DOCSLIB.ORG

RAPPAPORT POLICY BRIEFS Instituterappaport for Greater Boston INSTITUTE Kennedy Schoolfor of Government, Greater Harvard University Boston November 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
RAPPAPORT POLICY BRIEFS Instituterappaport for Greater Boston INSTITUTE Kennedy Schoolfor of Government, Greater Harvard University Boston November 2008 RAPPAPORT POLICY BRIEFS InstituteRAPPAPORT for Greater Boston INSTITUTE Kennedy Schoolfor of Government, Greater Harvard University Boston November 2008 Reviewing Chapter 40B: What Gets Proposed, What Gets Approved, What Gets Appealed, and What Gets Built? By Lynn Fisher, Department of Urban Studies and Planning and Center for Real Estate, MIT For almost 40 years, Chapter 40B, Until now, it has been impossible to Rappaport Institute Policy Briefs are short a unique Massachusetts law, has answer such questions because no overviews of new scholarly research on allowed developers to circumvent one had collected comprehensive data important issues facing the region. This brief is based on “Chapter 40B Permitting local land-use regulations for housing on both built and unbuilt projects. and Litigation: A Report by the Housing Aff ordability Initiative,” a working paper projects that include subsidized units To fi ll this gap, in 2007 and 2008 published by MIT’s Center for Real Estate that in communities that lack such housing. we contacted offi cials in 144 cities is available online at http://www.mit.edu/ cre/research/hai/pdf/40B-report_fi sher_07- Given well-documented restrictions and towns surrounding the city of 0618.pdf. Funding for this research was that many communities impose on Boston to explore their community’s provided by a variety of sources, including the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston. multifamily housing, Chapter 40B— experiences with the law between offi cially known as Massachusetts 1999 and 2005. We ultimately Lynn Fisher 1 Comprehensive Permit Law —has received responses from offi cials in Lynn Fisher is an Associate Professor of Real become the primary tool for building all but two of those communities and Estate in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP) at MIT and at the MIT multi-family development projects information on 404 separate projects Center for Real Estate. in the state. This, in turn, has made in 115 cities and towns. The survey the law extremely controversial results showed that: Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston and led to repeated but thus far The Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston • While about 90 percent of the aims to improve the region’s governance unsuccessful attempts to either repeal by fostering better connections between or substantially modify it. proposed projects ultimately scholars, policy-makers, and civic leaders. The Rappaport Institute was founded and funded were approved, only 62 percent by the Jerome Lyle Rappaport Charitable Because Chapter 40B is so important had obtained building permits Foundation, which promotes emerging leaders in Greater Boston. for multi-family housing production by the second quarter of 2008. © 2008 by the President and Fellows of and because 40B projects often Harvard College. The contents refl ect the are controversial, it is critical to • More than 80 percent of projects views of the authors (who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the research understand how the law actually were initially approved at herein) and do not represent the offi cial views or policies of the Rappaport Institute . works in practice. Which projects are the local level and, for over 80 percent of these approved Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston built with little controversy, which John F. Kennedy School of Government are substantially delayed, and which projects, developers did not 79 JFK Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 495-5091 never get built? How much time does challenge the conditions of the Email: [email protected] the process take? How litigious is the approvals. As of September http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/rappaport process? What infl uence, if any, does 2008 developers had received the process have on the design and building permits for about 75 location of the projects that ultimately percent of these projects. get built? • Overall, developers appealed 28 percent of the local decisions on applications. As of the fall Reviewing Chapter 40B RAPPAPORT INTITUTE POLICY BRIEFS of 2008 developers had not started other development. It could also prompt construction on over 50 percent of unanticipated behavior, like local support of the projects that had secured modifi ed subsidized housing rehabilitation as a means approvals. of reaching the affordable housing goals established in Chapter 40B. • At least 12 percent of all applications were the subject of lawsuits challenging Background on Chapter 40B state or local approvals of those projects. Chapter 40B has two key components. • Rental projects built on the law’s First, it allows both for-profi t and non-profi t provisions were much larger, much developers (as well as public entities) to seek a denser, and more likely to be challenged single comprehensive permit from a locality’s than homeownership projects. Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for projects in which 25 percent of the units are permanently • On average, it took local governments 10 subsidized at levels that make them affordable months to make a decision on proposed for households that make less than 80 percent projects and, for built projects, on of the median household income for the area average it took about an additional year (or, in the case of rental projects, where 20 before developers received a building percent of the units are permanently affordable permit that allowed them to start work for households with incomes that are no more on an approved project. than half the area’s median household income). • Projects that received comprehensive Second, in communities where less than 10 permits after 2004 were less likely to percent of the housing units are in projects have been built. Anecdotal evidence with permanently subsidized units, developers suggests this may due to both the may appeal the local ZBA’s decision on their downturn in the housing market and the comprehensive permit applications to the fact that some of those projects are still Housing Appeals Committee (HAC), a state- being challenged in court by abutters level administrative court.2 In reviewing the and other opponents. appeals, the HAC does not have to allow unlimited density or discretion in project Building on these initial fi ndings, research is now underway to explore the quality of More than 80 percent of projects location afforded by Chapter 40B housing, and to describe who lives in these housing units. were initially approved at the Future work is also needed to investigate the local level and, for over 80 potential for indirect impacts of Chapter 40B percent of these approved on other residential outcomes. For example, projects, developers did not because we expect developers, local offi cials, challenge the conditions of and others affected by new development to the approvals. behave strategically, the prospect of 40B projects could encourage more permissive design. However, it must allow developers to local rules (or their enforcement) with build at densities and with designs suffi cient respect to non-40B housing development, to ensure that the proposed project is or it could produce retrenchment against “economically viable.” 2 Reviewing Chapter 40B RAPPAPORT INTITUTE POLICY BRIEFS Over time, the law has become the major over the threshold before 1999, 12 more passed source of new, permanently subsidized housing it by 2005, and 16 more had exceeded it by in greater Boston. The 2006 “Greater Boston 2008.6 Housing Report Card,” for example, estimated that between 2002 and 2005, over half of new The initial survey yielded data on 369 projects subsidized units in greater Boston – and more in 95 cities and towns. Follow-up work done in than 70 percent of the subsidized units built 2008, yielded information on 35 more projects outside of the city of Boston proper – were in 20 communities. Combined, the two efforts produced via the 40B process.3 Consequently, have produced data on 404 proposals in 115 the law has become increasingly controversial, communities (as well as confi rmation that particularly in communities where it has been during the study period, no 40B projects were 7 used to build substantial amounts of new, proposed in another 27 communities). relatively dense, multi-family housing.4 The surveys asked for information in the three As a result of such construction, the number main areas: and type of communities that exceed the 10 • The timing of Chapter 40B percent threshold has grown and changed. comprehensive permit applications; In 1997, 328 of the state’s 351 cities and towns did not meet the 10 percent threshold • The nature of projects proposed and that would exempt them from HAC review. granted in comprehensive permits; Moreover, most of the 23 communities that exceeded the 10 percent threshold were • Whether projects were appealed to the older cities that were home to the state’s HAC or involved in other litigation, and poorest residents, such as Boston, Chelsea, the outcomes of HAC appeals. Brockton, Lawrence, and Lowell. By 2005, 39 communities exceeded the 10 percent In addition, we collected data on the nature threshold, a fi gure that increased to 55 and relative success of applications for projects communities by September 2008. Many (but with owner-occupied units and those with rental not all) the newer additions to the list were units, the location of proposed projects, and the in the fast-growing areas near the region’s actual number of affordable units generated via two ring highways (I-95/128 and I-495), the 40B permitting process. such as Andover, Canton, Framingham, and Marlborough.5 For-profi t developers Research Design organized as limited dividend companies in order to engage Despite 40-B’s growing importance, there in the 40B process submitted has been little systematic research on how the 338 of the 369 comprehensive law works in practice. To fi ll that gap, in 2007 permits identifi ed in our we contacted offi cials in 144 cities and towns original survey.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 Application of Comcast Corporation, General Electric Company
