SalemNews.com, Salem, MA
Mobile Beta
News
Cities, towns at odds over affordable housing law
Published: November 5, 2007
The state's Chapter 40B affordable housing initiative is once again under fire.
Selectmen in Topsfield and Hamilton have joined a group called the Municipal Coalition for Affordable Housing, which is asking the Legislature for changes in the controversial law.
Critics claim the so-called anti-snob zoning law is not working, that developers threaten to use it as a bludgeon, and that local communities could do a better job if they, not the state, had control of the process.
And critics also complain that affordable housing projects are often out of character with the rest of the town, and can overwhelm municipal services, particularly the schools.
That, at least, is the message coming from smaller, more affluent suburbs.
In the larger cities, it's a different story.
"It's a tool, that if used effectively, will create affordable housing," said Don Preston, chairman of the Beverly Affordable Housing Coalition.
In cities such as Boston and Cambridge - even Beverly and Salem - there has been little to quibble about.
But in small towns like Topsfield, Selectman Dick Gandt says the law can affect everything.
Enacted 40 years ago, the law requires that communities develop 10 percent of their housing as affordable to people who make 80 percent or less than the median income locally. In Essex County, the income limits range from $46,300 for a single person to $66,150 for a family of four.
If communities fail to meet that 10 percent threshold, developers can take advantage of 40B, which gives them the right to skirt local regulations about such things as housing density and proximity to wetlands, so long as they make 25 percent of the units in a development affordable.
Not making the grade
In general, cities have not only reached their 10-percent threshold, but continue to build affordable housing.
Smaller towns have not.
On the North Shore, not one of the smaller towns has reached the 10-percent goal. In Hamilton, for example, the number is 3.3 percent; in Topsfield, 5.4 percent.
The coalition aiming to change the law is made up of 31 communities, nearly all of them small and most of them affluent.
Coalition members say more local control over affordable housing proposals would result in more housing being built, and in a manner more compatible with the character of small towns.
Selectmen in Topsfield and Hamilton have joined a group called the Municipal Coalition for Affordable Housing, which is asking the Legislature for changes in the controversial law.
Critics claim the so-called anti-snob zoning law is not working, that developers threaten to use it as a bludgeon, and that local communities could do a better job if they, not the state, had control of the process.
And critics also complain that affordable housing projects are often out of character with the rest of the town, and can overwhelm municipal services, particularly the schools.
That, at least, is the message coming from smaller, more affluent suburbs.
In the larger cities, it's a different story.
"It's a tool, that if used effectively, will create affordable housing," said Don Preston, chairman of the Beverly Affordable Housing Coalition.
In cities such as Boston and Cambridge - even Beverly and Salem - there has been little to quibble about.
But in small towns like Topsfield, Selectman Dick Gandt says the law can affect everything.
Enacted 40 years ago, the law requires that communities develop 10 percent of their housing as affordable to people who make 80 percent or less than the median income locally. In Essex County, the income limits range from $46,300 for a single person to $66,150 for a family of four.
If communities fail to meet that 10 percent threshold, developers can take advantage of 40B, which gives them the right to skirt local regulations about such things as housing density and proximity to wetlands, so long as they make 25 percent of the units in a development affordable.
Not making the grade
In general, cities have not only reached their 10-percent threshold, but continue to build affordable housing.
Smaller towns have not.
On the North Shore, not one of the smaller towns has reached the 10-percent goal. In Hamilton, for example, the number is 3.3 percent; in Topsfield, 5.4 percent.
The coalition aiming to change the law is made up of 31 communities, nearly all of them small and most of them affluent.
Coalition members say more local control over affordable housing proposals would result in more housing being built, and in a manner more compatible with the character of small towns.
Hamilton Selectman David Carey said a community's affluence can actually become a barrier to creating affordable housing. The average cost of a lot in Hamilton, $200,000, leaves a developer little room to build affordable housing.
"The numbers don't even come close to working," Carey said.
That's one of the reasons coalition members are suggesting that towns could underwrite housing through their Community Preservation Act funds. The act allows towns to add a surtax on property taxes, and the amount that is raised locally gets matched by the state.
By law, at least 10 percent of the money must be allocated for affordable housing, 10 percent for open space of recreation and 10 percent for historic preservation. The remaining 70 percent can be divided between the three areas in any way the town sees fit.
However, few communities have thus far given any evidence they're willing to spend CPA funds on housing. In most cases, the bulk of the money is going to preserve open space, forestalling development.
A study commissioned last year by the Massachusetts Housing Partnership found that in 60 percent of the communities that had adopted the CPA since its inception six years ago, less than 10 percent of the funding has gone to affordable housing.
Some communities may be allowing the housing fund to grow for future projects, but there is no requirement in the law that the money ever be spent.
Small town challenges
Selectman Carey said Hamilton would need to build 20 units of affordable housing every year for the next 10 years to reach its quota. In a town where only a dozen or fewer permits for new construction are approved each year, that kind of growth just isn't going to happen.
Frequently, even projects that are endorsed by town boards face fierce opposition from residents. The problem, Carey said is that Hamiltonians, and residents of other affluent suburban communities, are generally opposed to all development, period.
Beverly's Preston, sympathizes with the challenges smaller communities face, but only to a point.
He noted that if towns develop a plan to reach their 10-percent goal, they can forestall undesirable projects by building just a few affordable units each year.
"But the bottom line is you have to start," Preston said. "If the energy spent fighting 40B was spent building those units, they'd wind up with a stronger community."
State Rep. Brad Hill, R-Ipswich, was not optimistic the coalition will achieve much success.
"40B works in the cities," Hill said. "And the cities have the votes, the suburbs don't."
Percentage of affordable housing in North Shore Communities
Beverly 11.5
Boxford .7
Danvers 10.4
Hamilton 3.3%
Ipswich 8.2
Manchester 4.7
Marblehead 3.8
Middleton 4.2
Peabody 10.4
Salem 13.2
Swampscott 3.6
Topsfield 5.4%
Wenham 8.9
