On 40-B, I guess I don't feel your pain
OK, I really don’t get the whole 40-B thing.
That’s the 1960s era law that enables developers to override local zoning restrictions in towns where less than 10 percent of the housing is deemed affordable.
The developers, in turn, can them come in and build big new housing complexes that include a significant number of relatively “affordable ‘’ units.
Supporters say it has created nearly 30,000 units of affordable housing over the past few decades.
But there are critics – and there are lots of them – don’t like the law one little bit.
They can point to selected horror stories of developers abusing the law one way or another. Some builders took more than their share of profits, apparently. Another tried to build next to a salt marsh.
I remember breaking a story as few years ago about a state representative who came up with a rather twisted end run around the law.
He wanted to let towns with prisons count cells as “affordable housing,’’ a move that would have overnight turned some towns, on paper anyway, into havens of affordability.
I know, having covered the debate for years as a reporter.
Yet the arguments against the law seem to further buttress the case that something is terribly wrong at the core of the Greater Boston housing market.
Compared to other major metro markets, even in good times not a lot of new housing, especially stuff that middle-income earners can afford, gets built around here.
In bad times, like now, nothing gets built.
Housing prices, after dipping during the downturn, appear to be stabilizing as still very high levels.
That has led to an exodus of the young and mobile, bringing population growth in the state to a crawl. Hey, we might even lose another congressional seat.
While there have been a small flurry of large scale apartment complexes built in the suburbs, what about all those McMansions that got built as well?
And really, how much of this is just simple NIMBYism in defense of any and all perceived threats to cherished property values?
Maybe I’m wrong – if so, I am sure you won’t hesitate to tell me.
Comment
Permalink
Email
It's NIMBY, plain and simple. The crowing opponents make about the profits of developers I find an odd argument, and a red herring: after all, without 40B, they'd be making a huge profit too, right? It can't be that we dislike profits. If the argument is that the law allows abuses, the answer is to close the loopholes that allow the abuses or to step up enforcement of the law -- not to scrap it.
If the argument is that it does not really work, then change the requirements for qualifying for a low-income unit -- don't scrap it.
Scrapping the entire law does not make sense as a solution to the problems the 40B opponents claim they care about. Scrapping it makes perfect sense if the true issue is NIMBY-ism.
It's short-sighted though. I read plenty of comments yesterday (from the article about 40B) from people saying, basically, "go away if you can't afford to live here! Move to Arkansas!" That attitude hurts all of us: we are losing workers. Industries here, such as the life sciences, have thrived because of the educated workforce. But the very people our industries need are the ones who are moving away -- the newly college educated folk. They can't afford to stay. So we can yell that people who can't afford it should move, but in the end, that will depress industry.
40-B detractors are just attempting to continue Boston's long tradition of Redlining.
Speaking of house values, I recently had a trip to SF, and I must say that Boston's high prices look downright unjustified after considering all the pros/cons/costs of living there vs. living here. Count me among the "young and mobile". After living in the area for 6 years (4 of those as a BU student), I'm no longer thinking about buying in Boston.
I have a bone to pick with 40B because I have affordable rental units in my town that have met the affordable requirements for the last 20 years and will continue to meet those requirements. Because I will not sign an affordability restriction, these don't count in the 10% calculation?
Why not? They have been and continue to rent below the affordability guidelines.
It is my understanding that towns can avoid 40B developments by doing a housing production plan that is approved by the state. The plan specifies how many affordable units the town has to produce within a certain time frame to reach the 10%. I imagine that many towns don't want to do this because they don't want the units at all. Also some towns find these plans are too ambitious in that they don't reflect market realities of how many units can feasibly be built in the time allotted.
The real arguement against affordable housing is that in order for the units to be affordable to low income earners, they must either be subsidized (i.e. with your tax dollars) or all other owners must pay a higher price to compensate for the lower price of the affordable units. It's a zero sum game - the low income earner benefits at the expense of others.
Why should the person who makes $50,000 a year have to pay $1200 a month in rent, while the person who makes $15,000 a year only pays $600? How come the $50K a year earner is not being subsidized so that he/she can live in a luxury appartment that costs $2400 a month? Why is it that low income earners are being subsidized to, in effect, live above their means?
The problem I have with 40B is that it allows developers to avoid zoning restrictions for things like type of house, lot size, height, and density. That results in condo developments in SF neighborhoods, or 8000 sq ft lots when the zoning calls for 20,000sqft, and even homeowners drawing up plans to subdivide their own SF lots for development. Aside from changing the character of a neighborhood and possibly reducing property values, this also put a burden on towns who have to deal with increased traffic, increased demand on water and sewer, higher enrollments in schools, etc. Interestingly, the "affordable" units are usually the last to be built and sold, so when the market cools the builder only sells the "normal" ones and delays the affordable units (not sure if anyone is actually watching this, because it's pretty certain that most developers are avoiding the excess profit-sharing requirement in the law - I think only 1 has actually paid properly).
I don't think it should be repealed, however, but it certainly needs to be modified to stop the abuses.
40b is a typical mass law, much like the landlord tenant laws. Good intent, bad implementation, and a counter-productive disaster of a law that does little to benefit the people its supposed to benefit.
I wish Mass lawmakers were forced to take classes in economics and unintended consequences
There are so many problems with 40B developments in addition to those already mentioned:
Affordable units pay less in condo fees (as much as 50-60 percent less) than identical market rate units in the complex, so the market rate units are, in effect, subsidizing the affordable ones.
Because of Local Initiative Programs (LIP's) priority for affordable units are usually given to residents of the host town. These residents are often young adults who can meet the income limitations solely because they are just starting out in their careers. Yet even after their incomes grow, they are still subsidized by the owners of market rate units. Actually, since towns try hard to bargain with the developers to keep the unit size to only one or two bedrooms (because of school costs), families with children who really need affordable units are pushed out by local young adults.
Selling, or re-selling, affordable units can be very difficult now, because--almost by definition--someone who has a low enough income to qualify for an affordable unit has an income too low to meet today’s more stringent mortgage requirements.
I don’t want people on the street. I want people in decent housing they can afford. But 40B--like rent control--does little to achieve this. I think there are much more effective ways to provide affordable housing to people who really need help, such as rental vouchers or a loosening of zoning laws so accessory apartments are allowed.
My issue with affordable housing is that it is yet another way to artificially prop-up prices of all the other houses in the Boston area. If there were no "affordable housing" available for sale, then more people would rent, or leave Boston, which would decrease demand in the over-priced housing market.
I like #8 suggestion of changing the zoning laws to allow accessory apartments in more neighborhoods. This would also go a long way to helping people pay for their homes as well as have an elderly parent live with them.
I live in affordable housing. It was great for me as I was a first time home buyer and made decent money. I bought in at the 110% level. Other unit owners bought in at the 80%. The problem I have is while I have one the smaller units, I pay one of the highest condo fees, because at the time of purchase I earned more. I also pay a higher mortgage(obviously) and higher taxes. It is pretty crazy. I understand subsidizing the buy in, however, to subsidize ordinary living expensive is ridicoulous.
I definitely agree with Mary. The units in my building are one or two bedrooms. Typical residents are young adults, who bought as a single person just starting out or were married/coupled up. You can see as time goes by incomes going up as vacations and new cars and eventually new homes are purchased.
There is definitely a need for affordable housing with 3-4 bedrooms to accomodate families whose incomes are likely to not rise as dramatically.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Recent Posts
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com