It's a great time to own - Equitable Arlington

A few days ago, the Boston Globe ran an article titled “2021 set records in Boston Housing Market. What now?“. It’s not unusual to see stories about housing in the news — the market is highly competitive and the sale prices can be jaw dropping. Jaw dropping can take several forms: from the new (and used) homes that sell for over two million dollars, to the amount of money that someone will pay to purchase a small post-war cape (around $900,000, give or take).

According to the globe article, the Greater Boston Association of Realtors estimates that the median price of a single family homes in the Boston area rose 10.5% in 2021, to $750,000. Arlington is comfortably in the upper half of this median: according to our draft housing production plan the median sale price of our single family homes was $862,500 in 2020, and rose to $960,000 in the first half of 2021 (see page 39).

In June 2021, I got myself into a habit of sampling real estate sales listed in the Arlington Advocate, and compiling them into a spreadsheet. My observations are generally consistent with the sources cited above; Arlington’s housing is expensive and it’s appreciated rapidly, particularly in the last 6–10 years. It’s a great time for existing owners, but less so if you’re in the market for your first home.

We’re actually facing two problems, which are related but not identical. The first is high cost, which creates financial stress and a barrier to entry (though it is a boon for those who sell). The second problem is quantity; there are regional and national housing shortages, and that contributes to high prices and bidding wars.

Addressing these challenges will require collective effort on behalf of all communities in the metro area; this is a regional problem and we’ll all have to pitch in. There isn’t a single recipe for what “pitching in” means, but here are some for what communities can do.

First, produce more affordable housing. Affordable housing is a complex regulatory subject, but it basically boils down to two things: (1) the housing is reserved for households with lower incomes than the area as a whole, and (2) there’s a deed restriction (or similar) that prevents it from being sold or rented at market rates. Affordable housing usually costs more to produce than it generates in income, and the difference has to be made up with subsidies. It takes money.

Second, simply produce more housing. This is the obvious way to address an absolute shortage in the number of dwellings available. Some communities have set goals for housing production. Under the Walsh administration, Boston set a goal of producing 69,000 new housing units by 2030. Somerville’s goal is 6000 new housing units, and Cambridge’s is 12,500 (page 152 of pdf). To the best of my knowledge, Arlington has not set a numeric housing production goal, but it’s something I’d like to see us do.

Finally, communities could be more flexible with the types of housing they allow. Arlington is predominantly zoned for single- and two-family homes. The median sale price of our single family homes was $960,000 during the first half of 2021, and a large portion of that comes from the cost of land. That’s the reality we have, and the existing housing costs what it costs. So, we might consider allowing more types of “missing middle” housing, where the per dwelling costs tend to be lower: apartments, town houses, triple-deckers, and the like.

Of course, this assumes that our high cost of housing is a problem that needs to be solved; we could always decide that it isn’t. In the United States, home ownership is seen as a way to build equity and wealth. It’s certainly been fulfilling that objective, especially in recent years.

Housing Production Plan

Accessory Dwelling Units

Accessory Dwelling Units (aka “granny flats”)

The following information was presented to the Arlington Redevelopment Board in October, 2020 by Barbara Thornton, TMM, Precinct 16

This Article proposes to allow Accessory Dwelling Units, “as of right”, in each of the 8 residential zoning districts in Arlington.

Why is this zoning legislation important?

Arlington is increasingly losing the diversity it once had. It has become increasingly difficult for residents who have grown up and grown old in the town to remain here. This will only become more difficult as the effects of tax increases to support the new schools, including the high school, roll into the tax bills for lower income residents and senior citizens on a fixed income. For young adults raised in Arlington, the price of a home to buy or to rent is increasingly out of reach.

Who benefits from ADUs?

Families benefit from greater flexibility as their needs change over time and, in particular providing options for older adults to be able to stay in their homes and for households with disabled persons or young adults who want additional privacy but still be within a family setting.
Residents seeking an increase in the diversity of housing choices in the Town while respecting the residential character and scale of existing neighborhoods; ADUs provide a non-subsidized form of housing that is generally less costly and more affordable than similar units in multifamily buildings;
Residents wanting more housing units in Arlington’s total housing stock with minimal adverse effects on Arlington’s neighborhoods.

