Commonwealth Housing Task Force

Quarterly Summary of Progress as of December, 2012

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 fourth Quarter of 2012, 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.

Greater Boston Housing Report Card Forum and CHTF Plenary Session

During this quarter, the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University completed its Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2012, the 10th annual report in this series. On November 14, 2012, the Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2012, described in some detail below, was released at The Boston Foundation. The cover letter to the report from Paul Grogan, President of the Boston Foundation, set the tone; see the letter in Appendix II of this report. At the forum, Barry Bluestone presented the main conclusions of the Report Card, along with recommendations for action. A panel of housing experts responded to the report. The panel included: Karl E. Case, Director Emeritus, Wellesley College and Senior Fellow, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University Elyse Cherry, CEO, Boston Community Capital Brenda Clement, Executive Director, Citizen’s Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA)

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 2

Alicia Sasser, Senior Economist, New England Public Policy Center, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Marie Wentling, Director of Product Strategy, TheWarren Group

Following the presentation of the report, a plenary session of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force (CHTF) was convened and action steps to implement the report’s recommendations were outlined. Given the report’s conclusion of the need for a substantial increase in housing production, CHTF will be pursuing a comprehensive plan for legislative action.

As in past years, the Greater Boston Housing Report Card (GBHRC 2012) provided detailed information on home sales, housing production, changes in single- family home and condo prices, apartment rents, and government spending on affordable housing. The report also included a detailed assessment of housing production under Chapter 40R.

But unlike past reports in this series, the GBHRC 2012 not only looked backward but also looked forward, projecting housing demand in Greater Boston out to 2020 under two scenarios: a “current trends” scenario and a “stronger growth” scenario. Under the former, annual production of housing units in Greater Boston will have to double over the average production rate for the past five years; under the stronger growth scenario--which assumes that the region will retain and attract somewhat more young households--annual production levels will have to triple through 2020. Moreover, given the twin demographic shifts of more aging baby boomers and an increase in the number of younger “millenials” (those born from the late 1970’s to early 2000’s), the demand for traditional single family suburban homes will diminish and the demand for multi-family condominium and rental units will rise. This calls for a fundamental shift in the nature of production as well as an increase in the number of units.

Unlike past reports, the 2012 report also included a full chapter on recommendations for housing action. Among the recommendations are the following:  The Commonwealth should be encouraged to use its excellent bond rating and current record low interest rates to purchase vacant mill buildings and land bank them so that developers can construct more affordable condo and rental units in these communities.

 The number of Chapter 40R communities needs to be increased substantially, reducing the constraint on developers to build denser, more affordable housing in transit-rich communities. This will require a redoubling of efforts to convince municipalities of the need for such housing and to make it easier for communities to apply for Chapter 40R status.

 Colleges and universities in the region must be encouraged to increase residence hall construction for undergraduate and graduate students in order to take pressure off the local rental market.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 3

 Universities must be encouraged to work with private developers to construct multi-university graduate student villages where the continually growing number of graduate students can find rental units that meet their needs while they are in school and perhaps for the first few years after graduation.

 To reduce the cost of developing new housing and therefore make new housing more affordable, the Commonwealth should be encouraged to create a Blue Ribbon Commission to study the structure of development costs in order to determine where and how the cost of actual construction, assembling financing, and/or the legal requirements associated with development can be reduced. Response to the release of the GBHRC 2012 has been extremely positive. An article and editorial in Banker and Tradesman can be found in Appendix II of this report. Housing Market Updates

Coverage this Quarter about news in the housing market, continuing the trend we reported on last Quarter, was optimistic about Massachusetts and New England. On October 17, Banker and Tradesman reported on the MA Association of Realtors’ positive assessment of the home market; and on the same day The Washington Post spoke of “blockbuster housing numbers” nationally. On November 8, Banker and Tradesman predicted a slow but steady recovery in the housing market and on November 27 reported on very strong home sales numbers.

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.

All of the articles mentioned above 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). Accordingly, we were very pleased to note that Governor Patrick has announced major funding for state college building efforts. See the Boston.com article in Appendix III of this report. Other promising developments include the news that Wentworth Institute of Technology will be building a new dormitory (see Appendix III), and—as reported in MassDevelopment Solutions Newsletter of Fall, 2012—that

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 4

MassDevelopment has provided financing for construction of student housing at Merrimack College in North Andover, Endicott College in Beverly, Lesley University in Cambridge, Northeastern University in Boston, and the College of Our Lady of the Elms in Chicopee. All of these developments will help take the pressure off the rental housing market in their communities. Barry Bluestone continues to meet regularly with interested parties to explore where and how a multi-university graduate student village can be built. During this quarter, the Dukakis Center worked with Samuels & Associates (Trilogy) on encouraging the development of a large graduate student housing complex in the Fenway area. This work included:  Holding 3 graduate student focus groups to assess the type of housing needed and at which various price points,  Working with the developer to re-imagine micro units with 1 and 3-bedroom configurations,  Helping to prepare a housing proposal for submission to Northeastern University for a master lease.

We are hopeful that this idea can be implemented in the near future.

Other Programmatic Developments

Probably the most exciting programmatic development during this Quarter was Governor Patrick’s announcement of an Administration goal of producing 10,000 housing units per year in Massachusetts.

On November 13, 2012, the day before the release of the Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2012, the Commonwealth’s Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development (EOHED) held its first statewide conference on workforce housing, with over 1,000 in attendance in Worcester. To underscore the importance of building more housing to meet the Commonwealth’s economic development goals, the conference was addressed by Governor Deval Patrick, Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray, Secretary Greg Bialecki, and Deputy Secretary for Housing and Community Development Aaron Gornstein. During this historic conference, Governor Patrick unveiled his plan for the development statewide of 10,000 new units of workforce housing per year through 2020 – consistent with the goal set in the Greater Boston Housing Report Card. The state is committed to working with local communities to provide incentives to encourage this development. (The Dukakis Center and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) played a critical role in helping develop the Governor’s housing target.) This goal is a clear expression of the Administration’s commitment to housing production. Please see the full press release by the Governor in Appendix III of this report. Also in Appendix III is a Boston Globe article about the Governor’s announcement.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 5

Included in the Governor’s announcement is a description of the new Compact Neighborhoods Program, a companion initiative to the Chapter 40R program. Under Compact Neighborhoods, all cities and towns will have the opportunity to zone for higher-density housing (albeit at lower densities than required by 40R) and with lower required affordability targets. Although this program will not include the substantial financial bonuses connected with 40R, we applaud the Administration for this creative initiative, which we expect to be of interest to many communities in Massachusetts. A complete fact sheet on the Compact Neighborhoods Policy can be found also in Appendix III to this report. This program will be managed by the same staff as DHCD that has so capably managed the Chapter 40R program. We noted in the last Quarterly Report the completion of another housing development in a Chapter 40R district: 30 Haven Street in Reading, MA. This project includes 53 residential units and 23,000 sq. ft. of retail space near the commuter rail station in the heart of Reading. Please refer to the Press Release included in Appendix III] to this report in connection with the completion ceremony, attended by Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Secretary Greg Bialecki and many other state and local officials.. With construction underway or complete in about half of all approved Chapter 40R districts in the state, we can begin to see the impact that this program will be having in the coming months and years. A Boston Globe column on October 7, 2012, reports a troubling story about homelessness and the limits of the State’s safety net. This is an enormously complex issue, which has not previously been on the agenda of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force. Many advocacy groups are dealing with this in cooperation with the Patrick Administration. The full article can be found in Appendix III. Following a series of hearings, DHCD issued on November 21, 2012 a document entitled Further Actions to Strengthen the Safety Net for Homeless Families, which can be found at www.mass.gov/hed/docs/dhcd/hs/furtheractionstostrenghthensafetynet.pdf

A more on-the-ground view is presented in Joan Wickersham’s column of December 14 in the Boston Globe, included in Appendix III. CHTF members should let us know if they have an interest in working on this issue within the context of CHTF. We wrote last Quarter about a review of tax credits currently being carried out by the Patrick Administration. While we are not at all opposed to periodic reviews of public programs to determine their effectiveness, CHTF will have to be vigilant to assure that the very important State Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and the State Historic Tax Credit are not adversely affected. Both credits are critical to the ability of developers to plan and implement feasible affordable housing developments. We will be taking every opportunity—as we have in the past—to advocate for support and funding for these essential programs. In this connection, please see the excellent article in Appendix III written for Banker and Tradesman by Susan Gittelman, Executive Director of B’nai B’rith Housing New England, an active nonprofit affordable housing developer. Susan has been a long-time member of CHTF. The article, which appeared on October 22, 2012, makes a compelling case for the expansion of housing tax credit programs.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 6

Also last Quarter, we noted the passage of the new Chapter 23L program of tax- exempt financing for public infrastructure that may be needed to support housing (and other) development. Passed in August, the law went into effect in November of 2012. A very useful section-by-section analysis of the act by William F. Griffin, Jr. at the law firm of Davis, Malm & D’Agostine, P.C. can be found at http://www.davismalm.com/UploadedDocuments/Articles/Griffin_23L_Analysis.pdf

And MassDevelopment is highlighting its Multifamily Loan Program to be used for rental housing developments in downtown and transit-oriented locations, perfect for both 40R and the new Compact Neighborhoods program. The Agency points to low interest rates and a flexible application process as reasons for developers and communities to consider this financing source. More information can be obtained at www.massdevelopment.com .

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 .

In previous CHTF Quarterly Reports, we have mentioned the MassWorks Infrastructure Program which CHTF has supported. We were very pleased to see that on November 9, the Patrick-Murray Administration announced the award of $38 million for 26 new MassWorks Infrastructure Projects supporting economic development And housing growth across the Commonwealth. To see the full press release and list of approved projects, please visit www.mass.gov/hed/economic/eohed/dhcd/38m-for- massworks-infrastructure-projects-announced.html . We congratulate the Governor and his Administration for getting this program up and running. As reported last Quarter, CHTF has long supported and advocated for passage of H-368, the Supportive Housing bill. An interagency working group has been appointed to implement the legislation after the Legislature and Governor approved the bill in March, 2012. The two major components of the legislation are: 1) A requirement for an Interagency Action Plan among a host of state agencies to create a coordinated process to

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 7 create permanent supportive housing, and 2) a goal of 1,000 new units of supportive housing within three years of the Interagency Agreement being signed. This initiative is a major step forward in coordinating services provided to residents in supportive housing, and we thank the many members of CHTF who lent their support to this statute. In this connection, we applaud the action of Northeastern University in purchasing the YMCA at 320 Huntington Avenue in Boston, allowing 67 units of transitional housing to continue to operate in the Hastings Wing of the building. An article about this from Banker and Tradesman of October 17, 2012 can be found in Appendix III of this report. As we also reported before, the MA Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) is accepting applications from Gateway Cities for the new Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP—Chapter 40V) to facilitate the development of primarily market rate housing in existing non-residential properties within new Housing Development Zones in “Gateway” Cities in Massachusetts. The program is limited to developments in which at least 80% of the units will be priced at “market rate” (the level affordable to households at 110% of area median, using a flexible definition of area). Municipalities that participate must offer at least a partial property tax exemption on the increase in value attributable to the market rate units, and developers can apply for a state tax credit for to up to 10% of the cost of developing the market rate units. The total value of state credits that can be authorized is capped at $5 million a year, and DHCD is proposing a per-project cap of $1 million. Full information about HDIP can be found on DHCD’s website at www.mass.gov/dhcd (search keyword HDIP). Applications are currently being accepted on a rolling basis.

Finally, we’d like to highlight a poll released in November, 2012, by NAHRO, the National Association of Housing and Renewal Officials. This poll indicates the degree to which a surprising number of US citizens support Federal spending on housing programs. This is particularly important during this season of the “fiscal cliff” and impending cuts to domestic spending programs. A report on this poll can be found in Appendix III to this report.

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 this report for the regular detailed update on progress under the Chapter 40R program.

The Economic Development and Jobs bill that was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in July, 2012 contained funding totaling $4,000,000 to replenish the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund, which funds have now been deposited into the Trust Fund. This is a major accomplishment for Smart Growth Zoning, since for

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 8 the last year and a half it has been clear that the funds in the Trust Fund were not sufficient to meet the probable needs for the program, and it was not certain that the State would make good on the financial commitments in the program. In a number of communities this concern had led to decisions to not move forward with potential Chapter 40R Districts. Now there is a demonstrated commitment on behalf of the program, and it will be much easier to counter arguments about a lack of funding.

Larry DiCara, Co-Chair of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force, plus Mary Jo Meisner and Keith Mahoney from the Boston Foundation did exceptional work in making the case in order to get this line item in the Economic Development and Jobs bill and in following through until it was signed by the Governor.

In addition, this action by the Legislature and the Governor to replenish the Trust Fund will make it easier for DHCD and others to actively promote the program in their outreach and education efforts. Payments that have been made for the 40S portion of the program also should give communities confidence that the school cost support will be available when needed.

However, efforts to increase the amount of the annual allotment for State Historic Tax Credits did not meet with a positive result. In the same Economic Development and Jobs legislation, both the House and the Senate voted to increase the annual amount for the historic tax credit from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000. However, the Governor vetoed the increase, along with increases for other tax credit programs. This was a disappointment. Apparently the Historic Tax Credit Program was lumped together with other Tax Credit Programs, such as the Film Credit, all of which are under study by the Secretary of Administration and Finance as to their efficiency and desirability, and any action that might be taken on the programs has been deferred until a later time. We will be monitoring this very carefully in the months to come.

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 construction start, 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. Senator Chandler has agreed to refile a bill to repeal this provision (In the last

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 9 session it was S. 584.) 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 not been proposed when there was not 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.

