1. Arlington
  2. Fiscal Impact
  3. Housing
  4. Social Justice
  5. Town Meeting

Municipal Affordable Housing Trust:

Written by Posted on Less than 0 min read

A Guide for Arlington

The Massachusetts Housing Partnership put together this 2018 guidebook, v.3, to help municipalities adopt Municipal Affordable Housing Trust Fund (MAHT) legislation to suit the specific needs of each municipality.

Arlington is considering the acceptance of enabling legislation in the November 2020 Virtual Town Meeting to create the Town’s own MAHT. This will enable the Town to create a vehicle for receiving and spending funds to assist low and moderate income individuals and families to move toward greater housing stability. The MAHT does not provide money, but it does provide a place where the Town can receive money from a variety of sources to be used for furthering affordable housing. Examples include payments from developers, contributions from bequests and, if approved, a real estate transfer tax on the sale of higher priced homes in Arlington.

Municipal Affordable Housing Trust: how to envision, gain support, and utilize a local Trust to achieve your housing goals.

For more information on how this MAHT can benefit Arlington see: https://equitable-arlington.org/2020/11/09/arlington-affordable-housing-trust-fund/

Related articles

  1. Housing
  2. News

The State of Zoning for Multi-Family Housing in Greater Boston

(published June, 2019)

Overview

To solve the extraordinarily large deficit in housing for the greater Boston region, over 180,000 units of new housing should come on line in the next few years. This deficit is the result of a rapid expansion in in-migration due to new job creation, with no commensurate increase in housing production for the people taking those new jobs.

The report concludes that zoning is a primary culprit in restricting the development of an adequate housing supply, creating a “PAPER WALL” keeping out newcomers. The cost of this inadequate supply is a huge demand for housing which, in turn, bids up the price for available housing. The following “culprits” are considered: inadequate land area zoned for multi-family housing; low density zoning; age restrictions and bedroom restrictions; excessive parking requirements; mixed use requirements and approval processes. Alternative zoning models are suggested.

Elements such as “Approval Process”, “Mixed Use”, “Village Centers vs Isolated Parcels” and “Building Up or Building Out” are considered.

Researcher Amy Dain reports on two years of research into the regulations, plans and permits in the 100 cities and towns surrounding Boston. The research was commissioned by the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance and funded collaboratively with: Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association, Home Builders & Remodelers Association of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Association of Realtors, Massachusetts Housing Partnership, MassHousing, and Metropolitan Area Planning Council.

For the full report see: https://ma-smartgrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/03/FINAL_Multi-Family_Housing_Report.pdf

For a power point slide presentation see: https://ma-smartgrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/04/DainZoningMFPresentationShare2019.pdf

For the Executive Summary see: https://equitable-arlington.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/June-2019-Multi-Family-Housing-Report_Executive-Summary.pdf

Written by
  1. Housing

The Metro Mayors Coalition’s Housing Task Force

Like numerous metro areas in the United States, Greater Boston has both a shortage of housing and high housing costs. According to a recent presentation by Town Manager Adam Chapdelaine, Boston and the immediate surrounding communities added new 148,000 jobs and 110,000 new residents in the period 2010–2017. But despite the increase in jobs and population, we’ve only permitted 32,500 new homes.

This shortage led the Metro Mayors Coalition — a group of 15 mayors and town managers in the Greater Boston area — to establish a housing task force. The task force set a goal of producing 185,000 new homes during the period 2015–2030. There’s a lot said about that number, and the commitments each community has been willing to make. 185,000 new homes is the big ask, but there’s more to the MMC’s efforts than a simple production goal.

