysis of legislation expanding supportive housing, and

services, and our work with ULI are examples of response to such requests.

Working with the Local, State and Federal Administrations

We are very pleased to welcome two distinguished professionals and long-time

friends and colleagues of many members of CHTF to new positions in Massachusetts.

Peter Meade has been named Executive Director of the Boston Redevelopment

Authority (BRA) and Marty Jones was named President and CEO of

MassDevelopment. Both agencies play significant roles in issues that CHTF is interested

in, and we look forward to working with both Peter and Marty. Please refer to Appendix

VIII of this Report for Banker & Tradesman stories about both appointments.

We would also like to take this opportunity to thank both John Palmieri, former

Director of the BRA and Bob Culver, former CEO of MassDevelopment. Both served as

respected leaders of their agencies and effective supporters of the efforts of CHTF.

Under Palmieri’s leadership, the City of Boston passed its first Chapter 40R Smart

Growth Zoning district. Under Culver’s leadership, MassDevelopment assisted in the

dissemination of information and technical assistance about the Chapter 40R program

across the Commonwealth. We wish John and Bob great continuing success in the

future, and would welcome their continuing involvement with CHTF.



June 30, 2011

Many members of CHTF have provided advice and guidance (both formally and

informally) to the staff of Governor Deval Patrick, Secretary of Housing and Economic

Development Greg Bialecki, and Undersecretary Tina Brooks. We have been

encouraged by Governor Patrick’s support of both 40R and 40S and the smart growth and

affordable housing concepts underlying these initiatives, as well as his demonstrated

support for increased funding for affordability, and his statements in support of retaining

Chapter 40B. Clearly the state fiscal situation is still difficult, and we appreciate all

efforts to prioritize affordable housing.

As previously reported, Eleanor White represented the CHTF in a series of

meetings of the Governor’s Zoning Reform Task Force. Chaired by Secretary Greg

Bialecki, this group met for approximately 18 months to explore ways in which cities and

towns can begin to connect planning and zoning in a more coherent way, with support

from the Commonwealth, and focus more attention locally on facilitating the

development of affordable housing. A summary of the comprehensive legislation filed in

response to this Task Force’s work has been included earlier in this Report.

CHTF has been represented in a series of Stakeholders’ Meetings with the

Secretary for Elder Affairs of the Commonwealth, Ann Hartstein. The group includes

representation from more than 20 organizations and coalitions dealing with issues

affecting older adults in the Commonwealth.

While not directly tied to housing, Barry Bluestone has worked closely with

Governor Patrick and with Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Greg

Bialecki to develop the statute creating the Massachusetts Growth Capital Corporation

(MGCC), which was approved by the state legislature and signed into law by the

Governor in July of 2010. The law will provide growth capital to small and mid-sized

firms in the Commonwealth, along with technical advice to assist companies in

expanding their operations and employment.

Barry Bluestone also helped establish the Governor’s Advanced Manufacturing

Task Force, which is charged with providing the Governor and the legislature with

recommendations for ways to help encourage the growth of manufacturing in the

Commonwealth and assure it a well-trained workforce well into the future. Both of these

economic development initiatives carry with them the promise of increased jobs—and a

concomitant need for housing—in the future.

Expansion of the Task Force and the Search for Resources

We have been gratified again this Quarter with requests from new people to

participate in the Task Force, especially those interested in diversity initiatives, public

housing and historic tax credits. As we speak about Chapter 40R and about making

communities more welcoming, we also are receiving requests from more elected and

appointed local officials to get involved in the CHTF, and they are a most positive


June 30, 2011

addition as well. As mentioned above, we are especially interested in increasing our

representation of people of color on our email list, and in their active participation in

committees and plenary meetings.

The Boston Foundation, under the leadership of Paul Grogan and Mary Jo

Meisner, continues to play the critical role of both convener and a major funder of the

Commonwealth Housing Task Force. Finally, a committee of the Task Force, under the

leadership of Paul Grogan and Mary Jo Meisner of the Boston Foundation; Jerry

Rappaport, Jr. and Robert Smyth, Co-Chairs of CHTF; and Robert Beal, Chair of the

Strategic Planning Committee, continues the effort to raise the resources necessary to

support the ongoing work as outlined above. Many thanks to the Boston Foundation,

which continues to be our major financial supporter, to allow CHTF work to go forward

without interruption. In June of last year, the Boston Foundation Board voted support for

CHTF for the following three years. We are particularly grateful for their ongoing

confidence in CHTF and for their support during these difficult economic times. The

staff is investigating other institutional sources of support, which are scarce, and

financial contributions from the business community and individuals are always most

appreciated.

Also thank you to all of the CHTF participants for your continued enthusiasm

and participation. Please send updates to your contact information to

[email protected]. We welcome comments and suggestions. You can

continue to reach Eleanor White at Housing Partners, Inc. (617-965-1065 before 4PM

Boston time or [email protected]); Barry Bluestone at the Northeastern

Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy (617-373-8595 or [email protected]) ;

and Ted Carman at Concord Square Planning and Development (617-482-1997 or

[email protected]). Please note that email messages about CHTF will often

be coming from Maura Fogarty at The Boston Foundation ([email protected]).

Respectfully submitted: Eleanor White, Barry Bluestone, Ted Carman

July, 2011

(APPENDICES FOLLOW)







June 30, 2011

Appendix I to CHTF Quarterly Report June 30, 2011

Update of Progress under Chapter 40R: Smart Growth Zoning

and Housing Production Act The current housing market in Massachusetts appears to be stabilizing, with rents

increasing. Nonetheless, housing markets are just beginning to show more vigor, and it will be

many months before the return of what we formerly considered normal. New home construction

continues to be far below its past levels. In this environment, communities across Massachusetts

continued to explore the adoption of Chapter 40R smart growth zoning districts during this

period. As was the original intent of Chapter 40R, these districts and the expedited as-of-right

permitting process they offer will make it possible to increase production rapidly once the

economy and housing market strengthen, thus providing the opportunity for housing supply to

keep up with demand when market conditions warrant.

Other states—notably Connecticut and New Jersey—have also taken notice of the results

that 40R has produced. Specific information has been provided in previous Quarterly Reports.

As detailed in this Appendix, more than 50 cities and towns in the Commonwealth have

either passed Chapter 40R districts, or are in some stage of consideration. The table in this

Appendix shows these municipalities, their district status, and data regarding their districts.

Many thanks to Ted Carman of Concord Square Planning & Development for the preparation of

this information.

Since 2006, in Massachusetts the towns of Belmont, Grafton, Lunenburg, Norwood,

North Reading, Plymouth, Dartmouth, Lakeville, Natick, Amesbury, Kingston, Lynnfield, North

Andover, Reading (two districts), Bridgewater, Easton, Westfield, Marblehead (two districts),

Sharon, and the cities of Boston, Brockton, Chelsea, Chicopee, Easthampton, Haverhill, Holyoke,

Lawrence, Lowell, Northampton, Fitchburg, and Pittsfield have all successfully had Chapter 40R

applications approved by DHCD and have passed Chapter 40R districts. Among them, these 31

localities have provided zoning as-of-right for over 12,350 units of housing, at least 20 percent

of which will be affordable to households earning less than 80% of the area median income.

Within the 40R Districts, 1,457 building permits have already been issued. An additional 879

residential units have received Plan Approval from the permit granting authority, but have not yet

applied for building permits due to other permitting (MEPA) and market conditions.

Many more municipalities are actively exploring 40R. In addition to those having passed

districts, Andover is actively seeking a 40R Letter of Eligibility from DHCD, with one district

totaling 254 Future Zoned Units. The Town of Weymouth has formally rejected using 40R for the

proposed district under consideration there, by vote of the Planning Board and the Town Council.

That district was proposed to have a total of 38 housing units. At least five localities have applied

for or received state Priority Development Fund planning grants to pursue 40R zoning, including:

Amesbury (a second district), Dennis, Ludlow-Southampton (combined), and Norfolk.

Although not all the news is rosy these days, progress continues on 40R; with the

economic problems facing both municipalities and property owners, four towns that had been

considering using 40R have recently decided to abandon their efforts at least for the time being.

Attleboro and Holden have discontinued their preliminary investigations, Rockland is moving

forward without 40R, and Weymouth has voted 40R down.


June 30, 2011

On the bright side, we are seeing movement in project construction, with Easthampton

granting local approval for the conversion of an old mill building into 50 affordable units (project

is now awaiting tax credits), Easton’s 40R developer is activating the MEPA process, Pittsfield

expects construction in their Downtown District to begin in 2011, Reading is currently reviewing

a site plan for 200 units in their Gateway District, and a developer in Reading’s Downtown

District has local approval and is now seeking building permits for 56 units.

We are aware of interest in Chapter 40R (or additional districts under 40R) in 17 other

cities and towns, including: Amesbury, Bridgewater, Concord, Dennis, Ludlow, Medway,

Nantucket, New Bedford, Newburyport, Norfolk, Northbridge, Norwood, Somerville,

Southampton, Walpole, and Waltham. Other cities and towns and local groups have expressed

preliminary interest in the program. In addition, we have observed that developers – both

nonprofit and for-profit – are starting to explore the use of Chapter 40R in partnership with

localities now that the economy is beginning to show signs of revival. 40R continues to be

regularly featured in conferences and seminars for real estate professionals.

