Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Summary of Progress as of June 30, 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 second Quarter 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.

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 subcommittees and Boston Foundation staff.

Housing Market Updates

Press coverage this Quarter about news in the housing market, continuing the trend we reported on in the last three Quarters, was optimistic. The Associated Press reported on April 16, 2013 that the Commerce Department announced “The overall pace of homes started [nationally] rose 7 percent from February to March to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.04 million. Apartment construction, which tends to fluctuate sharply from month to month, led the surge: It jumped nearly 31 percent to an annual rate of 417,000, the fastest pace since January 2006.” And the Banker and Tradesman editorial on May 12, 2013, was wondering if the rapid price of homes for sale constituted the start of a new housing bubble. 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. Paul McMorrow’s thoughtful Op-Ed in the Boston Globe of June 4, 2013, commented on the serious lack of rental housing and the need for housing outside of the City of Boston.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 2

Relative to the single-family side in New England, Banker and Tradesman reported on March 28, 2013 that the mortgage market was the strongest in 5 years. With mortgage rates at historic lows and market demand at the highest in years, that trend continued throughout the Quarter. The New York Times on June 19, 2013, under the headline “Fed, More Optimistic About Economy, Maintains Bond-Buying”, wrote: “Federal Reserve policy makers, more confident about the economic recovery, on Wednesday maintained their current pace of monetary stimulus. Fed officials also predicted in their latest economic forecast, released Wednesday, that the unemployment rate will decline more quickly than they had previously expected, sitting between 6.5 percent and 6.8 percent at the end of 2014. They had predicted in March that the rate would sit between 6.7 percent and 7 percent. Officials predicted that the annual pace of inflation would rebound next year, rising closer to the 2 percent rate that the Fed considers healthy.”

The state of the housing market is also receiving attention at the local level. After approaching the Dukakis Center at Northeastern University, the Planning Board of the Town of Dedham has agreed to fund a small project whereby the Center, led by Barry Bluestone, will analyze the current state of housing in the town, project housing needs for single-family and multi-family housing based on demographic projections, and suggest what means might be used, including 40R, to meet these needs. This report will be completed by early fall.

Finally, in anticipation of funding from the Boston Foundation to carry out its 11th annual Greater Boston Housing Report Card, the staff of the Dukakis Center has outlined the structure of this year’s report and has begun to collect the necessary data for the report, much of which is related to trends in the housing market in Massachusetts. In a meeting on June 18, the Dukakis Center GBHRC staff met with the leadership of the Department of Housing and Community Development and Boston Foundation staff to review the proposed content of this year’s report.

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

Student Housing Effort

Barry Bluestone continues to pursue efforts to deal with the issues in the housing market presented by Boston’s being such a 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).

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 3

Barry continues to meet regularly with interested parties to explore where and how a multi-university graduate student village can be built. As previously reported, the Dukakis Center has worked with Samuels & Associates (Trilogy) on encouraging the development of a large graduate student housing complex in the Fenway area. And Barry continues to meet with David Geller of Geller & Co. exploring ways to encourage Northeastern University to join with other Colleges of the Fenway to offer Master Leases for the development of a Fenway “Multi-University Graduate Student Village.” In addition, during this Quarter, initial meetings have been concluded with the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development and the Department of Housing and Community Development over the possibility of having the Governor convene a group of housing developers and Greater Boston university presidents to explore the possibility of having local universities offer Master Leases for the development of one or more “Multi-University Graduate Student Villages.” The goal is to produce enough such housing to reduce pressure on rents in many of the region’s neighborhoods.

We were pleased to see a Boston Globe report of June 8, 2013, that Emerson College announced plans to build a multistory building to house a 750-student dorm and other facilities. See the full story in Appendix III to this Report.

Other Programmatic Developments

Fairly new this Quarter has been discussion in the press about the development of “micro-units”, very small rental apartments meant to be marketed to young professionals who may want to trade space in favor of low rents. The units, sometimes likened to the type of space utilization found on submarines or in Japanese bargain hotels, are less than 300 square feet with many built-in features to maximize the space. Some housing advocates are skeptical that this type of construction as sustainable over time, remembering cost-containment days of Federal subsidy programs that stripped housing units of so many amenities (like closet doors!) that in a matter of years, even the poorest of the poor refused to live in them. Others believe that these units fill an important market need and that if suitably located—either in an inner city and/or very near public transportation—will appeal long-term to young workers just starting out. Please refer to the Boston Globe article of March 26, 2013 included in Appendix III to this report for a description of this product type and graphic representations of what these units look like. We welcome comments about this from CHTF members (write to Eleanor White: [email protected]). We also noticed a very interesting press release issued by the MacArthur Foundation on April 3, 2013, showcasing a study of housing attitudes in the US. Although a majority of Americans still see homeownership as a key part of the American dream, the study indicates that there is a growing acceptance of rental housing as a desirable lifestyle, and—further—a growing recognition that stable housing environments are key to stable families and communities. Both findings are critically important to gaining public support for the construction of badly-needed rental housing

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 4 and for public support of government subsidy programs to make both homeownership and rental housing affordable across the income spectrum in the US. See the press release in Appendix III of this Report. CHAPA’s Housing Briefs stated in early April, 2013, that on February 25, the State announced the addition of two cities (Peabody and Attleboro) to its list of “Gateway Cities” (cities with population greater than 35,000 and less than 250,000, a median household income below the state average and a rate of educational attainment of a bachelor’s degree or above that is below the state average). With these additions, the state now has 26 Gateway City communities. Designation qualifies communities for several targeted state programs (Gateway Cities Parks program, Housing Development Incentive Program, Housing Planning Grants and Gateway Plus Action Grants) as well as a preference under others, including the MassWorks Infrastructure and Brownfields programs. See the full text of the press release in Appendix III. And we’d like to thank active CHTF member and Co-Chair of the CHTF Public Housing Committee Charles Eisenberg for delivering excellent and well-received testimony to the Legislature on April 4, 2013, on behalf of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force, relative to HR 1127 and HR 3333, Acts Financing the Production and Preservation of Housing for Low and Moderate Income Residents. The full text of this testimony can be found also in Appendix III. CHAPA’s Housing Briefs also reports that The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) published an update of the Subsidized Housing Inventory (follow this link for the full Inventory on the Commonwealth’s website). As of April 30, 2013, the number of units that count toward the 10% goal is 247,059 statewide, up 2,496 units from the count published a year ago (May 2012). Forty-three cities and towns are at or above 10%, three more communities (Lynnfield, Stoughton and Wilmington) than in May 2012. Another 73 communities have SHI percentages at or above 7%, including 20 between 9 and 9.95%, 20 more between 8 and 8.95% and 30 between 7 and 7.95%. Overall, the 113 communities at or above 7% are home to 64% of the state’s population. This is extremely positive news for affordable housing advocates in the Commonwealth. CHTF members will recall that one of the recommendations in the 2012 Greater Boston Housing Report Card called for an analysis of the components of high construction costs in this region. We were very pleased to see that NAIOP (the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties) hosted a seminar on May 10, 2013 to hear from a panel of construction experts and developers, who discussed the current construction cost environment, their projections for the future, techniques and new technologies that are available to reduce costs, value engineer buildings, and allow developers to break ground on successful projects.

In this connection, The Urban Land Institute (ULI) and NAIOP have now partnered with the Dukakis Center at Northeastern University, led by Barry Bluestone, to carry out a major study of why it costs so much to build workforce housing

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 5 in Greater Boston. This study will analyze the costs of building two types of structures (central city high rise steel or reinforced concrete and suburban stick-build on platform) in five to ten metropolitan areas including Boston, 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. The goal of this research is to ascertain the size of the cost premium in Greater Boston and the main sources for the cost differential with other large metropolitan areas. Once this information is in hand, it may possible for CHTF to take action to address costs that are clearly out of line relative to other major metro areas.

Barry Bluestone reports that he has recruited Noah Hodgetts, a graduate student in the Northeastern Masters in Urban and Regional Policy (MURP) program to prepare a statistical analysis of the link between municipal zoning regulations (e.g. minimum lot size; prohibitions on multifamily housing, prohibitions on accessory units) and the amount of housing produced between 2005 and 2012 for each of the 161 communities in the Greater Boston metropolitan region. This will augment the research of Michael Glebe, a Ph.D. student at Northeastern (and an attorney), who has prepared a report on the impact of zoning regulation on the production of accessory housing units in single family homes. All of this research will form the basis for a special chapter on zoning in this year’s forthcoming Greater Boston Housing Report Card.

A related story by Scott Van Voorhis on the issue of construction costs, highlighting the potential of modular construction techniques to enhance financial feasibility for large-scale development, appeared in Banker and Tradesman of May 5, 2013. The full text of that article can be found in Appendix III.

We would also like to thank Keith A. Mahoney, Director of Public Affairs for the Boston Foundation, for his excellent testimony on May 15, 2013, to the MA Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government in support of H.1859 An Act Promoting the Planning and Development of Sustainable Communities. See the full text of this testimony in Appendix III.

Finally, Banker and Tradesman reports on June 13, 2013 that MassHousing and the state Department of Housing and Community Development have announced $9.3 million in Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) loan closings for affordable housing communities in Boston, Centerville, Haverhill, Paxton, Westhampton and Worcester. The AHTF financing will help create or substantially rehabilitate 318 apartments or single-room occupancy units in the six communities. "Gov. Patrick has declared this week Housing Week in the Commonwealth, and these most recent loan closings from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund highlight the many important and diverse affordable housing communities being developed around Massachusetts,'' Undersecretary of Housing and Community Development Aaron Gornstein said in a statement. "The projects will provide quality affordable housing to low-income and working families, senior citizens and formerly homeless individuals as we work toward our goal of creating 10,000 new multi-family units in Massachusetts.''

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 6

The lack of planning grant funds for 40R continues to be 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. During the last three years, DHCD has made critically- important planning grants to communities under the Priority Development Fund (PDF) program. Although the program is almost out of funds, planning for Chapter 40R (including the preparation of an application to DHCD) remains an eligible activity supported by this program. The MassHousing Guideline for its PDF program identifies eligible projects as including those that “promote transit oriented development and/or smart growth initiatives particularly in the early stages of development, through the provision of seed capital, technical assistance and/or funding of pre-development activities.” We would hope to see affordable housing developers explore the use of this source of funding to assist in the creation of Chapter 40R districts. See the Guideline text: https://www.masshousing.com/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_4485_0_0_18/PD F_Guidelines.pdf .

We also only mention briefly here (see the following Sections for detailed information) that DHCD announced on June 14 that they will be issuing some proposed modifications to the program regulations for the 40R program.

Sequestration

The Center for American Progress has prepared an informative summary of the effects of Sequestration on housing programs, with selected examples from around the country, including Chelsea, MA.

The Boston Globe, in an article on May 26, 2013, explores the serious effects of Sequestration in Boston and the Commonwealth on households dependent upon Federal housing subsidies. And the Globe further ran a story on June 16, 2013 from Bloomberg News that reports on the national effects on cities, highlighting the special pain of cuts to housing and community development programs.

All of 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 March 30, 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 has been 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 June 14, 2013, DHCD issued new proposed regulations for Chapter 40R. These regulations will be the subject of a Public Hearing for comment on August 13. 2013, at 10:00 AM at 100 Cambridge Street, Second Floor, Conference Room B.

In the proposed 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 proposed change substitutes “pedestrian and vehicular access” for the word “transportation.”

Highly Suitable Location The third, catch-all category is presently 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 “satisfactory evidence” in all cases that the location is consistent with the statutory smart growth goals. While the 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 existing regulation requires that the proposed district either have the necessary infrastructure or that the municipality provides its plans for building that infrastructure. DHCD is proposing language that would add 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 could adopt the zoning, but would not get the incentive

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 8

payment until they satisfy the conditions set forth in the Letter of Conditional Approval. This change would allow 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 existing definition requires that the parcel is “no longer necessary to support the current use” and has made it difficult for DHCD to count land that is currently in use (e.g. an industrial yard, storage space or parking lot). The proposed 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.

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 look forward to a more careful review. CHTF members are encouraged to make a similar review and come to the August 13, 2013 meeting to make any suggestions that will contribute to the success of the Chapter 40R program.

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 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: 1. The annual amount of authorization for the Credit is increased to $60,000,000 (from $50,000,000);

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 9

2. 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); 3. A mechanism is set in place to allow for Credits to be transferred to a new owner of the subject property; 4. 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.

As stated 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.

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 (Senate 97). We are very grateful to Senator Chandler for her support on this bill.

As mentioned above, local resources to plan smart growth districts are scarce, and this scarcity 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) 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.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 10

Recently, however, 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.

Recently, Barnstable was awarded a PDF Grant in the amount of $15,000 to evaluate the downtown area of the community for development opportunities, which may include a recommendation for either a Smart Growth District or a Compact Neighborhoods proposal.

DHCD is also actively looking to find additional sources of PDF funding in order to be able to support additional higher density zoning proposals.

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.

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 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

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 11 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).

We were also very pleased to see an article in Banker and Tradesman on May 20, 2013, discussing the MBTA’s plan for two parcels near public transit, and the fact that the City of Boston may be interested in planning a 40R district around one of them. See Appendix III for the full text of this article.

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.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 12

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 FY13 made available $500,000 to cover Chapter 40S reimbursements as required by the Chapter 40S statute.

For FY12, to be received in FY13, two communities are expected to receive funds under Chapter 40S: Chelsea ($76,444) and Lakeville ($166,497). The fact that these projects are 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 March 30, 2013 Page 13

Note: Current through June, 2013. Source: DHCD Communities currently considering Chapter 40R districts include Ludlow, Southampton, Easthampton, Lowell (expansion of an existing district), Dennis, Medford, and a second project in Haverhill, in the Bradford section. Permitting for specific developments and construction activity is underway in Brockton, Lakeville, Lawrence, Pittsfield, Natick, and in both of the Districts in Reading.

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) Net Sources $19,360,440 Less Payments and Obligations to Communities to date: ($14,850,000) Balance in Fund as of June, 2013 $ 4,510,440

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 14

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 FY14—through 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.

Limited funds, as described above, $180,000 ±, are also now 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 $4,005,000. 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 96. The House bill is House 170. Both are being referred to Committee for consideration. We are very grateful to Rep. Honan and Sen. Chandler for their strong and continuing leadership on this legislative effort. 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.

Spreading the Word about Chapter 40R and Smart Growth

Barry Bluestone, Eleanor White, Ted Carman, and Mary Jo Meisner 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.

Please visit the Boston Foundation/CHTF website, www.tbf.org/chtf or www.commonwealthhousingtaskforce.org and consult previous Quarterly Reports for a

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 15 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 Quarter 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: April 3 – Met with staff of the architectural firm Add, Inc. to discuss various options for graduate student housing including micro-units and modern boarding house plans April 4 – Keynoted the Risk Management Association Forum on “Demographic Change and the Need for Multi-Family Housing” April 9 – Keynote speaker at Beacon Hill Conversations Forum on “The Coming Demographic Revolution in Massachusetts and its Impact on Employment, Housing, and Nearly Everything Else” April 11 – Met with representatives of Avalon Bay Developers and Skanska Construction Company to work out details on the Dukakis Center housing construction cost study April 11 - Panelist at Cambridge Forum on the Future of the City discussing Cambridge housing needs for the next decade and the up-zoning of Kendall Square. April 17 – Joined Urban Land Institute Seminar on Housing and Economic Development April 25 – Met with NAIOP staff and twenty developers and builders at Avalon Bay Boston headquarters to review data needs for housing construction cost study April 30 – Met with representatives of the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance to discuss the role of the Dukakis Center and the CHTF in the November Smart Growth Conference connected to the ABX Convention in Boston May 2 – Met with the Town Planning staff of Dedham, Massachusetts to plan a Housing Needs Assessment for the town May 9 – Met with Housing Partners, Inc. staff to discuss incentive programs that might be used to encourage the development of student housing in Greater Boston May 20 – Met with MAPC staff to review techniques for projected housing demand through 2020 for each city and town in Greater Boston May 29 – Met with ULI staff to obtain national collaboration on the housing construction cost study June 3 – Interviewed by the Boston Globe for a story on Aging Baby-Boomers and the Changing Demand for Housing in the Commonwealth

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 16

June 5 – Participated in Governor Deval Patrick’s Commonwealth Housing Summit June 6 – Met with MAPC staff to plan study on the impact of zoning regulations on housing production in Greater Boston municipalities June 12 – Attended ULI Council Meeting on Housing and Economic Development June 13 – Addressed Town of Dedham Planning Board on Dukakis Center study of Dedham Housing Needs June 18 – Met with DHCD Leadership Team and Boston Foundation staff to review and finalize outline for 2013 Greater Boston Housing Report Card June 19 – Participated in Smart Growth Alliance Planning Meeting for November Smart Growth Conference June 25 – Attended “Shape of the Cape” Planning meeting in Barnstable to discuss future housing needs on Cape Cod.

And as discussed in a later section of this Report, please see Mary Jo Meisner’s excellent testimony at the Governor’s Housing Summit on June 5, 2013, included in Appendix V.

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 .

