promise and challenge - policylink › sites › default › files › promiseandchallen… ·...

May 2003

Promise and Challenge:Achieving Regional Equity in Greater Boston

PolicyLink is a national nonprofit research,communications, capacity building, and advocacyorganization, dedicated to advancing policies toachieve economic and social equity based on thewisdom, voice, and experience of local constituencies.

Achieving Regional Equity in Greater Boston 1

PROMISE AND CHALLENGE:Achieving Regional Equity in Greater Boston

Principal AuthorDwayne S. Marsh

PolicyLink TeamKalima RoseVictor RubinRachel PoulainTony DavisMelissa Magallanes, consultant

All Rights Reserved.Copyright ©2003 PolicyLink


This report is the product of a PolicyLink team led by Senior Associates Dwayne S. Marsh and Kalima Rose.Consultant Melissa Magallanes greatly contributed to the development of the document. The guidance ofResearch Director Victor Rubin helped produce a document that captures the wisdom, lessons, analysis, andreflections from many sources and people. Most important among them are the seventeen leading advocatesfor regional equity in the Greater Boston region, who have come to be known as the Greater Boston ActionCommittee:

• Warren Goldstein Gelb and Penn Loh, Alternatives for Community and the Environment• Douglass Ling, Asian Community Development Corporation• Kathy Brown and Roxanne McKinnon, Boston Tenant Coalition• Aaron Gornstein and Karen Wiener, Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association• Gladys Vega and Ed Marakovitz, Chelsea Human Services Collaborative• Mark Pedulla, City Life/Vida Urbana• Stephanie Pollack, Conservation Law Foundation• Nancy Goodman, Environmental League of Massachusetts• Ed Becker, Essex County Greenbelt Association• Marvin Martin, Greater Four Corners Action Coalition• Kenn Elmore, Lexington Fair Housing Committee• Maureen Carney, Massachusetts AFL-CIO• Tom Callahan, Massachusetts Affordable Housing Association• Andrea Luquetta, Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations• Danny LeBlanc, Somerville Community Development Corporation• Philip Bronder-Giroux, Tri-City Community Action Program• Jennifer Van Campen, Waltham Alliance to Create Housing

This document could not have been completed without the generous support of the Annie E. CaseyFoundation, The Fannie Mae Foundation, and The Hyams Foundation.


Contents

Executive Summary

4

Section OneWhy Is Regional Equity Important?

7

Section TwoProspects for Regional Equity in Greater Boston

10

Challenges to Regional Equity

11

Key Elements of Regional Equity

23

Section ThreePolicy Opportunitites to Promote Regional Equity

29

Recommendations for Policy Action

29

Building the Capacity to Achieve Regional Equity

40

Conclusion

43

Bibliography

44

Appendices

48


Executive Summary

Why Regional Equity Is ImportantMany of the challenges facing families andcommunities in the Greater Boston region cannotbe adequately addressed within traditionalpolitical boundaries. The growing housing crisisincreases costs across the region. Economicdevelopment extends beyond Boston’s cities toregional clusters of industries. Transit systems cutacross neighborhoods and towns. Environmentalissues exist within bioregions. And sprawlingdevelopment draws resources out of urban corecommunities.

Nonprofit, community development, and socialequity advocacy groups in the Boston arearecognize that the future of all residents is tied tonew regional strategies, opportunities, andresources. These groups have been meeting forthe last year as the Greater Boston ActionCommittee to develop the requisite analysis,engagement, and strategies to create policyimpact at the regional level.

Regional equity means giving children and familiesof all races and classes the best possibleenvironment in which to live. Advancing regionalequity involves reducing social and economicdisparities among individuals, social groups,neighborhoods, and local jurisdictions within ametropolitan area. Progress toward regionalequity requires mechanisms that reverse theinequitable patterns of development that haveconcentrated poverty, segregated communities,and limited opportunities for lower-incomeresidents of the region. Regions grow healthiereconomically when all communities in the regionare strong.

The Greater Boston Action CommitteeThe Greater Boston Action Committee, whichrepresents leaders from more than fifteen diverse

urban and suburban nonprofit advocacyorganizations, is working to advance a communitybased policy agenda for achieving regional equity.Their vision for equity in Greater Boston is guidedby four underlying principles:• Environmental justice and social equity must be

central components of regional development;• Public transit, affordable housing, workforce

development, and open space issues are closelylinked and require integrated solutions at theregional level;

• Displacement of low-income residents shouldbe avoided through local and regionalmechanisms that connect low-incomecommunities to opportunities and resources; and

• Equitable development is guided by policies thatpromote balanced land use decisions accrossjurisdictions.

If equity is embraced as central to the pursuit ofsmart growth and regional development, GreaterBoston can be a model for building a dynamic,multicultural region that takes advantage ofstrong information and technology economies.Such a reality must be guided by a newgeneration of policies that enable communities tocooperate across jurisdictions, share fairly in thebenefits of development, build a diverse housingstock, ensure accessible green space, createefficient transit systems, and maintain bustlingcommercial services.

Challenges to Achieving RegionalEquity in Greater BostonA politically fragmented region inhibitsequitable development. With 101 separatejurisdictions in the metropolitan region, it isdifficult for communities to develop adequateresponses to economic development, housing,environmental, or social concerns that crossjurisdictions. Allocating costs more fairly, orcatalyzing economic opportunities for bothsuburban and urban communities, requires newstate and regional approaches.


Regional development patterns promote aninequitable distribution of social andeconomic resources. While research shows thatthe best outcomes for low-income families arerealized in mixed-income communities, theregion’s development trends continue toconcentrate poverty and racially segregatecommunities. These trends include large lotsubdivisions, the proliferation of large, single-family homes, and continuing decline in theproduction of multifamily housing. Thesedevelopment patterns are driven through landuse, fiscal, and tax policies and compounded bythe wave of displacement that the pronouncedeconomic boom of the 1990s produced—withharsh implications for neighborhoods such asRoxbury and Chinatown. Displacement from theseneighborhoods and the influx of new immigrantshas had a spillover effect on the industrial citiessuch as Chelsea, Lawrence, Lowell, and Brockton.Besides putting upward pressure on housingprices, the demand for social services and othercivic infrastructure has intensified.

The structure of the economy increasesincome inequality. Although the region enjoyeda strong economy and high labor participationduring the 1990s, there was an overall increase inearnings inequality. Several trends contributed tothe growing earnings gap: a shift frommanufacturing jobs to service jobs, a demand forhigher skilled workers, and a shift of entry leveljobs from the urban core to the suburbs.

Policy Opportunities to PromoteRegional EquityBuild the Capacity to Influence RegionalPlans, Policies, and Decision MakingCommunity organizations usually focus their workto achieve equity on specific issues areas such ashousing, transportation, land use, economicdevelopment. Achieving regional equity requires

understanding the intersection of several issues andworking in an integrated way. Communityorganizations need a new set of capacities to dothis successfully. The report outlines key steps tobuild these capacities:• Create a decision-making and action structure

for social equity actors in the Greater Bostonarea that builds a power base for regionalequity; and

• Provide community based organizations,CDCs, and other organizations with resourcesto organize their communities and advanceregional equity goals.

Recommendations for Policy ActionThe Greater Boston Action Committee, an allianceof urban and suburban groups, identified theircommon development challenges. This studyoffers a roadmap for building a common urban/suburban agenda.

The Action Committee prioritized key policy goalsto advance regional equity in Greater Boston.These groups will work to enact these goals bymoving legislation in the Massachusettslegislature, influencing the direction of the Officeof Commonwealth Development, increasingcommunity advocacy at the Metropolitan PlanningOrganization, and advancing their priorities withthe Metropolitan Area Planning Council.

Affordable HousingGreater Boston’s strong economy attracted newresidents and resulted in a housing affordabilitycrisis that has rippled throughout the region.Addressing this will require an improvedregulatory framework and incentives for buildingaffordable housing. Priorities for action:

• Strengthen, refine and enforceComprehensive Permit Law Chapter 40B

• Require permanent affordability for allsubsidy investments

• Restore rent stabilization mechanisms


Transportation Equity

Diminished investment in public transportation hasleft much needed transit projects in competition forlimited public dollars. This minimizes the ability oflow- and moderate-income residents to connect tothe regional economy and jeopardizes communitystability. Priorities for action:• Improve public transportation service, access,

and equity• Sharpen the equity focus of Metropolitan

Planning Organization allocations

Environmental Justice

The concentration of environmental hazards inlow-income, people of color neighborhoodscontinues to be a persistent issue for Boston’surban areas. Meanwhile, suburbs struggle withdevelopment patterns that increase sprawl,eradicate precious open space, and diminish theoverall quality of life. Policies are needed thatrecognize the connection between these issuesand address it:• Convert the Environmental Justice Policy

into law• Enact the Act for a Healthy Massachusetts

Equitable Investment

Public agencies can advance regional equity goalsby attaching community benefits criteria to publicinvestment in major development projects orthrough major expenditure streams. In recentyears, advocates have utilized various policymechanisms to ensure that concrete communitybenefit results from public investment. Theseapproaches can link the multiple issues discussedthroughout this report:• Redirect public investment through use of

equity criteria• Enact An Act to Promote Fiscal Accountability

in Economic Development• Employ equity criteria in public land

distribution

The ideas and recommendations in this reportlay promising groundwork for action toachieve regional equity in the Greater Bostonarea.


I. Why Is Regional EquityImportant?Everyone wants to live in a decent neighborhood.

This simple statement is the essence of regionalequity. If communities cooperate acrossjurisdictions, neighborhoods could fairly share inthe benefits of development supporting a vibrantcommunity through diverse housing stock,accessible green spaces, an efficient transitsystem, and bustling commercial services.Cooperation could resolve the land use patternsthat currently concentrate poverty and wealth,racially isolate communities, create differential taxburdens, consume green space, and generateenvironmental hazards. A regional approach isneeded to address these critical issues. A growinginterest in “smart growth” is beginning toinfluence these concepts in Massachusetts. Ifequity is embraced as central to smart growth,Greater Boston can be a model for building asustainable, dynamic, multicultural region thattakes advantage of strong information andtechnology economies and is guided by a newgeneration of effective policies.

Achieving regional equity will depend on changesin the many public and private policies andpractices that drive development. Progress towardregional equity requires an appreciation of theregion—its people and their experiences; itsneighborhoods and their histories; itscommunities and their resources. It also requires acommitment to mechanisms that promoteequitable development across jurisdictions.

The work to achieve regional equity has neverbeen more important. The decennial censusreveals that during the most prosperous decade inUnited States history, there was still a growth inpoverty in absolute terms. This trend was reflectedin the Greater Boston area, where the gap

between lower-income and upper-incomeresidents increased. A new generation of policiescan address the issues of limited wealth creationand access to resources for low-income urbancommunities while offering remedies for suburbanconcerns of unchecked sprawl, unbearablecommutes, and the need to support a morediverse workforce. Recent dialogue betweensuburban and urban representatives has revealedgreater common cause for cooperation than eitheranticipated. Regional equity squarely identifies theavenues for mutual benefit of all communities inaccommodating future growth.

A focus on regional equity would mean differentoutcomes for many communities in the region.The infill development principles of smart growthwith an equity lens would have meant thedevelopment of mixed-income housing forChinatown residents’ small, dynamiccommunity—rather than focus on the high-riseluxury condominiums that are squeezing themout. The Massachusetts Bay TransportationAuthority’s (MBTA) development of a regionaltransit network would not have substitutedRoxbury’s former light rail line with the much lesseffective Silver Line bus service if equity principleshad been applied. And through an equity lens,Four Corners’ affordable housing advocates andTopsfield’s open space proponents would see theinextricable linkage of their issues and work forcommon goals.

The path toward regional equity in the GreaterBoston area will be built upon its history of strongneighborhoods, independent jurisdictions, andsophisticated advocacy organizations that canmake connections between seemingly disparatepolicy interests. The more that local communitiescan be oriented toward regional cooperation—that decisions about the built environment andtransportation enhance the lives of low-incomeresidents, and that mixed-income communitiesbecome integral to the regional economy—the


What is…Smart Growth is the most common name for a set of principles and policies that counter the prevailingtrend of sprawl-based development. It is best known as a strategy for building more compactly to conserveopen space, reduce automobile dependence, reduce energy consumption, and integrate land uses into moremixed-use, pedestrian-accessible neighborhoods.

Regional Equity is the state of reduced social and economic disparities among individuals, social groups,neighborhoods, and local jurisdictions within a metropolitan region. It has become a valuable framework forcommunity organizing and policy advocacy on transportation, housing, health, education, fiscal,infrastructure, and environmental justice issues.

Equitable Development refers to a multifaceted set of tools and strategies that support both people andplaces by promoting investments that have both economically sustainable and socially positive returns.

Social Segregation denotes the isolation of specific groups or communities within neighborhoods andregions, caused by areas of concentrated poverty, racial segregation, or physical separation by barriers suchas highways.

Greater Boston area. For the purposes of this report, the Greater Boston area roughly encompasses the 101-jurisdiction service area of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, although three older industrial centers,Brockton, Lowell, and Lawrence were included in the analysis. When the Metropolitan Statistical Area orConsolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area is used for analysis, the report indicates this.

closer the Boston area will come to achievingregional equity. The social justice goals of equityadvocates can be incorporated with the interestsof those concerned with smart growth,environmental quality, and effective transportationsystems.

This report, drafted by PolicyLink and the GreaterBoston Action Committee—which representsleaders from more than fifteen diverse nonprofitand advocacy organizations—has three purposes.The report:(1) describes the current context of regional

development in Greater Boston;(2) documents key equity concerns that demand

attention; and(3) identifies the opportunities for advancing

regional equity.

The document reflects an approach tocommunity-based policy advocacy guided by fourunderlying principles:• Environmental justice and social equity should

be central components of regionaldevelopment.

• Equitable development is guided by policiesthat promote balanced land use decisionsacross jurisdictions.

• Transit, affordable housing, workforcedevelopment, and open space are closelylinked issues that require integrated solutions.

• The gentrification-driven displacement of low-income residents should be avoided throughregional and local mechanisms.


This document captures the research anddeliberations of public, nonprofit, academic, andresident leaders throughout the region. Itidentifies specific actions that participants in localand regional planning and development cantake—individually and collectively—to define acommon vision, refine existing policies, andintroduce new strategies that advance equity. Itdescribes the new kinds of capacities thatorganizations and governments will need in orderto bring about a more equitable region.

This report has been drafted after an extensiveperiod of research and discussion, including morethan 80 interviews with Boston area leaders, thereview of dozens of existing research documents,and two summits held in November 2002 andApril 2003 that were attended by 165representatives of 100 community based, local,and regional organizations. It reflects the findingsand priorities of the Action Committee andprovides a blueprint for next steps.