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 $183,000 available for planning for these new districts, with neither 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.

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, Now that concerns have been

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 10 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. And Chapter 40R is an important tool for facilitating the development of new affordable housing units at a time when some units may leave the inventory as a result of the expiration of their federal contracts (an issue which has been discussed at length previously).

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

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 11

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) issued an “Informational Guideline Release” for Chapter 40S, dated June 2010. More detail can be accessed in previous CHTF Quarterly Reports. The final state budget for FY2012—line 1233-2401– made available approximately $364,000 to cover Chapter 40S reimbursements for FY2010, as required by the Chapter 40S statute.

In FY 2010, two communities received funds under Chapter 40S: Chelsea ($276,314) and Lakeville ($87,385). In 2012 it is anticipated that the Chelsea payment will go down because of an offsetting increase in Chapter 70 funds. Lakeville is expected to get $166,000 in FY 2012. One other community, North Reading, applied for 40S funding, but did not meet the funding criteria. The Department of Revenue is requesting $500,000 in the budget for payments in 2012.

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 June 30, 2012 Page 12

Note: Updated through December, 2012. 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. The $4,000,000 consists of amounts in excess of $10,000,000 that are actually received from the 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 Deposit pursuant to 2012 Jobs Bill $4,000,000 Total Sources of Funds $373,199,810

Less Transfer to General Fund, 2009 ($18,004,810) Net Sources $195,195,000 Less Payments and Obligations to Communities to date: ($ 14.550,000) Balance in Fund as of December 13, 2012 $ 4,645,000

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 13

Given the new funding in the Economic Development and Jobs bill, as described earlier in this Report and shown in the table above, the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund is now expected to have sufficient resources to make the payments that will become due during to communities through the first half of 2013. (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, $183,000 ±, 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 $3,855,000.

Requests are pending to refile previous legislation with both Rep. Kevin Honan (previously House 990) and Senator Harriette Chandler (previously Senate 75, co- sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Dykema) 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. This bill was re-filed in the last session, and 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, and Ted Carman 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 June 30, 2012 Page 14 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.

As covered in detail in the beginning of this Report, at the Plenary Session of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force on November 14, 2012 Barry Bluestone made a presentation covering the most recent issue of the Greater Boston Housing Report Card.

Also at the Plenary Session, Doug Arsham, Director of Development of major residential developer Forest City Residential, spoke about the experience of Forest City in developing the Hamel Mill Lofts in Haverhill. He made it clear that having the 40R zoning in place was a critical piece of the decision to move forward with the project because it provided assurance about the necessary zoning approvals needed. He strongly supported the feasibility and attractiveness of using Chapter 40R to stimulate development in other communities across Massachusetts.

The newly-released Greater Boston Housing Report Card of 2012 also 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.

An article in Banker and Tradesman of October 5, 2012, highlighted the afore- mentioned completion of 30 Haven Street in Reading’s 40R district, with particular emphasis on its being “the first modular multifamily housing and mixed-use development in downtown Reading”.

We usually do a brief summary here of the general outreach accomplished in each quarter. However, during this past quarter, Barry Bluestone was constantly on the road throughout the Commonwealth speaking about the need for housing development and trying to develop support for it in individual communities. This huge effort deserves recognition! These speaking engagements included:

October 1, 2012: Cambridge Housing Authority – Teleconference on Up-Zoning Central Square and Kendall Square for denser transit-oriented housing - Barry agreed to develop public testimony for the City of Cambridge October 10, 2012: Attended Boston Urban Land Institute (ULI) luncheon and discussed in broad terms the upcoming release of the Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2012 October 16, 2012: Keynote Speaker – UMass Amherst Center for Public Policy and Administration – Discussed the role of affordable housing in community economic development October 19, 2012: Keynote Speaker – Boston Society of Architects – “The State of Housing in Greater Boston and Housing Policy” October 25, 2012: Keynote Speaker – MassDevelopment Academy – Smith College – Northhampton, Massachusetts “Housing and Local Economic Development”

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 15

October 25, 2012: Keynote Speaker – Cambridge Housing Authority – “Housing and Smart Growth: The Need for Up-Zoning Central Square and Kendall Square to Keep Cambridge Diverse”. This address was reported in a front page story in the Cambridge Chronicle and reportedly was instrumental in approval of up-zoning of land parcels in Central Square and Kendall Square. See the Chronicle story in Appendix III. November 13, 2012: Panelist – Governor’s Statewide Housing Conference – “The Role of Affordable Housing in Economic Development” November 14, 2012: Keynote Speaker – The Boston Foundation – “The Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2012” November 15, 2012: Panelist – Architecture Boston Expo (ABX) – “"What's In (And What's Out)" - Attracting Young Professionals to Downtown Boston through New Workforce Housing” November 26, 2012: Convener – Multiuniversity Graduate Student Village Focus Group – Northeastern University (with Samuels & Associates/Patrick Kennedy “SmartSpace” Housing Model) November 28, 2012: Keynote Speaker – MassDevelopment Academy – Framingham, Massachusetts: “Housing and Local Economic Development” December 12, 2012: Keynote Speaker - Policy Link Housing Conference – Hartford, Connecticut: “Lessons from the Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2012” December 13, 2012: Meeting with City of Malden Mayor Gary Christenson – Malden, Massachusetts – “Transit-Oriented Workforce Housing Development and Chapter 40R” December 13, 2012: Keynote Speaker – Boston Urban Land Institute (ULI) luncheon – “The Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2012” December 14, 2012: Luncheon with Housing Developer Tom Bauer – “Transit-Oriented Housing for Seniors and Millenials/Multiuniversity Graduate Student Village”.

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, were active in advocating for a comprehensive list of state budget requests, presented in some detail in the last Quarterly Report. An abbreviated summary of the key highlights of the FY ’13 budget approved in July follows. For more detail, please refer to the September, 2012 CHTF Quarterly Report

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 16

- The Legislature and Governor approved $42 million for MRVP, the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program. - The Legislature and Governor approved $64.5 million for state public housing operations, resulting in a 6% increase in non-utility expense increases for local housing authorities; - The Legislature and Governor approved $8.75 million for RAFT homelessness prevention, matching the Governor’s House Two proposal and representing a $8.45 million increase.

Last year, Governor Patrick and the Legislature approved legislation to double the amount of State Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) available for 2013 and 2014 from $10 million to $20 million. Although the increase in state LIHTC resources and an unexpected increase in capital funds allowed the Commonwealth in May of 2012 to announce funding to advance 36 affordable rental housing developments, many more developments were not able to receive funding in the tight competition for scarce resources and had to wait until the fall rental round.

As reported previously, DHCD finalized amendments to the 2012 Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) to help manage the pipeline of affordable housing developments seeking funding. DHCD released a NOFA (Notification of Fund Availability) for rental housing for development proposals that received pre-approvals in August. Applications were due October 12. Click on this link to learn more: http://www.mass.gov/hed/housing/affordable-rent/low-income-housing-tax-credit- lihtc.html . DHCD recently convened a working group to discuss further changes to the 2013 QAP, but no proposed changes have been released to date. A bill was filed, discussed later in this report, to increase the State Historic Tax Credit from $50 million to $100 million. Although Economic Development and Jobs legislation proposed to raise the yearly cap on historic credits from $50 million to $60 million, that provision was vetoed by Governor Patrick. The Executive Office for Administration and Finance is working on its FY ’13 capital budget planning process. This yearly process establishes spending caps and long- term funding projections for programs funded through general obligation bonds authorized by the legislature. The FY’12 budget provides a small increase over last year’s capital budget for housing. Last year, affordable housing groups advocated for a restoration of capital budget spending for housing to the FY’09 funding level of $193 million. The Patrick-Murray Administration has unilateral authority to increase or decrease capital spending for general obligation bond spending up to the amounts authorized by the Legislature in the 2008 Housing Bond bill and we encourage members of CHTF to contact your legislative representatives to encourage their support for at least $200 million in capital budget spending for housing in FY’13. CHAPA has reconvened the Building Blocks Coalition to make recommendations for the 2013 Housing Bond bill.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 17

Federal Housing Budget

Over the past two years, HUD’s budget has been reduced by 13%. While tenant- based and project-based Section 8 programs were mostly unharmed, many other programs saw sharp reductions. Public housing capital repairs, Section 8 voucher program administration, the production of new affordable housing under HOME, Section 202 housing for the elderly, Section 811 housing for persons with disabilities, and community development block grants have all seen reductions. Funding for housing counseling was restored and funded at $45 million in FY’12, but that authorization is well below the FY’10 level. FY’12 funding for Sustainable Communities Grants was eliminated. Congress is now poised to approve a 6-month temporary budget for FY’13 to essentially level-fund government services, but the agreement would not stop the federal sequester scheduled to take effect in January, 2013. At this writing in mid- December, 2012, negotiations are still actively being pursued between the White House and the Congress on the “fiscal cliff” and we can make no predictions as to whether sequestration, which will have dire effects on housing programs, will be necessary in the coming months.

However, we have included in Appendix III to this report a very interesting article from Banker and Tradesman of December 16, 2012, with the best information available now as to the probable (very gloomy) future of Federal housing funding in the coming year.

2011-2012 State Legislation

The last CHTF Quarterly Report discussed in detail the results of the 2011-2012 state formal legislative sessions. CHTF advocated for several bills, some of which have become law. We would appreciate any input and advice from CHTF members concerning future priorities for the Task Force:

As previously mentioned, the Legislature approved in the last session a Jobs and Economic Development bill, Ch. 238 of the Acts of 2012; this bill includes several critical components to promote community development, including $4 million in funding for Ch. 40R. Detailed information about this bill can be found in the September, 2012 CHTF Quarterly Report.

S.75 and H.990 would fund the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund (which in turn funds the Chapter 40R program) by diverting the income taxes of residents living in housing in approved Chapter 40R districts. Last year the bill cleared the Community Development Committee and was in House Ways and Means but did not advance before the end of the session. This bill has been supported by CHTF since its first introduction in the legislature; it would have a major effect upon the ability of Chapter 40R to be financially self-sustaining. This legislation received a public hearing before the Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business in April of last year and the bill was reported favorably to the House Committee on Ways and Means

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 18 once again. As noted above, the legislature provided $4 million for the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund through the economic development bill, but they have not identified a dedicated long-term funding source. We encourage members to submit other suggestions on how to fund the Smart Growth Housing Trust Fund reliably over the long term.

Comprehensive Zoning Reform legislation also failed to advance in this last session. The comprehensive bill carries many provisions, including mandating that local zoning be consistent with planning, barring exclusionary zoning practices, authorizing impact fees for limited uses, rewriting Ch. 40A into clear statements, reforming vesting and grandfathering, and replacing the Approval Not Required process with a minor subdivision review process. The bill also creates the ability of communities to opt into defined planning and zoning benchmarks for housing in exchange for additional authority to regulate developments. CHTF was represented on the Governor’s Zoning Reform Task Force which debated many elements of this bill over the last several years. We believe that the existing Zoning Enabling Act and related Planning and Subdivision Acts continue to be significant deterrents to creating the local planning and zoning we need to produce affordable housing and support economic growth; we look forward to continuing the discussion on how to improve these critical statutes and bring the stakeholders from local government and the development sector closer together. In November, 2012, several legislative leaders convened a stakeholders group to discuss this issue and to see if we can identify some pieces of the proposed legislation to move forward during the upcoming session.

Legislation to promote innovative strategies in public housing was filed by Rep. Sanchez and Sen. Chandler: (http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht01pdf/ht01237.pdf.) This legislation 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, housing authorities would be able to more effectively address local needs, which differ by locality. The bill would also authorize innovative program design on issues such as rent calculation, to reduce the administrative burden and cost on the housing authority, and to lighten the burden on tenants to produce the personal information often necessary to document income and exclusions. This past session, the Housing Committee favorably reported the legislation once again. The Senate version is currently before the Senate Committee on Ways and Means and the House version is before the House Committee on Ways and Means. CHTF has been supportive of this legislation as a way to promote innovative strategies to manage and rehabilitate state public housing. Many of the ideas in the bill are also being discussed in the Governor’s Commission on Public Housing Sustainability and Reform, discussed in detail in this report. Legislation to coordinate new supportive housing was filed by Rep. Honan and Sen. Jehlen. In order to build supportive housing for people with disabilities,

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 19

elders, or extremely low income households, a developer must now access three separate pots of capital, operating, and supportive service funds through multiple applications. This consensus proposal would coordinate the process to build supportive housing by establishing formal relationships and shared principles among the relevant state agencies involved in the process. As mentioned above, we are delighted that the legislature has enacted this legislation. CHTF has been supportive of this bill throughout the process. Legislation to dedicate energy efficiency funding for improvements in affordable rental housing was filed by Rep. Honan and Sen. DiDomenico: (http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st01/st01546.htm). There is a significant capital cost to 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 rent necessary to maintain the property and the impact on the environment. This legislation dedicates funding to make new and existing multifamily affordable housing more energy efficient. Last session, the House bill was favorably advanced and was before the House Committee on Ways and Means, but did not advance further before the end of the session. A public hearing was held and the bill was reported favorably. Despite this progress, CHAPA is putting less energy into this bill as the LEAN Multifamily Energy Retrofit Program is a promising approach to fill this need and is now open to for-profit and non-profit affordable housing owners. We would appreciate feedback from CHTF members on this issue. 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 “Stuck” Home Mortgage Market

Foreclosure issues continue to be a serious problem for both homeowners and municipalities in Massachusetts.