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 Application of Comcast Corporation, ) General Electric Company and NBC ) Universal, Inc., for Consent to Assign ) MB Docket No. 10-56 Licenses or Transfer Control of ) Licenses ) COMMENTS AND MERGER CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNICATIONS DEMOCRACY James N. Horwood Gloria Tristani Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 879-4000 June 21, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PEG PROGRAMMING IS ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVING LOCALISM AND DIVERSITY ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY, IS VALUED BY VIEWERS, AND MERITS PROTECTION IN COMMISSION ACTION ON THE COMCAST-NBCU TRANSACTION .2 II. COMCAST CONCEDES THE RELEVANCE OF AND NEED FOR IMPOSING PEG-RELATED CONDITIONS ON THE TRANSFER, BUT THE PEG COMMITMENTS COMCAST PROPOSES ARE INADEQUATE 5 A. PEG Merger Condition No.1: As a condition ofthe Comcast­ NBCU merger, Comcast should be required to make all PEG channels on all ofits cable systems universally available on the basic service tier, in the same format as local broadcast channels, unless the local government specifically agrees otherwise 8 B. PEG Merger Condition No.2: As a merger condition, the Commission should protect PEG channel positions .,.,.,.. ., 10 C. PEG Merger Condition No.3: As a merger condition, the Commission should prohibit discrimination against PEG channels, and ensure that PEG channels will have the same features and functionality, and the same signal quality, as that provided to local broadcast channels .,., ., ..,.,.,.,..,., ., ., .. .,11 D. PEG Merger Condition No.4: As a merger condition, the Commission should require that PEG-related conditions apply to public access, and that all PEG programming is easily accessed on menus and easily and non-discriminatorily accessible on all Comcast platforms ., 12 CONCLUSION 13 EXHIBIT 1 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Transpo Transcript.Indd
    October 2013 Using Technology to Improve Transportation: All Electronic-Tolling and Beyond Transcript Introduction customer-facing and most customer- Underinvestment has put pressure on focused of all government services. STEVE POFTAK: Thanks to all of transportation providers to improve service. Trust in government is another aspect Fiscal pressures have limited the resources you for coming today and joining us. available to make those improvements. of transportation. And technology is a I’d also like to thank our partners who Technology off ers the opportunity to way for us to show our customers that leverage smaller investments by improving have put this together: Joseph Giglio customer services, enhancing operating we can improve their experience. from the Center for Strategic Studies effi ciencies, and increasing revenue. at the D’Amore-McKim School of I think the gold standard in our To explore the potential of new technologies to make transportation Business at Northeastern University business is giving more time back work more effi ciently, faster, and safer, the and Greg Massing at the Rappaport to people. Whether it’s standing on conference “Using Technology to Improve Transportation: All-Electronic Tolling and Center for Law and Public Service at a platform at Alewife or standing in Beyond” was held on May 7, 2013 at the Suffolk University. line at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, Suff olk University Law School. it is giving people more time back. Here in Massachusetts, we’ve just The Conference was co-sponsored by The Technology holds tremendous promise Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, The gone through another round of Center for Strategic Studies at the D’Amore- to accomplish these goals that we have legislative and executive branch McKim School of Business at Northeastern in transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • RAPPAPORT POLICY BRIEFS Instituterappaport for Greater Boston INSTITUTE Kennedy Schoolfor of Government, Greater Harvard University Boston June 2008