II. Prospects for RegionalEquity in Greater Boston

Regional equitable development engages allstakeholders in building the economic,environmental, social, and political health of aregion. This is an important principle for anymetropolitan area, but it has special salience forthe Greater Boston region, which has undergonea twenty-year renaissance that has reverseddecades of economic decline.1 Boston has thefourth largest regional economy in the UnitedStates, and would be considered the 23rd largesteconomy in the world.2 Its overall economicsuccess, however, is built upon growing economicinequities, characteristic of several similarinformation economy regions. WhileMassachusetts featured the nation’s fourth-highest per capita income in the mid 1990s,3 italso suffered the decade’s third-largest povertyrate increase.4 Greater Boston’s residents andfamilies contend with the nation’s fifth-highest

cost of living5 and third-highest housing prices.6

In addition, manufacturing jobs fell from 24.1 to12.7 percent of the employment base between1982 and 2002.7

The problems generated by the economic boomof the 1990s extended beyond those living inpoverty. High housing costs became the biggestfactor influencing Massachusetts’ cost of living,reaching well into the middle class,8 andcontributing to the exodus of more than 220,000people from the region. Such economic conditionsrequire new approaches to development thatallow all people better housing and employmentoptions.

Local Research Confirms Regional Equity ImperativeTwo seminal studies, The Boston Renaissance: Race, Space, and Economic Change in an American Metropolis and BostonMetropatterns, document the region’s vulnerability in the absence of regional equity. The region’s economic successhas been coupled with negative trends. Renaissance argues that, “if income inequality continues to grow, it couldundermine the progress that has been made by creating sharper political and social divisions within and betweencommunities. “ And Boston Metropatterns concludes: “Despite a strong economy and reinvestment during the lastdecade, concentrated poverty and racial segregation persist in many of the region’s older areas.”

A Different StandardA family in the Boston metropolitan region wouldrequire approximately 18 percent more income toachieve the same standard of living as its averagemetropolitan counterpart in the United States.Massachusetts Institute for theNew Commonwealth

1978-'80 1988-'90 1996-'98

Average Income, Bottom Fifth of Families $15,712 $16,755 $15,342

Average Income, Top Fifth of Families $110,718 $144,505 $156,606

Income Inequality Ratio 7.05 8.62 10.27

Figure One. Income Inequality in Massachusetts, 1978 through 1998

Source: Bernstein et al. 2000. Pulling Apart.

Income inequality is the ratio of the average income of the wealthiest 20% of families compared to the average income of the poorest 20% of families.


Challenges to RegionalEquity

Realizing equity throughout the Greater Bostonregion will require resolving: (1) politicalfragmentation that undermines balanced regionalgrowth; (2) economic and social segregation thatperpetuates an inequitable distribution of serviceand infrastructure costs; and (3) a regionaleconomy that increases income inequality.

A Politically Fragmented RegionInhibits Equitable DevelopmentIn Greater Boston, decentralization from theregion’s urban core began earlier than in mostother areas of the country, with town centersshowing some suburban characteristics as early as1820.9 As a “home of industrialization” in theUnited States, towns in Massachusetts grew inpatterns outside the urban core near naturalresources and local industries, rather thancontiguously from the urban core, as with manystates in the Sun Belt.10 Annexation was limitedcompared to many other regions, contributing tothe maintenance of localized political power in alarge number of towns and cities. Although thispattern strengthens civic participation at the locallevel, it intensifies government fragmentation atthe state and regional levels. Many residents inthe Greater Boston area attach great value to thehigh levels of democracy and home rule affordedby their form of local government. At the sametime, local home rule has been a leading obstacleto planning and collaboration on a regional scale.

Face RealityThe truth is, development occurs whether regionsprepare for it or not.Interview with Regional Advocate

As a consequence, when economic development,housing, environmental, or social concerns crossjurisdictions, it is difficult for communities todevelop adequate responses. Communities withconcentrations of poverty or environmentalhazards argue that they face an unfair proportionof these burdens, while many wealthiercommunities maintain that they are unable toassume additional public service and infrastructurecosts. The resulting stalemate leaves unresolvedany new approaches for allocating costs morefairly or catalyzing economic opportunities forboth suburban and urban communities.Community organizations and the MetropolitanArea Planning Council (MAPC) have begun theimportant work of creating dialogue across theregion’s 101 diverse jurisdictions, but these effortswill take time to come to fruition. The capacity ofnonprofit development and advocacyorganizations is more limited in suburbancommunities across the region than in the urbancenters.


Figure Four. Community Preservation Act Approved Spending, 2002

HistoricPreservation

12%

Affordable

Housing36%

Recreation1%

Open Space

51%

Commu nity

Subsidized

HousingInventor y

Propor tionSubsidized

Total

HousingUnits

Boston 49,147 19.63% 250,367

Chelsea 2,098 17.03% 12,317

Cambridge 6,886 15.60% 44,138

Lawrence 3,821 14.96% 25,540

Lowell 5,312 13.49% 39,381

Lynn 4,401 12.73% 34,569

Salem 2,263 12.50% 18,103

Brockton 4,259 12.24% 34,794

Malden 2,874 12.20% 23,561

Beverly 1,668 10.33% 16,150

Framingham 2,704 10.17% 26,588

Revere 2,024 10.07% 20,102

Holbrook 392 9.46% 4,145

Somerville 2,828 8.73% 32,389

Newburyport 666 8.63% 7,717

Figure Three. Subsidized Housing Production,Top Producing Communities, October 2001

Source: Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2002

The Community Preservation Act (CPA), enacted in September 2000, is statewide enabling legislation that allowscities and towns to add a surcharge to local property taxes and use the revenue to acquire and protect open space,preserve historic resources, and create and maintain affordable housing. A minimum of 10 percent of the annualrevenues of the fund must set aside for each of these three core community concerns with remaining revenuesallocated at the jurisdiction’s discretion. It has passed primarily in wealthier and more rural jurisdictions.14 While animportant benchmark for bringing three keycommunity concerns under one umbrella, equityadvocates are concerned that jurisdictions areplacing more emphasis on open space preservation(see Figure Four and Appendix A). OnlyCambridge has presented plans to use more than 50percent of these funds for affordable housing.15

Further, CPA’s effectiveness is limited because itallows local jurisdictions not to opt in (via homerule) and thus does not ensure equalimplementation across communities.

Balancing Local Governance Pressures with Commonwealth InterestsTwo existing policies represent the promise and challenge inherent in regional equitable development.Comprehensive Permit Law: Chapter 40B is one of Massachusetts’ potentially most effective policy tools forensuring that affordable housing is spread fairly across all communities. It mandates that each jurisdiction inMassachusetts provide 10 percent of its housing stock as affordable. While the law has resulted in 18,000affordable units being produced in the state since 1969, 11 only 12 jurisdictions have achieved the 10 percentthreshold for affordable housing,12 accounting for 60 percent of the region’s total assisted inventory.13

Figure Two. Communities fall short of affordability goals

Source: Metropolitan Area Planning Council

Source: Trust for Public Land


The region does have several authorities chargedto address regional issues ranging from commerceto transportation to water resources. Twogovernmental entities manage important aspectsof regional planning and governance. TheMetropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) isfederally designated to manage allocation oftransportation dollars throughout the region.While it has solicited community participation inits planning, social equity advocates report astrained history with the agency over its policydirectives—most notably, the MPO’s failure toadopt its own Environmental Justice Committee’srecommendations. MAPC, the principal entity forcoordinating regional planning and developmentin the Boston area, is in the midst of preparing itsnext 10-year comprehensive regional plan. Theinitial stages have engaged a more diverse groupof participants than any past process, and thenew director brings demonstrated experience incommunity development and civic participation.Because MAPC has limited authority to enforce itsplans, community based organizations expressskepticism about meaningful results from theprocess—a key issue for groups with limitedstaff capacity.

Another important regional actor was introducedin January 2003. It is too soon to know what thelong term impacts will be of the new state Officeof Commonwealth Development recentlyestablished by Governor Romney and directed bylongtime smart growth advocate Doug Foy.16 AsChief of this office, Foy will coordinate thepolicies and programs of the Executive Office ofEnvironmental Affairs, the Executive Office ofTransportation, and the Department of Housingand Community Development. There currently isno blueprint for the state’s role in fosteringregional cooperation and equity, though modelsfrom other states do exist. These include locatingstate facilities in order to guide growth to specificareas; offering incentives for equitabledevelopment; establishing criteria for state grantsor financing of infrastructure, affordable housing,

or school construction; and strengthening regionalplanning structures. Opinions of advocates in thefield at the time of this report reflected guardedoptimism about this restructuring, but all believedthat a progressive policy agenda needs to bepresented at the executive and legislative levels totake full advantage of the opportunity.

An Inequitable Distribution of Socialand Economic Resources PersistsCommunities in the Boston region predominatelyhouse people with similar incomes, and maintainseparation between racial groups. High levels ofeconomic and racial separation persist despite thereduction of legal barriers to racial discriminationand scattered gains in the economic integration ofwealthier suburbs through production of affordablehousing. The increasingly multicultural andmultiracial nature of the region has yet to translateto integrated neighborhoods.17 Income differencesand racial isolation within cities and towns havesignificant individual and social costs, and they placeunmanageable burdens on poorer communities.

An analysis of the 2000 Census underscores thesubstantial income stratification.18 One-fifth of thecensus tracts in the region have at least 15 percentof their population living in poverty, and almost one-third of these tracts have a poverty rate of 30percent or more.19 Figure Five maps the location ofthese tracts and demonstrates that they areconcentrated almost entirely in Boston, a smallnumber of surrounding municipalities, and threeoutlying industrial cities.

This concentration of low-income populationsreflects significant racial disparities. The populationin the tracts with more than 30 percent poverty was52 percent persons of color, including 17 percentblack, 27 percent Hispanic, and nine percent Asian.A quarter of this population was foreign-born. Incontrast, these racial and ethnic groups combinedcomprise 11 percent of the region’s low-povertycensus tracts.


#

LAWRENCE

#

LOWELL

#

BOSTON

#

BROCKTON

Boston Inset

Data: US Census 2000, Summary File 3PolicyLink 2003

0 5 10 miles

Percent of Families Living in PovertyMore than 30%

15% - 29%

Less than 15%

While extensive research shows that thebest outcomes for low-income familiesaccrue in mixed-income communities, theregion’s most recent development trendshave further concentrated poverty. Themost prevalent form of development in theregion continues to be single-family,owner-occupied homes on large lots offormerly undeveloped land.20 The Route495 corridor produced the highest growthin these units during the 1990s, with thenumber of single-family units growing at arate four times greater than the multifamilyunits that are more able to accommodateaffordable housing. Fifty-three percent ofthe region’s communities issued permitssolely for single-family housing during2000-1.21 Multifamily housingdevelopments, meanwhile, representedonly 13 percent of new housing permits inthe Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area(MSA) since 1990—down from 40 percentin the 1980s. More than half of thisproduction took place in just five cities:Boston, Braintree, Quincy, Waltham, andWoburn. Boston alone was responsible for20 percent of the decade’s new subsidizedunits, though it accounted for less than 2.5percent of the overall housing growth.22

City # % # % # %Boston 35 22.29 61 38.85 61 38.85Lawrence 7 38.89 9 50.00 2 11.11Lowell 6 23.08 8 30.77 12 46.15Brockton 1 4.76 8 38.10 12 57.14Cambridge 0 0.00 11 36.67 19 63.33Chelsea 0 0.00 5 83.33 1 16.67

Source: 2000 US Census, Summary File 3

Figure Six. Distribution of Census Tracts by Poverty Status: Boston RegionPercent of Families Living in Poverty

More than 30% 15% - 29% Less than 15%

Figure Five. Census Tracts by Poverty Status, Boston Region

Boston Inset


These development patterns are promoted throughthe tax code. Communities with more expensivehousing stock derive greater budgetary benefit fromthe assessed property values through the taxes theycollect. The main revenue-generating option for thelow-wealth communities is to raise their tax rates.At a certain point, the higher tax rates limit theirattraction for business investment, undermineresidential stability, and produce diminishing fiscalreturns.23

Figure Seven shows the extraordinary range in localcommercial/industrial property tax rates for a dozenselected cities.24 The city with the highest rate,Lawrence, charges more than triple the ratecharged in Essex to generate a similar amount ofrevenue per capita. The variations in residential taxrates show the greater revenue capacity of citieswith higher house values. For example, Pembrokeand Chelsea have virtually identical residentialproperty tax rates, but Pembroke raises more thanthree times as much revenue per capita from thetax because of the high value of its housing stock.

The current tax system creates a disincentive for allhousing types except more expensive single-familyunits. Resistance to the development of affordable

and multifamily housing is based on a calculationby municipalities that equates denser housing withhigher school and infrastructure expenses—the veryexpenses that communities with greater povertymust shoulder with less revenue. These patternsproliferate throughout Massachusetts, despitegrowing evidence that greater spatial distribution ofaffordable and multifamily housing can allocateassets more equitably, addresses traffic congestion,air quality, and jobs-housing balance.25

As in many major metropolitan areas, thepronounced economic boom of the 1990s in theBoston region spawned a wave of gentrification—the process by which higher-income householdsdisplace lower-income residents of a neighborhood,changing its essential character.26 Low-income andworking-class residents of many neighborhoodswere driven out of those housing markets byskyrocketing prices. Gentrification wascompounded when displaced people from oneneighborhood contributed to increased housingprices in their new neighborhoods. The trends wereexacerbated by the concurrent elimination of rentcontrol in 1994 (discussed below, p. 24) and by theflurry of new investment in real estate that maderent increases disproportionate to wages,27

Figure Seven. Total Property Tax Revenues and Tax Rates for Selected Cities, 2001

Cities

Total Populat ion

(2000) 1

Median House

Value2

Commercial/ Industrial

Property Tax Rates 3

Residential Propert y Tax

Rate3

per capita

Lowell 105,167 $168,500 38.46 18.32 $378

Lawrence 72,043 $149,900 35.08 15.61 $218

Chelsea 35,080 $198,700 33.53 14.39 $274

Framingham 66,910 $282,900 30.28 16.55 $829

Boston 589,141 $263,900 30.17 10.58 $469

Brockton 94,304 $164,000 29.49 16.62 $466

Medford 55,765 $279,900 25.09 12.52 $755

Waltham 59,226 $319,000 24.46 11.10 $590

Cambridge 101,355 $506,750 23.39 9.21 $608

Lexington 30,355 $499,500 21.93 12.11 $1,676

Pembroke 16,927 $241,486 14.43 14.43 $925

Arlington 42,389 $372,500 13.17 13.17 $1,224

Essex 3,267 $273,500 11.54 11.54 $1,371

Sources:

1. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File.