Funding and Legislation for Affordability

A coalition of affordable housing and homelessness prevention organizations convened by CHAPA, including many members of CHTF, has established the following list of FY14 state budget requests that form a joint agenda. The groups are working together to advocate for these issues in the FY14 budget. Both the House and Senate have completed their budget debates and the budget is now in a conference committee. The provisions include:  $60 million for MRVP, an increase of $18 million over FY13 and $13.5 million over the Governor’s House 1 proposal. The House funded MRVP at $46.5 million. The Senate funded MRVP at $57.5 million with appropriations continued from FY13 and included a preference for families with disabilities on HomeBASE.  $71 million for public housing. The Governor and the House funded Public Housing at $64.4 million. The Senate funded Public Housing at $62.4 million.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 17

 Provide families whose temporary HomeBASE rental assistance is ending with 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. The House provided no additional resources for families on HomeBASE. The Senate included provisions that maintain a homelessness preference for subsidized housing, access to flexible funds, a preference within MRVP for families with disabilities, and access to shelter if necessary.  $4.5 million for the Alternative Housing Voucher Program. The Governor, House, and Senate level funded AHVP at $3.45 million.  $8.76 million for RAFT homelessness prevention, matching the Governor’s House 1 proposal and level funding from FY13. The House funded RAFT at $8.76 million. The Senate funded RAFT at $11.1 million and continued the FY13 appropriations.  $3 million for the Housing Consumer Education Centers. The Governor and House level funded the HCECs at nearly $1.4 million. The Senate funded the HCECs at $3 million.  $700,000 for the Tenancy Preservation Program. The Governor and the House level funded TPP at $350,000. The Senate funded TPP at $500,000.  $2.2 million for Home and Healthy for Good. The House funded Home and Healthy for Good at $1.8 million. The Governor and Senate level funded the program at $1.4 million.  $80,000 for the Mass Access Affordable Housing Registry, matching the Governor’s House 1 proposal and level funding from FY13. The Governor, House, and Senate all included level funding of $80,000 for the Registry.  $2.6 million in dedicated funding for Foreclosure Prevention Counseling, matching the Governor’s House 1 proposal and level funding from FY13. The Governor and Senate funded Foreclosure Prevention Counseling at $2.65 million. The House funded the program at $2.59 million.  Both the House and Senate budgets include an extension of the Brownfields Tax Credit through 2018. The credit was set to expire on August 4, 2013.

CHAPA and members of the coalition have asked the Conference Committee to accept the Senate amounts and language for MRVP, HomeBASE, RAFT, HCECs, and TPP and have asked the Committee to accept the House funding levels for Public Housing and Home and Healthy for Good. The Conference report is expected prior to the start of the new fiscal year, July 1, 2013 but has not been released as of this writing in late June. Because the Governor has 10 days to send the budget back to the Legislature with changes, the Legislature may pass a continuing budget until the entire process is completed.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 18

Federal Housing Budget The President’s FY14 Budget Request: On April 10, 2013, the Administration sent Congress its FY14 Budget, proposing funding for all federal programs, including those administered by HUD. The budget request from the President would restore cuts for some programs. However, it assumes that Sequestration is reversed in FY14. These assumptions may be difficult to actualize given the current political environment.

The President’s FY14 Budget Request Summary: Please note that where FY14 proposed funding levels are compared to FY13 levels, the FY13 funding amounts do not include across-the-board cuts due to Sequestration. In general, Sequestration reduces the FY13 enacted funding levels for HUD by 5 percent.

 National Housing Trust Fund: $1 billion.  Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: $19.98 billion, $17.97 billion for renewals; 6 percent more than FY13  Project-Based Rental Assistance: $10.27 billion; a 10 percent increase from FY13  Public Housing: $2 billion capital fund, $4.6 billion operating fund; 7 percent more than FY13 funding  HOME Investment Partnerships: $950 million; 5 percent less than FY13.  Homeless Assistance: $2.38 billion; 17 percent more than FY13.  Section 811: $126 million; $39 million less than FY13.  Section 202: $400 million; $26 million more than appropriated in FY13.  Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $332 million; a $1 million increase from FY13  Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): $2.8 billion; a decrease from $2.95 billion in FY13.

For more details on the FY14 request, please visit: http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/FY14_Budget_Chart.pdf http://nlihc.org/article/president-issues-fy14-budget-request-includes-many-policy- proposals-housing

FY14 Spending Caps: On May 21, 2013, the House Appropriations Committee approved the FY14 spending caps, known as 302(b) allocations, for all appropriations subcommittees, including Transportation-HUD (T-HUD). The FY14 spending allocation for the House T-HUD Subcommittee is $44.1 billion; this is $7.5 billion, or 15 percent, less than the Subcommittee’s FY13 allocation.

The Senate has not yet announced its 302(b) allocations. However, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski has stated that she intends to set the Senate FY14 appropriations top-line spending level at $1.058 trillion, or $91 billion more

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 19 than the House level. The two chambers have not moved into a conference to negotiate a compromise between the two resolutions.

FY14 budget hearings have begun in both the Senate and House. However, it is unclear when a final compromise budget will head to the President’s desk.

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 passed by the House of Representatives on June 5, 2013. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures, and State Assets, which held a hearing on June 20, 2013. The bill, H.3492, can be accessed at https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H3492. The bill incorporates changes proposed by the Governor in his version of the Housing Bond bill. The bill:  Authorizes $1.4 billion in funds for five years.  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.  Provides $45 million in funds over 5 years for the Early Education and Out of School Time Capital Fund.

During the House debate on the bond bill, the following amendments were adopted:  Allowing housing expenditures in MassWorks to be within ½ of a mile from transit rather than ¼ of a mile from transit.  Allowing communities to turn down 40B permits if a tax increment financing zone (TIF) is in place.  Denying undocumented immigrants preference in public housing.

In addition, before the bill moved to the House floor for a vote, a change was made by the House Bonding Committee to the weak markets homeownership provision of the Housing Stabilization Fund allowing for a further reduction in the deed restriction from 10 years to 5 years and requiring that the subsidy be used for residential buildings containing 2 to 6 units.

Additional changes to 40B are possible as the Senate Bonding Committee works on the bill. CHAPA is working with the Committee and Senate leadership to keep all changes unrelated to bond programs out of the bill and to expand the homeownership in weak markets provision to include single family homes.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 20

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 changes and more 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 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

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 21 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 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 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

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 22 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 Quarter has witnessed a fairly dramatic change in public discussion about foreclosure issues in Massachusetts. The single-family mortgage market has become UN- stuck, foreclosures have declined, and more homeowners have found themselves no longer “underwater” as home prices and values have risen. As recently as January 19, 2013, the Boston Globe announced that foreclosures in Massachusetts were declining. But on May 12, 2013, Banker and Tradesman announced that “In Massachusetts, the foreclosure crisis as we know it is over”! A companion story on May 12 took a closer look at the foreclosure dynamics in Dorchester, one of the neighborhoods in Boston hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. See the full articles in Appendix III of this Report; they also include a good description of how the new foreclosure law affects owners. In its June, 2013 Foreclosure Monitor, the Massachusetts Housing Partnership credited the new foreclosure law with being a main reason for the improvement, which may prove to be somewhat temporary as lenders study the new law. See that article also in Appendix III. National Mortgage Settlement Compliance Report Released In spite of the positive news this Quarter about the continued decline in foreclosure filings, persistent servicer violations plague the effectiveness of the National Mortgage Settlement Agreement. On June 19, 2013, Compliance Settlement Monitor Joseph Smith filed compliance reports 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 third and fourth quarters of 2012. The twenty-one page summary, including the extent of violations on the part of Bank of America, Chase, Citi, ResCap Partners and Wells Fargo; metrics applied to evaluate compliance; steps going forward to remediate violations; and more can be found at: https://www.mortgageoversight.com/reports/summary-of-compliance/.

As part of an effort to obtain input from foreclosure counselors, Monitor Joseph Smith gave a presentation to representatives of approximately twenty-five Massachusetts foreclosure counseling agencies at a meeting hosted by staff of Attorney General Martha Coakley. Mr. Smith reported on the outcome of his findings and spent over an hour listening to counselors recount current issues of persistent violations and resolutions of other violations of standards.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 23

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 Expanding Opportunities Committee

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].

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.

The ideas explored at the Welcoming events hosted by this committee (previously reported on in detail) have the potential to result in the creation of an extremely useful and user-friendly interactive website. The Committee’s long-term goal is to create a website that will offer a resource guide and other helpful information, and also an online

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 24 discussion forum to facilitate the sharing of ideas, successes and challenges of communities engaged in this effort. The Committee would work closely with Tim Gassert, the Boston Foundation webmaster, to provide content/updates to content, etc.

We believe that this could develop into a valuable resource for increasing the level of “welcome-ability” of communities throughout the state. We also hope that the website would prove to be a valuable resource for families searching for welcoming communities in which to settle, both those households already in Massachusetts and those moving to the Commonwealth from other states. The Committee 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.

In a new initiative, the committee will sponsor a competition in the fall of 2013 to identify student project or research ideas that will 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. We hope to not only generate useful ideas to further the committee’s goals, but also to generate interest among area students in this topic.

The committee is in the process of forming an Academic Advisory Committee to promote the competition and advise CHTF regarding student involvement. I am pleased to report that to date almost a dozen colleges and universities will be represented on this Advisory Committee. Thank you in advance to all who have agreed to assist in this effort. Competition winners will be recognized by the CHTF. Winners will present their project ideas to the committee, and committee members will be available for consultation and advice to help implement winning project and research ideas. The competition will be publicized at Massachusetts colleges and universities at the beginning of the fall semester, 2013. . If you would like more information about the competition or the Advisory Committee, or would like to receive notice of the competition when it is announced, please contact Sarah Lamitie at [email protected].

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 expected to be complete by the end of 2013. The committee plans to work this fall with MAPC’s fair housing caucus to help develop a plan to disseminate this important resource in communities throughout the state.

All are welcome to join the Expanding Opportunities Committee; please send your contact information to both Barbara Shea, committee member, at

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 25 [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 and Jacqueline Cooper, the co-chairs of the Committee. They can be reached at [email protected] (Sarah) and [email protected] (Jackie) respectively. Thanks to both Jackie and Sarah 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.

Over the past year, there has been considerable attention paid in the Boston area press to issues relating to public housing and local housing authorities. This resulted in the establishment of the Governor’s Commission for Public Housing Sustainability and Reform and the significant expansion of membership of this Committee.

This past summer the Governor’s Commission released its report, which incorporates most of recommendations of the CHTF report. The emphasis on achieving a broad consensus among a diverse group of interests appears to have been heavily influenced and informed by the CHTF process, report, and testimony.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 26

However, in January the Governor filed legislation to combine all Housing Authorities 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 the Joint Committee on Housing, and the Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants released a comprehensive and thoughtful response to both the Governor and MassNAHRO. The MUPHT Position Paper was included in the Appendix of the last Quarterly Report. The leadership of the Public Housing Committee has continued to work with all sides 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 people 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 are held this fall, we expect to be active participants, basing our recommendations on those that we submitted to the Commission a year ago. We also continue to press for revisions to the regulations governing the operations of public housing authorities, as well as passage of the Innovations Bill. Both are now unfortunately tied to the reorganization debate. The Public Housing Committee met twice this past Quarter to discuss these issues, as well as efforts to revise the Mixed Finance regulations in Massachusetts, reforming Chapter 149 bidding laws and the current budget processes on both the State and Federal levels. In addition, members of the Committee participated on the DHCD committee which just published regulations for a new public housing “High Leverage Asset Preservation Program”. Finally, Committee Chairmen testified before the state Joint Committee on Housing as well as the House and Senate Bonding Committees on behalf of authorizing more than $500 million of new bonding authority for public housing capital improvements.

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. As described by CHAPA, the program is designed to preserve public housing units with high capital needs that cannot be met through formula funding. Applicants must identify additional resources equal to at least half the DHCD award. DHCD expects to award approximately $20 million over the next three years (primarily for pre- development due diligence and technical assistance), then increase award totals to $20 million or more a year thereafter. The 2013 funding round is limited to modernization of developments with a facility condition index of at least 15% (the value of expired components relative to replacement cost) in communities with the highest need for such housing (see eligible developments). Interested authorities were required to submit a one page letter to DHCD by May 31 and a longer application by June 19, 2013. The instructions specify that the application must be completed without the aid of a

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 27 consultant. DHCD expects to announce finalists in August and final selections in October. Based on this Quarter’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.

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.

In the early spring of this year, the H&ED Council held a very successful program entitled “Lower Cost Market-Rate Housing: Who’s Getting it Done?” Meeting market demand for less expensive housing has proven to be a challenge, often requiring subsidy or public support. However, it is widely viewed that availability of this type of lower cost, ‘workforce’ housing is essential to the continued economic growth of the State.

The Council continues to seek opportunities to look at effective ways to meet the needs of this segment of the housing spectrum. To that end, the Council is exploring options for collaborating with the Dukakis Center at Northeastern University on a housing cost study of our cohort cities, with a goal of identifying what makes the development and construction of housing so expensive in Boston.

On April 16, 2013, Gayle Epp of EJP Consulting met with the Council to discuss HUD’s Choice Neighborhood Program. Currently, Gayle has a number of projects utilizing this program, and shared her experiences with the Council. On June 12, 2013, the Council held an interactive discussion with the Undersecretary of the Department of Housing and Community Development, Kate Racer, to discuss challenges and priorities at the State level in addressing affordable housing needs. Among other issues, this conversation focused on actions the State has taken to better integrate the homeless population back into the conventional housing stock.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 28

The H&ED Council meets every other month on the second Wednesday of the month. The Council is implementing a new meeting format: meetings will be two hours in length and will include 1) a speaker with a question and answer session, and 2) a working business session to discuss initiatives and trends. The Council’s next two meetings are expected to be on Wednesday, September 11, 2013, and Wednesday, November 13, 2013 from 8-10AM at the ULI Boston offices at Edwards Wildman, 111 Huntington Avenue, 20th 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] .

We have included in Appendix IV of this Report an article from Banker and Tradesman of May 15, 2013, reporting on a ruling by the SJC which has the effect of allowing landlords to rent to more undergraduate students per unit in Boston. By permitting occupancy of multi-bedroom units by more students, this may have the unintended consequence of putting still more pressure on the family housing market. (Refer also to the Student Housing section of this Report.)

We do want to point out Scott Voorhis’ interesting piece in Banker and Tradesman of June 17, 2013, reflecting on the status of Chapter 40B, the state’s “snob- zoning” law. See the full text of this column in Appendix IV of this Report.

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

One of the biggest stories of the Quarter, of course, is Mayor Thomas Menino’s announcement that he will not be seeking another term as Mayor of Boston. After 20 years of guiding the city, and the only mayor that many residents have ever known, he will be stepping down. Banker and Tradesman highlighted the Mayor’s legacy in housing in an article on April 8, 2013. The Boston Globe on June 16, 2013, ran a very thoughtful article highlighting the main areas that it feels the new mayor will have to address, which include the construction of new housing for families and student housing. The Commonwealth Housing Task Force stands ready to work with the new mayor on these issues, both major priorities of CHTF. See both articles in Appendix V of this Report.

In another major development, long-time Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Ed Markey won against former Navy SEAL Republican Gabriel Gomez

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 29 in a special election on June 25, 2013 to fill John Kerry’s unexpired Senate term. Senator Kerry was appointed this spring by President Obama as US Secretary of State following Hillary Clinton’s resignation. We look forward to working with Senator Markey and wish him the best in his new position. Congratulations this Quarter go to the three organizations that in April, 2013 received a total of $130 million in New Markets Tax Credits (NMTC) in the tenth award round: The Community Builders CDE LLC, MHIC NE New Markets CDE II LLC and MassDevelopment New Markets LLC. The NMTC program is of substantial importance in bringing equity investments to economic development projects, which may include housing as one of their components. Congratulations also to the five senior housing professionals named to leadership positions at MassHousing in April, 2013: Timothy Sullivan, of Brookline, was named Deputy Director For Finance and Rental Programs. Monte Stanford, of Saugus, has assumed the position of Director of Rental Lending. Peter Milewski, of Duxbury, was appointed Director of Homeownership Lending and Kevin Mello, of Norton, was named Director of Homeownership Servicing and Operations. Additionally, Karen Kelleher, of Arlington, was named General Counsel. Many members of CHTF have worked with these newly-appointed leaders for many years and wish them every success in their new positions! Mary Jo Meisner, Vice President for Communications, Community Relations and Public Affairs at The Boston Foundation was asked by Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Greg Bialecki to serve on the Governor’s Housing Advisory Committee, which is designed to advise the administration on ways to advance a workforce housing agenda. This is basically the CHTF and 40R agenda of producing more housing in smart growth districts, primarily multi-family housing. Mary Jo also served as a speaker at the Governors Institute event on June 5, 2013. The agenda billed it as the Multi-Family Housing Summit: Housing That Works. After an hour of initial framing there were afternoon sessions in which the audience was asked to take part: Communications Strategy, Zoning and Permitting, and Supporting the Development We Need. Mary Jo had been asked to introduce the Communications segment, setting the stage for the discussion. Mary Jo’s excellent testimony at the Summit can be found in Appendix V of this Report.

Long-time friend of affordable housing Representative Alice Wolf of Cambridge retired from the Massachusetts House of Representatives at the end of her term in 2012. She has been replaced as Chair on the House side of the Committee on Elder Affairs by Representative James O’Day, of the 14th Worcester district. We welcome Representative O’Day to this position and look forward to working with him on elder issues. Senator Patricia Jehlen remains Chair on the Senate side.

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

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 30 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 Undersecretary Aaron Gornstein of DHCD, especially on issues relating to Chapter 40R and the new Compact Neighborhoods program, mentioned earlier in this Report. CHTF leadership is also working with DHCD on proposed changes to the 40R regulations. At this writing, it appears that the modifications will have the effect of clarifying and simplifying program administration.