    RAPPAPORT POLICY BRIEFS InstituteRAPPAPORT for Greater Boston INSTITUTE Kennedy Schoolfor of Government, Greater Harvard University Boston June 2008 Reducing Youth Violence: Lessons from the Boston Youth Survey By Renee M. Johnson, Deborah Azrael, Mary Vriniotis, and David Hemenway, Harvard School of Public Health In Boston, as in many other cities, aggressive behavior, assault, weapon Rappaport Institute Policy Briefs are short youth violence takes an unacceptably carrying, feelings of safety, and overviews of new scholarly research on important issues facing the region. This high toll. Reducing the burden of gang membership. It also inquired brief reports on the results of the Boston youth violence is a priority for the about risk and protective factors for Youth Survey 2006 (BYS), an in-school survey of Boston high school youth conducted City’s policymakers, civic leaders, violence (e.g., alcohol and drug use, biennially by the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center in collaboration with the and residents. To date, however, depressive symptoms, family violence, City of Boston. More information is available little information has been available developmental assets, academic at www.hsph.harvard.edu/hyvpc/research/. about the prevalence, antecedents and performance, perceptions of collective Renee M. Johnson impacts of youth violence in Boston. effi cacy within one’s neighborhood), Renee M. Johnson is a Research Associate at the Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Youth Survey (BYS) and health behaviors (e.g., nutrition Core Faculty at the Harvard Youth Violence and physical activity). Although 1,233 Prevention Center. addresses this gap in knowledge. It is Deborah Azrael students took the survey, the analytical an in-school survey of Boston high Deborah Azrael is a Research Associate at the school students conducted by the sample includes only the 1,215 who Harvard School of Public Health.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Bound: a Comparison of Boston’S Legal Powers with Those of Six Other Major American Cities by Gerald E
    RAPPAPORT POLICY BRIEFS Institute for Greater Boston Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University December 2007 Boston Bound: A Comparison of Boston’s Legal Powers with Those of Six Other Major American Cities By Gerald E. Frug and David J. Barron, Harvard Law School Boston is an urban success story. It cities — Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Rappaport Institute Policy Briefs are short has emerged from the fi nancial crises New York City, San Francisco, and overviews of new and notable scholarly research on important issues facing the of the 1950s and 1960s to become Seattle — enjoy to shape its own region. The Institute also distributes a diverse, vital, and economically future. It is hard to understand why Rappaport Institute Policy Notes, a periodic summary of new policy-related powerful city. Anchored by an the Commonwealth should want its scholarly research about Greater Boston. outstanding array of colleges and major city—the economic driver This policy brief is based on “Boston universities, world-class health of its most populous metropolitan Bound: A Comparison of Boston’s Legal Powers with Those of Six Other care providers, leading fi nancial area—to be constrained in a way Major American Cities,” a report by Frug and Barron published by The Boston institutions, and numerous other that comparable cities in other states Foundation. The report is available assets, today’s Boston drives the are not. Like Boston, the six cities online at http://www.tbf.org/tbfgen1. asp?id=3448. metropolitan economy and is one of are large, economically infl uential the most exciting and dynamic cities actors within their states and regions, Gerald E.
    [Show full text]
  • How Massachusetts Can Stop the Public-Sector Virus by Thomas A
    March 2011 How Massachusetts Can Stop the Public-Sector Virus By Thomas A. Kochan (MIT Sloan School of Management) America is in the early stages of what are these the causes or convenient This Policy Brief is based on remarks could be the largest labor protest of scapegoats and targets? made by Professor Thomas A. Kochan our lifetime. Starting in Wisconsin, at “Collective Bargains: Rebuilding and Let me be clear about the deeper issue Repairing Public Sector Labor Relations the battle over public-sector wages, at stake in these debates that give them in Diffi cult Times,” a Boston 101 event on benefi ts, and collective bargaining February 23, 2011. A full video of the event such a viral character. Wisconsin’s can be found at http://www.hks.harvard. rights is now spreading like a virus to governor would strip employees of edu/centers/rappaport/events-and-news/ Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey, and God audio-and-video-clips/collective-bargains- their rights to collective bargaining rebuilding-and-repairing-public-sector- knows where next. So, like exposure and make it essentially impossible labor-relations-in-diffi cult-times. to any virus, we have two questions for any union to represent its Thomas A. Kochan on our mind: Will we get it here in Thomas A. Kochan is the George M. Bunker members in a stable and responsible Professor at MIT Sloan School of Massachusetts? Is there a treatment fashion. In doing so, he is attacking a Management. He is also co-Director at the that makes us immune and stops it MIT Institute for Work and Employment fundamental human right, the freedom Research.