The City of Boston and the 24 Gateway Cities now possess 47% of the Commonwealth's properties subject to a foreclosure petition/auction or held by financial institutions post-foreclosure, while 53% of the state's distressed properties are located in suburban and rural communities. The roughly 26,400 distressed properties spread across Massachusetts continue to wreak havoc on the real estate market, creating blight and threatening home price stability necessary to avoid future foreclosures. At the same time, federal resources from the Neighborhood Stabilization program have been entirely committed. Congress and the Legislature have failed to dedicate additional funding to revitalize the distressed properties that are the biggest challenges for communities. There is some limited funding from the national foreclosure settlement for community revitalization efforts, but the funds will be insufficient to address the problem unless the legislature also adds resources.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 20

Carole Marine of CHAPA reported that on July 25, 2012, a legislative Conference Committee released foreclosure prevention legislation. The primary change to existing law is that the legislation requires financial institutions to conduct a net present value test for loans that meet certain criteria and are headed toward foreclosure. If the criteria are met, the financial institution is required to make a loan modification if the modification would be commercially reasonable compared to the anticipated recovery from foreclosure. It appears that this requirement will go into effect for any homeowner that receives a right-to-cure notice upon the bill’s effective date, which is immediately upon approval by the Governor. The legislation has other sections related to requiring proper documentation prior to foreclosure. Unlike the Senate bill, the Conference Committee report does not require homeowners to go through mediation prior to foreclosure. The Conference Committee report establishes a commission to study mediation options, the feasibility of judicial foreclosure and how to prevent unnecessary vacancies in foreclosed properties. The text of the bill is available at: http://www.mass.gov/legis/journal/desktop/Current%20Agenda%202011/H4323.pdf. This legislation has been approved by both the Massachusetts House and Senate, and was signed by the Governor. It is referred to as Chapter 194.

The law included an emergency preamble and is now in effect. The Division of Banks (DOB) has provided industry guidance intended to promote a consistent response to the new requirements of Chapter 194 until final regulations are issued, currently being drafted by DOB. Please refer to this industry guidance at: http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/business/banking-services/preventing- foreclosure/industryguidance08032012.html.

As noted in a prior CHTF report, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley agreed to a settlement under which residents of the state will receive more than $300 million, part of roughly $25 billion in relief for distressed borrowers, states and the federal government. After many months of negotiation, 49 state attorneys general and the federal government have reached agreement on a historic joint state-federal settlement with the country’s five largest loan servicers: Ally/GMAC, Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. The settlement provides benefits to borrowers whose loans are owned by the settling banks as well as to many of the borrowers whose loans they service. For a full presentation and discussion of this settlement, go to www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com .

The Attorney General’s Office has recently released awards from the servicing settlement funds to provide resources for a comprehensive list of activities that address the foreclosure crisis. Awards have been made for Municipal and Community Restoration Grants, Borrower Recovery Initiative and a Borrower Representation Initiative. In October, 2012, the Attorney General announced the award of the Crisis Response Innovation Grants. For the full list of grants, please refer to a Banker and Tradesman article of October 19, 2012, included in Appendix III] of this report.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 21

CHAPA has convened a working group of Attorney General grant recipients so that their efforts can be coordinated across the state. As part of that effort, CHAPA will be convening two gatherings in February in partnership with the AG’s office. February will be the first anniversary of the settlement.

Another interesting development relating to foreclosures is the increasing number of lenders who are willing to consider mortgage write-downs as a way to prevent foreclosures and keep families in their homes. See a Boston Globe article of October 7, 2012, included in Appendix III of this report, which discusses this in detail.

Further, housing advocates continue to seek additional funding for Neighborhood Stabilization. Since 2008, the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) has helped transform foreclosed properties, which are negatively impacting neighborhoods and are often magnets for vandalism and crime, into well-maintained, affordable homes for low- and moderate-income families. Overall, CHAPA estimates that NSP funds have purchased and rehabilitated more than 1,323 units throughout Massachusetts at an efficient cost of $62,000 in NSP funding per unit. Unfortunately, all of the state’s NSP funds have been obligated. Housing advocates and local leaders are seeking state funding through an FY’13 supplemental budget appropriation.

Finally, we noted with interest a paper issued by the Federal Reserve: Foreclosure Externalities: Some New Evidence. The paper’s abstract reads as follows: Public Policy Discussion Paper No. 12-5 by Kristopher S. Gerardi, Eric Rosenblatt, Paul S. Willen, and Vincent W. Yao In a recent set of influential papers, researchers have argued that residential mortgage foreclosures reduce the sale prices of nearby properties. We revisit this issue using a more robust identification strategy combined with new data that contain information on the location of properties secured by seriously delinquent mortgages and information on the condition of foreclosed properties. We find that while properties in virtually all stages of distress have statistically significant, negative effects on nearby home values, the magnitudes are economically small, peak before the distressed properties complete the foreclosure process, and go to zero about a year after the bank sells the property to a new homeowner. The estimates are very sensitive to the condition of the distressed property, with a positive correlation existing between house price growth and foreclosed properties identified as being in “above average” condition. We argue that the most plausible explanation for these results is an externality resulting from reduced investment by owners of distressed property. Our analysis shows that policies that slow the transition from delinquency to foreclosure likely exacerbate the negative effect of mortgage distress on house prices. Refer to: http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/ppdp/2012/ppdp1205.pdf .

The Expanding Opportunities Committee

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 22

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 goal is to create a website that will offer the resource guide and other helpful information, and also an online discussion forum to facilitate the sharing of ideas, successes and challenges of communities engaged in this effort. The 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 an extremely 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.

In 2013, the committee is planning to collaborate with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s (MAPC) Sustainable Communities Grant Program. The committee is planning to submit a proposal for funding to MAPC early in 2013 to support the development of a fair housing toolkit to assist communities and other groups in understanding and furthering fair housing access and inclusion of diverse populations. The CHTF Expanding Opportunities Committee offered to support the efforts of the caucus by assisting in the preparation of the proposal, and, if the proposal is successful, by assisting to disseminate the toolkit after it is produced, including sponsoring a forum or series of public forums later in the year. The committee also discussed the potential for maintaining or promoting documents generated on the website that the committee is contemplating.

All are welcome to join the Expanding Opportunities Committee; please send your contact information to both Barbara Shea, committee member, at [email protected] and Maura Fogarty at the Boston Foundation, at [email protected] . Only those who have signed up for this committee will receive notices of future meetings. Comments about the agenda for the EO Committee should be addressed to Sarah Lamitie and Jacqueline Cooper, the co-chairs of the Committee.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 23

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 year. 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, 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 in the Boston area press on issues relating to public housing and local housing authorities. (See the most recent Quarterly Reports for detailed reporting of this public discussion and continuing coverage later in this section.) 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. Through the spring we developed comprehensive position papers and recommendations for the Commission and testified during the public hearing process. Please refer to the last CHTF Quarterly Report for a copy of the CHTF recommendations.

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.

Following the issuance of the Commission Recommendations, DHCD established an Advisory Committee. This Committee broke out into three working groups covering:

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 24

Mixed Finance and Capital Needs; Resident Services; and Administration and Asset Management. (While all acknowledge the need to amend the enabling statute, MGL 121 B, this task has been deferred for the time being). The CHTF Public Housing Committee reconvened on December 10, 2012 to discuss the recommendations coming out of these groups. Among those in attendance was Lizbeth Heyer, Director of DHCD’s Public Housing Division, Tom Plihcik, senior staff member for the Joint Legislative Committee on Housing in the legislature, and several housing authority executive directors and board members. The Mixed Finance and Capital Needs working group has yet to make any specific recommendations. The Resident Services working group is recommending that $1 to $2 million be provided for family services through the issuance of Social Innovation Bonds. Elderly services already have an (albeit inadequate) funding mechanism. The working group is also recommending an increase in capital funding for elderly projects to enhance accessibility. The CHTF Committee members generally endorsed these recommendations. The Administration and Asset Management working group will recommend the establishment of a new entity, the Commonwealth Housing Management Corporation, a quasi-public corporation which will take over the management functions of housing authorities with less than 250 units. There was significant discussion about this issue, reflecting the disagreement among housing authority executive directors and boards concerning this proposal. Ultimately, the CHTF Committee agreed to await the filing in January of legislation to implement this recommendation, at which time we will meet to discuss the formal proposal. In the interim, we will be preparing a comparative analysis of the CHTF recommendations and what has emerged from the Commission. The purpose of this exercise is to identify where a consensus lies, where there is a divergence between the two, and what we may have recommended that was not addressed in the Commission report. The CHTF Committee also agreed on the need to revisit the issue of public bidding laws, and that will be on the agenda in the coming months. Finally, the Committee will be reviewing the Governor’s public housing budget, which will be filed in January, 2013. Other news about public housing continues, including the ongoing troubling coverage of difficulties in some housing authorities. Although hard to read, we feel that these stories do shed light on some (hopefully isolated) problems; only by confronting these issues can we improve the delivery of public housing programs. However, it is also clear, based on the long history of successful public housing program implementation in Massachusetts, that the vast majority of public housing authorities and their leaders are dedicated and competent in providing housing to those with the lowest incomes in our

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 25 society. We commend especially the Massachusetts chapter of the National Association of Housing and Renewal Officials (MassNAHRO) for meeting these challenges head-on and in a very positive way. In this connection, please see articles from the Boston Globe on October 2, 13, and 31, 2012, and a related editorial of October 22, 2012, included in Appendix IV of this report. (Note: inclusion of these articles is for information only and does not represent or connote CHTF endorsement of the Globe’s editorial position.)

Finally, we noted that in October, 2012, the Boston Housing Authority became the largest city housing authority in the country to ban smoking in public housing, a move that we think most CHTF members would find worthy of applause! Coverage of this development in the MassNAHRO Newsletter of October can be found in Appendix IV] of this report.

Based on this month’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 in a series of meetings and communications with the local district council of the Urban Land Institute, particularly with the Housing and Economic Development (H&ED) Council (formerly the Public/Private Partnership (“P3”) Committee), 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. Council meetings will be held bi-monthly with guest speakers, and sub-committees will meet on the alternate months. The H&ED Council will continue to work on initiatives and pursue strategic alliances that can effect change on a regional basis.

The October 10, 2012 meeting of the H&ED Council included a presentation by Eliza Datta, Vice President for Development at the New Boston Fund and Jon Braman of Bright Power (the energy consultant for the development) Formerly part of the development team for Phipps Houses, Eliza discussed her work on Via Verde, a subsidized housing development in the South Bronx in New York. The award-winning design is inspired by the integration of nature and city.

Developed by Phipps Houses, Jonathan Rose Companies with Dattner Architects and Grimshaw, Via Verde was the winning response to the New Housing New York

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 26

(NHNY) Legacy Competition sponsored by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), and the American Institute of Architects New York Chapter (AIANY). The innovative design represents one approach to the future of high quality, affordable, and sustainable housing.

Despite our disappointment in not receiving an increase in the allocation for State Historic Tax credits, Ted Carman expects to continue providing information to assist the Administration and the Legislature in considering an increase next year in the annual amount of the State Historic Tax Credit (currently capped at $50 million) and to prioritize a portion of State Historic Tax credits towards Gateway Cities to help spur development in economically-challenged communities. It is also anticipated that Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral of New Bedford will file legislation (House 2987) to increase funding for the program to $100 million and provide forward funding (i.e. assurance of full funding) of 10% of the total allocation for projects located in Gateway Cities. This work is being done in conjunction with the H&ED Council of the Urban Land Institute and with Preservation Mass, Inc.

There was broad support for the proposal in the last session of the legislature. Ted Carman, working with Barry Bluestone, Matt Zahler, and other members of ULI’s H&ED Council, prepared a cost-benefit analysis of the economic impact of increasing the State Historic Preservation Tax Credit (SHTC) to encourage the production of housing units in the Commonwealth. Based on this analysis, each dollar spent on the SHTCs results in increased tax revenues to the State of $1.20. As mentioned earlier, the Economic Development and Jobs bill approved by the House increases the annual funding for the State Historic Tax Credit by $10,000,000 (from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000), but the Governor vetoed the increase. We understand that this program is included in the overall review that the Administration is carrying out of all State tax credits, and we are hopeful that the Administration will conclude that this tax credit is one worth preserving and expanding. The Commonwealth Housing Task Force, working through the Urban Land Institute and in conjunction with Preservation Mass, assisted in making the case that such an increase in the State Historic Tax Credit would have a substantial positive multiplier effect on economic development in Massachusetts. Preservation Mass has been coordinating efforts to have additional funding for the State Historic Tax Credits contained in the State budget.

As reported previously, Stephanie Wasser of ULI confirmed that ULI Boston has received a grant from Target to help launch a Mayors’ Forum. The goal is to provide a non-partisan environment where mayors determine the agenda, and can share and discuss common challenges and successes in land use and economic development. The program was launched in May, 2012 with its first meeting held in Fitchburg, with the second meeting held on November 13, 2012, hosted by Newton Mayor Setti Warren. The next meeting will be held in January 2013.

The last ULI Boston Housing and Economic Development Council meeting was held on December 13, 2012 to hear Barry Bluestone present the conclusions of the

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 27

Greater Boston Housing Report Card. The Council is working on a special housing program for February 2013.

The ULI Housing & Economic Development Council meets approximately six times each year, usually on the second Wednesday of the month. CHTF members are welcome to attend the meetings of this committee. 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], 617- 239-0124, or get in touch with the current Council Chair, Nancy Ludwig, at [email protected], Bert Rodiger at [email protected].

Litigation Involving Chapter 40R

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] .

