Commonwealth Housing Task Force Summary of Progress as of December 31, 2013

Note: in order to reduce the size of these reports, we have condensed the description of regular ongoing activities, and have moved much of the Chapter 40R update to Appendix I of this report. For background, please visit www.tbf.org/chtf or www.commonwealthhousingtaskforce.org and click on “Quarterly Updates”. A key to the Appendices and the Appendices themselves follow at the end of this Quarter’s report.

During the very active third and fourth Quarters of 2013, the Commonwealth Housing Task Force focused its efforts on: 1. The implementation and monitoring of Chapter 40R, including advocacy for pending legislation and funding. 2. The call for an increase in state funding for affordability, and monitoring of both state and federal legislation and programmatic developments. 3. Strategic planning for new initiatives of the Task Force, including assuring that the benefits of new construction under 40R and other state programs are available to the widest range of households, work with the committee to focus on public housing, and work with the State Administration to maintain a focus on housing programs. 4. An expansion in participation in the Task Force itself, with a focus on diversity. 5. Working in close partnership and collaboration with other groups to support our missions. 6. We do have one special mention for this Report. We have consistently included a great deal of original source material in the Appendices. If you have time to read only one thing, please read Mayor Thomas Menino’s speech to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, delivered on December 10, 2013, and found in Appendix V (page 81-84). It is likely his last major speech as Mayor; we believe you will find it as moving as we did.

Barry Bluestone, Eleanor White, and Ted Carman, working through the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University, have carried out the staff work in coordination with active committees and Boston Foundation staff.

Release of Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2013 and CHTF Plenary Session

Beginning in earnest in July, the Northeastern University Kitty and Michael Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy’s housing team, led by Barry Bluestone and including Eleanor White, began preparing this year’s Greater Boston Housing Report Card (GBHRC) 2013. This entailed collecting a huge amount of information on:  The economic condition of the Commonwealth and Greater Boston  Housing sales and prices for single family homes, 2-4 unit buildings, and condos  Housing construction  Apartment Rents

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 2

 Foreclosure activity  Federal, state, and local housing policy  Chapter 40R activity  Public funding for housing  Housing stock, prices, production, and foreclosures for all municipalities in Greater Boston In addition, a new statistical analysis of the impact of zoning provisions on multifamily housing production was completed to be included as a special chapter in this year’s report. Through August and into September, the staff prepared all of the charts and tables for GBHRC 2013 and drafted chapters for the report, Barry Bluestone worked with Kate Canfield to prepare the final copy for the report including all charts, tables, text, and appendices for release in early October. On October 10, the Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2013: What Follows the Housing Recovery? was released at a major forum at The Boston Foundation. Barry Bluestone reviewed the results of this year’s report and was followed by a panel commenting on the report’s findings. The panel included Tim Warren of the Warren Group, Alicia Sasser Modestino of the Boston Federal Reserve Bank, Elyse Cherry of Boston Community Capital, and Eric Belsky, Managing Director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. Following the panel, Aaron Gornstein, the Under Secretary of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) discussed the state’s efforts in meeting housing goals. All agreed that the housing recovery is now in full flower, but that serious issues of affordability still plague the Boston area. The Report Card’s analysis highlighted the ways in which zoning interventions dramatically increase the production of multifamily housing, specifically pointing to Chapter 40R and both inclusionary and cluster zoning. The report was featured in the Boston Globe, WBUR, WBZ, and other media outlets. Refer to Appendix II for Banker and Tradesman articles about the Report Card and Aaron Gornstein’s comments. The full Report Card 2013 can be found at http://www.bostonfoundation.org/subsites/content.aspx?id=16688. .

Following the above segments, Mary Jo Meisner, Vice President of The Boston Foundation, convened the plenary session of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force. Co-chair Eleanor White, newly-returned to Boston after four years living in Oslo, Norway, welcomed the group and introduced presentations by Sarah Lamitie, co-chair of the Expanding Opportunities Committee, Chuck Eisenberg, co-chair of the Public Housing Committee, and Ted Carman, “father” of Chapter 40R, the Smart Growth Zoning and Housing Production Act. Details of each of these reports can be found later in this Report under the appropriate committees and reports on 40R. Noteworthy, however, was Ted Carman’s presentation of a slide show of fifteen of the projects completed in Chapter 40R districts; the audience was impressed by the quality of the housing and the demonstrated effectiveness of this program to create zoned land for multifamily housing.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 3

Housing Market Updates

Press coverage during this period about news in the housing market, continuing the trend we reported on in the last several Quarters, was optimistic. We have in recent Quarterly Reports covered the huge jump in rents in multifamily rental housing in Massachusetts, particularly in the Greater Boston area, and that trend continues unabated, as covered in our reporting about the Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2013. Banker and Tradesman of July 21, 2013, carried a detailed article about the multifamily market in Boston and the Boston Globe further highlighted this issue in an article on October 15, 2013 about the City of Boston becoming a city of the rich and poor. Relative to the single-family side in Massachusetts, the article in Banker and Tradesman of August 29, 2013, was one of dozens during this period to report on the very hot single-family market, with homes selling very quickly and often for more than the asking price. Bidding wars in the more affluent suburbs are not uncommon. Banker and Tradesman followed up with 2 more articles (on November 26, 2013 and December 1, 2013) showing that the robust housing market had continued through the end of 2013.

All of the articles mentioned in this section are included in Appendix II to this Report.

Nationally, the situation for renters is problematic. A new report released by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard, “America's Rental Housing: Evolving Markets and Needs”, released on December 9, 2013, states that more than half of US renters pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent. A story about the report published by the Boston Globe can be found in Appendix II and the Joint Center’s full report can be found at the following link: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/publications/americas-rental-housing-evolving- markets-and-needs.

Investigation into Construction Costs

Research continued at Northeastern University’s Dukakis Center into the reasons for very high housing development costs in Boston. Continuing with the partnership among The Urban Land Institute (ULI), the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP), and the Dukakis Center at Northeastern, Dukakis Center staff met with representatives of Suffolk Construction to begin the process of obtaining detailed cost data on construction costs in Boston and a number of other metro areas, including New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and San Francisco. The research team is gathering information on both development costs and operating costs from a range of national housing developers and construction firms.

In addition, during this fall semester, Barry Bluestone led a directed study for three graduate architectural students at Northeastern. These students have been using

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 4 data from RSMeans to compare the cost of constructing a 20 story “non-combustible” central city apartment building in a number of U.S. metro areas. That report will be complete by the end of December and should be issued early in 2014.

Student Housing Effort

Barry Bluestone also continues to pursue efforts to deal with the issues in the housing market presented by Boston’s being such a renowned center of higher education. We house more than 100,000 full-time 4-year college students on campus in the Boston area, but nearly 180,000 live off campus, putting huge pressure on an already-overheated rental housing market. Further, whereas 50 percent of undergraduates live on campus, only 8 percent of graduate students do. Barry has developed an innovative model of seeking to develop graduate student villages (described in several past CHTF Quarterly Reports).

Working off of his initial model for a “multi-university graduate student village,” Barry Bluestone expanded on this concept to produce a plan for the development of 5,000-8,000 units of housing in Greater Boston aimed at graduate students, medical interns and residents, and other young professionals. In November, he produced a major report on how such “Millennial Villages” could be developed through a “grand collaboration” of for-profit and non-profit developers, construction firms, architects, universities and teaching hospitals, and state and local government.

During the fall, Bluestone presented this concept before a number of organizations including:  ABX – Boston Architect’s Convention  Samuels & Associates  Suffolk Construction  KPM Associates Forum  Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard  Graduate School of Design at Harvard

On November 22, Bluestone -- along with Tamara Roy of ADD, Inc., a Boston- based architectural firm that has been doing preliminary designs for such housing -- presented the plan to Under Secretary Aaron Gornstein at DHCD. We look forward to progress on this effort during 2014.

Other Programmatic Developments We were very pleased to see during this period a renewed focus in the press on holistic planning for housing and urban development, a key component of the concept behind the Chapter 40R Smart Growth Zoning and Housing Development statute, and a long-held value of CHTF. A July 2, 2013 article in the Boston Globe highlighted this concept as it applies to highway decisions. The New England News reported on July 23,

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 5

2013 about Clean Energy Grants for affordable housing, linking two major efforts. Banker and Tradesman published a very positive article on September 22, 2013 about the comprehensive planning involved in the Olmsted Green project in Boston (built in the only 40R district approved to date by the City of Boston). And in that same issue (9-22- 13), Banker and Tradesman carried a story supporting the passage of legislation to facilitate planning in Gateway Cities. Finally, a Banker and Tradesman Editorial of December 8, 2013 made the connection between transportation, housing and economic development. All of these articles can be found in Appendix III of this Report.

Eleanor White has begun discussions with a distinguished physician in Boston who is very interested in exploring in depth the connections between housing quality and health, especially among children. This may become a new initiative of CHTF in the coming year.

There was also during this period some explicit support for the development of multifamily housing, especially for families. In an article on August 6, 2013, the Boston Globe was unstinting in its criticism of a bill in the legislature that would have crafted an exemption to Chapter 40B (the “snob zoning” statute) in opposition to a project in Norwood. This was followed by a Globe Editorial on September 5, 2013, making the point even more forcefully. And on November 3, 2013, Banker and Tradesman ran an article confronting head-on the ongoing bias against family housing in many Massachusetts cities and towns. All of these articles can also be found in Appendix III to this Report. We applaud these members of the press for taking on sensitive issues that play such a large role in restricting housing opportunities across the Commonwealth. CHTF members should also be aware of the proposals for major restructuring of the Federal housing finance system, essentially proposals to do away with the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and replacing them with a new Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation. The FMIC would collect insurance premiums but provide less of a guarantee to private lenders than they had enjoyed under Fannie and Freddie. An excellent summary of the bill as originally proposed, provided by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, is included in Appendix III of this Report. There has been some concern on the part of low-income housing advocates that the considerable amount of affordable housing generated by the operations and mandated goals of Fannie and Freddie would also be lost in the process. The Senate Banking Committee held its last hearing on the legislation on December 10, 2013 and will be preparing a revised bill in early 2014. As the Boston mayoral election season was in full swing, outgoing Mayor Menino announced major housing goals for the City. His goal of 30,000 new units by 2020 had been announced last Spring, but September, 2013 saw the roll-out of some of the planning details. A Boston Globe article of September 9, 2013, is a good summary of the major planning provisions. Not unexpectedly, Banker and Tradesman of September 15, 2013 was very supportive of the Menino housing plan and also, on September 20, 2013, of the Menino Homelessness Plan, whose goal is to end homelessness in the City of Boston. See all of these articles in Appendix III of this Report.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 6

At the end of the (political) day in November, 2013, Boston had elected a new mayor for the first time in 20 years. Martin Walsh will take office as the new Mayor of Boston in January, 2014, and as we went to press with this Report, he was hard at work on what both Menino and Walsh promise will be a seamless transition. Mr. Walsh, who has served in the Massachusetts Legislature for almost 15 years, has pledged to be a friend to housing and urban development and we will watch with interest as his staffing and program plans begin to emerge. CHTF stands ready to assist in any way possible. On November 14, 2013, Governor Patrick announced funding decisions in state funding and tax credits totaling $73 million across the Commonwealth. The full press release and list of funded projects is included in Appendix III of this Report.

The lack of planning grant funds for Chapter 40R has been a significant challenge, especially in view of the fact that 40R is the program with the most promise for facilitating large-scale housing production in Massachusetts in the coming years, and with the most potential to avert the effects of the projected housing shortage and increase in rents over the next decade. CHTF has actively urged the Administration to make additional planning funds available, and we are very excited to share the news that, for 40R and other planning activities that advance the Governor’s goal of creating 10,000 multifamily units annually, such funding will be forthcoming shortly. The planning grant funding is expected to be announced in early 2014.This is very good news indeed for the future of the Chapter 40R program, and we thank the Patrick Administration for responding to this need.

We also mention only briefly here (see the following Sections for detailed information) that DHCD has issued some modifications to the program regulations for the 40R program, a move supported by CHTF.

Sequestration

The Center on Budget Policies and Priorities issued a major announcement about Sequestration and the bipartisan budget agreement reached in the Congress. And in a late-breaking development, Congress passed the budget agreement on December 19, 2013, as reported by the National Council of State Housing Agencies. These stories are included in Appendix III of this Report, and further information about Sequestration can be found in the Affordability section below.

Implementing Smart Growth Zoning: Continuing Interest from Municipalities and Local Groups

Chapters 40R and 40S have now been on the books and implemented since 2006. The programs have resulted in the passage of 33 Chapter 40R smart growth zoning districts in 31 municipalities, totaling approximately 12,350 zoned units supported by their communities, with continuing interest in many more. Please refer to Appendix I to

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 7 this report for the regular detailed update on progress under the Chapter 40R program.

Thanks to the Economic Development and Jobs bill that was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in July, 2012, the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund was replenished with a deposit of $4,000,000. DHCD currently estimates that the Trust Fund will have sufficient resources to cover required payments through FY14 (through June 30, 2014). This includes the funding needed for making payments under Chapter 40S for school costs. Communities can now move forward with proposals for Chapter 40R with reasonable assurance that the funds will be available to make payments as promised by the legislation. In addition, replenishing the Trust Fund has made it easier for DHCD and others to actively promote the program in their outreach and education efforts.

On November 22, 2013, DHCD issued new regulations for Chapter 40R. These regulations were the subject of a Public Hearing for comment on August 13, 2013, at which Ted Carman represented CHTF and presented testimony in favor of the regulations.

In the new regulations, there are a number of editing changes for clarification, as well as the following more substantive modifications:

Infrastructure definition Some 40R districts have not been well-connected to transit, town center uses, or other uses that qualify them as “smart growth” locations. DHCD has encouraged a stronger connection in recent years and proposes to make it clearer that infrastructure includes transportation access. The change substitutes “pedestrian and vehicular access” for the word “transportation.”

Highly Suitable Location The third, catch-all category was worded so that there is a presumption that a location is “highly suitable” if it is identified for high density housing or mixed use development on a plan. The proposed change requires in addition “satisfactory evidence” in all cases that the location is consistent with the statutory smart growth goals. While the DHCD approval decision would be discretionary, the amended provision identifies a series of factors that may be considered (including whether the location is identified in any plan).

Conditional Approval The prior regulation required that the proposed district either have the necessary infrastructure or that the municipality provides its plans for building that infrastructure. The new language adds an option for communities that neither have adequate existing infrastructure nor plans for adequate infrastructure, but want to zone for housing growth. With conditional approval, municipalities can now adopt the zoning, but will not get the Chapter 40R incentive payment

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 8

until they satisfy the conditions set forth in the Letter of Conditional Approval. This change allows a community to change its zoning, interest a developer, and then work out an infrastructure plan—all without any state spending for incentive payments until the infrastructure plan is ready and DHCD-approved.

Underutilized Land Underutilized land is “developable land” (and therefore counted in incentive payments) even though already developed in whole or in part. The prior definition required that the parcel be “no longer necessary to support the current use”. This made it difficult for DHCD to count land that was currently in use (e.g. an industrial yard, storage space or parking lot). The new definition substitutes a two-part standard: 1) “marginal or significantly declining use,” and 2) as “demonstrated by existing or anticipated market conditions,” may reasonably be converted to housing use under Chapter 40R.

Mixed Use Density This clarifies that if the zoning is mixed use, the residential density requirement is proportional. This clarification was supported by stakeholder groups because the existing language seemed to discourage mixed use development.

We believe that these changes are a positive step forward and congratulate DHCD for its thoughtful assessment of the administration of the program, and the improvements contained in the new regulations. Thanks to everyone who took the time to review the proposed regulations and made comments to DHCD, both at the public hearing and also directly to DHCD.

Leadership of CHTF has also discussed efforts to make developers more aware of the significant benefits represented by this substantial amount of land zoned as-of- right for mixed-income housing and related mixed-use development. While recognizing the challenge of not-yet-rebounded markets in some areas of the Commonwealth, and the shortage of housing subsidy funds, we would like to see more construction beginning in approved Chapter 40R districts. Planning projects in 40R districts could save developers significant amounts of both time and money otherwise spent on getting zoning approved for multifamily housing or higher-density single-family housing at the local level. With 40R, that work has already been accomplished by the city or town. Any specific ideas about how to best achieve this goal of heightened awareness within the development community would be much-appreciated. Please forward your comments and ideas to Eleanor White at [email protected] .

With regard to the State Historic Tax Credit program, a bill filed by the Gateway City Caucus --House 311-- provides for changes to the program as follows: ● The annual amount of authorization for the Credit is increased to $60,000,000 (from $50,000,000);

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 9

● When the Secretary of State makes an allocation to a project, the allocation must be for the full amount authorized by the legislation (that is, an allocation equal to 20% times the eligible renovation costs); ● A mechanism is set in place to allow for Credits to be transferred to a new owner of the subject property; ● Additional flexibility is provided to the Secretary of State in applying the historic renovation standards to specific circumstances.

The requirement to fully fund developments that are approved would eliminate the difficulty that developers face when they are allocated small amounts of credit in successive funding rounds (of which there are three per year). This often means that the funds are not available for some period of years, making it extremely difficult to retain control over the properties and to pull together the full complement of needed financing sources.

A well-attended hearing on House 311 was held in Springfield on September 10, 2013, at which strong support for the provisions in the Bill was expressed by a wide variety of groups.

As stated many times before, CHTF feels strongly that the Legislature should repeal the “clawback” provision in Chapter 40R, which states that communities have three years after the passage of a Chapter 40R Smart Growth Zoning District and drawdown of incentive funds to issue building permits and have construction commence. Absent a good reason for the lack of construction, the community must repay the State for the amount of the initial Incentive Payment. The three-year window has now come up for a number of communities where construction has not yet commenced (often due to the state of the economy) for reasons beyond the control of the community, and repeal of this provision would be highly desirable. Its existence makes it more difficult to obtain local approval if new districts. Further, the provision—inserted into the original legislation at the last moment and never supported by CHTF—is antithetical to the original concept of 40R: that as-of-right zoning would be achieved across the Commonwealth, expected to be in excess of current needs, so that when market conditions allowed, developers would choose to pursue the development of housing on their own timetables.

It is estimated that half a dozen communities have received letters from DHCD informing them that three years have passed since their Smart Growth Zoning Districts were enacted, and requesting documentation of either a start of construction or, in the absence of such start, a statement of “good cause” as to the reason for construction not starting. To date, all requests for extensions of time have been granted by DHCD, which is working with the communities to assist in getting construction underway.

To resolve this problem, Senator Chandler has refiled her bill which would repeal the “Clawback” provision (formerly Senate 97, now Senate 591). We are very

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 10 grateful to Senator Chandler for her support on this bill and for her unwavering support of Chapter 40R.

As mentioned above, local resources to plan smart growth districts are scarce, and this scarcity up until now has been one of the reasons for few new proposed districts recently. For instance, some projects have gone forward in the Pioneer Valley (Western Massachusetts) only because the Pioneer Valley Regional Planning Commission was able to provide the staffing needed to move the developments through the approval process. However, other districts have been unable to proceed in the absence of a ready source of planning funds for the significant amount of planning and outreach necessary to get a two-thirds vote from the local governing body for a new 40R District. So again we thank the state Administration for its expected announcement in early 2014 of an infusion of planning grant funding for projects—like Chapter 40R districts—that would advance the Governor’s goal for construction of 10,000 housing units across the Commonwealth.

In addition, DHCD has made changes in the Priority Development Fund Program to make funding more available for both Chapter 40R proposals and for the new Compact Neighborhood program. There is currently a total of approximately $180,000 available for planning for these new districts, with neither program having preference. The funding will be available for the following eligible uses:  Planning, outreach and adoption of smart growth zoning overlay districts under M.G.L. Chapter 40R.  Planning, outreach and adoption of other high impact up-zoning approaches that increase unit-per-acre zoning regulations within city/town centers and/or near transit, employment, retail and services, and other appropriate areas to facilitate more compact, vital development areas, including other types of as-of-right zoning districts for DHCD approval.

The Compact Neighborhood program will provide incentives to communities that have or create districts that allow as-of-right districts with 4 units per acre for single family homes, and 8 units per acre for multifamily units. The incentives will include priority for certain State discretionary funding. We believe that the Compact Neighborhood program will offer another welcome alternative for communities that wish to encourage the development of new housing.

We believe there is an opportunity, however, for property owners and developers to step forward to contribute the funds necessary and to work in partnership with municipalities to plan 40R districts. The time for communities to be proactive and plan for their future is when the construction industry is somewhat dormant; when the economy does improve to the point where new housing construction is determined to be feasible, these projects will be ready to go. As the recent Housing Report Card has set forth, now is clearly the time for more zoning and housing development.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 11

With the affirmation of the state’s affordable housing program under Chapter 40B, the interest level in Chapter 40R is continuing. And now that concerns have been addressed about the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund running out of funds, it is likely that new activity will emerge in the months ahead. Increasing funding to local communities to pursue smart growth districts is the prudent way to provide a “relief valve” for communities facing Chapter 40B developments that may be considered to be inappropriate for the location based on local comprehensive planning, site conditions, etc. Chapter 40R is an important tool for facilitating the development of new affordable housing units at a time when some units may leave the inventory as a result of the expiration of their federal contracts (an issue which has been discussed at length previously).

Other states have also taken notice of the results that 40R has produced, most especially in Connecticut and New Jersey, as described in detail in previous Quarterly Reports.

Implementation of Chapter 40R and 40S (the School Cost “Insurance Policy”), Funding for both Chapters 40R and 40S, and a Technical Amendment to 40R

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR)’s “Informational Guideline Release” for Chapter 40S, dated June 2010, outlines the basic rules for the program. More detail can be accessed in previous CHTF Quarterly Reports.

The final state budget for FY14 made available $500,000 in Line Item 1233-2401 to cover Chapter 40S reimbursements as required by the Chapter 40S statute. Any of that funding not required in FY14 will revert to the Commonwealth’s General Fund.

For FY13, to be received in FY14, one community is expected to receive funds under Chapter 40S: Lakeville ($131,271). The fact that this project is eligible for the payments is evidence that in some situations communities need the financial assistance Chapter 40S was designed to provide. Chapter 40S payments are made when the cost of educating the children in new developments in Chapter 40R districts exceeds the sum of one half of the property taxes and the incremental new Chapter 70 money that is allocated to the community because of the increase in the school population.