What authority and established policy is this built on?

Arlington’s Master Plan is the foundational document establishing the validity and mission for pursuing the zoning change that will allow Accessory Dwelling Units.

Under Introduction in Part 5, Housing and Residential Development, the Master Plan states: Arlington’s Master Plan provides a framework for addressing key issues such as affordability, transit-oriented residential development, and aging in place.

The Master Plan states that the American Community Survey (ACS) reports that Arlington’s housing units are slightly larger than those in other inner-suburbs and small cities. In Arlington, the median number of rooms per unit is 5.7. There is a great deal of difference in density and housing size among the different Arlington neighborhoods. The generally larger size of homes makes it easier to contemplate a successful move to encourage ADUs.

What do other municipalities do?

According to a study (https://equitable-arlington.org/2020/02/16/accessory-dwelling-units-policies/), by 2017 65 out of 101 municipalities in the greater Boston (MAPC) region allowed Accessory Dwelling Units by right or by special permit. The average number of ADU’s added per year was only about 3. But by 2017, Lexington had 75 ADUs and Newton had 73. Both of these communities were among about 10 “as of right” municipalities in the MAPC region. This finding suggests that communities with more restrictions are less likely to see any significant affordable housing benefits.

Even in the midst of a housing crisis in this region, according to Amy Dain, housing expert, (https://equitable-arlington.org/2020/02/18/zoning-for-accessory-dwelling-units/) most municipalities still have zoning laws that restrict single family home owners from creating more affordable housing.

And this is despite the fact that, as according to Banker & Tradesman, March 10, 2020: https://www.bankerandtradesman.com/63-percent-in-greater-boston-back-adus/, 63% of people in the region approve of ADUs. California has recently passed strong pro-ADU legislation. A study by Zillow further corroborated this strong interest in communities across the US, including our region. https://equitable-arlington.org/2020/03/10/adu-popularity/.

Learn more about Accessory Dwelling Units/ “Granny Flats” here: https://planning.org/knowledgebase/accessorydwellings/

Written by Barbara Thornton November 9, 2020

Housing

In Support of the Tenants of 840/846 Massachusetts Avenue

Equitable Arlington, along with City Life/Vida Urbana and the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, supports the legacy tenants of 840/846 Massachusetts Avenue in their resistance to rent increases of up to 50%. We urge the buildings’ owner, Torrington Properties, to continue negotiating an agreement with the tenants rather than pursue legal action likely to end in housing court. If more gradual increases are incompatible with Torrington’s business plan, we hope to see the sale of the property to the Housing Corporation of Arlington or another buyer who is committed to keeping the existing tenants in their homes.

The property, whose two larger buildings date to 1940 and 1963, faces Arlington High School, within easy reach of shopping and transit. It occupies one of relatively few spots in Arlington where people can live without a car. (Equitable Arlington and the MBTA Communities plan seek to encourage exactly this kind of housing.) Many of the middle- and lower-income tenants have been there for decades, including teachers, musicians, and some Section 8 voucher recipients. Some are immigrants with limited English. Laura Frost, who has lived there for 20 years, describes the apartments as “unofficial,” and therefore legally unprotected, affordable housing. Erica Schwarz, executive director of the Housing Corporation of Arlington, concurs: “There are so few places where low-income tenants are in units that aren’t restricted.”

When Torrington Properties bought the buildings in 2019, it did not raise rents right away. Instead, the company pursued a familiar strategy of remodeling apartments when tenants moved out and then marketing them as “luxury” units. More recent arrivals are paying typical market rents. Of the longtime residents, several have left because they were worried about being pushed out to make way for more remodeling and steep rent increases, says Frost, who leads the tenants’ association. All have been tenants at will since Torrington bought the property, with their rents not rising but also not guaranteed by 12-month leases. In November 2022, she says, Torrington distributed a list of target rents for all of the units. A few months later, it informed legacy tenants, then about 20 in number, that they needed to either sign leases at the new rates or move out.