Congratulations and Work with the Local, State, and Federal Administrations Congratulations to our friend and CHTF member, Peter Sargent, Director of Capital Development for MHIC (the MA Housing Investment Corporation), on his election as national President of NASLEF (the National Association of State and Local Equity Funds). MHIC has been a leader in affordable housing financing in Massachusetts, and we are proud that Peter is heading its national professional organization! See a detailed article about this in Appendix V of this report. And congratulations also to Rachel Heller on assuming the position of Policy Director at Citizens Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA), filling the position previously held by Sean Caron, now at The Community Builders. Rachel is well-known to many CHTF members, having served for several years in legislative and policy positions at the state legislature, and we look forward to working closely with her in the coming years. A small working group, including representatives of CHTF, DHCD and others, has met under the direction of Jennifer Raitt of MAPC to discuss 40R issues, and the group plans to continue these discussions. In the group, there is general consensus on support for adequate funding for 40R, for more PDF planning money, and for repealing the “clawback”/recapture provision in the 40R statute. On December 6th, MAPC hosted a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Finance Summit with more than 120 attendees. A summary of this very interesting conference can be found in Appendix V of this report.

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

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 28 growth and affordable housing concepts underlying these initiatives, as well as his demonstrated support for increased funding for affordability, and his statements in support of retaining 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.

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 November 15, 2012. We have included informal notes (see Appendix V to this report) from the meeting of November 15 to give you a flavor of the breadth and depth of the concerns of this group.

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. In this connection, congratulations go to elder services organization Ethos and its Executive Director, Dale Mitchell, for having received a Root Cause award as Social Innovator of the Year organization for its AgeWell West Roxbury initiative.

Following up on a very interesting article in Banker and Tradesman of November 11, 2012, relative to speculative builder housing now making a comeback in Massachusetts, we are working with the Massachusetts Association of Realtors (MAR) to assure that their members understand the benefits of Chapter 40R/S to single-family builders and realtors. The B&T article can be found in Appendix V of this report.

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.

Barry Bluestone has also been serving on the “kitchen cabinet” of Jay Gonzalez, Secretary of Administration and Finance of the Commonwealth. Among its various responsibilities, the “cabinet”, which meets regularly with the Secretary, is tasked with

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 29 coming up with ideas that can be used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government programs. Based on the success of Chapter 40R, Barry has been suggesting in these kitchen cabinet meetings that the Commonwealth should consider tying a portion of future local aid to a set of incentives for local action on economic development initiatives.

And Barry Bluestone has joined the Metro Boston Population Projections Advisory Team of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), which is charged with developing a projection methodology for estimating the number of housing units needed over the next ten years in the Greater Boston metropolitan region. This projection tool will provide guidance to local communities and the state on the number and types of units that will likely be needed to meet affordability and economic development goals. 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. As covered in the section on the Public Housing Committee, we have been very pleased to see a major expansion of membership in that committee, particularly by executive directors of local housing authorities across Massachusetts, and look forward to their continued active engagement in CHTF.

The Boston Foundation, under the leadership of Paul Grogan and Mary Jo Meisner, continues to play the critical role of both convener and a major funder of the Commonwealth Housing Task Force. Finally, a committee of the Task Force, under the leadership of Paul Grogan and Mary Jo Meisner, continues the effort to raise the resources necessary to support the ongoing work as outlined above. Many thanks to the Boston Foundation, which continues to be our major financial supporter, to allow 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 for your continued enthusiasm and participation. Please send updates to your contact information to [email protected]. You can continue to 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

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 30 [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 December, 2012

(APPENDICES FOLLOW)

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 31

Appendix II: GBHRC 2012/ Housing Market 34

Appendix III: Student Housing/Programmatic Devs/Foreclosures 46

Appendix IV: Public Housing 75

Appendix V: Congratulations and Work with Others 86

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 31

Appendix I to CHTF Quarterly Report December, 2012 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, 1423 units of building permits have already been issued. And we believe that an additional 599 residential units have received Plan Approval from the permit granting authority, 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, Andover has received a 40R Letter of Eligibility from DHCD, with one district totaling 321 Future Zoned Units. The vote on the district is being held in abeyance while various issues with relocation of the DPD are explored. 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.

Ludlow has recently submitted an application for a new Chapter 40R District containing 350 future zoned new housing units; DHCD expects to issue a letter of eligibility before the end of 2012.

Although not all the news is rosy these days, progress continues on 40R; with the economic problems facing both municipalities and property owners, four towns that had been

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 32 considering using 40R have recently 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, with Easthampton granting local approval for the conversion of an old mill building into 50 affordable units (project is now awaiting tax credits), Easton’s 40R developer is activating the MEPA process, construction has started on Pittsfield Silk Mill project, Reading is currently reviewing a site plan for 200 units in their Gateway District (with construction expected very soon) and a developer in Reading’s Downtown District has completed construction for 53 units.

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

We are aware of interest in Chapter 40R (or additional districts under 40R) in 16 other cities and towns, including: Amesbury, Attleboro, Concord, Dennis, Holden, Ludlow, Medway, Nantucket, New Bedford, Newburyport, Norfolk, Northbridge, Rockland, Southampton, Walpole, and Waltham. 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. It is also true, however, that the weakened economy has had and will likely continue to have an impact on the degree to which communities will focus on this program in the year ahead.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 33

With the affirmation in 2010 of the state’s affordable housing program under Chapter 40B, the interest level in Chapter 40R is likely to be strong. 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 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.

Note: Updated through December, 2012 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. In that connection, see the article immediately following.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 34

Appendix II: Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2012, CHTF Plenary Session and Housing Market Updates December, 2012

II. Paul Grogan’s Cover Letter to GBHRC 2012

The Boston Foundation November, 2012 Dear Friends, The Boston Foundation is proud to publish the tenth annual Greater Boston Housing Report Card, a continuation of our work with Barry Bluestone, Director of the Kitty and Michael Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University. As always, he and his skilled team of researchers have analyzed data from the Warren Group and other sources to provide critical insights into the housing sector and its relationship to the regional economy. It’s been a decade in which Greater Boston and the nation as a whole experienced a painful ride from an unsustainable peak in home prices to a devastating trough during the Great Recession, but this year’s report finds continuing signs of a slow, sometimes uneven, recovery in Greater Boston’s housing market. While the region’s rents still sit at all-time highs, home sales and prices show signs of improvement. Indeed, Professor Bluestone’s team and partners from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council project a need for a doubling or tripling of current housing production to meet needs over the next decade. But as the market recovers, we are finding our fundamental approach to housing and homeownership itself forever changed. As older “empty nesters” look to downsize, Professor Bluestone finds they may have to compete with younger buyers who are more likely to seek smaller single-family and multi-family options. There is opportunity in this shift. In 2004, the passage of Chapter 40R gave incentives for communities to encourage denser, transit-oriented development. This “Smart Growth Housing” is crucial to increasing the supply of market-rate and affordable housing in Massachusetts, but while dozens of communities have already embraced 40R zoning incentives, the overall weakness in the economy has limited the number of units developed. The shift in demand for new homes presents an opportunity for developers to take advantage of Chapter 40R, by building smaller, more densely- and smartly-constructed communities that satisfy the needs of this emerging market. It will take a new level of cooperation among policymakers, local officials and the nonprofit and private sectors working in concert to realize the promise that this new paradigm holds. Professor Bluestone’s report once again provides a valuable trove of data and analysis from which we can work to both meet the basic needs of Greater Boston residents and provide a foundation for growth of the region’s economy. Paul S. Grogan President and CEO The Boston Foundation

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 35

II. Banker and Tradesman re: GBHRC 2012—November 14, 2012

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 Report: Region Will Need 120K To 190K More Housing Units By 2020 By Colleen M. Sullivan, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

Even as the housing market is sluggishly beginning to turn around, the Bay State needs to start pushing for more growth, according to a new report on the state of the Greater Boston housing market from The Boston Foundation.

This year is the 10th anniversary of the foundation's Greater Boston Housing Report Card, and the authors took the opportunity to project the region's housing needs through 2020.

The report comes up with two scenarios for housing needs, one based on current trends continuing, and one based on the idea that Massachusetts' relative economic strengths compared with other states will lead to stronger growth in the future. In either case, an aging population will tend to free up single-family suburban homes as older people downsize or retire elsewhere. Even so, the region will require approximately 12,000 new units of housing per year in the current trends scenario, or 19,000 in the stronger growth scenario.

That would be double or triple the average rate of new construction in Greater Boston over the past several years, which averaged 6,000 units per year from 2008 to 2010.

"Younger people are going to want more rental and condo," said Barry Bluestone, deal of the school of urban and regional policy at Northeastern University and one of the principal authors of the report. "That's a big number, but we've got to get there."

A failure to increase the amount of new construction could make it more difficult for businesses to attract employees to the region, already the third most expensive in the country after New York and San Francisco.

There are some signs that developers are already anticipating these needs.

"If we look at the change in permitting, units are up 36 percent - but single families only up 1.6 percent, nearly flat," with multifamily units and large apartments accounting for the bulk of the increase, Bluestone said. He hailed Gov. Deval Patrick's announcement yesterday that the state will push for 10,000 units of new multifamily construction across the commonwealth over the next ten years.

Bluestone cautioned, however, that it was not clear what the mix of housing should be.

"Affordability has been crashing," for younger people, since incomes haven't kept pace with housing price increases, and younger people have considerably more student debt than previous generations, he added. Those pressures will tend to keep young people in multi-unit apartments or condos longer and make them less tolerant of high commuting costs, potentially shifting demand away from single-family homes and toward multi-unit construction in both apartments and condos.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 36

The report made several recommendations that could help support these goals, including suggesting that the state consider taking advantage of current low rates to form a land bank to anticipate future needs and encourage the development of denser housing; forming a task force to figure out how to lower construction costs in the state; and looking at how to better accommodate Boston's large and growing student population to help relieve pressure on the rental market. Finally, the report recommended that the state push more developers to take advantage of the 40R statute which allows for denser, transit oriented development.

‘Build What They Want'

Developers need to be alert to these trends, agreed Alicia Sasser, a senior economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. "Just because you build something, it doesn't mean they will come. You have to build what they want," she said.

Sasser cautioned that despite several signs of a revival in demand and improved economic conditions, there are forces potentially holding back the housing market, with tight underwriting and regulatory uncertainty conspiring to keep many potential first-time buyers out of the market.

Marie Wentling, director of product strategy at The Warren Group, Banker & Tradesman's publisher, had a mixed report, emphasizing that while the improvements in the market have continued so far this year, there remain reasons to be concerned about the number of underwater homes and the potential of foreclosures. She pointed out that during the peak of the market, when prices were near their highest levels, mortgage originations were nearly triple their average rate, spiking over 800,000 per year. "Some of those refinances shouldn't have been done," she said.

Elyse Cherry, CEO of Boston Community Capital, said that the revival in the housing market is already putting pressure on efforts to help get distressed property in the hands of low income homeowners, as the price differential between foreclosed properties and normal properties is being squeezed, making distressed properties less affordable and restricting their financing options.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 37

II. Banker and Tradesman Editorial re: GBHRC 2012

Wednesday, November 21, 2012, Editorial Affordable Housing Actions As the recently released Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2012 made clear, there is a dire need for additional affordable housing in the region. In the eight years since passage of Chapter 40R – which provided additional state aid to communities that created “smart growth” overlay zones– the economic downturn and rising development costs have combined to hobble affordable housing construction in Massachusetts. The report by the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University lays out a number of ways in which cash-strapped communities and the commonwealth can work with private developers to encourage construction of more affordable housing in the state. Many of the suggestions are commonsense and cost-efficient recommendations that should be adopted immediately. For example, the report recommends that the commonwealth buy and land-bank promising sites and buildings – such as large, vacant mill buildings – for future development when the market improves. This is an innovative concept which fits in nicely, as the report notes, with the original community development mission of what is now MassDevelopment. Buying land and buildings that are sitting unused, and are unlikely to be developed soon by the private sector, would enable the state to provide sites for affordable housing in the future at a reasonable price. The report also addresses efforts to control development costs in affordable housing. It recommends that the state appoint a blue-ribbon commission to examine development costs of housing supported by public funding and find ways to reduce costs. Whether or not another commission can actually produce any dollar savings remain to be seen. But there are, as the report notes, ways to increase the effectiveness of 40R in Massachusetts that will cost little or nothing. Perhaps the easiest – and potentially most effective – tactic is to spread the word in the private development community about the benefits of Chapter 40R. The state Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) should take steps to educate both local and national affordable housing developers and connect them

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 38 with sites in Chapter 40R districts. Many private developers are still not aware that Chapter 40R developments can benefit from historic tax credits, low-income housing tax credits and other available housing subsidies. And cities and towns that have approved Chapter 40 districts should promote the fact that they have land zoned as-of-right and spread the word that they welcome affordable housing. The array of quasi-public and nonprofit organizations involved in affordable housing in Massachusetts should also take a more active role in publicizing development opportunities. There are other sound suggestions in the report for encouraging private developers to enter the affordable housing market. One recommendation, however, seems misguided. A proposal that developers looking at land or buildings suitable for a 40R district should front the funds for a municipality to hire professional help, seems like it would discourage private developers from investigating affordable housing opportunities. The study’s authors suggest that the funds could be repaid from the proceeds an incentive payment a community receives once a 40R district is approved. But private developers are unlikely to front the estimated $75,000 it costs a community for a year-long planning effort when they could lose that money if the district isn’t approved. Overall, however, the report provides solid recommendations for encouraging the development of more affordable housing in Massachusetts. The greatest obstacle to more affordable housing – resistance from many residents and officials of affluent communities – will take a long time to overcome. But now is the time for the private development community to step up and start building.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 39