The map below, provided by the MA Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), indicates the communities that have already implemented Chapter 40R and those in the process of doing so. The table following the map outlines the current funding sources and obligations for Chapter 40R.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 12

Note: Current through December 31, 2013. Source: DHCD

Communities currently considering Chapter 40R districts include Ludlow, Southampton, Easthampton, Dennis, Medford, and a second project in Haverhill, in the Bradford section. Permitting for specific developments and construction activity is underway in Brockton, Lowell, Lakeville, Easton, Lawrence, Natick, and in one of the Districts in Reading. Both Pittsfield and Reading (30 Haven Street) have recently completed projects.

The following chart shows the current status of the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund. It reflects the additional $4,000,000 that was passed in the Economic Development and Jobs Bill in 2012. The $4,000,000 consists of amounts in excess of $10,000,000 that are actually received from settlements or judgments.

Initial Funds from sale of Surplus State Land $ 3,349,370 Appropriations – Transfers, October, 2007 $10,000,000 Sales of Surplus State Property, 2007 $ 78,000 Sales of Surplus State Property, 2008 $ 7,772,440 Sales of Surplus State Property, 2009 $12,000,000 Miscellaneous $ 165,440 Deposit pursuant to 2012 Jobs Bill $ 4,000,000 Total Sources of Funds $37,365,250 Less Transfer to General Fund, 2009 ($18,004,810) Other Sources $ 51,000 Net Sources $19,411,440 Less Payments and Obligations to Communities to date: ($15,747,000) Balance in Fund as of December, 2013 $ 3,664,440

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 13

Given the new funding in the Economic Development and Jobs bill, as described earlier in this Report and shown in the table above, the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund is now expected to have sufficient resources to make the payments that will become due to communities through the remainder of FY 14, ending June 30, 2014. (The Trust Fund provides the funding for the Incentive Payments and the Density Bonus Payments for Chapter 40R.) These additional funds will be required as more districts are passed and as more specific properties begin construction.

However, it should be noted that this funding will cover approximately 1,000 new units being placed under construction. Given the projects in the current pipeline, this could occur over the next 6 to 12 months, and if it does, it would mean that additional funding for the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund should be sought in the FY 15 Budget. The need for additional funding will be determined later this spring.

Limited funds, as described above, $180,000 ±, are also available under the Priority Development Fund (PDF) program through DHCD for planning in communities with approved Housing Production Plans (HPPs) which have specific, eligible plan implementation needs. 40R Communities with current HPPs include Amesbury, Easton, North Andover, Plymouth, Reading, and Sharon. Medford and Dennis have HPPs, and are giving consideration to Smart Growth Districts.

To date, 12 communities have permitted/started or completed construction on housing within 15 of the 33 approved 40R Districts, comprising 1423 Units. We are extremely pleased that almost half of the approved Chapter 40R districts have reached this important milestone. This has resulted in Density Bonus Payments to communities of $4,902,000. However, as mentioned above, CHTF will be working to increase awareness of the benefits of 40R within the development community.

We are pleased to report that Senator Harriette Chandler and Representative Kevin Honan have refiled previous legislation to provide for a continuing and reliable source of funding of the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund, as discussed in detail in previous Quarterly Reports. The Senate bill is Senate 67. The House bill is House 170. Both were referred to Committee for consideration, and a hearing was held on December 12, 2013. The Commonwealth Housing Task Force will be submitting testimony in support of the bill to the committee. We are very grateful to Rep. Honan and Sen. Chandler for their strong and continuing leadership on this legislative effort and to both for their support from the beginning for Chapter 40R. Despite the success in obtaining funds for the next fiscal year for the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund, there remains ongoing uncertainty because of the lack of a consistent, predictable revenue source. It is therefore important that we not lose sight of this bill, and that efforts continue to have it passed in the next session of the Legislature. Refer also to the previous section for a detailed discussion of the bill filed by Senator Harriette Chandler to repeal the “clawback” provision of Chapter 40R.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 14

Spreading the Word about Chapter 40R and Smart Growth

Barry Bluestone, Eleanor White, Ted Carman, Mary Jo Meisner, and other members of CHTF continue to respond to requests for meetings, discussions, and presentation of material about Chapter 40R from planning officials, local elected officials, affordable housing advocates, realtors and others to assure widespread education about the benefits of Chapter 40R. Chuck Eisenberg, for example, made a major presentation to the MA Association of Realtors about the 40R program on July 13, 2013.

Please visit the Boston Foundation/CHTF websites, www.tbf.org/chtf or www.commonwealthhousingtaskforce.org and consult previous Quarterly Reports for a detailed description of this ongoing activity. Chapter 40R is often the subject of news and feature articles in the general press and other media. The topic has also continued to attract interest from trade and industry groups, and is regularly featured as a topic at various conferences and workshops.

The Greater Boston Housing Report Card of 2012 includes specific action recommendations for housing agencies to assist in spreading the word about Chapter 40R/S, and CHTF staff will be working with many of them to implement those recommendations.

During this period of 2013, Barry Bluestone has continued an extraordinarily active schedule of speaking about the need for housing development and trying to develop support for it in individual communities. Barry maintained an almost- superhuman schedule in addressing the Commonwealth’s need for additional housing in a number of public forums, seminars, and meetings. These included: September 13 - NEWIRE Luncheon Keynote – “Demographic Change and Housing Demand” September 18 – WBUR “Radio Boston” – “Mayor Menino’s Housing Blueprint” September 18 – Cape Cod Young Professionals Organization – “Housing Needs on Cape Cod” September 24 – Tour of Town of Dedham – Potential Housing Sites October 2 – Unitarian Universalist Church of Boston – “Demography and Housing Needs” October 3 – Samuels & Associates – “The Millennial Village Concept” October 17 – Southern New England American Planning Association Conference – “Population Change and Housing Demand” October 18 – ADD, Inc. – “The Millennial Village Concept” October 21 – Town of Dedham – “Projected Housing Demand in the Town of Dedham” October 23 – WGBH “Emily Rooney Show”: “Affordable Workforce Housing for Boston”

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 15

October 24 – 1st Meeting with Mayor Setti Warren & Staff – Develop project for Envisioning Newton 2030 – Housing, Transportation, and Human Services October 27-- (publication)-- “Is There Another Housing Bubble on the Horizon? Changing Demographics Signal Stable Market,” Banker & Tradesman, October 27, 2013 October 30 – IDEAS Boston – Presentation by Tamara Roy and B.K. Boley (ADD, Inc.) on “Demographic Change, Micro Housing, and the Millennial Village” November 2 –Town of Natick – Strategic Planning Conference – “Demographic Change and Housing Needs in Natick” November 2 – Second Step – Dinner Speaker – “Demographic Change, Aging Baby Boomers, and the Need for Multiunit Housing” November 13- WBUR “Radio Boston” – “The Millennial Village Concept” November 14 –New England Economic Partnership Annual Conference – Keynote Speaker “Boston’s Role in the Regional Economy – Demographic Change and the Regional Economy” November 15 –2nd Meeting with Mayor Setti Warren & Staff – “Envisioning Newton 2030” Project November 19 –ABX Conference – “Micro Units and Housing for Young Professionals” November 20 – Smart Growth Alliance Forum – “The New Demography and Housing Demand” November 20- Town of Andover Economic Summit “The Future of Andover: Demography, Economy, and Housing Demand” November 21 -Greater Boston Real Estate Board Annual Conference – Keynote Speaker – “The Impact of the Coming Demographic Revolution on the Greater Boston Housing Market” December 4 – Joint Center for Housing Studies Seminar – “The Impact of the Coming Demographic Revolution on the Greater Boston Housing Market” December 4 – Graduate School of Design Seminar – “Changing Demographics, Fair Housing, and the Development of Housing for Working Families” December 6 – Samuels & Associates – “The Millennial Village Concept” December 12 -KPM Forum on Housing – Keynote Speaker – “Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2013” December 19-3rd Meeting, Mayor Setti Warren & Staff – “Envisioning Newton 2030

We encourage you to regularly visit the CHTF website, and we welcome all comments and suggestions for improvement. Please note that in addition to its former address (www.tbf.org/chtf ), the website can also now be accessed directly at www.commonwealthhousingtaskforce.org. The website serves as the central repository for documents, status reports and resource material on the Task Force itself, Chapter 40R, Chapter 40S, press coverage, and related matters. Dukakis Center staff, led by Barry Bluestone, is responsible along with Tim Gassert at the Boston Foundation for updating the CHTF website on a regular basis. We also encourage you to visit the new and improved Boston Foundation website at www.tbf.org .

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 16

Funding and Legislation for Affordability

A coalition of affordable housing and homelessness prevention organizations convened by CHAPA, including many members of CHTF, established a list of FY14 state budget requests that formed a joint agenda.

The FY14 budget, signed into law in July, 2013, includes the items listed below. The organizations have just begun to convene around the FY15 budget. The Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development held a budget hearing on Thursday, December 19, 2013 at the State House to consider these items.  MRVP (the MA Rental Voucher Program) was funded at $57.5 million with prior appropriations continued from FY13. A preference for HomeBASE families with disabilities, whose temporary rental assistance is ending, was included.  Public Housing was funded at $64.4 million.  Families participating in the temporary rental assistance program, HomeBASE, which is ending in FY14, will have a homelessness preference for subsidized housing, access to flexible cash assistance through HomeBASE household assistance and RAFT in order to maintain their housing, and if necessary, access to shelter. In addition, families with disabilities, whose HomeBASE rental assistance is expiring, receive a preference within MRVP.  $3.45 million for the Alternative Housing Voucher Program.  $10 million for RAFT homelessness prevention, with language allowing for up to 7 days of accommodations for families who would otherwise be staying in places not meant for human habitation.  $2.6 million for the Housing Consumer Education Centers.  $500,000 for the Tenancy Preservation Program.  $1.6 million for Home and Healthy for Good.  $80,000 for the Mass Access Affordable Housing Registry  $2.6 million in funding for Foreclosure Prevention Counseling  The Brownfields Tax Credit was extended through 2018.  A new Housing Preservation and Stabilization Trust Fund was created and funded out of the FY13 surplus. The $10 million can be used flexibly by DHCD to provide housing for low-income families and individuals in the Commonwealth, particularly for those most at-risk of becoming homeless.

Governor Announces 2014 Bond Cap

The Administration announced the FY2014 Capital Budget and Five Year (FY2014-2018) Plan in December, 2013. The Budget maintains the bond cap for

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 17

Housing programs at $179.5 million, the same overall total as in FY2013, but $10 million higher than planned in last year’s Five Year Plan. The cap was reduced for the Housing Stabilization Fund, the Housing Innovations Fund, and Public Housing for a combined total of $10 million. DHCD was given $10 million to spend flexibly between bond programs for “Affordable Housing for Priority Populations.” Federal Housing Budget HUD’s budget authority for its key programs was 10% lower in FY2013 than in FY2010, despite rising costs, in part due to the 5% across the board sequestration cuts in FY2013. Like all federal agencies, HUD has been operating under a continuing resolution at FY2013 post-sequestration funding levels that expires on January 15, 2014.

In mid-December 2013, Congress approved an agreement on the overall FY2014 budget funding levels that is 4.8% above the FY2013 post-sequestration levels for non- defense discretionary programs. Congress will try to write an omnibus appropriation bill before January 15 for the balance of FY2014. House and Senate appropriations committees will have to divide up the spending cap through 302(b) allocations for each of the 12 subcommittees charged with writing individual appropriations bills. The subcommittees will then propose funding levels for individual programs. Advocates for FY2014 HUD appropriations are focusing on areas that can that reverse some of the most harmful FY2013 cuts, particularly for the Section 8 housing choice voucher program (where the number of households nationwide with vouchers appears to have dropped by 40,000-65,000 already due to a freeze on turnover) and public housing operations.

The President’s FY14 Budget Request: On April 10, 2013, the Administration sent Congress its FY14 Budget request, built on the assumption that sequestration would be reversed in FY14. It requested $47.6 billion for HUD discretionary programs, $2.5 billion above the FY2012 enacted level after adjusting for one-time reserve offsets in FY2012. The request proposed the following for major HUD programs (relative to FY2013 pre-sequestration funding levels unless stated otherwise):

 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: $19.99 billion, $17.97 billion for renewals; this request would provide 6 percent more than the FY2013 budget pre- sequestration levels and 11% more than the FY2013 post-sequestration funding level for the overall account. It would permit housing agencies to re-issue the vouchers they’ve had to shelve this year due to lack of funding, restore deeply cut program administration funding, and increase funding for preservation vouchers to meet new need (there is currently a waiting list).  Project-Based Rental Assistance: $10.27 billion; while a 10 percent increase from FY13 pre-sequestration levels, it will still require short-funding of some renewal contracts.  Public Housing: $2 billion capital fund, $4.6 billion operating fund- while 7 percent more than FY13 pre-sequestration funding, it will only provide 90% of

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 18

the operating subsidies needed (vs. 83% in FY2013) and result in an ever-growing capital backlog (new needs increase by about $3 billion a year).  HOME Investment Partnerships: $950 million; 5 percent less than FY13 pre- sequestration, essentially level funding relative to FY13 post-sequestration funding but far below the $1.85 billion provided in FY2010.  Homeless Assistance: $2.38 billion; 17 percent more than FY13 pre- sequestration.  Section 811: $126 million; $39 million (24%) less than the FY13 pre- sequestration level, including a 67% cut in funding for new rental assistance.  Section 202: $400 million; $26 million (7%) more than the FY13 pre- sequestration level, including $20 million for new rental assistance (no expansion funding was provided in FY2013).  Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $332 million; a $1 million increase from FY13  Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): $2.8 billion for formula grants; a 5% decrease from the pre-sequestration funding of $2.95 billion in FY13. (excluding disaster funds)  National Housing Trust Fund: The request also included $1 billion for the National Housing Trust Fund but did not include a funding source. It remains to be seen whether the just-confirmed new director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Representative Mel Watt, will reverse the policy of his predecessor and begin making the already statutorily authorized contributions to the Trust by the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, calculated as a small percentage of the value of new GSE business.

House and Senate early Proposals The total discretionary cap of $1.102 trillion proposed under the agreement is about halfway between the caps used by the House ($967 billion) and Senate ($1.057 trillion) appropriations subcommittees in early budget proposals this past July. The House (H.R. 2610) proposed continued cuts to HUD’s budget, while the Senate (S.1243) proposed increases and similar to – and in a few cases higher than - the Presidents’ request for most programs. It is unclear how the differences will be resolved in the FY2014 appropriations process to come. For more details on the FY14 request, please visit: http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/FY14_Budget_Chart_HUD_USDA.pdf and http://nlihc.org/article/president-issues-fy14-budget-request-includes-many-policy- proposals-housing.

2013-2014 State Legislation One of the most important housing bills of this session at the State level is the Housing Bond Bill: An Act Financing the Production and Preservation of Housing for Low and Moderate Income Residents. The bill, filed by Housing Committee Chairs (Representative Kevin Honan and Senator James Eldridge), was signed into law on November 14, 2013. The bill:  Authorizes $1.4 billion in funds for five years.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 19

● Extends the Low Income Housing Tax Credit at $20 million annually through 2018. ● Removes burdensome repayment and refinancing language that had previously applied only to the Facilities Consolidation Fund, Community Based Housing, and Housing Innovations Fund. ● Allows for the funding of commercial space within mixed-use developments as part of Commercial Area Transit Node Housing Program. ● Focuses homeownership funds within the Housing Stabilization Fund for small multifamily developments in weak markets. ● Provides $45 million in funds over 5 years for the Early Education and Out of School Time Capital Fund.

Amendments were passed during the House and Senate debates on the housing bond bill, which would have weakened 40B and additional amendments were adopted that would impact immigration policy as it relates to public housing eligibility. The bill was then sent to a conference committee. The Conference Committee report, which was accepted by the Legislature, did not include any changes to 40B or public housing eligibility. CHTF thanks the conferees for their decisions.

Many thanks to Charles Eisenberg, Co-Chair of the CHTF Public Housing Committee, for representing CHTF at the June 20 hearing.

Gateway Cities: Legislation has also been proposed to stimulate development in Gateway Cities. The bill, An Act to Promote Transformative Development of Gateway Cities, H311 (accessed at http://mahouse.gov/Bills/188/House/H311), was filed by Representative Antonio Cabral and Senator Benjamin Downing. The legislation contains several provisions to expand and enhance programs that incentivize economic development in Gateway Cities, including amendments and increased funding for HDIP and the Historic Tax Credit.

Zoning Reform: Representative Stephen Kulik and Senator Daniel Wolf have filed An Act Promoting the Planning and Development of Sustainable Communities, H. 1859, (accessed at http://mahouse.gov/Bills/188/House/H1859), which updates Massachusetts’ land use laws to meet the state’s need for workforce housing, reduce commutes, and preserve farmland and forests. The bill had a public hearing on May 14, 2013, and remains in the Municipalities Committee.

The bill provides benefits to municipalities through statewide reforms, and offers enhanced incentives and tools to communities that choose to opt in. Those communities could opt in by changing select local regulations in order to meet economic development, housing, and natural resource protection goals. This bill takes pieces of zoning reform efforts from prior sessions to create a more streamlined bill that gives cities and towns the tools they need to shape their futures, while providing more certainty to landowners and developers. Key provisions include: providing explicit statutory language allowing municipalities to require the creation of affordable housing projects, which can count towards their 40B requirements; increasing local oversight by providing the option to

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 20 adopt regulations for minor subdivisions in place of Approval Not Required (ANR) provisions; consolidated permitting that brings all decision-making boards together at the beginning of project reviews; establishing a clear process for development impact fees; addressing vested rights by providing standardized zoning protections for development projects proposed in building permits, special permits, and subdivision plans; and creating the Planning Ahead for Growth Act which grants additional tools and incentives to communities that choose to opt-in by making specific zoning changes consistent with the state’s Sustainable Development Principles.

Benefits of planning ahead for growth include broader use of impact fees, natural resource protection zoning at very low densities, shorter vesting periods, the ability to regulate the rate of development, and priority for state infrastructure funding.

Public Housing Reform: The Governor and MassNAHRO have filed two different versions of public housing reform, both aimed at long term sustainability of our public housing stock. The Administration proposes the consolidation of 240 housing authorities into 6 regional housing authorities (RHAs) in order to modernize operations and financial management. The RHAs would take ownership of all public housing assets currently owned by local housing authorities, and assume responsibility for fiscal and operational management of all state and federal public housing in each region. Each of the six RHAs would consist of one executive director, a governing board appointed by the Governor, regional management staff, and local site managers. The legislation allows communities to retain control over land use and significant redevelopment decisions including change of use, ownership or the financing structure of an existing building or vacant land.

MassNAHRO proposes encouraging (but not mandating) collaborative administrative functions such as waiting lists, vacant unit turnover, procurement and capital improvements as well as strengthening accountability at the local level. The MassNAHRO proposal includes a provision for an assessment and evaluation tool that would make it possible to identify troubled housing authorities and direct corrective action and technical assistance accordingly. In addition, all housing authorities with state- funded units would be subject to mandatory annual independent public audits.

Also refer to the extensive discussion of these policies in the Public Housing Committee section with source documents in Appendix IV of the last Quarterly Report.

In addition to the public housing reform efforts of the Governor and MassNAHRO, An Act Relative to Public Housing Innovations Pilots, H. 1146, and S. 592, (accessed at http://mahouse.gov/Bills/188/House/H1146 ), a bill supported by CHTF since its original filing, was refiled as a way to promote innovative strategies in public housing. This legislation, filed by Representative Sanchez and Senator Chandler would reduce and streamline regulatory and statutory requirements for participating housing authorities. The program would maximize the efficient use of funds received by a housing authority. By not restricting the use of appropriated funds to one narrow

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 21 purpose, the Commonwealth would allow housing authorities to more effectively address local needs, which differ by locality. The bill would also authorize innovative program design on issues such as rent calculation; this could serve to reduce the administrative burden and cost on the housing authority, and would reduce the burden on tenants to produce the personal information often necessary to document income and exclusions. Before taking action on the public housing reform bills, the Housing Committee is conducting public hearings at housing authorities across the state and is in the process of scheduling a public hearing at the State House. Legislation to dedicate energy efficiency funding for improvements in affordable rental housing was re-filed by Representative Honan and Senator DiDomenico. There is a significant capital cost involved in constructing or rehabilitating housing to ensure that the structures minimize energy use. However, if the capital investment can be absorbed, the energy savings are significant, and can reduce both the rental income necessary to maintain the property and the impact on the environment. An Act Relative to Affordable Housing Energy Efficiency, H.1122 and S.1574 (accessed at http://mahouse.gov/Bills/188/House/H1122 ) would dedicate funding to make new and existing multifamily affordable housing more energy efficient. We would appreciate feedback from CHTF members on this issue. The bill was heard on May 14, 2013, and remains before the Housing Committee. Members interested in supporting or learning more about these proposals should contact Eleanor White at [email protected] or Rachel Heller at [email protected].

Foreclosures and the UN“Stuck” Home Mortgage Market

This period continued to witness a fairly dramatic change in public discussion about foreclosure issues in Massachusetts. In the single-family mortgage market, foreclosures have declined, and more homeowners have found themselves no longer “underwater” as home prices and values have risen.

However, despite the foreclosure petition decline in Boston and the Gateway Cities, Warren Group data cited in the Massachusetts Housing Partnership’s Foreclsoure Monitor Report, published on Nov. 26, 2013, states that there was a dramatic uptick, a 78% increase, in foreclosure petitions during the summer of 2013. The Report further indicates that the “large lenders such as Wells Fargo, US Bank and JP Morgan Chase, have all increased their foreclsosure activity.” A notable exception is Bank of America. For more analysis, including distress data by community for Boston, the Gateway Cities, and other distressed municipalities, go to: http://www.mhp.net/vision/news.php?page_function=detail&mhp_news_id=283 .

