Americans deserve a right to housing

RECENTLY, THREE stories about housing were in the news. Although they may seem unconnected, they are closely linked and we need to pay attention to the messages they convey.

First, both the French prime minister and president announced support for a legal right to housing .

Following the lead set by Scotland, France would elevate housing as a social right, on a par with education. Despite calls for a right to housing in the United States, notably by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1944 as part of what he called a Second Bill of Rights, this country has only articulated a national housing goal: "a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family."

But this rhetoric has not translated into a commitment to action.

In the absence of the political will to supply consistent and sufficient public resources, federal, state, and local governments have taken an indirect route by providing incentives to the private for-profit sector as an enticement for them to enter the realm of "affordable" housing. This brings us to the second story.

Since 1969 Massachusetts has articulated the need for all cities and towns to have at least 10 percent of their housing stock dedicated to affordable housing. In communities that are short of this goal, Chapter 40B allows developers to petition to over ride local zoning if at least 20 to 25 percent of the units are reserved for affordable occupancy.

Since the enactment of 40B, more than 47,000 homeownership and rental units have been created; about half of this housing is affordable to households earning 80 percent of area median income or less. In recent years, 40B has been responsible for 30 percent of housing production in the state and 80 percent of housing for low- and moderate-income households in suburban communities.

In addition, the majority of 40B housing is good to look at, blends in well with its surroundings, and is an important community asset.

There have been many critics of 40B even though these developments are typically constructed with little or no public funds. Affordability is typically attained by the market rate units cross-subsidizing those reserved for the less affluent households. Most recently, a report released by the inspector general disclosed that a number of developers of 40B housing had realized inappropriate profits. Of course, in market-rate housing, developers have no limit on their profits. Under 40B, however, any profit in excess of 20 percent of total development costs must be returned to the towns for affordable housing purposes.

The inspector general's review of five 40B homeownership developments found that three exceeded the 20 percent profit limitation and that two did not. However, in each case the developers are disputing these findings, arguing that the inspector general is retroactively applying new rules to these older developments and that they therefore do not owe money to the towns.

Whether or not the inspector general's analysis will prevail, there is a much larger story, which brings us to the third news item: Decent affordable housing is a great concern all across Massachusetts. The Donahue Institute at the University of Massachusetts recently released the results of a survey indicating that about two-thirds of Massachusetts residents rated the cost of housing as a significant concern, up from less than half the population just a year earlier. Also alarming is that nearly 36 percent of those surveyed indicated that they or members of their immediate family "have seriously considered moving out of Massachusetts because of the cost of housing."

This story brings us back to the first. Without a guaranteed right to housing in the United States, thousands of households are struggling to find and keep housing they can afford.

In the absence of sufficiently well-funded public programs that provide long-term assistance, we will continue to grapple with how to squeeze housing out of inadequate funding. Despite inappropriate profits, we need to exercise restraint about condemning a proven strategy for producing decent affordable housing.

A well-funded, multifaceted federal right to housing program would enable us to meet needs of residents of this state and across the country. Chapter 40B is only part of this complex agenda; Massachusetts could be a leader in articulating the goal of a right to housing for all residents -- and then delivering on this promise.

Rachel G. Bratt is professor and chairwoman of the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning, Tufts University, and a fellow at the Joint Center for Housing Studies , Harvard University.