II. Banker and Tradesman re: MA Association of Realtors and the Housing Market October 17, 2012

Banker and Tradesman Wednesday, October 17, 2012 MAR: Realtors Remain Confident In Massachusetts Real Estate Market In September According to the Massachusetts Association of Realtors (MAR), real estate professionals in the state are feeling pretty good about the state of the market. MAR's Realtor Market Confidence Index (RMCI) rose for the 14th straight month in September compared to the year before, and had the largest year-over-year percent increase since the data has been collected. The Realtor Price Confidence Index (RPCI) continues to be near all-time highs and has been over the 60-point mark for the fifth straight month. A large percentage of Realtors surveyed are reporting homeowners are keeping their homes off the market because they are holding out for higher prices. "We've come a long way in terms of confidence in the market since last year when the RMCI was at its 2011 low," 2012 MAR President Trisha McCarthy, broker at Keller Williams Realty in Newburyport, said in a statement. "We need to continue to encourage those folks, who may be reluctant, to put their homes on the market. Having a good supply of homes in all price ranges is very important for a real estate recovery." In September, the RMCI was 57.73, which was up 166 percent from the September 2011 score of 21.63. This is the largest year-over-year monthly increase since the data has been collected. This is also 14th straight month of year-over-year increases and the sixth straight month over the 50-point mark. On a month-to-month basis, the September RMCI was up 2.33 percent from the 56.41 score in August 2012. Measured on a 100-point scale, a score of 50 is the midpoint between a "strong" (100 points) and a "weak" (0 points) market condition. The RPCI was 64.41 in September, up 72 percent from the September 2011 RPCI of 37.38. This is the eighth straight month of year-over-year increases and the fifth straight month the RPI has been over the 60-point mark. On a month-to-month basis, the RPCI was up less than a half of one percent from the August 2012 RPCI of 64.19. MAR's Realtor Market Confidence Index (RMCI) rose for the 14th straight month in September compared to the year before, and had the largest year-over-year percent increase since the data has been collected. The Realtor Price Confidence Index (RPCI) continues to be near all-time highs and has been over the 60-point mark for the fifth straight month. A large percentage of Realtors surveyed are reporting homeowners are keeping their homes off the market because they are holding out for higher prices. "We've come a long way in terms of confidence in the market since last year when the RMCI was at its 2011 low," 2012 MAR President Trisha McCarthy, broker at Keller Williams Realty in Newburyport, said in a statement. "We need to continue to encourage

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 40 those folks, who may be reluctant, to put their homes on the market. Having a good supply of homes in all price ranges is very important for a real estate recovery." In September, the RMCI was 57.73, which was up 166 percent from the September 2011 score of 21.63. This is the largest year-over-year monthly increase since the data has been collected. This is also 14th straight month of year-over-year increases and the sixth straight month over the 50-point mark. On a month-to-month basis, the September RMCI was up 2.33 percent from the 56.41 score in August 2012. Measured on a 100-point scale, a score of 50 is the midpoint between a "strong" (100 points) and a "weak" (0 points) market condition. The RPCI was 64.41 in September, up 72 percent from the September 2011 RPCI of 37.38. This is the eighth straight month of year-over-year increases and the fifth straight month the RPI has been over the 60-point mark. On a month-to-month basis, the RPCI was up less than a half of one percent from the August 2012 RPCI of 64.19.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 41

II. The Washington Post re: the Housing Market 10-17-12

The Washington Post By Neil Irwin, Wednesday, October 17

Some blockbuster housing numbers released Wednesday mean it is finally time to start grappling with a happy possibility: What would a housing recovery look like in this economy, anyway? The Census Bureau said that housing starts rose a remarkable 15 percent in September, to their highest rate since July 2008. Analysts had forecast a 2.7 percent gain. The number of housing permits also rose double digits, 11.6 percent, compared with the 1.1 percent forecasters were predicting.

For months, a wide range of indicators of the state of the housing market have been pointing to improvement, with evidence that prices, sales and construction activity are all starting to rise after five lean years. It is still anybody’s guess how long the improvement will last and whether the worst is truly over for housing. But Wednesday’s numbers are the most solid evidence yet that the answer is “Yes.” First, it helps to understand just how deep, and sustained, this housing depression has been. Residential investment — essentially, housing construction and sales activity — has been below 3 percent of gross domestic product every quarter since the fourth quarter of 2008, closing in on four years. Before this downturn, it had never fallen below 3 percent for even a single quarter (the data go back to 1947). Even in the deep and traumatic 1981 recession, home building never experienced a single quarter as bad as those that have been seen continuously for the past four years. Part of those dire results are surely attributable to correcting the excesses of the housing bubble, roughly from 2002 through 2007. (As measured by residential investment, the housing boom peaked in the third quarter of 2005, and building activity had fallen to roughly normal levels by the summer of 2007. It was in 2008 that it fell precipitously). Here’s the thing, though: The overbuilding of houses during the boom years, while real, was not extraordinary by historical standards. The underbuilding of houses has been far greater than the excess housing construction during the boom relative to demographic trends. That means that other factors are likely major culprits in the housing weakness of the last four years: A terrible job market that has made people unwilling or unable to get a mortgage, an overhang of foreclosures that has kept the market for houses from clearing and extreme caution by banks and other lenders that has made it hard to get mortgages. Now each of those trends seems to be healing. Few would argue that a return to the housing bubble days of 2005 is attractive, but what if, over the coming year, housing returned to its longer-term trend. In the second quarter of 2012, residential investment was 2.39 percent of GDP. As a rough estimate of the longer-term trend for that number, let’s use its average level for the entire decade of the 1990s: 4.07 percent. (Using the 1990s is a bit arbitrary, even using various other base lines yields similar numbers). If residential investment converged to that longer-term average, it would add 1.7 percentage points to overall growth in the coming year. In the first six months of 2012, the growth rate of the economy excluding gains in housing was about 1.35 percent. If everything else — consumer spending, business investment, exports, and government spending — continued growing at the same pace it has in 2012, the gain in housing then would put overall growth in the coming year at something like 3.25 percent.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 42

That may not be the kind of gaudy 6 or 7 percent growth witnessed in the aftermath of the 1981 recession, but it would be enough to finally put people back to work in a meaningful way. And it would be a big improvement from the three years of sluggish, halting growth that have been seen since the current recovery technically began in the summer of 2009. That would mean an additional $262 billion in economic activity, which, if recent relationships between dollars of residential investment and housing starts hold up, would translate into an additional 517,000 homes being built every year — meaning that the 872,000 annual rate of housing starts that the Census reported on Wednesday would rise by a cumulative 59 percent over the coming twelve months. While all this may seem like an naively sunny scenario — and it would be great news for the economy if it materializes — keep in mind that it is hardly presenting an outlandish sort of boom for housing. Rather, this is what would happen if housing returns to its average role in the economy of the pre-bubble 1990s and did so over the coming 12 months. The dark clouds are these: We don’t know for sure whether the gains in September housing activity are a short-term blip, one of the kinds of ups and downs we have seen too many of in this recovery, or something more. And this entire scenario has assumed that the other sectors of the economy keep holding up their current growth rates. But there have been signs that some of those sectors, particularly exports and business investment, are losing steam. If those trends continue, it is all the more important that housing start to carry its weight and that September turn out to be the start of something big.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 43

II. Banker and Tradesman re: (Slow) Market Recovery 11-8-12

Banker and Tradesman Thursday, November 8, 2012 Economists Predict Slow Recovery For New England Housing Market By Colleen M. Sullivan, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

The most likely future for New England's economy --- and its housing market --- is a slow slog back to normality, economists agreed at a summit held yesterday at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

The forum, sponsored by the Greater Boston Association of Realtors, featured economists Alicia Sasser Modestino of the Fed and Patrick Newport of IHS Global Insight, Eric Belsky, director of Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies and John P. Brodrick, senior vice president of mortgage banking at Eastern Bank,/

Modestino reviewed the current state of the New England and Massachusetts economy, saying that the regions' recovery has been fitful over the past year, with slower growth here than in the rest of the nation. However, she said that's partly because New England had less ground to make up, with the declines in housing and employment far more shallow here than in places like Arizona and Nevada. Massachusetts in particular has fared better than the rest of the region, she said, with unemployment rate dropping to 6.5 percent over the course of the past year, 1 percent better than New England and 1.3 percent better than the national average.

But according to Modestino, the slowdown in the recovery means that it will take several more years for the region to return to the same level of employment it enjoyed before the recession. Unemployment may worsen, she added, before improving as job growth entices people who had stopped seeking work to return to the labor market.

Newport, the director of long-term forecasting for IHS, echoed Modestino's caution when it came to housing. Though 2012 had been a substantial improvement over a dismal 2011, Newport said, it shouldn't be forgotten that 2011 was the worst year for housing since the 1940s, and even a 10 to 20 percent improvement in sales still left the market well below par.

"I think we need to wait until 2015 until things resemble normal in the housing market," with home prices rising more than inflation, said Newport.

However, he said, the Fed's policy of low rates should continue for the foreseeable future, boosting home prices while the market slowly recovers. By next year, he said "we should see home prices rising in every state."

Sustained Price Increase?

Belsky, however, was somewhat more positive on the prospects for a more robust recovery. Though the recovery has been sluggish so far, it is possible for a relatively small improvement in the overall economy to spark a quick acceleration in housing, he said. He pointed to two factors to make his case: The first-time homebuyer's tax credit in spring 2010 created a mini-boom that quickly drove up house prices, with the promise of $8,000 in credits --- less than 5 percent of the

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 44 median single family home price in Massachusetts --- enough to drive a wave of buyers into the market.

That experience suggests, he argued, that a relatively small improvement in the overall economy could spark a similar large revival in demand that would prompt a sustained price increase.

Belsky suggested there's a still a huge wave of untapped demand out there, since "household formation," the term economists use to describe the number of people moving out on their own, has been well below historical levels for several years.

If it weren't for people doubling up, about 2 million more households would have been formed across the country over the past several years, providing a substantial boost to demand, Belsky said.

"My theory is that unless somebody who is living with their adult children --- now aging into their twenties and thirties --- decide that this is the lifestyle they always wanted, you're going to see them writing a check that's going to show in [the kid's] bank accounts about three months before they buy a house," said Belsky. "There's enormous pressure to reverse this [doubling up]."

However, Belsky did caution that current underwriting standards were continuing to make it difficult for young people to qualify for loans, driving people into the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

But prospects for any potential loosening in lending standards looked dismal after the report by Brodrick, who rattled off a range of regulatory challenges at several levels that are keeping banks cautious, including new international banking standards that call upon large banks to retain more capital, new federal rulemaking under Dodd-Frank regarding "qualified residential mortgages" that could drive banks into tighter lending standards, and Massachusetts's own recently passed foreclosure law, which will impose higher servicing costs on banks that could make them skittish about loosening lending in the Bay State.

Even with all that, however, panelists seemed to agree that the economy and the housing market should stay on a path toward further growth.

"New England is resilient. If we can survive a Pats' loss to New York in the Super Bowl, a Celts' loss to Miami and the worst Red Sox season since 1965, then getting the economy restarted should be a walk in the park," joked Modestino.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 45

II. Banker and Tradesman re: Home Sales 11-27-12

Banker and Tradesman Tuesday, November 27, 2012 October Bay State Home Sales Jump 20 Percent Condo Sales Rise for Ninth Straight Month The Warren Group Tune In Timothy M. Warren Jr., CEO of The Warren Group, is encouraged by the October housing numbers. Click here to find out why. Sales of Massachusetts single-family homes rose again in October, increasing 21 percent from a year earlier, according to the latest report by The Warren Group, publisher of Banker & Tradesman.

A total of 4,044 single-family homes sold in Massachusetts in October, a 21 percent increase from 3,340 sales in October 2011.Year-to-date sales are up almost 22 percent at 39,491, compared to 32,428 during the same period a year ago.

"Home sales for the first 10 months of the year have already surpassed sales in all of 2011," said The Warren Group CEO Timothy M. Warren Jr. "Record low mortgage rates, an improved economy and growing consumer confidence are boosting the housing market in Massachusetts and around the country."

The median price of single-family homes remained unchanged at $270,000 in October. This is the lowest monthly median price since March, when prices were $263,000. The median price for homes sold January through October was $287,500, down almost 1 percent from $290,000 in the prior year.

In October, condominium sales statewide rose 48.8 percent, increasing to 1,607 from 1,080 a year ago. Year-to-date condo sales are up 29 percent to 16,239 from 12,559 during the same period last year.

The median condo price inched up to $255,000 in October, a 0.79 percent increase from $253,000 a year earlier. The year-to-date median price of condos in the Bay State is $275,000, up 0.73 percent from $273,000 a year ago.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 46

Appendix III: Student Housing and Programmatic Developments, December, 2012 Boston.com

Patrick announces funds for state college building projects October 2, 2012

By Mary Carmichael, Globe Staff Governor Deval Patrick kicked off a week-long round of appearances at state college campuses today and announced hundreds of millions in funding for higher education building projects. The money, drawn from a four-year-old, $2.2 billion bond initiative, includes $607 million for the University of Massachusetts system and $20.7 million for Roxbury Community College. Patrick visited UMass Boston and RCC today. “Providing access to quality, affordable higher education is about giving all of our students the opportunity to succeed,” Patrick said in a statement. “Education is Massachusetts’ calling card around the world and central to our competitiveness in the global economy. ... It is the single most important investment government can make in our collective future.” The governor’s choice of RCC -- where state and federal regulators are investigating a panoply of management issues -- as the starting place for his series of appearances was intentional, said Secretary of Education Paul Reville. “Obviously, given the current events at Roxbury, this is a show of continuing confidence that this administration has in that campus and its ability to map out a positive future,” he said. “I think the governor particularly wanted to underline the fact that we were making that investment.” The $20.7 million is the same sum RCC previously publicized as supporting a plan to build a life sciences center. However, only $470,000 of it is being used for a feasibility study supporting that project, which is being conducted through the state’s Division of Capital Asset Management. The bulk of RCC’s funding will instead go to renovations of existing classroom spaces and other upgrades for two campus buildings dedicated to academics and media arts, Reville said. Science and technology proposals have nonetheless been a major priority for both the administration and the state’s public colleges during discussions of what to fund, Reville added. For instance, a large chunk of the UMass money -- $85 million -- will support a new physical sciences building at the Amherst campus. Meanwhile, the Lowell branch will get support for a $35 million building attached to its Manning School of Business, and UMass Boston will receive funding toward a $100 million classroom building needed to help it keep pace with increasing enrollment. Funding from the bond initiative will continue to be distributed in the future -- the bill has a 10-year lifespan. Patrick is expected to make two more announcements Wednesday, at Mount Wachusett Community College in Gardner and MassBay Community College in Framingham. Further funds for the state’s other colleges will be parcelled out over the next week, culminating in an Oct. 9 announcement revealing the remainder of all capital funding projects across the state. Other state officials are also starting a full-court press this week to promote public higher education. UMass President Robert Caret launched a four-day, statewide bus tour Monday to mark the system’s 150th anniversary. And the Department of Higher Education’s “Go Public” campaign -- intended to appeal to potential in-state applicants while encouraging them to bone up on math and science during high school -- begins Wednesday. Mary Carmichael can be reached at [email protected].