It is also noteworthy that, with only three exceptions, every locally approved 40R district

that has been brought to a vote has received the required approval of 2/3 of the local governing

body. This includes votes in smaller communities such as Lynnfield and Kingston in which 40R

bylaws allowing significant growth were approved at Town Meetings with the largest attendance

on record. We attribute this to the positive nature of the collaborative local process required to

develop the 40R plan and most particularly the local municipality’s right to develop their own

design standards. It appears that because so much input and cooperation is required locally to

develop the district proposal, by the time the question is put to a vote, most stakeholders in the

city or town have contributed ideas to the plan and are supportive of the concept.

We also ask that you please let CHTF staff know where you have heard of particular

interest in learning more about Chapters 40R and 40S (or where you believe that Chapter 40R

would be especially beneficial to a city or town), and we will respond with outreach to those

localities. Just send a message to [email protected] and we will follow up with the

locality to offer support as may be needed. It will be helpful if you include the name of a contact

person in the city or town with phone number and email address, but if you cannot provide that,

just send the name of the city or town.

The following table – prepared by Ted Carman– compares zoning adoption to date to the

projections included in the original Commonwealth Housing Task Force Report in October 2003,

Building on Our Heritage, adjusted forward to account for the time lapse between the adoption of

40R in June 2004 and 40S in November 2005: ________________________________

Year of

Program

Calendar

Year

Units Projected

to be Zoned in

2003 Report

Total Units Zoned (Actual)

1 2006 0 2,883

2 2007 4,800 6,795

3 2008 9,700 9,693

4 2009 16,927 10,099

5 2010 22,085 12,350



June 30, 2011

It is important to note that. many of the 17 communities that are currently in the planning

stages for 40R districts have not yet determined or estimated the number of Future Zoned Units,

and it is possible that the total number will increase dramatically in the coming years. It is also

true, however, that the weakened economy has had and will likely continue to have an impact on

the degree to which communities will focus on this program in the year ahead.

With the recent affirmation of the state’s affordable housing program under Chapter 40B,

the interest level in Chapter 40R is likely to be strong. Increasing funding to local communities to

pursue smart growth districts is the prudent way to provide a “relief valve” for communities

facing Chapter 40B developments that are inappropriate for the location based on local

comprehensive planning, site conditions, etc. Please refer to the map below showing the

distribution of 40R localities throughout the Commonwealth. We are particularly gratified that

interest is being expressed by cities and towns of all sizes and types.

Our conversations with Regional Planning Agencies and others who regularly

provide technical assistance to municipalities indicate that many more of them are now

expressing interest in 40R. Unfortunately, we are also aware of a number of localities

that, after careful consideration of 40R adoption, decided against pursuing a 40R District


June 30, 2011

because of local leaders’ concern about the long-term stability of the funding source for

40R and 40S. This issue, which is under discussion in many cities and towns, must be

satisfactorily resolved to enable smart growth zoning to realize its promise. We are

working to assure that a stable funding source is available to support the program’s

continued success in the future.

The following table provides at a glance the status of Chapter 40R:

Table of Districts Approved, Pending, or Under Consideration:

(1) Approved: Future Zoned Units 12, 032;

(2) Pending with DHCD: Future Zoned Units—254;

(3) Local Consideration Underway: Future Zoned Units—3625


June 30, 2011


June 30, 2011

APPENDIX II June 30, 2011

Articles about the Housing Market

Boston Globe, May 3, 2011

Harvard report finds housing ‘affordability crisis’ By Megan Woolhouse

Boston Globe Staff / May 3, 2011

Philip Frabetti wants to move his wife and two children out of their cramped apartment in

the North End, but finding a bigger place that’s affordable has been difficult.

Frabetti, a project manager at Fidelity Investments, said the asking rents of $2,500 or more a

month in Newton, Arlington, and Belmont would eat up at least half of his monthly income.

“They’re ridiculously expensive,’’ said Frabetti, 39. “We feel like there’s not a lot of options —

the desirable places are out of our reach.’’

Rent and utility costs have risen faster than incomes in recent years, pushing the number

of renters who must spend more than half their monthly income on housing to record levels,

according to a report by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. The study, released

yesterday, described an “affordability crisis’’ worsened by the recent recession, which eroded

family incomes even as record foreclosures pushed more people into the rental market, driving up

prices. As a result, 10.1 million US households, or one in four renters, spend more than half their

earnings on rent and utilities. Another one in four households spends one-third to one-half of

income on rent and utilities, according to the study.

This squeeze, traditionally concentrated among lower-income families, is increasingly

becoming a middle-class problem, according to the study. The percentage of middle-income

families using 30 to 50 percent of their income for rent and utility payments more than doubled

over the past decade, to 23 percent from 10 percent.

Eric S. Belsky, managing director of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies and an

author of the study, called the trend alarming. “Renter incomes are not keeping up with rising

costs,’’ Belsky said. “And if you spend more on rental housing, you have less to spend on other

things.’’

For decades, the rule of thumb has been that renters should pay 25 to 30 percent of their

income on housing. In 1960, about 12 percent of renters used more than half their income for rent

and utilities; by 2000, the share had risen to 20 percent and by 2009, to 26 percent. Soaring

energy prices contributed to the increases. Median asking rent in 2009 was $1,067 a month and

median renter income was $31,000 a year nationally, according to the study.

Parts of the study were based on Census Bureau surveys asking residents to estimate the

proportion of their income spent on rent. Belsky said researchers reviewed that information for

the 100 largest metropolitan areas. In Boston, they found the numbers of renters who said they

spent more than half their income on rent jumped to 25 percent in 2009 from 20 percent in 2000.

Ishay Grinberg, chief executive of RentalBeast.com, a Somerville company that lists rentals on its

website, said the study might overstate the problem because it did not look at people renting

outside large metro areas, who may not be spending as much on rent.

Rents are going up, he said, but for predictable reasons, such as higher property taxes. He

added that leeriness about buying real estate means more renters are competing for apartments.

“If there’s a lot more demand than existing supply, prices go up, whether it’s apartments or

chocolate,’’ he said. “In this case it’s apartments, and there’s a limited supply.’’

http://search.boston.com/local/Search.do?s.sm.query=Megan+Woolhouse&camp=localsearch:on:byline:art

http://rentalbeast.com/


June 30, 2011

Belsky said low-income renters were most likely to be burdened by high rents because of

an acute shortage of affordable housing. Apartment construction in recent years has been geared

toward the upper-end market.

Sandra Cassio, a single mother, said the rent on her $1,300-a-month Dorchester

apartment consumes about half her monthly paycheck. The 29-year-old cares for her two children

and a nephew, and works part time at FedEx for $14 an hour. She also receives child support.

The Dorchester apartment is also $200 more expensive than her last rental in South Boston,

which Cassio had to leave when the landlord decided to renovate. She lives frugally to make ends

meet; many of her furnishings are secondhand, given to her by friends and family. “You don’t

want to be spending money on things that are not necessities,’’ Cassio said. “There is no ‘I want

this.’ There is only ‘I need this.’ ’’

Globe reporter Erin Ailworth contributed to this report. Megan Woolhouse can be reached at

[email protected].

© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.

****************************************************************************

Banker & Tradesman, May 3, 2011

Study: Mass. Ranks Among Most Expensive For Renters

By Colleen M. Sullivan

Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

Massachusetts is among the most expensive states for renters, according to a new report

released Monday by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLICH).

Massachusetts was the most expensive state for suburban and rural renters, requiring an

average salary of $29.68 per hour in order to afford a two-bedroom apartment in a non-

metro area, according to the study.

High-priced resort enclaves were a big part of the reason --- Nantucket County is the

seventh-most expensive in the nation, with a salary of $32.56 per hour required for a

renter to afford a two-bedroom on the island.

"The so-called weakness in the housing markets has not translated into affordability for

Americans, as the stock of housing is mis-matched to the need," said Danilo Pelletiere,

research director for the NLICH.

Overall, Massachusetts was the seventh-most expensive state nationwide, with the

average renter required to earn about $23.25 per hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment

in the state. In Massachusetts, renters make up about 35 percent of the housing market,

according to the report, and have an average estimated hourly wage of about $16.17. The

average estimated wage for renters nationwide is $13.52, down almost a dollar from last

year's average estimated wage of $14.44.

The NLIHC report reveals that even though high unemployment is continuing to put

pressure on wages, rents across the country are continuing to increase, with the average

http://finance.boston.com/boston?Page=QUOTE&Ticker=FDX



June 30, 2011

family needing to make a little more than $38,000 a year in order to afford a two-

bedroom apartment. For families relying on a single wage earner, that works out to

$18.46 per hour.

"There is a shortage of housing that is affordable to the lowest income people in our

country," said Sheila Crowley, president of the NLIHC. "Existing low-income housing

projects are inadequate to address this need."

Changing the mortgage interest deduction to a tax credit could help free up funds to

subsidize further affordable housing suggested Crowley, stating an increase of $30 billion

per year to the National Housing Trust Fund could address the gaps and allow for the

creation of more than three million units of affordable housing.


Report: Boston, National Home Values Drop

Home values in the Boston metro area fell by 5.6 percent year-over-year in the first

quarter to $305,800, according to a report from real estate data firm Zillow Inc.

Home values nationwide also fell in the first quarter at the fastest rate since late 2008,

suggesting that a bottom will not be seen until 2012 at the earliest.

Zillow said its nationwide home value index fell 8.2 percent in the first quarter year-over-

year.

The number of Boston homeowners underwater, those who owe more on the mortgage

than their house is currently worth, amounted to 16.9 percent of single-family

homeowners. Nationwide, 28.4 percent of single-family homeowners are underwater,

representing a peak since Zillow began calculating the data in 2009.

