During a two-week period this spring, 27,000 low-income households in Massachusetts applied for federal housing vouchers to help pay their rent. They joined at least 60,000 families already waiting for other government-assisted housing programs. Only a small percentage of these families will receive help. And about half of those who reach the top of the voucher waiting list will be forced to return their subsidy because they can’t find an affordable apartment–even with the government aid.
This is the scope of the housing crisis today. Young families, the elderly, people with disabilities, and immigrants–among others–are being priced out of their communities. Consider these alarming facts:
-The number of Massachusetts households with severe housing needs has reached an all-time high. Nearly 245,000 households pay more than half of their incomes for rent, a 21 percent jump since 1990.
-Since 1997, 10,000 Massachusetts families have been homeless each year, double the number in 1990.
-The number of privately owned apartments in Massachusetts has dropped by 60,000 since 1990.
-Median home prices have skyrocketed to $235,000, preventing most middle-class families from buying their first home.
If there is a silver lining in this grave situation it is that government, religious, and community leaders are putting housing back on the public policy agenda. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has dedicated $25 million in new city funds to be spent on affordable housing. Banks and insurance companies have committed more than $1 billion in capital for housing and economic development. Cardinal Bernard Law has launched a task force with the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce to develop new strategies for increasing affordable housing production. And the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization has gathered 120,000 petition signatures calling for a doubling of the state budget for housing programs.
Not only is there a widespread recognition of the problem, but public opinion polls indicate a willingness to invest taxpayer dollars to solve it. Reaching consensus on solutions, though, has been more difficult. The five-point plan presented below suggests how communities and key public and private players can pull together on this issue.
1. Save existing affordable homes. It is less costly to preserve existing affordable housing than to build new units from scratch. Without government action, however, public and privately-owned housing for low- and moderate-income families may go upscale or disappear altogether.
More than 20,000 subsidized apartments in Massachusetts, one-half of which are occupied by elderly tenants, may be lost over the next five years. State and federal contracts guaranteeing affordability are ending on these so-called “expiring use” properties, allowing their private owners to convert the housing to market-rate prices. Currently, the federal government has offered only a short-term solution based on housing vouchers. State and federal funding is needed to help new owners acquire and renovate these buildings and prevent tenant displacement.
Gov. Cellucci should also allocate more of the state’s bond funds to renovate existing public housing that is managed by local housing authorities. State public housing, home to more than 50,000 families, has been starved of funding over the past decade and many developments need significant renovation. Housing bond funds have been slashed from $200 million in 1990 to $71 million today.
In addition, new state and local tax incentives are needed to encourage private owners to improve their properties while keeping rents affordable to low- and moderate- income tenants.
2. Produce more housing for low- and moderate-income families. The governor has made increasing the supply of housing the centerpiece of his housing strategy. He issued an executive order offering an edge in competition for state grants to municipalities that build new housing of any kind. And he has offered planning grants to help cities and towns site new housing.
While this is a welcome step forward, it is not a complete solution. It places little emphasis on production of housing for low- and moderate- income people, the population struggling the most and the type of housing which many communities continue to resist. And the governor is not seeking any new funding for this purpose.
The state should set a goal of increasing the number of affordable housing units by at least 5,000 per year (compared to about 2,000 currently) for households earning less than 80 percent of median income ($50,000 for a family of four). Special attention should be devoted to underserved populations, such as the homeless, frail elders, people with disabilities, and those facing discrimination in the housing market.
The vehicle for this production should be a state housing trust fund–a dedicated revenue source for housing. Each year, the state would make a contribution to the fund, generous in times like these, more modest when the economy slows. Universities, private companies, and foundations could contribute funds to supplement state dollars, as well. While the trust fund should be flexible to serve a variety of needs, the state should encourage the production of mixed-income rental housing to ensure economic integration of low-, moderate-, and middle-income households. One-time capital grants are needed to lower the cost of construction and to ensure long-term affordability.
3. Provide support services to prevent homelessness. At the same time we are preserving and producing more housing, the state should help pay for a range of services to help tenants stay in their apartments or find alternative housing quickly when they have to leave. This means coordinating health care and social services for elders to avoid unnecessary placement in costly nursing homes. It also involves providing short-term financial assistance, housing search services, and landlord-tenant mediation to families to prevent evictions and placements in emergency shelters.
We also need to make it easier to apply for existing affordable-housing developments. Creating a single application form and regional waiting lists for public and assisted housing would end the onerous–and discouraging–system of applying separately to multiple waiting lists.
4. Create and sustain home ownership. Great strides have been made in boosting home ownership over the past decade. Lower-cost mortgages, down-payment assistance, and homebuyer education have helped thousands of families in Massachusetts to purchase their first homes. However, in the past two years, home ownership rates in this state have fallen from 62.3 percent to 60.6 percent of households. We must redouble our efforts to expand home ownership opportunities.
A cornerstone of this effort should be expansion of down-payment assistance and homebuyer education programs–funded by state government and private groups–which provide comprehensive workshops and counseling for lower-income buyers. And to make sure they do not lose their homes, we must give these homeowners ongoing assistance regarding credit, maintenance, landlord/tenant relations, and other challenges.
5. Open up the suburbs. Even with adequate funding to build more housing, local zoning rules can throw obstacles in the way of housing production. A long Massachusetts tradition of home rule and local rights has worked to exclude low-income families from many suburban communities.
The Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit Law (Chapter 40B), passed in 1969, has helped to produce approximately 25,000 housing units in 171 municipalities. This landmark legislation allows developers to apply for a single, comprehensive permit from the local zoning board of appeals (so they don’t have to apply for separate permits from multiple boards with jurisdiction over housing). If the permit is denied by a community in which less than 10 percent of its housing is deemed affordable, the developer can appeal the decision to the state Housing Appeals Committee.
Since passage of Chapter 40B, the number of communities with no subsidized housing has dropped from 173 to 56. However, there are some communities which thwart affordable housing development through “no growth” regulations and overly restrictive zoning practices. To address these problems, the state must provide incentives, in the form of bonus grants, to encourage communities to produce more affordable housing and to promote housing near “Main Street” areas and public transportation. Conversely, the state should impose financial penalties, such as the withholding of funds, when affordable housing is unreasonably denied.
Statewide enabling legislation should be passed to allow municipalities to adopt “as-of-right” zoning laws that encourage affordable housing. Provisions may include: multi-family housing; reuse of commercial land and buildings for multi-family housing; accessory apartments in single-family homes; cluster zoning, which allows denser development on a portion of a site while helping to preserve open space on the rest; and inclusionary zoning, in which developers are required to set aside a certain percentage of units in any housing development for low- and moderate-income families.
We are now at a critical juncture in state housing policy. Widespread recognition of the housing crisis has sparked unprecedented official activity and media coverage. Political and community leaders have stepped forward to offer new proposals to solve the housing crisis. Sophisticated and experienced housing agencies and developers are poised to do more. Unless we increase public and private resources in a targeted way, we will miss a historic opportunity to address the housing problems of our state and to provide economic prosperity for all Massachusetts residents. Now is the time for action.
Aaron Gornstein is executive director of the Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association in Boston.