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 Stakeholders’ Group was held on May 16, 2013 with the new Secretary of EOHHS, John Polanowicz, and the new State Director of AARP, Michael Festa, in attendance. The discussion focused on the state budget, the home care wait list, and proposed MBTA fare increases. Notes from that meeting and the last Quarter’s meeting on February 21, 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 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

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 31 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. As mentioned above, this group provided information central to Governor Patrick’s recent announcement of housing development goals for Massachusetts.

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, public housing and historic tax credits. 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. (617-965-1065 before 4PM Boston time 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 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 July, 2013 (APPENDICES FOLLOW)

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 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/ 43 Foreclosures

Appendix IV: Public Housing/General Legal Issues 74

Appendix V: Congratulations and Work with Others 76

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 33

Appendix I to CHTF Quarterly Report June, 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 once 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, 1913 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.

More municipalities are actively exploring 40R. In addition to those having passed districts, At least five localities have applied for or received state Priority Development Fund planning grants to pursue 40R zoning, including: Amesbury (a second district), Dennis, Ludlow- Southampton (combined), and Norfolk. As noted above, Barnstable has recently received a PDF Grant of $15,000.

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.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 34

Ludlow has recently submitted an application for a new Chapter 40R District. containing 334 future zoned new housing units; DHCD expects to issue a letter of eligibility before the end of July, 2013. The District is scheduled to be taken up at Ludlow’s fall town meeting.

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 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.

DHCD anticipates receiving an application for a 40R District in Canton. This proposal is expected to include approximately 250 units at the former Plymouth Rubber Company.

Newburyport and Amesbury, using their PDF Grants, 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 has voted 40R down.

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 is activating the MEPA process, and construction has been completed on Pittsfield Silk Mill project. Construction has been completed in the first Phase of Reading’s Gateway District, and construction is underway in Phase 2. A developer in Reading’s Downtown District has completed construction for 53 units. In Brockton, construction has been completed on two units (a two family house developed by the Brockton Housing Authority), and construction has commenced on a 25 unit project just a block from the commuter rail station..

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.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 35

We are aware of recent interest in Chapter 40R (or additional districts under 40R) in other cities and towns, including: Dennis, Ludlow, Newburyport, Norfolk, Southampton, Norwood and Franklin. 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 – both nonprofit and for-profit – are starting to explore the use of Chapter 40R in partnership with localities now that the economy is beginning to show signs of revival. 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 March 30, 2013 Page 36

Note: Current through June, 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 March 30, 2013 Page 37

Appendix II: The Housing Market, June, 2013 Associated Press 4-16-13 US builders start 1 million homes in March, most in nearly 5 years, led by apartment surge By Associated Press, Apr 16, 2013

WASHINGTON — U.S. homebuilders broke the 1 million mark in March for the first time since June 2008. The gain signals continued strength for the housing recovery at the start of the spring buying season.

The overall pace of homes started rose 7 percent from February to March to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.04 million, the Commerce Department said Tuesday. Apartment construction, which tends to fluctuate sharply from month to month, led the surge: It jumped nearly 31 percent to an annual rate of 417,000, the fastest pace since January 2006.

By contrast, single-family home building, which makes up nearly two-thirds of the market, fell 4.8 percent to an annual rate of 619,000. That was down from February’s pace of 650,000, the fastest since May 2008. The government said February’s pace was a sharp 5.2 percent higher than it had previously estimated.

Applications for building permits, a gauge of future construction, declined 3.9 percent to an annual rate of 902,000. It was down from February’s rate of 939,000, which was also nearly a five-year high.

Scott Laurie, president of Olson Homes, said that last month’s falloff in single-family starts is not representative of what’s happening in the market. A scarcity in ready-to-build land has many builders working to get local governments to approve new land for construction, he said. The process can take 12 to 18 months. A survey of homebuilders released Monday noted similar concerns. “You’ll see starts will continue to increase as the year goes on and new projects start to open up,” Laurie said.

Laurie’s company builds homes in Southern California priced roughly from $325,000 to $750,000. He says Olson’s construction starts are on pace to climb at least 40 percent this year, as the builder moves to add as many as eight new communities.

“The market started showing improvement in the early part of 2012 and really hasn’t slowed down since,” said Laurie. “Right now, were very bullish.” The jump in home building is expected to contribute to economic growth in 2013 for a second straight year — a reversal from 2006 through 2011, when it held back the economy.

Deutsche Bank predicts that home construction will reach an annual pace of 1.2 million by year’s end. Brett Ryan, an economist at Deutsche Bank, said that rate could add 0.5 percentage point to 2013 growth. That would be the biggest contribution from housing since 2004.

The housing recovery could spur an additional percentage point of growth by encouraging more consumer spending, Ryan said. More building and higher home sales mean Americans will likely spend more on things like furniture and landscaping. Higher home prices also create a “wealth effect” that gives homeowners the confidence to spend more.

Steady job growth, near record-low mortgage rates and rising home values have encouraged more people to buy homes. In response to higher demand and a low supply of available homes for sale, builders have stepped up construction. March’s pace of homes started was nearly 46 percent higher than in the same month in 2012.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 38

Housing construction fell 5.8 percent in the Northeast but gained in the rest of the country, led by a 10.9 percent rise in the South. It rose 9.6 percent in the Midwest and 2.7 percent in the West. The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo April survey released Monday showed that builders are concerned that limited land and rising costs for building materials and labor could slow sales in the short term. That led to a third straight monthly drop in confidence.

Still, the builders’ outlook for sales over the next six months climbed to the highest level in more than six years, suggesting that the obstacles could be temporary. And construction firms have stepped up hiring in recent months. They added 18,000 jobs in March and 169,000 since September, according to the Labor Department.

Though new homes represent only a fraction of the housing market, they have an outsize impact on the economy. Each home built creates an average of three jobs for a year and generates about $90,000 in tax revenue, according to statistics from the homebuilders.

AP Economics Writer Christopher S. Rugaber contributed to this report.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 39

II. Banker and Tradesman Editorial of 6-12-13

Sunday, May 12, 2013, Editorial: A Housing Bubble?

If you haven’t noticed it yet, home prices are rising – and rising fast.

Nationally, home prices increased 10.5 percent in March, according to real estate data firm Zillow. In Massachusetts, the median price for single-family homes sold in March rose more than 8 percent, to $285,000, versus a year earlier. It was the sixth consecutive month that home prices have increased year- over-year. The question now: is this growth sustainable?

We’ve gone through a housing bubble before. We know what it’s like. Back in 2006, a few years after the dot-com boom and subsequent bust, home prices rose along with easy credit and the thinking that home prices would never decrease. But it all then came crashing back to earth – and along with it, a recession that we’re still clawing ourselves out of.

In Massachusetts – and the rest of the country, for that matter – the number of foreclosures is decreasing, consumer confidence is rising and real estate is being snapped up by buyers like never before.

We’ve heard a lot of talk about bidding wars breaking out over homes and condos in the Greater Boston area that in a normal economy might not get that much attention. Of course, low inventory, low interest rates and a lot of people willing to fork over cash has only accentuated the problem. The very pages of this paper have been filled with tales of a real estate renaissance.

And while we don’t doubt that home prices will continue to increase as the economy improves, we do have concerns that these increases are indeed unsustainable. In a 2010 study, the Boston Federal Reserve said economists will most likely miss the next bubble. And just like the last housing bubble, consumers and Realtors alike do have an expectation that prices will continue to increase.

A recent Zillow survey illustrates the problem with forecasting such a bubble: you just don’t know there’s a bubble until after the fact. Just 4 percent of respondents in the survey said they saw no risk of a new bubble; 48 percent said they saw a little risk; and another 48 percent said there was a moderate to high risk of a new housing bubble forming as a result of current policies. Whatever happens, one thing is clear at least in the short term: home prices will continue to rise.

Inventory

According to a study by The Warren Group, shrinking inventory is responsible for the second consecutive month of declining housing sales in Massachusetts. The statistics compiled by The Warren Group in its study are correct, but the conclusion reached is not. While an inventory shortage didn’t help sales, it was weather, not a lack of inventory, that dampened March sales.

March sales are based on February contracts. In 2012, February was a sunny month with weather that was almost spring-like. This year, February produced several significant snowstorms, keeping potential homebuyers from buying.

Given the weather, the 2.1 percent drop in home sales for the first quarter of this year compared to the same period last year is insignificant. It’s not that the shortage of inventory won’t have an impact. Short-term, it will boost housing prices. Even if developers scramble and permits are granted quickly, it will take a year- and-a-half before there is enough new inventory available. Even without new inventory, we’re optimistic.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 40

II. Boston Globe Op-Ed 6-4-13 Big housing plans for smaller cities By Paul McMorrow | GLOBE COLUMNIST JUNE 04, 2013

THE PEOPLE who built Malden City Hall did their best to imitate Boston’s more famous seat of municipal government. Malden’s charmless version of Government Center is even harder on the eyes, and the surrounding neighborhood, than Boston’s. A squat brick monolith with a leaky roof overlooking an Orange Line station, the complex succeeds in imitating Boston in just one way: It chokes the life out of everything in its path.

Malden City Hall looks headed for the slag heap, since the building is both unloved and prohibitively expensive to maintain. City officials are moving toward putting the building out to bid for redevelopment. This doesn’t sound like a development on par with, say, the Big Dig and a clean Boston Harbor opening the Seaport’s vast parking lots to development. But the downtown rebuilding projects currently underway in Boston’s formerly industrial urban satellites will do more to shape the state than the towers rising above Fan Pier. The state’s housing shortage— brought on by decades of building new homes at a fraction of the national pace — is far too acute for Boston to tackle on its own.

Boston deserves every headline it gets. The city is the economic force that enables everything happening around it. But Massachusetts can’t just sit back, let Boston erect its shiny new apartment and condominium towers, and expect those developments to carry the state forward.

Northeastern University’s Dukakis Center has said the state needs to double or triple its rate of housing construction in order to meet coming demand. The Patrick administration believes the state needs 10,000 new apartments and condominiums per year over the next decade just to have a housing market that functions normally. Massachusetts has only hit that level of home construction a few times over the past two decades. Boston Mayor Tom Menino recently outlined a plan to add 30,000 new housing units to Boston by 2020; as big as that number sounds, it still means that 70 percent of the state’s new homes will have to come from somewhere outside Boston. Much of the remainder will have to come from places like Lowell, Quincy, and Malden.

The former industrial cities outside Boston loom large because, unlike the bulk of the state’s suburbs, the smaller cities are interested in building, and building the right way.

The suburbs eat land and promote costly sprawl without really addressing the state’s housing shortage. By contrast, Somerville, Quincy, and Worcester are aggressively pursuing dense tracts of new housing as an economic development strategy. Quincy and Worcester are pushing mega-projects that use housing to reinvigorate their downtowns; Somerville’s Assembly Square is turning an old Ford car plant into a new neighborhood of apartments, shops, and offices. Through smaller, more systematic housing efforts, Lowell and Haverhill have quietly turned their old industrial cores into thriving downtowns. In each case, transit

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 41 access to Boston enabled a housing-first development strategy aimed at lifting up underutilized commercial centers.

Malden’s hulking, leaking City Hall fits squarely into the pattern other smaller post- industrial cities have cut. It sits in the middle of what was once the city’s main commercial artery. The Orange Line is on one side of the building, a historic downtown is on the other, and there’s no direct way of walking from one to the other. Downtown actually dead-ends at City Hall’s front door; not surprisingly, downtown is light on pedestrian traffic, and pockmarked by vacant storefronts.

Demand for housing near public transit is so strong that, even with a mixed bag of a downtown choking in City Hall’s shadow, Malden has roughly 550 apartments in its construction pipeline. Blowing up City Hall would free up two acres of prime transit-adjacent land for development and connect the downtown corridor to the Orange Line. If done right, trading a lifeless municipal building for dense new housing developments would activate downtown shops while opening the city’s center to further redevelopment efforts. There’s nothing exotic about this trade. It’s the same play that’s at work in Quincy and Haverhill and Lowell and Worcester. It’s just good city-building. But the state needs good city-building, and lots more of it. Leaning on Boston’s construction boom isn’t enough.

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

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 42

II. Banker and Tradesman re: Mortgage Market 3/28/13 Mortgage Originations at Five-Year High In New England Area Low Rates, Stimulated Home Sales Boost Activity

The Warren Group

The recovery year for the local housing market is evident in recent statistics - showing 2012 mortgage activity in New England at the highest level in five years, according to new data from The Warren Group's Mortgage MarketShare Module.

While Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island all recorded strong activity in 2012, mortgage activity in Massachusetts was the strongest. Total residential mortgage activity in the Bay State rose almost 38 percent statewide - increasing to 332,582 from 241,490 in 2011. Purchase mortgages spiked more than 25 percent to 57,324 from 45,824. Nonpurchase, or refinance mortgages rose almost 41 percent to 275,258 from 195,666 in all of 2011. Last year marks the best year on record since 2007, when 346,655 total mortgages were originated in Massachusetts.

"Single-family home sales have increased in 13 of the last 14 months, a sure sign the housing market in recovery mode," said Marie Wentling, director of product strategy at The Warren Group. "In addition to the spike in mortgages used to purchase homes, we saw a strong increase in refinance mortgages, partially credited to low rates and government assistance programs." Almost 83 percent of total mortgages in 2012 were refinances, compared to 81 percent in 2011. Nationally, the refinance share of applications was about 82 percent at the end of 2012, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

In Connecticut, all mortgage activity rose more than 26 percent in 2012. A total of 141,759 mortgages have been originated, up from 111,850 in 2011. This marks the most volume since 2007, when there were 192,278 mortgages originated. Purchase mortgages rose 13.5 percent to 24,757 from 21,808 in the prior year. In all of 2012, refinance mortgages increased 30 percent to 117,002, compared to 90,042 in 2011. Rhode Island mortgage activity also improved drastically in 2012, marking the best year since 2009. A total of 42,680 mortgages were originated last year, up from 32,992 in the prior year. The total from 2009 barely beat this number, recording 42,745 total mortgages. Non purchase mortgages rose to 35,333 from 26,570 in all of 2011. Purchases mortgages increased more than 14 percent to 7,347, up from 6,422 during the same period last year.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 43

Appendix III: Student Housing and Programmatic Developments June, 2013 Boston Globe June 8, 2013 Emerson College looks to expand campus

By Christina Jedra, | Globe Correspondent Emerson College on Friday announced plans to build a multistory building to house a 750-student dorm and other facilities in a downtown alley, where the proposed changes would affect three local businesses.

In a letter of intent filed with the Boston Redevelopment Authority on June 5, Emerson associate vice president Margaret A. Ings wrote that the space houses the Estate nightclub at 1 and 2 Boylston Place, Sweetwater Cafe at 3 Boylston Place, the Tavern Club at 4 Boylston Place, and two other structures owned by the Tavern Club at 5 and 6 Boylston Place.

Emerson currently owns 1-3 Boylston Place, but does not own the properties at 4-6 Boylston Place, according to Carol McFall, assistant vice president and director of media relations for the college. The letter states that the Emerson project would include 260,000 square feet of “new construction” and would be 280 feet tall. Buildings are often 10 feet per story, which would make this facility at least 25 stories.

According to the letter, the proposed area would include a residence hall for about 750 students, a dining facility, a fitness center, academic offices, an equipment distribution center, and the Emerson College Police Department. In addition to the college’s new space, around 7,500 square feet of the newly constructed area will be used as an expansion of the Tavern Club.

In an e-mail to the college community Friday, Maureen Murphy, vice president for administration and finance, said the new space is part of a larger improvement plan. “The proposed project will help address the need for a connected physical campus, updated facilities, and additional academic and social space, which was identified in last year’s master planning process,” she wrote, adding the school hopes to have its plans approved by this fall.

Emerson, a liberal arts college focused on communications and performing arts, is based in downtown Boston where it has a cluster of buildings on Boylston and Tremont streets and another on Washington Street in Downtown Crossing. While freshman and sophomore students are required to live on campus, upperclassmen mostly move off campus. With about 3,600 current undergraduate students and four on- campus dormitories, the college may be expanding to accommodate its growing institution. Emerson saw a nearly 10 percent increase in applications between 2012 and 2013.

Emerson is also expanding beyond Boston. Friday ’sannouncement comes after last year’s groundbreaking in Los Angeles where the college is building a new facility expected to be completed in fall 2014. McFall said the cost and dates for groundbreaking and completion of the proposed Boston project have not yet been determined. “The details are still very much being worked out,” she said. “It’s a very first step in saying this is something we’re interested in going forward with.”

While the letter of intent partially addresses how the college’s plan will affect the Tavern Club, it doesn’t mention how other businesses will be affected. Representatives from the businesses listed in the letter did not respond to requests for comment. Christina Jedra can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @ChristinaJedra.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 44

III. Boston Globe 3-26-13 Housing-starved cities seek relief in micro-apartments By Casey Ross | GLOBE STAFF MARCH 26, 2013

JAN STURMANN

For Terencia Tervalon, home is a 275-square-foot apartment in a 23-unit building in downtown San Francisco.

SAN FRANCISCO — The new apartment on Harriet Street is no wider than most hallways: a thin rectangle of space where clutter can quickly cause chaos.

At about 10 by 29 feet, the room becomes an obstacle course if so much as a pair of boots are dropped on the floor; at night, multiple chairs must be moved to make way for the fold-down Murphy bed. And because the bed rests on the dining table, failing to clear the dishes has dire consequences.