Foreclosures nationwide also rose, following the moratoriums that had been in place in

late 2010. In March, one out of every 1,000 homes nationwide was in foreclosure.

Given all those factors, it is unlikely home values will reach a bottom this year, Zillow

said, and the firm pushed its forecast out to 2012.

"Home value declines are currently equal to those we experienced during the darkest days

of the housing recession. With accelerating declines during the first quarter, it is

unreasonable to expect home values to return to stability by the end of 2011," Zillow

chief economist Stan Humphries said in a statement.

Almost all of the 132 markets covered by Zillow saw home value declines. Only Fort

Myers in Florida, Champaign-Urbana in Illinois, and Honolulu, Hawaii, managed

quarterly increases.


June 30, 2011

National Low Income Housing Coalition: OUT OF REACH 2011

May 2. 2011

Out of Reach 2011: Housing Wage Continues to Rise The National Low Income Housing Coalition released its annual Out of Reach report on

May 2.

Out of Reach 2011 shows that the gap between what is typically earned by renter

households and the income needed to afford a decent apartment continues to grow. This

year, the national Housing Wage rose two cents to $18.46, while the average wage

among renters fell dramatically to $13.52 from $14.44 in 2010. The Housing Wage is the

hourly wage one must earn in order to be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the

Fair Market Rent (FMR).

The wages a renter would need to earn to afford a one bedroom ($15.48), or even a studio

(zero-bedroom) rental home ($13.70) at the FMR also exceed the national renter wage.

The growing gap between the Housing Wage and the average renter wage is a strong

indicator of the challenges faced by renters seeking affordable apartments while holding

shrinking paychecks.

In 2011, the federal minimum wage is $7.25. At this wage, a household can afford to

spend only $377 on rent each month. In 28 states across the nation, more than two full

time minimum wage jobs are required to afford the two-bedroom FMR. A minimum

wage worker needs to work 102 hours a week to afford a two bedroom unit, on average

nationwide.

Perhaps the most important aspect of Out of Reach 2011 is that it provides a localized

picture of the affordability crisis, and shows that it is being felt nationwide. While the

Housing Wage varies considerably across the country, renters consistently do not earn

enough to afford even a one bedroom unit. For example, the one bedroom Housing

Wage in South Carolina is $11.81, yet the average renter earns only $10.64 an hour. In

Connecticut, the affordability gap is even wider. Renters in Connecticut earn $15.10 an

hour while the Housing Wage for a one bedroom unit is $19.27, resulting in a gap of four

dollars per hour.

The report was released in press conference call that featured NLIHC President and CEO

Sheila Crowley, NLIHC Research Director and Chief Economist Danilo Pelletiere, and

HUD Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research Raphael Bostic. In his

remarks, Mr. Bostic referred to the findings of the recent Worst Case Housing Needs

report (see Memo, 2/4). Worst case housing needs refer to the housing needs of renters

who earn half of their area's median income and also pay over half their income for

housing, or live in substandard housing, or both. Mr. Bostic cited the alarming statistic

http://nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=7652


June 30, 2011

that worst case housing needs increased 20% between 2007 and 2009, the largest such

increase since HUD began focusing on this vulnerable population.

In reaction to this finding and those in Out of Reach, Mr. Bostic stressed the need to

support the preservation of existing housing while also expanding the availability of

affordable housing rentals. Mr. Bostic noted that increased production of affordable

housing requires a dedicated source of funding.

Following in this vein, Ms. Crowley emphasized that current housing assistance

programs serve only one of every four eligible households. She stressed that the

capitalization of the National Housing Trust Fund as a dedicated source of funding is

necessary to address the immense need for affordable housing indicated by the numbers

in Out of Reach. As one of a number of means of funding additional affordable housing,

Ms. Crowley outlined a proposal to reform the mortgage interest deduction. By turning

the deduction into a tax credit, $30 billion would be saved annually and the tax credit

would reach many more Americans than does the current deduction. The savings could

then be used to capitalize the National Housing Trust Fund without adding to the national

deficit.

Out of Reach 2011 can be found at: http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2011/

To view the press release on the report, visit

http://nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=7864&id=48

Affordable Housing Finance Magazine, May 11, 2011 on NLIHC’s Out of Reach Report

Rental Housing Still Out of Reach for Many

The gap continues to grow between the nation’s rents and what low-income renters can afford, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s recently released “Out of Reach” report.

The NLIHC study shows that American renters on average must earn at least $18.46 an hour, $0.02 more than in 2010, to afford a two-bedroom apartment at fair market rent (FMR), but the average renter only makes $13.52 an hour, which is down from $14.44 in 2010. To afford a one-bedroom or studio apartment, renters would need to earn $15.48 or 13.70, respectively.

With the national minimum wage at $7.25, a household can afford to only spend $377 on rent each month. The NLIHC report found that in 28 states, more than two full-time minimum-wage jobs are needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment at FMR, and on average across the nation, a minimum-wage worker needs to work 102 hours a week to afford this modest apartment.

“‘Out of Reach 2011’ shows that simply having a job doesn’t guarantee you will be able to afford event to rent,” said Sheila Crowley, NLIHC’s president and CEO, in the release.

Other statistics from the report include:

http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2011/

http://nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=7864&id=48


June 30, 2011

The two-bedroom housing wage tops $30 in Hawaii and is more than $20 in seven states: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.

The Top 5 states with the most expensive housing wages for a two-bedroom apartment at FMR are: Hawaii, $31.08; California, $26.17; Maryland, $24.76; New Jersey, $24.54; and New York, $24.38.

The Top 5 metropolitan areas with the most expensive housing wages for a two-bedroom apartment at FMR are: San Francisco HMFA, $35.25; Stamford-Norwalk, Ct., HMFA, $34.83; Santa Cruz-Watsonville, Calif., MSA, $33.27; Honolulu MSA, $32.73; and San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif., HMFA, $32.73.

To read the full report, visit http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2011/.

********************************************************************


Forecast: Mass. Home Prices To Drop In Next Year

Home prices in the Bay State are expected to fall between 3 percent and 6.5 percent in

2011, according to a recent report from Fiserv Case-Shiller.

The following year-over-year price drops are expected for these Massachusetts metro

areas:

• Barnstable Town: 6.2 percent

• Boston-Quincy: 4.5 percent

• Cambridge-Newton: 4.8 percent

• Peabody: 4.6 percent

• Pittsfield: 0.8 percent

• Springfield: 3.5 percent

• Worcester: 6.5 percent

However, in 2012, home prices are expected to rebound for the Massachusetts metro

areas. The following increases are forecast:

• Barnstable Town: 2.7 percent

• Boston-Quincy: 2.2 percent

• Cambridge-Newton: 3.6 percent

• Peabody: 3.6 percent

• Pittsfield: 6 percent

• Springfield: 4.7 percent

• Worcester: 2.7 percent

"The first step toward restoring confidence in housing markets is an improvement in

consumer sentiment, which we expect will increase slowly through 2011 due to stronger

job gains and a falling unemployment rate," said David Stiff, chief economist, Fiserv.

http://ahf-media.com/portal/wts/cemc6EaCACybaFAjifB9FfaAgv0EAc


June 30, 2011

"As confidence rises, the decline in home sales that started in 2006 will, finally, come to

an end."

**********************************************************************


Bluestone: Rental Housing Prices Will Only Increase



Pressure on rental housing is set to increase over the coming decades, suggested

Northeastern University economist Barry Bluestone. The number of Massachusetts

households will grow more slowly than the rest of the country, but the graying baby

boomers and surging growth in Boston's student population will continue to drive rental

growth, the professor suggested.

Bluestone spoke at a Wednesday morning panel discussion sponsored by commercial real

estate development association NAIOP Massachusetts. The panel included Wendy

Nowokunski, president of The Northbridge Cos.; Douglas Straus, senior vice president at

National Development; and Lawrence Curtis, president of WinnDevelopment.

While Boston area housing prices have fallen more than 20 percent from their 2005 peak,

rents have dipped only 2 percent in the past few years, Bluestone pointed out. He added

that tight credit standards and economic uncertainty are keeping some young families

renting; many former homeowners have been pushed into rental by foreclosure; and the

student population has continued to rise.

"To reduce pressure on the rental housing market, we need to house more undergraduates

in on-campus housing," Bluestone said, pointing to developments such as his own

university's conversion of the Huntington Avenue Y into student housing as a helpful

development. "But more importantly, in the private sector, we need to find more

opportunities for housing for graduate students."

He said the state should do more to help keep the student population to stick around after

graduation, to help counter the graying of the state's households. The percentage of

householders 55 and over is set to increase 133 percent in Massachusetts over the next 10

years, according to Census figures, compared to a national increase of a little less than

100 percent.

But building the kind of housing that's appealing and affordable to young families and

recent graduates can be difficult in the Boston market, Curtis countered. "In order to have

a vibrant economy, we need to build more than $4 a-square-foot-housing for oil sheik's


June 30, 2011

and college professor's sons," said Curtis, but without extensive subsidies, "the math

doesn't work."

All panelists agreed that rising expectation for the quality of amenities are putting

pressure on development costs, and suggested that the some of the most frequently used

affordable housing mechanisms --- in which a small percentage of affordable units are

required to be included in a larger development, with all units build to the same standards

--- provide less bang for the buck, helping to drive up the costs of market rate housing

while creating relatively few affordable units.