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 47

III. Banker and Tradesman re: Wentworth Dorm

Banker and Tradesman Wednesday, October 17, 2012 Proposed Boston Dorm Wins Neighbors’ Support College Hopes To Bring Students on Campus By Jim Cronin, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer Wentworth Institute of Technology has cleared at least one hurdle as it aims to construct a 109,000-square-foot dormitory with apartment-style residences, hoping to attract some 305 students onto campus and out of market-rate rentals in Boston's Mission Hill and Fenway neighborhoods.

Residents who attended a presentation of the 525 Huntington Ave. project last night roundly supported the project. "We are extremely impressed by the percentage of students that will be brought on-campus," said Joyce foster, a board member for the Fenway Community Development Corp.

According to Wentworth officials, approximately 375 students choose to live off-campus each year, and take up residence in the Mission Hill and Fenway neighborhoods. School representatives are targeting those students specifically to move into the new dorm building, scheduled to open for the fall of 2014, said David Wahlstrom, Wentworth's vice president for business.

The reason they're so confident they'll fill all the beds? Two words - granite countertops. The school asked students what would keep them on campus; students said they wanted apartments, not traditional dorms. As a result, many of the apartment-dorm rooms have single rooms instead of shared. They have washers and dryers in the units. They have a kitchen, a living room, and yes, granite countertops. And, according to school officials, they'll cost 20 percent less than the neighborhoods' market-rate housing.

Construction is scheduled to begin in February 2013. The project will cost $43 million. The building will be 84 feet tall. The exterior will be a greenish-blue color and have a lot of glass on every floor. Along Huntington Avenue, the school will create a 2,300-square-foot public park. Rainwater will be redirected to the site to be used in landscaping, and the building is aiming to achieve LEED Silver status from the U.S. Green Building Council for environmental friendliness and efficiency.

"I can't wait to see the building get built," said Maria Sanchez, a Mission Hill resident who said she supports the project. Representatives from the offices of City Councilor Michael Ross and state Rep. Jeffrey Sanchez also voiced support.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 48

III. Department of Housing and Economic Development: Press Release at the Completion of 30 Haven Street, Reading, MA

Dept. of Housing and Economic Development Press Release For Immediate release - October 11, 2012 Downtown Reading Housing Development

READING – October 11, 2012 – Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Greg Bialecki today joined state and local officials to celebrate the opening of 30 Haven St., a 53-unit smart-housing, mixed-use development in Reading's 40R smart-growth district. The transit- oriented housing was supported with more than $500,000 in state resources from the Patrick- Murray Administration and includes 11 affordable units.

“Creating new, well-planned housing is vital to our continued economic recovery and retaining young, innovative talent, and is a central goal in the Administration’s long-term economic development plan,” said Secretary Bialecki. “This project at 30 Haven St. is a model example of how state investments in new housing through the Chapter 40R program can work best, and over the next year the Patrick-Murray Administration will put a priority on partnering with communities to encourage new housing construction related to Chapter 40R permits.”

The project at 30 Haven St. was supported with $509,000 in Chapter 40R funding, $200,000 in Affordable Housing Trust Funds and $18 million in private investment. Along with the 53 units of housing, the development includes 22,000 square feet of retail space and underground parking for 78 cars. The project was built by Oaktree Construction and R.J. Finlay & Co., and is the first modular housing and mixed-use development in downtown Reading. The Reading smart-growth district is a strong example of a community that will attract residents and support local businesses. Linked to local jobs and public transportation, the district will be attractive to younger workers and families.

Supporting quality housing is part of the Patrick-Murray Administration’s effort to maintain and grow a strong economy. The jobs bill, signed by Governor Deval Patrick in August, includes a $4 million recapitalization of Chapter 40R to support additional smart-growth projects across the Commonwealth. Chapter 40R encourages communities to create dense residential or mixed-use zoning districts to be located near transit stations and areas of concentrated development. Chapter 40R provides cities and towns that adopt 40R zoning as much as $600,000 in incentive funds, plus an additional $3,000 for every new housing unit created.

Regional economic development and retaining talent are keys to the Administration’s economic development plan, “Choosing to Compete in the 21st Century,” which recognizes the need to increase the number of housing units that are accessible to middle- and moderate-income households. Along with investments through the 40R program the Administration also offers support for new housing through the new Housing Development Incentive Program, which offers local-option real estate tax exemptions and state tax credits for developments in Gateway Cities; and Chapter 43D, which creates Priority Development Sites that create streamlined local permitting processes in approved areas.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 49

On November 13, at the first Statewide Housing and Community Development conference in more than a decade, the Patrick-Murray Administration will announce additional tools to help support housing creation in the Commonwealth.

### DEVAL PATRICK GOVERNOR Tim Murray LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Gregory Bialecki Secretary

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 50

III. Governor Patrick’s Press Release re: Housing Production Goal November 13, 2012 Governor Patrick Outlines Initiatives Designed To Increase Housing In Massachusetts, Sets Statewide Goal of 10,000 New Multi-Family Units Per Year WORCESTER - November 13, 2012 – Committed to creating new housing that is vital to maintaining Massachusetts’ young, well-educated base of talent, Governor Patrick today outlined initiatives designed to produce 10,000 multi-family units of housing per year, the first production goal of this kind set by any state in the country. “Access to housing for our middle- and moderate-income families is an important component in the Commonwealth’s continued growth to retain and build our young and innovative workforce,” said Governor Patrick. “By working to strengthen and expand our current initiatives and through greater collaboration with organizations and agencies across the Commonwealth, we aim to produce 10,000 multi-family housing units annually. This will further support our state’s continued growth and economic competitiveness for generations to come.” At “Under One Roof,” the Commonwealth’s first Housing and Community Development Conference in more than a decade, Governor Patrick detailed the new Compact Neighborhoods program, designed to encourage and create well-planned housing that fulfills the demand for homes near jobs, transit and the vitality of city and town centers. Compact Neighborhoods complement smart-growth programs by providing incentives to encourage residential development near transit and town centers. The program will recognize communities planning ahead systematically for economic and housing growth, and will offer Chapter 40B relief and priority consideration in discretionary funding programs, such as the MassWorks Infrastructure Program. Also today, Lieutenant Governor Timothy Murray discussed the Administration’s commitment to preserving and strengthening affordable housing for residents, particularly veterans. The Lieutenant Governor, who chairs both the Interagency Council on Housing and Homelessness and the Governor's Advisory Council on Veterans' Services, noted a 21 percent decline in the number of homeless veterans over the last year, with the goal of lowering the number of homeless veterans (currently approximately 1,270) by 1,000 by 2015. The Lieutenant Governor also discussed the Administration’s reforms of the emergency assistance program, which is designed to increase investments in preventing homelessness and expanding permanent housing solutions while still providing a strong safety net for those who need immediate emergency housing. "We are working strategically with our partners in the public and private sector to deliver more affordable housing solutions for individuals and families across the Commonwealth," said Lieutenant Governor Timothy Murray, Chair of the Interagency Council on Housing and Homelessness. "By setting targeted goals, we will work

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 51 together to ensure resources are used effectively and efficiently to support housing resources and community development." Increasing market-rate housing for families and individuals is part of the Patrick-Murray Administration’s comprehensive plan for improving housing at all levels. Along with creating new housing, the Administration has made significant investments in the Commonwealth’s public housing stock, by preserving and improving the 46,000 housing units in the system through increased capital funding, increased operating subsidies, and changes in management of those resources. Compact Neighborhoods joins a number of existing programs that are being expanded or re-funded in an effort to expand available options for cities and towns and help meet the goal of 10,000 new housing units per year. The goal figure was set after collaborating with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council and the Kitty and Michael Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University. This includes the Chapter 40R tool, which similarly to Compact Neighborhoods promotes smart-growth districts. Last month, Reading officials opened a mixed-use project in the downtown area that was supported by Chapter 40R funding, which was replenished by $4 million dedicated to the program in the jobs bill signed by Governor Patrick in August. Also expanded in the jobs bill is the Chapter 43D program, which will support prompt and predictable residential permitting. Some communities, like Groton, have used Chapter 43D to support housing production that provides a variety of housing types for residents. Last month, Governor Patrick announced the first Housing Incentive Development Program district, in Pittsfield. Specifically designed for Gateway Cities, the HDIP program is a development tool for increased residential growth and expanded diversity of housing stock. The program offers incentives to developers through a local-option real estate tax exemption and a state tax credit for 10 percent of eligible costs, up to $1 million. The “Under One Roof” conference [was] a full-day, statewide event focused on housing issues across a broad range of issues, including emergency housing assistance, the Commonwealth’s public housing program that is one of the strongest in the nation and the plans to grow the state’s housing stock. Approximately 1,000 people attended the conference, which included sessions hosted by prominent state, non-profit and private- development housing leaders. ###

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 52

III. Boston Globe re: Governor’s Announcement of Housing Goal November 14, 2012

Governor Patrick details multifamily housing plan Goal is to keep young professionals in Massachusetts

By Jenifer B. McKim | GLOBE STAFF NOVEMBER 14, 2012

Governor Deval Patrick detailed a plan Tuesday to produce 10,000 multifamily housing units a year through 2020 in an effort to keep young professionals from leaving Massachusetts. The initiative includes a program called Compact Neighborhoods that will encourage and create housing near workplaces, public transportation, and city and village centers, Patrick said.

The plan is meant to complement other state initiatives that promote so-called smart-growth — the creation of housing near train stations and urban centers, state officials said. It would more than double the amount of housing with five or more units — including apartments and condominiums — expected to be built by the end of this year, the state said

“Access to housing for our middle- and moderate-income families is an important component in the Commonwealth’s continued growth to retain and build our young and innovative workforce,” Patrick said in a statement.

The move comes amid a growing chorus of housing specialists who are stressing the importance of building more higher-density housing. On Wednesday, a Boston nonprofit is scheduled to release its annual report forecasting that an increasing number of home buyers will seek “smaller, more transit-oriented developments” rather than traditional suburban single-family homes.

Study author Barry Bluestone said the housing demand will be led by younger families with significant debt, and older people looking to downsize.

The report by the nonprofit Boston Foundation calls for the state to double or triple its housing development in the region as young professionals and baby boomers compete for the same types of homes in Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, Plymouth, and Norfolk counties.

Barry Bluestone, director of the Kitty and Michael Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University, and lead author of the study, said he was “thrilled” to learn about the governor’s goal to bolster the creation of multifamily residences.

Bluestone said housing demand over the next eight years will be led by younger families with significant debt, and older people looking to downsize.

“We are about to see a very dramatic shift in the overall demand for housing and the type of housing people will want,” he said.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 53

Marc Draisen, executive director of the regional Metropolitan Area Planning Council, also praised the new state initiative, saying it will focus public and private efforts on a similar goal. The council predicts the Boston area will expand by 120,000 households — most of them younger families — between 2010 and 2020.

“I’m very glad the governor has set a goal,” he said. “What we really need is multifamily homes.“

Under Patrick’s plan, there will be financial incentives for communities that build more densely — at least eight units per acre for multifamily homes and at least four units per acre for single-family homes — according to Aaron Gornstein, the Massachusetts undersecretary for Housing and Community Development. Incentives include priority access to state funding for infrastructure improvements, among other resources, he said. To be eligible, developments must reserve at least 10 percent of units for lower-income tenants, Gornstein said.

Local governments promoting such projects would not have to comply with the state’s more contentious affordable-housing law, Chapter 40b. That law allows builders to bypass certain zoning restrictions in communities where less than 10 percent of the housing stock is classified as affordable.

Compact Neighborhoods is one of several programs meant to reach the goal of building 10,000 new housing units a year, Gornstein said. Others include a program known as Chapter 40R, which promotes development close to public transportation, so residents have easy access to city jobs.

“We are trying to promote more compact development, affordable and market-rate housing near centers, near transit, and where jobs are being created,” Gornstein said.

Some housing specialists are less optimistic about high-density growth in farther-flung areas. Harvard University economist Edward Glaeser is skeptical that families will want to live in multifamily complexes without urban amenities. He also questioned whether 10,000 units will be enough to meet growing housing needs.

“I think it is going to take stronger medicine,’’ Glaeser said.

Patrick spoke Tuesday at a housing conference in Worcester titled “Under one roof,” sponsored by the state Department of Housing and Community Development. Wednesday, housing specialists are scheduled to meet at the Boston Foundation’s downtown offices to discuss the group’s 10th annual report, called the Greater Boston Housing Report Card.

