Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
Affordable housing reform in Massachusetts? Readers say not so fast.
Chapter 40B has some local leaders and lawmakers calling for reform – but Boston.com readers aren’t so sure.
One of the state’s most entrenched (albeit contentious) affordable housing statutes has some local leaders and lawmakers calling for reform – but Boston.com readers aren’t so sure.
At a Charles River Regional Chamber event at the end of May, Congressman Jake Auchincloss suggested Governor Maura Healey could unilaterally alter Chapter 40B regulations, specifically the “safe harbor” threshold that protects certain communities from the law’s impact.
Having the governor alter the law would, he made clear, be “a nuclear option,” but it “would be the kind of stick that could galvanize more local action.” And, it’s not entirely unheard of.
Advertisement:
Auchincloss was backing one of the more than 50 recommendations in a report by Healey’s Unlocking Housing Production Commission. The commission suggested several targeted 40B reforms to “maintain its effectiveness.”
Chapter 40B was enacted in 1969 to make it encourage affordable housing development. Under Chapter 40B, if less than 10% of the town’s entire housing stock is deemed affordable, developers can obtain a “comprehensive permit” (essentially, a consolidated local review and approval process) to circumvent certain aspects of local zoning bylaws to build multifamily housing (provided that 20-25% of the units have long-term affordability restrictions).
Advertisement:
Since its establishment, the law has created thousands of affordable units.
“40B has made a difference in every community that’s been part of that program. But it’s in need of reform,” the Chamber’s CEO Greg Reibman told Boston.com.
Currently, 40B regulations allow market rate homes to be counted towards municipalities’ “safe harbor” threshold. This means that even though communities may have met the 10% threshold, that doesn’t necessarily mean 10% of their housing is affordable.
To address this, Auchincloss and Reibman suggested phasing out market-rate units from the 40B count after 10 years. Other proposed 40B reforms include increasing the threshold (to 12- or 15%, for example), or offering incentives to communities with 12% or more affordable units.
Such reforms wouldn’t be possible without a unilateral decision from Healey. When we asked readers if 40B should be reformed, just over half (57%) of the more than 100 respondents were in favor of keeping the law intact as it is, while 38% were in favor of reforms.
Congressman Jake Auchincloss said Governor Maura Healey could unilaterally alter Chapter 40B regulations. Does the state statute need to be reformed?
Yes, it should be reformed
38%
No, it should remain unchanged
57%
I don't know
5%
Many who voted “no” to reforms said municipalities should have more control in how (and how much) affordable housing is developed in their town – a power that 40B undermines, they said.
Advertisement:
“Enough of the government overreach,” reader Jay from Brockton said.
On the other hand, proponents of 40B reform said the statute’s safe harbor threshold is outdated and needs to be updated.
“It always seemed crazy to count the market rate apartments in a 40B project towards the number of affordable units in the safe harbor calculation,” Kathy P. from Newton said.
Others said reforms are needed to meet the severity of the state’s housing crisis and 222,000 housing unit deficit.
“If everyone truly agrees we are in a housing ‘crisis,’ we need to start acting upon the second word there: crisis. Stemming a crisis calls for drastic action and raising the safe harbor threshold would be treating our dire situation with an appropriately dramatic response,” reader Max W. from Cambridge said.
Below, readers share their thoughts for and against 40B reform.
Responses have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.
Does Chapter 40B need to be reformed?
No
“Housing decisions should remain the responsibility of local cities and towns. The state government has no business being involved in these decisions.” – John P., Sudbury
“Eastern Mass is already built-out; we don’t need to keep cramming-in more people. Furthermore, there is already plenty of affordable housing nearby a mere 45 minutes away in the states of New Hampshire and Rhode Island. The military bases should be turned into the conservation zones and wildlife habitat we sorely lack, not ‘thousands’ of homes an hour away, all of whom will get on already-crowded roads to drive to employment.” – J.K., Danvers
“The problem isn’t that there are too few houses. It’s that there are too many people. There is essentially unlimited demand for ‘affordable’ housing. There is no way to build enough homes to offset that demand. This is the logic of induced demand: if you build it, they will come. Urban planners use this logic all the time to explain why we can’t build bigger highways, but for some reason forget its lessons when talking about housing.
There are also relatively few sites that are not developed in Eastern Massachusetts, and I (for one) do not begrudge anyone that wants to have a single family home and a yard. Not everyone wants to live in a giant apartment building. Life is better with a little privacy and a garden to tend.
The only ways to make housing more affordable are to have fewer people competing for existing housing (and existing everything else). We do that by limiting immigration and letting declining birthrates and natural exodus take care of the rest. If that dampens MA’s economic growth, so be it. The increase in quality of life will be worth it.” – Brian, Roslindale
Yes
“40B has its merits but it is simply insufficient. We need programs that are more impactful that encourage mixed funding, mixed use, rent and own opportunities, and support more integrated and inclusive populations – including economically. The DUO project in Chelsea with the same high quality units for public, workforce, and market rate tenants is a great example. This will likely require reforming some of the regulations around state/federal public housing including Section 8. While many regulations were well intended at the time, they’ve grown like weeds to add unnecessary costs and delays and strangle innovation.
We should be able to leverage every public dollar with at least 5x market based funding. And we need bold leadership similar to what Churchill did to accelerate airplane production in WWII. The resources exist in MA.” – Jim F., Needham
“40B is way too low. It should be raised significantly and given stronger incentive/enforcement mechanisms so that we build more housing and have more economic diversity throughout the state, rather than letting wealthy people create enclaves. People should be able to live where they work, and if someone is good enough to serve you food, clean your house, or take care of or teach your kid, then they’re good enough to be your neighbor. There should also be a way to ensure that the affordable housing is spread throughout municipalities.” – Kathryn S., Brighton
“More than that, the review process for adding any additional housing should be revamped. While each community has its own procedures and protocols for zoning and planning compliance, the number of administrative review meetings is extremely arduous, adds tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of each unit, and extends the review timeframe often by months if not years.
While it is necessary to have some level of review to development applications, the process – particularly in metro Boston – has been a major reason for our housing crisis. The state needs to expand Chapter 40B to require that review of housing development projects be completed in a significantly quicker timeframe.” – Tim, Jamaica Plain
Boston.com occasionally interacts with readers by conducting informal polls and surveys. These results should be read as an unscientific gauge of readers’ opinion.
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com