“Our position was never ‘You can’t raise rents ever,’” says Frost, who recognizes that Torrington can legally set rents at any level. Working with City Life/Vida Urbana, she hoped for an agreement for more gradual rent increases, like the one Torrington had just reached with tenants near Forest Hills in Boston. By last spring, however, negotiations had broken down. A rally she organized in September drew Reps. Garballey and Rogers. In February, Torrington sent the legacy tenants notices to quit. We are encouraged that negotiations have since resumed. At the same time, we support a more sustainable option for these tenants and anyone who lives there in the future, as well as Arlington as a whole: a commitment, perhaps by a new owner, to keeping some units affordable in the long term.

Schwarz, of the Housing Corporation of Arlington, has discussed purchasing the property from Torrington, which named a price she describes as “a few million dollars more” than HCA can offer. She has been exploring alternative ways to structure a purchase. This would include drawing on the Town of Arlington’s ARPA funds, as well as seeking mission-aligned equity partners for the project under a “mixed income” model. This would not displace any current tenants, but would, over time, provide a very high percentage of affordable units at a range of income levels, while also providing middle-income and market rate units.

Equitable Arlington supports common-sense reforms that allow for more housing options and tenant protections for current and future Arlington residents. We support increased funding for affordable housing, both through the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and state and federal subsidies, and a wider range of housing choice for every income level and every life stage. We also champion housing that is sustainable, equitable, and accessible, including locating additional housing near public transportation, all of which we believe will make Arlington an even more welcoming community.

Affordable housing Arlington Housing housing affordability

Written by Nicole Gustas March 17, 2024

Real Estate Transfer Tax Funds for Affordable Housing

Written by Guest Writer September 9, 2019

Housing

Does Building More Housing Reduce the Market Price?

Report by Vicki Been, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Katherine O’Regan, Supply Skepticism: Housing Supply and Affordability, NYU Furman Center 8/20/18

Some affordable housing advocates question the premise that increasing the supply of market-rate housing will result in more affordable housing. This paper addresses the key arguments these “supply skeptics” make. Considering both theory and empirical evidence, the authors conclude that adding new market-rate homes moderates price increases does make housing more affordable to low- and moderate-income families.

At the outset, the authors review the relevant studies and conclude that “the preponderance of the evidence shows that restricting supply increases housing prices and that adding supply would help to make housing more affordable.” They then turn to several arguments the supply skeptics make. One key issue is whether adding housing in a part of the housing market will affect prices in another. The housing market is not uniform but composed of various submarkets. These submarkets relate to each other in complex ways. Critically, however, if demand forces up prices in a higher-end submarket, some buyers will turn to the next segment down and bid up prices there, generating a cascade. Adding supply at higher levels reduces this cascade and relieves price pressure all the way down. Empirical research indicates that this “filtering” process happens surprisingly quickly.

Supply skeptics may also fear that construction of new housing will exacerbate affordability problems by raising neighborhood rents or prices, fueling gentrification, and potentially displacing existing residents. New construction can have both positive and negative effects on prices or rents of nearby homes. New housing may an amenity that makes a neighborhood more attractive – and expensive. But it also absorbs demand and may reduce the incentive to upgrade existing housing to please high-end buyers. The evidence on the net effect of these effects is unclear. An important California study indicates that the production of market rate housing was associated with a lower probability that low-income residents in the neighborhood would experience displacement. But more research is needed.
The authors point to additional disadvantages of limiting supply, including pushing lower-wage workers to live in distant suburbs, where long commutes add to regional traffic woes and greenhouse gas emissions. They stress, however, that increased supply, while essential, is not sufficient to address the affordability challenge. Government intervention through subsidies and other measures is critical to ensure that housing supply is added at prices affordable to a range of incomes, and especially the lowest ones.