National Mortgage Settlement Compliance Report Update

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 22

In spite of the positive news this period about the continued decline in foreclosure filings nationally, persistent servicer violations plague the effectiveness of the National Mortgage Settlement Agreement. On December 4, 2013, Compliance Settlement Monitor Joseph Smith released a summary of five compliance reports that he filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for each servicer that is a party to the Settlement. The Compliance reports cover the first and second quarters of 2013. The summary indicates that “testing confirmed six fails in the first quarter of 2013 and one in the second quarter of 2013.” The report further indicates that “the banks are all taking action to address the failures through detailed corrective action plans.” A scorecard on each of the servicers covered by the National Mortgage Settlement, including Bank of America, Chase, Citi, REsCap and Wells Fargo, can be found here: https://www.mortgageoversight.com/reports/oversight-update/

The National Mortgage Settlement does not preclude private legal action; a lawsuit has been filed in Federal District Court by a homeowner group seeking damages (and class action status) against Bank of America.

Statewide Foreclosure Counselor Monthly Phone Calls

In February, 2013, CHAPA and the Mel King Institute, in conjunction with the Office of the Attorney General, convened two statewide training sessions for foreclosure counselors. In total, over one hundred attendees participated in both trainings. As a follow- up, CHAPA is hosting a monthly enforcement call open to all nonprofit foreclosure counselors. The purpose of this call is to provide feedback to the Attorney General’s Office on trends and patterns of servicer misconduct that foreclosure counselors are seeing in their practices. Representatives from Greater Boston Legal Services and the Division of Banks are also on the calls. CHAPA has hosted four monthly calls with an average attendance of twenty five counselors and six representatives from the AG’s HomeCorps Initiative. The feedback gathered on these calls is being used by the Attorney General’s office to pursue cases against servicers for continued disregard of servicer standards relating to loan modifications and other forms of mitigation. For more information and to participate in the calls, please contact Carol Marine at CHAPA ar [email protected].

Detailed resources from the foreclosure trainings are available at: http://chapa.org/news/resources-foreclosure-counselor-training-ags-office-february-14- 2013.

The Attorney General’s HomeCorps Initiative

With the very successful HomeCorps Initiative approaching its one year anniversary, the Attorney General has posted significant progress in effecting loan modifications, including principal reductions and foreclosure preventions. Over 9,400 cases have come to resolution with 1,962 permanent modifications achieved. In addition, over 500 cases received counseling to help transition to other living situations and over

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 23

700 borrowers received legal representation. For full detail, please go to: http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-and-updates/initiatives/addressing-the-foreclosure- crisis/homecorps/infographic.jpg

The Expanding Opportunities Committee (EOC)

This committee, meeting since July of 2006, and co-chaired by Sarah Lamitie and Jackie Cooper, was formed to explore possible diversity initiatives, both to increase participation in CHTF by people of color and other underrepresented groups, and to assure that programs supported by CHTF will have a positive effect on social justice and equity issues. The committee is implementing an action agenda to enhance inclusiveness in housing in cities and towns throughout the state. In connection with this diversity initiative, please extend an invitation to colleagues you may know who would be interested in joining the Task Force. They can join the CHTF at no cost by sending their contact information to Eleanor White at [email protected]. We are delighted to report that Jennifer Erickson of MAPC has agreed to be a third co-chair of this Committee as of November, 2013—welcome, Jennifer!

Please refer to the CHTF website, www.tbf/chtf or www.commonwealthhousingtaskforce.org to review previous Quarterly Reports for a general description of this committee, and prior initiatives of the group.

In its newest initiative, the EOC sponsored a competition in the fall of 2013 to identify student project or research ideas that would 1) promote access for people of color, low-income people, people with disabilities, and other populations that may face barriers to access to housing associated with new housing development in Massachusetts; or 2) promote strategies that help to create a more welcoming environment in one or more communities for people of color, people with disabilities, low-income people and other groups that traditionally experience challenges or barriers moving to many cities and towns in Massachusetts. The hope was to not only generate useful ideas to further the committee’s goals, but also to generate interest among area students in this topic.

The EOC formed an Academic Advisory Committee of more than 20 distinguished professors at more than a dozen Massachusetts colleges and universities to promote the competition and to advise CHTF regarding student involvement. Thank you to all who have assisted in this effort. We are very pleased to report that we received three thoughtful and interesting proposals, one each from students at Harvard Business School, Tufts University, and MIT, and have selected the submission from Tufts student Rebecca Schofield as the winner. Congratulations to Becca, and thanks to the other students who submitted proposals!

Becca has previously done research on fair housing issues and tenants’ rights, and on models for preserving affordable housing and empowering residents. Her proposal involves developing a framework for examining the housing needs and interests of

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 24 certain protected classes in Massachusetts' small multifamily rental housing and how they compare to the interests of others in the housing field, including private owners, developers, CDCs, CDFIs, and policymakers. She will use the framework to identify the differences and similarities among the rights, obligations, resources, and core interests of stakeholders in the small multifamily rental market. This framework will inform an evaluation of effective models of resident control of housing that have been successful in protecting low income populations in different communities. The EOC is happy at the opportunity to work with Becca and gain a better understanding of what motivates families as they are considering various housing choices.

Another potential initiative of the EOC derives from the ideas explored at the Welcoming events hosted by this committee (previously reported on in detail). The committee believes that they could create a useful and user-friendly interactive website for families seeking housing in the Commonwealth and for cities and towns. The EOC’s long-term goal is to create a website that will offer a resource guide and other helpful information, and also an online discussion forum to facilitate the sharing of ideas, successes and challenges of communities engaged in this effort. The EOC would work closely with Tim Gassert, the Boston Foundation webmaster, to provide content/updates to content, etc., and is seeking a source of financial support to enable this website development and management to go forward. Please contact the co-chairs of the committee or Eleanor White ([email protected]) if you know of a source of support for this effort.

The committee is also collaborating with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s (MAPC) Sustainable Communities Grant Program to support the development and dissemination of a fair housing toolkit to assist communities and other groups in understanding and furthering fair housing access and inclusion of diverse populations. The toolkit is now complete, and EOC will be working with MAPC’s fair housing caucus to help develop a plan to disseminate this important resource in communities throughout the state.

EOC is in the process of scheduling a meeting for late January or early February, 2014, to hear a presentation from Becca Schofield and to discuss her winning proposal, as well as and other agenda items, including the committee’s role in helping to disseminate the MAPC Fair Housing Tool Kit, and to hear a report about the Race, Development, and Welcoming Communities session at the November, 2013 MA Smart Growth Conference.

All are welcome to join the Expanding Opportunities Committee; please send your contact information to both Eleanor White, CHTF Co-Chair, at [email protected] and Maura Fogarty at the Boston Foundation, at [email protected] . Only those who have signed up for this committee will receive notices of future meetings. Comments about the agenda for the EO Committee should be addressed to Sarah Lamitie, Jacqueline Cooper, and Jennifer Erickson, the co-chairs of the Committee. They can be reached at [email protected] (Sarah),

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 25 [email protected] (Jackie), and [email protected] (Jennifer) respectively. Thanks to Jackie, Sarah, and Jennifer for their leadership of this effort, and to Boston Private Bank for providing the regular meeting space for this committee.

The Public Housing Committee

CHTF has lent strong advocacy support to the effort to significantly increase funding for state-assisted public housing development and management over the last several years. Although current levels of funding are higher than at any point in almost 20 years, they are clearly inadequate to support either the needs of low-income households or of aging public housing buildings. Public housing programs represent the most efficient and effective means of providing housing for low-income people, and include traditional public housing as well as demand-side voucher programs and major redevelopment efforts. This committee will continue to identify programs and legislation that could benefit from CHTF support and will bring new program initiatives forward to CHTF.

Charles Eisenberg, an affordable housing consultant with extensive experience with public housing, and Jim Stockard, Curator of the Loeb Fellowship Program at the Harvard Graduate School of Design (and a long-time member of the Board of a local Housing Authority), are serving as co-chairs of this CHTF committee. As with all CHTF committees, membership is open to all. We particularly invite local public housing authority staff and board members, and members of community-based nonprofit organizations, to consider participating in this committee.

Please refer to the last several CHTF Quarterly Reports for a comprehensive discussion of the issues currently being addressed by this committee, and see detailed descriptions of funding for public housing programs in the Programmatic Developments, Funding, and State Legislation sections earlier in this report.

Last summer saw both Banker and Tradesman and the Boston Globe carry follow-up articles on the controversial cases of improper conduct by leaders at the Chelsea Housing Authority. These cases played a significant role in the attention paid to public housing in the public realm, in the Governor’s office, and in the Legislature, and to the. establishment of the Governor’s Commission for Public Housing Sustainability and Reform. We have also seen a significant expansion of membership of the CHTF Public Housing Committee. Both articles can be found in Appendix IV of this Report.

After the Governor’s Commission released its report in the summer of 2013, which incorporates most of recommendations of a major CHTF report submitted to the Administration, the Governor filed legislation to combine all housing authorities in Massachusetts into six regional authorities with Boards appointed by the Governor. In response, the Massachusetts chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Authorities (MassNAHRO) filed its own reform bill providing for voluntary consolidation and stronger oversight. There are now two bills currently before

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 26 the Joint Committee on Housing, and the Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants (MUPHT) released a comprehensive and thoughtful response to both the Governor and MassNAHRO. The MUPHT Position Paper was included in the Appendix of a prior CHTF Quarterly Report. The leadership of the Public Housing Committee has continued to work with all sides; our goal is to reach enough of a consensus to pass legislation that will achieve at least some of the reforms that all sides agree are necessary. We have individually engaged our membership, (which includes representatives from the Administration, the Legislature, MassNAHRO, MUPHT, and advocacy groups), participated in presentations to many other organizations, and offered our good offices as mediators. When public hearings were held this fall by the Joint Committee on Housing, the CHTF Public Housing Committee Chairs testified and submitted our recommendations to the Commission. They were well received and the committee is now working with legislative staff as they prepare legislation. We also continue to press for revisions to the regulations governing the operations of public housing authorities, as well as passage of the Public Housing Innovations Bill, long supported by CHTF. For the first time, it appears that the Innovations Bill has a reasonable chance for passage. In addition, members of the committee continued their participation on the DHCD committee which established the new public housing “High Leverage Asset Preservation Program”. The first RFP for this program went out this past summer, and second round applications for funding are being evaluated now. The DHCD Request for Proposals for the High Leverage Asset Preservation Program can be found at http://www.mass.gov/hed/docs/dhcd/ph/publicnotices/13-12.pdf Finally, the committee’s continued efforts on behalf of authorizing more than $500 million of new bonding authority for public housing capital improvements helped to carry the bill through some legislative difficulties to eventual passage in the late Fall of 2013.. These funds will start to cover the estimated $3 billion capital needs deficit in State public housing facilities. . Based on this period’s update, it is clear that public housing will continue to be in the forefront of housing policy discussion for some time. CHTF members interested in signing up for this committee and receiving notices of future meetings can reach Charles Eisenberg at 617-901-3378 or [email protected] , and Jim Stockard at (617) 495-5988 or [email protected] . Many thanks to Nixon Peabody for providing the meeting space for this committee.

Work with the Urban Land Institute Housing and Economic Development Council

Eleanor White and Ted Carman have represented CHTF with the local district council of the Urban Land Institute, ULI Boston, particularly with the Housing and Economic Development (H&ED) Council, chaired by Nancy Ludwig, President of ICON architecture, and co-chair, Bert Rodiger, of Schochet Associates.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 27

This multi-disciplinary group is intended to build on the ULI membership of for- profit housing developers, multi-family lenders & investors, CDC’s, public officials, and housing design and construction firms, and is topically focused around the creation, development and financing of multi-family housing and economic development. The H&ED Council will continue to work on initiatives and pursue strategic alliances that can effect change on a regional basis, and is pleased to be an active partner of CHTF.

Over the course of the year, the Council has continued to focus on seeking out and meeting with speakers to discuss what issues are affecting housing costs and what can be done to address them. During the most recent period, in the Fall of 2013, the Council held interactive discussions with the Associate Director of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, Kate Racer, and the Director of the Boston Department of Neighborhood Development Sheila Dillon, to discuss challenges and priorities at the State and City level in addressing affordable housing needs. Among other issues, the conversations focused on actions the State has taken to better integrate the homeless population back into the conventional housing stock, and actions the City has taken to promote utilization of City-controlled sites.

In December, 2013 the Council met with Joe Rettmen of NEI Construction and Alex Mahegan of Keith Construction to discuss what actions could be taken to reduce construction costs. This discussion focused on the benefits of economies of scale, modular construction, and utilizing recent changes in building codes to allow denser wood framed multifamily construction. The speakers also emphasized the importance of having architects, engineers, and contractors involved in the project design process from inception to help maximize value engineering decisions throughout the development process.

The H&ED Council meets every other month on the second Wednesday of the month. The Council’s next meeting is expected to be on Wednesday, February 12, 2014, from 8-10AM at the ULI Boston offices at Goulston & Storrs LLP located at 50 Rowe’s Wharf, 7th Floor. CHTF members who are interested in more information on becoming a member of ULI Boston and its Housing & Economic Development Council may contact Michael Keimig, at [email protected], or at 617-239-0124; or get in touch with the current Council Chairs, Nancy Ludwig, at [email protected], or Bert Rodiger at [email protected] .

Legal Issues Involving Chapter 40R and Affordable Housing

We are not aware of any current litigation involving policy issues relating to Chapter 40R at this time. CHTF members are welcome to bring any such litigation to our attention. Please contact the Chair of the Legal Committee (and co-Chair of the CHTF) Larry DiCara at [email protected] .

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 28

Congratulations and Work with the Local, State, and Federal Administrations

One of the biggest stories of the Fall of 2013, of course, was Mayor Thomas Menino’s decision to step down as Mayor of Boston, and the election of his successor in November of 2013, Martin Walsh. Mayor Walsh will take office in January, 2014. CHTF has worked closely and productively with Mayor Menino and his staff since the inception of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force. We have been impressed and grateful for his strong support for housing development and community amenities. Included in Appendix V of this Report (page 81-84) is the full text of Mayor Menino’s last major—and quite moving-- speech as Mayor. It was delivered on December 10, 2013 to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and lays out eloquently his love for the City of Boston, his significant accomplishments of 20 years as Mayor, and his hopes for the future of the City. If you have time to read only one of the original source documents provided in the Appendix, this is the one to read! CHTF wishes Mayor Menino every success in his new role as Professor at Boston University. We hope that he remains engaged with CHTF in his new position.

As mentioned previously, the Commonwealth Housing Task Force stands ready to work with the new Mayor on issues of housing and community development, both major priorities of CHTF and critically-important to the City’s future.

In another major development, attorney and State Senator Katherine Clark won by a vote of 66-32 percent to fill Congressman (now US Senator) Ed Markey’s unexpired term in a special election on December 10, 2013. She takes her place as one of now three women–with Congressman Niki Tsongas and Senator Elizabeth Warren--to represent Massachusetts in Congress. We look forward to working with Congressman Clark and wish her the best in her new position.

We are also pleased to announce that following his nomination last Spring by President Obama to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Congressman Mel Watt (D-NC) was confirmed by the US Senate on December 10, 2013. Congressman Watt’s main responsibilities will be to oversee and propose reforms to the Government Sponsored Entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We will watch with interest the progress on this issue. Congratulations go to MassDevelopment, and its CEO Marty Jones for receiving a major national honor during this period. The Council of Development Finance Agencies (CDFA) named MassDevelopment as the winner of the 2013 CDFA Distinguished Development Finance Agency Award for the state agency category. Congratulations also go to Stephanie Wasser, former Executive Director of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Boston office. Stephanie will assume a new position in ULI’s national office beginning January 6, 2014. We wish Stephanie the very best in her new job, and want to thank her for her participation in and support of CHTF since its inception. Stephanie, Boston will miss you!

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 29

And our own CHTF Co-Chair Larry DiCara was the subject of a piece by Larry Harmon in the Boston Globe. The article, “The Best Mayor We Didn’t Elect”, published on August 31, 2013, can be found in Appendix V of this Report. We’re very proud of Larry DiCara and continually benefit from his encyclopedic knowledge of Boston and Massachusetts civic and political issues!

A small working group, including representatives of CHTF, DHCD and others, has met under the direction of Jennifer Raitt of MAPC to discuss 40R issues, and the group plans to continue these discussions. In the group, there is general consensus on support for adequate funding for 40R, for more PDF planning money, and for repealing the “clawback”/recapture provision in the 40R statute.

Many members of CHTF have provided advice and guidance (both formally and informally) to the staff of Governor Deval Patrick, Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Greg Bialecki, and DHCD Undersecretary Aaron Gornstein. We have been encouraged by Governor Patrick’s support of both 40R and 40S and the smart growth and affordable housing concepts underlying these initiatives, as well as his demonstrated support for increased funding for affordability, and his support for Chapter 40B. Clearly the state fiscal situation is still difficult, and we appreciate all efforts to prioritize affordable housing.

We have continued to work closely with Under Secretary Aaron Gornstein of DHCD, especially on issues relating to Chapter 40R and the new Compact Neighborhoods program.

Over a number of years, Eleanor White represented the CHTF in a series of meetings of the Governor’s Zoning Reform Task Force, and CHTF has been represented in a series of Stakeholders’ Meetings with the Secretary for Elder Affairs of the Commonwealth, Ann Hartstein. The Elder Stakeholders’ Group includes representation from more than 20 organizations and coalitions dealing with issues affecting older adults in Massachusetts. The most recent meeting of the full Stakeholders’ Group was held on November 15, 2013. A special meeting was held in December, 2013 to begin thinking about ways to assure that all candidates for Governor in 2014 will have elder issues on their agendas; Eleanor White will be particularly interested in assuring that affordable housing is on those radar screens. Notes from the meetings in August, 2013 and November 15, 2013, can be found in Appendix V of this Report. The Coalition for Senior Housing, an advocacy group chaired by Mark Hinderlie of HEARTH and made up of representatives of sixteen organizations involved in advocacy for seniors—of which Eleanor White is a founding member—continues to encourage support for housing and service options that enable older adults to affordably live in homes in their community.

Barry Bluestone continues to serve as a member of Governor Patrick’s Economic Development Strategy Council which, under legislative directive, is tasked

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 30 with coming up with a full-scale strategic plan for economic development in the Commonwealth. Barry serves on the full committee along with membership on two of its seven subcommittees. Among the final recommendations of the Council will likely be streamlined permitting that should allow not only expedited review of commercial and industrial developments, but affordable housing developments as well.

And Barry Bluestone has joined the Metro Boston Population Projections Advisory Team of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), which is charged with developing a projection methodology for estimating the number of housing units needed over the next ten years in the Greater Boston metropolitan region. This projection tool will provide guidance to local communities and the state on the number and types of units that will likely be needed to meet affordability and economic development goals. This group provided information central to Governor Patrick’s recent announcement of housing development goals for Massachusetts. Finally, Barry Bluestone, working with the Dukakis Center staff, has prepared two reports for the Town of Dedham. The first was a demographic study of Dedham from 1980 to 2010. The second, using demographic projections from the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC) through 2040, provides insights into the dramatic changes expected in Dedham’s population in the next few decades. Based on these two reports, Bluestone is now producing a final report on the implications on housing demand of the “aging” of the Dedham population, and how Chapter 40R could be used to meet the town’s future housing needs.

Expansion of the Task Force and the Search for Resources

We have been gratified again this Quarter with requests from new people to participate in the Task Force, especially those interested in diversity initiatives and public housing. We are particularly interested in increasing our representation of people of color on our email list, and in their active participation in committees and plenary meetings.

The Boston Foundation, under the leadership of Paul Grogan and Mary Jo Meisner, continues to play the critical role of both convener and major funder of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force. Many thanks to the Boston Foundation for allowing CHTF work to go forward without interruption. We are particularly grateful for The Boston Foundation’s ongoing confidence in CHTF and for their support during these difficult economic times. The staff is investigating other institutional sources of support, which are scarce, and financial contributions from the business community and individuals are always most appreciated.

Also thank you to all of the CHTF participants. Please send updates to your contact information to [email protected]. You can reach Eleanor White at Housing Partners, Inc. (617-924-7240 x11 or [email protected]); Barry Bluestone at the Northeastern Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy (617-373- 8595 or [email protected]) ; and Ted Carman at Concord Square Planning and

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 31

Development (617-482-1997 or [email protected]). Please note that email messages about CHTF will often be coming from Maura Fogarty at The Boston Foundation ([email protected]).

Respectfully submitted: Eleanor White, Barry Bluestone, Ted Carman January, 2014 (APPENDICES FOLLOW)

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 32

NOTES TO APPENDICES

As we have provided increasing amounts of source documents in the Appendices, we thought it would be helpful to point you to the various sections. This should make it easier for you to find specific documents that you may want to review in their full and original context.

Appendix Starts on Page

Appendix I: Progress of Chapter 40R 33

Appendix II: Housing Market 37

Appendix III: Student Housing/Programmatic Devs/ Foreclosures 46

Appendix IV: Public Housing 76

Appendix V: Congratulations and Work with Others 81

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 33

Appendix I to CHTF Quarterly Report December, 2013 Update of Progress under Chapter 40R: Smart Growth Zoning and Housing Production Act The current housing market in Massachusetts appears to be stabilizing, with rents increasing. Nonetheless, housing markets are just beginning to show more vigor, and it will be months before the return of what we formerly considered normal–and even that will depend on the country avoiding a double dip recession. New home construction continues to be far below its past levels. In this environment, communities across Massachusetts continued to explore the adoption of Chapter 40R smart growth zoning districts during this period. As was the original intent of Chapter 40R, these districts and the expedited as-of-right permitting process they offer will make it possible to increase production rapidly in periods when the economy and housing market strengthen, thus providing the opportunity for housing supply to keep up with demand when market conditions warrant.

Other states—notably Connecticut and New Jersey—have also taken notice of the results that 40R has produced. Specific information has been provided in previous Quarterly Reports.

As detailed in this Appendix, more than 50 cities and towns in the Commonwealth have either passed Chapter 40R districts, or are in some stage of consideration. The map in this Appendix shows these municipalities, their district status, and data regarding their districts. We would like to convey our thanks to Bill Reyelt of DHCD for the preparation of this information.

