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.

MBTA Communities

Book Shows Municipal Contribution to Segregation

According to Richard Rothstein in his 2017 book, Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, “we have created a caste system in this country, with African-Americans kept exploited and geographically separate by racially explicit government policies,” he writes. “Although most of these policies are now off the books, they have never been remedied and their effects endure.” Zoning was one of the policies that contributed significantly to this outcome.

Here are some highlights, selected for Arlington readers, from this book:

P. VII
“… until the last quarter of the twentieth century, racially explicit policies of federal, state and local governments defined where white and African Americans should live. Today’s racial segregation in the North, South, Midwest, and West is not the the unintended consequence of individual choices and of otherwise well-meaning law and regulation but of unhidden public policy that explicitly segregated every metropolitan area in the United States. The policy was so systematic and forceful that is effects endure to the present time. Without our government’s purposeful imposition of racial segregation, the other causes – private prejudice, white flight, real estate starring, bank redlining, income differences, and self-segregation – still would have existed but with far less opportunity for expression. Segregation by intentional government action is not de facto. Rather, it is what courts call de jure: segregation by law and public policy. “

1917 – Buchanan v. Warley – Supreme Court case that overturned racial zoning ordinance in Louisville, Kentucky. Municipalities ignore and fought against this. Kansas City and Norfolk through 1987.

Post WWII GI Bill – African Americans largely excluded from education and mortgage benefits
Federal Housing Administration won’t insure mortgages to African Americans or mortgages in integrated neighborhoods. African Americans limited to non-amortizing loans, which means they build no equity in their homes while making payments
Federal, stage and local governments are used to enforce race-restrictive covenants in deeds.

1948 – Shelley v. Kraemer – Although racially restrictive real estate covenants are not per se illegal, since they do not involve state action, a court cannot enforce them under the Fourteenth Amendment. FHA continues to not insure mortgages for African Americans.

1968 – Fair Housing Act endorsed the rights of African Americans to to reside wherever they chose and could afford. Finally ending the Federal Housing Administration’s’ role in mortgage insurance discrimination.
1969 – Mass 40B law passed
1972 – Head of Arlington ARB editorial talking about preserving the suburban way of life
1973 – Town Meeting passes moratorium on apartment construction
1975 – Arlington zoning re-do that all but stops development
1977 – Supreme Court upholds Arlington Heights, IL zoning that prohibited multi-unit development anywhere by adjacent to an outlying commercial area. In meetings leading to the adoption of these rules, the public urged support for racially discriminatory reasons.

p. 179″Residential segregation is hard to undo for several reasons:

Parents’ economic status is commonly replicated in the net generation, so once government prevented African Americans from fully participating in the mid-twentieth-century free labor market, depressed incomes became, for many, a multi-generational trait
The value of white working and middle-class families’ suburban housing appreciated substantially over the years, resulting in a vast wealth difference between whites and blacks that helped to define permanently our racial living arrangements. Because parents can bequeath assets to their children, the racial wealth gap is even more persistent down through the generations than income differences.
Once segregation was established, seemingly race-neutral policies reinforced it to make remedies even more difficult. Perhaps most pernicious has been the federal tax code’s mortgage interest rate deduction, which increased the subsidies to higher-income suburban homeowners while providing no corresponding tax benefit for renters. Because de jure policies of segregation ensured that whites would be more likely to be owners and African Americans would more likely be renters, the tax code contributes to making African Americans and whites less equal, despite the code’s purportedly nonracial provisions.

Written by Guest Writer September 8, 2019

Housing
News

AMI Explained

by Steve Revilak

The term “AMI” or “Area Median Income” comes up in almost any discussion about affordable housing, because it’s used to set rents and the household incomes for people who are eligible to live in affordable dwellings. AMI is a fairly technocratic concept and my goal is to make the concept (and the numbers) easier to understand.

AMIs are set each year by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; broadly speaking, an AMI is the median income of a region. Arlington is part of the “Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH HUD Metro FMR Area” which consists of more than 100 cities and towns in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Median incomes represent the “middle” family income of an area—half of households make more, and half make less.

In the process of turning median incomes into income limits, HUD also considers household size: larger households are assigned larger AMI limits than smaller ones, in order to reflect the higher cost of living for more family members.

How do these limits translate into affordable housing regulations? Arlington’s affordable housing requirements (aka “inclusionary zoning”) require that rents for affordable units be priced for the 60% area median income, but the dwellings are available to households making up to 70%. Let’s show an example with some numbers.