2. The Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2002. 3. MA Department of Revenue, Division of Local Services


rendering the housing unaffordable. In 1998,approximately 39 percent of all Massachusettsrenters and 61 percent of Latino renters wereshelter poor.28 Between 1998 and 1999, the medianrent for a two-bedroom apartment in Roxburyincreased by 30 percent,29 pushing residents tomove to neighborhoods with less desirable housingstock, public transit access, or environmentalconditions. Evictions for non-payment of rent inMassachusetts increased 64 percent between 1990and 1997.

In Chinatown, still a first stop for many newChinese and Vietnamese immigrants, residentialspace has shrunk due to commercial andinstitutional development, leading to severelyovercrowded living conditions. Twenty-two percentof Chinatown residents live in overcrowdedconditions compared to a citywide rate of 3.46percent.30 Forty-four people live in each acre ofChinatown, compared to 18 peracre citywide.

Hard Work, No Reward“What is really tragic is that many of these peoplewere actively engaged in the economic revitalizationof their neighborhoods. Forced out, they are unableto reap the benefits of their efforts.”Kathy BrownBoston Tenant Coalition

Familiarity Erodes Barriers“Eighty percent of the current affordable housingadvocacy is geared toward holding on to thesupportive policies we have. Suburban resistance toaffordable housing is widespread...The irony is, oncethe housing is developed and occupied, with realresidents, the opposition diminishes.”Aaron GornsteinCitizens’ Housing and Planning Association

115.0

142.5

206.6

137.2120.3

136.2

110.0

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Composite Index Grocery Items Housing Utilities Transp. Health Care Misc. Goods &Services

Figure Eight. Boston Metro Area Cost of Living as a Percent of the All Urban Average, ACCRA Index, Third Quarter 1996


IN

The Chinatown Story: A Neighborhood’s Struggle with Regional ForcesAdjacent to downtown Boston, Chinatown has been dramatically impacted by the resurgence of theregion’s economy. A small but diverse neighborhood, Chinatown has lost 66 percent of its original landbase since the 1950s to highway construction and institutional expansion. In addition, the explosion ofluxury hotel and condominium developments in the 1990s has left residents with few housing alternatives.The 1990 Master Plan for Chinatown documented the necessary zoning requirements to mitigate some ofthese impacts, but local advocates contend that the Boston Redevelopment Authority has failed to adhereto them in the face of the unprecedented development pressures. What has been an economic renaissancefor the region translated to the most intense forces of gentrification this neighborhood has ever known.

The Chinese Progressive Association has joined with three other local organizations and the region’sChinese population living in outlying communities such as Quincy and Malden to wage the Campaign toProtect Chinatown. Their resident-led constituent base is allied with the Boston Tenant Coalition and theCampaign on Contingent Work to help them advocate for affordable housing and jobs for theircommunity.

Chinese Progressive Association director Lydia Lowe is frustrated that the rapid development of theircommunity has not led to increased employment opportunities for Chinatown residents. “Traditional jobs inthe garment industry have disappeared as neighborhood rents have steadily risen over the past two decades,”she explains. “Someresidents manage totransition into foodpreparation jobs in theinstitutional cafeterias, orcleaning for new luxuryhotels, but languagebarriers make job trainingin other fields inaccessible.Those facing residentialdisplacement have fewoptions for reestablishingtheir economic stability.”

The further developmentof urban space without afirm commitment toequity has deleteriousconsequences for the lowincome residents whocurrently inhabit thosespaces.

Dominant Industry. The New England Medical Center is one of several health anduniversity institutions in the neighborhood that serves the entire region.


A Fresh Start Getting Hard to FindSince 1990, more than 250,000 new immigrants have arrived in Massachusetts. Their presence hascontributed to the state’s strong economy during the past decade, and has enriched the cultural and ethnicdiversity of the region. Immigrants from Latin America, Asia, Europe, and Africa have built a significantpresence in Boston and small formerly industrial cities in the region. Despite housing, transportation, andeducation challenges, immigrants are contributingto the economic revitalization of disinvestedcommercial districts.

However, newly arrived immigrants are increasinglyvulnerable to the region’s high cost trends. Limitedhousing, employment, and skill training threatenthe asset building that has become a key part ofimmigrant ascension into the mainstream economy.Jurisdictions with large immigrant communitiesstruggle for development solutions that will allowthem to serve this growing segment of theirpopulation. Additional research is needed to trackthe entry paths of new Americans and understandhow to connect them to regional opportunities inways that contribute to regional equity.

The domino effect of displacement has led toincreased housing pressures on the industrialcities of Chelsea, Lawrence, Lowell, and Brockton,which all faced an influx of residents seeking theirrelatively affordable housing. Besides puttingsignificant pressure on housing prices, thedemand for social services and other civicinfrastructure has intensified.

Displacement and immigration contributed to agrowing concentration of residents of color inolder industrial cities during the past twodecades, including Brockton, Lowell, Lawrence,and Boston, while many white residents moved tolocations with better housing and moreadequately funded public services and schools.31

Without immigration, absolute population in thecity of Boston would have decreased during thedecade. Lawrence’s minority population grew

See Chelsea Grow“Between 1990 and 2000, the population of Chelseagrew 22 percent. Housing units increased only 6.6percent, overburdening an already taxed socialservice base. “So many families are moving in, when anew school was built to accommodate growth, it wasovercrowded the first day it opened.”Ed MarakovitzChelsea Human Service Collaborative

from 18 percent to nearly 65 percent from 1970to 2000,32 driven by the influx of immigrants,especially from the Dominican Republic. Lowellhas become home to one of the largestCambodian populations in the country. These newresidents provided vital labor and services to theregion’s growing industries during the 1990sboom, creating a new working class in search ofaffordable housing.


Another impact on people of color and low-income residents is their disproportionateexposure to environmental hazards inMassachusetts. A person of color is 19 times morelikely than a white person to live in one of the 25most environmentally overburdened communities

31.1%

48.1%

7.4%

32.7%

17.8%

64.8%

6.7%

35.7%

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

1980 2000 1980 2000 1980 2000 1980 2000

Per

cen

tage

of T

otal

Pop

ula

tion

Nonhispanic Black Hispanic Nonhispanic Asian/Pacific Islander

Figure Ten. Exposure to Hazardous Waste Sites, Median Household Income, Massachusetts Communities, 2000

334

14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

$0 to $29,999 $30,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 $50,000 or more

Median household income

Mea

n n

um

ber

of

site

s p

er s

qu

are

mil

e

Source: Faber & Krieg. 2002. Unequal Exposure to Ecological H d

in the state,33 including Boston, Chelsea, Lowell,Lawrence, and New Bedford. While the risks toresidents are great, these communities have littlecapacity to reverse political, historic, andeconomic influences34 that have resulted in suchtoxic exposure.

Boston Brockton Lawrence Lowell

Figure Nine. Population Change, Selected Cities 1980-2000

Source: Neighborhood Change Database, Census 2000 SF1


Lower-income workers depend more heavily onthe metropolitan transit system than their better-paid counterparts, but the system does notadequately meet their needs, especially to townswhere there is new job growth. Twenty-fivepercent of the workers who live in the Bostonregion’s high poverty tracts take public transit totheir job, compared to just nine percent of theoverall workforce of the region.35 The region’stransit system adequately serves people cominginto the city from neighborhoods along transitlines, but does not serve cross-city, outlyingneighborhoods, or intra-suburban travelers.36

While the lower housing costs of former industrialcenters is a draw to lower-income residents, theselocations limit their access to many of the region’sjobs.37 Workers who rely on public transit cannotget between outlying suburbs and industrialcenters without going through Boston.

Transit Matters“Our policy directions have to recognize people whodepend on public transportation for all of their trips.”Penn LohAlternatives for Community and Environment

The corridor that runs through Roxbury,Dorchester, and Mattapan is the densest, mostpopulous corridor of low-income and minorityresidents in the region, yet it is served exclusivelyby buses. Lack of funds has led to overcrowding,delays, and inadequate amenities in thesecommunities.38 Towns suffering severedisinvestments, such as Lynn, Quincy, andFramingham, have growing numbers of residentsdue to housing costs, but few public transitoptions exist.39

Figure Eleven. Transit Lines and Communities Greater Than 50 Percent Minority

Source: Metropolitan Area Planning Council, 2002


Demand for Higher Skilled Workers. Duringthe 1990s, the increase in average hourly wagefor high-paid workers grew faster than for otherworkers.44 Less-educated workers faced limitedjob options. Jobs in Boston’s industries requiringhigher education increased 41 percent between1970 and 1990, while jobs accessible to thosewith limited education dropped 14 percent.45

While 30 percent of Boston area adults have atleast a bachelor’s degree, one of the highest levelsof education of any region in the country, theproportion in the region’s areas of concentratedpoverty is only 16 percent. 46

The Boston Regional Economy:A Rising Tide, Leaky ShipsThe extraordinary economic growth of the Bostonregion from the 1980s through the 1990s wasaccomplished by one of the nation’s most highlyeducated workforces.40 The boom allowed itsknowledge-based and professional sectors(including high technology research andmanufacturing, construction, finance, andpersonal services) to thrive. It also relied on asufficiently large pool of workers to fill the lower-paid, lower-skilled, mostly service sector jobs thatsupport these sectors.

Although the region enjoyed a high rate of laborparticipation, there was an overall increase inearnings inequality.41 Several trends in the region(as in many other metropolitan areas in the UnitedStates) contributed to the growing earnings gap: ashift from manufacturing jobs to service jobs; ademand for higher-skilled workers; and a shift ofentry level jobs from the urban core to thesuburbs.

A Shift from Manufacturing to Service Jobs.While the region experienced a 10.5 percent netincrease in total jobs between 1990 and 2000,71,243 jobs were lost, more than 35,000 of whichwere in the manufacturing sector.42 In contrast,174,000 jobs were created in the service industry,representing 40 percent of total new jobs in theregion.43 The service sector expanded in twodirections, one with occupations that featuredrelatively high pay and required relatively higherlevels of skills or education than themanufacturing economy that preceded it. Theother, larger component of growth in the sectorrepresented jobs that were lower in average payand benefits than most manufacturing jobs theyreplaced, offered little security or opportunity tolearn new skills, and had little upward mobility.

Solidarity Shows Promise for Regional EquityCalling for improved wages, health care, and full timejobs, a janitors strike led by SEIU Local 254 mobilizedmore than 2,000 janitors in downtown Boston officebuildings in October 2002. The strike drew surprisingsupport from suburban allies whom have began to seethe connection between workforce housing and theviability of their communities. Labor and affordablehousing advocates were close allies during the standoff.The resulting contract extended benefits never beforegranted to part-time workers in this region.


More than 1.1 million adults, representing 35percent of the state’s labor force, are not trainedin skills relevant to the emerging economy.47

Immigrants with limited English skills earn 24percent less than workers fluent in English. One in11 persons of the total state workforce does nothold a high school credential, seriouslycompromising family earning potential.48

According to state labor research organizationMassINC, while 1 in 12 positions for skilledworkers remain unfilled, residents with limitedskills are falling further behind.

Residents across the state are ready to upgradetheir skills, but adequate opportunities do notexist. At the Boston Chinatown NeighborhoodCenter, the waiting list for employment training isalmost twice as long as the enrollment list. Inrecent years, the waiting lists statewide haveremained as long as 16,000 residents.49

A Shift of Entry Level Jobs from the UrbanCore to the Suburbs. Growth along I-495 andRoute 128 has led to an increase in entry-levelservice jobs that offer opportunities forunderemployed residents, but they concentrate inareas often inaccessible by public transportation.The I-495 region is growing faster in terms ofnumber of job opportunities than themetropolitan area average by a ratio of 3.5 to 1.50

The 495 region is now a recognized commercialmarket, and developers perceive the Corridor as apreferred location for certain industries looking tolocate in eastern Massachusetts. These businessesin turn fuel the growth of new shopping malls,office parks, and housing developments, drivingthe need for retail salespeople, janitorial services,food services, cashiers, and receptionists. Aninformal survey found that only approximately35 percent of the workforce lived in the 495region.51 The mismatch between jobs and housingwill increase the level of economic and socialsegregation—making the opportunity fora diverse economic base throughout the regionelusive.


Key Elements of RegionalEquity

People across the Greater Boston area are lookingfor solutions to resolve these challenges andprevent deleterious consequences of growth anddevelopment for the entire region. Smart growthissues were raised in the recent gubernatorialcampaign, and the new administration hasreconfigured its cabinet to respond to theseissues. The implementation of policies thatpromote equitable development must be a centralpart of that agenda.

The coalition of organizations representingaffordable housing, open space, and historicpreservation interests that collaborated to enactthe Community Preservation Act in 2000 took thefirst step to meet this challenge. They representthe convergence that regional equity requires—one that crafts solutions that holds the interestsof varied constituencies on equal footing. To winthis initiative, advocates had to build consensus,gain an understanding of how their issues areinterrelated, and collaborate with unfamiliargroups. A similarly diverse coalition will be neededto maintain the integrity of Chapter 40B.

The complexity of regional planning lies in theinterrelationships among issues, but thoserelationships can get lost when groups focus onresolving their most pressing concerns. Middle-income residents and their representatives mayfocus on issues affecting their property values andeconomic development; low-income residentsmay demand improved transit, affordablehousing, or health care; and wealthier residentscall for open space and environmental protection.The challenge is to find common strategies thatcan address the interrelatedness of these issues.Identifying the mutual opportunity to bring thesegroups together is central to understanding thepolicy priorities that follow.

To achieve regional equity through policy change,communities and their advocates must find waysto build integrated and comprehensive solutionsto the critical issues identified in the research aresummarized below.

Affordable HousingGreater Boston’s ability to attract new residentshas contributed to its economic success, but alsoto a housing crisis that had a ripple effectthroughout the region.52 Lack of adequate newhousing production created the third-highesthousing costs in the country.53 According to theCommonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Officefor Administration and Finance, 7,200 units abovecurrent annual production levels would be neededover the next five years to get housing costs undercontrol.54 Housing production in the region hasnot always been this low. During the middle1980s construction hit an all time high ofapproximately 25,000 units, but has remained atan average of 11,000 units per year since 1994.55

Inadequate state regulatory control, localexclusionary zoning restrictions, and a reduction infederal and state funds have combined to fuel theaffordable housing supply crisis. Bluestone, Escher,and Weidman cite “a confusing array ofregulations and a patchwork of funding sourcesand programs, each with its own limitations andtransaction that creates time delays and booststhe cost of building housing.”56 Constructioncosts for housing are 16 percent higher than thenational average. Also, exclusionary local zoningand restrictive regulations in wealthier suburbsundermine development of affordable housing.