Since 2006, in Massachusetts the towns of Belmont, Grafton, Lunenburg, Norwood, North Reading, Plymouth, Dartmouth, Lakeville, Natick, Amesbury, Kingston, Lynnfield, North Andover, Reading (two districts), Bridgewater, Easton, Westfield, Marblehead (two districts), Sharon, and the cities of Boston, Brockton, Chelsea, Chicopee, Easthampton, Haverhill, Holyoke, Lawrence, Lowell, Northampton, Fitchburg, and Pittsfield have all successfully had Chapter 40R applications approved by DHCD and have passed Chapter 40R districts. Among them, these 31 localities have provided zoning as-of-right for over 12,350 units of housing, at least 20 percent of which will be affordable to households earning less than 80% of the area median income. Within the 40R Districts, 2084 units of building permits have already been issued. And we believe that an additional 546 residential units have received Plan Approval from the permit granting authority and /or have received tax credit awards: Lowell (Counting House Lofts – 52 units), Holyoke (Chestnut Park – 55 units) and Brockton (The Residence - 71)), but have not yet applied for building permits due to other permitting (MEPA) and market conditions.

Andover, after having received a 40R Letter of Eligibility has decided to move forward in the district with a fully market rate development. Although this will not count towards the number of 40R units approved or built, it appears that high density housing, generally consistent with the density requirements of Chapter 40R, will move forward in Andover.

Last spring, Ludlow submitted an application for a new Chapter 40R District containing 334 future zoned new housing units; DHCD expects to issue a letter of eligibility in early 2014. In a process that is not the usual (or ideal) sequence, the District was approved at Ludlow’s fall town meeting in advance of DHCD’s issuance of a letter of eligibility.

Southampton has submitted a highly creative preliminary application to DHCD for its review that consists of 100 acres along the Route 10 corridor at the north end of the Town. This

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 34 district has just 3 acres of developable land, with 70 potential 40R Units. However, the size of the proposed district means that in other areas where there may currently be development (such as an older, perhaps outmoded, strip shopping center or other lower density residential or commercial parcels), the property owners will have an as-of-right ability to redevelop their properties with Chapter 40R densities and with mixed use.

This proposal is being carried out in cooperation with Easthampton which is considering a companion district that would abut the Southampton District. In addition, the proposals would result in an extension of the sanitary sewer line in Easthampton along Route 10 into Southampton. This would, of course, make it easier to carry out redevelopment projects with higher density – very much meeting the goals of Smart Growth Zoning. The Pioneer Valley Regional Planning Commission and John Furman, the chair of the Southampton Planning Board, are to be commended for the creativity they have brought to the situation.

Newburyport and Amesbury are also believed to be working on new 40R Districts.

Not all the news is rosy these days; with the economic problems facing both municipalities and property owners, four towns that had been considering using 40R have decided to abandon their efforts at least for the time being. Attleboro and Holden have discontinued their preliminary investigations, Rockland is moving forward without 40R, and Weymouth did not move forward with a district that had been approved by DHCD.

On the bright side, we are seeing movement in project construction in Chapter 40R districts, with Easthampton having 50 affordable units move into construction. Easton’s 40R developer has received building permits for 50 units and is under construction. Construction has been completed on Pittsfield Silk Mill project. Construction has also been completed in the first, second, and third Phases of Reading’s Gateway District, and construction is underway in Phase 4. A developer in Reading’s Downtown District has completed construction of 53 units. In Brockton, construction has been completed on two units (a two family house developed by the Brockton Housing Authority), and construction is nearly complete on a 25 unit project just a block from the commuter rail station. In Fitchburg, Riverside Commons has nearly completed construction of 109 apartment units, and has received a building permit for 67 additional units. Lunenburg has completed construction on its second phase of 33 units. Construction of phase 2 of 104 units in Lakeville is nearly completed.

This work amounts to approximately 281 units under construction, and a total of 2084 building permits issued to date. It addition it appears that there are approximately 550 units that seem to have their financing in place and are close to obtaining building permits and being under construction.

Regarding the Silk Mill project in Pittsfield, developer Jon Rudzinski of Rees-Larkin Development of Boston said that he would not have been interested in renovating the former mill property into 45 housing units if the Chapter 40R zoning had not been in place. “That was the single reason I was interested in this building” said Rudzinski.

We are aware of recent interest in Chapter 40R (or additional districts under 40R) in other cities and towns, including: Dennis, Ludlow, South Hadley, Newburyport, Southampton, and Norwood.. Natick is considering a second district. Other cities and towns and local groups have expressed preliminary interest in the program. In addition, we have observed that developers

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 35

– both nonprofit and for-profit – are starting to explore the use of Chapter 40R in partnership with localities now that the economy is showing significant signs of revival in many markets across Massachusetts. 40R continues to be regularly featured in conferences and seminars for real estate professionals.

It is noteworthy that, with only three exceptions, every locally approved 40R district that has been brought to a vote has received the required approval of 2/3 of the local governing body. This includes votes in smaller communities such as Lynnfield and Kingston in which 40R bylaws allowing significant growth were approved at Town Meetings with the largest attendance on record. We attribute this to the positive nature of the collaborative local process required to develop the 40R plan and most particularly the local municipality’s right to develop their own design standards. It appears that because so much input and cooperation is required locally to develop the district proposal, by the time the question is put to a vote, most stakeholders in the city or town have contributed ideas to the plan and are supportive of the concept.

We also ask that you please let CHTF staff know where you have heard of particular interest in learning more about Chapters 40R and 40S (or where you believe that Chapter 40R would be especially beneficial to a city or town), and we will respond with outreach to those localities. Just send a message to [email protected] and we will follow up with the locality to offer support as may be needed. It will be helpful if you include the name of a contact person in the city or town with phone number and email address, but if you cannot provide that, just send the name of the city or town.

Many of the 16 communities that are currently in the planning stages for 40R districts have not yet determined or estimated the number of Future Zoned Units, and it is possible that the total number will increase dramatically in the coming years. We also believe that the strengthening economy will likely have an impact on the degree to which communities will focus on this program in the year ahead. And we believe that with the affirmation of the state’s affordable housing program under Chapter 40B, the interest level in Chapter 40R will also increase. Zoning for smart growth districts is the prudent way to provide a “relief valve” for communities facing Chapter 40B developments that are inappropriate for the location based on local comprehensive planning, site conditions, etc.

Please refer to the map below, provided by DHCD, showing the distribution of 40R localities throughout the Commonwealth. We are particularly gratified that interest is being expressed by cities and towns of all sizes and types.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 36

Note: Current through December 31, 2013 Source: DHCD

Our conversations with Regional Planning Agencies and others who regularly provide technical assistance to municipalities indicate that many more of them are now expressing interest in 40R. Unfortunately, we are also aware of a number of localities that, after careful consideration of 40R adoption, decided against pursuing a 40R District because of local leaders’ concern about the long-term stability of the funding source for 40R and 40S. As noted above, we are working to assure that a stable funding source is available to support the program’s continued success in the future.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 37

Appendix II: GBHRC 2013 and the Housing Market, December, 2013 Banker and Tradesman re: Release of Greater Boston Housing Report Card 10-10-13

Thursday, October 10, 2013 Report: Greater Boston Housing Market Undergoing ‘Real Turnaround,’ But Bay State Economy Stagnating

By Colleen M. Sullivan, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

The Greater Boston housing market is undergoing "a real turnaround," according to an annual report prepared by The Boston Foundation. The Greater Boston Housing Report Card, prepared by Northeastern University's Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy, projects a further 4 percent increase in single family sales for 2013 following last year's 20 percent gains, as well as noting a turnaround in condo sales.

Perhaps most importantly, new home construction has recovered, with permits rising to a projected 11,300 for 2013, a 40 percent increase over last year. "If our projection holds, this year's permit activity will be...the first time since 2006 that the number of housing permits exceeds 10,000, nearly two-and-a-half times the number issued in 2009," the authors write. Multifamily housing in particular has recovered strongly, with over 7,000 units permitted this year in Greater Boston, more than two-thirds of the statewide goal named in Gov. Deval Patrick's housing plan to be built before 2020.

Median home prices have also recovered, with single family prices up 6.6 percent in the first half of the year, and now appear to be on a "stable upward trajectory," the report noted. But while home prices have recovered, the report warns that a stagnating Bay State economy combined with increasing living costs is rendering housing more unaffordable for most households. More than half of renter households in Greater Boston spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent, while 40 percent of homeowners spend more than 30 percent of their incomes on mortgage payments, property taxes and utilities. Those figures are up from 39 percent and 27 percent, respectively, for renters and homeowners in 2000, the report says.

Beyond an improving economic picture that would help raise incomes, the report suggests that policymakers ought to focus their efforts on increasing the supply of housing, particularly multi- family housing, to help make housing more affordable. While the number of permits issued in 2013 is on track to meet the report's suggested level of 12,000 new units per year in Greater Boston, many of the programs which help support the creation of more affordable units are under threat from federal budget cuts, the report says.

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 38

II. Banker and Tradesman re: Aaron Gornstein at Release of GBHRC 10-10-13

Thursday, October 10, 2013 State Housing Agency Head: Section 8 Funding In Jeopardy, Furloughs a Possibility If Shutdown Continues

By Colleen M. Sullivan, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

The head of the state's housing agency said this morning that if the federal government shutdown continues it will be unable to pay for 20,000 Section 8 rental subsidy vouchers next month. Fuel subsidies which help 200,000 low-income and senior citizen households pay for heating oil would also be cut off.

Aaron Gornstein, undersecretary of the Mass. Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), said based on his most recent discussions with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), if the shutdown continues the agency will be unable to draw down funds as of Nov. 1. According to shutdown contingency plans updated by DHCD earlier this week, the agency had thought this funding would last through the end of the year.

In addition to the 20,000 vouchers managed by DHCD, local housing agencies manage 55,000 more. Some of the local agencies he has spoken to believe they will be able to fund the vouchers next month, Gornstein said, but others will also be in need of funds. Many state housing employees would likely have to be furloughed as well, he said.

"Nov. 1 is really the turning point where people will begin to be denied benefits, as the winter season is upon us. It was cold last night in my house, and if you're a senior citizen relying on heating assistance it's going to be tough come November 1st. Those are just some of the consequences," said Gornstein at a meeting sponsored by The Boston Foundation to discuss its annual Housing Report Card.

The Section 8 program was already hit by $16 million in funding cuts due to the sequester, Gornstein said. Regardless of when the shutdown is resolved, Section 8 recipients will face higher rent and utility costs in the new year, and many of the agencies which manage the program may have to lay off staff. "It could jeopardize the ability to administer the program," he said.

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 39

II. Banker and Tradesman re: the Multifamily Market 7-21-13

Banker and Tradesman, Sunday, July 21, 2013 The Housing Angle Boston Multifamily Perspective: We Have A Development Problem

Strong Demand, Low Supply of Housing

By Travis D’Amato and Michael Coyne, Special to Banker & Tradesman

Boston, we have a problem. More specifically it’s a development problem. We’re not building enough multifamily housing.

Boston is at the beginning of an unprecedented demographic wave and the strongest fundamentals we have seen in over a decade. With just under 4,000 units a year being delivered through 2016 and over 7,000 renter households being created annually over that same time period, we are not building enough units to meet this wave of demand.

Boston Is the Place to Be

The Boston multifamily market remains ones of the best performing markets in the country. As a result, institutional investors view the city as one of the top three most desirable markets, alongside New York and San Francisco. Their desire to deploy capital into Boston multifamily has resulted in unprecedented asset pricing and has stimulated new development throughout the region. Despite many high profile developments rising before our eyes, opportunities do exist, with many hidden in undersupplied pockets in the suburbs.

Solid Fundamentals

Relative to most other cities, Boston’s employment remained insulated through the downturn thanks in large part to a heavy concentration of jobs in healthcare, high-tech, and life sciences. These sectors weathered the recession fairly well, and have taken over for financial and legal services as the primary drivers of growth in our local economy. In fact, as of September 2012, Boston had regained all of the 103,000 jobs lost during the recession. This economic resilience, combined with a lack of new multifamily deliveries from 2009-2012, has caused metro-wide rents to grow by almost 15 percent from the last peak. Some especially strong submarkets have experienced growth of over 30 percent. Vacancy now hovers around 4 percent, indicating a short supply of quality product.

Boston is now on the front end of an unprecedented increase in demand for apartments due to improving renter demographics. Baby boomers are becoming empty nesters and their echo boomer offspring are beginning to form new households. Adding fuel to the fire, the median marriage age continues to rise and single-family credit remains tight.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 40

What does this all mean? Household formation, the primary driver for housing demand, is expected to strengthen to 1 percent for the next five to ten years. Close to 7,000 new renter households will be created per year in the Greater Boston area, double the historical rate.

Due to the imbalance of institutional demand and available product for sale, investors have introduced a “build-to-core” strategy. They simply cannot buy enough core product. So instead they build it. This increased demand, coupled with a lack of existing product for sale, has sparked a new development wave that started downtown and is expanding into the suburban markets.

This is a distinct shift from the last development wave, which was largely funded by shorter term, build-and-sell capital sources. These investors demanded higher returns, and had a more difficult time withstanding short-term ups and downs in a very stable long-term market.

The last wave of multifamily development in eastern Massachusetts occurred primarily in the suburban ring along Route 128 as developers took advantage of Chapter 40B. Close to 22,000 units were built from 2004-2008, nearly 70 percent in the suburbs. This time is different, as only 20 percent of our current pipeline is suburban.

The Urban Boom

Urban areas have been the overwhelming focus of developers over the last year. New luxury apartment towers are now sprouting up throughout the city. Approximately 7,800 units of urban, institutional quality rental housing will be delivered through 2016. This wave of development is not an overzealous rebound. It is a long overdue transformation of Downtown Boston’s rental housing, which is supported by exceptional demographics and the well-documented trend of urbanization.

Boston is not being overbuilt. Demographics are in our favor like never before, and make-up of the development pipeline fits very well with the urbanization trend. There isn’t enough quality multifamily product to meet the pent-up demand of renters or investors, and capital allocations are driving more and more institutional equity into the top few real estate markets. Our unrivalled educational institutions will continue to attract the top intellectual capital in the world, but now we will finally have the modern housing and 24-hour lifestyle necessary to retain our graduates for the long run. Boston area multifamily will continue to thrive.

Travis D’Amato and Michael Coyne are senior vice presidents and multifamily experts at Jones Lang LaSalle.

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 41

II. Banker and Tradesman re Single-Family Market 8-29-13

Banker and Tradesman, Thursday, August 29, 2013 July Bay State Home Sales Post Best Month Since 2006 Condo Sales Up 17 Percent over Last Year Sales of Massachusetts single-family homes increased significantly in July, rising more than 18 percent over July 2012, and posting the highest sales volume for any month since June 2006, according to the latest report by The Warren Group, publisher of Banker & Tradesman. A total of 5,941 single-family homes statewide sold in July, up from 5,014 during the same month last year. This is the best month for sales volume since June 2006, when there were 6,152 sales. It's also the best July since 2005 when 6,672 sales were recorded. So far this year, 27,600 homes have sold in Massachusetts, up 3.5 percent from 26,647 during the same period in 2012. "Many recent real estate reports have signaled a strong real estate recovery, and our numbers speak to that rebound," said David Harris, editorial director of The Warren Group, publisher of Banker & Tradesman. "While consumer confidence and strong employment numbers continue to bolster the market, there's concern that higher mortgage rates and increasing home prices could dampen the revitalized market." The median price of a single-family home rose 10 percent in July, increasing to $349,000 from $317,275 a year earlier. This is the 10th consecutive month of median price increases, and the fourth consecutive month that prices exceeded $300,000. The median price for homes sold January through July was $320,550, up more than 12 percent from $286,000 in the prior year. Condominium sales also spiked in July, rising almost 17 percent from a year earlier. A total of 2,336 condos sold in July, up from 1,998 a year ago. Year-to-date condo sales were also up almost 5 percent, increasing to 11,094 from 10,607 during the same period last year. The median condo price rose 5.5 percent in July. The median selling price was $310,000, up from $293,730 a year earlier. The year-to-date median price of condos in the Bay State is $290,000, up about 3.6 percent from $279,900 a year ago. ###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 42

II. Boston Globe re: Boston a City of Rich and Poor 10-15-13 Boston Globe 10-15-13 A Boston of rich and poor, with no middle class

By Paul McMorrow, | GLOBE COLUMNIST , OCTOBER 15, 2013 The Kensington in Downtown Crossing. BUILDINGS LIKE the Kensington are driving Downtown Crossing’s comeback. But they’re also driving Boston to an untenable place, as a city where the rich lord over the poor, and the middle class is being squeezed out of existence.

The new Kensington tower is a lovely place. The building soars 27 stories over Washington Street, a block from the Common, and it boasts a rooftop pool and some killer views of the city. In many ways, the 381-unit apartment tower is exactly the kind of development Boston needs to encourage. It adds meaningful height to the downtown, and its tenants help advance the ongoing transformation of Downtown Crossing into a vibrant, genuine urban neighborhood. The building replaced a long-abandoned theater and a strip club, and its opening strikes one of the last remaining blows against the old Combat Zone.

The problem is, Boston has had a difficult time lately building anything but luxury residential complexes, and it’s threatening to choke the life out of the city.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino appeared at a ceremony inaugurating the new Kensington tower last week. And at the same time that guests were touring the Kensington while listening to jazz and munching on tiny quiche pies, the Boston Foundation was unveiling a sobering new report on the state of the region’s housing — one that told a roomful of Boston housing advocates that there isn’t much room for them in the city’s resurgent housing market.

Scores of homeowners remain stuck in the foreclosure morass, haggling with banks and fighting to stave off eviction in the housing bubble’s long hangover. For those not battling banks over soured mortgages, though, the foreclosure crisis has passed. It’s been replaced by a familiar malady: Greater Boston’s longstanding housing affordability crunch.

According to Northeastern University economist Barry Bluestone, author of the foundation report, incomes have remained stagnant for homeowners, and fallen for renters. So even if prices stayed flat, housing affordability would be eroding. But prices for homes, condominiums, and apartments have been climbing, gradually in some neighborhoods, precipitously in others.

The end result has been a city with rapidly growing populations of both rich and poor residents, while middle-class families are vanishing.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 43

Boston’s housing construction boom threatens to exacerbate this dynamic.

The vast majority of the condominiums and apartments in the city’s development pipeline are luxury units. There’s nothing wrong with these developments, in isolation. Boston is now growing more quickly than it has grown for the better part of a century, and these new residents need somewhere to go. New housing construction helps keep new arrivals from overrunning triple deckers across the city. But an exclusive focus on high-end developments will wind up pricing middle-class families out of Boston entirely.

Developers have been rushing to build new luxury homes because the numbers on more modest developments often don’t add up, and there’s an extremely limited supply of public subsidies for new affordable housing developments. Menino’s recent goal for constructing 30,000 new housing units by the year 2020 acknowledges the need for a renewed focus on affordable and middle-class housing construction. If Menino’s successor is going to reverse the hollowing out of the city’s economic center, he will have to get serious about tilting the market toward more modest buyers and renters, without a large pot of direct subsidies.

Menino’s housing plan suggested cutting deals with unions, which could be enticed to accept somewhat lower wages on projects dedicated to moderate-income residents. This was likely music to the ears of local developers, who often complain about the high cost of labor. But construction labor is only one the costs facing developers. City agencies are major landowners in areas like Dudley Square, and along the Fairmount rail corridor — places where City Hall wants to develop dynamic mixed-income neighborhoods. The city should be more aggressive about selling or leasing these parcels cheaply, in exchange for meaningful concessions to low- and moderate-income residents. Public bonding and zoning height bonuses are two more public levers that don’t get used often enough, but that could quicken the pace of affordable-housing construction. The city needs to do everything it can to tilt the housing market in the favor of its disappearing middle class. The more Boston becomes a city solely of doormen and leather chairs and astronomical rents, the poorer it is for it.

Paul McMorrow is an associate editor at Commonwealth Magazine. His column appears regularly in the Globe. ###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 44

II. Banker and Tradesman re Single Family Market 11-26-13

Banker and Tradesman, November 26, 2013, Zillow: U.S. Home Values Fall in October, But Boston Bucks The Trend

National home values fell for the second month in a row in October according to a new report from real estate portal Zillow. U.S. prices fell to $162,800 in October from $162,900 in September, a decline of 0.1 percent, according to Zillow's Home Value Index. The last time home prices fell two months in a row was October 2011.

Prices were still up compared with the same time last year, rising 5.2 percent compared with October 2012. That's a much slower pace than annual appreciation rates in the seven percent range experienced over the summer, further proof that the national market has begun to cool off after months of unsustainable appreciation rates, according to Zillow.

Boston, however, was an exception to the national trend, with prices rising 0.5 percent to $343,800 in October from $342,100 in September, and up 9.3 percent from October 2012.

Zillow predicts that national home values will rise just 2.7 percent over the next 12 months, roughly half the current pace. Seven of the top 30 metros covered by Zillow are expected to see home values fall over the next year, with the biggest declines in St. Louis (-1.5 percent), Philadelphia (-0.9 percent) and New York (-0.7 percent).

"The months-long period of annual home value appreciation rates in the 6 and 7 percent range was great while it lasted, but we knew it would not continue indefinitely. The slowdown we've seen these past few months was expected, and is largely welcome news for a market still struggling to find its natural balance," Zillow Chief Economist Stan Humphries said in a statement. "The conditions that led to the robust appreciation experienced earlier this year, including historically low mortgage interest rates, high affordability, low inventory and high demand, are waning. In their place, we're beginning to see more inventory and rising mortgage rates, which will lead to further normalization in the market going forward."

The number of completed foreclosures in October fell to 5.44 homes foreclosed out of every 10,000 homes nationwide, down from 5.5 homes in September. Foreclosure re- sales represented 8.7 percent of homes sold in the U.S. in October, up 0.5 percentage points from September but down 2.1 percentage points from October 2012.