Household size	60% Income Limit	70% Income Limit	60% Rent
1	$68,520	$79,940	$1,717/month
2	$78,360	$91,420	$1,959/month
3	$88,140	$102,830	$2,203/month

HUD considers an apartment suitable for a household if it has one bedroom less than the number of household members, so a two-bedroom apartment would be suitable for a household of three, a one-bedroom would be suitable for a household of two, and a studio would be suitable for a household of one. The monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment would be calculated as follows: $88,140 ÷ 12 × 30% = $2,203. The 30% comes from HUD’s rule that affordable housing tenants should not be cost-burdened, meaning that they pay no more than 30% of their income in rent.$88k or $102k/year can seem like a lot of money (and once upon a time it was). To get a better sense of what these income levels mean, I looked into what kinds of jobs pay these wages. To that end, I found wage information from the Arlington Public Schools report to Town Meeting, the Arlington town budget, and wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here are a few scenarios:

Scenario 1: single adult

Scenario 1 represents a single adult living alone, and earning between $68,520 and $79,940. Jobs in this pay range include:

Elementary classroom teacher ($62,000 – $75,000)
Town planner ($75,000 – 79,000)
Animal Control Officer ($72,000)
Firefighter ($73,640)
Librarian ($70,395)
Lab Technician ($70,710)
Social Worker ($71,470)
Subway operator ($72,270)
Licensed Practical Nurse ($75,690)
Paralegal ($77,500)
Chef ($78,040)
Carpenter ($78,000)

Scenario 2: single parent with household of two

Scenario 2 represents a single parent earning between $78,360 and $91,420/year. Jobs in this pay range include:

Office Manager – Assessor’s office ($80,399)
Assistant Town Clerk ($77,375)
Town Engineer ($74,000 – $80,000)
Police Department Patrol Officer ($87,000)
Town Budget Director ($88,488)
Telecommunications equipment installer ($80,350)
Plasterer and Stucco Mason ($82,250)
Electrician ($82,380)
Cement Mason ($86,250)
Plumber and pipe fitter ($90,580)

Scenario 3: household of two, both adults

Scenario 3 has two adults, each earning $39,180 – $45,710 per year. Jobs in this salary range include several that we’ve come to know as “essential workers” during the pandemic.

Special education teaching assistant ($34,290)
Arlington Public Schools Paraprofessional ($36,290 – 42,440)
Substitute Teacher ($34,921)
Inspectional Services Record Keeper ($44,481)
Food preparation worker ($39,590)
Bartender ($39,730)
Childcare worker ($40,470)
Ambulance Driver ($40,890)
Waiter ($41,440)
Pharmacy aide ($41,460)
Bank teller ($42,270)
Tailor and dressmaker ($43,790)
Restaurant cook ($44,140)

You may have noticed gaps in these lists — for example, there are no jobs listed in the $50,000 – $60,000 range because it’s in between the income limits for one- and two-income households. It’s also worth noting that a fair number of town employees’ salaries would qualify them for affordable housing (the town is Arlington’s largest employer).

So who qualifies to live in affordable housing? People with a lot of ordinary, working-class jobs, including many town employees.

Affordable housing AMI area median income

Written by Guest Writer December 4, 2024

Arlington’s New Opportunity to Create Long-Term Affordability

by Beth Elliott

I’m a member of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board and an attorney with over 15 years of practice in affordable housing law. Views expressed are my own, not those of the Trust.

The Town of Arlington and the Arlington Affordable Housing Trust Fund have created the Acquisition, Creation and Conversion (ACC) Program to provide a flexible source of funding for creating deed-restricted affordable housing in Arlington. Up to $250,000 is available per restricted unit, and the Town has dedicated federal ARPA funds to support the ACC Program.

ACC Program funds can be used to build new deed-restricted affordable units, whether rented or owned. ACC funds can only be used for existing units if the current tenants will not be displaced.

“Deed-Restricted” Is Important

“Deed-restricted” is the key component here. Housing that is “deed-restricted” as affordable housing is protected by a legally binding agreement that is recorded against the property in the registry of deeds. This agreement specifies the levels of affordability that must be maintained and for how long. It’s a public commitment to provide affordable housing that binds the current owner of the property as well as anyone else who buys the property while the restriction is in place. The ACC Program requires affordability for at least 20 years for rental units and in perpetuity for homeownership units. For rental properties, this means that tenants know that their units will remain affordable for the long term, even if their landlord changes.