Report: Housing Affordability Nationwide Rises To Record Level

Nationwide housing affordability during the first quarter rose to its highest level in the

more than 20 years it has been measured, according to a recent report from the National

Association of Home Builders (NAHB).

Nearly three-quarters (74.6 percent) of all new and existing homes sold nationwide in the

first quarter were affordable to families earning the national median income of $64,400,

according to a statement. This beat the previous high of 73.9 percent set during the fourth

quarter 2010 and marked the ninth consecutive quarter the index has been above 70

percent. Until 2009, the housing index rarely topped 65 percent and never reached 70

percent.

"With interest rates remaining at historically low levels, today's report indicates that

homeownership is within reach of more households than it has been for more than two

decades," said Bob Nielsen, chairman of the NAHB. "While this is good news for

consumers, homebuyers and builders continue to confront extremely tight credit

conditions, and this remains a significant obstacle to many potential home sales."

******************************************************************


June 30, 2011

APPENDIX III: CHTF Quarterly Report, June 30, 2011

College Student Housing

Summary of the Multi-University Graduate Student Village

Concept by Barry Bluestone Memo

To: Boston City Council

From: Barry Bluestone, Dean, School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs

Re: “Multi-University Graduate Student Village”

Date: November 30, 2010

As I mentioned to you at the meeting of the Advisory Board to our School, the following idea is

one that I have been kicking around quietly for the better part of a year. Larry Harmon of the

Boston Globe picked up on it and wrote a story early this year essentially endorsing the idea. I

have met with a variety of developers, builders, staff of the BRA, and others to discuss its

feasibility. And as I told you, Mike Ross has asked me to present the idea before a special

session of the City Council. Now might be the time to give the idea more thought and

encouragement.

The basic idea is for several universities and colleges (e.g. Northeastern, New England

Conservatory, Boston University, Boston College, UMass Boston, Tufts Medical School, Berklee

School of Music, Suffolk, Emerson) to collaborate on the development of a multi-university

graduate student village that would attract a substantial number of graduate students and in the

process take some pressure off of the Boston rental housing market.

While many of the universities provide housing for undergraduates, throughout Greater Boston

less than 8 percent of graduate students are in university housing. Nearly 95,000 compete for

rental housing in the region.

Here are the basic elements as I see them:

Several universities and colleges would collaborate on marketing a high density graduate

student residential facility that would be centrally located near public transit, would

include commercial and retail space, and have commons areas that could house seminar

rooms, a small lecture hall, a large screen video room, and recreational space.

The village would be developed by a private sector developer with the universities and

colleges having responsibility for marketing the facility to its own graduate students. The

collaborating higher education institutions would not have a financial stake in the

development and the facility would remain on the city’s tax rolls.

The village would include efficiencies, singles, doubles, and perhaps even some triples

… and possibly even some units for married couples with young children. Units could

also differ in terms of amenities so that some smaller units could be aggressively priced

while others are upscale. (Our graduate students range from “starving students” to the

children of extraordinarily wealthy foreign business leaders.)


June 30, 2011

The village would have first and perhaps second floor commercial retail space that might

include a small supermarket (e.g. Trader Joes, Whole Foods), a drycleaner, drug store, a

sports bar, etc.

The village would have an underground garage with perhaps one space per 3-5 units, but

a large Zip Car facility with vehicles ranging from Smart Cars to vans.

The village would have regular programming of seminars, lectures, film festivals, etc. for

residents and others sponsored by the collaborating universities and colleges … along the

lines of Northeastern’s “Open Classroom” sponsored each semester by the School of

Public Policy and Urban Affairs.

The combination of a convenient location, attractive apartments, a large array of

amenities, the ability to live with students from other schools, and other “village-like”

attributes might make this a top residential choice among graduate students when they

come to Boston.

If the village were also open to graduate students after graduation for up to five years, it

might serve to retain young professionals in the city – a major goal of the Mayor.

A possible ideal site for this large project would be the Filene’s location in Downtown

Crossing. There is no current use for this site, the Mayor is adamant about finding an

innovative use for it, the site is adjacent to the Orange, Red, and Green Lines, therefore

convenient for students from Northeastern, the New England Conservatory, Boston

University, and Boston College and a short walk for students at Suffolk and Emerson. If

the village were developed there, it could anchor a renaissance of the entire area.

A private developer might be encouraged to develop such a project … and find financing

for it …with the multi-universities’ agreement to aggressively market the residential

rental units thereby ensuring a high probability of something close to 100% occupancy.

Also, given that graduate students generally do not leave the city during the summer,

most of the residents would be 12-month residents with little need for sub-leasing.

If we were to move forward to explore this idea, I would suggest the following possible steps:

1. A discussion with city officials about this idea.

2. If this proves worthy of further exploration, a meeting with university officials to explore

this idea.

3. If this proves positive, a meeting with a number of local developers and builders to gauge

their interest and the possibility of devising a pro forma for such a project.

****************************************************


June 30, 2011

Boston Herald Editorial, January 7, 2011 Bringing a college student village to Boston

A proposal by a state university president for a student village might bring new interest to the idea here in Boston.

According to the Sentinel & Enterprise newspaper, Fitchburg State University President Robert Antonucci is proposing the idea of a “224-acre Student Housing Overlay District in the urban renewal district” in downtown Fitchburg.

Through regulations passed by the city’s planning board, the district would become more-appealing to developers looking to build housing. While the apartments would be privately owned, and therefore, not rented solely and specifically to college students, its location (and presumed pricing) is hoped to encourage them to move there instead of into other neighborhoods.

A similar idea has been proposed for here in Boston, most-recently by Northeastern University professor Barry Bluestone, who imagines a “graduated student village” of substantial size, made up of thousands of 20-somethings from area colleges.

Because these students are enrolled in graduate school, the idea is that they are more-focused on their schoolwork and less on causing trouble, so the village would be welcomed into any community.

The student village wouldn’t have to be built inside city limits but would need to be close to public transportation and in a relatively dense area where there is easy access to restaurants, supermarkets, and retail shops.

The Fitchburg plan is for a space as large as 224 acres. Boston could certainly fill such a space, the trouble is, where to find it. Your thought might immediately turn to the Seaport District but, on second thought, you’d realize that’s a non-starter, for various reasons. Not only would there be an outcry from residents in South Boston, the Seaport District is too close to downtown and too valuable a space to give it away to developers looking for relatively-moderate rents. (Plus, the land there is already owned by a couple of guys who have very serious plans in place to build a mini-city.)

Further out, there’s plenty of space.

One big problem is: what if you build it and nobody comes?

Another problem is: what if you build it and everyone wants to live there? Can you keep it segregated so that only students can live there? The opposite is true, you can make apartments available to non-students only, but I don’t know the legality of it all.

It’s an interesting idea. I’d rather see something big and grand than small and meek (like putting a student tower in Downtown Crossing).

The need exists - how do we fill it?

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/getting_real/?p=381

http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/local/ci_17014924#ixzz1AIsvncQq


June 30, 2011

Appendix IV: CHTF Quarterly Report June 30, 2011

Programmatic Developments

MassHousing on 40B

March 28, 2011 (Posted on www.MassHousing.com)

The road less traveled

As the Commonwealth's affordable housing bank, we have supported Chapter 40B, the state's

affordable housing law, for many years. That's been more than a mildly controversial proposition

from time to time. Of course, along the way we have also backed common-sense changes to its

implementing regulations, but we remain convinced that the underlying concept behind 40B is

sound and worthy of endorsement.

A recent decision by MassHousing to reject a Chapter 40B proposal in Reading helps to illustrate,

however, why new 40B housing isn't always the answer. This decision highlights one of the

common sense changes in the 40B regulations that the Agency supports. It also offers the

potential for a new path, one that would steer away from much of the controversy that has

historically been associated with Chapter 40B.

The case in point involved a proposal to build 20 new affordable home ownership units on 2.16

acres. While new housing stock is needed, there were two primary reasons MassHousing rejected

this proposal.

First, Reading has made a good-faith effort to increase its affordable housing stock, most notably

by approving two Smart Growth Overlay Zoning Districts under Chapter 40R. These districts –

one of which is located in close proximity to where the 20 new units would have been located –

permit 458 new units by right. One of the points of emphasis of the Comprehensive Permit

Guidelines and Regulations issued in 2008 is that Subsidizing Agencies like MassHousing

should, when they are considering applications for site approval, take into account "municipal

actions previously taken to meet affordable housing needs." Reading's actions in this instance

were substantial.

Second, the parcel of land already included two existing homes that fit in well with the pattern of

development in the surrounding neighborhood. To "de-construct" this well-established

neighborhood and replace the existing homes with 20 new units of housing, especially in the

context of a constrained site plan, was in our opinion ill-advised. We also viewed the site plan as

inconsistent with the 2008 guidelines and regulations.

A combination of these factors led us to conclude that a site approval letter should not be issued

in this instance.

To be sure, there is still a great need for new, affordable housing. But the Reading case illustrates

that there are situations where a new Chapter 40B development is not the best choice, especially

where local officials have already shown a strong commitment to affordable housing through

channels other than 40B.

It's still too early to tell whether a proactive, planning-based strategy such as Reading's will

supplant the more traditional reactive, litigation-based approach that has been the hallmark of


June 30, 2011

40B controversies through the years. One reason for optimism? Planners are less expensive than

lawyers.