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 45

II. Banker and Tradesman re: Boston Housing Market 12-1-13

Banker and Tradesman, Sunday, December 1, 2013 Housing Status: Panel Talks Future Of Housing Push For More Collaboration Among Stakeholders In 2014

By Allison DeAngelis, Special to Banker & Tradesman

While the Greater Boston Housing Report Card for 2013 indicated last month that the Boston housing market is undergoing a turnaround, the city is facing a declining home inventory and a lack of mid-range housing to serve both millennial and middle class families. As housing sales picked up in the first six months of the year, closed home sales and the median sale prices rose 8.5 and 8 percent, respectively, said Lawrence Yun, the chief economist and senior vice president of research at the National Association of Realtors, at a recent conference focused on the housing forecast for 2014 at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

Additionally, inflation through 2015 is projected to be minimal. Total inflation for 2013 is expected to hover around one percent, while it may rise four to six percent by 2015, reported Yun. While the number is higher than the Fed’s preferred 2 percent rate, it is far from the double-digit rises of the 1970s. However, the inventory of available homes is low, reported Yun. While Massachusetts – and the rest of the country – was overproducing homes during its peak prior to the recession, it has been under-producing in the years since.

In Boston, there is the potential to use state, city, and MBTA-owned land for new developments, said Barry Bluestone. the director of the Kitty and Michael Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University. Preexisting infrastructure issues have impeded development in some suburbs, he said, but could be resolved through state funding. Just last year, Gov. Deval Patrick announced a program that aims to create 10,000 units of multifamily housing each year through 2020. Bluestone also reported that he is meeting with Undersecretary for the Department of Housing and Community Development Undersecretary Aaron Gornstein in hopes of a “grand collaboration” that would move Boston’s many graduate students, medical students and recent grads out of multifamily housing which could better serve the middle class. Bluestone said he has noticed a trend of graduate students outbidding families for multifamily housing units. His proposal would lead to the construction of housing to serve one-fifth of the post-grad population over the next five years.

“My developer friends tell me they know how to build housing for millionaires. They know how to get bank loans for it, so if you want to pay $4 million dollars for a high-rise condo, they’ll do it. We also have programs for low-income families. The problem is everybody else, working families, police officers, firefighters, teachers, you name it – they don’t have money for a $4 million condo, and they don’t qualify for affordable housing,” he said.

Additionally, rising labor costs — which increase about eight percent per year, currently — and the difficulty of getting loans for small developers has stunted housing projects for middle class families.

In addition, Bluestone hopes to meet with Patrick, outbgoing Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Mayor-elect Martin Walsh, developers, architects and others to discuss affordable units for graduate students. “This is the time we have to get everyone on board,” he said.

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 46

Appendix III: Student Housing and Programmatic Developments

December, 2013

Boston Globe 7-2-13 Community in the wake of mini-highways

By Paul McMorrow, | Globe Columnist, July 02, 2013 DEVELOPERS WHO try dropping dense new housing developments into Boston’s neighborhoods frequently run head-on into steadfast opposition — to traffic, to parking, to large numbers of prospective newcomers, to any structure taller than a triple-decker. As a result, the stuff that really matters, the stuff that lies past the rote politics of housing development, doesn’t get a proper airing. The important question often isn’t whether a building goes up, but what development does for a neighborhood once the construction crews leave, and whether abutters can successfully harness housing as a tool for improving their own neighborhoods. Two of these kinds of far-reaching development projects are currently taking shape, at opposite ends of the Orange Line in Boston. In both Sullivan Square and Forest Hills, huge piles of money are going toward shrinking crumbling, outdated mini-highways. Route 99 in Charlestown and the Casey Overpass in Jamaica Plain were both built to carry drivers through Boston’s neighborhoods at high speeds. The two current road projects are aimed at bringing those half-century-old roadways down to a neighborhood scale and are designed to build community along current commuter paths. The key to building community isn’t just in the roadway designs, though, but in the buildings that wind up lining the reconstructed roads. The Casey Overpass is one of the state’s worst bridges, a crumbling, rickety thing from the 1950s. The state is leveling the overpass before gravity takes over, and highway officials will replace the soaring overpass with an at-grade boulevard. Leveling the overpass costs far less than rebuilding it, so the option that’s easiest on the state budget is also the friendliest to the surrounding neighborhood. The Casey is both a physical and a psychological barrier standing between Forest Hills and the rest of Jamaica Plain. Forest Hills Station is a major transit hub, but it’s surrounded by vacant or underutilized real estate. Leveling the overpass will remove the physical wall that Forest Hills sits behind, but it won’t do anything to actually knit Forest Hills together with the blocks to the north of the overpass. The road project isn’t an end in itself; it’s just setting the table for work to follow. The key to building community isn’t just in the roadway designs.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 47

The Brennan Group and John M. Corcoran and Co. took the first step toward reaching across the Casey two weeks ago when they proposed building 298 apartments on three mostly vacant acres along Washington Street. The project is explicitly premised on pedestrian traffic flowing back and forth across streets the massive Casey currently keeps in shadows. The difference between giving Forest Hills an active center of gravity and letting it devolve into something like Wellington Circle in Medford lies in stacking active buildings in the mold of the Brennan-Corcoran proposal — places where folks can live and work and eat. There’s a precedent of sorts to the Casey up where the Orange Line leaves Boston, at Sullivan Square. An elevated overpass that once flew over the square came down a decade ago, amid concerns that it was structurally unsound. Boston transportation officials are now preparing to do away with the concrete labyrinth the overpass left behind — a snarled traffic circle and an overly-wide, depressed Route 99 that runs from the Everett line to Charles River locks. Boston is taming the roadway, eliminating underpasses and bringing the de-elevated road up to street level, narrowing its path significantly, and adding trees and pedestrian pathways. At Sullivan Square, the road realignment will create new parkland and development parcels where ramps and a traffic circle currently run. Sullivan is currently more of an empty industrial crossroads than a proper city square, but city officials want to use the use the Route 99 work to throw open as many as nine acres around the square and the MBTA station to redevelopment. As with the Casey Overpass, new development around Sullivan Square wouldn’t be attractive were transportation officials not removing a concrete barrier between an Orange Line station and the surrounding neighborhood. And as with the Casey, the road work isn’t the end game, but a down payment on a transformative redevelopment effort. Paul McMorrow is an associate editor at Commonwealth Magazine. His column appears regularly in the Globe. ###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 48

III. New England News re: Clean Energy Grants 7-23-13

New England News

July 23, 2013M TUE JULY 23, 2013 Grants Will Support Energy Efficiency Upgrades To Affordable Housing In Mass. Gateway Cities BY LUCAS WILLARD This week, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, a quasi-public agency that promotes the advancement of renewable energy in the commonwealth, announced that it will contribute $1 million to help affordable housing developments save energy costs by becoming more efficient.

MassCEC is using funds leverage federal dollars and support Boston-based WinnDevelopment’s Open Market Energy Services Company in making upgrades including weatherization, solar panel installation, replacement of hot water systems, and other changes. The goal is for select multi-family housing developments to become at least 20 percent more energy efficient.

In 2012, WinnDevelopment received $5.25 million from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Multifamily Housing Programs to promote efficiency upgrades through the Open Market ESCO program in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York City.

Alicia Barton, CEO and Executive Director of MassCEC, said that while the agency has made strides in improving energy efficiencies for homeowners and small businesses in recent years using other programs, the focus on affordable housing is a long-awaited step in the process to make the state more sustainable.

"There are still a few segments of the market that have been harder to penetrate and one of those would be these types of multi-family, affordable housing units because they just don't have the same type of access to capital to support the upfront costs that certain types of industries or business have," said Barton.

Barton said the initiative will focus on the post-industrial, mid-sized Gateway Cities — including Holyoke, Pittsfield, Springfield and Worcester — because they’re more likely to have older, less energy efficient affordable housing stock.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 49

"We want to make sure that residents of those areas are able to access the type of financing vehicles that would allow them to make these types of improvements to their properties," said Barton.

Matthew Mainville, Executive Director of the Holyoke Housing Authority, said older buildings with antiquated systems can be challenging and expensive to upgrade.

"The over-arching larger systems - your heating and hot water are somewhat problematic in that the systems are so antiquated that it's very cost prohibitive sometimes to be able to make the upgrades that would make really impactful change," said Mainville.

And Elton Ogden, President of the Berkshire Housing Development Corporation, said the pilot program that will allow owners and developers to reduce utility costs without taking on new debt could help improve or expand services for tenants.

"They certainly can benefit from reduced utility bills," said Ogden. "But also...the property pays the utility charges so reducing that charge allows the rent to be applied to other areas."

Ogden said that Berkshire Housing will consider ways to utilize the program.

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 50

III. Banker and Tradesman re: Olmsted Green 9-22-13

Sunday, September 22, 2013 The Right Rx? After Great Recession, Olmsted Green Project Gets New Life Project at Site of Former Hospital Has Room To Grow

By James Cronin, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

There are few thoughts more comforting than knowing you can count on paying a reduced, affordable rental rate for your home rather than fork over market-rate payments – unless, perhaps, the site where you sleep was home to a former hospital for the mentally ill.

A real estate developer recently secured financing for the third round of affordable apartment construction on the grounds of the old Boston Lunatic Hospital, later renamed the Boston State Hospital, in the city’s Dorchester and Mattapan neighborhoods.

Since the state hospital complex closed in 1979, more than 150 rentals have already been built at Olmsted Green, along with elderly housing, townhouses and a charter school that is under construction. The 42-acre Olmsted Green project sits near the geographic center of Boston at the edge of the Boston Nature Center and Wildlife Sanctuary, operated by Mass Audubon at the southern end of the Emerald Necklace parkway. Just to the north sits Franklin Park and the Forest Hills Cemetery, and to the west is the Arnold Arboretum. The site is essentially surrounded by urban wilds.

Olmsted Green is broken into two campuses separated by Morton Street. The west campus consists of 51 affordable apartments, but is also permitted for up to 287 townhomes. To date just 19 have been built.

Even so, developer New Boston Fund has sold all 19 for between $250,000 and $425,000. Most of those were sold at the lower end of the spectrum because “that was the demand,” according to Kirk Sykes, senior vice president with New Boston. That demand is coming primarily from young couples buying their first home, as well as older people downsizing from larger homes, he said. “The smaller starter home is right for this area,” Sykes opined. “A two-bed home for under $300,000 is the hardest sector of the market and it’s not being met, and that’s probably what needs to be addressed … because that’s who you want to move here to support the local industries.”

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 51

The firm had just gotten started with the townhouse portion of the project when the Great Recession hit, and made it clear homeownership was being put on the backburner, at least for the time. “The recession clearly hit [Mattapan, Roxbury and Dorchester] harder,” Sykes offered. “The unemployment rate is much higher [in Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan] than in downtown Boston.”

Now, the developer is starting to move forward, adjusting its homeownership supply to be more in-line “with what the community can afford,” according to Sykes. Over the next six months, he hopes to have the first units of a slightly smaller townhome built, with the goal of pricing the approximately 1,000-square-foot townhomes at under $300,000. The firm will build a few units, hopefully pre-sell them, and build as they sell.

“Housing is a cornerstone of our economy and of our local communities,” Aaron Gornstein, undersecretary for the Department of Housing and Community Development, said in a prepared statement about the project. “With these new units we have created not only jobs here in Dorchester and Mattapan but also quality apartments for our neighbors.”

More to Come

Housing is a major part of the Olmsted Green project, but not the sole use. Abutting the east campus, the Lena Park Community Development Corp. (CDC) sold a property it owns to the Brooke Charter Schools network, where construction is underway for a nee educational facility. The community resource center the organization operates will reopen in an 8,500-square-foot space the development corporation owns in the new school.

Plus, New Boston is currently studying uses for the site of a planned nursing home on the east campus, but now that “the financials have changed for those,” Sykes said he is looking at alternative uses. The planned nursing home site is being marketed broadly by Colliers International, but there have been talks of expanding the charter school to that site instead. It could also be used by a different school, or market-rate apartments. Whatever the use, new permits would be required since it is currently permitted for a skilled nursing facility. However, an additional school could be preferable by the surrounding community “because it’s youth- focused,” Sykes said.

Whatever use eventually at the site, Lena Park CDC representatives would prefer one that somehow interacts with the community living in the new homes built at Olmsted Green and the nearby neighborhoods, said David Wright, chairman of the board for Lena Park CDC.

“It really is a community they’ve built there,” said Wright, who also serves as a reverend at People’s Baptist Church in Boston’s South End. “It’s a real neighborhood. There are kids out in the play spaces. Whatever we bring in, we want as much as possible to see if they will be part of the community and engage with the youth and families.”

Email: [email protected]

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 52

III. Banker and Tradesman re: Gateway Cities 9-22-13, Uneven Recovery Primed For Transformative Projects, Gateway Cities Need the Right Tools

Bill Would Focus On Removing Barriers to Growth By Benjamin Forman, Special to Banker & Tradesman 9-22-13 A bill now working its way through the Massachusetts legislature would put thousands of residents to work right away while overhauling the state’s midsize urban centers to make them stronger regional economic engines over the long term. Springfield, Worcester, New Bedford, Pittsfield and other “Gateway Cities” have a host of qualities that should be extremely appealing to investors. They are rich with existing infrastructure, strong connections to transportation, economic activity from hospitals and universities and cultural institutions, and the authentic urban fabric that’s increasingly desirable to a new generation of residents and businesses. The problem is this: current real estate values are too low to justify the costs of redeveloping outmoded industrial buildings and repairing an aging housing stock. In other words, the market can’t realize the myriad opportunities Gateway Cities offer. The numbers just don’t add up. It’s a catch-22: Development won’t occur until values go up, but values won’t go up unless development occurs. What’s needed – without delay – is public support for private projects that have the scale and quality to prime the pump. Successful projects that remove blight and attract economic activity will lead private investors to initiate more new development in the area. “House Bill 311 – An Act to Support Transformative Redevelopment in Gateway Cities” will support revitalization across Massachusetts. This should be of compelling interest to all of us. Strengthening the Gateway Cities will tap a reservoir of housing supply, loosening the state’s severe housing crunch. Supporting efficient growth will concentrate development in areas with existing infrastructure. Removing barriers to growth in already-developed cities will help protect the quality of life in smaller towns and rural areas – a unique asset that must be preserved.

Structural Challenges While it will be difficult to allocate funds in a time of so many compelling needs, the investments House Bill 311 promotes must be considered fundamental. Without concerted action to increase their fiscal position over time, Gateway Cities face long-term structural challenges that will be dire for the cities and their residents and unnecessarily costly for Massachusetts taxpayers.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 53

For years, economists have warned that the Massachusetts recovery could lose steam if regional economies outside of Boston didn’t participate in a stronger way. And that’s exactly what’s happening. With a 7.2 percent unemployment rate, Massachusetts now ranks 29th among states. And in the uneven recovery, hardship is felt disproportionately in Gateway Cities. In Springfield and Holyoke, unemployment is still at 12 percent; in Fall River and New Bedford, it’s over 14 percent. These conditions merit a strong state response. The time to act is now. Over the years, Gateway Cities have worked with private developers on rebuilding plans, but too often efforts to marshal the resources have led to dead ends, transformative projects have been shelved. Passage of this bill would make these projects possible, putting people back to work, rejuvenating ailing cities, and better positioning the Massachusetts economy for the long haul. Benjamin Forman is executive director of the Gateway Cities Innovation Institute at MassINC, an independent not-for-profit organization devoted to the growth of the state’s middle class through the revitalization of regional urban centers. ###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 54

III. Banker & Tradesman Editorial on Transportation 12-8-13 Better Public Transit Needed For Strong Growth It’s been reported over and over again that the MBTA has its share of problems. The aging system is shuffling a record number of passengers as it deals with mountains of debt. And it’s not going to get much better anytime soon. But one key to a good urban and regional economy is a high-quality, reliable public transportation system. Last week, columnist Scott Van Voorhis focused his attention on the traffic congestion and the lack of public transit options in the Route 128 corridor. But throughout the Greater Boston area, more commuters are relying on the T to get from Point A to B.

Cue last week’s news, reported by The Boston Globe, that the MBTA would soon extend weekend hours on all subway routes to 3 a.m. The expansion would be made possible by $20 million in state funding and corporate donors (the Globe shelled out $500,000 in cash and in-kind contributions as the first corporate sponsor). The news means that Boston can compete with other East Coast cities that offer an array of transit options after midnight. As the Globe noted, public transportation systems in New York City, Chicago and parts of Philadelphia run 24 hours a day. Washington, D.C., has weekend service until 3 a.m.

It’s a good start, but of course, there are costs to expanding service. “What I hope people understand is that nothing you do in transportation comes at no cost,” Rick Dimino, president of A Better City, a business organization that focuses on transportation, infrastructure and land development, told Banker & Tradesman. Dimino was recently named to Boston Mayor-elect Marty Walsh’s transition team, and he previously served as Boston’s transportation commissioner.

But the extra service will indeed be a boon to Boston’s thriving tech and financial services industries, in addition to being a much-needed service for service and health care workers. And, yes, the “cool factor” might even increase for this town. On the other hand, the T’s limits are currently being tested. The MBTA’s own statistics make that clear. According to the T, average daily ridership for October increased by 4.3 percent over the same month last year, and totaled 1.382 million passenger trips per weekday – the highest weekday ridership recorded since the MBTA was created in 1964 (no doubt the Red Sox World Series victory parade contributed to some of this).

All of this has an impact on the growth of the city and surrounding communities. Adding late-night hours is good, but the fact remains that more people will be using public transportation over the next few years. Investment in improving existing service should be a priority – because without those improvements, Greater Boston’s growth will, in fact, hit a ceiling. Boston’s connectedness has only helped fuel the city’s strong construction growth since the recession hit.

Our public transportation infrastructure should be able to keep pace with that growth so that we don’t have many speed bumps ahead.

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 55

III. Boston Globe re 40B in Norwood 8-16-13

Boston Globe Norwood’s end-run around affordable housing laws

By Paul McMorrow, | Globe Columnist August 06, 2013 STATE LAWMAKERS passed a bond bill that put $1.4 billion into affordable housing last week. And in doing so, they allowed two of their own to turn a bill funding housing for poor people into a vehicle for blocking the construction of housing for poor people. Representative John Rogers and Senator Michael Rush attached a rider to the Legislature’s housing bond bill that effectively sinks a 296-unit affordable housing project in Norwood. Norwood has no legal power to block the development, which is being built under the state’s affordable housing law, but if the Rogers-Rush amendment makes it past the governor’s desk, the town will be able to squash the affordable housing project anyway. The Norwood amendment reeks of petty backroom politics. The episode goes far deeper than any one local development feud, though. In using a vaguely worded amendment to make an unprecedented end-run around a decades-old affordable housing law, Norwood’s legislators are opening up a chaotic new front in the state’s housing wars. Massachusetts suffers from abnormally high housing prices because the state adds new housing at roughly half the national rate, and it builds housing half as quickly as the rest of the country because cities and towns determine the pace they build at. Developers and state officials have one check on suburban development autonomy: Chapter 40B, the state’s affordable-housing law. The 1969 law allows builders of significant mixed- income housing developments to bypass local zoning in towns where less than 10 percent of the housing stock is affordable. Chapter 40B often sows discontent because it strikes an adversarial stance. Municipalities resent the loss of local control. Developers sometimes use the law as a cudgel, threatening to build 40B projects unless the projects they really want to build win local permits. The law is imperfect, but it remains a vital check on suburban antipathy toward dense mixed-income housing. The episode goes far deeper than any one local development feud. Norwood can’t do much to stop new 40B projects, since less than 6 percent of its housing stock is affordable under 40B guidelines. So even though town officials don’t like the 296-unit affordable housing development the Campanelli Companies is trying to build on 24 acres on the northern edge of town, they’re not supposed to be able to do much to block it. Recalcitrant towns in Norwood’s position usually fight affordable developments in court, suing over things like traffic or sewers. Norwood’s men on Beacon Hill took a

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 56 more direct path. Instead of trying to duck the state affordability requirement, they gutted it. The Rogers-Rush amendment didn’t mention the Norwood development. It said a developer couldn’t build large 40B developments on any parcel where local commercial tax incentives had been approved. It just happened that the amendment’s sponsors represent the only 40B site anyone could say with surety met that description. In debate last week, Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr said that legislative interference in individual development disputes “should be unacceptable.” Tarr was outvoted, but at least he spoke up; the House passed Rogers’s amendment without debate. Rogers sent a statement to the local press decrying “developers roaming the Commonwealth unbridled, unimpeded, unchecked, with no accountability to the community.” He was more measured on a phone call Friday, ticking off a laundry list of affordable housing bills he’d worked on before defending the bid to exempt the Campanelli parcel from Chapter 40B. Since the land had been previously targeted for a commercial tax break, he said, “it seems to be in bad faith to defy the agreement and propose housing there.” The tax break Rogers and Norwood officials are complaining about only exists on paper. If Campanelli builds housing instead of an office building, the tax break wouldn’t apply. It’s a fig leaf, and not a sizable one at that. Town officials never raised the tax issue when the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, the nonprofit that is underwriting financing for the Campanelli project, worked through the 40B application project. Instead, it feels like Norwood resents the fact that it has to swallow the affordable development because the law says so. So the town’s legislators have taken a crayon to the law. Norwood has plenty of company in resenting Chapter 40B — not nearly enough to pass a repeal on the ballot, but enough to invite a torrent of underhanded loophole-writing on Beacon Hill. Legislators have already voted to turn one town’s grudge into an exemption from following the law. What’s to stop them now? Paul McMorrow is an associate editor at Commonwealth Magazine. His column appears regularly in the Globe. ###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 57

III. Boston Globe Editorial re 40B 9-5-13 Boston Globe editorial 9-5-13 Legislature must thwart efforts to chip away at housing law

AFTER MASSACHUSETTS voters overwhelmingly rejected a 2010 effort to repeal the state’s affordable housing law, the Legislature should have gotten the message. The law may still be unpopular in some tonier suburbs, but the repeal campaign failed by 16 percentage points. The majority of voters recognized that the law provides a last-ditch mechanism to ensure that affordable housing can be built across the Commonwealth, including in towns that do everything in their power to keep out newcomers. Now, however, a trio of state lawmakers is trying to chip away at the law with provisions that would dilute its effectiveness. The Legislature should respect the will of voters — and the economic needs of the state — and reject these efforts to weaken the law.