Bluestone conceded that many communities are resistant to building homes too close together, but he said high-density housing is essential to meet the needs of both seniors and younger professionals.

“Back 20 or 30 years ago, everybody wanted to live in the suburbs, with the backyard and the swing set,” he said. “That demand is going to weaken.”

Jenifer B. McKim can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on twitter @jbmckim

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 54

III. DHCD Fact Sheet: Compact Neighborhoods Policy 11/12

Compact Neighborhoods Policy The Department of Housing and Community Development will offer, effective November 14, 2012, additional incentives to municipalities that adopt zoning districts promoting the Commonwealth’s strong interest in housing for working families of all incomes and in smart growth. For purposes of this Policy, these zoning districts will be called “Compact Neighborhoods.” This new tool complements Chapter 40R, the Commonwealth’s Smart Growth Overlay District statute.

To participate in this program, a municipality must: (1) identify an “as-of-right” base or overlay zoning district (Compact Neighborhood); (2) request and receive a Letter of Eligibility1 from the Department, confirming that the Compact Neighborhood is in an “Eligible Location” and that the zoning meets or exceeds the applicable requirements for participation in this initiative; (3) adopt the Compact Neighborhood Zoning, submit proof of local adoption and receive a Letter of Certification from the Department.

The Compact Neighborhood Zoning must: (1) allow for a minimum number of “Future Zoned Units” in the Compact Neighborhood, which is generally one percent of the year-round housing units in that community2; (2) allow one or more of the following densities as-of-right in the Compact Neighborhood: a density of at least 8 units per acre for Developable Land zoned for multi-family residential use (2-family or more) or at least 4 units per acre for “Developable Land” zoned for singlefamily residential use; (3) provide that not less than 10 percent of all units constructed within “Projects” of more than 12 units are “Affordable”; and (4) not impose restrictions on age or any other form of occupancy restrictions upon the Compact Neighborhood as a whole (however, specific projects may be exclusively for the elderly, persons with disabilities, or for assisted living, provided that any such Project is in compliance with all applicable fair housing laws).

In reviewing requests for eligibility, the Department will use, among others, the definitions of “As-of-Right,” “Eligible Location,” “Future Zoned Units,” “Developable Land,” “Project,” and “Affordable” in the Chapter 40R regulations (760 CMR 59.01 et seq.). The 10% affordability requirement would apply to each Project of more than 12 units, rather than to the Compact Neighborhood as a whole.

1 A Letter of Eligibility is not required for qualifying Compact Neighborhoods adopted up to five years prior to November 14, 2012. In that instance, the applying community would receive a Letter of Certification. 2 For the Commonwealth’s three largest cities measured by the number of year-round housing units, the minimum

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 55 number of Future Zoned Units would be, respectively, 700, 500 and 500. Municipalities may choose to require a higher percentage of affordable units or to set a lower threshold for requiring Projects to include affordable units. If the Department certifies that the municipality has created a “Compact Neighborhood,” this certification can be used by the municipality as evidence of a “Previous Municipal Action” that must be considered by a Subsidizing Agency in making the findings that are necessary under Chapter 40B for a determination of Project Eligibility (760 CMR 56.04(4)(b) and relevant Guidelines). Under the Guidelines, existence of a Compact Neighborhood may be given weight in this determination. If the Department certifies that the municipality has created a “Compact Neighborhood,” this certification can be used by the municipality when it applies for discretionary funding by state agency programs that have included a preference for adoption of a Compact Neighborhood. Such a preference is included in the MassWorks infrastructure program administered by the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development and will be proposed for certain other funding programs this year. The list of applicable programs will be maintained and periodically updated on the Department’s new Compact Neighborhoods webpage.

All municipalities are eligible. With respect to municipalities considering the adoption of a Compact Neighborhood, the Department strongly recommends an informal pre-application discussion and site visit with its staff and/or staff of one of the Commonwealth’s quasi-public housing agencies prior to the municipality’s request for a Letter of Eligibility. If a municipality adopted new base or overlay zoning within the last five years that meets the criteria for this program, it may apply for the Compact Neighborhood designation. Master permits approved within the last five years that allow additional development as-of-right may also qualify. The Department has expanded its Priority Development Fund (PDF) criteria to include financial assistance to communities in adopting Compact Neighborhood Zoning. Priority for this funding will be given to creation of Compact Neighborhoods encouraging integrated mixed-use development beyond the boundaries of a single project.

The Department expects municipalities, in drafting zoning ordinances to: (1) create districts which meet the definition of “Smart Growth” in the Chapter 40R regulations, including not only the location and density of the Compact Center but also its emphasis on mixing land uses and sustainability principles; (2) promote the development of housing that is priced for households across a broad range of incomes; and (3) promote the development of housing appropriate for diverse populations, including households with children, other households, individuals, and households including individuals with disabilities and the elderly. This initiative will be managed by the Department’s Smart Growth Coordinator in the Office of Sustainable Communities.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 56

III. Boston Globe Story re: the Homeless Safety Net, 10-7-12

Boston Globe A safety net that is leaving more people out

By Yvonne Abraham | GLOBE COLUMNIST OCTOBER 07, 2012 Ginna and her daughter had bounced from couch to couch for months before they lost their last refuge: A friend, worried about losing her lease, asked her to leave.

Unemployed and out of options, the young mother went to the state to ask for emergency shelter on Aug. 8. She had previously been denied because she was $12 over the income limit. Now Department of Housing and Community Development workers suspected Ginna of quitting her job at a sandwich shop to get benefits. She begged them to talk to her former boss, who could tell them she was let go because she had no child care and couldn’t make shifts. They didn’t.

“If only they had made that call, this would never, ever have happened to me,” said the slight, dark-haired 21-year-old.

Instead, Ginna and her 17-month-old began sleeping at South Station. On the first night, a man brought her food. He came back the next night and told her he had a place for her to stay. She was exhausted and her baby was wailing and she had no one, so she went with him. Later that night, the man raped her. She waited for him to fall asleep, then fled with her daughter.

The Patrick administration’s heart might be in the right place when it comes to ending homelessness, but its new approach to this huge problem is hurting some of the very people most in need of help. While boosting resources for permanent housing, the state has begun turning away an alarming number of families from its shelter system. Until recently, 40 to 50 percent of families who applied for emergency shelter were denied each month. Last month, the average was 68 percent. In the last week of September, 74 percent of families seeking shelter were denied. Ginna’s case is the most tragic of many.

“We’ve seen a real spike,” said Jim Greene, director of Boston’s Emergency Shelter Commission, which took about 500 calls from desperate families last month, compared to an average of 375 earlier this year. “We get calls almost daily . . . reporting that people are staying in emergency rooms because they have nowhere else to go. More people are reporting to us that they’re staying in parks and vans.” Boston Medical Center confirms that it has seen an increase in homeless families showing up at the ER over the last month.

“We are completely inundated” with calls from families who have nowhere to go, said Ruth Bourquin, senior attorney at the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. “Before August, we almost never heard of families staying in [cars]. Now it’s every day.”

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 57

Since new regulations went into effect in August, state workers are suddenly far more skeptical about people’s claims of homelessness, far less likely to believe somebody who says they can no longer stay with the friend or grandmother with whom they’ve been doubled up.

“The restrictions have never been this tough before,” said Kelly Turley, legislative director of the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless. “This is the most discouraging situation I’ve seen. It’s scary.”

How did we get here? From good intentions, actually. The Patrick administration and many legislators are truly committed when it comes to the issue of homelessness. Currently, the state provides shelter space to about 2,000 families, and houses another 1,800 in expensive motels. Few other states provide that kind of safety net.

In an effort to move people out of politically unpopular motels and head off homelessness before it happens, the 2013 budget contains big funding increases for rental assistance and other programs that keep struggling families in their homes. Accompanying the shift towards permanent housing are the new regulations designed to make getting into shelters more difficult.

“Obviously we want to maintain a strong safety net,” said Aaron Gornstein, undersecretary for Housing and Community Development. “But we also want to make sure we’re spending taxpayer dollars wisely, investing in prevention and permanent housing, and that emergency shelter is a last resort.”

The problem is, there isn’t yet enough prevention and affordable housing to save many families from the street. “None of us have a safety net to put under the safety net that has been restricted,” said Greene.

What’s frustrating to him, and to others who work on the front lines, is that the state seems unwilling to recognize there is a problem here. State officials seem entirely wedded to the notion that almost everybody has somewhere to stay, even when they say they don’t. They say this is based on experience – that their past investigations have shown people can almost always find someone to take them in.

They’re not persuaded by the stories of families sleeping in cars and on beaches and in the lobbies of apartment buildings, which they believe are exaggerated by advocates determined to grow the shelter system. Privately, they have suggested Greene and others are using poor families as pawns. Publicly, they wonder if advocates are suggesting homeless families put themselves in dangerous situations just to qualify for shelter.

“I hope they’re not coaching them to do that,” Gornstein said.

Seriously? People who have devoted careers to ending homelessness would advise families to give up homes and put themselves in harm’s way?

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 58

It’s hard to reconcile the Deval Patrick who demanded that his party stop apologizing for its values at the Democratic National Convention with the way his administration is handling this.

“I believe the governor when he said it’s about our values,” said Senator Ken Donnelly, an Arlington Democrat who is one of a group of legislators trying to rebalance the shelter regulations. “But they have this feeling that people are somehow gaming the system, and you just look at them and say, ‘What planet are you on?’ ”

Look, this is clearly a tough issue. The governor and the Legislature have taken on a difficult and expensive balancing act trying to work out how much to devote to long-term solutions like affordable housing and how much to short-term ones like shelter. It is always a good idea to keep people with family or friends as they await help with permanent housing — as long as that is possible. But the state is increasingly unwilling to admit that sometimes, it’s not. And some of the very people shelters are designed to protect are casualties.

“I work, I don’t party, I don’t do drugs,” Ginna said. “I’m a good girl. I want to make something of myself.”

When she went back to the housing office in Roxbury after she was raped, Ginna said, housing officials refused to look at her rape kit. They denied her shelter again, then had her escorted out by guards, she said. Then the workers who had refused Ginna and her daughter a safe place to sleep filed a report accusing her of neglecting her baby.

After Bourquin and others got involved, Ginna finally was granted emergency shelter. The neglect complaint was thrown out.

Gornstein said Ginna’s shelter denials had nothing to do with the new, stricter regulations. He said she would have been denied last year, too, because workers believed she had quit her job without good cause.

No way, say those who have been fighting for Ginna: They’re certain she would have gotten the benefit of the doubt before, that workers would have made the call to her supervisor.

That would have taken three minutes, tops. Last week, that supervisor, Robert Peebles, picked up on the second ring at the cell number Ginna begged state workers to call in August. He said he never received a call or a message from housing workers. Ginna lost her job “because she couldn’t make it any more, she had her daughter and she was not able to obtain child care,” he confirmed. A second call to the sandwich shop to confirm Peebles was a supervisor there took another minute.

In an affidavit, a Department of Housing and Community Development supervisor said a worker in the Dudley Square office did try Peebles’s cell at some point, but did not speak to him. Ginna said the worker certainly didn’t call while she was pleading with her in the office.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 59

“While she was sleeping in her bed, I was being raped,” she said. “That’s going to be with me for the rest of my life. Nobody can erase this.”

Still, Ginna is trying to move on. The sandwich shop hired her back last week. She is working on finding care for her daughter so she can pick up more hours. She wants to get into her own place quickly, to stabilize her life so she can bring her husband from the Dominican Republic; she is a US citizen.

Gornstein said he is looking into Ginna’s case, and at those of other families across the state who advocates say have been unfairly denied shelter under the new rules. “I want to assure you, we are taking this very seriously to make sure people don’t fall through the cracks,” Gornstein said. “We’re trying to err on the side of caution and make sure we maintain a safety net for people who really need it.”

There will be hearings on the new shelter regulations in Western Massachusetts on Oct. 22, and in Boston on Oct. 25. Ginna may testify. Gornstein points out that his office has already made 20 changes to the new rules based on public input, and that it’s prepared to make more to better protect families who need help.

Good. This must be fixed, and fast. Winter is coming.

Yvonne Abraham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on twitter @GlobeAbraham.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 60

III. Boston Globe: Joan Wickersham on Homelessness The homeless beat By Joan Wickersham | GLOBE CORRESPONDEN T DECEMBER 14, 2012

HIS TITLE is Officer — Officer Eric Helberg of the Cambridge Police Department — but homeless people in Cambridge call him “Eric.” He’s worked with them for the past 10 years, beginning when he walked a beat around Central Square. His fellow officers watched him talking to homeless men and women in a way that gradually built trust in a wary, hard-to- reach group. “Eric was good,” says Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas. “He had an extraordinary skill set.”

Noticing that Eric’s interactions with the homeless were reducing the number of reported problems, the department created a homeless outreach program in 2007, comprised of Eric and another officer, Matt Price.

Recently I joined Eric on his morning rounds. It was cold and many of Eric’s regular “clients,” as he respectfully calls them, weren’t out yet. But he knew where to look, driving around the city to check on people’s whereabouts and condition.

Outside a bottle-and-can return he stopped to speak to a group of men from Central America. “Que pasa, Eric?” they greeted him. Nobody was drinking, at least not yet; everybody looked fine, except for one whose face was still healing from an assault by another homeless man several weeks earlier.

In Harvard Square Eric stopped to talk to a man and woman. They were worried about another woman who had just gone into rehab: “What’s going to happen when she gets out?” The woman in rehab was a 25-year-old heroin addict. Eric had gotten her into rehab once before and she’d walked out after one night. If she could stick it out this time, he would work to get her into transitional housing afterward. “What’s hardest is people who are in couples,” he told me. “One gets clean, but then comes out of rehab and the other person is still using.”