But this 295-square-foot apartment, which comes with more hidden storage and dual- function furniture than a space capsule, appeals to young professionals willing to trade size for the convenience of urban living. And in a city with little space to spare, it offers something rare: a downtown location for less than $2,000 a month.

“The size of the place is actually perfect,” said Terencia Tervalon, 32, an insurance executive who pays $1,600 a month for one of the 23 tiny apartments at 38 Harriet St. “I had five friends over the other night and we were all able to fit and have cocktails.”

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 45

PHOTOS

Photos: Micro-apartments in big cities

Tervalon is the kind of young professional whom San Francisco, Boston, and other growing US cities are struggling to hold on to in an era of skyrocketing housing prices. As more people like her elect to live and work in urban downtowns, city officials are experimenting with construction of tiny dwelling units known as micro-apartments, in the process triggering a housing debate that is ricocheting around the country.

“If we don’t start producing enough housing, and the right kind of housing, then the affordability crisis in this city is going to be exacerbated,” said Scott Wiener, a city supervisor

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 46 in San Francisco, where studios can rent for $2,500 a month and an influx of young technology workers is threatening to drive prices even higher. “We can either prepare for this growth or we can put our heads in the sand and pretend it’s not happening.”

On Monday, Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston announced a plan to add 30,000 housing units by 2020, saying the city must accelerate its housing production to meet the needs of young workers, middle-class families, and seniors.

Development of such small apartments is being promoted as part of the solution to the housing shortage in Boston and other cities. But there is unease among public officials about allowing real estate developers to flood the market with such units, out of fear they will become the modern equivalent of 19th century tenements. And with rents of $1,600 or more, many question their affordability and the willingness of people to pay big to live so small.

Even in San Francisco, officials have for now decided to cap the number of market-priced micro-units at 375, mainly because of concerns the city is skewing housing policy to help young professionals at the expense of families.

So far, the city is allowing developers to build units as small as 220 square feet, or about 25 percent smaller than Tervalon’s little apartment on Harriet Street.

In Boston, officials are also cautious. They have established a minimum of 350 square feet for micro-units and so far limit them to the developing South Boston Innovation District.

“We have plenty of people proposing to build these units because they see it as a lucrative form of development,” said Kairos Shen, Boston’s chief planner. “We don’t want to take away the incentives for them to build small, but we also want to make sure that we have real standards that guarantee a quality of life.”

In particular, Shen said, he wants to make sure that micro-apartment complexes have enough common spaces, such as lounges, to allow residents to stretch out beyond the confines of their tiny apartments.

“We are not seeing as much focus on those common spaces as we are on reducing the size of the units themselves,” Shen said. “And I think we have to pay attention to that.”

At 38 Harriet St., a four-story building in San Francisco’s fast-growing South of Market District, each unit has nine-foot ceilings and a bank of windows that fill the room with natural light. Space is tight, but every square foot is packed with conveniences. The sofa and refrigerator are full size; a combination washer-dryer is hidden in a cabinet. And although there isn’t a regular stove, the microwave (also hidden in a cabinet) has a convection feature for roasting a duck or baking a pie. Out back is a large patio framed by 10-foot bamboo plants.

“We wanted to use beautiful finishes and high design, and make the units as small as possible without sacrificing too many of the things that people demand of an apartment,” said the

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 47 project’s developer, Patrick Kennedy, 59, who founded a company called SmartSpace to create the ideal model.

Kennedy, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it took years of trial and error to arrive at the right design.

In 2009, he built a prototype that squeezed the apartment to 166 square feet but found the unit riddled with problems: A stovetop that pulled out in a drawer was a fire hazard; there was no room for guests; the bathroom was a disaster, with the toilet essentially inside the shower, resulting in an uncomfortable intermingling of the room’s key functions.

The 38 Harriet units are almost twice as big as that prototype, with a larger bathroom that contains an extra-deep tub.

The California College of the Arts has agreed to lease all the units for its students, and Kennedy is planning his second project: an 11-story building with 160 apartments, a communal roof deck, and a ground-floor cafe. The complex will feature similar micro-units, as well as compact three-bedrooms that can fit up to five twin beds.

The South of Market District where both projects are located is a rapidly changing corner of San Francisco. Its rundown industrial buildings are being replaced with swanky apartments and cafes serving $4 cups of coffee. Twitter recently opened an office in the district, and several other technology firms followed.

Several young residents in the area said that they hope the micro-apartments will help moderate rapidly rising rents.

John Espey, an aspiring sculptor who makes a living doing videography, said he is splitting a 3,500-square-foot loft with 13 other people; for a single 120-square-foot room, he pays $500 a month.

“You just swallow it and deal with it because of the benefits of being here,” said Espey, 26. “San Francisco is great because of its connection to jobs, the ability to meet people I can work with, and the proximity to galleries and museums.”

Stories abound in the city about torturous housing searches that end with tiny apartments at high rents.

“Finding a place is extremely difficult,” said Timothy Hyde, a mechanical engineer who moved to San Francisco in June from Atlanta. The open houses that he and his wife attended were so crowded, the competition for any apartment so fierce, that tenants had to be ready to make an offer — and provide a deposit and credit scores — on the spot.

Eventually, they settled on a 600-square-foot apartment for $1,950.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 48

“What you get for what you pay is just outrageous.” Hyde said. “We love the city, and it would be fantastic to buy a place. But it will take at least five years to save up for a down payment.”

San Francisco’s mayor, Edwin M. Lee, said the city is experiencing a growth spurt that could increase its population another 150,000 over the next several decades. To prepare, he said, the city must explore different kinds of housing and build denser complexes around transit stops to get residents out of their cars.

“People are getting priced out,” Lee said. “We need to try building [micro-units] and see whether it adds value to the housing stock. Is it affordable? Will people use it as a new resource in the city?”

In Boston, officials are also under pressure to allow smaller apartments. Although zoning rules vary around the city, new housing units are generally required to be no smaller than 450 square feet.

Richard Taylor, director of Suffolk University’s Center for Real Estate, said Boston risks losing talented young people — and the next Facebook or other breakthrough business — if it fails to build more housing.

“Now is the time to do this,” Taylor said of micro-housing development, adding that Boston has plenty of building sites, from Dudley Square in Roxbury to East Boston. “There are great opportunities for a public-private partnership that could build something substantial.”

For example, Taylor said, the city could work with the MBTA to solicit proposals to build micro-housing on one of many state-owned parcels near transit hubs in the city. Such a project would help prove there is a market for smaller units, making it easier for developers to obtain financing.

“There is a lot of excitement around this,” Taylor said. “We need to retain the young intellectual community here that drives the economy and produces jobs.”

On Tuesday morning, Suffolk University will host a forum in the Modern Theater to discuss opportunities to build micro-housing around the city.

Shen, the Boston city planner who serves as an influential regulator of housing policy, said he is keeping an open mind. For now, Boston will work with Harvard University’s Rappaport Institute to study the impacts of the first batch of the smaller-size units going up in the Innovation District.

He also recently met with Patrick Kennedy, the San Francisco developer, to discuss Kennedy’s pitch for a micro-housing complex near the Longwood Medical Area, a neighborhood packed with doctors and medical students looking for convenient housing.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 49

“We’re open to it,” Shen said. “But we are concerned about expanding the program to Longwood without getting a real sense of how the market is working in the Innovation District. I think we have to be cautious.”

Kennedy said he hopes Boston will eventually pursue construction of more micro- apartments. In the meantime, he plans to move forward with construction of his next San Francisco project this summer.

“I really can’t see any downside to having large concentrations of micro-apartments in appropriate places that are close to jobs and close to transit,” Kennedy said. “If you don’t build housing for single people, those single people are just going to fill up your housing stock anyway.”

Casey Ross can be reached at [email protected].

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 50

Press release—April 3, 2013 III. How Housing Matters Survey Finds American Attitudes Transformed by Housing Crisis, Changes in Lifestyle Published April 3, 2013

After decades of equating homeownership with the American Dream, post-housing crisis realism about the risks and rewards of owning a home have led to greater support for rental housing and a more balanced approach in national housing policy, according to a new survey of housing attitudes released today.

The How Housing Matters Survey, a new national survey conducted by Hart Research Associates and commissioned by the MacArthur Foundation, found while financial markets, as well as homebuilding and home sales data, may suggest the prolonged housing crisis is over, the American public is not ready to agree, with nearly 8 in 10 (77%) believing we are still in the middle of the crisis, or that the worst is yet to come. When it comes to remedying the housing crisis, two-thirds of adults (65%) now believe the focus of national housing policy should be split fairly equally between rental and ownership, as opposed to promoting one over the other. Three in five adults (61%) now believe that renters can be just as successful as owners in achieving the American Dream.

Hart Research Associates conducted telephone interviews of 1,433 adults between February 27 and March 10. Highlights of the survey include:

Even as there are signs of life emerging in the real estate and housing sector, the American public is not quite ready to declare the housing crisis over, with 58% believing we are “still in the middle of it,” and an additional 19% believing “the worst is yet to come.” Among the percentage that believes “the worst is yet to come,” renters (25%) are slightly more pessimistic than owners (16%). There is remarkable uniformity in the belief that it is premature to celebrate the end of the housing crisis across all regions, income groups, races, and political affiliations.

There remains a strong desire among Americans to own their own home – in fact, more than 7 in 10 renters aspire to own one day.

However, the overall appeal of renting versus owning is changing. 57% of adults believe that “buying has become less appealing,” and by nearly the same percentage (54%), a majority believes that “renting has become more appealing” than it was before.

With families and communities still reeling from the boom-and-bust cycle of the past decade, the public is recognizing that owning is not the only acceptable option, and the sense that renting is somehow undesirable appears to be fading. In fact, nearly half of current owners (45%) can see themselves renting at some point in the future.

After decades of equating home ownership with the American Dream, in the aftermath of the housing crisis, 3 in 5 adults (61%) believe that “renters can be just as successful as owners at achieving the American Dream.” This sentiment is broadly felt, among owners (59%) as well as renters (67%), and across all regions of the country.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 51

The public has a strong and personal sense of the vital role stable housing plays in people’s lives and communities. While most feel stable and secure in their current housing situation, nearly half of all respondents (45%) have experienced a time in their life when their “housing situation was not stable and secure.”

Among both owners and renters, housing stability leads to a variety of positive benefits for communities. Roughly 7 in 10 believe that government policies “ensuring that more people have decent, stable housing that they can afford” leads to a “major positive impact” on  The safety and economic well-being of neighborhoods and communities;  Children’s ability to do well in school;  Individuals’ and families’ financial security. The opposite impact is identified for families living in “a challenging and unstable housing situation.” Two-thirds or more of all respondents believe such a condition would lead to a “major negative impact” on:  The relationship between the parents;  The mental health and well-being of the family members;  And the children’s ability to keep up with school work and do well. In contrast to the partisanship that permeates political discussion in Washington today, the public has a balanced and realistic view about national housing policy. After having been provided with information about U.S. housing policy and demographic and lifestyle changes, more than 3 in 5 self-identified Democrats (69%), Republicans (62%), and Independents (65%) believe the “focus of our housing policy should be fairly equally split on rental housing and housing for people to own.” This balanced approach toward government policies supporting both rental housing and homeownership shows similar support among all races, ages, regions, and income levels.

“America is going through a transformational period in which the old forms and systems are changing, and the unconventional is becoming more conventional and even fashionable. A prime example of this can be seen through changing perspectives on housing. While the desire to own a home remains a bedrock principle in American life, this survey demonstrates that the American public’s views about housing are changing, in part due to the hangover from the housing crisis, but importantly, also because of changes in our lifestyles. The dynamic is no longer simply ‘renting versus owning’ – perspectives are more complex, and people are viewing housing in a more holistic way,” said Peter D. Hart of Hart Research Associates. “Many of the positive attributes that have long been associated with homeownership are fading, and on the flip side of the coin, it is remarkable that nearly half of all homeowners can picture themselves one day becoming a renter.”

“It is stunning,” Hart said, “to see how Americans are beginning to favor a new balance that serves both the homeownership and rental markets. The emergence of this more balanced view that government support for rental housing and homeownership should be equalized is both surprising and significant. The How Housing Matters survey underscores that it’s no longer renters versus owners, the haves versus the have-nots, or the young versus the old. There is a new and real acceptance of a more balanced approach to housing policy that puts renting and owning on a more equal footing.”

“The How Housing Matters national survey shows us that whether one owns or rents, the American public understands the benefits of decent, stable housing in people’s lives – and the consequences for individuals and communities when that stability is lost through events like foreclosure, eviction, increasing costs or unemployment,” said Julia M. Stasch, Vice President of U.S. Programs at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. “We are pleased to support and release this important national survey, as it complements the Foundation’s efforts to

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 52 address the nation’s housing challenges through empirical research and organizations focused on improving housing opportunities for all Americans.”

The MacArthur Foundation’s How Housing Matters research initiative seeks to explore whether, and if so how, having a decent, stable, affordable home leads to strong families and vibrant communities. Research is showing that stable, quality housing has value beyond the provision of shelter; it improves school performance, diminishes health problems for children and adults, and decreases psychological stress. Since launching the initiative in 2008, the Foundation has funded 36 empirical studies exploring if and how housing leads to improved outcomes in child well-being, physical and mental health, education and economic opportunity.

Read the survey report or complete survey data. Download associated PowerPoint slides.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 53

III. Press Release, Commonwealth of MA 2-25-13 Attleboro and Peabody Have Gateway City Status after Review of Data

BOSTON – February 25, 2013 – The Patrick-Murray Administration’s Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development announced today that Attleboro and Peabody are now Gateway Cities, after reviewing five years’ worth of applicable data.

The two cities join 24 others that meet the statutory requirements to become a Gateway City: Have a population greater than 35,000 and less than 250,000, have a median household income below the state average and have a rate of educational attainment of a bachelor’s degree or above that is below the state average.

Both Peabody and Attleboro met the requirements after their median household income fell below the state average of $65,981. The Office of Housing and Economic Development reviews the last five years’ worth of data on an annual basis to determine eligibility for the Gateway Cities program. Peabody and Attleboro are the first changes since the original 24 Gateway Cities were named following the creation of the program in the 2010 economic development legislation.

The Patrick-Murray Administration is committed to investing in education, innovation and infrastructure as a means to grow the Commonwealth and create new job creation and economic development in every part of the state. Through the Gateway Cities program, member communities have access to specific programs targeting those cities, or have preference in broader, state-wide programs.

“Our Gateway Cities possess tremendous potential and opportunities and the Patrick-Murray Administration’s emphasis on these communities is designed to help unlock that potential,” said Greg Bialecki, the Secretary of Housing and Economic Development. “By continuing to invest in innovation, infrastructure and education in these communities we are creating new opportunities for growth in the future.”

Last month, as part of the Administration’s support of Gateway Cities, the Executive Office of Education announced $3.4 million in grants to support targeted English language instruction and early career education for students. The funding provides support to students and families in Gateway Cities and furthers the Administration’s efforts to build a 21st Century public education system that prepares all students for academic, career and lifelong success.

Gateway Cities have access to programs such as the Gateway Cities Parks Program, which develops and restores parks in urban neighborhoods; the Housing Development Incentive Program, which provides

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 54

Gateway Cities with a development tool to increase market-rate housing stock and support economic development; and Housing Planning Grants and Gateway Plus Action Grants, which support revitalization and economic development opportunities. Through entities like the MassWorks Infrastructure Program and the Brownfields program, Gateway Cities have preference on funding on projects that create economic development and housing opportunities in communities throughout the state.

Patrick-Murray Administration has supported Gateway Cities with $3.9 billion in Chapter 70 education aid for the 2012-13 school year, $1 billion in active construction contracts through MassDOT, more than $109 million since 2007 for public safety grants, over $20 million Gateway City Park grants, $1.14 billion in bonds financed, grants or loans from MassDevelopment, and other support.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 55

III. THE COMMONWEALTH HOUSING TASK FORCE

TESTIMONY ON HR 1127 AND HR 3333, ACTS FINANCING THE PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION OF HOUSING FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME RESIDENTS Delivered by Charles Eisenberg

April 4, 2013

The Commonwealth Housing Task Force is a group of business and civic leaders, foundation heads, educators, labor leaders, housing advocates, developers and elected officials convened by The Boston Foundation in 2003 to advocate for solutions to the housing crisis in Massachusetts.

Ten years later, the crisis is, if anything, worse. A combination of factors has led to a chronic supply and affordability problem, particularly in the area of rental housing. The Boston metropolitan area is the third most expensive housing market in the country, exceeded only by New York City and San Francisco. Through two recessions, rents have increased in Massachusetts every year this century; leaving many low and middle income residents unable to rent or buy. Twenty-five per cent of the renters in the Boston Metropolitan area pay more than fifty percent of their income just on housing. Supply has grown so slowly that the 2012 Greater Boston Housing Report Card estimates that production will have to double through 2020 for supply to meet demand; and the problems extend across the Commonwealth. Even in the “foreclosure pocket” of northern Worcester County, rental vacancy rates are below 5%.

For low and moderate income housing, the problem is compounded by three externalities. First, Federal subsidies are decreasing at an alarming rate and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. HUD is so unpopular that many advocates in Washington believe any solution to sequestration will leave HUD with less funding; not more. Second, Massachusetts has a “preservation” problem. Almost 15,000 affordable units are scheduled to lose their rent restrictions in the next five years unless they are refinanced using subsidized funding. Finally, Massachusetts has 50,000 aging State public housing units requiring expensive maintenance if not significant capital investment.