The MMC established a set of ten guiding principles, which are as follows:

  1. Stakeholder and Municipal Engagement. We must engage in broad, inclusive outreach to municipal officials, residents, and other stakeholders within and beyond the MMC to understand and address regional housing concerns.
  2. Housing Production. We strive to increase the production of housing throughout Metro Boston so that we can provide homes for all types of households and income levels. This should include both rental and homeownership opportunities, consistent with regional need, and designed in ways that respect the neighborhoods in which they are located.
  3. Housing Preservation. We support the preservation of existing affordable housing choices. This includes protecting affordable apartments at risk of expiring subsidies or deed restrictions; preserving “naturally occurring” affordable housing; repairing older homes in need of maintenance and minimizing tear-downs; and preserving smaller homes.
  4. Housing Affordability. We welcome and will invest in the development of housing that is affordable to low-, moderate-, and middle-income households.
  5. Housing Stability. We will work to address extreme cost burdens, minimize the risk of displacement, reduce evictions, eliminate unfair rental practices, create permanent housing for homeless residents, and ensure safe and stable housing throughout Metro Boston.
  6. Fair Housing. We are committed to addressing discrimination against tenants and buyers, and advancing fair and equitable access to housing opportunity for everyone.
  7. Housing Diversity. We promote the development and preservation of diverse types of rental and homeownership housing at a range of scales and a unit mix inclusive of multiple bedrooms.
  8. Housing Design. We support universal design in housing to create accessible and barrier-free homes through the incorporation of features that are commonly available and easily usable by people of virtually all ages and abilities.
  9. Housing Location. We encourage residential and mixed-use development in transit-accessible and/or walkable areas where people can get around locally and make connections throughout the region without relying on private auto. We also support creation of more such neighborhoods through expansion of public transit and retrofits of select former industrial sites.
  10. Complete Neighborhoods. Our commitment to greater housing opportunity is part of a holistic approach to community building that includes a mix of land uses and access to open space. Our residents want to live in areas that offer a range of activity throughout the day and evening.

In addition to the guiding principals, the Task Force’s web site lists dozens of strategies for consideration. Some focus on the three cost drivers of housing production: land, labor, and materials. Others focus on more holistic aspects, like fairness and diversity. The overall list of strategies includes: tenant protections like rent control, requirements for just-cause evictions, and the right of first refusal; community benefit agreements, housing cooperatives, and community land trusts; transfer fees, linkage fees, vacancy taxes, and anti-speculation taxes; use of prefabricated homes and modular construction techniques; and a variety of approaches for community engagement and education.

In summary, the MMC has put a lot of thought into the process — far more than simply coming up with a number.

Written by
  1. Housing

New Zoning Articles Preserve Arlington’s Culture

A large part of the debate about the proposed Zoning issues in Arlington revolves around a perspective of Arlington’s culture and how best to maintain it. Can we freeze in time the small, less expensive homes in our R1 & R2 districts? Can we continue to provide low cost rental housing to people in the R4 to R7 districts, housing that is now quite old and is below market rent because it has not been adequately maintained? Or can we reach a consensus about what we most value in Arlington’s culture and set a path to ensuring its preservation for the future?

In 2015 Arlington Town Meeting voted to approve the Master Plan which contained the following set of housing related values and goals for the future of Arlington:

  1. Encourage mixed-use development that includes affordable housing, primarily in well-established commercial areas.
  2. Provide a variety of housing options for a range of incomes, ages, family sizes, and needs.
  3. Preserve the “streetcar suburb” character of Arlington’s residential neighborhoods.
  4. Encourage sustainable construction and renovation of new and existing structures

The Zoning Articles proposed for the 2019 town meeting represent four years of study, reflection and community dialogue. They are precisely intended to further the values and goals that the 2015 Town Meeting voted for.

Our Culture

Arlington has long been a community that cherishes its diversity of housing types and its diversity of income ranges. In recent years, with the regional pressure on land values as more people want to live in good school districts, with good transportation, near their jobs, the pressure on Arlington property values has been extreme. According to the Town’s Master Plan, Arlington does have a more diverse housing stock than most neighboring communities. The type, density and population varies by neighborhood (see Master Plan Ch. 5, Housing Excerpt). Most cities and towns around Arlington experienced a significant rise in housing values from 2000 to 2010. A 40 percent increase in the median value was fairly common. However, Arlington experienced more dramatic growth in housing values than any community in the immediate area, except Somerville. In fact, Arlington’s home values almost doubled.