June 30, 2011

CHTF Quarterly Report June 30, 2011

The MassWorks Infrastructure Program

Draft Guidelines as of March, 2011

OVERVIEW

The MassWorks Infrastructure Program provides a one-stop shop for municipalities seeking

public infrastructure funding to support:

Housing development at density of at least 4 units to the acre (both market and affordable

units)

Transportation improvements in small, rural communities

Community revitalization and sustainable development

Economic development and job creation

The MassWorks Infrastructure Program provides grant funding for the construction,

reconstruction and expansion of publicly owned infrastructure including, but not limited to

sewers, utility extensions, streets, roads, curb-cuts, parking facilities, water treatment systems,

and pedestrian and bicycle access. Eligible public infrastructure must be located on public land

or on public leasehold, right-of-way, or easement. The project must be procured by a

municipality in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws c.30B, c.30 §39M, c.149, and c.7.

The MassWorks Infrastructure Program is administered by the Executive Office of Housing and

Economic Development, in cooperation with the Department of Transportation and Executive

Office for Administration and Finance.

FUNDING PRIORITIES

The Patrick/Murray Administration is committed to implementing the Commonwealth’s

Sustainable Development Principles by ensuring that state funds used for infrastructure

investments are consistent with these principles to the greatest extent possible. To that end, the

Administration has developed spending goals for the MassWorks Infrastructure Program portfolio

of investments. Going forward, including projects seeking funding during the September 2011

funding round, spending goals for the MassWorks Infrastructure Program will be as follows:

50% or more of the total funding be in support of developments in gateway cities;

67% or more of the total funding be in support of transit-oriented developments (that is,

developments located within one-half mile of a transit station);

80% or more of the total funding be in support of developments that are re-using

previously developed sites;

50% or more of the total funding be in support of developments that contain a mix of

residential and commercial uses, with a residential unit density of at least four units to the

acre;

100% of the funding that is committed in support of housing (or mixed use including

housing) be for developments with a residential unit density of at least four units to the

acre;

40% of the total funding will be directed to communities that score within the top 20% of

Commonwealth Capital scores in the corresponding calendar year.


June 30, 2011

It is also the goal of the Administration that funding be awarded to transportation and other

infrastructure investment projects that are ready to proceed. To meet the minimum threshold for

consideration for MassWorks Infrastructure Program grants, projects must demonstrate:

25% design or greater that is consistent with MassDOT’s Complete Street guidelines; and

A timeline and funding source for completing design; and

A complete list of required state and local permits; and

Evidence that all required permits can be reasonably obtained within 90 days or shortly

thereafter (for example, the applicant can demonstrate that all permit applications have

been submitted and provide a timeline for anticipated issuance, or a detailed schedule for

submittal and a schedule for anticipated issuance detailing all applicable milestones for

each permit including publication dates and agency review periods); and

All rights of way are secured or evidence that the rights of way will be secured within 90

days or immediately thereafter; and

All sources and uses that will fund the project, and a complete draw schedule that reflects

a construction start during the upcoming construction season.

APPLICATION AND CONTRACT PROCESS

There will be a primary funding round opening September 1st annually and decisions will be

rendered approximately six weeks after the close of the application period. The MassWorks

Infrastructure Program reserves the right to hold a second annual funding round to consider

additional projects, and the availability of a second round will be announced as soon as the

determination is made. Only those projects that are prepared to proceed to construction

during the upcoming construction season should apply for consideration.

Communities with population of 7,000 or less are eligible to apply for up to 50% of total

design/engineering costs along with a construction grant. In that case, the project must be able to

complete design/engineering in a period that allows the project to advance to construction during

the upcoming construction season. In each year, there will be a set-aside of funds available only

for projects in these small communities.

Communities with population over 7,000 are eligible to apply for construction grants only.

The MassWorks Infrastructure Program may withhold up to 20% of available funds for projects

of significant regional benefit that meet with Administration funding priorities and arise out of

round and grants may be made at the discretion of the Secretary. Municipalities should contact

the Program Manager directly to discuss projects for consideration out of round.

Applications will be reviewed for consistency with Administration funding priorities. A team of

peer reviewers representing housing, economic development, transportation, community

development, and other applicable interests will review all pending applications and develop

recommendations for funding. Final decisions will be rendered by the Secretary of Housing &

Economic Development, in cooperation with the Secretaries of Transportation and

Administration & Finance.

Applicants that are approved for funding will be notified in writing of the approval with

instructions for demonstrating readiness and any other required submissions as determined by the


June 30, 2011

Secretary. Grant contracts will only be issued for projects that successfully meet all requirements

included in the award letter. Any project that receives an award but does not meet the

requirements by the specified date will lose its funding commitment for that year and may be

penalized during future funding rounds.

Applicants that are denied for funding will be notified in writing and the notification will cite the

reason for denial. If the reason for denial is a lack of available funds, that application may be

reconsidered at a later date that year if additional program funds become available. The Program

will reset every September and applicants that have not received a contract for funding in a prior

round will be required to submit a new application for consideration.

CONTACT INFORMATION

For further information, please contact:

MassWorks Infrastructure Program

Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development

1 Ashburton Place, Suite 2101 Boston, Massachusetts 02108

(617) 788-3610


June 30, 2011

Banker & Tradesman: Federal Reserve Conference 4-21-11

April 21, 2011 | Banker & Tradesman

Community development is not just about building apartment units or new housing,

Federal Reserve officials told a Boston audience today. It's about lowering crime,

boosting the economy, and - perhaps surprisingly - improving public health.

Government officials, community developers and public health organizations converged

upon the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (FRBB) on Wednesday to discuss the links

between public health and community development. The goal of the conference is to put

various groups together in a brainstorming session on how to improve lower-income

neighborhoods.

"Community development workers are really health care workers - we're just on the

prevention side, not the treatment side," said David Erickson, Center for Community

Development Investment director for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

Better housing conditions and vibrant neighborhoods significantly decrease chronic

asthma and stress-related illnesses such as heart disease; David R. Williams, Harvard

University professor of public health, outlined the strong correlation between poverty and

shorter life expectancy. The differences are also pronounced among black and Hispanic

minorities, who tend to get sick more often and die younger than white people, he said.

For example, life expectancies have increased throughout recent decades, but minorities

lag behind. A black man in 1990, for example, had the same life expectancy as a white

man in 1950.

Prabal Chakrabarti, assistant vice president and director of community development for

the FRBB, stressed the importance of bringing different groups into collaboration

together, and expressed a wish that the day's events help community developers and

public health professionals form useful connections with each other.

Paul Grogan, president and CEO of The Boston Foundation, a grant-making organization,

exhorted the crowd to think big during his keynote address on Wednesday morning.

Back in the 1960s, he said, even well-respected academics and policymakers honestly

believed it was useless to battle the rampant blight of America's urban areas. But a

handful of community development corporations took root in that era and began to do

what they could on a smaller scale, leading eventually to flourishing communities.

Boston had particularly good success with those efforts - the city would be

unrecognizable to many who lived here during the 1960s and 1970s, he said.

Housing advocates were also able to create and push for a low-income housing tax credit,

an idea that proved invaluable for creating housing, Grogan added. That kind of creative

financial engineering is necessary today to combat the pervasive problems, such as poor

health, that cities still grapple with.

"It's time to take it to a new level," he said.


June 30, 2011

CHAPA Housing Briefs of June 17, 2011: the MA HomeBase Program

Conference Committee Putting Finishing Touches on New HomeBase

Program As part of their FY 2012 budgets, the Massachusetts House and Senate both adopted the

Patrick-Murray Administration’s HomeBase proposal to make housing assistance, not

shelter, the primary response to assisting families that are homeless.

The two chambers agree on the following components of the HomeBase program, which

will begin to be implemented in July:

Families that face homelessness and are served with HomeBase short-term rental

assistance may secure rental housing with the help of the regional nonprofits and

Central Massachusetts Housing Alliance. These families will pay no more than

35% of their income towards rent and utilities when they are enrolled in the

program. Families could also receive assistance of up to $4,000 to avoid

homelessness if they don’t need continuous rental assistance. HomeBase

assistance is capped at three continuous years.

HomeBase-eligible families can earn no more than 115% of the federal poverty

level, but if they are successful in increasing their incomes while utilizing the

program, families could earn up to 50% of area median income without being

terminated from the program.

Families utilizing HomeBase will be assigned a stabilization worker and receive

stabilization services. The program administrators will be able to subcontract with

other service providers to assist with stabilization services.

Families that seek HomeBase assistance must be provided with temporary

housing or shelter while they wait to secure an apartment.

Families with heads of households that adhere to their housing stabilization plan

or are headed by a person with a disability or a senior may not be barred from

shelter if they follow their housing stabilization plan.

HomeBase rental housing should not exceed 80% of the Fair Market Rent, with

some opportunity for flexibility if that maximum rent level is a barrier to securing

housing.

While the House and Senate agree on the vast majority of program design components,

there are a handful of sub-issues that the Conference Committee will need to decide how

to address in the budget language. These include:

Whether to add a category of eligibility for families that are at imminent risk of

homelessness but not yet homeless that earn no more than 115% of the poverty

level.

How to determine flexibility on the maximum rental assistance payment.


June 30, 2011

Whether to delineate the type of appeals process for families denied HomeBase

assistance.

Whether to stipulate that a state sanitary code inspection is required when leasing

an apartment with HomeBase.

Whether to stipulate when the start date for the 36 month cap on assistance

begins.

Whether to require reporting of the consequences of barring families from shelter

for various reasons.

Whether to offer direction on what should be included in implementing

regulations.