Personally, I’m most excited about the potential to use the ACC Program to apply these protections to existing naturally occurring affordable housing in Arlington. For example, if an owner of an existing apartment building participates in the ACC Program, some or all of the apartment units will become deed-restricted affordable housing. Because ACC Program funds can only be used if the existing tenants aren’t displaced, this locks in deed-restricted affordability for the existing tenants. This innovative feature of the program is rare in my experience of affordable housing programs, and it has RFP potential to make meaningful change for existing tenants of naturally occurring affordable housing.

Get the Full Rules

In addition, the ACC Program can be combined with other funding sources, so there is great opportunity for owners to propose their own solutions. The Request for Proposals (RFP) issued for the ACC Program, available here, provides the full rules for participating in the program.

Town Manager Jim Feeney spoke briefly about the ACC RFP with ACMI’s James Milan

Affordable housing

Written by Guest Writer July 21, 2024

State Reps Rogers and Garballey Support the MBTA Communities Plan

Written by Nicole Gustas October 20, 2023

Arlington & Exclusionary Zoning History

Written by Guest Writer August 5, 2019

Show Your Support With a Free Yard Sign!

Written by Equitable Arlington September 7, 2023

Design Ideas for Transit Corridors-Pike/Pine District

Written by Barbara Thornton January 4, 2020

News

MBTA Communities Zoning and Town Finances

by Annie LaCourt

One of the concerns people have about the current MBTA Communities zoning proposal is the effect that the increase in housing will have on the town’s budget. Will the need for new services make demands on our budget we cannot meet without more frequent overrides? Or will the new tax revenues from the new buildings cover the cost of that increase in services?

The simple answers to these questions are

No: It will not make unmanageable demands on the budget; and
Yes: the new tax revenue from the multi-family housing anticipated will cover the costs of any new services required.

Adopting the current MBTA Communities zoning proposal may even slow the growth of our structural deficit, as I will show in more detail using as examples some of the more recent multi-family projects that have been built in Arlington.

How Does Our Budget Work and What is the Structural Deficit?

First, some basic facts about finance in Arlington: Like every other community in Massachusetts, Arlington’s property tax increases are limited by Proposition 2.5 to 2.5% of the levy limit each year. What is the levy limit? It’s all of the taxes we are allowed to collect across the whole town, without getting specific approval from the Town’s voters. For FY 23 the levy limit is $135,136,908. $3,271,996 of that is the 2.5% increase we are allowed under the law. But also added to that is $1,202,059 of new growth, which comes from properties whose assessment changed because they were substantially improved–either renovated or by increasing capacity. When we reassess a property that has a new house or building on it, we are allowed to add the new taxes generated by the change in value of the property to the levy limit.

Property taxes make up approximately 75% of the town’s revenue. So – except for new growth – that means that the bulk of our budget can only grow 2.5% a year. Other categories of income like State Aid have a much less reliable growth pattern. If the state has a bad fiscal year, our state aid is likely to remain flat or decrease.

Expenses

On the expense side, our default is a budget to maintain the same level of services year to year. We cap increases in the budgets of town departments by 3.25% and the school budget by 3.5%, save for special education costs which are capped slightly higher.

We also have several major categories of expense that are beyond our control that increase at a greater rate than 2.5%. These include, among other things, funding our pension obligations, health insurance costs and our trash collection contract.

Structural Deficit

This difference between the increase in revenues and the increase in costs is the structural deficit. It’s structural because we can’t cut our way out of it without curtailing services severely and we can’t stop paying for things like pensions and insurance that are contractual obligations.

The question of how MBTA communities zoning will affect this is crucial. So let’s take a deeper dive, first on revenue and then on expenses.

How Will MBTA Communities Affect New Growth?

How MBTA-C zoning will affect new growth depends on what gets built and at what rate. Let’s consider some real world examples:

882 Mass Ave. used to be a single story commercial building. It was assessed at $938,000 and the owner paid approximately $9,887 in taxes annually. It has been rebuilt as a mixed use building with commercial space on the ground level and 22 apartments on 4 floors above. The new assessment is approximately $4,800,000 and the new tax bill is about $54,000.00. That means $45,000 in new growth – new property taxes that will grow at the rate of 2.5% in subsequent years.

Another example is 117 Broadway. The building that used to be at that address was entirely commercial, assessed at $1,050,000 and paid around $11,770 in taxes annually. After being rebuilt as mixed use by the Housing Corporation of Arlington, it is assessed at $3,900,000 and taxed at $43,719. 117 Broadway has commercial on the ground floor and 4 stories of affordable housing above. The new growth for this example is approximately $30,000.