Tools to Maintain Diversity of Housing

Articles 15 & 16 are two very important “tools” to meet the goals of preserving our diversity of housing.

Over 60% of Arlington’s housing units were built before 1950. Many of those units that we think of now as “affordable” will be needing major renovation or tear down and rebuild in the next few years. Private developers can come in now, buy the buildings and rebuild for market rate (think Boston prices) units. Article 16 gives the town control over these rebuilds, encouraging more housing and more “permanent” affordability.

Article 15, allows Accessory Dwelling Units (“granny units”) after a public hearing and under specific conditions. This will open the town to many lower priced living spaces for students, seniors, etc. throughout the Town.

Arlington values its culture of diversity in housing styles and incomes. Given the pressure regionally for people to find housing in good communities, and bring larger incomes to pay for that housing, Arlington risks losing its culture if the Town does not act NOW to protect it by approving these zoning articles.

Written by
  1. Housing
  2. Zoning

Zoning for Accessory Dwelling Units

by Amy Dain, for Pioneer Institute of Public Policy Research and Smart Growth Alliance, July 2018 (This study updates a 2004-06 study on ADUs by the Pioneer Institute.)

Even in the midst of a housing crisis, zoning laws prohibit most homeowners in cities and towns around Boston from adding accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to their single family houses. An ADU is an apartment within or behind an own- er-occupied single family house that appears from the street to be a single-family as opposed to a two-family house.

Homeowner-voters can be reassured that new rental hous- ing that could be added as ADUs would be highly dispersed and barely visible. The houses are owner-occupied; the land- lord lives next to the ADU renters, so the risk of property-ne- glect or loud parties is minimal. The houses also have to look like single family houses. Since household sizes are shrinking, new residents in ADUs might maintain current neighborhood population densities, but are unlikely to increase them.

Moreover, ADUs are permitted at such low levels now — only 2.5 permits annually per municipality where they are allowed — that permitting levels could increase substantially without being at all noticeable in neighborhoods. If the region were to average five permits per municipality per year across 100 municipalities, over a decade, ADUs could provide 5,000 apartments, dispersed among 538,000 single family houses. Less than one in 100 houses would have an ADU, yet the new rentals would house thousands of people.

Click HERE for the full report.

Written by
A modernist tiny house with bare wooden exterior walls.
  1. Arlington
  2. Housing

Accessory Dwelling Units 101

by Rebecca Gruber

On the evening of Wednesday, June 12th, Equitable Arlington co-hosted with the Town’s Department of Planning and Community Development and Envision Arlington, a ninety-minute webinar entitled “What’s an ADU and How Do I Build One?”

The webinar was designed for anyone interested in learning more about what defines an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and the ins and outs of constructing one in Arlington on their property. Topics included: the history and rationale behind Arlington’s ADU zoning article; the applicable zoning regulations to understand when building an ADU; considerations and cost estimates for three different types of ADUs; guidance on the permitting process with the Town’s Inspectional Services Department; and two case studies–one by a local homeowner, and a second, by the Housing Corporation of Arlington detailing their experience constructing a 100% electric, 2-bedroom Affordable Housing ADU at 40-42 Dorothy Road. 

The webinar was recorded and is available on demand (registration required).

The Town website also has answers to some FAQs: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/departments/inspectional-services/accessory-dwelling-units-adus  

Written by
  1. Housing
  2. News
  3. Zoning

State Senator Cindy F. Friedman Supports the MBTA Communites Plan

State Senator Cindy F. Friedman has written a letter to Town Meeting Members supporting Warrant Article 12 and a meaningful MBTA Communities Plan. She writes:

We all want Arlington and Massachusetts to remain welcoming, accessible places to live. In addition to our deficit of housing, I recognize the importance of encouraging smaller, more sustainable housing in walkable areas. Arlington’s Warrant Article 12 will provide a meaningful framework for making progress in these areas. The problems we are experiencing now —out of reach housing prices for new construction and existing homes — exacerbate the crisis and are seriously threatening the economic vibrancy of our communities.