Priced Out“The lack of affordable housing issuedisproportionately drives the high cost of living inMassachusetts.”Barry BluestoneNortheastern University


Almost all of the 12 cities that have met the 40BComprehensive Permit Law were urban centers.57

In 2001, 112 of the 161 jurisdictions featuredmedian household incomes that were insufficientto afford the median-priced home in their owncommunity.58

With the elimination of rent control by state ballotin 1994 and the expiring use of properties withfederal mortgage subsidies, the challenge to buildand maintain affordable housing has beendaunting. Student housing has also played asignificant role in raising rates in the rentalmarket. More than half of the approximate250,000 students in the region live off campus,frequently pooling incomes to increase theirpurchasing power, and creating competition forhousing among local working families.59 In thecity of Boston, the median advertised rent for atwo-bedroom apartment in 2001 would claim 60percent of the household income of the medianrenter, and 50 percent of household income formedian renters living in Chelsea, Revere, andCambridge.60

To meet the critical housing requires increaseddemand, housing subsidies, more private sectorinvolvement in housing production, concertedinfill and brownfield development, and higherdensity in the suburbs. Housing advocatesinterviewed for this report see opportunitiesemerging from the reality that affordable housingis an issue for the middle class as well. A key firststep will be building the capacity of communityorganizations to do more thorough educationabout the role and value of affordable housing toall communities.

Affordable Housing: A Suburban PriorityAs one of the first towns in Massachusetts to approve the Community Preservation Act, Bedford has begunto grapple with its housing challenges. During the 1990s, median housing prices increased from $228,000 tomore than $400,000, 113 rental units were lost, and small homes on large lots that had infill density potentialhave been replaced with large houses costing as much as $750,000. Bedford residents have identified diversityas a valued element of the 12,000-resident town’s character, but few of the town’s municipal employees canafford to live there, and parents are discouraged that their grown children cannot afford to return home toraise their families.

Three agencies—the Bedford Housing Partnership, the Bedford Housing Trust (BHT), and the BedfordCommunity Preservation Committee—have joined forces to revise the Bedford Comprehensive AffordableHousing Plan, committing to an increase in housing considered affordable under 40B from 4.5 percent to 11percent by 2011. Their aggressive strategy is being pursued on multiple fronts. It includes a purchase andrehab program for two-family structures operated by BHT; condominium buy-downs with permanentaffordability provisions funded through CPA funds; and a partnership with the local VeteransAdministration hospital to develop a ten-unit complex with four affordable units. Gene Clerkin, CPAcommittee member and Bedford resident, points to the importance of having access to technical expertiseand financial support in navigating the complexity of Massachusetts’ affordable housing process. He alsoidentified organizing, education, and citizen participation as crucial for building public will, noting thatmany suburbs have an uninformed notion of what affordable housing is and how well it can be designed.

Keep It Real“Resistance to affordable housing relates to race,class, and assumptions about people different thanus. One community actually argued that their MCAStest scores might drop. We have to get past codewords of community character, or school capacityand get at the real issues.”Kenn ElmoreLexington Fair Housing Committee


Environmental JusticeWhere low-income housing is most concentrated,so are conditions of environmental degradation.As many white and middle-class residents lefteconomically declining urban core locations, low-income residents, and people of color stayed orfilled in these vacancies.61 Low-incomecommunities and communities of color inMassachusetts endure a significantly greaterexposure to pollution emitted or abandoned bylarge industrial facilities.62 The most affectedneighborhoods include former industrial sites inEast Boston, Dorchester, Roxbury, and Allston-Brighton—with Central Boston having the highestnumber.63 Sites that once provided jobopportunities for local residents now deepen theeconomic disadvantages of these neighborhoods.Throughout Greater Boston, noxious materialsand facilities, such as garbage dumps, toxic wastedisposals, and parking facilities have had a historyof being disposed of disproportionately in low-income communities.64 Meanwhile, in the outersuburbs, open space is increasingly compromisedby sprawl; the amount of land consumed fordevelopment grew at a rate far greater than theregion’s population growth. Since 1950, suburbantowns like Burlington and Plymouth have grownmore than 200%, while older cities have lostpopulations to their sprawling neighbors.65

According to the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts Executive Office of EnvironmentalAffairs, between 1950 and 1990, Massachusettspopulation increased by 28% while the amount ofdeveloped land increased 188 percent.66

Several factors exacerbate these developmenttrends. Cities and towns infrequently make longrange development plans, and do not generallyanalyze regional impacts as a criterion. It isdifficult for local officials to become educated onthe complex range of environmental protectionstrategies, including: infrastructure developmentthat focuses development in built environments;affordable housing development through density

Let It Snow. The City of Chelsea houses the region’sRoad Salt supplies, bearing the brunt of itsenvironmental impacts.

Context for Justice“Sometimes it is not that toxics are dumped onpeople of color. It is the people of color who aredumped on the toxics.”Daniel FaberNortheastern University

strategies that protect open space; and preventionof activities that encourage sprawl. Additionallythere is limited coordination across communitiesin the areas of development and investment.

Advocates see numerous opportunities to achieveenvironmental justice in development and connectrelated issues of land use, conservation,environmental protection, affordable housing, andtransportation. Among them are reallocation ofthe Big Dig surplus land back to Chinatown’sdevelopment priorities; reinvesting in existingschool sites, where possible, to conserve openspace; and creating more multifamily developmentin suburban communities.

“We have to understand the historical context ofenvironmental burdens, and address these disparitieswhen we look at land use planning.”Lydia LoweChinese Progressive Association


Advocates see opportunities developing tointroduce policies that reprioritize the fundingpatterns of transportation statewide because ofincreasing resident dissatisfaction with thecommute experience. In addition, the lack ofcoordination of agencies for long-termtransportation planning and the ascension of thesmart growth discussion in Massachusettsprovides fertile ground for revisiting howdecisions and allocations are made at the stateand regional levels.

Residential Segregation andEmployment OpportunitiesGiven the Boston region’s history of segregatedsettlement patterns, people of color remainspatially concentrated.73 Minimal access to publictransit to reach new jobs in the outer suburbs, orto reach jobs in central Boston from far-awaycommunities, has left many low-income andminority residents with three bad choices: spendmore of their earnings than they can afford to payfor a car; endure extremely long, multiple-transferpublic transit trips; or limit their job opportunities.With reduced job access, unemployment has

Regional Transportation InequitiesCommunities of color and low-incomecommunities are offered inadequate public transitin the Boston region. A report by the ConservationLaw Foundation found that a two- to three-miletransit trip between neighborhoods in Roxburyand downtown Boston can take an hour—thesame time it takes to travel by commuter rail fromdowntown Boston to cities and suburbs forty tofifty miles away.67 As residents move further fromthe metropolitan center, and job growth continuesin the suburbs, public transportation is severelychallenged to serve the areas of new growth andto connect them to older neighborhoods.

Efforts to alleviate transit disparities depend onequitable planning and distribution ofgovernment funds for public transit. Although the1980s saw significant rapid transit investment,68

much of it served wealthier, predominately whitecommunities, sometimes purposely avoiding low-income communities of color. Original plans forthe Red Line to run north through Arlington andLexington and end at Route 128 were changedbecause of community concerns that rapid transitwould bring “unacceptable changes” to theirsuburban community.69 In the end, the Red Lineextended only to Alewife in Arlington, withintermediate stops in Cambridge and Somerville.70

In Roxbury in 1987, the old elevated Orange Line,which served a predominately minorityneighborhood, was moved to service theSouthwest Corridor, a wealthier, predominatelywhite community, leaving local residents with aninferior bus service. In the last five years, theMassachusetts Bay Transportation Authority(MBTA) invested four times as much in commuterrail services than in the bus system even thoughthere are four times as many bus riders.71 Further,agency decisions have favored roads over publictransit and commuter rail. Massachusettsconsistently spends three to four times as much ofits federal transportation dollars on highways ason public transit.72

Transportation is Fundamental“For CDCs, transportation has the potential to be across-cutting issue, promoting regional equitabledevelopment and linking to affordable housing.”Joseph KriesbergMassachusetts Association of Community DevelopmentCorporations

Is This Transit?“I remember one of the guys…we opened up at 8 in themorning and he had to leave home at 6 in the morningto get [to Waltham] on three or four different buses.”Waltham Manufacturer


increased in the older, former industrial cities.74

North Waltham has 77 employers that currentlyemploy 3,000 entry level workers, but a commutertraveling from a central-city neighborhood with ahigh concentration of welfare recipients musttravel on three buses and walk for more that amile to get to those jobs.75 Many businesses locateaway from high-unemployment areas because ofconcerns about the employee recruitment base ofconcentrated minority neighborhoods.76 Inaddition, businesses locate in the suburbs toattract managers through good housing, qualityschools, and the potential for less trafficcongestion.77 When businesses do locate nearsatellite cities with a high concentration ofworking class immigrants such as Lawrence andLowell, interest in available workforce overrulesother location concerns.78

Advocates see opportunities to broaden thediscussion about who has access to desirable jobs.The complex interplay of transportation access,business location decisions, education, and skillsdevelopment of the workforce involves a cross-section of regional actors who can build acomprehensive workforce development strategy—one that targets all segments of the population tobenefit from jobs that provide sustainable wages,benefits, and meaningful career paths.

Transportation Justice On the MoveA key catalyst for transportation equity was triggered by the 1987 move by MBTA of the elevated OrangeLine west from its original route through Dudley Square. Instead of the promised “equal or better service,”the Orange Line was replaced with the #49 line, a highly polluting diesel bus. The Washington StreetCorridor Coalition pushed federal officials to mandate that the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization,including the MBTA, comply with civil rights and environmental justice regulations. Officials substituted theSilver Line, an alternative fuel bus service, at anestimated first phase capital cost of $54 million.79

While cost estimates for the originally pledgedlight rail ranged from $160 to $373 million, it didnot come close to the anticipated $1 billion pricetag associated with the tunnel that will be requiredto complete the route currently planned for theSilver Line.

While the Silver Line service was an improvementover the diesel buses, transportation justiceadvocates questioned the outcome in terms of cost,desired service, environmental impact,80 traffic flow,travel times, and rider demand patterns. Theybelieved that the light rail offered superior servicealternatives to the 25 percent of Boson’s populationliving in the area.81 The Silver Line dispute is nowsubject of an administrative complaint filed withthe Federal Transit Administration.

Quality is Job One“I have a simple suggestion on how to improveregional equity: stop creating bad jobs.”Jason PramasCampaign on Contingent Work


Economic DevelopmentAs gentrification escalates and residentialsegregation deepens, concerns about whatcomprises “balanced” or “equitable”development become increasingly important. Low-income communities struggle with how to attractnew business, while others are concerned abouthow much growth should take place. Urban corecities faced with commercial and industrial flightmay agree to developments that do not meetimmediate community needs, such as commercialstrip malls or entertainment complexes.Neighborhoods that do not attract private sectorinvestment face a struggle to revitalize land andproperties. In addition, these developmentsabsorb vital public resources in the form ofsubsidies, yet may never materialize significantcommunity benefits.

According to the Massachussetts Department ofRevenue, corporations claimed at least $350million in tax breaks for economic development

from the Commonwealth in FY2002, and thestate provided $1.5 billion in subsidies.82 Oneeconomic incentive program awarded to MainStreet Textiles in Fall River granted a 20-year taxdeal that allocated more than a half million dollarsa year in state tax breaks matched by a similarreduction in city taxes. After three years, a Cityaudit identified that the corporation had not onlyfailed to hire for any of the 83 promised new jobs,but had actually cut the existing workforce.Community development corporations cite theneed for more of the economic developmentinvestments to match other government subsidiesto redevelop brownfields in these corecommunities. Currently, funds are not sufficient tocreate needed businesses once areas are cleanedup, and liability challenges are prohibitive. Mostfind that the cost to mitigate abandoned andcontaminated land is simply not feasible.

TeleCom City: Regional Cooperation for Economic DevelopmentIn 1996, the state legislature created the Mystic Valley Development Corporation to oversee the ambitiousredevelopment of 200 acres of former industrial property spanning Malden, Medford, and Everett into acenter for the state’s telecommunication industry. TeleCom City features an innovative tax-sharingarrangement and one-stop permitting that erases municipal boundaries in the project area. Despite theeconomic downturn, the project represents promising efforts to create “double bottom line” outcomes withtargeted workforce and economic development opportunities.

The three traditionally rival cities demonstrated unprecedented cooperation by combining resources tocollaboratively pursue redevelopment solutions. When complete, TeleCom City will be a regional researchand development park consisting of 1.8 million square feet of office and manufacturing space, a riverfrontpark, and reclaimed greenspace for local residents. A Citizens Advisory Board with communityrepresentation meets regularly to provide input to the development plans. Their focus is to generate newjobs, new tax revenues, and improved local schools through partnerships with onsite industries and areauniversities.

A coalition of community organizations will work to target employment opportunities to residents in theTri-city area with annual incomes below $35,000 and barriers to employment.


III. Policy Opportunities toPromote Regional Equity

Despite challenges, advocates in the GreaterBoston area have produced important policyvictories, and identified new directions for action.The next several months will be a critical time toadvance a regional equity agenda. The state facesa budget deficit of nearly $3 billion over the next18 months, dramatic cuts in spending, and aconservative national legislative climate.Nevertheless, equity advocates see importantpolitical opportunities emerging:• A new state administration has kept

political pundits guessing but offers thepotential for progress on issues of smartgrowth and regional livability. New GovernorMitt Romney has demonstrated flexibility andan eye for management acumen in hiscabinet-level appointments. Though it is earlyin the legislative season, there is hope that afocused progressive message around issues ofequity could influence important policydecisions made during the next two years.

• The establishment of a state cabinet-levelposition that coordinates issues ofenvironment, housing, and transportation hasadvocates hopeful that there can be specificpolicy gains around key equity issues. As Chiefof Commonwealth Development, Doug Foywill have the opportunity to work forimproved public policy.

• The Metropolitan Area PlanningCommission has embarked on long-rangeplanning for the region by connecting diversestakeholders and the interdependent interestsof urban and suburban communities. TheRegional Visioning Project is a goal-settingdialogue focused on needs, priorities, and thecreation of a long-term growth strategy forthe 101-jurisdiction MAPC region for the 10-year planning horizon. MAPC could engagestate and federal agencies in serious

assessment of their role in advancing anequitable growth strategy for the region.MAPC can build on the capacity of keycommunity based organizations by lending itsstrong data analysis capacity. Thedevelopment of the actual MAPC plan willcommence in September 2003.

• Consensus is building among key equityadvocates across broad institutional andissue-area leadership. The development ofthis document, for example, involved theactive participation of more than 20 keynonprofit organizations committed to socialequity, and reflects the considerations of morethan 150 academic, government, and civicorganizations in the Greater Boston region.