    [Show full text]
  • Land-Use Planning in the Doldrums: Growth Management in Massachusetts’ I-495 Region
    LAND-USE PLANNING Land-Use Planning in the Doldrums: Growth Management in Massachusetts’ I-495 Region By Christina Rosan and Lawrence Susskind (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) September 2007 RAPPAPORT Institute for Greater Boston Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Land-Use Planning in the Doldrums Authors Christina Rosan is currently a Postdoctoral Fellow in urban planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). She received her Ph.D. in Urban and Regional Planning from MIT in September 2007. Her dissertation compares metropolitan governance and local land-use planning in Boston, Denver, and Portland. Christina was a Rappaport Public Policy Fellow in the Summer of 2005. Lawrence Susskind is Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, director of the Public Disputes Program at Harvard Law School, and founder of the Consensus Building Institute. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston for funding this research. In particular, we would like to thank David Luberoff, Executive Director of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, for all his edits and comments to this work. We also would like to thank Phil Primack, Martha Rounds, and Molly Wilson-Murphy for their editing assistance. We want to express our appreciation to David Fairman and Ona Ferguson at the Consensus Building Institute, and Marina Psaros, a former MIT student, for all their help in organizing this research effort and preparing the case studies. We also want to acknowledge former and current MIT students, Pankaj Kumar, Jiawen Yang, and Ye Ding, who helped conduct some of the initial research for the cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Guarding the Town Walls Mechanisms and Motives for Restricting Multi-Family Housing in Massachusetts
    LAND USE REGULATION AND HOUSING Guarding the Town Walls Mechanisms and Motives for Restricting Multi-family Housing in Massachusetts By Jenny Schuetz, Kennedy School of Government March 2006 RAPPAPORT Institute for Greater Boston Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Guarding the Town Walls Local governments frequently restrict multi-family housing by limiting the districts where it is allowed, creating procedural barriers to development, and mandating large lot sizes. Such restrictions are thought to reduce the ability of low- and moderate-income households to afford housing in desirable locations. In this paper, I use a new and unusually rich dataset on land use regulations in 186 Massachusetts cities and towns to test several hypotheses about why municipalities restrict multi-family housing. The results refl ect two distinct waves of zoning, each of which used a different mechanism and was shaped by different determinants. Under regulations adopted in the 1940s and 1950s, communities with a large amount of existing multi-family housing, a city council form of government, and higher land values tended to be less restrictive. The second wave of regulations, beginning in the 1970s, saw an increased use of special permits to allow multi-family housing and greater restrictiveness by smaller, more affl uent communities. Author Jenny Schuetz is a doctoral student in public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Her primary research interests are land use regulation, housing policy, housing fi nance, and urban economics. The author thanks Amy Dain, Denise DiPasquale, Ed Glaeser, Tony Gómez-Ibáñez, Alex von Hoffman, Brian Jacob, David Luberoff, Raven Saks, Guy Stuart, David Wise and participants in the Kennedy School of Government’s Work in Progress seminar and the Taubman Center’s summer seminar for their advice and assistance in preparing this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Sarah Walker [email protected]
    Sarah Walker [email protected] SOLO EXHIBITIONS Upcoming: 2011 “Partially Seen Things”, Gregory Lind Gallery, San Francisco, CA 2010 ”Edge of Everywhere”, Pierogi, Brooklyn, NY 2009 “Continua”, Higgins School of the Humanities, Clark University, Worcester, MA 2008 “Beacons, Floaters and Lost Objects”, Gregory Lind Gallery, San Francisco, CA 2007 “Collidescape”, Pierogi, Brooklyn, NY 2006 “Sarah Walker, Paintings”, Rose Art Museum, Waltham, MA “Archipelago”, Pierogi, Brooklyn, NY “Sarah Walker: Small Paintings”, Bernard Toale Gallery, Boston, MA 2005 “Systems of Capture,” Gregory Lind Gallery, San Francisco, CA 2002 “Maximum Information Density,” Gregory Lind Gallery, San Francisco, CA 2001 “Descending Order: New Work by Sarah Walker,” Lillian Immig