It is for all these reasons that the Commonwealth Housing Task Force urges the highest possible level of funding proposed in these bills.

HR 1127 and HR 3333 are very similar. Where they differ, CHTF recommends the following:

$320 million for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund: The AHT program is the most flexible subsidy program with the broadest applicability.

$135 million for the Housing Stabilization Fund.

$45 million for Commercial Area Transit Node Housing: CATNHP is a major tool for sustainable, smart growth development. It is particularly applicable to the Ch. 40R districts which are a particular interest of CHTF.

$33 million dollars for Community Based Housing: While we support the higher funding level in HR 1127, we believe that program language changes in HR 3333 which eliminate the repayment and refinancing requirements are necessary to help CBH work with current financing requirements.

$80 million for the Housing Innovations Fund: HIF is particularly targeted for shelters, homelessness housing programs and senior supportive housing.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 56

$20 million per year for the State Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program: The State LIHTC has become perhaps the most important State subsidy program. It fills the gap created by the reduction in Federal funding. There is, and will be, a direct correction between the amount of State LIHTC available and the number of affordable units developed or preserved this year and in the years to come.

Massachusetts does not have verdant wheat fields or gas wells. We have smart, hard working people, many of whom could move elsewhere if they so chose. If we are going to succeed and prosper we need to have a strong education system, good infrastructure and housing that people can afford. To that end, CHTF strongly supports the proposals contained in this legislation.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 57

III. Banker and Tradesman, 5-5-13 In Battling Rising Costs, Developers Think Outside Box But Unions Aren’t Too Pleased

By Scott Van Voorhis, Banker & Tradesman Columnist It sounds 19th century retro and futuristic at the same time: a giant factory near Boston’s waterfront, literally churning out the city’s next wave of posh rental high-rises and office towers, one modular component at a time. But if one top local developer has its way, it may be how the next wave of multibillion-dollar Hub mega- projects gets built. Boston Global Investors, the master developer for the long-planned, multibillion-dollar Seaport Square project near Fan Pier, is exploring the idea with the city’s construction barons and labor union bosses.

So far, it has been tough going. The proposal faces skepticism from local trade unions, which would face a major change in time-honored ways of doing work.

Yet rising construction costs are rightly pushing developers to think outside the box, with everything from steel to labor cost on the rise as the economy picks up and a new development boom taking shape in Boston area. And the bottom line is that already soaring Boston area apartment rents will go higher if construction prices are allowed to rise unchecked.

“Rents have to be a function of development costs, that’s just the way it is,” warns Charles Reid, executive vice president and director of Boston Global, which is pushing for a modular factory.

New York Shows The Way

OK, it all may sound pie in the sky. And it may turn out to be just in Boston, where old ways die hard. But it’s anything but fantasy down in New York, where Forest City Ratner has broken ground on the nearly $5 billion Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, which will feature 16 different high-rises. However, these towers won’t be built on site, but produced two miles away at a modular factory two miles away at the old Brooklyn Navy Yard.

First up is a 32-story apartment tower, with later modular towers at the Big Apple development to pass the 50-story mark. The shift to factory-style modular construction is credited with shaving 10 to 15 percent off the cost of the Big Apple mega development and saving the project from being mothballed.

To Reid at Boston Global, the benefits of doing something similar in Boston are tantalizing.

Rising Costs Force Change

Boston Global is faced with the challenge of getting the multibillion-dollar Seaport Square project into construction. It’s a huge endeavor – 6.3 million square feet of apartments, offices, stores and restaurants planned for all those old surface parking lots across from Fan Pier once owned by Frank McCourt. And, like developers across Greater Boston, Boston Global is getting hit right and left with rising costs, from steel to labor.

Several industry indexes are all pointing to a jump, with Turner Construction Co.’s building cost index having risen 3.4 percent during the first quarter compared to the same period in 2012. NAIOP Massachusetts, which represents developers across the state, is hosting a panel discussion on rising construction costs on May 10.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 58

The rising costs, in turn, leave developers with a stark choice, faced with either cutting costs or jacking up rents and prices in what is already one of the most expensive metro markets in the country to live in.

Boston Global’s Reid would like to try another way – setting up a modular plant somewhere in the Boston area, possibly even in one of remaining warehouses or industrial tracts in the Seaport. Just shifting construction into a factory setting could shave 5 to 6 percent off a project’s building costs, he told me. On a billion dollar project, that’s a cool $50 million to $60 million. The savings come from a speedier, more predictable construction process and lower labor costs.

“Modular has continued to cut costs,” notes Tom Erickson, executive vice president and regional general manager for Tishman Construction in Boston. “It transfers labor to a more controlled environment, with skilled labor just like a factory.”

Union Opposition

Let’s be clear – we are not talking about union busting. Far from it. The unions supply the factory workers, more of whom are needed, albeit at lower rates, according to Reid. But unlike New York, where trade unions eventually saw the future and embraced it, labor leaders in Boston have yet to warm up to the idea, he said.

I’m sympathetic to a point – change is never easy. Yet pushing back against modular construction is a short sighted approach for our local labor bigwigs. The way we do construction, whether it’s building a skyscraper or a single-family home, is positively medieval.

Yes, we have lots of big equipment, but the breakdown of the trades, and the laborious, on-site construction process would be roughly familiar the cathedral builders of 14th century France.

For a country that pioneered mass production and the assembly-line to churn out everything from cars and jets to Twinkies, why we can’t do the same for office towers and homes is a mystery. It’s not a question of if it will happen, but rather why it hasn’t happened already. After all, as workers and professionals in myriad industries have found, including journalism, it’s far better to get ahead of the future than to get run over by it. Email: [email protected]

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 59

III. Testimony of Keith A. Mahoney, Director of Public Affairs for the Boston Foundation, to the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government in support of H.1859 An Act Promoting the Planning and Development of Sustainable Communities May 15, 2013

Good afternoon Chairwoman Peake, Chairman DiDomenico, members of the Committee: My name is Keith Mahoney; I am the Director of Public Affairs for the Boston Foundation. The Boston Foundation is greater Boston’s community foundation, and one of the oldest and largest community foundations in the nation, with assets of over $900 million. In addition to providing more than $88 million in grants to area non-profits each year, the Foundation also serves as a major civic leader, provider of information, convener, and sponsor of special initiatives designed to address the community’s and region’s most pressing challenges.

It is in the role of convener of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force that I am here today, to testify in favor of House Bill 1859, An Act Promoting the Planning and Development of Sustainable Communities, filed by Representative Kulik.

The CHTF is an ad hoc group representing widely-diverse constituencies: business and civic leaders, foundation leadership, affordable housing advocates, the environmental community, organized labor, real estate developers, elected and appointed officials at both the state and local levels, and higher education. They have come together to find common ground and to address the state's housing crisis on a coordinated basis.

One important function of the Task Force is the publication of the Greater Boston Housing Report Card, produced by Professor Barry Bluestone and his team from the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University. In the most recent report, using projections from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, the report authors estimate that Greater Boston developers may need to double or even triple annual housing production to meet demand through 2020.

Massachusetts simply does not have enough housing supply to meet the demand. New housing construction has remained inadequately low since the 1980s, creating tight markets that drive up costs. In the last decade, the Commonwealth had the 4th lowest rate of housing construction in the nation and construction activity since 2010 has remained low. Based on current demographic trends, our last report card predicts a shortage of 120,000 units in Greater Boston alone assuming modest economic growth, including about 59,000 multifamily units.

One of the brakes on the Commonwealth’s economic growth has always been the high cost of housing. Policymakers and local officials can create an environment that enhances our ability to create affordable housing to meet this expected demand. Many tools are already in place, such as Chapter 40R and 40S attempt to alleviate these costs by providing financial incentives for

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 60 communities that will zone eligible districts as-of-right for mixed-income housing dense multi- family and single-family housing in smart growth locations near town centers and transportation. But Massachusetts can and must do more, and in addition to the passage of transit-oriented development laws like 40R, we must reform our conventional local zoning laws to encourage the production of affordable housing in all of our communities. By incentivizing thoughtful local planning, House 1859 provides necessary reforms that can make the zoning and variance processes more rational, predictable, and attuned to the housing needs of the Commonwealth.

This legislation allows for prompt and predictable permitting, inclusionary zoning, and authorizes impact fees for local capital needs. In addition, it establishes public health as a purpose of master planning and provides incentives for more walkable and healthy development. Additional tools and incentives are also made available to communities that opt-in to zoning changes that protect the environment and promote compact housing. Again, this is in keeping with the recommendations of our last report card, which found that fundamental changes in the underlying economy will combine with regional demographics and consumer behavior to drive the changes. As aging Baby Boomer homeowners downsize, they will look to smaller, more sustainable homes, moving from larger single-family homes to smaller single-family homes or condominiums.

Given the importance of housing affordability to long-term economic growth, it is critical that our planning and zoning statutes reflect the needs of the time while preserving the character of our communities. This legislation is an important step in that direction.

I encourage this committee to report House 1859 out favorably, and hope to work with the legislature and others here today to pass this bill into law. Thank you.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 61

III. The Center for American Progress 4-22-13

Sequestration Nation: Housing-Assistance Cuts Target the Most Vulnerable

By Kwame Boadi | April 22, 2013

Author’s note: On Capitol Hill “sequestration” may mean a percentage point or two in lower GDP growth, but beyond the Beltway it is more than an abstract economic concept. It means real pain for real people. Each week in our “Sequestration Nation” series, we will highlight examples of the many ways in which the federal budget cuts may hurt you and your neighbors. This week we explore sequestration’s devastating effect on low-income families receiving federal housing assistance, as well as some of the other impacts it is having around the country.

Over the past few years, public officials have expressed a desire for deficit reduction without increasing poverty in America. Unfortunately, thanks to sequestration, that will no longer be possible.

As we mentioned in last week’s installment of “Sequestration Nation,” low-income families receiving federal housing assistance are bearing the brunt of some of the most painful sequestration cuts. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that sequestration will reduce federal housing assistance by more than $2 billion in 2013. Furthermore, there will be additional cuts to housing assistance included in the Budget Control Act.

Facing severe sequestration cuts, local housing agencies such as the Montpelier Housing Authority in Vermont must choose from a range of bad options to address budget shortfalls. Agencies that previously could rely on reserve funds to meet shortfalls in funding are now facing the reality of those funds drying up. Housing officials fear the prospects of furloughing or laying off employees, requiring housing assistance recipients to pay more for their rent, or having to provide subsidies to fewer people. Jo Ann Troiano, executive director of the Montpelier Housing Authority, worries that sequestration “was the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

Cuts to the Housing Choice Voucher Program, commonly known as “Section 8,” represent a perfect storm of unease for voucher recipients. Generally, households in the program are obligated to pay up to 30 percent of their income toward rent, and the voucher program provides subsidies that cover the difference. Most families receiving housing vouchers are elderly, disabled, working, or recently stopped working. This population lacks the means to adjust to federal budget cuts, are already underserved, and are facing an increasingly expensive rental markets.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 62

The average household income of families receiving Housing Choice Vouchers is $12,500. But sequestration could increase monthly rent payments by up to $200 for voucher recipients such as Chanel Henderson of California. “That’s a lot for people who are already struggling,” said Henderson.

Ultimately, sequestration will make an already bad situation worse. Only one in four families that actually qualify for housing assistance in the United States are receiving it due to already limited funding. Sequestration will only exacerbate this situation because many local agencies are “shelving” vouchers in order to save money—meaning that once a family graduates from the program, their now-unused voucher is not reallocated to a family currently on the waiting list. This shelving is taking place in communities such as Paterson, New Jersey, where officials imposed a freeze on reissuing unused vouchers.

If these methods are not sufficient to close the funding gaps, local housing agencies may need to remove people from the voucher program entirely or lay off or furlough staff to make ends meet. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that cuts to the voucher program could result in 140,000 families across the country losing housing assistance. Ed Mayer, executive director of the Butte County Housing Authority in California, laments the reality that, “We begin to look at the prospect of putting people on the street who have no alternative.” Rather than remove people from their voucher program, officials in the Philadelphia Housing Authority chose to lay off 82 employees.

Neither of these last ditch efforts bode well for the local economies that will be affected. Laid-off or furloughed housing-authority employees result in fewer dollars circulating in the local economies. More homeless people will mean “an increased use in emergency rooms, healthcare costs, mental health services, the court system, policing, [and] shelters,” according to Greg Spiegel, public policy director for the Inner City Law Center of Los Angeles.

To add insult to injury, these cuts come at a time when rental prices are rising and the need for housing assistance is growing. As a recent Harvard University study indicates, rental prices have increased sharply over the past decade to the point where half of renters currently pay more than 30 percent of their household income for housing, and 27 percent pay more than half of their income for housing. At the same time, the number of homeless families with children has increased by 32 percent since 2007, according to Housing and Urban Development Department data.

Sequestration’s cuts to federal housing assistance are significant and painful for some of the most vulnerable members of society. Doug DeSoto, Section 8 housing manager for the Butte County Housing Authority, concludes, “It’s not just the housing authority—a faceless bureaucracy—that’s cut. We know

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 63 these people and we know their concerns. … If you are a young single mom, it can be the platform to keep your life together.”

Sequestration is having similarly negative impacts across America. Below are just a few of the many examples.

Cheyenne, Wyoming Sequestration will make it harder for officials in Wyoming to forecast and plan for floods and droughts. The Wyoming Tribune Eagle recently reported that budget cuts to the U.S. Geological Survey will force the agency to discontinue nationwide operations at 375 streamgages, which continuously monitor the amount and quality of water in a particular waterway. According to spokeswoman Jessica Robertson, the data gathered from these instruments are critical “to issue timely flood forecasts.” In Wyoming where more than 100 streamgages are operational, these instruments were particularly useful for flood warnings “during June and July of 2011, when streamflows were at record levels in the Wind and North Platte River basins.” In the midst of sequestration, Wyoming residents must hope that history doesn’t repeat itself this year.

Chelsea, Massachusetts For the 45,000 Massachusetts residents who have been unemployed for at least six months, sequestration will make it much more difficult to survive. The Telegram reported that due to sequestration, these individuals will see an average drop of $50 per week in unemployment benefits. Harriette Baston of Chelsea, Massachusetts, recognizes that, “People might not think that’s a lot of money, but in fact it is, especially in this economy with rising food prices, transportation costs, and health care payments.” Moreover, the resulting decrease in spending on food, transportation, and other necessities will affect the businesses that rely on those consumer dollars.

How is sequestration affecting you and your community? Make your voice heard by contacting us at [email protected] with your stories about the effects of federal budget cuts.

Yuma, Arizona As the immigration reform debate picks up steam in Washington, a major sticking point will be the extent to which federal officials can secure the border with Mexico. Sequestration comes at a particularly bad time for those concerned with border security and comprehensive immigration reform. Sequestration mandated 14 furlough days for Border Patrol employees, which will reduce the time that agents can spend patrolling the border, according to the Yuma Sun. For Derek Hernandez, vice president of the

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 64 western region of the National Border Patrol Council, it is clear: “Bottom line is the border would be less secure.”

Detroit, Michigan For employees at Detroit Medical Center, the impact of sequestration has been swift and blunt. Last week the hospital system announced that it was laying off 300 employees, according to the Detroit Free Press. These layoffs represent 2 percent of the hospital’s full-time staff. Since roughly a third of the hospital system’s patients are Medicare recipients, sequestration’s 2 percent cut to Medicare payments will impact the medical-center system to the tune of $12 million to $15 million. The 300 layoffs may ultimately signal additional layoffs to come. Kevin Downey, spokesman for the Michigan Health and Hospital Association, indicated that many member hospitals, including some that will lose even more money than Detroit Medical Center, still need to specify their plans to close their budget gaps.

Dayton, Ohio The effects of sequestration are most difficult to grasp when they concern long-term, as opposed to immediate, impacts. These long-term impacts, however, are just as significant. Such is the case with the reductions in research and development funding for Ohio universities. “What people need to understand is that research is their future,” said Dr. William Ball, vice president for research at the University of Cincinnati. The Dayton Daily News recently reported that Ohio public universities are slated to lose $95 million in research grants as a result of sequestration. These grants fund a wide array of research in fields such as microbiology and immunology. Commenting on her current research, master’s student Renee Albers believes that when it comes to money for research, “You can really see that this could really help people. … What we’re doing is amazing.” Hopefully sequestration will not halt this potentially groundbreaking work in its tracks.