June 30, 2011

Five ‘smart growth’ projects get $1.5m in aid Boston Globe, June 23, 2011

By Kaivan Mangouri, Globe Correspondent

Five development projects seen as promoting dense urban development oriented around mass transit have been chosen by the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance to receive $1.5 million in aid.

The projects were the first to be selected by the alliance and will be recognized at an event today at the University of Massachusetts Boston. They include two in Boston, and one each in Lawrence, Somerville, and Winchester. The projects are:

■ Improving the area around the Dudley Square MBTA bus station in Roxbury.

■ Upgrading properties along the underutilized Fairmount commuter rail line, which runs from downtown Boston to Hyde Park.

■ Converting Lawrence’s North Canal Mill district into a mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhood.

■ Developing the commuter rail corridor in downtown Winchester.

■ Planning for the future along the proposed MBTA Green Line route through Somerville.

The alliance will also provide technical assistance and strategic advice on promoting job growth, green space, and affordable housing in transit-oriented developments.

Funding for the alliance’s program, known as Great Neighborhoods, comes from the Boston-based Barr Foundation, which is supplying $1 million, and the New York-based Ford Foundation, which is donating $500,000.

The alliance began in 2003 with the goal of spurring neighborhood-focused community development around the state. In the five projects, it envisions 3,000 units of mixed-income housing, more than 1 million square feet of commercial space, and 12 miles of bicycling and walking paths over the next decade, executive director Andre Leroux said.

Leroux said the group aims to ensure development is done right the first time, which may require rewriting outdated zoning laws and more collaboration between civic and government groups.

“I lived in Worcester and worked in Lawrence, and I think that there are tons of great places in Massachusetts that haven’t achieved their potential, and it’s thrilling for me to help these places turn around.’’

The Barr Foundation’s executive director, Pat Brandes, praised the alliance’s dedication to transit-oriented development. The winning plans show a commitment to connected, vibrant communities that are also environmentally friendly, she said.

“If you have great neighborhoods that are bike-able and walk-able, with a rich array of transit options, then you don’t need to depend on cars in the same way,’’ Brandes said.

Kaivan Mangouri can be reached at [email protected].


June 30, 2011

Banker & Tradesman re: Collaboration in Boston

June 23, 2011

Thursday, June 23, 2011,

Menino: City Development Progress Hinges On Collaboration



More collaboration is needed between developers, neighborhood groups and communities, said Boston Mayor Thomas Menino Thursday morning at summit sponsored by the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance.

"The challenge we have today is that we have a lot of folks in the neighborhood who don't collaborate," he said. "They never check in with the [community development corporations], they never check in with the mayor's office."

Describing his dealings with biotech firms moving into the South Boston waterfront neighborhood he has dubbed the Innovation District, Menino cited the firms' collaborative efforts as an example for developers throughout the city.

"One of the things they talk about all the time is how they collaborate with each other, they want to work together," said Menino. "And they're very successful. We in the neighborhood also have to be very successful working together."

The Smart Growth Alliance has launched a new initiative meant to foster the kinds of changes Menino wants. The group has selected five communities to be the initial subjects of its Great Neighborhoods initiative: Lawrence, Winchester, Roxbury, Fairmont Corridor in Boston and Somerville. The project is meant to help the communities with planning, lobbying and fundraising to support smart growth goals including affordable housing, green space near public transportation and commercial and residential development near transit.

"We haven't seen enough real smart growth projects hit the ground in Massachusetts," said Andre Leroux, executive director of the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance. "It continues to be difficult."

Efforts like those of the Smart Growth Alliance are needed in the current development environment, said Menino.

"Budgets are stressed, but so are families," said Menino. "In these unsettled times, we need not to change our promises, and figure out new ways to keep them."

He cited affordable housing, summer jobs and the environment as pressing concerns which remain to be tackled.

"This commonwealth is doing better than it has in a lot of years, be we can do better if we learn to work together," Menino said.


June 30, 2011

APPENDIX V: CHTF Quarterly Report June 30, 2011

CHTF Testimony re: Long-Term Funding for Chapter 40R

April 13, 2011

Testimony by Ted Carman on behalf of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force

to

The Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business

10:00 am, April 13, 2011

Chair Linda Dorcena Forry for the House Chair Sal D. Domenico for the Senate

Senate, No. 75

Petition of Senator Harriette L. Chandler.

House No. 990

Petition of Representative Kevin G. Honan

Chairwoman Forry. Chairman Domenico. Members of the Committee. My name is Ted Carman. I am President of Concord Square Planning & Development, Inc. I have been working with the Commonwealth Housing Task Force (CHTF) since 2003 on Smart Growth Zoning, Chapter 40R and Chapter 40S. The CHTF is an organization made up of housing advocates in the business, real estate, education, organized labor, and medical communities, as well as many state and local officials. The Task Force is convened by the Boston Foundation. The Task Force sponsored the reports that led to 40R and 40S and has continued to provide extensive support for the implementation of Chapter 40R Districts as they have been considered throughout the State. Senate 75 and House 990 are strongly supported by the Commonwealth Housing Task Force. We believe that the passage of this bill is essential to the long term economic development prospects of the State. It is essential for the ongoing success of Smart Growth Zoning under 40R, as these comments will outline. It will provide a high degree of certainty that the financial incentives promised from the State to local communities under Chapter 40R will in fact be met, even in fiscally difficult times. Chapter 40R has resulted in over 12,000 units zoned since the first approvals in 2006. We expect that there will be a continuing increase in the number of units approved. Currently there is no mechanism to assure annual funding for the State’s obligations under Chapter 40R and 40S. This lack of certainty for funding provides a reason for communities to be hesitant about pursuing 40R. Even worse, at this time, the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund contains only $1,300,000. It is anticipated that these funds will be exhausted during this calendar year by new projects and by payments for housing units that are getting under construction. As a result, it is not possible at this time to assure communities that they will receive the funds called for under the program.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/ldf1.htm


June 30, 2011

This substantially reduces the incentives for the local communities to participate in the program. It dramatically increases the risk for a prospective housing developer to undertake needed zoning using Chapter 40R. So far only three communities have turned down Ch. 40R proposals – a total of 31 out of 34 proposals have received a two-thirds vote from either Town Meeting or the City Council. The housing is in smart growth locations. This approach to providing for new housing construction throughout the commonwealth is one in which divisiveness and contention have been replaced with consensus. This is a major step forward. We are also pleased to report that the Department of Housing and Community Development has continued to implement workable regulatory and administrative procedures. This amount of zoning for new housing units – over 12,000 to date – represents real success towards the goal of producing a surplus of zoned land for multifamily housing. Creating such a surplus of zoned land is an integral part of a strategy to moderate the price of housing over the next decade. Moderation in housing price increases over the next decade is an essential component in having the State be competitive in attracting new, young, professionals and blue collar workers to the State. Attracting such workers is an essential component to having a healthy, growing economy in the State. Although the last three years have seen foreclosures, home price declines, and reductions in home prices and rents, recent studies and articles by the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy – and others – strongly suggest that this dynamic is changing. For example:

1. That while housing prices in Massachusetts have gone down in the last few years they did not go down as much as in other parts of the country;

2. The housing markets are now stabilizing; 3. Apartment rents have been increasing over the last year, and market rate new

construction is now taking place 4. Massachusetts is emerging from the recession faster than other parts of the country.

The net result of the above will be to continue and worsen the competitive economic disadvantage that is experienced by Massachusetts. Consequently, it is highly important now to continue with 40R zoning proposals, so that as the markets call for more housing to be built, the zoned land will be available on which they can be built as-of-right. As stated above, currently there is no mechanism to assure annual funding for the State’s obligations under Chapter 40R and 40S. This lack of certainty for funding provides a reason for communities to be hesitant about pursuing 40R. Concord Square is currently working on or evaluating three specific projects with the potential to produce over 1,000 housing units. Each of the three projects will require new zoning. In each case, Chapter 40R, Smart Growth Zoning offers the best alternative in terms of obtaining the zoning. In each case, the cost to move through the approval process will exceed $50,000 and will exceed $100,000 in one complex case.


June 30, 2011

The shortfall in funds in the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund is a major element in making a determination as to whether it makes good business sense for the developers to move forward with these projects. The incentive and bonus payments are essential in providing a strong motivation for local public officials to participate in the overall process. Absent sufficient funding the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund, it can be expected that substantially fewer proposals will be brought forward. The cost and risk are simply too high. The subject bill annually captures income tax payments from those living in 40R smart growth districts, and directs that the money be deposited temporarily in the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund. The Trust Fund will then make the required payments to communities under Ch. 40R and 40S. Annually, after reserves are retained, any balance will be returned to the General Fund. This mechanism will provide, on an ongoing basis, without specific legislative or administrative action each year, for the funds needed to fund Chapters 40R and 40S and thus will result in their becoming self-sustaining. It is important to note that this bill will not increase the costs of 40R or 40S. It will simply assure that funds will be available to make the payments when the payments are due, as required by statute. Both the Governor and the Legislature have detailed plans and strategies to encourage companies to move to Massachusetts, and to encourage companies already here to expand their employment. Success in these efforts is clearly of utmost importance to the economy of the Commonwealth. The question that should be asked is: where will the people filling these new jobs live? Unlike in many parts of the country, current housing market studies show that there are not many vacant homes or apartments in Greater Boston. The State does not have a substantial number of homes sitting vacant waiting for these new workers. Therefore, once there are more jobs, once more people – particularly young people – begin to return to Massachusetts, the predictable result will be, first: an increase in housing demand; second: absent enough zoned land, stasis with regard to production, and third: a return to double digit inflation in home prices. A damper will once again be thrown over the Massachusetts economy, setting the stage for another economic bust. Unless, that is, the current success of Chapter 40R is continued. It is clear that success in these efforts requires long term assurance of funding. For all of these reasons, the Commonwealth Housing Task Force strongly recommends that the Legislature take up and pass Senate 75 and House 990. Without a credible plan to assure communities that the long term funding of Ch. 40R and 40S will be available, and particularly if the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund is allowed to be depleted, it is highly unlikely that Chapter 40R will continue its enviable early record of success. It is not an exaggeration to say that the long term economic well-being of the Commonwealth is at stake. As always, the Commonwealth Housing Task Force stands ready to provide technical and research assistance to the Legislature in these matters.