housing affordability market rate affordable housing more housing does reduce price Vicki Been

Written by Guest Writer September 2, 2019

Redlining and Urban Heat Islands

In the 1930’s the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation of America (HOLC) created actuarial maps of the United states. These maps were color coded — Green, Blue, Yellow, and Red — to reflect the amount of “risk” associated with home loans in those areas. The colors corresponded to “Best” (green), “Still Desirable” (blue), “Definitely Declining” (yellow), and “Hazardous” (red). Being in a green area made you likely to secure a federally-insured home mortgage, something that was effectively unavailable to red areas. Red areas were often associated with black populations, and these maps are where the term “redlining” comes from.

Here’s an HOLC map of Arlington, courtesy of the University of Richmond’s mapping inequality project.

"Redline" map of Arlington, MA, courtesty of the Home Owner's Loan Corporation — HOLC “redline” map of Arlington, Massachusetts

Note that Arlington does not have any “Hazardous” (red) areas; 68% of the town fell into the top two grades, meaning that we were generally a safe bet as far as federal mortgage insurers were concerned. To the extent that the HOLC preferred white communities, Arlington seems to have fit the bill. According to US census data.

1930: population 36,094. No breakdown by race.
1940: population 40,013. 99.8% white.
1950: population 44,353. No breakdown by race.
1960: population 49,953. 99.7% white.
1970: population 53,524. 99.0% white.
1980: population 48,219. 97.3% white.

Today, Arlington is about 84% white. But during the time that mortgage approvals were based on the HOLC maps — the mid 1930’s through the mid 1960’s — we certainly qualified as an overwhelmingly (> 99%) white community.

Arlington had four yellow-lined (“definitely declining”) areas; about 32% of the town. C1 (on the western edge of town) was noted for an “infiltration of Jews”, a “heavy concentration of relief families”, and hilly terrain which was “not conducive to good development”. But it had good schools and a nice area along Appleton St. C2 (along Mass Ave and Mill Brook) was noted for “obsolescence” with “business and housing mixed together” and “railroad tracks through [the] neighborhood”. There was an infiltration of lower-class people, a moderate number of relief families, and “little possibility of conversion of properties to business use”.

C3 (East Arlington, around the present location Thompson School and Menotomy Manor) was noted for “Obsolescence, poor reputations” and “foreign concentration”. There was an “infiltration of foreign [residents]” and a “heavy concentration of relief families”. On the positive side, there were “a few small farms in this section of high grade development of the ground [which] may be anticipated in the early future with modest houses”.

Finally, C4 (around Spy Pond, and near the Alewife T station) was “obsolescent”, with an infiltration of foreign families, and a moderately heavy concentration of relief families. The HOLC noted that “Houses East of Varnum Street [and] south of Herbert Road are built on low ground and many have damp basements which makes them difficult to keep occupied”.

That’s what the HOLC saw as the declining side of Arlington: Jews, foreigners (mostly Italian), relief families, obsolescence, damp basements, and proximity to the Boston-Maine railroad.

Exercise for the reader. Arlington has five public housing projects: Drake Village, Winslow Towers, Chestnut Manor, Cusack Terrace, and Menotomy Manor. What HOLC colors are associated with our public housing?

Buildings last for decades, and effects of the HOLC’s underwriting policies are still with us today — sometimes in unexpected ways. A 2020 paper called “The Effects of Historical Housing Policies on Resident Exposure to Intra-Urban Heat: A Study of 108 US Urban Areas” examined 108 communities, and tried to determine if there was a relationship between redlined areas and urban heat islands. Nationwide, this is what they found:

Land surface temperature as a function of HOLC risk category — Land Surface Temperature, by HOLC risk rating

LST stands for “land surface temperature” and shows how different HOLC risk categories compare to the overall temperature of a region. Green areas tend to be cooler, with less paved surface, more extensive tree canopies, and buildings with reflective exteriors. Red areas are warmer with more paved surfaces, less tree canopy, and building exteriors that absorb and release heat (e.g., brick and cinderblocks). While the degree varies across different parts of the country, the general trend is the same: as one goes from green to red, the surface temperature goes up. Formerly-redlined areas are far more likely to contain heat islands.