What these examples show, and our assessor believes is a pattern, is that a new mixed use or multi-family building increases the taxes we can collect by as much as 400%, depending on the kinds of housing units.

So we can expect new development under MBTA Communities to increase the levy limit substantially over time, reducing the size and frequency of future tax increases.

How Will This New Housing Affect the Cost of Services?

Of course, with new residents comes a need for additional services. However, town-provided services will be impacted differently. Snow and Ice removal, for example, will not be affected at all – we aren’t adding new roads. Many other services provided by public works are like snow and ice: They would only increase at a faster rate if we added more land area or more town facilities to the base.

Services like public safety and health and human services may see gradual increases in service requests, as more people place more demand on these departments. Right now we have a patrol officer for every 850 or so residents. This means we might need to add a new patrol officer if the population increases by 850 residents. But it’s not clear that a new officer would be needed; it depends on the trends the police department sees in their data. I think of these services as increasing by stair steps: Adding a few, or even a few hundred, residents doesn’t require us to add staff to provide more services. Adding a few thousand might mean we need to add a position but we will have added a great deal to the levy limit before we need to add those positions.

Trash Collection Impact

There is one town service that sees an impact every time we add a new unit of housing – trash collection. The town spends approximately $200 per household on solid waste collection and disposal. As mentioned above, 882 Broadway has 22 new 1 bedroom and studio apartments. When that building was all commercial the businesses paid privately for trash removal. The new trash collection costs will be at least $4,400 annually. It’s possible, however, that the building will need a dumpster and that could cost up to $20,000 annually. Either way the new revenue ($45,000) outstrips the increased costs. The town is working on creative solutions for new buildings to keep this cost as affordable as possible.

What About Schools?

Regardless of new housing construction, our student population ebbs and flows. Families move in with small children who go through the school system. The kids graduate high school but their parents, now in their 50’s or 60’s, don’t move until they are much older and need a different living situation. When they sell their homes, the new owners are likely to be families with children again. We can see a pattern of boom and bust in our school population if we look back. Right now, we are seeing a drop in elementary population as this cycle plays out again. We now have 221 fewer students enrolled in the elementary schools than we did in 2019.

We account for this ebb and flow in the budget. A number of years ago, we set a policy to add a growth factor to the school budget. We increase the budget by 50% of per pupil costs for each new student. Currently that is $8800.00 per student. But the policy works in reverse as well. We reduce the budget by the same amount per child as the student population wanes. We also see increased state aid under chapter 70 when our student population grows and may see reductions if it shrinks.

Will Multifamily Homes Add Students?

The new multi-family housing generated by MBTA communities zoning may add students to our schools – but not as many as you might think. Other large multi-family developments like the Legacy apartments and the new development at the old Brigham site have not added a lot of children to the schools directly. Going back to our two example buildings, 882 Mass Ave is all studio and 1 bedroom units, so we are unlikely to see children living there. Our MBTA communities zoning, however, must by law allow new housing that is appropriate for families. So for planning purposes, it’s best to assume we will see growth in the school population.

So what will the effect of this new housing be on the school population and our budget? Given that the new housing will be built gradually, it’s more likely to stabilize our student population than precipitously increase it. The same will be true for our budget: We will see some increases in the school budget growth factor but also increases in state aid and increases in tax revenue from the new construction.

Conclusions

If we create an MBTA communities zone per the working groups recommendation or something close to that, we will see the effect on our budget over time, not immediately. Even if the zone has a theoretical capacity of 1300 additional units (total capacity minus what is already there) the development of new housing won’t be abrupt. For budget purposes, we project our long range plan five years into the future.

When we get to a year, say FY 2023, the actual state of our budget never looks exactly like the projection created five years earlier. We cannot predict the future very far out. What we can do is look back and see what the effects of previous development have been on our budget, and we can assess the risks of our decisions. Experience tells us that multi-family development doesn’t break the budget or swamp the schools, even when the developments are large. It also tells us that turnover in the population causes ebbs and flows in the school population, regardless of new development. We can say with certainty that multi-family development increases our revenues through new growth, and that past experience has been that that new growth mitigates the need for overrides.

My conclusion is that the new development that will occur if we create a robust zone that allows multi-family development by right, will at worst give us growth in our revenues that keeps pace with any increase in services we need. At best, those new revenues will outstrip the growth in expenses and help mitigate our structural deficit. The risk of allowing this new growth is low, and the rewards are worth it, in the form of new missing middle housing, climate change mitigation, and vibrant business districts fueled by new customers nearby.

Written by Guest Writer October 10, 2023