Recommendations for PolicyActionThe group of organizations leading this equity-focused research and convenings identified anumber of key criteria for prioritizing policy, butfive emerged as essential:• Does the policy broaden and deepen regional

equity impact?• Does the policy reinforce suburban/urban

equity and cooperation?• Does the policy address cross-cutting issues

(e.g., interrelated impacts of housing andtransit)?

• Does the policy have potential to mobilizebroad and diverse constituents?

• Are there political opportunities to implementthe policy in private, public, or legislativearenas?

The Greater Boston Action Committee, facilitatedby PolicyLink, identified four priority areas foraction by local and regional advocates in 2003-4.Promotion of the following policies will helpintegrate key regional concerns of affordablehousing, employment, the environment, publicinvestment, and transportation.


POLICY

GOAL

PLACE FOR ACTION

ACTIONS NEEDED

Affordable Housing

State legislature Incentives for infrastructure. Safeguarding environmental protections. Withholding other state investments if not in compliance.

Comprehensive Permit Law Chapter 40B

Distribute affordable housing across all jurisdictions in region. Deconcentrate poverty. Provide workforce housing for diverse workforce.

Local zoning boards Rezoning to accommodate multifamily housing.

State legislature Inclusionary zoning for all metropolitan jurisdictions. Dedicate state resources to “zero loss” of expiring use of federally subsidized units.

New Revenue Streams for Permanently Affordable Housing

Realize long-term returns on housing subsidies. Increase affordable housing stock.

Local jurisdictions Increase housing allocations under Community Preservation Act. Expedite tax foreclosure processes. Fast track permits for permanently affordable units.

State Get home rule for reinstatement of rent controls. Tax credits for landlords who preserve lower than market rates.

Rent Stabilization

Provide housing stability in gentrifying markets.

Local Pass rent stabilization and just cause eviction ordinances.

Incentives for Affordable Housing

Tie smart growth to affordable housing. Develop workforce housing.

State Compensate communities for smart growth housing ($1250 bonus for 2bdroom units; $2500 for 2bdroom, smart growth). Prioritize infrastructure financing to jurisdictions meeting 40B goals. Tax Credits to Employers for firsttime homebuyers assistance.

Local jurisdictions Pass in more jurisdictions for greater geographical reach.

Expand Community Preservation

Provide state match to property tax levy for housing, historic preservation, open space.

State Allow other financing matches besides property tax (e.g., Real Estate Transfer Tax). Provide technical assistance to jurisdictions lacking CDC infrastructure. Link CPA allocations to performance on 40B.


Improve Transportation Service, Access, Equity

Enhance ridability, access to jobs, air quality.

Metropolitan Boston Transit Authority

Driver courtesy. Increase bus shelters. Increase transit access and connectivity.

Leverage Alternative Long Range Transportation Plan

Provide additional resources for communities of color.

Metropolitan Planning Organization

Washington St light rail replacement. 100 new clean buses.

Resolve Equity Aspects of Urban Ring

Integrate transit service. Job access.

Metropolitan Planning Organization

Win people focused transit services.


POLICY

GOAL

PLACE FOR ACTION

ACTIONS NEEDED


Environmental Justice Law

Require environmental justice impacts to be consideration of grant allocation and open space provision.

State legislature Measure and remediation of cumulative impacts of development. Consider toxic impacts on low-income immigrant communities.

Act for Healthy Massachusetts

Reduce toxics at source pollutant level.

State legislature Department of Environmental Protection

Implement Action Plan for each priority toxic chemical, replace with safer alternative.

Livable Communities Act

Focus long term local to regional planning.

State legislature Environmental bond bill. Focusing development to built infrastructure. Affordable housing. Sprawl prevention.

Equitable Development Investment

Direct Investment through Equity Criteria

Focus public investment on affordable housing, transit access, jobs, services.

State bond financing State grants State infrastructure investment Local redevelopment

Require community benefits analysis of major public investment. Attach equity criteria for living wages, local hiring, nonprofit developers, minority contracting, affordable housing community planning for services and businesses.


Affordable Housing

Strengthen and Refine Comprehensive PermitLaw Chapter 40B. Enacted in 1969, 40Baddresses the shortage of affordable housingstatewide by reducing barriers created by localzoning and approval processes. Its goal is toencourage the production of affordable housingin all Commonwealth jurisdictions, with anestablished threshold for subsidized housing ineach jurisdiction of 10 percent. If the jurisdictiondoes not meet this threshold, 40B enables localZoning Boards of Appeals (ZBAs) to approveaffordable housing developments under flexiblerules (outside of local zoning rules) if at least 25percent of the proposed development’s units havelong-term affordability provisions. Chapter 40Baccounts for 82 percent of all affordable housingdevelopment in the suburbs during the past fiveyears. Many of the recently developed units areproviding affordable housing in the Route 128and I-495 communities where there has beensignificant job growth.

While productive, the law has not created theperfect equity tool. Inner-ring and urban corecommunities continue to account for adisproportionate share of the region’s affordablehousing. Although steady progress has beenmade, only 12 jurisdictions have achieved the 10percent threshold during the 34 years sinceenactment of the law. These jurisdictions haveproduced one-third of the region’s housing supply,but account for 60 percent of the total assistedinventory. Some jurisdictions’ lawmakers protestthat developers abuse the system by threateningto invoke 40B’s ability to override local zoning inorder to site larger housing developments.Though it is difficult to substantiate these claims,the law’s provisions allowing developers tooverride zoning laws has created a climate ofresistance in many suburban jurisdictions.

Opposition to 40B has resulted in multipleattempts to weaken the legislation. Last year, theLegislature passed a compromise bill, supportedby housing advocates, but ultimately vetoed by

Governor Jane Swift. This year, more than 70 billshave been filed to amend 40B, causing GovernorRomney to form a diverse task force charged withdeveloping a legislative compromise.

To utilize 40B for regional equity, advocates willhave to address jurisdictions’ legitimate concernsabout the measure (potential developer abuse,service and infrastructure costs, and the creationof negative environmental impacts). The statemust create financing incentives to stimulateresidential construction and cover newinfrastructure costs, including possible bonuses inlocal aid allocations. At the same time, there mustbe enforcement mechanisms for lack ofcompliance, such as withholding other stateallocations to jurisdictions that do not comply.

Chapter 40B is the single most effective existinglegislation for producing housing equity in theregion. It affects all jurisdictions, and is central tolonger-term zoning reform that can bolsterequitable development throughout the region.The loss of 40B would be a significant setback forthe entire state, given its need to developworkforce housing and develop a better jobs-housing balance. The preservation of 40B is afoundation for subsequent equity legislation.

Promote Permanent Affordability. Housingadvocates have identified a spectrum of strategiesto increase affordable housing and to ensure itslong-term affordability. New revenue streams tobolster production include: 1) increased use ofcommercial linkage fees that tie economicdevelopment to housing; 2) greater focus onaffordable housing when allocating CommunityPreservation Act funds; 3) new housing producedthrough inclusionary zoning; 4) expedited taxforeclosure processes to reclaim land and housing

Strengthen and Refine ComprehensivePermit Law Chapter 40B.

Promote Permanent Affordability.

Restore Rent Stabilization.


for affordable uses; 5) a zero loss policy on theexpiring use of subsidized units; and 6) whererelevant, replication of Boston’s Leading the WayCampaign, that contributed to productionthrough the conversion of available city propertyfor affordable housing use.

Restore Rent Stabilization Mechanisms. Tenantadvocates who watched rental housing pricesskyrocket following the statewide repeal of themeasure in 1994 have galvanized efforts toreinstate price stabilization. The most focusedefforts have taken place in Boston andCambridge, two of the three jurisdictions that hadlocal rent stabilization in place. Boston tenantgroups are conducting outreach and education tolandlords of smaller properties about rentstabilization while developing support on the CityCouncil to petition to restore the policy.Cambridge advocates are proposing innovationsin the exemptions that would allow landlords toreceive market rate rents on some portion of theirunits.83 Massachusetts could pursue a proposalbeing explored in New York state to offerlandlords tax credits to cover a percentage of thedifference between rent payments and marketrate. Housing advocates across the region agreethat the increasing costs of rental housing in theregion require new regulatory controls on rentsand eviction practices in order to prevent furtherdisplacement.

Permanent Affordability Under SiegeThe statewide Affordable Housing Trust Fundhas suffered significant losses of “dedicated”revenue this year. The Fund, created in 2000,was authorized as a $100 million pool ($20million per year for 5 fiscal years 2001-2005). OnFebruary 23, 2003, the Legislature took the $7.5million remaining of the FY2003 allocation,thereby eliminating all state operating fundingfor the program for the current fiscal year. TheRomney Administration has filed legislation tomove the FY04 funding of $20 million for theHousing Trust Fund from the operating budgetto the capital budget.

Complementary Affordable HousingStrategiesFurther Incentives to the Development ofAffordable Housing. Citizens’ Housing andPlanning Association has proposed legislation, AnAct Compensating Communities for IncreasingAffordable Housing for Families and FollowingSmart Growth Principles, sponsored by SenatorSusan C. Tucker and Representative Peter J. Larkin.Passage would provide a $1,250 bonus for eachnew-production affordable housing unitcontaining two or more bedrooms. Double creditwould be available for affordable units that metcertain smart growth criteria. Other legislativeincentives would support Employer AssistedHousing, such as providing tax credits for downpayment assistance for first-time homebuyers.

Prioritizing state infrastructure, transportation,and economic development investment forjurisdictions that meet or exceed their 40B goals isone low-cost incentive to promote additionalaffordable housing. California law requireshousing elements every five years to identifyadequate sites for housing, including rentalhousing, factory-built housing and mobile homes,and to make adequate provision for the existingand projected needs of all economic segments ofthe community. The efficacy of housing elementsrests in incentives and enforcement mechanismsto support those goals. A bill pending in theCalifornia legislature would prioritizeinfrastructure investment for any jurisdiction in theSacramento region that met an annual tenpercent affordable housing production goal.Similar legislation in Massachusetts could makeprogress toward Governor Romney’s goal ofdoubling housing production from current levelsduring the next five years. What percentageaffordable units will result, and the cost in stateand federal subsidy involved in achieving that goalwill be crucial equity issues.


Broaden the Implementation of theCommunity Preservation Act (CPA). Thisstatewide enabling legislation allows cities andtowns to add a surcharge, up to 3 percent, onlocal property taxes matched by the state toacquire and protect open space, preserve historicresources, and create and maintain affordablehousing. To date, most that have passed the billhave been high-income or rural communities, withmore than half the allocations going to openspace and 36 percent to affordable housing.

To further regional equity, CPA will need to reacha greater geographic balance, and see a greaterinvestment in affordable housing. CPAinvestments in affordable housing simultaneouslyachieve environmental protection by reducing thesprawl that consumes open space. Passage ofCPA in urban core and inner ring communities willrequire more public education and businesssupport. The Environmental League ofMassachusetts, among others, has argued foralternative funding options—such as a real estatetransfer tax surcharge—to make qualifying for the

state matching funds more viable for lower-income jurisdictions. Other incentives couldinclude: prioritizing state infrastructureinvestments or economic development subsidiesfor jurisdictions that invest more of their CPAfunds into affordable housing production;providing funds for technical assistance to developaffordable housing; and even linking CPAallocations to performance on Measure 40B.84

Encourage University Participation in HousingDevelopment. Measuring the exact impact of theregion’s multitude of public and privateuniversities on housing pressures is a contestedscience, but none dispute that it is significant.Strategies to mitigate that impact include setting(and meeting) ambitious production targets,85

linking large scale institutional expansion toaffordable housing creation in University MasterPlans, and evaluating the performance ofinstitutions on student housing when consideringtheir Payments In Lieu Of Taxes and zoningvariances.

Inclusionary ZoningInclusionary zoning is not a new issue in Massachusetts. A 1999 survey by the Massachusetts HousingPartnership Fund found that 118 cities and towns in Massachusetts had some form of inclusionary zoning or otherzoning provisions explicitly promoting affordable housing. However, the study found that these local ordinanceshave created just a few hundred new affordable housing units each year.86

Housing advocates point to Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Lexington, and Newton as communities that haveadopted strong and effective inclusionary zoning policies. Many communities have weaker ordinances or bylawswhich have not led to much of an increase in affordable housing. According to Clark Ziegler, Executive Directorof Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund: “The greatest potential may lie with true inclusionary zoning,which requires that a small percentage (typically 10 percent) in every market rate housing development be keptaffordable to moderate-income families.”87

Proposed zoning reform legislation filed for the 2003 legislative session would explicitly enable towns to adoptinclusionary zoning for all “as of right” subdivisions in the Commonwealth. A similar provision passed the Senatelast year as part of the omnibus housing bill, but was dropped in conference committee.



The scale of investment and breadth of impactthat transportation decisions have on regionaldevelopment make it a critical component of anystrategy for regional equity. The most consistentobservation by those interviewed was that theshare of transportation dollars going toworthwhile transit projects must be increased.88

Advocates, public agencies, and others involved intransportation planning have identified some ofthe important precursors to a comprehensivetransportation policy platform.

Improve Public Transportation Service, Access,and Equity. Transportation advocates have playeda lead role in shaping the Boston metropolitanequity analysis. Residents of several low-incomecommunities have been organizing for adequatepublic transportation. Much of this work isculminating in The On Move Coalition’s currentcampaign to reform systemic poor service toconsumers.

The On the Move Coalition advances a platformto establish high level, comprehensive service topublic transit consumers across the region. TheCoalition identifies the daily service challengesfacing commuters with the deeper fundamentalissues in transportation planning and resourceallocation. The platform calls for driver courtesy,bus shelter frequency, adequate station stops,transit access, and connectivity. The Coalitionfocuses on residents who rely solely on publictransit, and works with the Washington StreetCorridor Coalition to increase public transitefficiency, reduce environmental impacts, andgenerate cost savings.

Sharpen the Equity Focus of the MetropolitanPlanning Organization Allocations.Incorporating advocates’ recommendations to the2002-2025 Plan can most directly enhance the

regional equity impact of transportationinvestment. Transportation equity advocatesrecently served as part of a federally mandatedplanning process to review the MPO’s RegionalTransportation Plan for 2000-2025. The planrecommends highway and mass transit projects,provides the Environmental Protection Agencydata to determine the plans’ compliance withClean Air Act requirements, and identifies projectsthat will receive federal funds. While one keypriority of advocates—one hundred additionalclean-operating buses—was secured (at a cost of$40 million), their recommended light railreplacement down Washington Street was notincluded in the final MPO Regional Transit Plan.The environmental justice organizationAlternatives for Community and Environment(ACE), used the same data as the MPO to analyzetransportation allocations, and drafted anAlternative Analysis to the MPO Plan inequities.MPO’s state report89 refuted the findings ofinequities within the transportation system. ACEcountered their findings in an alternativeaddendum, claiming the MPO failed to graspinjustices in three crucial areas: intermodaldisparities, transit dependency, and cumulativeimpacts.90

Complementary TransportationStrategiesApply Equity Considerations in TransportationPlanning. In the wake of the controversial Big Digcost overruns, advocates are adamant that anysubsequent investment in Massachusetts highway,road, and transit systems must place a greateremphasis on social and economic equity. This isdetailed in the discussion of Equity Criteria forPublic Investment that follows.