To read Friedman’s full letter, click here for the PDF.

Written by
  1. Social Justice
  2. Zoning

Exclusionary by Design

A new report for Boston Indicators, “Exclusionary by Design”, shows the clear intent of many Greater Boston suburbs to resist racial and class integration in the 1970s. Housing scholar Amy Dain demonstrates how racial prejudice and class exclusion figured into suburbs’ downzoning in the 1970s; and how putatively legitimate concerns like tax revenue, aesthetic continuity, and the environment served the cause of exclusion. 

Cover of Exclusionary by Design report

Read the “Exclusionary by Design” report, and see the accompanying 1-hour webinar with Amy Dain, Luc Shuster of Boston Indicators and Ted Landsmark of Northeastern University.

Read here

“This research finds widespread evidence that over the past 100 years, zoning has been used by cities and towns across Greater Boston as a tool for excluding certain groups of people, including:

  • Racial minorities, especially Black residents
  • Lower-income and working-class residents
  • Families with school-aged children• Religious minorities
  • Immigrants
  • And, in some cases, any newcomers/outsiders at all”

Low Diversity is No Accident

In the 1970s, municipalities were ordered by state law to create Growth Policy Statements – but with no mandate that communities actually endorse growth nor inclusion.  Exclusionary language in these statements was seemingly anodyne, seeking to preserve the “present characteristics of their communities” or “socio-economic status“. In several cases the fear of integration was quite apparent: Milton’s statement referred to problems in “surrounding communities” (ie Mattapan and Dorchester) and “breakdown of society”; both Milton and Melrose make mention of the pressures caused by people “moving out of Boston”. Belmont’s plan explicitly calls for the town to stay “relatively expensive … [so as to] attract only those families so economically situated.” 

The intent of such language was not somehow lost on people in that era. Needham’s Local Growth Policy Statement included, but pointedly disavowed its own “Appendix A” — a dissenting statement by the Congregational Church of Needham, calling out the town’s exclusionary aims and endorsing a vision of inclusive growth.

In addition, in many places where multi-family housing was theoretically allowed, “poison pill” requirements and impediments were added to make such building a practical impossibility. More recently we have seen the ironic use of infeasible “inclusionary zoning” requirements – which ensure that no affordable housing can actually be built.

The same language, un-evolved and unrefined, is still invoked by “neighborhood defenders” today. Our current housing affordability crisis and segregation is the plain result. The report is a sobering, enlightening read – essential for any active citizen or town official in eastern Massachusetts.

Written by
  1. Arlington
  2. Housing
  3. News

Arlington Report on Demolitions & Replacement Homes

(DRAFT – 7/11/2019)

Overview

prepared by Arlington Planning & Community Development Dept.

Arlington Planning Department officials report on options for the Town to mitigate the effects of housing demolitions and housing replacements in neighborhoods.

Evidence suggests that lack of appropriate regulatory policies have led to incidences of “mcmansions” and other issues that concern neighborhood residents. This study looks at the data, the policy and regulatory options for Arlington. It also looks at how comparable nearby communities have managed similar circumstances.

This 42 page report covers a great deal of data and analysis of homes by zoning district, gaps in the effectiveness of the current regulatory structure, affects on affordability in Arlington by zoning district, information on housing prices and sales, etc.

“Best practices” include descriptions of demolition delay, expansion of local historic districts, neighborhood conservation districts, design review standards and guidelines and possible revisions to the regulatory framework in Arlington. The report also includes interesting case examples of how comparable communities near Arlington handle these issues.

This report was presented to the Arlington Select Board on July 22.

Read the complete report and see the available data and tables.

Written by
Next
Recent Posts
Sign Up For Our Mailing List