Kwame Boadi is a Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 65

III. Boston Globe re: Sequester in Massachusetts 5-26-13

Federal cuts hitting housing subsidy program Some state residents denied voucher aid; agencies struggle to Limit the damage By Megan Woolhouse | Globe Staff May 26, 2013 Thousands of the state’s poorest residents are losing or being denied federal housing subsidies as a result of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts, forcing many to choose between food, rent, medicine — or the streets. The cuts are pummeling the Section 8 voucher program, which offers assistance to poor individuals and families renting apartments in the open market. The Boston Housing Authority, for example, has stopped issuing new vouchers after absorbing $10 million in Section 8 voucher cuts, and by fall it could end subsidies for more than 10 percent of the 11,000 households already receiving vouchers. “Sequestration has been devastating,” said Lydia Agro, a spokeswoman for the BHA. “We’ve never been in this situation — we’ve never had to cut people off the program.” Sequestration is the term for sweeping and deep federal spending cuts that were supposed to be so dire they would push lawmakers in Washington to reach a compromise on reducing the federal deficit. It didn’t happen. The cuts went into effect in March, but only in recent weeks has the impact begun to be felt across a broad range of federal programs, including decades-old housing programs designed to help the nation’s most economically vulnerable. In Massachusetts, and across the country, groups have protested the cutbacks. Earlier this month, Budget for All, a nonprofit coalition of labor, religious, and peace groups, protested outside Government Center, urging the public to contact US senators who are already planning next year’s federal budget, which begins in October. The group advocates for reducing Pentagon spending and a 1 percent tax increase on the rich and corporations. “Everybody says they hate sequester,” said Lee Farris, one of the rally’s organizers. “So Congress needs to find another way between now and when they pass the budget to replace it with what they should have done in the first place.” As in Massachusetts, cuts to Section 8 funding are forcing housing programs in many states to reduce the number of vouchers they issue, freeze waiting lists, and face the possibility of having to end subsidies for people already in the program.The program, begun in the 1970s, offers subsidies to individuals and families who earn no more than 50 percent of the median income in the area they live, though the vast majority earn just 30 percent or less of the median income. In Boston, a family of four with an income of $28,000 a year or less would qualify. Families with vouchers pay as much as 40 percent of their income toward rent. The program provides a bridge to help many families move out of poverty in a way that helps them avoid the stigma of living in public housing. India Cox, a single mother living in Mission Hill with her 9-year-old daughter, spent years on the Section 8 waiting list, living in cramped, rundown apartments in unsafe buildings because that was all she could afford. When she recently received a notice that she had been accepted into the Section 8 program, Cox said she felt relieved to finally be able to move and had begun looking for an apartment with a yard or near a park.But a few weeks later, she received another letter telling her the offer was rescinded because of funding cuts. “It was snatched away,” said Cox, 29, who works part time taking calls at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts. “I’m frustrated. I just wanted to live someplace safer with my daughter.” Housing specialists said it has never been easy to get a Section 8 voucher, which in the best of times could require years on a waiting list. Linda Wood-Boyle, executive director of HomeStart Inc., a nonprofit that helps homeless families obtain vouchers and other services, said the cuts mean more families with children, elderly, and disabled will struggle with unstable living situations, forced to move from place to place, not knowing where they will sleep some nights.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 66

“People will just stay in shelters longer, or be homeless longer, or doubled-up and couch surfing longer,” she said. “It’s always a problem, but it will just be worse now.” The state Department of Housing and Community Development, which allocates about 20,000 Section 8 vouchers each year, has a waiting list of about 80,000 low-income households, including about 24,000 people with disabilities. But federal cuts of more than $12 million mean those individuals and families will stay on the waiting list indefinitely. Matthew T. Sheaff, the agency spokesman, said the state has stopped offering vouchers to new candidates as people leave the program. Sheaff said the agency is tapping its reserves so it does not have to cut off families who are currently receiving subsidies. “It’s important to keep these people housed,” he said. However, because of sequestration, the state agency is also facing administrative cutbacks totaling $5.7 million. State officials have not yet implemented reductions due to those cuts. The BHA has also been told to reduce its administrative spending by $4.6 million and its public housing spending by $10.8 million, Agro said. Thirty-three staffers were recently laid off, there is a hiring freeze, and senior staffers must take five unpaid workdays. Sue Nohl, deputy director of the Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership, the state’s largest provider of the vouchers from the state Department of Housing and Community Development, said her agency recently had to notify 43 households that had just been accepted into the program that they would not receive vouchers after all, due to cutbacks.Many had been on the waiting list a decade. The housing partnership’s program offers about 5,700 vouchers to low-income families every year. They expected to have about 120 vouchers become available this year as clients move out of the program as their income increases, die, or violate policies and are terminated. Because of the cuts, they anticipate that they will not be able to offer vouchers to any new clients for at least the next year. What worries Nohl about the cutbacks is that so many of the people receiving vouchers are already living precariously close to homelessness. The families have so little income that many are forced to choose between paying rent, buying food, or receiving medical care.“These are people who are making choices not about where to go on vacation, but should I eat today and do we have a place to stay tomorrow,” Nohl said. Ana Bela Mendes of Dorchester, a divorced mother of three, lost her job of 12 years during the recession and became homeless. She cares for a severely disabled 20-year-old daughter and is taking courses at the University of Phoenix so she can eventually become a nurse. She recently learned that a state subsidy, separate from Section 8, that helped her pay the rent for the past two years will end in the fall. She said she can’t afford her apartment’s market rate rent of $1,600; her monthly income is $1,100 in child support and disability payments. She had hoped she would get a Section 8 voucher to help her pay for a new place to live, but not anymore. She said she’ll be lucky to find an affordable one-bedroom, and may have to consider moving out of the city and farther away from her daughter’s doctors. “I have to scramble and figure out what’s next,” Mendes said. “And I still need to finish school.” Megan Woolhouse can be reached at [email protected].

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 67

III. Boston Globe re: Sequester 6-16-13 Sequester’s Gridlock Cuts into City Services, by Mark Niquette | Bloomberg News, June 16, 2013 COLUMBUS, Ohio — Philadelphia is scrounging for money to reduce child lead poisoning. Mesa, Ariz., sales-tax revenue is softening as Boeing Co. suppliers cut back. Oklahoma City anticipates less spending from its largest employer, Tinker Air Force Base.

US mayors who gathered in Chicago last week for the Clinton Global Initiative America meeting say the automatic federal budget cuts known as sequestration are starting to ripple through their cities, forcing them to make difficult decisions about funding services their residents demand.

The mayors blame partisan gridlock in Washington and are calling on Congress and President Obama to end the sequestration before more reductions take a deeper toll on cities that can’t deficit-spend like the federal government. ‘‘Congress has got to figure out a way to work together for the good of Americans and should not continue to hold many of our mayors and our cities hostage to this death by a thousand cuts,’’ Philadelphia’s mayor, Michael Nutter, a Democrat and president of the US Conference of Mayors, said by telephone.

Sequestration was supposed to be so intolerable to Republicans and Democrats alike that both sides would compromise on spending to avert $1.2 trillion in cuts over nine years. Instead, no accord was reached and reductions began in March. As much as $85 billion will be withheld for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, forcing service curtailments and payroll cuts.

In New York City, as many as 500 New York City Housing Authority workers may be dismissed because of sequestration. ‘‘We had a $205 million grenade dropped on us,’’ Housing Authority Chairman John Rhea said after a City Council hearing on the cuts, referring to a revenue shortfall caused by the federal spending reductions. The agency serves 650,000 residents who rely on it either for housing or rent assistance.

Governing in an age of such austerity requires mayors to find new funding sources to sustain and improve their cities, Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago told about 1,000 business, government, and foundation leaders at the Clinton Initiative meeting. ‘‘We need private-sector dollars to come alongside to help us do what we used to do from a national level,’’ said Emanuel, a former White House aide to Obama and President Bill Clinton.

Mayor Mitch Landrieu of New Orleans said the federal cuts began just as cities were learning how to cope with new fiscal challenges in the post-recession economy. ‘‘Washington is not responding nearly as quickly and not nearly as forcefully as it has historically,’’ Landrieu said in Chicago. ‘‘You have a lot of mayors up here that are kind of starting to get with it, and to find new ways of solving old problems with new partners because our old partner has left us.’’

While cities with limited military or other federal operations might see less damage from sequestration, funding they rely on for low-cost housing, Community Development Block Grants, and other programs will be cut, said Michael Wallace, a National League of Cities program director in Washington. ‘‘Most cities are not in a position to supplant these dollars,’’ Wallace said by telephone. ‘‘Cities are going to be making some tough choices about which priorities to fill.’’ The success of efforts by mayors to replace money cut from federal funding will depend on how hard hit their communities were by the home- foreclosure crisis and the loss of tax revenue during the recession, Wallace said.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 68

III. Banker and Tradesman, May 20, 2013

Monday, May 20, 2013 A Tale of Two MBTA Parcels: Newburyport, Hyde Park Land for Sale

By James Cronin, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

The MBTA recently put two very different parcels out to bid for potential developers to purchase and, hopefully, create some economic development at the underutilized sites in Boston and Newburyport.

The state’s mass transit agency is seeking $2 million for about 21 acres in the Readville section of Boston’s Hyde Park neighborhood, and asking $1.38 million for 11.11 acres of land adjacent to Newburyport’s commuter rail station.

In Readville, the MBTA has finished the environmental remediation of an area known as the Readville Yard 5, which sits in a heavily residential area at the border of Hyde Park and Dedham. The 21-acre, ice cream cone-shaped parcel is just south of West Milton Street and west of Sprague Street adjacent to the Readville commuter rail station.

From the MBTA’s perspective, the development program proposed for the site should incorporate some form of renewable energy, especially solar panels, into the project’s design. The Dedham side of Readville Yard 5 is currently under development for a photovoltaic solar array to offer renewable electrical energy for the MBTA’s use.

The Boston acreage is available for “traditional development,” according to the bid invitation the MBTA circulated, but prospective bidders are also encouraged “to propose development that consists entirely of green, renewable energy development such as a [photovoltaic solar array] for example.”

Some Readville residents have lived adjacent to the for-sale parcel for a long, long time, and will have a lot to say about what gets built. Current zoning allows for office space, laboratory research, restaurants, trade schools and other uses. But the community is less concerned with the actual uses on the site, which has been zoned for light industrial uses, than with the impacts things like increased traffic will have on local streets, said Dave McNulty, the neighborhood’s liaison to City Hall and Mayor Thomas Menino.

“The focus of the community was always making sure [the site] was cleaned up properly,” McNulty said in a recent interview. “Whatever is proposed there will go through a pretty intense community process. Neighborhood residents will have a strong say over what goes there.”

If a potential developer follows the MBTA’s guidelines and goes for a mostly or entirely renewable energy project, that would be a less intrusive use that will generate less traffic and noise than, say, a manufacturing operation, according to Mark Boyle, assistant general manager for development for the MBTA.

Newburyport Has A Plan

Residents will likely have less of a concern over what is built next to the Newburyport commuter rail station since the kind of transit-oriented development the city wants to see built will already be in a primarily industrial area where there are few, if any, residential neighbors.

That’s part of the reason Andrew Port, Newburyport’s planning director, hopes a developer will propose a mixed-use residential and retail project on the 11.11-acre parcel, currently an underutilized commuter parking lot and other unused land along Boston Way.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 69

If a developer were to propose a mixed-use project, the MBTA parcel alone would likely accommodate about 100 units with ancillary retail in four- or five-story buildings, Port said. However, there’s a nearby building and land that houses ambulances awaiting dispatch. If that operation were relocated or incorporated into a proposed project, it could provide space for an additional 20 units, possibly more, Port told Banker & Tradesman. There’s also an old railroad depot building on the site he said could be incorporated as a restaurant or café.

The city is planning to create a 40R “smart growth” zoning overlay district for the MBTA parcel. However planners want to wait and see what proposals come in before creating the overlay that would likely limit the number of units to be built and require a certain number of residences to be classified as affordable housing. If the city waits until after the proposals are submitted to the MBTA to create the zoning overlay district, the city can evaluate all proposals without excluding any. Then, Port and his colleagues could work with a selected developer to plan for the appropriate number of units at the site, Port said.

This is the second time in two years the MBTA has attempted to unload the Newburyport parcel and generate revenue for the cash-strapped agency through non-fare revenue.

However, last year, the minimum bid was $1.57 million. But that bid invitation stipulated that a developer would have to pay the MBTA additional funds if the project consisted of gross building square footage in excess of 80,000 square feet. The successful bidder would have been required to pay the MBTA a “value added payment” of $15 for every additional square-foot of space built within ten 10 business days of the Certificate of Occupancy’s issuance. So, for development of a 100,000-square-foot project on the property, the additional payment would have been $300,000, according to last May’s bid invitation.

This year, the initial price has dropped, but there’s still a value-added payment associated with the project. The threshold has been set at 60 units – for every unit that receives a certificate of occupancy after the first 60, the developer would be required to pay the MBTA $23,000 per unit.

“I wouldn’t say it’s a back-door way to get back to the original sales price,” said the MBTA’s Boyle. Instead, with more units, “the value of the real estate increases from the purchase price … so we should share in that increased value.”

Bids for the Readville parcel are due June 26, and Newburyport’s are due June 27.

Email: [email protected]

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 70

III. Banker and Tradesman, May 12, 2013: “Foreclosures Over” On The Mend Housing Crisis Coming To End, Number of Foreclosures Drops to New Low

By Colleen M. Sullivan, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

In Massachusetts, the foreclosure crisis as we know it is over.

The causes are simple. A new state law, passed last year, which compels lenders to evaluate borrowers for modification before launching a foreclosure action, has made many servicers leery of launching any new foreclosure action in the state, lawyers who represent lenders told Banker & Tradesman. Combined with an improving real estate market which has lifted many borrowers out from underwater, the number of foreclosures so far this year has plunged to new lows.

“This decline is real and somewhat permanent,” said Barry Bluestone, an economist and head of the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University. “We had an explosion in mortgages with limited documentation, people who wouldn’t have the best credit. We’ve been working through that reservoir of foreclosures, and now as that has happened one suspects we will go back to normal foreclosure rate, the kind that you have due to misfortunes that affect individual households.”

A review of data provided by The Warren Group, publisher of Banker & Tradesman, tells the tale. Throughout the first months of 2013, foreclosure numbers have been steadily dropping. This March, only 227 foreclosure deeds were issued – a drop of 74 percent from the 899 issued March 2012. For the entire first quarter, foreclosure deeds totaled 716, a near 71 percent decrease from 2,465 in the first quarter of 2012. Foreclosure petitions and auction announcements have posted similar declines, the first down 52 percent in the first quarter of 2013 compared to 2012, the latter down 73 percent.

If deeds, petitions and auctions continue at a similar pace for the remainder of the year, the 2013 could be the first year in which fewer than 3,000 foreclosure deeds were issued for the state since 2006, when 2,172 foreclosure deeds were issued.

That rate would still be well above the number of foreclosures issued during the peak boom years of the early 2000s, when rapidly rising prices meant that a borrower who got behind on a loan could quickly sell their home for a profit. From 2001 to 2005 there were fewer than 1,000 foreclosures statewide each year, with the nadir reached in 2003, when only 459 foreclosures were recorded.

But an annual tally of 3,000 foreclosures would match the pace of the late 1990s: there were 3,657 foreclosure statewide in 1995, 3,155 in 1996, 3,030 in 1997 and 2,150 in 1998. Those Clinton-era years were ones of a sound economy, rising stock market, and moderate interest rates – perhaps the last “normal” real estate market.

Personal Bankruptcies Down It’s not just deeds that show the signs: personal bankruptcies, which tend to rise in tandem with foreclosure, are down as well, dropping from a crisis-era peak of 23,125 in 2010 to 16,107 in 2012, a decline of 30.3 percent. So far this year, bankruptcies in Massachusetts were down a further 31.8 percent from the first quarter of 2012, to 3,049 according to data provided by The Warren Group. National numbers reflect a similar picture: CoreLogic reported a 23 percent decline in foreclosures in March compared to the prior year, with the remaining distressed inventory concentrated in just a few states. Massachusetts was not among them. Indeed, according to the latest data from the Mortgage Banker’s Association, among the 50

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 71 states and the District of Columbia, Massachusetts ranked 48th in foreclosures started in March, falling 8 basis points to 0.36 percent.

Foreclosure counselors caution that many homeowners remain in the process of seeking help or attempting to obtain a mod, and it will take considerable time to resolve these cases.

“We’re still seeing a large demand for assistance for pre-foreclosure counseling and post foreclosure evictions – our numbers have not really gone down,” said Nadine Cohen, managing attorney of the consumer rights unit at Greater Boston Legal Services. “We see the hardest cases, people who can’t get a [modification], people where the husband and wife have split up. We handle a lot of low-income cases, and for those people the economy has not really gotten better.”

Brenda Clement, executive director of Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association, which works with community development agencies across the state, said the organizations she’s in contact with are seeing fewer new cases come in the door.

But “there’s still a pretty heavy caseload, because while the [foreclosure] rates are coming down, there’s still a lot of cases and different assistance programs that are still in process, and they’re pretty hard to navigate,” Clement said. “When the real estate bubble burst, it wasn’t a pretty little soap bubble. It was a big, sticky wad of gum. We’re still scraping up the mess for a lot o individuals.”

There doesn’t seem to be a surge of new cases on the horizon. Fewer homeowners are falling behind on their mortgages, while banks are far more willing to offer modifications or accede to short sales rather than foreclose. According to the MBA’s latest numbers, while Massachusetts’s delinquency rate of 7.67 percent at the end of the first quarter of 2013 was higher than the national average of 6.75 percent, it is in decline, dropping 42 basis points from the fourth quarter of 2012.

“There’s actually good news on the servicing front these days – roll rates are getting better. There’s not as many loans ‘rolling’ into a delinquency state,” said William Frickie, an analyst with Moody’s Investors Services, who examines and grades servicers portfolios. “Servicers have gone through their portfolios and pretty much modified all the loans that they can.”

That fits in with the national picture, too: Real estate data and services provider LPS reported this month that that new problem loan rates (seriously delinquent mortgages that were current six months ago) have fallen below 1 percent for the first time since 2007, and are now approaching pre-crisis levels.

Even though the spigot may be slowly drying up, a continued drop of foreclosures may persist for many months. New laws and regulations passed during the crisis have lengthened the foreclosure timeline. But as prices continue to rise, fewer and fewer new cases will enter into the pipeline, as borrowers regain equity and are able to sell rather than let their home be seized.