Exercise for the reader. Are there heat islands in Arlington? What (HOLC) color are they?

As the global temperature warms, Arlington (like many other communities) will have to contend with heat islands. The treatment is likely to be area-specific, following patterns laid out in the HOLC’s maps from the early-20th century.

census heat island HOLC Redlining

Written by Steve Revilak February 20, 2020

The Affordable Homes Act

by Steve Revilak

On Tuesday August 6, 2024, Governor Healey signed the Affordable Homes Act (H.4977) into law. It’s a significant piece of legislation that will take positive strides toward addressing our state’s housing crisis. At 181 pages, the Affordable Homes Act is a lengthy bill, but the things it does generally fall into three categories: funding, changes to state law, and changes to state agencies.

The act authorizes more than five billion dollars to fund the creation, maintenance, and preservation of housing. This includes $425M to housing authorities and local housing initiatives (including $2.5M for the Arlington Housing Authority), $60M to assist homeowners or tenants with a household member with blindness or severe disabilities, $70M for community-based efforts to develop supportive housing for persons with disabilities, and $100M to expand opportunities for first-time homebuyers.

The Affordable Homes Act makes several changes to Massachusetts zoning laws, including the legalization of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) statewide. ADUs, also known as “granny flats” or “in-law apartments,” are a cost-effective way to add new housing, and they’re typically used to provide living quarters for relatives or caretakers, or to generate rental income for homeowners. ADUs are now allowed in all single-family zones in Massachusetts, by right, without the need for a discretionary permit. Arlington has been a leader in this area, having passed an ADU bylaw in 2021, and it’s great to see this option extended throughout the Commonwealth.

Finally, the Affordable Homes Act makes a number of changes to state agencies, especially the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC). The Act establishes a new Office of Fair Housing within the EOHLC, to “advance the elimination of housing discrimination.” The Fair Housing office will provide periodic reports on progress towards achieving this goal. EOHLC is also charged with creating and implementing a state-wide housing plan that will consider supply and demand, affordability, challenges unique to different regions of the state, and an analysis of local zoning laws.

While our legislators deserve kudos for putting this package together, they also deserve kudos for what they left out. More than three hundred amendments were filed during House deliberations, and a number of them were intended to weaken the multi-family housing requirements of the MBTA Communities Act. For example, one amendment, simply titled “Technical Correction” would have rewritten the transit community definitions, in order to reduce the housing requirements for Milton. We are heartened that our legislators did not go along with such shenanigans.

Accessory Dwelling Units ADU Affordable housing Arlington Housing benefits for people with disabilities

Written by Guest Writer August 15, 2024

When was Arlington’s Housing Built?

Written by Steve Revilak October 22, 2019

Housing

Housing Production Plan Outreach Efforts

Arlington is in the process of update the town’s 2016 Housing Production Plan, and the Housing Plan Implementation Committee and Planning Department have put together a “meeting in a box” as part of their outreach efforts. The idea is to package a set of discussion questions and supplementary materials, so that groups can talk through the questions on their own and provide written feedback. Meeting in a box materials are available from the town website.

I tried this with a group of friends. Here are the questions, and points that came up during the group discussion. Notes that these are discussion notes (transcribed from large sheets of easel paper), and don’t represent agreement or concensus.

Question 1: Housing Needs. Arlington residents have expressed concerns about the housing needs of older adults. Other needs identified so far are the cost and condition of rental housing, the impact of Arlington’s housing sale prices on the ability of young families to find a home in Arlington they can afford, and the impact of limited housing choices on racial and ethnic diversity in Arlington. What housing needs are you most concerned about?