Gallery at Emmanuel College, Boston, MA 2000 “Intertwined/Ever-Collapsing,” Hampden Gallery, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA “A Portrait of North Adams in Doodles: site-specific installation,” D-town North Adams, MA 1998 “Sarah Walker: Monumental and Intimate Paintings,” Fletcher/Priest Gallery, Worcester, MA 1997 “Sarah Walker: New Work,“ University Gallery, Clark University, Worcester, MA 1995 “Sarah Walker: New Work,” Christal DeHaan Fine Arts Center, Indianapolis University, IN 1993 “Sarah Walker: Recent Paintings,” Bowman Gallery at Allegheny College, Meadville, PA GROUP EXHIBITIONS Upcoming: 2010 “I Am The Cosmos”, New Jersey State Museum, Trenton, NJ “Art On Paper: The 41st Exhibition”, Weatherspoon Art Museum, Greensboro, NC “Ucross: 27 Years of Visual Arts Residencies”,
    [Show full text]
  • Suffolk University Graduate Catalog for the College of Arts and Sciences and the Sawyer Business School
    Suffolk University Graduate Catalog for the College of Arts and Sciences and the Sawyer Business School Suffolk University 2009/2010 Graduate Catalog Go To Index Preface This Catalog presents the offerings and requirements in effect at the time of publication. The University reserves the right to withdraw or modify the courses of instruction at any time. Announcements are subject to change and do not constitute an agreement or contract. Suffolk University College of Arts and Sciences Sawyer Business School Graduate Catalog Statement of Non-Discrimination Suffolk University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, Vietnam-era or disabled- veteran status in its employment, admission policies, or in the administration or operation of, or access to, its academic and non-academic programs and policies. It does not discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Inquiries regarding disabilities and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 may be directed to the appropriate coordinator below: Students and applicants in College of Arts and Sciences and Sawyer Business School – Dean of Students, 73 Tremont Street, 12th Floor, (617) 573-8239, TDD 557-4875. Faculty and faculty applicants in College of Arts and Sciences – Dean of the College, Donahue 134, (617) 573-8265. Faculty and faculty applicants in Sawyer Business School – Dean of the Sawyer Business School, 73 Tremont Street, 12th Floor, (617) 573-8300. Other employees and applicants for employment – Director of Human Resources, 73 Tremont Street, 5th Floor, (617) 573-8415.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating an Anti-Growth Regulatory Regime: a Case from Greater Boston
    LAND USE REGULATION AND HOUSING Creating an Anti-Growth Regulatory Regime: A Case from Greater Boston By Alexander von Hoff man Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University February 2006 RAPPAPORT Institute for Greater Boston Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Creating an Anti-Growth Regulatory Regime Author Alexander von Hoffman, an historian and specialist in housing and urban affairs, is a senior research fellow at the Joint Center for Housing Studies. He is the author of House by House, Block by Block: The Rebirth of America’s Urban Neighborhoods (Oxford University Press, 2003) and Local Attachments: The Making of an American Urban Neighborhood, 1850 to 1920 (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), as well as many articles and book chapters on sprawl, community development, housing, and the history of low-income housing policy in the United States. He received a Ph.D. in History from Harvard University. The author thanks David Luberoff, Phil Primack, and Robert Keough for their comments and suggestions; Jenny Schuetz and Amy Dain for information about regulations in Massachusetts; and Matthew Ladd and Cory Schreier for research assistance. Institutions Funding for this working paper was provided by the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, the Taubman Center for State and Local Government, and the Real Estate Academic Initiative at Harvard University. The contents refl ect the views of the author (who also is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the herein) and do not represent the offi cial views or policies of the Rappaport Institute, the Taubman Center, or the Real Estate Academic Initiative. The Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston at Harvard University strives to improve region’s governance by attracting young people to serve the region, working with scholars to produce new ideas about important issues, and stimulating informed discussions that bring together scholars, policymakers, and civic leaders.