Email: [email protected].

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 72

III. Banker and Tradesman, 5-12-13, Foreclosures in Dorchester Dorchester, City’s Poster Boy for Foreclosures, Now Roaring Back Median Prices Up in Neighborhood As Buyers Abound

By Colleen M. Sullivan, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

If any one Bay State neighborhood felt the brunt of the foreclosure crisis over the past five years, it was Dorchester. Improving crime rates and rising property values began to draw developers’ eyes to the neighborhood just as the housing bubble was rising, and many rushed to get in on the action, snapping up the neighborhood’s plethora of double- and triple-decker houses to convert into condos and flip.

When the crash came, those exact same condo conversions and new developments became some of the first casualties of the downturn: From 2006 to 2010, Dorchester alone accounted for 41.9 percent of all completed foreclosures in the city of Boston, while median home prices dropped to from a peak of $400,000 in 2005 to a low of $196,500 in 2009, according to data provided by The Warren Group, publisher of Banker & Tradesman. By 2011, luxury development projects like the DNA Lofts on Dorchester Avenue were sold at action for less than half their original list price – and even then they weren’t finding too many takers.

What a difference 18 months makes. Today, agents, developers and affordable housing advocates agree, the neighborhood is roaring back to life, with distressed properties being snapped up and flipped lightning quick by developers, and rising price reaching heights last seen in the mid-2000s. “It’s astounding to me,” said Justin Green, broker/owner of Dorchester-based In Realty Inc. “You think you have a handle on how the market’s moving, but this has been like a rocketship that’s taken off. In my 13 years in real estate, I haven’t seen it like this.”

Through the first three months of the year, median prices in the neighborhood were back up to $300,000, making up more than half the ground lost in the slide from peak to crash. Green says almost all the offers the brokerage’s buyers have made this spring have been one of multiple bids, with many properties going over the asking price, and he’s aware of a few recent deals where units have sold for mid-2000s prices. Right now, investors are buying properties and maintaining them as rentals, but he expects by this fall condo conversions will again be in vogue as rising prices make them more profitable.

Jeanne DuBois, executive director of Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation, has noticed the change as well. Her organization specializes in buying up distressed properties restoring them and selling them as affordable homes. They completed more than 20 such projects over the past several years. But lately pickings have been slim. “It’s hard to find suitable properties,” she said. “A lot of speculators have come in and bought up foreclosures. On our last project, we had 12 to 13 [potential homeowners] bid.”

Right now, Dorchester Bay is working with two for-profit developers to acquire additional buildings, which the developers will rehab themselves. Part of the problem for groups like DuBois’ is funding – since the exhaustion of the federal stimulus funds, acquisition money has been tough to come by, a necessity in order to keep the homes affordable for low – or moderate-income homebuyers. “I wish I had a million of my own – I can think of one or two properties right away that I wish we could acquire,” to rehab she said.

But already, her agency is beginning to look ahead, to helping existing homeowners deal with some of the overlooked impacts of the crisis, such as those with properties damaged by too-long-deferred maintenance and neglect. “People who have stayed need help, too,” she said.

Email [email protected]

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 73

III. MA Housing Partnership, June, 2013 Massachusetts Housing Partnership Foreclosure Monitor New law may be part of big distress dip

Experts say banks have slowed foreclosure processing; slowdown similar to 2008, 2010

BOSTON, June 3, 2013 --- A 2012 state law that requires banks to notify borrowers of their rights to pursue a loan modification before foreclosing may be a factor in the precipitous drop in foreclosures in the first quarter of 2013.

Recent news reports trumpeted year-over-year drops in completed foreclosures as evidence that the foreclosure crisis is over. And while rising home sale prices provide hope that the state's housing market has turned a corner, the steep drop may have as much to do with banks slowing down their foreclosure processing, which is similar to what happened in 2008 and 2010 when processing slowdowns by banks caused foreclosure rates to fall dramatically.

This Foreclosure Monitor also includes its usual analysis of gateway communities, gateway community census tracts, City of Boston census tracts, and suburban, rural and higher-income urban communities. This is being done to give policy makers and local leaders a look at what areas are still struggling relative to the state as a whole.

To read the full report, click here.

What is Foreclosure Monitor? Since 2009, MHP and Tim Davis have published Foreclosure Monitor as an ongoing effort to give policy leaders and local officials the latest data on how foreclosures and distressed properties are impacting communities and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For previous reports, check Foreclosure Monitor at www.mhp.net/foreclosuremonitor.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 74

Appendix IV. Public Housing, General Legal Issues, June, 2013 Banker and Tradesman: May 15, 2013 SJC Ruling Could Affect Boston Undergraduate Housing Law

By Colleen M. Sullivan, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

A new ruling from the state's Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) will leave Massachusetts landlords free to let their apartments to as many tenants as they please so long as they provide enough living and bedroom space to meet sanitary codes, legal experts said.

"This is pretty big," said Rich Vetstein, principal of the Vetstein Law Group in Framingham and author of the Massachusetts Real Estate Law blog. "Basically they're saying it's legal to rent to four or more unrelated people in a single dwelling unit provided that it meets the sanitary and building code."

That interpretation would invalidate housing code regulations such as Boston's, which prohibits more than four undergraduates from inhabiting the same apartment, Vetstein said. "This suggests that as long as it meets base [regulations on square footage] which is not very much, the landlords are going to be able to pack people in. Which is exactly what Mayor Menino and the city of Boston have been trying to prevent."

The SJC handed down the ruling Wednesday morning in a case involving a regulation passed by the city of Worcester which defined any apartment inhabited by four or more unrelated tenants as a "lodging house." Lodging houses and other institutional housing like dorms, frats, and half-way houses are subject to more stringent building codes, requiring for example full-building sprinkler systems. In 2009, the city of Worcester cited two apartments owned by College Hill Properties under the law, demanding that the tenants vacate the property.

The Worcester Housing Court and the Appeals Court had both come down in favor of Worcester, fining the landlord. But the SJC reversed the decision and wiped out the fines, saying that there's a clear legal distinction between "lodgings," and apartments, and that using Worcester's interpretation of the Lodging House law would lead to absurd results.

"Construing ‘lodgings' as the city suggests would lead to absurd results and selective enforcement," the court wrote, pointing out that under the city's rules a three-bedroom apartment occupied by four college students would count as "lodgings" while the exact same apartment occupied by five siblings or a seven- member family would not.

"While we recognize that the city seeks to protect student safety, and apparently regards the apartments at issue here as being the equivalent of dormitories, such concerns are better addressed through enforcement of applicable zoning ordinances and provisions of the sanitary and fire safety codes," the judges wrote.

Following a fire in Allston last month which killed a Boston University student and injured nine other tenants, 19 tenants were found to be inhabiting a two-family home. The landlord in that case, Anna Belokurova, was cited by the city's Department of Inspectional Services for improperly converting the basement of the building into living space without permits.

However, according to real estate records provided by The Warren Group, publisher of Banker & Tradesman, the home at 87 Linden St. was assessed as a two-family property with 2,962 square feet of living space and nine bedrooms --- potentially within sanitary code limits, which require 150 square feet of living space for the first tenant, and 100 square feet for each additional person.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 75

IV. Banker and Tradesman, 6-17-13 re: Snob Zoning (Ch. 40B) Snob Repeal? Restrictive Zoning Making Homeownership Nearly Impossible By Scott Van Voorhis, Banker & Tradesman It’s well more than four decades since the Bay State passed a sweeping law meant to bust up snob zoning, but the snobs and their warped zoning are still with us. In fact, if anything, the housing snobs have gotten even snobbier, bent on zoning out not just subsidized apartments, but even more modestly priced homes attractive to middle class families with children. The price for this insanely restrictive zoning is plain to see, with Massachusetts home prices gone wild again, spawning legions of frustrated buyers and revived concerns about a brain drain. Now hopefully two new reports, one an exposé of New England’s dirty little zoning secret, the other an analysis of the pitiful state of housing construction in our state, will put our local housing snobs on the hot seat once again.” These local barriers to home construction artificially limit supply and unnecessarily drive up the cost of a new home beyond the reach of the average family,” said Mike McDowell, president of the Home Builders Association of Massachusetts. Massachusetts lawmakers first tried to put an end to snob zoning in the late 1960s, back when revelations were just starting to surface about redlining and attempts by white suburbs to keep minority homeowners and renters out of town. 40B A-OK. The Legislature put its foot down in 1969, passing Chapter 40B. The act gives builders with plans to include subsidized homes or apartments in their projects the power to make an end run around local zoning rules. The only way a town or city can avoid triggering this penalty is to reach a point where 10 percent of all the homes and apartments in town are deemed “affordable.” But the quotas, as farseeing as they were at the time, apparently have done little to expunge the fear, hate and paranoia that lurk in the hearts of too many suburban homeowners and local town board potentates. In “Snob Zones,” New York Times real estate reporter Lisa Prevost takes an unflinching look at some of the ugly fears that all too often drive opposition to new housing across New England. In Massachusetts, Prevost focuses on Easton. The upscale town next to Brockton rejected cottage-style homes, with neighborhood opponents arguing the 1,000-square-foot homes would create a “mini ghetto” and a “glorified trailer park.” No matter that the developer had hoped to sell the market-rate units for $250,000 to $340,000. “ Even though the workforce housing of today bears no resemblance to the public housing high-rises of the past – the poster child being Chicago’s notoriously crime-ridden Cabrini-Green – local opposition is still one of the greatest impediments to its construction,” Prevost writes. Having covered real estate locally for many years myself, I can recall more than a few scenes like that over the years. I still can’t get out of my head the soccer mom at a town meeting in the western suburbs who said she was “terrified” by the prospect of rental housing being built in her comfortable suburb. Renters and their broods would come and go in revolving door fashion, creating chaos and confusion in the classroom, she pleaded. Nor has the old 40B law been enough to dismantle all those devilishly ingenuous barriers to housing construction that towns across Massachusetts just keep throwing up. The fact is, even with 40B, the housing shortage – and the pressure that it is putting on home prices and rents – is only growing worse. Just check out of some of these numbers the Home Builders Association of Massachusetts recently put out. While the economy has been on the mend in Massachusetts for the past four years, new home construction has remained flat, skidding along at anemic levels. The low point came in 2011, when builders pulled just 4,899 single-family permits, the lowest amount ever recorded for the state. The average has been just 5,300 new homes per year, HBAM reports. That’s a far cry from the 1980s, when builders were regularly pulling permits for 24,000 new homes each year. And guess what? We were hardly a hotspot for housing construction even then, with the number of homes built across Massachusetts in the 1980s about average nationally, according to the builders group. Enough is enough. It’s time to ditch snob zoning once and for all or face a future in which homeownership in Massachusetts becomes a millionaires’ club. Scott Van Voorhis can be reached at [email protected]

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 76

Appendix V. Work with Others, June, 2013 Banker and Tradesman, April 8, 2013 Menino Had Detractors, But Not In Housing Sector; Affordable Housing Proponents Think Mayor’s Legacy Will Live On

By Colleen M. Sullivan, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

Affordable housing advocates around the city are losing one of their staunchest friends with the departure of Boston Mayor Tom Menino. But many feel that the changes he’s made to how the city treats housing at all income levels will help ensure their voices are heard, no matter who replaces him.

Housing was always one of the top priorities for the Menino administration. “Nationally, Tom Menino was known as ‘the housing mayor,’” said Roger Herzog, executive director of the Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation, which helps finance housing projects statewide. “He played leadership roles at the U.S. Conference of Mayors [with regard to housing]. The work that was going on in Boston was a really a model for the rest of the country.”

During his tenure, Menino twice increased the “linkage” fees paid by developers who build in Boston, which fund the Neighborhood Housing Trust, one of the main sources of funding for affordable housing developments across the city. Developers now have to pay $7.87 per square foot of new development to the trust.

Menino also launched a “Leading the Way” initiative in 2000 to bolster Boston’s housing stock. Over the next decade, the city saw the development of 20,473 new units, including 6,377 new affordable units, and the preservation of 12,611 existing affordable units.

Boston’s Money, Mayor’s Mouth

He was also willing to put the city’s money where his mouth was. “One of the biggest things that he did was invest approximately $5 million a year of city resources into affordable housing,” said Evelyn Friedman, who directed the city’s Department of Neighborhood Development from 2008 to 2012 and now serves as executive director at the Greater Lawrence Community Action Council.

“Many cities just use federal housing dollars, and don’t put their own resources into affordable housing programs,” Friedman explained. “The city dollars were able to plug holes we might not have been otherwise able to plug. The feds require that if you commit to a project, those funds have to be used within a couple of years. Sometimes it takes a little longer for the more tricky projects.”

She pointed to the revitalization of Mission Hill and the ongoing projects in Dudley and Jackson squares in Roxbury as highlights of the mayor’s efforts in neighborhood economic and housing development.

Chrystal Kornegay, chief executive of Urban Edge, a community development corporation (CDC) based in Jackson Square, which has been one of the major forces driving the $250-million redevelopment of the area, said she was confident that even in a post-Menino era, neighborhoods like the one she serves will still get their due from the city.

“I think the commonwealth, as well as the city of Boston, has always been committed to affordable housing development,” she said. “The mayor leaves a legacy that shows what can happen in a city if you pay attention to the neighborhoods. So I don’t think that the next person coming in will just throw all of that away. I’m more concerned about our funding from the federal level than, once it gets to the city, whether they’re going to continue to fund the neighborhoods.”

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 77

Federal Funding In Jeopardy

That echoed the assessment of many in the CDC world, said Joe Kriesberg, presideqwnt and CEO of the Massachusetts Association of CDCs. “Menino deserves a lot of credit for establishing a precedent that would be very difficult for any successor to ignore or reverse,” he said. “He has baked into the system a strong affordable housing and community agenda.”

Housing advocated will have to hope that embedded support is sufficient to continue the ambitious development agenda Menino announced in the waning days of his tenure. Mere days before announcing his decision not to run for re-election, he announced an initiative to develop a further 30,000 units of new housing in the city by 2010.

Making sure that affordable housing makes up a fair chunk of that may be more difficult in the coming years than it was over the past decade. Looming federal budget cuts are already having a strong impact on CDCs’ abilities to fund new projects, and especially to preserve existing units as affordable. As the housing market in the city heats up, more units will come under pressure from developers seeking to buy them up and transform them into market rate housing.

“Given the very hot real estate market in the city, a top priority has been to preserve every affordable unit that we have, and the city has stayed focused on it like a laser,” said Herzog. “The mayor has a lot to say about the kinds of projects and the types of developers that are going to be able to succeed. The CDCs have had a great ally in the mayor, and that certainly could be different in a different administration.”

If it is, it would be a widely-felt loss, said Friedman. The mayor’s focus on housing “made a huge difference in the neighborhoods. It doesn’t matter if it was in Mattapan, Southie, Roxbury, Charlestown – everybody sees them as their local mayor,” she said. She recalled touring a newly-completed development in Dorchester with him some years ago. “It was about two or three o’clock, and a bunch of kids were just getting off the bus – and as soon as they saw him, they came running. ‘It’s Menino! Menino!’ They were about six years old and they all knew who he was.” Email: [email protected]

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 78

V. Boston Globe: The City after Mayor Menino 6-16-13 As Mayor Menino departs, there’s work left to do,

By Casey Ross, | Globe Staff, June 16, 2013

As Mayor Thomas M. Menino prepares to leave office, towering buildings are rising from Downtown Crossing to the Fenway, new companies, retailers, and residents are flocking to the city, and a new neighborhood is rising along the burgeoning South Boston Waterfront. Boston is a city transformed.

But the work of its reinvention is far from complete. The next administration faces the task of building on Menino’s successes while putting its own stamp on projects and policies to make the city more livable, vibrant, and accommodating to new ideas, services, and people.

“We’re at a point where Boston is changing rapidly,” said Ronald Perry, head of brokerage at the real estate firm Colliers International. “It’s not just that office and residential buildings are under construction, we’re also getting new workers, companies, and amenities that are giving the city a different feel.”

Here are some of the crucial development issues facing Boston as it prepares to elect its first new leader in 20 years — a transition that coincides with a growing economy, an influx of young newcomers, and the introduction of new technologies that are not only making transformation possible, but also inevitable.

Family housing. Downtown Boston’s fastest growing demographic is not single professionals or empty nesters, but families with children. The population of children under 18 living downtown jumped 25 percent between 2000 and 2010, according to the US Census.

Menino’s most visible legacy might be the revitalization of the South Boston Waterfront. While that growth is a sign of the city’s increasing safety and convenience, it is also exacerbating a shortage of family- sized housing. The hundreds of high-rise homes under construction are stratospherically priced — $3,000 a month or more for a one-bedroom apartment — and most are too small for families.

“The demand for family housing in Boston’s core neighborhoods is growing and it will continue to grow,” said Barry Bluestone, director of the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University. “But the supply of that housing is almost impossible to augment at prices that these families can afford.”

The high cost of construction downtown leaves developers with little choice but to build either luxury units or government subsidized low-income housing. Middle class families get left out. Menino has launched an effort to moderate prices by building 30,000 new homes in Boston by 2020, but it will be up to his successor to ensure the city meets that target and begins to provide more affordable options for middle class families, as well as young newcomers and graduate students.

Detaching from the automobile. Boston’s transportation system is changing faster than it has since the invention of the automobile — a conveyance Menino has tried to chase off the city’s streets by building bike lanes, promoting mass transit, and making it harder and more expensive to park.