Improve Transportation Service andEquity.

Sharpen Equity Focus of MPOAllocations.


Resolve The Urban Ring. The Urban Ring is aproposal to develop a “rim” to connect the“spokes” of Boston’s radial transit system.Designed to connect Boston, Brookline,Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, and Chelsea,proponents say it will free up congestion in thesuburbs, reduce travel times, and improve accessto employment centers outside of downtown(especially Longwood Medical Center area andCambridge). It features three phases of transitintegration culminating in a system that couldsupport 290,000 daily riders.91 Current debatecenters on whether the project will provideintegrated transit service, or just moresophisticated circumferential bus connections.Some environmental justice and transportationequity advocates see this project as moreinstitution-serving than people-serving, especiallyfor those who are transit dependent. Othertransportation advocates see the Ring as a criticaltransit opportunity and support it. The ability oftransportation advocates to develop a consensusstrategy around the Urban Ring will greatlyadvance the efforts of respective groupsthroughout the region.


Convert the Environmental Justice Policy intoLaw. Signed by former Executive Office ofEnvironmental Affairs director Bob Durand inOctober 2002, the Environmental Justice Policymakes environmental justice an integralconsideration in the implementation of all stateprograms, including allocation of grant resources,implementation of regulations and policies, andthe provision of active and passive open space.The policy establishes environmental justiceneighborhoods as U.S. Census block groups thathave either: 1) median annual household incomesat or below 65 percent of the Massachusettsmedian; or 2) at least 25 percent population thatis minority, foreign born, or lacking Englishlanguage proficiency.

In these communities, the policy instructs agenciesto increase public participation, minimizeenvironmental risk, encourage investments, andinfuse state resources. As a policy, it is active onlyso long as the Executive Office maintains it; as alaw it will be substantially harder to reverse. Witha change of administration, the future of thepolicy is in question. This instability has led to thepush for a law that would maintain the policy, andimprove it in two regards sought by advocates.Those refinements include: allowing communitiesthat do not show up in census analysis asqualified applicants to petition for considerationas a target community; and calling for the analysisof the cumulative impact associated with newdevelopment.

The policy was developed through the efforts of abroad advisory committee representingcommunity groups, industry, faith communities,academia, and indigenous peoples. ACE and TheGreater Boston Environmental Justice Networkcoordinated public advocacy and interaction withSecretary Durand to help shape policy design. TheEnvironmental League of Massachusetts hasjoined to strengthen the development of the Act,recently filed by Senator Jarrett Barrios of Chelsea/Cambridge, Senator Dianne Wilkerson of Boston,and Representative David Sullivan of Fall River. TheEnvironmental Justice Policy embodies the keyregional equity principle of integratingenvironmental, social, and economic priorities indevelopment.

Enact The Act for a Healthy Massachusetts.Led by Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, The Actfor a Healthy Massachusetts seeks to reduce theenvironmental burden of the entire region by

Convert the Environmental JusticePolicy into Law.

Enact Act for a Healthy Massachusetts.


reducing source pollutants. It establishes apragmatic, gradual approach to reducing healthimpacts from common toxins, and focuses ondetermining healthy alternatives in manufacturingprocesses. The Department of EnvironmentalProtection would develop and implement anAction Plan for each priority targeted chemicalthat includes: 1) a Use and Emissions Analysis; 2)Review of Alternatives; and 3) an ImplementationPlan and Timeline for the eventual elimination ofthe chemical if safer alternatives exist. Thislegislation promotes regional equity by addressingthe root issue and eliminating the competitioninvolved in shifting the burdens of anenvironmental hazard among jurisdictions.

Complementary EnvironmentalJustice StrategiesAdvance The Livable Communities Act filed onDecember 4, 2002, by Senator Marc Pacheco toencourage planning and implementationcoordination across jurisdictions. It calls for eachjurisdiction to develop a five-year sustainabledevelopment plan, and gives the RegionalPlanning Commissions authority to review theseplans. Each jurisdiction would be eligible for fundsto carry out the planning process. Each RegionalPlanning Commission would also receive funds fordeveloping regional sustainability plans. The Actpassed through the State Senate in April 2002 aspart of the environmental bond bill, but was notincluded in the final version of the bill. Anotherattempt will be made in 2003.

Key objectives of the bill include: environmentalprotection, focusing development whereinfrastructure already exists, development ofadequate housing supply (particularly forhousehold earning 80% or less of medianincome), prevention of activities subsidizingsprawl, and cross coordination of jurisdiction toshare plans in the areas of development andspending. The Act provides opportunities for

housing and environmental advocates to worktogether to promote equitable development thatstrengthens the link between transit, housing, andwhere jobs are located. Some advocates areproposing tax incentives for urban revitalizationwith strategic anti-gentrification provisions.Governor Romney has expressed support forfocusing development toward existinginfrastructure as a smart growth approach.

Equitable DevelopmentInvestment

Redirect Public Investment through Use ofEquity Criteria. The key leverage that publicbodies can exert to advance equity goals lies in thecriteria they apply to spending. In recent years,advocates have advanced the tools available toensure that concrete community benefit resultsfrom public investment. California Treasurer PhilAngelides prioritizes state treasury investments tothe nexus of smart growth and equity criteria.Mixed-use developments with affordable housingnear transit garner the highest scores for statefunding. The state’s Federal Low Income HousingTax Credit allocations require projects accessible totransit, and favor those with deeper levels ofhousing affordability. Former Maryland GovernorParris Glendening limited state infrastructureinvestment to districts within established growthboundaries, targeted school constructioninvestment to existing properties, and limitedhighway investment that promoted sprawl. The LosAngeles Redevelopment Agency prioritizesdevelopments that provide living wage jobs.

Redirect Public Investment throughEquity Criteria.

Enact Act for Fiscal Responsibility inEconomic Deveopment.

Employ Equity Criteria in Public LandDistribution.


Massachusetts’ equity advocates have observedthat developers too often receive subsidies forprojects that have limited community benefits andproduce little or no quality employmentopportunities for residents. In essence, thesesubsidies reward them for creating low wageservice jobs with minimal benefits. Clawbacks,which require developers to return a portion ofsubsidies should they fail to meet certainemployment performance objectives, haveentered the policy conversation as a keyaccountability measure. By assessing majorinvestments that can drastically alter land use andland values, government can plan protections forexisting residents. Such plans can detail first rightto new affordable housing, rental assistance, anti-displacement programs, inclusionary zoning, andone-to-one replacement requirements onaffordable housing.

Equity criteria, applied to public spending, canresult in developments that deliver:• new or rehabilitated affordable housing (both

rental and ownership);• first source, living wage job, and minority

contracting opportunities;• community-serving enterprises (e.g., grocery

stores, credit unions, etc);• increased capacity for community

development by the inclusion of nonprofits asdevelopment partners, as tenants, and asdeliverers of services that meet communityneeds (e.g., childcare, etc);

• transit orientation—with greater access totransit and enhanced transit ridership andfrequency;

• design standards that enhance livability;• job-housing balance in neighborhoods or

jurisdictions; and/or• anti-displacement and residency preference

mechanisms for existing residents.

These criteria can be applied to housing andschool bond financing, to general fund allocations

in the arenas of infrastructure investment,economic development subsidies, transit grants,transportation disbursements, and to allocation oftax credits.

Enact An Act to Promote Fiscal Accountabilityin Economic Development. In the context ofstate budget deficits and program cuts, it isespecially crucial that public tax dollars are spentin the most effective way possible. The Act toPromote Fiscal Accountability, sponsored bySenator Marian Walsh and RepresentativeChristopher Fallon, helps to develop acomprehensive system for reporting on bothquantity and quality of jobs created or retained asa result of the estimated $1.5 billion expendedannually in economic development subsidyprograms. The Act ensures unified compilation ofinformation and public access to informationregarding investments. It requires greaterdisclosure on the part of applicants for

The Big Dig began in 1985. Once completed in 2006, itwill be the largest public works project in humanhistory. What impact would this development have forregional equity if equity criteria had been consideredfor local hiring, living wage jobs, related communityservices, open space, and other livability issues?


development assistance regarding employmentlevels, wages, and benefits. Further, it requirescorporations found to be in default ofdevelopment assistance obligations to refund aportion of the assistance received. Similar policiesexist in Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, Texas,and Ohio.

Employ Equity Criteria in Public LandDistribution. The strategy and values used in landdisposition was consistently questioned by a broadset of equity actors interviewed for this report. Anumber of examples were cited where a greaterfocus on equity would have yielded a superioroutcome for balanced regional development.Local governments, the MBTA, the MetropolitanTurnpike Authority (MTA), and theCommonwealth each have land holdings that playa critical role in development patterns in theregion. Residents in Chinatown have beenworking with the Asian Community DevelopmentCorporation to regain control of Parcel 24, a1.6- acre stretch of land being freed by thecompletion of the Big Dig. The land, once hometo 300 families, was taken in the early 1960s withminimal compensation92 to the families andproperty owners, to construct the Mass PikeExtension to the Central Artery. Returning theland to Chinatown not only can heal a historicwound, but would play a crucial role in stabilizingdevelopment in the neighborhood. Preliminarysurveys have shown that the community wouldlike to see affordable rental and ownershiphousing, a library, green space, and othercommunity uses on Parcel 24. The community isconceiving an extensive planning process.

The MTA was facing fierce scrutiny from a numberof quarters at the time this report went to pressregarding its sale of a 75-acre property located atAllston Landing to Harvard University for $75million. The MTA intensified the equity debate byclaiming the sale was needed to maintain the FastPass lane program on its turnpikes, driving home

Restore 24. Chinatown residents claim the highest useof the liberated land parcel would be achieved throughcommunity control.

the intersection between land use planning andtransportation. The sale alarmed advocates whorecognized that the MTA and MBTA possesscritical land holdings that are currently free ofsufficient equity screening before release. Such aprocess could be developed through thecoordinating function anticipated by the Office ofCommonwealth Development.

Invest Wisely: Equity Criteria in UpcomingDevelopmentsThere are a number of major developments orupcoming events with public investment thatadvocates have identified that could demonstrate theimport of equity criteria in achieving double bottomline outcomes – financial return for investors withmeaningful community benefit for residents. Theyinclude:• 2004 Democratic National Convention• Boston Convention Center• Gateway to Boston• SeaportWorking with trade associations, labor unions, andother community based organizations, thesedevelopments can contribute to improved regionalequity.


Building the Capacity toAchieve Regional Equity

A critical challenge to achieving regional equity isthe limited organizational capacity ofneighborhood-based or jurisdiction-basedorganizations to be able to simultaneously workwith local, regional, and state governmententities. Government needs new tools andprocesses to meet its responsibility for equitablegrowth and resource sharing across the spectrumfrom neighborhood to region.

Regional Plans, Policies, and DecisionMakingGiven the facility of Massachusetts’ residents andtheir public sector to engage in a civic discourse,the potential for advancing regional equity isstrong. To accelerate achieving this objective willtake six key steps.

Reorient government to utilize communityperspectives and prioritize regional equity.Local and regional planning entities need skillsand strategies to solicit the commitment andexpertise of residents and advocates. Dialoguesthat promote the identification of common causebetween public agencies, residents and their allies,and regional advocates will sharpen the policyprocess. Eventually, these processes couldcontribute to greater regulatory enforcementpowers for agencies promoting balanced regionaldevelopment.

The most frequently cited instance of whereimproved community interaction could benefitregional equitable development was at the MPO.Advocates and community-based organizationshave had challenges in effectively engaging theregion’s transportation planning agency. MAPC,which facilitated an earlier restructuring of the

MPO, has proposed merging the regionaltransportation planning staffing within its officesto join the other planning disciplines alreadythere. In addition to reducing overhead andduplicative functions, it would restoreinterdisciplinary and intermodal planning capacityfor the Boston MPO consistent with the rest of theCommonwealth. MAPC also suggests furtherreforming the Boston MPO to better representbusiness and community-based organizations.

Another positive opportunity to connectgovernment function to community interest is inthe governance of MAPC. The Board consists of136 members, 21 of whom are appointed by theGovernor. Community-based organizations havebeen encouraged by the director of the MAPC toexert influence on who those governmentappointees will be to ensure greater equity voiceat the planning agency’s discussions.

Provide community based organizations,CDCs, and other organizations with theresources to engage in regional equity work.Three key strategies include: 1) building the policyassessment capacity of community basedorganizations; 2) increasing technical assistance togroups promoting and monitoring regional equity;and 3) supporting improved strategy sharing andanalysis. Easily accessible data repositories, such asthe Boston Indicators Project, are crucial toresidents or nonprofit agencies trying to make acase for more equitable development. Training,education, and actual devoted staff time are allimportant. Alliances should be established withbusiness and development interests who see

Vision for the Future“We have lost ground on equity... but there issignificant capacity for us to make progress thoughaligning all of our state policies and programsthrough smart growth guidelines.”Steve BurringtonMassachusetts Office of Commonwealth Development


regional equity in their best interest—or can beconvinced of such. Cumulatively, small businessowners can play an important role in anchoringcommercial districts and providing stableemployment for local residents. This role could beenhanced with tax or other financial incentivestargeted to reward good employers.

Provide specific skills and relevantinformation to residents of low-incomeneighborhoods and their advocates to engage indeveloping policy. Equity advocates acknowledgethe limitation of participating in existing regionalplanning structures: those structures lackenforcement authority, making participationadvisory at best. Yet failure to participate sets thestage to perpetuate potentially inequitableplanning and development processes. Despite this,several existing and potential strategies wereidentified through interviews and research toinfluence regional planning in the Bostonmetropolitan area.

Create a structure to be a voice for socialequity that represents the array of those interestsin the Greater Boston area and builds a powerbase for these activities. This should be tied to anongoing legislative advocacy plan. In the SanFrancisco Bay Area, the Social Equity Caucus hasbecome a crucial sounding board for policies withregional import. Facilitated by the Urban HabitatProgram, a nonprofit environmental policyorganization, participants in the Caucus engage inthe difficult discussions that shape an action

framework. Urban Habitat provides technicalassistance and builds the capacity of the groups totake part in a range of regional planningprocesses.

Incubate dialogues that promote theidentification of common cause among publicagencies, residents, and their allies that helpssharpen their policy process. Further dialogue isalso needed within advocacy circles to build amore concerted platform.