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts' Hancock Case and the Adequacy Doctrine
    ADEQUACY LAWSUITS AND EDUCATION Massachusetts’ Hancock Case and the Adequacy Doctrine Conference Paper for “Adequacy Lawsuits: Their Growing Impact on American Education” By Robert M. Costrell March 2006 RAPPAPORT Institute for Greater Boston Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Massachusetts’ Hancock Case and the Adequacy Decision The Hancock school fi nance case put the adequacy doctrine to its strictest test yet, to see if even a national educational leader such as Massachusetts could be found in constitutional violation. The doctrine failed this test, as the court found in favor of the defendants due to the vigorous reform program since 1993. The court credited the state’s steady educational progress, closing of funding gaps between rich and poor districts, and its strong program of accountability and standards. None of this is relevant under the adequacy doctrine, which posits a constitutional funding requirement tied to specifi ed educational outcomes. The lessons of Hancock are that courts need not accept the adequacy doctrine as the constitutional standard, but the best strategy to head off judicial intervention is to adopt Massachusetts-type reforms. This paper was originally presented at an October 2005 conference on “Adequacy Lawsuits: Their Growing Impact on American Education,” that was sponsored by Harvard University’s Program on Education Policy and Governance and its Taubman Center for State and Local Government, with support from the John M. Olin Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, and an anonymous foundation. The contents refl ect the views of the author (who also is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the material herein) and do not represent the offi cial views or policies of the sponsors.
    [Show full text]
  • BC Law Magazine Winter 2020
    Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Magazine Winter 1-1-2020 BC Law Magazine Winter 2020 Boston College Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclsm Part of the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation Boston College Law School, "BC Law Magazine Winter 2020" (2020). Boston College Law School Magazine. 55. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclsm/55 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Magazine by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PLUS LAWMAKING Broken BOSTON COLLEGE Pledges LAW SCHOOL MAGAZINE Attorney WINTER 2020 Campaigns BC.EDU/BCLAWMAGAZINE Against College Hazing GREAT CASE War Crimes The Prosecutor Who Vanquished a Monster HISTORY Black Power Pre-War Slaves’ Legal Savvy Revealed DURING THE METEORIC RISE OF PELOTON, HISAO KUSHI ’92 HAS BEEN THE EXERCISE DISRUPTER’S ZEN-LIKE CO-FOUNDER AND GENERAL COUNSEL— A FUNNY, BRILLIANT MASTER OF CALM BC Law Magazine THE MAKING OF AN ADVOCATE Caroline Reilly ’19 has been a fierce proponent of women’s reproductive rights. For her final semester, she did an independent study on women’s health that she later adapted for an article in Teen Vogue, creating quite a buzz. Page 8 Photograph by WEBB CHAPPELL Contents WINTER 2020 VOLUME 28 / NUMBER 1 Clockwise, from top left, three gen- erations of the Warner family; James Dowden ’00 discusses his career; scientist Features Su Kyung Suh ’20 adds law to her creden- 36 tials; the need for equity in tax policy.
    [Show full text]