The legislators — state Senator Michael F. Rush of West Roxbury, state Representative John H. Rogers of Norwood, and state Senator Brian A. Joyce of Milton — inserted language into a housing bond bill making its way through the Legislature that would whittle down the housing law, known as Chapter 40b. Joyce’s provision would have a limited impact; it changes the rules so that a specific development in his district would be counted as affordable, thus potentially reducing Milton’s exposure to future affordable-housing developments. The amendments backed by Rogers and Rush, however, could have a much greater impact, giving municipalities across the entire state a powerful new way to thwart the law.

Chapter 40b, on the books since 1969, works by allowing real-estate developers to circumvent local zoning restrictions when towns don’t already have enough affordable housing stock. It kicks in when fewer than 10 percent of units in a town are deemed affordable. How the state calculates that percentage is crucial, and Joyce’s amendment would allow one kind of retirement-housing development, in which tenants pay a large upfront fee to move in, to count toward the requirement. While language added to the bill would effectively limit the provision’s reach to just one Milton development, it could open the door to categorizing more types of senior housing as affordable. Some of those communities may charge entry fees of $100,000 or more, and the state shouldn’t rush into counting them without an analysis of whether they truly qualify as affordable.

The amendments by Rogers and Rush, however, threaten much more sweeping damage. In an effort to stymie one particular 296-unit affordable housing development in Norwell, their provisions would allow communities that have granted certain commercial tax breaks to properties the ability to protect those parcels from Chapter 40b developments — and possibly more in the future. The predictable result would be for towns to rush to grant tax breaks — whether or not they have any commercial developer lined up to use them — simply as a way to inoculate themselves against future Chapter 40b developments.

Together, the two amendments would make housing development — a crucial economic issue in Massachusetts — that much harder. It would also set a dangerous precedent: Once lawmakers start changing the housing law just to torpedo individual projects, there is no telling where they’ll stop. The affordable-housing law could die by a thousand legislative cuts. Once lawmakers start changing the housing law just to torpedo individual projects, there is no telling where they’ll stop.

As the House and Senate reconcile their bond bills, they should reject the Rogers and Rush amendments and remove Joyce’s provision. If they don’t, Governor Patrick should veto any legislation that includes them. Meanwhile, towns that object to Chapter 40b should be encouraged to use the tool that’s been available to them from the start: Ensure there’s enough affordable housing within their borders, and they will have nothing to worry about.

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 58

III.Banker and Tradesman re: bias against families 11- 3-13

Sunday, November 3, 2013

The Bias against Building For Families Why Mass. Is Lagging In the Multifamily Arena

By Scott Van Voorhis, Banker & Tradesman Columnist

Incredibly, you can add the humble three-bedroom apartment to the list of undesirable development towns and suburbs across Massachusetts want to ban.

Just 6 percent of all apartments built in the last decade under the Bay State’s affordable housing law were three bedrooms. By contrast, roughly a quarter of the rental market across the Northeast is made up of rentals that are at least three-bedrooms or larger.

It’s hardly due to lack of demand. A shortage of apartments of all sizes has made Massachusetts one of the most expensive places on the planet to rent in. Rather, small town and suburban politicians are pressuring developers to ditch plans for three- bedroom units and instead stick with smaller, one- and two-bedroom units.

After all, they just might be appealing to families with children, which, based on the actions of local officials, appear to be just as unwelcome in many Bay State communities as toxic waste and methadone clinics.

“The bias against multifamily housing and school children from rental properties is enormously strong,” said John Connery, a longtime Melrose-based housing consultant who works with communities and developers.

The pushback against three-bedrooms can be seen in communities across the state. In fact, it has gotten so bad that the state is preparing to mandate that three-bedrooms make up at least 10 percent of all new apartments built under Chapter 40B, the state’s long-standing affordable housing. The most recent battles have taken place in the suburbs of Boston.

In Walpole, Bayberry Homes dropped plans to include three-bedroom apartments in its proposed, 174-unit housing complex after getting some very strong hints from town officials. By contrast, in Norton, the chairman of the local board of selectmen backed off on a push to ban three-bedrooms from a proposed new apartment complex after hearing about the pending move by the state.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 59

Local officials talk a good talk about trying to protect constituents from rising school costs. One local nabob was incredulous after it became clear I wasn’t ready to jump on the anti-rental housing bandwagon with him.

“Of course,” he replied, as if to a slow learner, when asked if his opposition to three- bedrooms was related to concerns that families with children might be moving in. “It just makes commonsense if you have more bedrooms, you are going to have more children,” he said.

But that argument is getting weaker by the year, with studies by UMass-Boston and Tufts having exposed these arguments as so much hot air. UMass-Boston’s Donahue report found that school costs in communities across the state rose and fell independent of enrollment trends, going up at times even in cases where student enrollment dropped.

What’s really happening is just small-town politics and demagoguery at its worst, driven by fear of change and outright ugly attitudes about renters and, worse still, their children. Clearly, in the minds of some small-town pols, every new apartment complex is a potential urban-style housing project filled with Section 8 tenants, even if families are having to fork over $1,500 or more a month in rent. But laughable or not, such attitudes are helping distort our state’s already highly distorted housing market, helping drive up rents for everyone, including families with children.

There is already a dire shortage of apartments across the state, let alone without town and local officials trying to top anything larger than two-bedroom from getting built.

New apartment and condo construction is struggling to emerge out of a decades-long slump. While 5,191 units were given approval by towns and cities across the state in 2012, it was just half of the 10,000 multi-family units Gov. Deval Patrick has declared are needed to keep up with current and future demand.

Not surprisingly, Massachusetts is the seventh most expensive state in the country for renters, with the average two-bedroom costing $1,271 a month, the National Low Income Housing Coalition finds.

Once you strip away the BS and get to what’s really going on here, there’s lots of room for outrage here. In fact, this is an issue that should unite both liberal affordable housing activists and conservatives who put their faith in the free market, a category developers are more likely to fall into.

First, there is a moral issue, with local officials effectively discriminating against families with children. No, it’s not exactly like a landlord who says, “Thanks, but no thanks, but I just don’t want kids in my building” – and there are still plenty of those jerks out there.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 60

But it’s damn close. You have local officials basically stopping construction of apartments for the sole reason that families with children would be more likely to rent them out. If the units aren’t there because of boneheaded local housing policies, it’s all not that much different than some mother and her young children being turned away by some bigoted landlord.

However, free market advocates should also be lobbying hard to open up our state’s incredibly overregulated housing market as well. A good part of our state’s chronic woes could be solved not by creating some new government initiative or program, but by simply demolishing the irrational maze of local zoning rules and regulations and letting the market do its thing.

There’s a huge market demand for housing of all types here in the Bay State, including three bedrooms. But developers are effectively being prevented from serving this market and rightly profiting from the honorable work of building places for people to live.

Any way you look at it, trying to stop apartments from being built to keep children out is about is as low as you can go. And that we tolerate this nonsense, especially in this age of supposed hypersensitivity to discrimination of any kind, is just flat out amazing.

Scott Van Voorhis can be reached at [email protected] .

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 61

III. National Low Income Housing Coalition re: Federal Housing System 7-13

From NLIHC Memo to Members 7-2-13

Housing Finance Reform Bill Introduced in Senate As expected, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) introduced comprehensive housing finance reform legislation, S. 1217, on June 25. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) is the lead Democratic on the bipartisan measure. The bill is also co-sponsored by Senators Kay Hagan (D-NC), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Dean Heller (R-NV), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Jerry Moran (R-KS), and Jon Tester (D-MT).

S. 1217, “the Housing Finance Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2013,” would wind down the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and replace them with the Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation (FMIC). The FMIC would offer an explicit government guarantee, purchase and securitize single and multifamily mortgage portfolios, and provide regulatory oversight of the Federal Home Loan Banks.

The bill would continue the obligation to support affordable housing as is now required of the GSEs, but would change it considerably. A fee of five to ten basis points would be assessed on all loans securitized by the FMIC to fund all affordable housing activities. The final amount of the basis point fee will be determined at a later time.

The bill continues to require funding for the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund, as is in current law. The function of helping low and moderate income people gain access to credit in order to become homeowners, previously covered by “affordable housing goals” would now be addressed through a “market access fund.” This fund would cover a variety of activities to support “sustainable homeownership and affordable rental programs” and “credit enhancement and other forms of credit support” for households with incomes up to 120% of area median income.

Initial drafts of the bill provided for the Housing Trust Fund, Capital Magnet Fund, and Market Access Fund (MAF) separately, but the bill as introduced places the purposes of the Market Access Fund under the Housing Trust Fund. Of the revenue raised by securitization fee, 80% would go to the Housing Trust Fund and 20% to the Capital Magnet Fund.

The funding directed to the Housing Trust Fund would be divided into three distinct purposes: 35% of the funds would go to rental housing for extremely low income (30% AMI or less or ELI) and very low income (50% AMI or less or VLI) households, 5% of the funds would go to homeownership activities for ELI and VLI households, and the remaining 60% of the funds would be applied to activities that would be covered in the proposed MAF with the income targeting of up to 120% AMI.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 62

Depending on the final level of the basis point fee, this structure could result in less funding for rental housing for ELI households than is provided in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008 that created the NHTF. In HERA, an amount equal to 4.2 basis points of new business of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be allocated each year, with 65% going to the Housing Trust Fund and 35% to the Capital Magnet Fund.

NLIHC has communicated with the bill’s sponsors to thank them for including the NHTF in the bill and to explain the concerns that the income targeting and amount of money directed to the NHTF may be reduced under the current language.

It is expected that portions of S. 1217 will be included in a housing finance reform bill to be introduced by Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) at a later date.

The full text of the bill is available at: http://1.usa.gov/14F3NDE A summary of the bill from Senator Corker is here: http://1.usa.gov/13lThV4 ###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 63

III. Boston Globe re: Menino Housing Plan 9-9-13 Boston Globe Menino pushes plan to boost housing By Casey Ross, | Globe Staff September 09, 2013

Mayor Thomas M. Menino is proposing to reach his ambitious goal of building 30,000 homes in Boston by allowing taller structures with smaller units, selling public land to developers at a discount, and using subsidies to spur development of more affordable housing, according to a blueprint to be released Monday.

The plan, which calls for $16.5 billion in public and private investment, begins with a series of quick steps that could significantly alter the housing landscape before Menino’s term ends in four months. Those steps include selling large chunks of city property, increasing fees on developers to help fund affordable housing, and approving some of the 3,600 housing units awaiting city permits.

In the spring, Menino announced his goal of building 30,000 housing units by 2020. But he did not lay out how it would be accomplished. Those details are in the new blueprint. Menino hopes to persuade his successor to continue the effort. Although 25,000 of the new units would be priced at market rates, Menino is proposing to increase subsidies and other assistance to make homes more affordable to middle-income households. About 26 percent of Boston’s households are classified as middle-income — below the national average of 30 percent — and the city’s housing costs are rising much faster than incomes.

“We don’t want to be a city of the rich and poor,” Menino said. “We want to make sure the working-class people have a place to live.”

The report amounts to a last major effort by Menino to address a housing affordability problem that has been among the most vexing issues of his tenure. Even as the city has significantly increased its supply of affordable units, housing prices in many neighborhoods have risen so fast that only affluent people can comfortably afford to buy homes. In a way, Boston is a victim of its own success. More businesses and residents have moved into its downtown and outlying neighborhoods, helping to drive sky-high housing costs even higher. Boston’s population increased by nearly 30,000 residents between 2000 and 2010, to 618,000.

In South Boston, once filled with moderately priced homes, only 7 percent of the units sold in a recent 18-month period would be considered affordable to a two-person household earning the area’s median income of $75,500 a year. A couple earning that same income could afford only 5 percent of the homes recently sold in Charlestown and 15 percent of those sold in Jamaica Plain.

The middle-income program in Menino’s plan is relatively modest, calling for 5,000 units by 2020 at a cost of $1.5 billion to $2 billion. That would be achieved by promoting development in lower-cost neighborhoods such as East Boston, Dorchester, and Roxbury.

The city would also provide direct subsidies, such as $2,000 to help with a down payment and no- interest loans to help cover any cash shortages at closing, among other measures. With prices expected to rise even further, housing experts said the city must play a more active role in connecting people with homes they can afford.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 64

“You can’t just add to supply, you have to be strategic about it,” said Eric Belsky, managing director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. “You have to drive affordability to serve people at particular income levels who are not going to get there through the normal operations of the market.”

Belsky was among the real estate specialists, developers, architects, and others who served on an advisory panel that helped craft Menino’s plan, setting forth a roadmap for building the 30,000 units to serve a variety of groups. In addition to the middle-income plan, the report calls for the production of housing for another 10,000 full-time students, as well as more flexible unit sizes to tailor housing for elderly residents, families with children, and a surging population of young professionals.

The administration is already allowing smaller units — 450 square feet and below — to help house more singles and young professionals. The plan also makes several recommendations to the incoming mayor, an acknowledgment that it will largely be up to the next administration to achieve many of the goals. The report calls for private developers to contribute more money for affordable housing, but it also proposes to streamline permitting, allow taller buildings near transit stops and on city-owned land, and relax requirements that new projects incorporate large supplies of parking spaces.

“We have to get building costs down,” Menino said. “Some of those high costs are the government’s fault. We have stringent regulations, and we have to look at that. We have to get the developers and the unions to work with us on this.”

The average development cost per unit in city-assisted projects in the early 2000s was $259,000, according to the housing report. In the last four years, the average jumped 41 percent to $365,000. Private development costs have soared 87 percent, from $302,000 per unit in the early 2000s to $566,000 over the last four years. Getting cooperation from unions and developers to help build below-market-rate housing will be no easy task.

One representative of the commercial real estate industry asked if it will be economically possible for developers to build large amounts of middle or low-income housing. “Costs of construction in Boston are among the highest in the country, and the costs of land are also extremely high,” said David Begelfer, chief executive of NAIOP Massachusetts. “Commercial developers would love to build more for that market, but the economics are standing in the way.”

He said the city should consider reducing real estate taxes on multifamily housing and cutting requirements that developers fund upgrades to public streets, utilities, and lighting every time they build. Building more housing for low-income residents will be especially difficult. The federal government has drastically cut spending on affordable housing, with Boston losing nearly half its funding for some programs over a decade. The report sets a goal of 5,000 new units of affordable housing by 2020 for households that make below the median income.

It also suggests Boston consider adopting the Community Preservation Act, which allows cities to add surcharges to commercial and residential tax bills to help pay for affordable housing, open space, and historic preservation. Voters rejected such a surcharge in 2001. Casey Ross can be reached at [email protected].

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 65

III. Banker and Tradesman re: Menino Housing Plan 9-15-13 Banker and Tradesman Sunday, September 15, 2013

Menino’s Housing Plan Just the Right Solution: Boston Could Lead Way in Combating NIMBYism

By Scott Van Voorhis, Banker & Tradesman Columnist

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s bold vision of tens of thousands of new homes, apartments and condos puts to shame the mean-spirited NIMBYs who increasingly dominate towns and suburbs across the state.

At a time when “new housing” is a dirty word to many town fathers (and now town mothers as well), Menino wants 30,000 new units built in Boston by 2020. It is a big number for a housing- allergic state struggling right now to get a third of that built each year. Boston’s blunt-spoken mayor clearly gets it when so many well-heeled suburban pols don’t or just won’t. Opening the door to new homes amid a dire shortage of places to live is not just the right thing to do, but it is the only viable long-term strategy for one of the most rapidly aging states in the union.

While upscale burbs and small towns across the state erect an iron curtain of zoning restrictions in a bid to keep newcomers out, Menino is rolling out the red carpet. “Boston 2013 is thriving … but one thing has not changed: in order to fulfill its promise, we must stay focused on creating housing, because this is an issue that affects every Boston resident,” Menino announced when he rolled his ambitious housing goals.

It’s a last hurrah of sorts for Boston’s urban mechanic. With just a few months left in office, the city’s longest serving mayor is pledging to do everything he can to push as many new housing developments through the City Hall permitting process. Menino has given a green light to the Boston Redevelopment Authority to approve new housing projects with more than 3,600 units and is moving ahead with plans to sell off surplus, city-owned land to developers.

A Call To Development

In return, Boston’s mayor is calling upon developers to invest more than $16 billion in new projects, from downtown condo towers to new neighborhood housing. And with condo and home prices spiraling upwards again, Menino is doing more than just issue another call for more “affordable housing” for low income residents, badly needed as it is.

Rather, he is calling for 5,000 of the new homes, condos and apartments to be offered at prices and rents affordable to middle class families, who are increasingly getting the squeeze.

Yet as important as what Menino is doing is why he is doing it. Boston is poised to add another 100,000 jobs over the next few years, but Menino knows full well that won’t happen if those new hires can’t find a place to live, or afford what’s on the market. Just to keep up with that growth, Boston will need to add nearly 29,000 new housing units.

As it stands now, prices in the Hub are rising at twice the rate of the median income for middle class families, according to city officials. Now contrast Menino’s campaign to recruit the next generation of Bostonians with the increasingly anti-housing sentiment that dominates suburban boards and town councils across the state.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 66

Communities across the state are going to extraordinary lengths to make the development of new housing as difficult as possible, obsessed with preserving “character” and keeping dreaded school costs down. Even small subdivisions of a few homes get the major project treatment in many towns, with endless reviews and red tape. You would never know the Bay State was a pioneer in public education, with the first schools founded way back in the 17th century, from all the bellyaching local officials do about paying for necessities like teachers and new classrooms.

Not An Invasive Species

Young families and children are talked of as if they were a plague of locusts, ready to swarm in and strip bare local school budgets if a town should make the mistake of opening the door to new apartments or modestly priced single-family homes.

It’s no accident that new home construction is just a fraction of what it was back in the 1980s, despite a relatively robust local economy and rising demand and prices. It’s not a sustainable course. Massachusetts is already the seventh-oldest state in the country, with a median age of 39, notes Peter Francese, a well-known, New Hampshire-based demographer.

Massachusetts is now shedding roughly 8,000 school children a year as families flee to states with less expensive housing. As they rant and rave against supposedly greedy developers and diabolical plans to build those evil things called apartments and homes, small-town pols are effectively killing the communities they say they love so much.

“It’s economic suicide,” Francese told me in a recent interview. The NIMBY nitwits certainly don’t get this, but Menino does. Menino knows that to keep growing, Boston needs to embrace change, including the change that new housing, and the new residents and families that come with it, will bring.

It is a lesson, however, that pertains not just to big cities like Boston, but really to communities of any size. Whether you are a big city or small town, it’s grow or go. When you stop growing, you start dying.

Scott Van Voorhis can be reached at [email protected].

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 67

III. Banker and Tradesman on Menino Plan for Homeless 9-20-13 City Announces Plan to Combat Homelessness Despite Subsidy Reductions By Allison DeAngelis, Special to Banker & Tradesman

In the face of cuts to the Boston Housing Authority's Housing Voucher Program, Mayor Thomas Menino and the city of Boston Leadership Council on Homelessness announced on Thursday a new three-year homeless action plan. The plan, called "Bringing Boston Home," is expected to impact more than 800 households in Boston by 2016.

But, after $10 million in budget reductions in May for the Boston Housing Authority's Section 8 subsidies, the $7.4 million program will need to reattribute and raise additional funds for the program. The program has almost $2.5 million in existing resources, but will rely on reprioritizing existing resources and fundraising to gather $4.9 million over the next three years for the action plan.

"The subsidies cuts are one of the things we need to recover from," said Lisa Pollack, spokeswoman for Boston's Department of Neighborhood Development. "We're making sure the right resources are going to the right targets." With this plan, the goal is to target the root problems, said Menino, including long-term homeless individuals and vulnerable populations such as seniors, unaccompanied youths and persons with chronic substance abuse and mental and physical disabilities.

"Bringing Boston Home" will also focus on preventing homelessness due to evictions. Over $500,000 has been allotted for the first year of the program to provide housing court advocates or funds for housing voucher recipients who have been unable to pay rent and face eviction. "All it takes is one unexpected thing, like a car accident or a trip to the hospital, something that these people can't absorb fiscally like you and I can," said Pollack.

On average, subsidized tenants facing eviction owed $1,552 in back rent in 2010, according to the "Bringing Boston Home" data. Meanwhile, housing assistance company HomeStart found that it costs $10,000 to evict and approximately $30,000 a year to shelter a family. The Leadership Council on Homelessness set a goal to reduce the number of those evictions by 25 percent by the end of 2016.

Drains on the system such as High Utilizers of Emergency Services (homeless individuals who use Boston hospital emergency rooms as regular shelter options and health care providers) are another target of the program. Numbering around 80 individuals, they represent by far the most costly subset of Boston's homeless, according to a press release. "This is an ambitious plan, but our past efforts have led to success, so we have confidence because these are the right targets," said Sister Margaret Leonard, Director of Sustainability & Outcomes at Project Hope, who spoke at the plan unveiling.

Currently, Boston has the lowest percentage of unsheltered homeless out of 25 Continuum of Care districts, including New York City, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Slightly over three percent of Boston's homeless are unsheltered and overall, the city's number of homeless individuals has dropped by 23 percent since 2009. In a press release, Menino said that the city "cannot rest until every Bostonian has a place to call home."

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 68

III. Governor Patrick Press Release re Housing Funding Allocations 11-14-13

GOVERNOR PATRICK ANNOUNCES OVER $73 MILLION TO BUILD OR PRESERVE 1,145 HOUSING UNITS ACROSS MASSACHUSETTS AND SIGNS HOUSING BOND BILL –NOVEMBER 14, 2013 Projects will create growth and opportunity, over 1,900 construction jobs in communities across the Commonwealth

CAMBRIDGE– Thursday, November 14, 2013 – Governor Deval Patrick today announced over $73 million in affordable housing resources and tax credits for projects in 17 communities across the state, building on the Patrick Administration’s commitment to improving housing infrastructure to support growth and opportunity throughout the Commonwealth. During the announcement, Governor Patrick signed H.3492, “An Act Financing the Production and Preservation of Housing for the Low and Moderate Income Residents.” The bill provides a total of $1.4 billion over 5 years for 11 capital funding programs that rehabilitate and modernize state-assisted public housing; preserve the affordability and income mix of state-assisted multifamily developments; and support homeownership and production of rental housing opportunities for low and moderate income residents, elderly, persons experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities and veterans.

“Creating or preserving affordable housing helps to generate jobs, grow local businesses and strengthen our communities” said Governor Deval Patrick. “Government’s role is to help people help themselves, and sustainable affordable housing will create growth and opportunity in our communities that will last for generations to come.”