June 30, 2011

Appendix VII: CHTF Quarterly Report June 30, 2011

The HOME Program – The Massachusetts Perspective

Prepared by Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association June 1, 2011

The third week in May was not a good one for rational evaluation of affordable housing

programs. A series in the Washington Post and an op-ed in The Boston Globe created a false

and incomplete picture of HUD’s very successful HOME program, which has created over one

million affordable homes nationwide. Massachusetts, in particular, uses HOME as a critical

resource for rental and homeownership programs.

On May 15-16, The Washington Post published two articles (“Million Dollar

Wasteland”) that strongly criticized HUD’s HOME block grant program based on a small number

of stalled developments. The stories stated that HUD “looks the other way” when projects run

into problems, that it fails to rescind funds and that HOME has created “a trail of failed

developments.” The reporting also downplayed the role of local officials and the multiple factors

that can lead to housing development delays even for market-rate developments.

Then, on May 19, The Boston Globe published an op-ed by Ed Glaeser of Harvard

University that defended HUD’s management but argued that HOME and the Low Income

Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) programs are “wasteful” because they produce housing that isn’t

needed or otherwise would be built privately without subsidy. It recommended that HUD invest

instead in more rental vouchers to be used in the private market and on “pushing high-cost,

restrictive areas like Boston to unfetter the private construction that creates real affordability.”

Overall, both the articles and the op-ed create a false and incomplete picture of a very

successful HUD program and threaten to undermine funding for a critical component of national,

state and local housing efforts at a time of record high “worst case” housing needs. In reality, the

$30 billion authorized for HOME since 1992 has produced or rehabilitated over one million

homes and apartments nationwide to date, including 24,000 affordable housing units in

Massachusetts. None of these homes would have been possible without this critical public

investment.

CHAPA strongly agrees that increasing the overall supply of housing is a critical part of

the solution. It is true that exclusionary zoning and local regulatory barriers often prevent much-

needed housing production in Massachusetts. However, providing access to housing for low and

moderate income households most often requires some form of public investment, including low-

interest loans, capital grants for construction, infrastructure support, and rental assistance. The

HOME Program is a positive example of this kind of investment, which enables a developer to

close the gap between the cost of building or renovating a home and what a low-income

household can afford to pay for that home.

Since the articles were published, HUD and housing advocates from across the country1

have responded quickly to correct the errors in The Washington Post articles and address their

lack of context, clarifying how the program works and the diverse activities it funds, detailing its

accomplishments and documenting HUD’s strong record of program oversight. HUD points out

that only 2.5% of current HOME projects qualify as delayed.

_____________________________________________ 1 See HUD “Setting the Record Straight”, NLIHC Blog, NLIHC Member to Members (May 23, 2011) ), NHC “The

Rest of the Story on HOME”


June 30, 2011

2

HUD has stated that it “takes its responsibility as a steward of taxpayer funds very

seriously” and has pointed out that remedial action in the cases cited in the articles was underway

long before. It began cancelling stalled projects automatically in 2010 and expects to issue a

proposed rule in 2011 to further improve the program. The proposed rule will address financial

performance, underwriting standards, and ongoing project monitoring.

The Massachusetts Experience

HOME has been a critical funding source for affordable housing in Massachusetts since

1992. It can fund a variety of housing activities. Because it is a block grant program, localities

decide how to spend their grant based on local housing market conditions, housing needs, and

priorities. In addition to funding new construction, HOME funds can be used for tenant-based

rental assistance, to rehabilitate existing rental and ownership housing and to assist first-time

homebuyers. As the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development

(DHCD) recently stated, “HOME remains the workhorse in the State’s stable of housing

programs. Along with the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, with which it is often paired, HOME

is a major tool for preserving and expanding the state’s affordable rental inventory, identified as a

priority need.” 2

HOME funds play an equally important role in Massachusetts cities and towns. About

70% of the annual HOME allocation to Massachusetts ($40-50 million a year in recent years)

goes directly to 99 communities - 11 “entitlement” cities and 8 consortia covering 88

communities3 - for use as they choose. In FY2010, Massachusetts received a State allocation of

$14.8 million and the cities and consortia received another $33.2 million in direct allocations

from HUD (see attached list). The State allocation is awarded to local developments through

twice-a-year funding statewide competitions, and often supplements local HOME funding.

DHCD has used its HOME allocation to fund between 300 and 400 units annually in the past five

years and expects to fund close to 345 additional units in FY 2011. Proposed developments that

receive HOME funds from DHCD have to meet state sustainable development criteria.

HUD recently reported4 on grantee accomplishments using the $748 million in HOME

funds allocated to Massachusetts through FY2005.5 In aggregate, Massachusetts Participating

Jurisdictions (PJs) have almost fully committed (98%) and spent (93%) those funds as of

December 2010, and many PJs, including DHCD, have committed 100% of their funds.

Collectively, those allocations have helped create or rehabilitate almost 24,000 affordable units

(12,800 rentals and 11,000 ownership units), funded rehabilitation loans for almost 3,300 more

owner-occupied units and provided short-term rental assistance to over 2,200 households.

Contrary to the claim in The Boston Globe op-ed that HOME, LIHTC and other federal

affordable housing programs displace private construction by producing (or preserving) units the

market would otherwise create without subsidy, the reports show that HOME assists households

that are significantly underserved by the private, unsubsidized market both in terms of price and

unit features and that there is high demand for these units. For example, over half (51%) of the

12,800 rental units created or rehabilitated with HOME funds in Massachusetts are occupied by

extremely low-income households (0-30% of area median income) and another 31% are occupied

by households with incomes of 31-50% of median. Vacancy rates are below 2% statewide.

_______________________________________________________ 2 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2011 Action Plan, February 15, 2011, page 23

3 See DHCD’s website for a list of participating communities and contact information

4 HUD HOME Snapshot Reports – Q2 2011 – total for all Massachusetts PJs

5 PJ commitments and expenditures lag the federal fiscal year listed for an allocation for a variety of reasons,

including delays in the Congressional budget approval process (the FY2011 allocations are not yet available), and

when the local “program year” begins. DHCD’s starts April 1 (i.e. the FY2010 year began on April 1, 2010).


June 30, 2011

3

HOME-funded developments in Massachusetts also have a higher percentage of

accessible units (10% program wide) than the private market provides. A high percent provide

housing for the elderly (24% of the rental units and 33% of the homeowner rehab units) and

persons with disabilities or supportive housing needs (31% of the rental units are for single, non-

elderly households). HOME units are more likely to meet sustainable design criteria (mandatory

for projects with DHCD funds). HOME developments in cities tend to be part of a neighborhood

revitalization program and many of the HOME units in the suburbs are in high-opportunity

communities such as Needham and Newton.

A recent HUD competition illustrates the quality and diversity of HOME-funded housing

in Massachusetts. In May 2011, HUD selected 14 developments across the country as

“exceptional” programs or projects, including three in Massachusetts:

Worthington Commons in Springfield (reclaiming 111 foreclosed and abandoned units)

Veterans Community Village in Pittsfield (creating 39 new units of veterans housing)

and

St. Polycarp Village Apartments in Somerville (producing sustainable housing).

Five more Massachusetts projects were among the 14 additional honorable mentions:

DHCD’s Capacity Building program for non-profit housing developers (CHDOs)

Blessed Sacrament Campus/Creighton Commons (Boston)

Thankful Chases Pathway (Harwich)

Trolley Square (Cambridge)

Visiting Nurses Senior Living Community (Somerville).

How the HOME Program Works

The HOME Investment Partnership program, begun in 1992, provides block grants to

states and localities specifically for housing activities. Funds are distributed by a statutory

formula that provides 40% of the national appropriation to state governments and the remaining

60% to cities with a high share of national rental housing problems and to consortia (smaller

contiguous cities and towns that have banded together to reach the threshold needed to receive an

allocation).

It is the largest block grant program specifically for affordable housing and its

consortium mechanism has enabled many small communities, including “high opportunity”

suburbs, that don’t qualify for CDBG entitlement grants to obtain annual federal funding for

affordable housing. These consortia also facilitate important municipal partnerships across

regions. HOME is a critical gap funding source making projects that have received other funding

feasible. This is particularly true for rental developments using the Low Income Housing Tax

Credit Program (LIHTC). Over the past 20 years, it has produced housing for a range of

household types, including families, the elderly, persons with disabilities, veterans, and homeless

individuals and families.

