Affordable housing on shaky foundation

Thomas M. KEANE Jr.
838 words
23 August 2002
Boston Herald
1st Edition
029
English
(Copyright 2002)

This is a story about how doing the right thing may not necessarily be the right thing to do.

Two weeks ago, acting Gov. Jane Swift vetoed a major weakening of the state's controversial "anti-snob" zoning law, known as Chapter 40B after its place in the General Laws.

The governor was right to impose her veto. But it was a risky move as well. Although saved for now, 40B could eventually be doomed.

Chapter 40B requires that at least 10 percent of the housing stock of every city and town in Massachusetts be "affordable," according to a formula based on incomes. If not, developers who want to build a project devoting at least 25 percent of the units to families of low or moderate income can circumvent local zoning rules by getting a state permit.

Cities like Boston, Lawrence or Springfield (with, respectively, 20 percent, 15 percent and 18 percent of their housing stock affordable) are unaffected by 40B. But suburbs and rural areas average just 5 percent.

Some housing advocates claim that those communities don't want low-income housing. They're snobs, elitists who want to keep those of lesser means out. Local zoning rules thus favor single-family homes, meaning affordable projects - which are almost always multifamily - never get approved.

Suburbanites have a different view. The colloquial name for 40B grates. They claim they are not snobs, pointing instead to the unique qualities of their towns and the critical role that zoning plays in preserving their character. They worry that large-scale projects will overwhelm local infrastructures with demands for services, including schools, outpacing their tax bases. Moreover, they complain, developers abuse 40B, using it as a club: Approve my project or else I'll come back with a new, 40B-style plan that you'll really hate but which the state likely will OK.

Anger in the suburbs came to a head this summer. A year ago, the Citizens' Housing and Planning Association, an umbrella organization of housing advocates, released a report saying no legislative changes were needed to the law. This year, panicked by the fierceness of suburbanites' attacks on 40B and fearful the law would be eviscerated, housing advocates backed down.

Some of the changes in the bill that the Legislature passed, such as broadening the definition of housing that counts as affordable, were not too difficult to swallow. But one was: 40B could be suspended if a town increased the amount of affordable housing by just 0.5 percent in a year (the original proposal was 2 percent). With this change, a town with no affordable housing today would have at least 20 years (and perhaps more, with clever delaying tactics) before it had to hit the magic figure of 10 percent.

It was a bitter pill to housing advocates but, they figured, it was better than seeing 40B disappear.

And then Swift vetoed the legislation, voicing worries that the proposed changes would slow construction of new housing.

It was an odd shift in rhetoric. A Republican administration pushing for a controversial law designed to spur more affordable housing? Housing advocates defending a weakening of that same law?

Then, almost immediately after the veto, Jane Gumble, director of the state Department of Housing and Community Development, issued emergency regulations implementing many of the less controversial reforms contained in the vetoed bill. On the critical trigger of 0.5 percent, however, she has demured. Half a percent, she thinks, is far too low. Instead, she plans shortly to issue new regulations with something higher - she wants 1 percent.

Thus, by regulation, Gumble is enacting many of the reforms contained in the legislation while not undermining 40B. She does so believing that 40B is a tool for solving the housing puzzle. The only real solution to too little housing is greater supply, and 40B forces towns to show how they will build new housing. The alternative - using cities as dumping grounds for even more low- income housing - threatens the long-term health of urban areas, which also need a strong middle-class population.

So why has Swift taken such a tough position? It may be that, with no campaign to worry about, Swift can do what she wants, even when it's not politic. It may also be the clout of Gumble herself, who cares deeply about housing issues.

Still, the regulations don't satisfy 40B's opponents. They wanted legislative reform, and they didn't get it. Instead of the issue being settled, there is a strong likelihood that next year there will be another anti-40B push. Gumble hopes that won't happen. But some like Aaron Gornstein of the Citizens' Housing and Planning Association worry. This time, they fear, modifying 40B won't be enough. Instead, 40B's opponents won't be satisfied until the law is repealed altogether.

Tom Keane can be reached at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.

Graphic: SWIFT: Don't count on 40B surviving threats.

Document bhld000020020823dy8n00002