Support organizing. The critical value oforganizing as a tool for civic engagement andpolicy development was repeatedly cited ininterviews and in the summits held for thedevelopment of this report. Unfortunately, manyadvocacy organizations are not funded to do thework required for policy impact, such as datagathering and analysis, educating and mobilizing

The Boston Indicators Project: A Tool for Equity AdvocatesThe Boston Indicators Project is a civic initiative coordinated by the Boston Foundation that creates a betterunderstanding of the region’s key challenges and opportunities through shared access to high quality objectivedata. The 2002 Indicators Report, now available online, reports progress about Boston in ten descriptivecategories. The report includes downloadable tables, charts, and data. Of particular interest to equity advocatesare findings about continuing economic inequality, metro growth and sprawl, and comparisons of housingproduction across the metro area. The indicators report can be accessed at http://www.tbf.org/indicators/.

Regional Nonprofit Housing AgenciesMassachusetts has an extensive housing networkthat includes a variety of non-profit housingorganizations. In addition to CommunityDevelopment Corporations, the state’s nine regionalnonprofit housing agencies develop affordablehousing, administer more than 16,000 Section 8vouchers, and run a number of housing servicesprograms, including the Housing ConsumerEducation Centers. These Centers provide educationand counseling assistance to landlords, tenants, andfirst-time homebuyers across the state.


constituencies, testifying before committees, andmonitoring progress on legislation. Withouteffective organizing networks, the greater Bostoncommunities’ most marginalized populations areunderutilized, unprepared for advocacy roles, andunconnected to the leadership that shouldchampion its issues.93

Build cross-issue alliances such as the TransitRiders Union, Building Blocks Coalition, Alliancefor A Healthy Tomorrow, On The Move Coalition,and Greater Boston Environmental JusticeNetwork to combine related community interestsinto comprehensive campaigns for social andeconomic equity.

Developing a Stronger Urban/Suburban AllianceMost of the priorities identified in this reportrequire engaged constituencies who are allied intheir positions regarding each policy. One of theperceived divisions to be bridged is the onebetween representatives of urban and suburbaninterests. The research revealed that these groupshave more in common than in conflict. Significantpolicy innovation is possible if additional capacitycan be built among the resident groups,neighborhood associations, communitydevelopment corporations, and nonprofitadvocacy organizations committed to these issues.A number of tactics can enhance their ability toperform this function.

Develop understanding across suburban andurban jurisdictions regarding the sharing ofregional costs and opportunities. Active interestemerged in the Regional Equity Summits topursue a mutual learning agenda. Components ofsuch an agenda would involve 1) surfacing thestories of what is happening in suburban andurban communities, to dispel inaccuratepreconceptions and misinformation that exist inboth directions; 2) addressing underlying notions

of race and class that are involved in thesuburban/urban discourse; 3) supporting ‘voices ofgoodwill’, those existing ambassadors of improvedrelationships between urban and suburbancommunities; and 4) identifying the mediatingstructures where better understanding can set thestage for cooperation and eventual alliance. Thosestructures include places of worship, the media,and certain nonprofit organizations. The role ofcoalitions with memberships that cut acrosssuburban and urban communities cannot besufficiently underscored.

Build the capacity of suburban communitiesto take part in activities that promoteregional equity, such as affordable housingdevelopment, transportation advocacy, and workto develop a diversified suburban workforce.Several key opportunities exist to do this: 1) LocalInitiatives Support Corporation has established aSuburban Housing Initiative intended to advancethe development of affordable housing insuburban communities (with a focus within 15miles of downtown Boston). 2) The MetropolitanArea Planning Council’s long range planningprocess allows for sustained intraregional dialogueon a number of equity issues that gets jurisdictionrepresentatives talking to each other, or moreimportantly, gets them listening. 3) MAPC also isusing the basic common needs of jurisdictions todemonstrate the need for regional cooperationbetween communities. Facilitated by MAPC, acollection of eight mayors and two city managersfrom the Boston area has established theMetropolitan Mayors Coalition. This effort hasstarted with practical problem-solving around jointsupply purchasing, but MAPC is hopeful that thegroup can evolve to explore the implications ofgreater regional planning and informationsharing.


Develop a concerted strategy for statelegislative policy that binds urban andsuburban constituencies around regionalequity. Initial research indicates that such atactical effort would have three majorcomponents: 1) Leverage additional resources forsuburban capacity to work on policy issues.Groups in the suburbs attempting to work onequity issues are often underfunded and withoutsome of the data analysis and technical capacityavailable to urban organizations. Further, stateand federal resources sometimes are not readilystructured for suburban jurisdictions to takeadvantage. 2) Identify the unifying issues thatneed to be addressed in urban and suburbancommunities. Among those most frequentlyidentified are affordable housing, education, andtransportation. 3) Formalize the alliance betweensuburban and urban constituencies with anidentifiable campaign that builds solidarity acrosscommunities while demonstrating the efficacy ofregional equity. The issue of workforce housingthroughout the region surfaced during theresearch is a potential unifying issue.

Conclusion

Massachusetts must apply a consistent vision forutilizing public resources to achieve regionalequity. The community mobilization of allies andnew partners that the development of thisdocument represents can play a central role inshaping forthcoming public policy on key regionalissues. Through the establishment of the Office ofCommonwealth Development, the state has theopportunity to establish a comprehensive policyfor equitable investment that could be a nationalmodel.

Jurisdictions, residents, and the communityorganizations that represent them in theMassachusetts area have developed considerablesophistication in thinking through regional equityissues. We must utilize that experience tostrategically make this notion a priority in policydecisions going forward.


Bibliography

Allen, R., B. Bluestone, B. Heudorfer, and G. Weismann.2002. “The Greater Boston Housing Report Card2002.” Boston: Center for Urban and RegionalPolicy, Northeastern University.

American Farmland Trust, Northeastern Office. 1992.Does Farmland Protection Pay? The Cost ofCommunity Services in Three Massachusetts Towns.

Ardon, K., C. DeSantis, P. MacLeod, R. Rissman, and J.Simon. 2000. Bringing Down the Barriers:Changing Housing Supply Dynamics inMassachusetts. Boston: Commonwealth ofMassachusetts Executive Office for Administrationand Finance.

Bluestone, B., C. Euchner, and G. Weismann. 2002. ANew Paradigm For Housing In Greater Boston.Boston: Center for Urban and Regional Policy,Northeastern University.

Bluestone, B. and M. Huff Stevenson. 2000. TheBoston Renaissance: Race, Space, and EconomicChange in an American Metropolis. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2002.The 2000-2025 Regional Transportation PlanUpdate Addendum.

Boston Society of Architects. 2001. “How We Live: ACivic Initiative for a Livable New England.”

City of Boston. 2000. Leading the Way: A Report onBoston’s Housing Strategy.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office ofEnvironmental Affairs. 2000. The State of OurEnvironment.

Euchner, C., ed. 2002. Governing Greater Boston: ThePolitics of Place. Cambridge: Rappaport Institutefor Greater Boston, John F. Kennedy School ofGovernment, Harvard University.

Faber, D., P. Loh, and J. Jennings. Forthcoming 2003.“Solving Environmental Injustices in Massachusetts:Forging Greater Community Participation in thePlanning Process.” Projections: MIT StudentJournal of Planning.

Faber, D. and E. J. Krieg. 2001. “Unequal Exposure toEcological Hazards: Environmental Injustices in theCommonwealth of Massachusetts.” Boston:Philanthropy and Environmental Justice ResearchProject, Northeastern University

Greater Boston Transportation Justice Coalition. 2002.On the Move: Platform for Just Transportation andLivable Communities.

Greater Boston Transportation Justice Coalition. 2002.Alternative Addendum to the 2000-2025 BostonRegion MPO Transportation Plan Update.

Lacombe, A. 1998. “Welfare Reform and Access toJobs in Boston.” A Report Prepared for U.S.Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics.

“Locals Help Mull Area’s Future,” Boston Herald, 23May 2002.

Loh, P. and J. Sugerman-Brozan. 2002. “EnvironmentalJustice Organizing for Environmental Health: CaseStudy on Asthma and Diesel Exhaust in Roxbury,Massachusetts.” Roxbury, MA: Alternatives forCommunity and Environment.

Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund. 1999.“Zoning for Housing Affordability.” A StudyPrepared by Philip B. Herr and Associates.

McLynch, J and J. St. George. 2002. The State ofWorking Massachusetts 2002: As Good As It Gets?Boston: Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.

Metropolitan Area Research Corporation and Citizens’Housing and Planning Association. 2001. BostonMetropatterns: A Regional Agenda for Communityand Stability in Greater Boston.

Montanari, K. 2001. A Decade of Change: GrowthTrends in the Greater Boston Area from 1990 to2000. Boston: Metropolitan Area PlanningCouncil.

National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2002. “Outof Reach 2002: America’s Growing Wage-RentDisparity.”


University, and the Citizens’ Housing and PlanningAssociation, October 2002) p. 46.12 Ryan Allen, Barry Bluestone, Bonnie Heudorfer, andGretchen Weismann, The Greater Boston Housing Report Card2002 (Center for Urban and Regional Policy, NortheasternUniversity, and the Citizens’ Housing and PlanningAssociation, October 2002) p. 6.13 Ibid.14 see www.tpl.org.15 Ibid.16 Until his appointment, Foy was Executive Director of theConservation Law Foundation.17 Barry Bluestone and Mary Huff Stevenson, The BostonRenaissance (Russell Sage Foundation, 2000)p. 378.18 These data were compiled as part of the Regional EquityMonitoring Initiative, a project of PolicyLink in collaborationwith the Urban Institute. These results have not previouslybeen published.19 For this Census analysis, the region is the BostonConsolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA), with apopulation of 5,805,543 and a larger area than the one usedfor most of this report. The CMSA stretches from the RhodeIsland to New Hampshire borders and includes towns fartherwest than the MAPC regional boundary. The CMSA has 1220tracts, of which 250 had at least 15 percent poverty.20 Charles C. Euchner, Governing Greater Boston: The Politicsand Policy of Place (The Rappaport Institute for GreaterBoston, 2002) p. 150.21 Ryan Allen, Barry Bluestone, Bonnie Heudorfer, andGretchen Weismann, The Greater Boston Housing Report Card2002 (Center for Urban and Regional Policy, NortheasternUniversity, and the Citizens’ Housing and PlanningAssociation, October 2002) p. 33.22 Ibid. p. 34.23 Note: Based on data found in: Ryan Allen, Barry Bluestone,Bonnie Heudorfer, and Gretchen Weismann, The NewParadigm for Housing in Greater Boston (Center for Urban andRegional Policy, Northeastern University, October 2002) andon conversation with Bluestone.24 The cities were selected to represent a cross-section of typesof cities and suburbs in the region based on size, location,wealth, and growth trends, including all six types described inthe Boston Metropatterns report.25 Barry Bluestone, Charles C. Euchner, and GretchenWeismann, The New Paradigm for Housing in Greater Boston(Center for Urban and Regional Policy, Northeastern University,February 2001) p. ii.26 Maureen Kennedy and Paul Leonard, “Dealing withNeighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification and PolicyChoices.” Brookings Institution Center on Urban andMetropolitan Policy and PolicyLink, April 2001 DiscussionPaper.27 Charles C. Euchner, Governing Greater Boston: The Politicsand Policy of Place (The Rappaport Institute for GreaterBoston, 2002) p. 21.28 Michael Stone has formulated a sliding scale known, asshelter poverty that recognizes lower income families cannotrealistically afford 30 percent of their incomes for housingwithout compromising other needs. It uses a conservative

Rudnick, R., D. Menashi, and F. Steinfield. 2002. The495 Region: Building an Identity Boston:Metropolitan Area Planning Council andMassachusetts TECHNOLOGY Collaborative.

Stuart, G. 2002. Segregation in the BostonMetropolitan Area at the end of the 20th Century.Cambridge: The Civil Rights Project, HarvardUniversity.

Sum, A.M., A. Bahuguna, N.P. Fogg, W.N. Fogg, P.Harrington, S. Palma, and W.P. Suozzo. 1998. TheRoad Ahead: Emerging Threats to Workers,Families, and the Massachusetts Economy. Boston:A Joint Project of Teresa and H. John Heinz IIIFoundation and Massachusetts Institute for a NewCommonwealth.

Endnotes1 Barry Bluestone and Mary Huff Stevenson, The BostonRenaissance, Race, Space, and Economic Change in anAmerican Metropolis (Russell Sage Foundation, 2000) p. 1.2 Charles C. Euchner, Governing Greater Boston: The Politicsand Policy of Place (The Rappaport Institute for GreaterBoston, 2002) p. 51.3 Sum et al, The Road Ahead: Emerging Threats to Workers,Families and the Massachusetts Economy (MassachusettsInstitute for a New Commonwealth, 1998) p. 21.4 Jeff McLynch and James R. St. George, The State of WorkingMassachusetts 2002: As Good As It Gets? (MassachusettsBudget and Policy Center, September 2002) p. iv.5 Metropolitan Area Planning Council, A Decade of Change:Growth Trends in the Greater Boston Area-1990-2000 (2001)pp. 4, 37.6 Myron Orfield, Thomas Luce, Benjamin Oleson and JoshuaSevin, Boston Metropatterns: A Regional Agenda forCommunity and Stability in Greater Boston (Metropolitan AreaResearch Corporation and Citizens’ Housing and PlanningAssociation, October 2001) p. 1.7Jeff McLynch and James R. St. George, The State of WorkingMassachusetts 2002: As Good As It Gets? (MassachusettsBudget and Policy Center, September 2002) p.16.8 Sum et al, The Road Ahead: Emerging Threats to Workers,Families and the Massachusetts Economy (MassachusettsInstitute for a New Commonwealth, 1998) p.19.9 Charles C. Euchner, Governing Greater Boston: The Politicsand Policy of Place (The Rappaport Institute for GreaterBoston, 2002) p. 34.10 Ibid. p. 35.11 Ryan Allen, Barry Bluestone, Bonnie Heudorfer, andGretchen Weismann, The Greater Boston Housing Report Card2002 (Center for Urban and Regional Policy, Northeastern