HOME funds can be used for the four types of assistance below and it is up to the states

and localities to determine how they want to spend their funds:

tenant-based rent subsidies and security deposit assistance

housing development

housing rehabilitation

first time homebuyer assistance


June 30, 2011

4

All HOME spending must benefit households with incomes at or below 80% of area

median income with even deeper targeting for rental housing (90% of funds for rental activities

must assist households with incomes below 60% or 50% of area median). It can be used for

mixed-income housing as long as the HOME money is only used for affordable units. HUD

requires that units remain affordable for at least 5-20 years, but in Massachusetts, most units are

subject to much longer affordability terms.

HOME is a highly regulated program and in addition to complying with affordability

requirements, localities must comply with deadlines for committing and spending funds, and

extensive operational rules ranging from mandated public participation in decisions on the

proposed use of funds, through environmental reviews, subsidy and home price caps, rent caps,

and post-construction monitoring.

Local Responsibilities

Participating Jurisdictions (PJ) is the term used for the local entity that receives HOME

funding directly from HUD. The PJs are responsible for the day-to-day management of their

HOME programs, deciding what activities to fund, how funds will be awarded, creating and

enforcing written agreements regarding the use of the funds and monitoring compliance with

ongoing affordability requirements. They are also responsible for taking action when performance

problems arise. HUD offers regular trainings and an extensive online library of materials

(checklists, guidebooks, etc.) to help PJs meet their administrative responsibilities.

HUD Monitoring and Oversight

HUD monitors the local PJs to ensure compliance with program requirements, including

the statutory deadline for committing HOME funds (within 24 months of receipt), the regulatory

requirement that funds be fully spent within 60 months and local oversight and monitoring

responsibilities.

HUD reports that it has recaptured over $50 million to date from jurisdictions for failure

to meet commitment or spending deadlines and has begun moving aggressively to cancel stalled

projects. In mid-2010, it notified grantees it would automatically cancel projects that fail to start

and haven’t drawn down funds in over a year. As of May 2011, it reported that it had cancelled

over 1,700 activities since January, freeing up $290 million for commitment to other projects.

Contrary to The Washington Post articles, HUD does have legal authority to recapture

funds when projects fail to move forward or fall out of compliance and has exercised it. By law,

HUD can require PJs to repay HUD for improper expenditures or other noncompliance by

forgoing future block grants or making the payment using non-federal funds. HUD reports that it

has been repaid 100% when it has used this authority, receiving over $250 million in repayments

to date.

Transparency

HUD provides a variety of HOME performance reports on its website, including financial

performance reports (funding drawdown reports, deadline compliance status reports, expiring

funds reports, HUD Initiated Activity Cancelation Reports) and vacant units reports so that the

public can see which HOME projects are “open” in their communities, how long they have been

open, and the last date of fund drawdown.

HUD also publishes quarterly grantee performance reports online. The “snapshot”

performance reports track each PJ’s spending performance, outputs and costs and shows how they

compare to the PJs and States. The “dashboard” reports provide information on the various types

of housing assistances each PJ has been funding and the income levels served. PJs also publish

annual Action Plans and Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Reports that describe

planned HOME-funded projects and programs and accomplishments in more detail.


June 30, 2011

5

Conclusion

Congress created the HOME block grant program in 1990 to give states and localities a

flexible funding source for meeting local housing needs. It also imposed planning and annual

performance reporting requirements to encourage responsible spending, requiring states and

localities to base their spending plans on an analysis of local housing conditions, needs and

priorities (the Consolidated Plan). HUD provides further oversight by monitoring the rate of

spending and routinely offering trainings and technical assistance to localities.

HOME’s mix of flexibility and accountability has helped states and localities to create or

preserve over one million affordable housing units for renters and owners and to provide short-

term rental assistance and low-cost homeowner rehabilitation loans to many more. In aggregate,

Massachusetts Participating Jurisdictions have almost fully committed (98%) and spent (93%)

those funds as of December 2010, and many PJs, including DHCD, have committed 100% of

their funds. Collectively, those allocations have helped create or rehabilitate almost 24,000

affordable units (12,800 rentals and 11,000 ownership units), funded rehabilitation loans for

almost 3,300 more owner-occupied units and provided short term rental assistance to over 2,200

households.

It is a critical source of gap filler funding for all types of projects, including many using

the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program and played a particularly important role in helping

tax credit projects proceed when private investors reduced their purchases. HOME’s program

design recognizes that there is no one size fits all solution for affordable housing needs. It allows

localities to tailor their spending to local conditions (housing shortage, homelessness, high

foreclosure neighborhoods) while also ensuring that local activities mesh with key federal

housing goals, including furthering fair housing and meeting the needs of the homeless and other

underserved populations. At a time of record high affordability problems, HOME should be

preserved and expanded.


June 30, 2011

6

Attachment: Massachusetts HOME Allocations - FY2010 and FY2011

NAME FY2010 FY2011

Massachusetts State (DHCD) $14,822,410 $13,266,893

* Barnstable County $ 749,819 $ 664,528

Boston $8,517,423 $7,530,644

Brockton $ 833,054 $ 738,433

Cambridge $1,152,896 $1,020,054

Fall River $1,239,717 $1,096,825

* Fitchburg $ 675,825 $ 596,422

* Holyoke $1,204,175 $ 854,168

Lawrence $1,112,648 $ 984,775

Lowell $1,185,242 $1,049,022

Lynn $1,084,120 $ 959,661

* Malden $2,829,768 $2,502,284

New Bedford $1,325,198 $1,172,388

* Newton $2,263,634 $2,044,347

* Peabody $2,361,083 $2,091,371

* Quincy $ 986,511 $ 872,799

Somerville $ 961,761 $ 850,413

Springfield $1,801,347 $1,591,660

* Taunton $ 930,636 $ 824,072

Worcester $1,993,662 $1,762,033

Totals $48,030,929 $42,472,792


June 30, 2011

Appendix VIII: CHTF Quarterly Report June 30, 2011

People in New Leadership Positions

Banker & Tradesman, April 5, 2011

Meade to Head Boston Redevelopment Authority

By Jim Cronin, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

Peter Meade, a native son from Dorchester and former executive at Blue Cross Blue Shield, has

been appointed the new director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) this morning.

The former healthcare executive was chosen because of his deep knowledge of the city, its

institutions and his role as a civic leader, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said at a press

conference today.

"I wanted someone who knows and loves our city, a person who can hit the ground running," and

knows the important sectors that drive the local economy, Menino added.

Meade is a well-known city leader, having spent time as the president of the recently created

Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, and chair of both the Greenway

Conservancy, and the Emerson College Board of Trustees.

Menino said Meade can bring important "new ideas" and will be adept at managing the BRA's

"talented staff." Residents should look for Meade as he works closely "in the neighborhoods"

with startup businesses and established businesses as well as civic groups, the mayor added.

Meade said he had spoken with outgoing BRA Director John Palmieri and will continue a

conversation with him about the agency, although he did not elaborate on that point. Palmieri

commandeered the BRA during the worst recession in generations and laid the groundwork for a

development projects that could change the face of Boston's downtown indefinitely. He also

oversaw a handful of historic Boston development disasters.

Under Palmieri's watch, planning and permitting was started on a number of important initiatives.

One Marina Park Drive and Atlantic Wharf gave hope to the stalled Seaport District. But he also

reigned during the creation of a blight in the city's center - the gaping maw where Filene's was

once located.

"We're a people ... that cherish what we have in this city," Meade said. "I hope to be able to pick

up the pieces and move forward."

One 10-year veteran in the Boston development world said Meade's first and foremost duty at the

BRA will be managing a highly knowledgeable and dedicated staff of professionals.

"He clearly has that capacity," the source told Banker & Tradesman. "Development in the city is

a complex business and requires a strong understanding about the variety of stakeholders in that

process. Peter's broad perspectives will serve him well in guiding the redevelopment in the city as

the economy rebounds."


June 30, 2011

Banker & Tradesman April 14, 2011

Marty Jones as President and CEO of MassDevelopment

Boston real estate development veteran Marty Jones has been named the new president and CEO

of MassDevelopment; she is the first female president and only the third in the agency's history.

Jones, currently the president of Corcoran Jennison Co., will replace Robert L. Culver, who

stepped down after a seven-year stint. Culver resigned in December, but it did not take effect until

March 11.

Jones has spent decades leading real estate organizations, according to a statement. She has

managed staff and project teams for new development projects; has directed asset management

for multifamily portfolios; chaired a joint venture between Corcoran Jennison and Beacon

Communities; and directed all aspects of the Westminster Co. - a 175-employee operation with

66 properties and 5,000 apartment units in North and South Carolina.

"Marty's career in the private sector has focused on bringing projects with significant public

benefits to life," said MassDevelopment Board Chair and Secretary of Housing and Economic

Development Greg Bialecki. "She is the right person at the right time to lead an agency that plays

a significant role in achieving our larger economic development goals of revitalizing communities

and expanding opportunity throughout the commonwealth."

Jones also served in the Department of Housing and Urban Development in both the Washington,

D.C., and Boston offices, according to a statement. She is a board member of NAIOP

Massachusetts, advisory board member of the Women's Institute for Housing and Economic

Development and jury chair of the Urban Land Institute's National Awards for Excellence.

"I am grateful to Secretary Bialecki and the MassDevelopment board for giving me the

opportunity to serve the commonwealth in this challenging and worthwhile capacity," said Jones.

"I will bring more than 30 years of real estate and government experience to bear in my new role,

and I am especially excited to be joining MassDevelopment at a time when the administration has

made developing a more coordinated and effective approach to economic development a

priority."

commonwealth housing task force - tbf/media/4aaddcee56... · the call for an increase in state...

Documents