The funding was announced at the Putnam Square Apartments project in Cambridge, where 94 units of elderly housing will be preserved with the support of $2.8 million in federal tax credits and housing subsidies and will create 34 jobs. In all, the 24 projects across Massachusetts will create 1,145 units of housing and an estimated 1,935 construction jobs. The $73.6 million investments announced today includes more than $14.8 million in federal low-income housing tax credits, $7.8 million in state low-income housing tax credits and $5.1 million in state and federal housing program subsidies.

Of the 1,145 units preserved or created, 1,084 will be affordable to low- and moderate-income individuals and households, with 228 units reserved for extremely low-income families, including those making the transition from homelessness.

Since 2007, Governor Patrick has worked with the Legislature and Congress to direct over $1 billion in federal and state tax credits and state housing program subsidies to projects that improve the state's affordable housing, create jobs and build stronger communities. These investments have generated more than 23,000 jobs and 18,000 housing units; 16,000 of which are affordable.

“The Patrick Administration has taken a comprehensive approach to housing in the Commonwealth that prioritizes permanent solutions that lead to stable, appropriate housing,” said

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 69

Aaron Gornstein, Undersecretary for the Department of Housing and Community Development and Chair of the Interagency Council on Housing and Homelessness. “By committing to expanding and improving affordable housing stock in Massachusetts, we are reducing homelessness and creating new opportunities for families.”

In November 2012, Governor Patrick announced a goal of creating 10,000 multi-family units of housing per year, the first production goal of this kind set by any state in the country. Increasing market-rate housing for families and individuals is part of the Patrick Administration’s comprehensive plan for improving housing at all levels. Along with creating new housing, the Administration has made significant investments in the Commonwealth’s public housing stock, by preserving and improving the 46,000 housing units in the system through increased capital funding, increased operating subsidies, and changes in management of those resources.

“As the cost of owning a home in Massachusetts continues to rise, it is critical that we work to invest and support affordable housing initiatives,” said Senator Stephen M. Brewer. “This investment will provide relief for more residents in the Commonwealth that have a critical need for safe and realistic housing options.”

“The Patrick Administration has taken a comprehensive approach to invest in the growth and expansion of our affordable housing stock for families across the Commonwealth,” said Senator Jamie Eldridge. “Projects such as the Putnam Square Apartments take strong steps to help reduce homelessness, create new job opportunities and strengthen our communities.”

“The legislature has shown unwavering support for public and affordable housing in the Commonwealth by passing the largest ever – $1.4 billion –housing bond bill,” said Representative Kevin Honan. “This bill provides $500 million for the modernization of our public housing stock, which is vital for our local housing authorities to get vacant units back online. It also provides for innovative strategies to address homelessness, funds to promote mixed use and transit oriented development, and critical housing services for the mentally and physically disabled. I want to thank my colleagues for the passage of this bill and Governor Patrick for his continued commitment to public and affordable housing.”

“I am pleased by the investment that the Patrick administration is making in affordable housing here in Cambridge and across the Commonwealth,” Representative Jay Livingstone. “I look forward to finding more ways to increase our affordable housing stock to start addressing the overwhelming needs that our citizens have for affordable housing.”

“This investment in Cambridge’s affordable housing stock represents just one part of the Patrick Administration’s good work towards ensuring that all citizens of the Commonwealth can afford to live here,” said Representative Dave Rogers. “Helping Cambridge maintain these units keeps people in their homes while maintaining the economic and generational diversity that make Cambridge such a vibrant place to live.”

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 70

Funding, which is made available through DHCD,, will support the following projects:

Bridgeview Center is a new construction project located in Boston and sponsored by Toward Independent Living & Learning (TILL). DHCD will support Bridgeview with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, federal HOME funds, and state bond subsidies, and the city of Boston also will provide funds to the project. When completed, the project will include 61 affordable units for families, with 14 units reserved for households earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

Wayne at Columbia is a preservation project located in Boston and sponsored by John B. Cruz. DHCD will support the project with Low Income Housing Tax Credits and state bond subsidies, and the city of Boston also will support the project with subsidy. Wayne at Columbia consists of multiple buildings in need of rehabilitation. When the rehabilitation work is completed, the project will feature 83 total affordable units, with nine units reserved for households earning less than 30 percent of area median income. Cruz Development now is completing earlier phases of the Wayne projects. When the earlier phases are completed, the rehabilitation of Wayne at Columbia will begin.

Montello Welcome Home is a new construction project located in Brockton and sponsored by Father Bills and Mainspring. DHCD will support the project with state bond funds, and the city of Brockton also will provide support to Montello. The completed project will provide 22 affordable units for veterans, homeless individuals, and homeless families. The sponsor also will provide new tenants with support services.

51 -57 Beals Street in Brookline is a preservation project located in the Coolidge Corner neighborhood and sponsored by the non-profit Pine Street Inn. DHCD will support the project with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, federal HOME funds, and state bond funds, and the town of Brookline also will provide substantial support to Beals Street. When completed, the project will offer 31 renovated single room occupancy units. As many as 30 units will be reserved for individuals earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

Bishop Allen Apartments in Cambridge is a preservation project located in Central Square and sponsored by the non-profit Just-A-Start Inc. DHCD will support the project with Low Income Housing Tax Credits and state bond funds. The city of Cambridge also will provide substantial support to the project. When completed, Bishop Allen will feature 32 newly rehabilitated units for families in a location very near mass transit and multiple retail and commercial opportunities.

Putnam Square Apartments in Cambridge is a preservation project located in Harvard Square and sponsored by the non-profit Homeowners Rehab Inc. DHCD will support the project with Low Income Housing Tax Credits and state bond funds. The city of Cambridge also will provide significant support to Putnam Square. When completed, the project will feature 94 renovated units for seniors, including very frail seniors. Nineteen units will be occupied by seniors earning less

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 71 than 30 percent of area median income. The sponsor intends to bring numerous services, including health care services, into the building to support the elderly tenants.

Chelmsford Woods Residences is the first phase of a 116-unit new construction project located in Chelmsford and sponsored by CHOICE, Inc., and Stratford Capital Group LLC. DHCD will support this phase of the project with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, federal HOME funds, and state bond subsidies, and the town of Chelmsford also will support the project with Community Preservation Act funds. When completed, this phase of Chelmsford Woods will feature 58 affordable units for families, including six units reserved for families earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

North Bellingham Veterans Home is a re-use project located in the heart of downtown Chelsea and sponsored by The Neighborhood Developers. DHCD will support the project with state bond subsidies, and the city of Chelsea also will provide support to the project. North Bellingham Veterans Home will feature the adaptive re-use of a former American Legion Hall into ten units of supportive housing for homeless individuals. There will be a preference for veterans in tenant selection, and services will be provided to the new tenants.

Route 134 Community Housing is a new construction project located in Dennis and sponsored by the Housing Assistance Corporation (HAC) and Preservation of Affordable Housing (POAH). DHCD will support the project with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, federal HOME funds, and state bond subsidies. The town of Dennis also has committed funds to the project. When completed, the project will include 27 affordable units for families, with seven units reserved for households earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

Heywood Wakefield IV is a historic re-use project located in Gardner and sponsored by Trafalgar Capital. DHCD will support the re-use with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, federal HOME funds, and subsidy funds, and the city of Gardner also has committed funds to the project. When completed, the project will include 55 affordable units for families, including six units reserved for households earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

Winter Street School Apartments is a historic re-use project located in Haverhill. The sponsor is the Planning Office for Urban Affairs (Archdiocese of Boston). DHCD will support the project with Low Income Housing Tax Credits and state bond subsidies, and the city of Haverhill also will support the project. When completed, the project will include 12 affordable units for families, with three units reserved for households earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

Duck Mill/Union Crossing Phase II is a historic re-use project located in Lawrence and sponsored by the non-profit Lawrence Community Works. DHCD will support the project with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, federal HOME funds, and state subsidy funds, and the city of Lawrence also will provide support to the project. When completed, the project will feature 73 affordable units for families, including 15 units reserved for families earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 72

Malden Mills II is a historic re-use project located in Lawrence and sponsored by Winn Development. DHCD will support this project with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, federal HOME funds, and state bond subsidies. The city of Lawrence also has committed funds to this project. When completed, Malden Mills II will offer 62 affordable units for families, including seven units reserved for households earning less than 30 percent of area median income. WinnDevelopment already has completed a highly successful earlier phase of this large-scale redevelopment project.

Gorham Street Apartments is a new construction project in Lowell sponsored by the non-profit Coalition For A Better Acre. DHCD will support the project with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, federal HOME funds, and state subsidies, and the city of Lowell also will provide support to the project. When completed, Gorham Street will feature 24 affordable housing units for families.

Massachusetts Mills III is a historic re-use project located in Lowell and sponsored by The Mullins Company and Rees-Larkin Development. DHCD will support the project with a Low Income Housing Tax Credits, federal HOME funds, and state bond subsidies. The city of Lowell also has committed funds to Mass Mills III. When completed, the project will include 70 total units for families: 57 units will be affordable, including seven units reserved for households earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

Parc at Medfield Phase 1 is a new construction project located in Medfield, sponsored by The Gatehouse Group, and permitted through Chapter 40b. DHCD will support Parc at Medfield with Low Income Housing Tax Credits and state bond subsidies. When completed, the project will include 48 affordable units for families, including five units reserved for households earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

Parc at Medfield Phase 2 is the second component of this new construction project located in Medfield, sponsored by the Gatehouse Group, and permitted through Chapter 40b. When completed, the second phase of Parc at Medfield will offer 44 total units, with five units reserved for families earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

East Howard Street in Quincy is a new construction project sponsored by the Neighborhood Housing Services of the South Shore, Inc. DHCD will support the project with state bond subsidies, and the city of Quincy also will provide funds to the project. When completed, East Howard Street will include 12 affordable units for veterans and their families, including eight units for households earning less than 30 percent of area median income. Among the new tenants will be veterans making the transition from homelessness.

Hunter Place Apartments is a preservation project located in Springfield and sponsored by Valley Real Estate. DHCD will support the project with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, federal HOME funds, and state bond subsidies, and the city of Springfield also will support the project. When completed, Hunter Place will feature 80 affordable units for seniors, with 16 units reserved for seniors earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 73

Memorial Square Apartments is a preservation project located in Springfield and sponsored by the New England Farm Workers Council. DHCD will support the project with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, federal HOME funds, and state bond subsidies. The city of Springfield also will support the project. When completed, Memorial Square will offer 56 affordable units for families, with 12 units reserved for households earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

Residences at Stony Brook Phase 2 is a new construction project in Westford sponsored by the non-profit Common Ground Development Corporation. DHCD will support the project with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, federal HOME funds, and state bond subsidies. When completed, the project will include 36 affordable units for families, with nine units reserved for households earning less than 30 percent of area median income. The first phase of Residences at Stony Brook contained 15 affordable units and was completed in 2006.

Cable Mills is a historic re-use project located in Williamstown and sponsored by Mitchell Properties. DHCD will support the project with state bond subsidies, and the town of Williamstown also will support the project with Community Preservation Act funds. When completed, the project will feature 61 total units, with 13 units reserved as affordable units for families.

Worcester Loomworks Phase1 is an adaptive re-use project located in Worcester and sponsored by The Community Builders. DHCD will support Worcester Loomworks with a combination of Low Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME, and state bond subsidies. When completed, this phase of the project will include 39 affordable units for families, with eight units reserved for households earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

Worcester Loomworks Phase 2 is the second component of an adaptive re-use located in the Main South neighborhood of Worcester and sponsored by The Community Builders. When completed, this phase of the project will include 55 total units, with 11 units reserved for households earning less than 30 percent of area median income.

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 74

III. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities re Sequestration 12-11-13 Announcement from Center for Budget and Policy Priorities December 11, 2013

House/Senate Leaders Release Budget Deal to Reduce Sequestration Cuts

Last night, House and Senate Budget Committee chairs Paul Ryan and Patty Murray announced a budget agreement that would significantly reduce sequestration cuts for fiscal year 2014 and keep funding essentially flat for fiscal year 2015. Congress is expected to approve the deal by next week.

The budget deal sets overall spending targets for defense and nondefense discretionary programs in FY 2014 and FY 2015, but does not set funding levels for any particular program. For nondefense discretionary (NDD) programs – the category that includes nearly all low-income housing programs – total funding in 2014 would be set at $491.8 billion, which is $22 billion, or 4.8 percent, above the post-sequestration level in 2013. For fiscal year 2015, total NDD funding would remain roughly level at $492.4 billion.

With the announcement of a budget deal, the House and Senate appropriations committees are expected to decide quickly how to allocate the available funds among the twelve subcommittees, including the Transportation-HUD subcommittee, and then go to work drafting a final bill for fiscal year 2014. Their goal will be to finalize a bill that Congress can approve when it returns from the holiday recess in early January and before the January 15 expiration of the current continuing resolution.

Final funding levels for Housing Choice Vouchers, public housing, and other HUD programs will thus be decided over the next several weeks, and there’s a fair amount of uncertainty about how the decision-making process will proceed and what the outcomes will be for specific programs. There is a strong possibility, however, that some HUD programs will receive significant additional funding in 2014 as a result of the agreement. The next several weeks are therefore a critical opportunity to advocate for additional funding in key areas – such as the Housing Choice Voucher program – where sequestration forced a cut in the number of families served this year. Details likely will not be available until early January.

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 75

III. National Council of State Housing Agencies on Congressional Budget Action 12-19-13

National Council of State Housing Agencies re Congressional Budget Vote 12-19-13 Yesterday, the Senate passed by a vote of 64 to 36 the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, H.J. Res. 59. The House passed the legislation on December 12 by a vote of 332 to 94. The President is expected to sign it soon. As previously described in NCSHA’s December 12 blog post, the bill is the result of the agreement reached between the two Budget Conference Committee chairs, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-WA).

The bill sets the FY 2014 spending cap at $1.012 trillion, replacing $45 billion in sequestration cuts that would have occurred at that spending level without the agreement. The cap is $46 billion less than the spending level set by the Senate Budget Resolution and $45 billion more than the level set by the House Budget Resolution. For FY 2015, the agreement caps discretionary spending at $1.014 trillion, replacing $18 billion in sequestration cuts that would have occurred at that spending level without the agreement.

According to a summary of the agreement, sequestration relief is divided equally between defense and non-defense spending. The bill caps FY 2014 non-defense discretionary spending at $491.8 billion, $22.4 billion more than the Budget Control Act’s (BCA) FY 2014 non-defense discretionary spending limit, and defense discretionary spending at $520 billion, $22.4 billion more than the BCA’s FY 2014 defense discretionary spending limit. The bill caps FY 2015 non-defense discretionary spending at $492 billion and defense discretionary spending at $521 billion.

Both House Appropriations Committee Chair Harold Rogers (R-KY) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) released statements supporting the budget agreement. Mikulski stated, “This bipartisan agreement means we can meet national security needs while meeting compelling human needs like education, health, and housing.” In response to the House vote, Rogers stated, “With the approval of these spending levels, my committee will be able to get down to business on our appropriations bills, and I anticipate that we will start at once.” Rogers continued, “We have a heavy lift ahead of us— drafting, negotiating, and passing these bills in just over one month—but I am certain my colleagues on both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees are up to the task.”

The leadership of the appropriations committees are discussing now how to divide the newly agreed-upon FY 2014 $1.012 trillion spending cap among the 12 appropriations subcommittees. Appropriators are expected to release in early January an omnibus bill with a mix of new appropriations bills for somefederal agencies and a continuing resolution (CR) for the others. If the House and Senate Transportation, Housing (T-HUD) and Agriculture, Rural Development (Agriculture) subcommittees are able to reach agreement on their respective FY 2014 funding bills, those bills will likely be incorporated in a larger omnibus spending bill. If there is not agreement, programs within their jurisdictions would likely be funded under a long-term CR.

All federally funded agencies, including HUD and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), are currently funded by a CR that expires January 15. Congress must pass new appropriations legislation by that date to prevent another partial government shutdown.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 76

Appendix IV. Public Housing, December, 2013 Banker and Tradesman re: Chelsea Housing Authority

Banker and Tradesman, Sunday, June 30, 2013 Housing Scandal Redux: Post-Chelsea Reforms Appear Stalled Plans Focus On Dealing with McLaughlin Aftermath

By Colleen M. Sullivan , Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

More than 18 months after questions about the high salary paid to Chelsea Public Housing Authority Executive Director Michael McLaughlin pulled the curtain back on his corrupt fiefdom, efforts to reform the state’s hundreds of local housing authorities appear stalled.

Local housing authorities are agencies that run the state’s 80,000 state and federally funded public housing units, repairing and maintaining property and overseeing the selection of new tenants. Created in the aftermath of WWII, as huge swaths of public housing were being created across the country, Massachusetts has a housing authority for practically every one of the state’s 351 towns – 242, second only to Texas, which has four times the population of the Bay State. Each authority has its own executive director and board, which are funded by a mix of state, local and federal dollars.

The McLaughlin scandal – he had convinced his board to grant him a salary of more than $300,000, making him one of the top five highest – paid housing authority directors in the country, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – revealed how little oversight the local housing authorities enjoyed.

Prevention Efforts Stalled

McLaughlin himself is awaiting sentencing next month after pleading guilty to fraud, but efforts to prevent similar abuses in the future appear stalled.

The state Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), which has control over the authorities, has put some reforms in place: As of this fiscal year, the authorities have to submit their budgets for an annual review, and executive salaries at the agencies have been capped to no more than $160,000, with agencies who fail to comply with these requirements subject to having their state funding cut off. (A review of existing contracts turned up only three authorities whose current executive director’s salaries exceeded the cap: Cambridge, Brockton and Ayer/Methuen, the last of which share the same director.)

But Gov. Deval Patrick has pushed to go much further in reforming the authorities, submitting a radical reform bill in January that would consolidate the existing 244 agencies into six regional housing authorities. Communities would still be able to create voluntary local oversight committees, but the existing executive boards would be replaced by six regional boards, and back office functions like accounting and human resources would be consolidated. Building maintenance and other on-site staff would be unaffected. The plan could save the state millions, according to the governor’s office.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 77

The governor “believes that we owe it to tenants and taxpayers to reform the public housing system,” said Matthew T. Sheaff, a spokesman for DHCD. “His legislation does that.”

But legislators have balked at the proposal. While Patrick included provisions in his budget for funding the regionalization plan in the hopes of passing it in this session, the legislatures’ housing committee declined to even schedule a hearing on it.

Instead, many lawmakers seem inclined to favor a bill sponsored by the Massachusetts chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, a trade association for public housing administrators.

The MassNAHRO bill, which has 56 co-sponsors, including several who sit on the housing committee, would require agencies which oversee fewer than 100 units to subcontract some of their administrative and capital planning efforts to larger agencies, helping to create economies of scale, said MassNAHRO Executive Director Tom Connelly. According to DHCD, 109 housing authorities operate with less than 100 units.

The housing authorities “were very receptive to getting help with those services from the larger agencies, through contracted services. But it would be to different degrees. Some of them do very well with capital improvement, but they don’t do well with unit turnovers. They’ll be able to tailor whatever they want the agency to provide them,” said Connelly.

Additionally, DHCD could force larger agencies into such subcontracting arrangements if they weren’t up to snuff.

But crucially, each agency would remain independent and retain its own board and executives. Most of the other reform measures included in the bill – centralizing wait lists so that units don’t remain vacant, for example – DHCD says it’s already putting in place.

Asked how abuses like McLaughlin’s could be prevented under the MassNAHRO bill, Gleeson said that the failures of oversight in the Chelsea case were widespread and went beyond the board level.

“That board was as guilty as he was. Corruption is corruption….if auditors turn their backs on it, and accountants who don’t report it, and staff who don’t what’s going on, that kind of stuff is going to happen. But that kind of case is unusual. We have so many safeguards built into the program now,” he said. “We feel that the bill is a step toward improving these agencies rather than just throwing out everything, as the governor suggests.”

Sources on Beacon Hill told Banker & Tradesman that the two bills are likely to be reviewed this fall, and the housing committee plans to schedule three public hearings on the bill in various parts of the state. Some legislators have already met with local housing authority executives in Leominster, which already operates under a subcontracting arrangement similar to that proposed in the MassNAHRO bill, to review their practices.

Email: [email protected]

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 78

IV. Boston Globe re: Chelsea Housing Authority 8-13 Boston Globe 8-29-13 Murray to pay settlement, McLaughlin indicted over fund- raising By Andrea Estes and Jim O’Sullivan, | Globe Staff

Timothy P. Murray agreed Thursday to pay $80,000 to settle charges that he collected $50,000 in illegal campaign contributions raised by two public officials, capping a controversy that derailed the former lieutenant governor’s political career.

Murray, who resigned in June to take a position as head of the Worcester Chamber of Commerce, collected tens of thousands of dollars in donations solicited by former Chelsea Housing Authority executive director Michael E. McLaughlin, according to Attorney General Martha Coakley.

McLaughlin, who has already been sentenced to three years in federal prison for lying to state and federal regulators about his $360,000 salary, was indicted Thursday by a state grand jury in several campaign violations including unlawful solicitation by a public employee.

If convicted, he could face additional jail time. He is scheduled to be arraigned on the state charges Sept. 5, just days before he is to report to federal prison. McLaughlin may plead guilty to the state charges in exchange for a sentence of probation to be served after his federal prison term ends, according to two people briefed on negotiations.

A second official — E. Bernard Plante, a supervisor in the state Department of Transportation — also solicited donations for Murray in the Worcester area between 2008 and 2010, Coakley said. He was not charged.

“Political fund-raising and solicitation by public employees, especially those in management positions, is a violation of law that undermines the integrity of our campaign finance system,” Coakley said.

In a statement, Murray said he should have been “more vigilant” about who was working on behalf of his campaign.

“As I have said from the start, I never asked Michael McLaughlin to solicit funds for my committee, because I know that would have been wrong,” he said. “If I knew in 2006 what I know today about Mr. McLaughlin, I would have never had any association with him at all.”