46 2000 U.S. Census, SF3, analysis by PolicyLink, not previouslypublished. The only CMSAs that had higher rates ofeducational attainments than Boston were Washington, D.C.(31.7%), Denver (31.8%) and, San Francisco (32.4%).47 New Skills for a New Economy: Adult Education’s Key Rolein Sustaining Economic Growth and Expanding Opportunity(Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth, December2000) p. viii.48 Ibid. p. vii.49 Massachusetts Institute for a New Economy commenting onthe State’s Adult Basic Education system.50 Ross Rudnick, Dara Menashi, and Frank Steinfield, The 495Region: Building an Identity (MAPC and MassachusettsTECHNOLOGY Collaborative) p. 4.51 Several researchers interviewed agreed that thisphenomenon was a subject that needed further study withquantifiable data.52 Charles C. Euchner, Governing Greater Boston: The Politicsand Policy of Place (The Rappaport Institute for GreaterBoston, 2002) p. 20 & 21.53 Myron Orfield, Thomas Luce, Benjamin Oleson, and JoshuaSevin, Boston Metropatterns: A Regional Agenda forCommunity and Stability in Greater Boston (Metropolitan AreaResearch Corporation and Citizens’ Housing and PlanningAssociation, October 2001) p. 1.54 Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Executive Office forAdministration and Finance, Bringing Down the Barriers:Changing Housing Supply Dynamics in Massachusetts(October 2000) p. iii.55 Ryan Allen, Barry Bluestone, Bonnie Heudorfer, andGretchen Weismann, The Greater Boston Housing Report Card2002 (Center for Urban and Regional Policy, NortheasternUniversity, and the Citizens’ Housing and PlanningAssociation, October 2002) p. 28.56 Barry Bluestone, Charles C. Euchner, and GretchenWeisman, The New Paradigm for Housing in Greater Boston(The Center for Urban and Regional Policy, NortheasternUniversity, February 2001) p. 42.57 Ryan Allen, Barry Bluestone, Bonnie Heudorfer, andGretchen Weismann, The Greater Boston Housing Report Card2002 (Center for Urban and Regional Policy, NortheasternUniversity, and the Citizens’ Housing and PlanningAssociation, October 2002) p. 6. At the time of publication,there was concern amongst advocates about proposals tocreate regional responsibility for 40B housing goals. It wasthought that this might lead to jurisdictions averse toproducing affordable housing avoiding responsibility bycompensating communities that already bear a significantdegree of affordable housing to deepen their commitment.58 Ibid.59 Charles C. Euchner, Governing Greater Boston: The Politicsand Policy of Place (The Rappaport Institute for GreaterBoston, 2002) p. 145.60 Ryan Allen, Barry Bluestone, Bonnie Heudorfer, andGretchen Weismann, The Greater Boston Housing Report Card2002 (Center for Urban and Regional Policy, NortheasternUniversity, and the Citizens’ Housing and PlanningAssociation, October 2002) p. 21.61 Daniel R. Faber, Penn Loh, and James Jennings, SolvingEnvironmental Injustice in Massachusetts: Forging Greater

minimum standard of adequacy for non-housing necessities,scaled for differences in household and type, similar to thefederal poverty standard. Michael E. Stone, Elaine Werby.Donna Haig Friedman, Situation Critical. Report 2000:Meeting of the Housing Needs of the Low-IncomeMassachusetts Residents (Center for Social Policy, McCormackInstitute, University of Massachusetts Boston, 2000).29 Ibid.30 2000 United States Census, SF3, analysis by PolicyLink,previously unpublished.31 Barry Bluestone and Mary Huff Stevenson, The BostonRenaissance (Russell Sage Foundation, 2000)p. 27.32 Ibid. p. 28.33 Daniel R. Faber, Penn Loh, and James Jennings, SolvingEnvironmental Injustice in Massachusetts: Forging GreaterCommunity Participation in the Planning Process (MIT Journalof Planning, March 2002) p 2.34 Ibid. p. 6.35 2000 U.S. Census, SF3, analysis by PolicyLink, not previouslypublished. High poverty tracts include all those in the CMSAwith 30% or more of the families living below the federalpoverty line. Across the country, Greater Boston’s proportionof workers in high poverty tracts who use public transit wasexceeded only by the proportions in four metropolitan areas:Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and Washington, D.C.36 Charles C. Euchner, Governing Greater Boston: The Politicsand Policy of Place (The Rappaport Institute for GreaterBoston, 2002) p. 116.37 This conclusion was extrapolated from several sources,including interviews with Barry Bluestone, Danny Faber, andPenn Loh.38 On the Move: Greater Boston Transportation JusticeCoalition, Alternative Addendum to the 2000-2025 BostonRegion MPO Transportation Plan Update (September 2002) p.9.39 Charles C. Euchner, Governing Greater Boston: The Politicsand Policy of Place (The Rappaport Institute for GreaterBoston, 2002) p. 124.40 Sum et al, The Road Ahead: Emerging Threats to Workers,Families and the Massachusetts Economy (MassachusettsInstitute for a New Commonwealth, 1998) p. 20.41 Jeff McLynch and James R. St. George, The State ofWorking Massachusetts 2002: As Good As It Gets?(Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, September 2002)p.1.42 Metropolitan Area Planning Council, A Decade of Change:Growth Trends in the Greater Boston Area-1990-2000(2001)pp. 43, 44.43 Ibid. p. 40.44 Wages at the 80th percentile grew 13.3 percent (from$22.08 to $25.02/hr) while wages at the 50th percentile grew5.7 percent (from $13.97 to $14.77). Jeff McLynch and JamesR. St. George, The State of Working Massachusetts 2002: AsGood As It Gets? (Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center,September 2002) p. 2.45 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, Welfare Reform and Access to Jobs inBoston (January 1998) p. 5.


Community Participation in the Planning Process (MIT Journalof Planning, March2002) p. 7.62 Ibid. p. 5.63Charles C. Euchner, Governing Greater Boston: The Politicsand Policy of Place (The Rappaport Institute for GreaterBoston, 2002) p. 74.64 Ibid. p. 100.65 Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Executive Office ofEnvironmental Affairs, The State of Our Environment (April,2000) p. 26.66 Ibid. p. 24.67 Conservation Law Foundation, City Routes, City Rights:Building Livable Neighborhoods and Environmental Justice byFixing Transportation (June 1998) p. 20.68 Charles C. Euchner, Governing Greater Boston: The Politicsand Policy of Place (The Rapport Institute for Greater Boston,2002) p. 118.69 Ibid.70 Ibid.71 Greater Boston Transportation Justice Coalition, On theMove: Platform for Just Transportation and LivableCommunities p. 5.72 Ibid.73 Barry Bluestone and Mary Huff Stevenson, The BostonRenaissance (Russell Sage Foundation, 2000)p. 350.74 Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Executive Office ofEnvironmental Affairs, The State of Our Environment (April2000) p. 28.75 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, Welfare Reform and Access to Jobs inBoston (January 1998) p. 8.76 Barry Bluestone and Mary Huff Stevenson, The BostonRenaissance (Russell Sage Foundation 2000)p. 350.77 Ibid.78 Ibid.79 Washington Street Corridor Coalition.80 Although Silver Line buses are 40% cleaner than regulardiesel buses, they pollute more than light rail. Service qualityand dependability does not match subway and commuter railservice. Average bus on-time performance rate is 61 % whilefor the subway it is 90%.81 MBTA promotional material.82 The Massachusetts AFL-CIO position paper on the Act toPromote Fiscal Accountability in Economic Development,January 2003.83 The current proposal is that for every 2 units under rentcontrol, 1 could be exempted, and for complexes with 11units or more the exemption would drop to a market rate unitfor every 3 units.84 One proposal is that jurisdictions that don’t meet the 10%affordable housing required by 40B should be required todevelop plans to do so and be prevented from spending morethan 10% of CPA funds on open space.85 “Zoning for Housing Affordability,” Phillip B. Herr &Associates, prepared for the Massachusetts HousingPartnership Fund, Boston, 2000.86 Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons Learned in Massachusetts, “National Housing Conference, 2001, page 1.

87 The Archdiocese of Boston’s Plan for Affordable Housing in2001 set a goal of 7,500 units annually for university housingproduction.88 During the 1990s, the Massachusetts state government hasabandoned, delayed, or reconsidered nearly every transitproject that has been on the drawing board for the Bostonurban core. The 1997 transportation plan for the Boston areaidentified four major new transportation projects of “regionalimportance”—all of them urban core transit projects—butsaid that no funding is available for any of them. Meanwhile,the state set aside $550 million for the MassachusettsHighway Department to build at least 13 major highwayexpansion projects on the Boston area’s suburban fringe, and$845.3 million more for the Massachusetts Bay TransportationAuthority to build major commuter rail projects in the samearea, between 1997 and 2010. http://www.clf.org/pubs/city_routes_intro.htm.89 Addendum to the 2002-2025 Boston Regional MPOTransportation Plan Update, Revised Draft: August 21, 2002.90 Alternatives for Community and Environment.91 In June 2001 MBTA released an environmental proposalpresenting Urban Ring options. Phase 1-enhanced bus servicealong ring, $100 million in capital, $23 million in annualoperating cost. Phase 2-introduce Bus Rapid Transit, $500million in capital, and $31 million in annual operating. Phase3-introduce light rail, or heavy rail transit segments, $2.3billion in capital, total annual operating cost $56 million peryear. Ridership estimates range from 40,000 riders per day forPhase I to 290,000 riders per day Phase 3. Governing GreaterBoston, p 122. http://www.clf.org/advocacy/urban.htm.92 Most families at the time of the eminent domain wereoffered $8,000 for their brownstone. Those who fought thetaking in court got $18,000. There was no third-partyappraisal. An independent expert opinion offered from theMassachusetts Institute of Technology Department of UrbanStudies and Planning estimates the offer may have been one-third of market value. Interview with Douglass Ling.93 PolicyLink with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation,Voices for Change (PolicyLink 2003) p. 15.


Appendix A. 2002 Community Preservation Act Spending

City Recreation Open SpaceHistoric

PreservationAffordable

Housing2002 Total Spending

2003 Total Proposed Spending

Amherst … $20,000 … $130,000 $150,000 $415,000.00Aquinnah … … … $35,000 $35,000 …

Bedford $85,000 $150,000 $2,750,000 $400,000 $3,385,000 $125,000.00

Boxford … $3,000,000 … … $3,000,000 …Cambridge … … … $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000.00Braintree … … … … $0 $769,000.00Chatham … … … … $0 $1,158,000.00Chelmsford … … $20,000 $120,000 $140,000 …Chelmsford … … … … $0 …Chilmark … … … $156,000 $156,000 …Cohasset $100,000 $10,000 $155,000 … $265,000 $425,000.00Dartmouth … … … … $0 $200,000.00Dracut … $960,000 … … $960,000 …Duxbury $125,000 $1,427,000 $85,648 $573,300 $2,210,948 …Hampden … $100,000 $5,000 … $105,000 …Hingham … … … … $0 $133,713.00Holliston … … … $2,500 $2,500 …Hopkinton … $2,000,000 … $100,000 $2,100,000 …Marshfield $40,000 … $212,000 … $252,000 …Medway $16,800 … $30,000 … $46,800 …Nantucket … … … $447,800 $447,800 $175,000.00Newton … … … … $0 $1,050,000.00North Andover … $2,400,000 … … $2,400,000 …Peabody … $111,250 … … $111,250 $62,000.00Rowley … $1,000,000 … … $1,000,000 …Scituate … … … … $0 $1,101,800.00Southampton … … … … $0 $200,000.00Sudbury … … … … $0 $801,600.00Tyngsborough … … … … $0 $395,160.00Wayland … … … … $0 $130,000.00Westford … … $100,000 $325,000 $425,000 …Weston … $3,500,000 $245,000 … $3,745,000 $200,000.00Total $366,800 $14,678,250 $3,602,648 $10,289,600 $28,937,298 $15,341,273.00Percent 1.27% 50.72% 12.45% 35.56% 100.00% -

Source: Trust for Public Land

Appendix B. REMI Analysis for Boston and Selected CMSAs

CMSATotal

Population

% Nonhispanic

White% Nonhispanic

Black% Hispanic

or Latino% Foreign

Born

% Workers taking public

transit

% CC empl res working in

suburbs

% CC empl res working

outside regionBOSTONPopulation in High Poverty Tracts 248,557 41.89 17.20 26.84 25.60 24.94 19.72 14.30Population in Region 5,805,543 82.51 4.70 6.14 12.41 9.05 22.78 19.08Ratio (High Poverty Tracts/Region) 0.51 3.66 4.37 2.06 2.76 0.87 0.75

DALLASPopulation in High Poverty Tracts 230,088 13.90 43.91 38.24 25.74 8.40 21.47 6.76Population in Region 5,221,801 59.31 13.51 21.44 15.03 1.81 22.04 10.55Ratio (High Poverty Tracts/Region) 0.23 3.25 1.78 1.71 4.64 0.97 0.64

DETROITPopulation in High Poverty Tracts 549,125 18.97 68.94 5.87 7.91 10.79 38.66 4.17Population in Region 5,455,409 71.54 20.82 2.86 7.04 1.82 41.36 5.11Ratio (High Poverty Tracts/Region) 0.27 3.31 2.06 1.12 5.93 0.93 0.82

HOUSTONPopulation in High Poverty Tracts 388,088 8.28 40.65 47.51 29.64 11.35 13.25 2.46Population in Region 4,667,398 47.90 16.63 28.91 19.19 3.28 16.43 3.14Ratio (High Poverty Tracts/Region) 0.17 2.44 1.64 1.54 3.46 0.81 0.78

MIAMIPopulation in High Poverty Tracts 401,862 8.08 50.27 37.18 38.33 13.35 42.30 7.81Population in Region 3,876,380 36.29 19.25 40.33 40.20 3.90 40.88 8.05Ratio (High Poverty Tracts/Region) 0.22 2.61 0.92 0.95 3.42 1.03 0.97

PHILADELPHIAPopulation in High Poverty Tracts 623,355 18.33 55.85 19.11 7.93 30.89 23.52 3.12Population in Region 6,185,126 70.43 19.04 5.59 7.02 8.74 23.49 4.34Ratio (High Poverty Tracts/Region) 0.26 2.93 3.42 1.13 3.54 1.00 0.72

SAN FRANCISCOPopulation in High Poverty Tracts 127,030 19.82 32.39 21.88 30.08 23.11 18.49 18.95Population in Region 7,036,002 50.44 6.95 19.67 27.04 9.48 18.41 16.45Ratio (High Poverty Tracts/Region) 0.39 4.66 1.11 1.11 2.44 1.00 1.15

WASHINGTON DCPopulation in High Poverty Tracts 328,732 17.60 75.22 3.11 5.01 30.87 26.08 3.14Population in Region 7,591,848 60.17 25.69 6.37 12.92 9.43 28.93 4.08Ratio (High Poverty Tracts/Region) 0.29 2.93 0.49 0.39 3.27 0.90 0.77

Data: US Census 2000, Summary File 3, PolicyLink Analysis

Appendices

Promise and Challenge:Achieving Regional Equity in Greater Boston

PolicyLink National Office:101 BroadwayOakland, CA 94607Tel: 510/663-2333 Fax: 510/663-9684

Communications Office:1350 Broadway, Suite 1901New York, NY 10018Tel: 212/629-9570 Fax: 212/629-7328

www.policylink.org

promise and challenge - policylink › sites › default › files › promiseandchallen… ·...

Documents