But the process Menino has initiated to detach Boston from the automobile is a long one, and his successor will have to navigate competing interests to address issues such as parking, expansion of public transit, and the rapid growth of car- and bike-sharing services. Among the most outdated systems is Boston’s regulation of the cab industry, which tacitly allows cabs to block the introduction of easy-to-use upstarts such as Uber, a service that allows consumers to order cars using a cellphone app.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 79

“The goal should be to allow people to get the services they want with a minimum amount of hassle,” said Marc Draisen, executive director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. “We still have an 1890s system in the 21st century, and we’ve got to find a better way to do it.” The next administration must also address the conflict between cars and the increasing number of bicycles. Draisen said the city should consider putting up barriers to protect bike lanes to make travel safer.

And then there’s public transit. Menino has successfully pressed for new bus and train services, and is now pursuing new ferry service to connect South Boston, East Boston, and Charlestown. But the city also faces the urgent need to expand and redesign South Station. While much of the decision-making is controlled by the state, the next mayor must be a strong voice to advance the project, and make sure it works for the city.

A rising downtown. After a long decline, Boston’s downtown is bursting with development again. Construction has resumed on the long-stalled Filene’s project of offices, homes, and stores, and developers are proposing residential, hotel, and on office high-rises near Government Center and the West End. As new peaks hit the skyline, the next mayor should also focus on their connection to city streets, where new civic spaces and retail options are needed to bring people and life to Boston’s center.

“Downtown is the core of old Boston, and I don’t want it to become a bunch of glass towers,” said Pam Messenger, a member of the downtown Business Improvement District, which helps plan enhancements to the area. “It’s got a unique street pattern and mix of old and new architecture, and that should be celebrated.”

So far, the redevelopment looks promising in that regard. The developer of the Filene’s block, for example, is attempting to restore the original 1912 store, the last great work of the celebrated architect Daniel Burnham. But much of the downtown’s success will hinge on its mix of retailers. The Menino administration has attracted new restaurants and shops, but has also faced criticism for some decisions, such as allowing an upscale version of Walgreens to open in a prime storefront at the corner of School and Washington streets.

Public art. Boston has many bronzed men on horseback and sports figures cast in their full glory. But it continues to lack a consistently funded program that would allow artists to enliven public spaces with new lighting, sculptures, and other works of art.

Cities such as Chicago and Seattle require property developers to contribute a percentage of their project costs to support public art, infusing those cities with fresh exhibits that capture public attention, if not adoration. Despite support from Menino, Boston’s efforts to create a reliable mechanism to fund public art projects have fallen short, resulting in bland boulevards and parks that should be showcases for local artists.

New installations are being planned by the city and some developers in the Fort Point, Roxbury, and Back Bay neighborhoods, but arts commission members say the lack of a consistent focus on such projects has left the city unable to evolve beyond its mix of statues and fountains. “Boston is still stuck somewhere between moving forward, and honoring the past,” said Lynne Kortenhaus, a member of the city’s arts commission.

Building on the water. Perhaps Menino’s most visible legacy will be the revitalization of the South Boston Waterfront. The former industrial enclave, renamed the Innovation District by Menino, is bursting with development and attracting companies from Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. to the branding and apparel company Life is good. Developers and environmental advocates are now turning their attention to other sections of the waterfront that remain underused.

“East Boston and Dorchester are the undiscovered jewels along Boston Harbor,” said Vivien Li, president of the Boston Harbor Association, which lobbies for expanded public access to the water. “The next mayor could really make an impact by focusing on those parts of the waterfront.” That means getting the ear of lenders, talking up investment opportunities, and investing in parks, transportation, and other public works that attract private dollars.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 80

East Boston has long been touted as Boston’s next big real estate opportunity, but rebuilding efforts have languished, despite upgrades at Maverick Square, including a new MBTA station, and efforts to create a network of green space linking parks from Constitution Beach to Jeffries Point.

Dorchester is attracting new housing options around the water, but it still lacks retail establishments that could make it a more vibrant destination. A dramatic change could come if the University of Massachusetts Boston builds its first on-campus dormitories, which would create 24-hour foot traffic in the area.

A new economic engine: Dudley Square. Finally.

Dudley Square, the commercial heart of Roxbury, is beginning to see the transformation officials have talked about for years. The redevelopment of the long vacant Ferdinand Building is underway, with construction of new offices for the Boston School Department and retail space for new shops and a Tropical Foods supermarket.

Half a dozen other projects are on the drawing board, including a massive housing, retail, and cultural complex across from the Boston Police Headquarters that would link the South End and up-and-coming Dudley. But there is plenty left to do, including redeveloping largely vacant parcels along Melnea Cass Boulevard, and transforming the old Bartlett Yard bus lot into a housing and retail complex.

Neighborhood leaders say they will continue to push for development that brings a broad mix of amenities, from market-rate housing, to boutique hotels, to locally-owned shops and restaurants. But the key to advancing the area’s revitalization, they say, will be a mayor who promotes the opportunities in Dudley Square with the same enthusiasm as the South Boston Waterfront.

“We need to make sure Roxbury becomes a destination point for people,” said Darnell Williams, chief executive of the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts. “The next mayor needs to be just as supportive of that mix of uses coming to Roxbury.” Casey Ross can be reached at [email protected].

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 81

V. Testimony of Mary Jo Meisner at Governor’s Housing Summit June 5, 2013

Good afternoon everyone. My name is Mary Jo Meisner. I am Vice President for Communications and Public Affairs at the Boston Foundation, and prior to coming to the foundation in 2001, I spent 25 years in the newspaper business as a reporter, an editor and an executive at daily metro newspapers and newspaper companies around the country, including here in Boston where I ran the former Community Newspaper Co. when it was owned by Fidelity. So I guess Greg and Larry thought I might know a bit about communications and asked me to kick off this discussion about how we are going to raise the visibility of the housing needs and initiatives that the Governor feels are front and center right now.

I’m game to try. But before we go forward, I think it’s important to quickly revisit the recent past – at least from the perspective of those of us who have been plowing those fields over the last 10 years – because in some ways the communications issues and themes remain the same and in others—as we heard this morning, particularly from Tim Reardon and as we prominently explored in last year’s Greater Boston Housing Report Card – they are some changes underway that give us some new themes to work with. At the end of the day, we all want and should be on the same page as to what we should be communicating in order to success in getting what we desire.

As you all probably know, the Boston Foundation is the convener of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force, a coalition of business, real estate, housing advocate and civic leaders which came together in the wake of the split within the housing and business community after the Community Preservation Act disagreements of more than 10 years ago. At that time, Paul Grogan was the relatively new president of the foundation. He came to it with deep interests and expertise in housing and economic development, and a new vision for the foundation to help lead on policy issues and as an active civic leader. That’s what we’ve been trying to do ever since.

In 2002, we asked Barry Bluestone, who had done groundbreaking work on the so-called Cardinal’s report – A New Paradigm for Housing in Greater Boston – to pick up the important threads of that initial research that he published in 2000 and do a new foundational housing production report to let us know where things stood after the battle over CPA. He has been doing the Greater Boston Housing Report Card for us and CHAPA every year since. Last year was its 10th anniversary. At the 2003 forum at which we unveiled this important new benchmarking tool for the first time, Paul used the occasion to call for a consensus housing agenda and shortly after that CHTF was born.

As you know, it was designed to take a new approach on housing issues, bringing an economic competitiveness lens to an issue that often got discussed in terms of low-income affordable housing – certainly an issue that the Foundation cared about deeply and made major financial investments in helping solve, but which wasn’t sufficient by itself to grapple with the severe supply and demand imbalance that had started to strangle our state’s economic growth and our ability to attract and retain professional workers, young people and a new wave of immigrants from abroad. And as we expanded the housing conversation in the Commonwealth to focus on those issues, we also determined that we needed to get beyond the cast of “usual suspects” that went to the State House to advocate for legislative change and resources. Not that we didn’t love the traditional housing advocates, but we needed to talk as well about a whole new category of housing and housing tools that weren’t part of the usual repertoire. Thus was born CHTF, with its diverse membership and interests that reflected the employer community, those who needed to find and keep the workforce for their companies and organizations – doctors, nurses, professors, engineers, technologists, researchers – the professions that fueled the Knowledge Economy that was started to emerge and solidify in Massachusetts.

And from it came our brand of tools – 40R and 40S – that were designed to help create a new type of zoning for a new form of smart growth housing in town centers and along transit lines, with incentives to make it easier for communities to do the right thing, build high-quality attractive housing that would

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 82 add to their property values and tax rolls, and not throw their school costs or infrastructure needs out of whack.

Everything I just said in the last couple of paragraphs were the communication frames and themes and tactics of our multi-year campaign. Economic competitiveness, middle-income housing, talent retention, high quality/attractive housing stock, town center vitality and ease of commute, giving our adult children reasons to stay in Massachusetts, an insurance policy against rising school costs. We got editorial and opinion page interest and support in the Globe and other regional dailies. And we worked the community newspapers town-by-town, with the same cadre of CHTFers who went out to make Town Meeting pitches, talk to planning departments (or people as the case may be) and community groups. It was hand-to-hand combat – in the face of the NIMBYism that pervades Massachusetts and its town meeting culture.

And for a while it worked. We got the legislation done. The Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund capitalized. 33 districts zoned as of right. 1400 units built. And then the Great Recession changed everything, for everybody, not just the housing markets.

We’ve all been waiting for this day to come. The economy to a great extent has come back, housing market is turning and this is the time to build new housing. And to a degree that we kept talking about throughout the Great Recession, the housing market has turned to such an extent in many communities that we are right back, smack dab in the same or similar soup that started us off on the Workforce Housing front in the first place. Housing supply/demand imbalance, rental costs soaring, employers not able to retain and recruit because of housing costs overall. And the Not In My Back Yard crowd rearing its head again.

As a communications expert, I posit that we have some of the same themes and messages that we want to highlight and exploit. I just went through them. But, also remember what Tim Reardon told you. We need a communications strategy that plays off those demographic changes as well. We played this out in the 2012 Housing Report Card but we haven’t yet taken it to the messaging stage and now it’s time to do it. This new kind of housing doesn’t destroy your community, it protects your community.

We heard today that we need about the new demographics and the different kind of housing stock. These new projections tell us that people in market looking for new housing, not necessarily looking for single- family homes. Baby Boomers want to down size BUT stay in place where they are now. And there are many children of these Baby Boomers who may have been raised in these communities and would like to be in these communities but don’t want to be in their parents homes and can’t afford them anyway. They want to be in village centers. Near transportation lines that go to their jobs. And they don’t have a lot of kids yet.

The old argument that we don’t want to do multi-family housing because it will attract those other people, the people they are scared about changing the character of the community, doesn’t fly. In many cases, these people are already residents of these communities. They want the kind of housing that the Governor is talking about – multi-family housing. ((Everything but the single-family detached house –low-rise townhouses, multi-unit townhouse, duplexes, accessory apartments in new homes and apartments). That’s what people are going to be wanting in the next 10 years and they want to live in them in the communities where they are now, not move somewhere else in many cases. Not everyone is downsizing from the suburbs to the Back Bay or the South End or the Seaport.

So what we need is communications/media strategy to convince people in our cities and towns that multi- family housing – among all of the other themes that continue to be important -- will allow them to provide housing for their own citizens. That is the product that doesn’t exist and in most communities can’t be built – precisely the product that their own citizens want.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 83

And you want to provide housing for the younger folks, including the kids who grew up in your communities and want to stay there – who are in the mid-20s and 30s, many of whom are the work force that our growing sectors and industries need. They are what attract business and property tax base to the community. We know that business is looking for well-trained workers. Where are they going to live? And how are they going to afford it? The kind of multi-family rental units and condominiums in the communities near their work and the transit lines.

From the point of view of housing your aging citizens and young people who you want to attract to your community, the housing stock you currently have is not appropriate. The demographics are driving a new demand for new kind of housing.

The second audience is developers. They need to see the data – the demographic projections that we’ve shown – that in fact in most of these communities, including most of the 40R communities – there are aging Baby Boomers who are going to want that type of housing in their own communities – denser, compact, multi-unit housing. Some of it is low-rise townhouses, some of it is apartments.

We need to change peoples’ cognitive maps of what their communities are going to look like. They have a map of the way it is now. And they have a map of what they fear. We need to create new maps of what these new communities that will serve these changing demographic interests will look like -- clusters of well-designed, high-quality village-like settings along transit lines and in town centers. Attractive well- maintained housing with character. Not sprawling industrial looking large complexes. Moving in this direction provides a future for these communities. Strengthening their futures with a strong tax base and good public services.

If you want a dystopian image – all of these folks, aging Baby Boomers who don’t want these homes anymore, but because there is nothing to look for in their communities, they begin to abandon these communities and it becomes boarded-up Detroit. By 2030, there are projections of four million surplus single-family homes in the US. Who’s going to want to buy and can afford to buy a $600,000 home in the suburbs? No young person is going to do that that I know. And as we improve city schools, more of these young people are going to want to stay in the city.

Let’s turn NIMBYism on its head and potentially frame it that way. You do not want people in your back yard that are already there. You do not want young workers. We want to replace NIMBY with SIMBY – Stay In My Back Yard. And then make way for the new young worker force – CIMBY Come Into My Back Yard.

So our job is to come up with our best arguments – I’ve tried to give you some that I think will work, have worked in the past. What are the audiences we want to reach? I’ve similarly made suggestions. Are those the right ones? Who should be making these arguments? And how do we do it? What’s the media and communications tactical strategy?

Thanks for your attention.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 84

V. Notes from Elder Stakeholders Q1 Meeting 2-21-13 The next Elder Stakeholders’ meeting will be held on Thursday, May 16th at 9:30 a.m. Below please find the notes from the Q1 meeting.

Q1 Meeting Notes - Attendees: Darcey Adams, Jean Patel Bushnell, Jen Carter, Jayne Colino, Barbara Farnsworth, Lillian Glickman, Bob Green, John Polanowicz, Erin McAleer, Linda Fitzgerald, Mike Festa, Martina Jackson, Ken Smith, Emily Meyer, Emily Shea, Gene Mazzella, Joanne Moore Scott Plumb, Jim Wessler, Lisa Gurgone, James Fuccione, Carolyn Villers, Stan Eichner, Ann Hartstein, Catherine Hardaway, Diane Paulson, Bridget Dunn, Wynn Gerhard, and Jessica Costantino

EOHHS Secretary John Polanowicz Secretary Ann Hartstein introduced Secretary Polanowicz. Attendees introduced themselves and shared their top policy issues for his consideration. He gave a brief overview of his priorities for EOHHS which include health care access and quality and related long term care services and the revenue to pay for these.

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

Legislative Studies Update:  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

 There was a robust discuss about the impact of changes to fares and service on the MBTA, especially the RIDE. Next Meeting – Thursday, May 16th at 9:30 a.m.

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

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 85

V. Notes from Elder Stakeholders Meeting Q2 5-16-13

The next Elder Stakeholders’ meeting will be held on Thursday, August 15th at 9:30 a.m.

Below please find the notes from the Q2 meeting of May 16, 2013.

Q1 Meeting Notes -

Attendees: Ann Hartstein, Peter Tiernan, Ellen Feingold, James Fuccione, Emily Shea, Catherine Hardaway, Linda George, Allie Esielonis, Jayne Colino, Joan Cirillo, Deb Thomson, Elissa Sherman, Dale Mitchell, Diane Paulson, Wynn Gerhard, Jen Carter, Jim Wessler, Carolyn Villers, Gene Mazella, Martina Jackson, Siobhan Coyle, Susan Kasle, Mike Festa and Jessica Costantino

FY14 Budget Priorities:  Prescription Advantage – likely to be in deficit; the $360,000 SHINE earmark will reduce the funding level; seeking a budget amendment  Home Care – no waiting list if Senate budget recommendations hold  Bed Hold – payment reduced from $80/day to $40/day  Protective Services – fully funded

Legislative Studies Update:  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; report should be out soon

 Carolyn Villers spoke about a budget amendment that would implement a sliding scale for fees for paratransit services on the MBTA & RTAs.

Money Follows the Person  RFA still in process; no regional coordinators; only transitional coordinators – they will work with case managers;  current enrollment is approximately 300;  waivers have been granted;  rates are under consideration

Sequestration & MA Impact  Most of the conversation focused on senior Housing impacted;  BHA has eliminated all service coordinator positions  Stakeholders are interested in more info on impact across all programs and services statewide, including legal services, CAP programs, ADRCs, SCECP, and other programs funded by OAA  AARP will share pertinent information in a separate email

Telemedicine, technology

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report March 30, 2013 Page 86

 EOEA has been receiving more requests for telemedicine related products, services and automation from vendors: if you are receiving requests, contact EOEA  Elissa Sherman shared info about a national group dealing with aging services technology: http://www.leadingage.org/cast.aspx  James Fuccione mentioned that approximately 40 agencies are using telehealth and there is a budget amendment to address payment for these services

Other  MCOA will recognize Sandy Albright (retiring on 6/20) with a lifetime achievement award  Mike Festa recognized Sandy’s work and the entire group acknowledged her contributions  Susan Kasle of MAOA informed the group that geriatric mental health was not funded in the FY14 budget proposals  Catherine Hardaway informed the group that May is Older Americans Month and Central Boston serves 18 100+ year old elders  Boston Centenarian Society event at the State House on 5/24  Dale Mitchell informed the group that the LGBT Aging Project will be formally part of the work of the Fenway Health Center

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