In a phone interview Thursday, Murray said: “I’m glad that this civil settlement has been reached. It’s been a long, difficult process, but we fully cooperated every step along the way, and we’re just glad it’s come to a closure.”

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 79

Murray had asked state campaign finance officials to investigate after the Globe reported in January 2012 that McLaughlin, who as a public employee was barred from fund-raising, had organized several fund-raisers on Murray’s behalf. McLaughlin solicited donations, often in cash, from Chelsea Housing Authority employees and friends and associates.

At the time, Murray downplayed their relationship and said he was unaware McLaughlin raised money for him.

Within months, the investigators turned their attention to Murray. They questioned him and others, in an effort to determine whether Murray himself had engaged in criminal conduct. In the end, prosecutors concluded that even if McLaughlin testified against Murray, there was insufficient evidence that Murray knew what McLaughlin was doing or that he conspired with him, according to three people briefed on the investigation.

Coakley’s office has had difficulty winning convictions in public corruption cases. Earlier this year, a Suffolk County jury found former probation commissioner John O’Brien not guilty of charges he raised money for former treasurer Timothy Cahill in order to get his wife a job at the state Treasury. And last December a jury could not reach a verdict in the trial of Cahill, accused of misusing state lottery money to finance an ad campaign for his 2010 run for governor. Cahill ended up paying a $100,000 fine.

Thursday, Murray repeated that the “process was initiated” by him after he learned that McLaughlin had “improperly solicited funds for my committee.”

“I asked for the investigation because I have always sought to play by the rules and run my political committee within the letter and the spirit of the law,” he said. “This review has been comprehensive, and we have fully cooperated with the authorities every step of the way.”

Murray, who had been preparing a run for governor, saw his political career shelved after the Globe reported his ties to McLaughlin and he ran his car off the road in a predawn crash.

In January, he announced he would not run for governor and stopped fund-raising.

When he later announced he was resigning, Murray dismissed suggestions that the controversies prompted his decision.

As part of his settlement with the attorney general, Murray’s political committee must pay a $20,000 fine. By Aug. 15, Murray’s campaign account contained more than $227,000. Murray must also personally pay a $10,000 fine. Additionally, Murray must dissolve his political committee and have no involvement with a political fund-raising committee for two years, Coakley’s office said.

Murray’s agreement with the chamber of commerce already prohibits him from campaign involvement.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 80

The second public official, Plante, solicited donations from DOT employees for his son, who was a Murray fund-raiser, according to the agreement. Plante, who makes about $88,000 per year, solicited donations from DOT employees and others for three Murray fund-raisers in Worcester in 2008, 2009 and 2010, the agreement said.

A person close to the investigation said Plante’s cooperation in the inquiry helped him avoid prosecution. The Patrick administration refused Thursday to disclose Plante’s name, though Coakley’s aides confirmed it.

“We learned of the attorney general’s investigation involving a MassDOT employee today,” DOT spokeswoman Sara Lavoie said in an e-mail. “We will be reviewing the attorney general’s findings and agreement with the employee and will determine whether or not further action is necessary.”

“That is just the decision that was made,” said Lavoie, explaining why the agency would not release the name. She said the department will circulate “reminder guidelines” about fund-raising rules for its employees.

In addition to four counts of unlawful solicitation by a public employee, McLaughlin is also charged with four counts of solicitation in a public building and four counts of conspiracy to solicit in a public building.

On Tuesday, Coakley and the Office of Campaign and Political Finance took action in another political campaign case, filing suit against Lawrence Mayor William Lantigua, alleging he had violated state campaign finance law by accepting thousands of dollars in potentially illegal cash and corporate contributions.

The legal maneuvering comes as Coakley herself is considering a gubernatorial bid. She has said she will decide soon whether or not to run.

Political observers said the fallout from Murray’s imbroglio with McLaughlin had left him politically damaged, but said his enduring popularity in Central Massachusetts and within the Democratic Party left the door open to a political comeback in the future.

“As bad as the car accident was, it could have been worse, and the same is true of the outcome of this entire situation,” said Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic strategist with the Dewey Square Group. “Tim Murray doesn’t come out completely unscathed, like the car accident, and with this judgment and some time, Tim Murray could have some future here.”

Andrea Estes can be reached at [email protected]. Jim O’Sullivan can be reached at [email protected].

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 81

Appendix V. Work with Others, December, 2013 Mayor Menino’s Last Major Speech as Mayor, 12-10-13 Banker and Tradesman, Tuesday, December 10, 2013 Menino Delivers Last Major Speech as Boston Mayor

Boston's longest-serving mayor, Thomas Menino, delivered his final major speech while in office to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce Tuesday morning. His prepared remarks were as follows:

Thank you, Bob. Thank you, Paul. Thank you to everyone here. I have the best business community in the country. The next time I give a big speech like this, it will probably be in a lecture hall. You are welcome to come, but I am a very tough grader. Professor Menino. Think about that for a second. Things change.

And that's what I want to talk about today: change. About renewal.

Lots of things make a place a city - crowds, commerce, heights. But, the thing that makes a city most is change, the fact that something new is always just around the corner. It's change that attracts immigrants. It's opportunity that draws students. It's action that invites visitors. And it's progress in a city that compels neighbors to stay neighbors and to stay here. There are places you would go to enjoy sameness, but they aren't cities. There are places you would go to soak in the status quo, but they aren't here.

Here, change has made an old city new. Here, change means that every five year old is guaranteed full day kindergarten. If you looked around a first grade class the day I took office, one in every five kids had no kindergarten education. We changed that. And today we have nearly 3,000 three and four year-olds getting early education every year at the Boston Public Schools.

Here, change brought a convention center and then an entire new district to our waterfront. Change erased parking lots and filled empty buildings and brought 5,000 new workers and new working styles. I want to recount some of the change that's behind us with the hope it will help us embrace the change that's ahead.

In two decades together:

We added 13,000,000 square feet of office space. That's like adding a Prudential Tower every other year. And we created jobs with it. Next year we will have more people working in Boston than at any point in its history.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 82

We built as much new housing as Somerville has altogether, and added more affordable housing than Wellesley has of any type. We also redeveloped 2,300 of new public housing.

Over two decades, change made great centers of Roslindale Village, Ashmont, Kenmore Square, and Maverick Square. It brought a vibrant Blue Hill Avenue through Grove Hall. The Ferdinand Building is back in Dudley and so is hope. Change brought these things.

We changed and so our city is now more financially secure than ever. We invested in our people, but we did so wisely. When I took office, our reserves were negative $23,000,000. In January, we will leave with an estimated $200,000,000 dollars in reserve. That's a big chunk of change. We adapted so that we could do this during two recessions and as the state cut local aid.

We turned Beantown to Greentown. We added twenty percent more green space. We shrunk our carbon footprint so much that it was like taking a city the size of Cambridge off the grid. In fact, this fall Boston was named the number one energy efficient city in the country.

We put 200,000 teens into summer jobs.

We cut crime in half. The year I took office, we had 98 homicides. Today, we have 38. And today, crime prevention isn't just a police issue; it's a public health issue and a whole city issue.

We took the stigma out of treating AIDS, the smoke out of restaurants and the sugary drinks out of schools. Boston was the first city to talk frankly about racial disparities in health and the first to do something about it.

We created the Office of New Bostonians to welcome new immigrants with services and connections, and we have become, proudly, a majority-minority city.

We led the way on same-sex marriage. Almost one of every ten marriage licenses issued in Boston is to a same-sex couple.

We pioneered new technologies. We invented Citizens Connect and New Urban Mechanics. We upgraded our hotline and expanded its reach. And we've done all of this in a way that's brought government closer to people. Humans answer our phones, in under six seconds, and they have done it more than 2 million times.

We brought in over twenty new supermarkets, expanded farmers markets, permitted over 50 food trucks and supported food incubators to bring more healthy food and good jobs to our city.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 83

In 1996, one in four high school students passed the state math exams. Today, almost 90 percent do. More students graduate than ever before and fewer drop out. Change came to places like the old Gavin School and Orchard Gardens. Change invented TechBoston and the Edward M. Kennedy Health Careers Academy. Change brought bilingual schools and inclusive classrooms. Ninety-four percent of our parents now report that their child's school is a good or great place to learn. That's change! Change meant our district was named most improved in the country and one of the twenty most improved in the world. Change is bringing new flexibilities to our classrooms and more kids to quality schools, closer to home.

Change makes cities, and great change makes great cities. I believe we are on the cusp of more great change. I have faith in Marty Walsh and what he will accomplish with all of you. The mayor-elect and I are working together to make sure his start is smooth. This isn't about Tom or Marty. It's about the people of our city.

Over the summer we began executing a ten-point transition plan. Its very first priority was to make sure that our city didn't miss a beat. So we focused on a safe summer, a strong summer jobs program and a good start to the school-year.

We kept Boston's economy humming and its services to constituents top notch. And we worked to deliver the city in outstanding financial shape. I am proud that the 2014 budget is on track and on target. The new mayor will inherit a balanced budget, healthy reserves, a growing tax base and a triple A bond rating, the highest in Boston's history.

We created the Next Boston transition blog and posted 84 times on key departments, looming issues and little-known aspects of city government. We opened and equipped a transition office for the mayor-elect. And I have spoken with him almost daily to touch base on various city issues. We provided cabinet and department head briefings. We organized a snow exercise for him to see the team at work. Next week, we will start working through a final transition check list, ticking off everything from legal documents to technology switches so that one administration can seamlessly turnover to the next.

Great cities plan for great change - it doesn't just happen - and I am pleased at how well our teams are working together. I have told the mayor-elect that I am here to help. But, I won't be hanging around to critique his work. The job is hard enough already. Even with the city poised to achieve great new heights, I see three great changes that will make the task of leading especially tough.

First, the dramatic decline in Federal support. I don't see federal revenues or federal policy returning to levels we had during my terms. The climate in Washington is poison and the problem solving is rare. Two essential parts of our city - non-profits and the research sector - will need to re-invent their operating models for a new day.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 84

Second, the substantial increase in income inequality. People born here have a better chance of moving up the ladder than in most other big cities. But that means the problem is only less worse here than in other places. We need to unleash all of our ideas and energy towards solving this problem. More of the same - even the good same - won't be enough. And you, the partners in the business community, will need to see that it's in your interest too, that the city isn't a place divided.

If you aren't talking about this in your boardrooms, you should be. If you aren't worrying about what it means for your workforce and your customers, you are missing the boat. If you don't think a new generation of division will damage this city, you haven't looked around the world, where deep inequalities breed deep distrust. This year, Boston's business community has taken the lead on achieving pay equity for women. I hope you will see extreme inequality in a similar light: A city only works when it works for everyone.

The third looming challenge is changes to higher education. Costs of college are putting it further out of reach and technology is making it easier to access education in other ways. Both are potential threats to this pillar of Boston's economy and the thing that creates the most appeal for our businesses and visitors.

I don't agree with all the hand-wringing about graduates "leaving." First, almost one in every two students that goes to college here stays here. And second, the ones that leave spread ideas around the world. We need to worry less about where graduates go and more about whether students will still come in droves a decade from now.

Progress on all three fronts will need to be pushed and prodded and sometimes poked. Great cities undertake great change, but not all on their own. It will be in the new mayor's hands and in yours.

I spent last weekend lighting seventeen trees around our city. I talked with thousands of people - there was even one person I had never met before. In every neighborhood, I could sense the love people have for our city. I could feel the partnership they have with each other. But the thing I could see above all, the thing I was proudest of, was the change everywhere. There was more opportunity and more progress and more action everywhere. The city is a lot different than it was twenty years ago. Change has made us strong.

I thank you for everything you have done for me and for the people of our city. As I leave this stage for another, I ask just one last thing: Please hire a summer jobs kid.

Some things never change.

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 85

V. The Boston Globe re: Larry DiCara 8-31-13 Boston Globe, August 31, 2013 The best mayor we didn’t elect By Lawrence Harmon, | Globe Columnist

Bill Greene/Globe staff/file 2003 Lawrence DiCara (center) ran for mayor in 1983. ATTORNEY LAWRENCE DiCara, the former president of the Boston City Council, has few rivals when it comes to knowledge of the city’s political history from the ground up. His recently published memoir — “Turmoil and Transition in Boston’’ — arrives at a good time to provide historical context to the current mayor’s race in Boston. In 1983, DiCara was the sharpest of the nine candidates seeking an open mayoral seat. The Dorchester native had set his sights on the office while still in high school. Seriously. He was consciously creating networks for future campaigns while running for senior class president of Boston Latin School in 1967. I remember pieces of DiCara’s campaign literature landing on the desks of my classmates. And we were juniors who weren’t eligible to vote for the senior class president. DiCara would go on to become the youngest person, at 22, ever elected to the Boston City Council. Over the next few terms, he solidified his power and assumed the presidency of the council. DiCara was convinced that his years of political preparation would pay off. He pulled himself up to his full height of 5 feet 4¼ inches (by his own meticulous measurement) and prepared to stride into the office that would soon be vacated by the late Mayor Kevin White. DiCara came in fourth — a distant fourth — in the 1983 preliminary election that sent eventual winner Ray Flynn and former state representative Mel King into the November runoff. “I naively thought that my 10 years of City Council votes, the countless appearances at dinners and events, the many summer jobs and other favors would translate into votes for mayor,’’ wrote DiCara. “I was wrong.’’ The five Boston city councilors who are currently running for a truly open mayor’s seat — the first such opportunity since 1983 — can’t feel good about that revelation.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 86

The backdrop of DiCara’s book is the tumultuous period beginning in 1974 when a federal judge ordered the desegregation of the city’s school system. But his best material focuses on how candidates toggle between exhilaration and exhaustion. At times, DiCara literally collapsed from the strain of campaigning. And despite DiCara’s grasp of issues and brilliant debating style, he failed to drum up interest at scores of candidate forums, where most attendees were already committed to one of his opponents. “I could have been the second coming of Demosthenes and my performance would not have persuaded a single one of them to support me,’’ he wrote. Had he won, DiCara would likely have been a superb mayor. He believed passionately that no Bostonian should be marginalized. He enjoyed good relations with the city’s business community and was prepared to push for a responsible development policy. He knew enough not to get rolled by municipal unions. And he was proud of the excellent education he had received in the city’s public schools and was determined to provide the same opportunity to all students. Boston certainly made progress during the administrations of former Mayor Flynn and soon-to-depart Mayor Menino. But DiCara was more nimble than both of them and might have pushed Boston further and faster in the right direction. Some candidates in the current, crowded field of 12 are reminiscent of DiCara. They are pegged as second-tier candidates despite their obvious abilities. DiCara fought against similar perceptions. They want for a reliable geographic base. In 1983, DiCara was too liberal to carry his own Dorchester ward. Candidate Bill Walczak is a policy expert with a common touch and a deep devotion to the city. Walczak’s white papers on key issues such as housing, education, and public safety provide a clear idea of what his administration would look like, just as DiCara’s did 30 years ago. Boston City Councilor Michael Ross is another example. Like DiCara, he has a strong grasp of the city’s development potential, gets high marks from Boston’s business community, and is willing to work around the clock. Candidate John Barros followed a similar path to DiCara’s that led from a modest upbringing to an Ivy League college. And each displays an almost courtly demeanor and wise-beyond-his-years presence. DiCara, incidentally, won 15,148 votes in the 1983 election, a third of what he needed to make it to the final. “In the years since that election,’’ he wrote, “I have met far more than 15,148 people who swear they voted for me.’’ As if bruised egos, exhausted bodies, and crippling campaign debt weren’t enough. Lawrence Harmon can be reached at [email protected] ###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 87

V. V. Notes from Elder Stakeholders Meeting

Elder Stakeholders Meeting Notes 3rd Quarter Meeting, August 15, 2013

Q3 Meeting Notes -

Attendees: Emily Shea, Deb Thomson, Scott Plumb, Dave Stevens, Jim Wessler, Lisa Gurgone, James Fuccione, Carolyn Villers, Stan Eichner, Ann Hartstein, Catherine Hardaway, Diane Paulson, Peter Tiernan, Laura Russell, Sandy Albright, Linda George, Ruth Moy, Joan Cirillo, Mary DeRoo, Bridget Dunn, Caren Silverlieb, Dale Mitchell, Sean Caron, Beverly Droz, Wynn Gerhard, Rachael Phinney, Michele Keefe, Bill Johnston-Walsh, and Jessica Costantino

Updates:  ICOs – RFP currently out; EOEA precluded from answering questions on this  Money Follows the Person Waiver Requests – EOEA is currently responding to questions from CMS; Christina Hales named new housing coordinator  Section Q Referrals from Nursing Homes – implemented through ADRCs; asks residents if they want to return to the community; done at each assessment; CMS will be issuing guidance on this in October; EOEA is now implementing statewide  PCAs in ICOs and for elders – those in ICOs who have a cueing/supervision need will get PCA services & elders with the same need will not; discussion about the need to address this inequality for elders as well as others (such as the cliff when someone ages out of MassHealth); a bill is pending to address this (see attached fact sheet)

Home Care Waiting List:  1448 for Basic  734 for ECOP  EOEA is managing toward a full capacity for the full year; in September EOEA expects a partial release of people on the waiting list  Currently Priority Levels 1 & 2 are getting service and Levels 3 & 4 are wait listed  Discussion about the need to have supplemental funding to eliminate the waiting lists so that having a waiting list does not become the new normal for MA

Home Care Rates Hearing: DCHFP will hold a hearing on 9/7/12 to bring the EOEA rate portfolio into compliance with Chapter 257; rates for home care case management, protective services, congregate housing, and supportive services will be addressed; written comments due 9/17/12; click here to sign up

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 88 to testify: http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/laws-regs/hcf/registration-to-testify-at-a-dhcfp-public- hearing.html

AOA inclusion of LGBT in “greatest social need”:  LGBT will now be another targeted population; AOA has recently posted a FAQ on this

Legislative Studies Update:  Comprehensive Ombudsman Study – there are currently 3 separate ombudsman programs (nursing homes, assisted living and home and community based care); EOEA is looking to identify gaps in these programs; report due 12/31/12; any comments or suggestions to Sue Thomson at EOEA  MBTA Fare Increase Impact Study – EOEA is working with MBTA and the Office of Disability to assess the impact of fare increases of The Ride on riders; it will be a comparison of July, August, and September of 2012 to 2011; MA Senior Action Council has created a story bank on this; due 12/31/12  Prescription Drug Diversion Study- bill pending, but if passed EOEA would have a role

Special Commissions Update:  Protective Services Commission – just signed into law; EOEA and other elder stakeholders to participate; due 6/13  Rural Services Study – EOEA will work with EOHHS to address rural services; due 4/1/13  COPD Study – EOEA will work with DPH on strategies to address COPD; due 12/31/13

Grant Update:  ADRC Part A & B – grant submitted; EOEA is expecting to get Part A (3 years for $750,000) and not expecting to get Part B (1 year for $250,000);  Financial Exploitation – EOEA is working with 900 registered financial planners  Protective Services Renewal – EOEA received a grant to address violence against women; working with the Department of Public Safety

One Town One Challenge: Laura Russell gave an overview of a new project addressing mercury amalgam dental poisoning. For more information and to get involved go to www.oceanriver.org/HiddenRiver.php

Next Meeting: November , 2013

###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 89

V. EOEA & Elder Stakeholders Meeting Q4, 2013 Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:30 – 11:00 a.m. Attendees: EOEA Secretary Ann Hartstein, Stan Eichner, Sue Temper, EOEA; Catherine Hardaway; Dave Stevens; Emily Shea; Carolyn Villers, Barbara Mann; James Fuccione; Diane Paulson; Dale Mitchell; Nicci Meadow; Gene Mazzella; Lisa Gurgone; Joan Cirillo; Laura Russell; Scott Plumb; Jayne Colino; Ruth Moy; Elissa Sherman; Linda George; Chet Jakubiak; Ellen Feingold; Mike Festa, Linda Fitzgerald, Leslie Siphers, Jessica Costantino, Rob Romasco (AARP National President); and Kristian King, AARP national staff.

FY15 Budget Priorities:  State revenue is up, but due to the mandated commensurate tax decrease there is no expectation on increases to the FY15 budget  Key programs & services for full funding – COAs, geriatric mental health, HCBS, salary reserve & wages, Medicaid provider rates, property tax relief, prescription advantage, The RIDE  Budget hearings for each agency/secretariat are happening in December

Money Follows the Person:  Contracts are out for transition coordinators  Access to the portal is being set up  300 people have transitioned from the frail elder waiver to MFP  MassHealth is looking for providers  Roll out has been slower than they had hoped for  Referrals can come from anywhere/anyone  ASAP nurses help residents with questions  Section Q – requires every SNF resident to be asked if they would like to reside outside of the SNF

Uniform Guardianship Legislation:  HB1366 pending in the Judiciary Committee  Supporters include AARP, Alzheimer’s, NAELA, the ARC  Currently the senate chair is empty (former state senator Katherine Clark)

Commission Status & Updates  Elder Protective Services o 4 subcommittees have been meeting o Subcommittee recommendations will be compiled into one set of recommendations o Was due on 12/31/13 – not going to meet that reporting deadline o Many of the recommendations do not have a fiscal implication and could be implemented in a short time period  Elder Economic Security

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report December 31, 2013 Page 90

o Appointments are in process o Report due 6/14  LGBT o Appointments are in process o Report due 1 year from the first meeting

SCOs – notification status

Other: Per Dave Stevens – NCOA Benefits Checkup will be rolled out in January and available to everyone.

Attachments:  Agenda  2014 Meeting schedule  Medicare Observation Status info

Meeting with Rob Romasco

Following the Elder Stakeholders meeting with EOEA, participants had a discussion with Rob Romasco, AARP national president. He spoke about the challenges with getting anything accomplished in Washington DC at this time, how the ACA has overshadowed much of the discussion, and the importance of the 2014 elections.

AARP’s focus will be on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and ACA.

In addition, he spoke about the need to change the conversation on fiscal matters framed by “generation equity” to “intergenerational solidarity”. Much of the follow up discussion focused on addressing this larger policy and ideology.

Jessica Costantino AARP Massachusetts One Beacon Street, Suite 2301 Boston, MA 02108 617.305.0538 - direct 617.723.4224 - facsimile www.aarp.org/ma www.facebook.com/aarpma www.twitter.com/aarpma

###