Address historical racial injustice and land use policies.
Diversity and types of housing. Availability and affordability.
Lack of diversity of housing types.
Every house sold is a total bidding war.
Better “stage of life housing” matches.
Having an adequate range of options for lots of different needs.
Impact on the regional housing shortage.
Arlington is served by the T and buses; we have a responsibility to provide housing because we have access to transit.
I was lucky to get in a few years ago, before prices started going crazy.
We spend too much time romanticizing our old crumbling houses with lead paint.
Arlington’s zoning encourages mansionization. As a result, we get one big expensive house rather than two smaller more affordable ones.
What’s happening in Arlington today is the same thing that happened to Lexington 20 years ago — it became a community for affluent professionals only
There’s too much emphasis on keeping things the way they were 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago.
Housing can be about preserving economic diversity, but we need a variety of housing types to do that.
I’d be happy to see more people in town.
Getting an affordable rental unit here is like winning the lottery.
The suburbs have shut down housing production. That’s one of the things causing gentrification in Boston.
Arlington’s housing mainly caters towards families with children. For our town’s financial health, we also need housing for families without children.
With climate change, our practice of low-density, car-oriented, land-intensive sprawl is no longer sustainable. Density can be an important tool for addressing climate change, and we should use it to that effect.

Question 2: Challenges to Meeting Affordable Housing Needs. Participants in interviews conducted for the Housing Plan and at the June 9 Housing Plan Meeting were asked about challenges or obstacles to providing affordable housing in Arlington. Several challenges were identified, such as difficulty finding locations that for new housing development or redevelopment, how the Town’s Housing Trust Fund and CPA funds should be used to meet housing needs, and general tensions and disagreement about growth in Arlington that make it hard for people to agree. What challenges do you think are the biggest impediments to meeting housing needs in Arlington?

There’s not a stable funding source for Arlington’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
Housing is really expensive here.
There are not enough affordable housing developers that are willing to navigate Arlington’s anti-development stance. They’ll build in other communities, where there’s less resistance.
There’s a lack of political will to add affordable housing, or housing in general.
There’s not enough land where multifamily housing can be built.
There’s unreasonable resistance to new multi-family buildings, like apartments.
The housing production plan identifies a number of opportunity zones. But they’re small, and there’s not enough land to create much of an opportunity.
Our housing authority is not very aggressive about utilizing the land they have. Their leadership doesn’t seem to want to do it.
The belief that “Arlington is full”. In reality, we’ve just chosen to be (by virtue of current zoning).

Question 3: Opportunities for Reaching Agreement. What steps would help to bring Arlington residents together about providing affordable housing? How can the Town balance concerns about housing needs and natural resources protection? Or concerns about housing need and preserving Arlington’s built environment? What do you think most could people agree on?

Concern about exurban sprawl.
Concern about gentrification.
Our parking requirements make housing more expensive than it needs to be.
We can agree on worries. I’m skeptical that we’ll be able to agree on solutions.
There’s an unwillingness to accept incremental progress.
Many incremental changes feel too big.
If people feel threatened by affordable housing, they’ll oppose it.
Shared values around the importance of having residents of a variety of economic situations.
Do people really care about environmental sustainability when they move into a house? Not sure how you get people to sign on.
There’s a conflict between anti-density and sustainability.
If you don’t build here, there will be evergreen builds outside of 495.
Teachers who teach here should be able to afford to live here.
We need business growth and tax base growth.
New housing should feel like it blends into the surrounding neighborhood.
Our neighborhoods are changing. The fact that we’re not doing proactive things doesn’t prevent them from changing.

As you can see, our group had a range of opinions and even a few points of disagreement – for example, “there’s an unwillingness to accept incremental progress” vs “many incremental changes feel too big”. I feel like that pair is a good illustration of how different people have different comfort zones; a situation that can be challenging to navigate. Metro Boston is growing, as are metropolitan areas all across the country. Our new arrivals will need places to live, and I’d hope to see Arlington be proactive in addressing that need.

housing production Housing Production Plan Outreach

Written by Steve Revilak August 22, 2021

It’s a great time to own