Eric is also a realist about the devastating impact of alcohol. “It’s the easiest drug to get, and the most destructive.” Sometimes his work is simply to transport an intoxicated person to a shelter. “I can tell when someone is really sick, or just needs to sleep.” Such vigilance helps to avert bigger problems — fights, people passing out on the street — and to avoid unnecessary hospitalizations. “Not that it’s just about cost, but why be wasteful?”

Simple changes can make a big difference. Eric pointed to some benches along the sidewalk. “We used to get a lot of calls about disruptive large groups, so in the last few years we’ve reconfigured the city’s benches to discourage large groups from congregating.”

More driving around, more conversations. A woman said she couldn’t get a place at a shelter the day before. “Are you sure?” Eric asked. “They’re not supposed to turn anyone away.” But later, stopping at the shelter, he found that because of the cold and the shortage of beds, people were being turned away as early as 2:30 in the afternoon. “The people who live by collecting cans aren’t going to go in that early. They’re out on the street 14 hours sometimes,” he told me. “Their priorities are different. What’s more important, your drinking, your canning, or your safety? They’re not going to answer that question the same way you or I would.”

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 61

Eric works closely with social service and medical organizations. “Before we started this, we were islands: EMTs, the shelters, the police. We all took care of the same people, but no one talked. Now we’re a network of community services.”

A radio call: an “unwanted person” in a café. Eric went inside, and came out holding a water bottle, accompanied by a thin man in a loose, shabby parka. They talked and the man ambled away. “He’d fallen asleep at a table,” Eric said, uncapping the water bottle and passing it to me to sniff. Vodka.

Getting people off the streets — into treatment, into housing — solves a lot of problems, both for homeless people and for the city. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn’t. The goal of the Cambridge program, according to Police Superintendent Steven Williams, “isn’t to end homelessness. That would be unrealistic. The homeless are part of the fabric of any city. But with Eric’s and Matt’s help we can minimize the impact.”

As we drove around, Eric told me some of the success stories that have meant the most to him. Several families were reunited when distraught parents called him about missing teenagers, whom he recognized from the descriptions and was able to talk into returning home. And there was a 14-year-old boy trying to track down a father whom, again, Eric knew.

“I took the son to see his father in a shelter, and the father broke down. Less than a week later he went home and has been sober ever since. He has a job. I keep up with him on Facebook.”

Homelessness isn’t magically fixable. But patiently getting to know the people on the street seems to help disastrous circumstances from becoming an even bigger disaster. If watching Eric work is a lesson in realism, it is also a lesson in hope.

Joan Wickersham’s column appears regularly in the Globe. Her latest book is “The News From Spain: Seven Variations on a Love Story.’’

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 62

III. Banker and Tradesman re: Housing Tax Credits

Banker and Tradesman, Monday, October 22, 2012 Meeting A Need Opinion: Increase Volume Of State Housing Tax Credits

By Susan Gittelman

Special To Banker & Tradesman Housing is a fundamental human need. Apartment rents in the Boston area have reached record highs, following the economic pressures and housing finance crisis that drove many people from ownership to become renters. Massachusetts has been a leader over the last 15 years in fostering the creation of affordable and mixed-income housing for working families through a progressive state housing tax credit program. And it can help even more families if the volume of state housing tax credits, a small part of the overall budget, is increased, as the housing community has recommended.

There’s no question that the last few years of economic difficulty have impacted the state’s budgets. The governor and Legislature have had to make difficult choices and set priorities. But given the continuing high cost of housing and the need to accommodate working families as well as the need to ensure the economic strength of our region, we believe the state housing tax credit program is an investment that more than carries its cost.

A little background: In a high-cost region like Eastern Massachusetts, programs that provide affordable housing have become essential.

And the need for this housing outpaces the supply in almost every community.

Contributing To Social Good

The affordable housing tax credit is one of the pillars of affordable-housing development for nonprofit development corporations, private companies and others who specialize in building affordable housing. Created by Congress under the administration of President Ronald Reagan in 1986, the federal program essentially allows companies that owe federal taxes to fund construction of affordable housing. What they get back in return is a tax credit – a reduction in the amount of taxes that they would otherwise owe on their profits over the next few years.

Several states – like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Georgia – followed suit and created their own affordable housing tax credit programs. All states can administer the federal tax credits, but the state programs provide further incentive for the creation of needed housing.

Those who purchase the tax credits – banks, life-insurance companies and other profit-making entities – still pay their taxes, but the tax reductions they receive contribute to the social good by making housing affordable for more families and individuals.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 63

And these state tax credits have made the difference in valuable development efforts around the state. State tax credit awards in 2011 made possible successful developments in Beverly, Boston, Chicopee, Easton, Salem, Springfield, Tyngsborough and Wareham.

But the value of tax credits extends well beyond just providing more housing.

A study of the use of tax credits in New Hampshire from 2009 through 2011 concluded that, even at the limited scale of only 202 affordable housing units built in that state, the direct and indirect fiscal impacts in a single year totaled $29 million in income for residents, $3.7 million in taxes and other revenue for state and local governments and 433 jobs created.

Need For Affordable Housing

Massachusetts followed the federal model and created its own housing tax credit program in 1999. It started small but was considered a good investment and was increased to a total of $10 million in 2008. Last year it was increased to $20 million a year – but only for the years 2013 and 2014.

Advocates of affordable housing would like to keep the state’s tax credit level at $20 million for at least three more years. There is currently an estimated demand for $4 of tax credits for every $1 available.

There are hundreds of new apartments being built now in the Boston area, following five years of stagnation; however, many are expensive, market rate homes. They will not solve the need for housing for many working people, families and retirees in our state.

The money the state leverages through its affordable housing tax credit program is a solid investment in communities and in the future of our state.

Susan Gittelman is executive director of B’nai B’rith Housing, a nonprofit, nonsectarian developer and operator of affordable and mixed-income housing serving families and elders in communities of Greater Boston. BBH is currently working on developments in Sudbury and Sharon.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 64

III. Banker and Tradesman re: Northeastern Purchase of Y in Boston Banker and Tradesman Wednesday, October 17, 2012 67 Units Of Affordable Housing To Be Preserved In Fenway Neighborhood Northeastern, MHSA Partnership Keeps 20-Year Lease Active At YMCA Northeastern University has purchased 320 Huntington Ave. from the Greater Boston YMCA and signed a 20-year lease, allowing 67 units of transitional housing to continue to operate in the Hastings Wing of the building. The Hastings Wing houses the Cardinal Medeiros Program, which has been assisting people transitioning from homelessness to permanent housing for 20 years. The Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance (MHSA), the program's sponsor, in partnership with the Kit Clark Senior Services Cardinal Medeiros Program, the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, and the city of Boston, signed a lease agreement with Northeastern University to continue operations of the program. "I applaud Northeastern University for working with us to preserve 67 units of transitional housing in Boston's Fenway neighborhood," Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said in a statement. "I am pleased that the 20-year lease will allow Cardinal Medeiros Program to continue to provide services to the some of our most vulnerable citizens." The partnership furthers the city's plan to end homelessness by preserving housing opportunities in Boston, while also recognizing the need for Northeastern University's continued growth. The new collaboration between the university and MHSA addresses housing and homelessness in Boston's Fenway neighborhood. "MHSA is pleased to have the strong support from the Mayor's office as we work together to address homelessness in Boston," MHSA's President and Executive Director Joe Finn said in a statement. "We welcome this new partnership with Northeastern University and look forward to continuing to provide these critical services in the Hastings Wing." Northeastern President Joseph Aoun thanked the mayor for his "support and guidance." "At Northeastern, partnering with the community and our neighbors is part of our character as an institution," Aoun said in a statement.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 65

III. Housing Poll by National Association of Housing and Renewal Officials, November, 2012 Direct News: Washington Update November 26, 2012 2012 Housing America Poll Shows Palpable Support for Affordable Housing As our 2012 Housing America efforts wind down and we look forward to expanding our advocacy and education efforts regarding the importance of providing decent safe and affordable housing in 2013, we are pleased to release the results of our annual Housing America poll. Each year NAHRO’s Housing America campaign takes the pulse of public sentiment surrounding the need for, and provision of, quality affordable housing in safe and livable communities for America’s most vulnerable populations. This year, as the threats of sequestration and the so-called “fiscal cliff” loom large, and in light of current budget pressures, respondents were asked to comment on the value and importance of affordable housing to them and to address the import of a continuing federal role and continued federal funding to support housing and community development programs. While this year’s results indicate an ongoing difference of opinion over the provision of federal funding to address well documented affordable housing needs across the country, the results show that there is palpable support for continued federal support to adequately house those in need.

Key findings in this years’ poll are as follows:

 More than half of respondents think the federal government is spending the right amount or not enough on programs that make housing affordable for low- and moderate-income Americans, while only a quarter think the federal government spends too much.

 A plurality of respondents think affordable housing programs should be exempted from across-the-board cuts.

 Sixty one percent of respondents think it’s important that affordable housing programs not be unfairly targeted for funding cuts as part of deficit reduction efforts, while only 30 percent think it’s unimportant.

 When respondents considered the places where they live, 69 percent said that it was important to them that affordable homeownership and rental housing options for homeownership and rental be available in their own communities. Only 19 percent of respondents said it was unimportant.

 Even when they consider the current fiscal climate and the federal deficit, nearly half (49 percent) of respondents support an increase in funding for affordable housing programs if that increase is funded from a reduction in a different area of the federal budget. Only 29 percent oppose such an increase.

**Among those supporting an increase, the most popular choices for paying for the increase were 1) deficit spending (42 percent) and 2) cuts to defense spending (41 percent).

A full narrative of this year’s poll, which was conducted by Zogby Analytics, can be found here.

NAHRO is currently planning a media release of the findings from this year’s poll in Washington, D.C. We hope that the findings will become a part of the current dialogue concerning the fiscal cliff and sequestration , and that members of NAHRO will use these poll results to educate and inform decision makers regarding the important work being done across the country to ensure a decent, safe and affordable living environment for all Americans. We also hope that this information will enable all our Housing America partners to work together to raise public awareness regarding the need for adequate resources and responsible public policies to serve those in need.

Please visit our new and improved Housing America website here. For further information on our 2012 poll contact John Bohm at [email protected]. For further information on the Housing America Campaign, contact Katy Gorman at [email protected]

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 66

III. Banker and Tradesman re: Federal Housing Funding Predictions December 16, 2012

Banker and Tradesman Sunday, December 16, 2012 At Risk Budget Cuts, Tax Hikes May Demolish Affordable Housing Efforts Fiscal Cliff Threatens Plans to Boost Mass. Housing By 10K Units Yearly

By Colleen M. Sullivan, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

As President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner continue hurtling toward the fiscal cliff in a high-stakes game of chicken, the chances of some kind of smash-up for housing agencies budgets are only increasing – even if we manage to avoid going over.

The problem posed by the “cliff” is simple. During last year’s negotiations about the debt ceiling, Obama and Congress agreed to a partial compromise over the budget, moving past the immediate crisis with the promise to come up with a long-term plan for cuts by the end of the year. If no plan was reached, they agreed, a program of harsh cuts to programs dear to both parties and steep tax increases – “sequestration” – would kick in.

Now that the deadline is approaching, the sides are still far apart, with Obama’s plan calling for $1.6 trillion in new revenue while Republicans seek only $800 billion, and both sides calling for tough cuts to spending programs.

If the talks fail, federal housing programs could see a budget cut of about 8.4 percent across the board, resulting in the loss of housing vouchers for approximately 350,000 households, putting approximately 1 million people at risk of homelessness, cutting housing counseling funds and resulting in about 53,000 job losses.

Speakers at last week’s New England Housing Network Conference, a gathering of affordable housing agency workers and policymakers from across the region, were grim.

“While we think it’s very unlikely that sequestration will occur, there’s a very significant risk that we could get almost the equivalent total level of cuts if the president doesn’t prevail on an immediate increase in revenue,” said Barbara Sard, vice president for federal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C. Sard said that Republican proposals would cut almost as much from discretionary spending in 2013 as the president’s budget calls for over the next 10 years.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 67

“The risk [involved in the cliff talks] is to every penny of affordable housing programs, and no one’s talking about alleviating any of the cuts enacted in the Budget Control Act for 2011 and 2012,” which are still kicking in for many agencies, she said. “The best we can hope for still leaves us in a constrained environment for our programs.”

Even a successful compromise could have devastating long-term impact on affordable housing, with the low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) a strong candidate for cuts. The LIHTC allows corporations or developers who fund the construction of affordable housing to deduct the costs of that capital from their taxes. Since its implementation in 1986, 90 percent of new affordable housing construction has taken advantage of the credit; without it, many projects would not be feasible.

In 2012, Massachusetts received $14.5 million in LIHTCs. Along with federal programs like the HOME Investment Partnership Program, it helps form the backbone of affordable housing funding in the state for new rental units. Demand for funding has been unprecedented over the past several years, and the Department of Housing and Community Development’s own 2012 application forms warn developers that “many sponsors of strong projects have had to apply multiple times before securing resources.”

‘Huge Threat’

“[The cliff] really does present a huge threat to the low-income housing tax credit,” said Peter Lawrence, senior director of public policy and government affairs for Enterprise Community Partners, a Washington, D.C.-affordable housing finance group. While the LIHTC has many supporters in Congress and the administration, pressure for fundamental tax reform is building in Washington, warned Lawrence.

“You can’t assume that the Obama Administration will veto [a tax reform bill] to save the low- income housing tax credit,” he said.

Without federal funding, the state’s ambitious plans, announced last month, to boost housing in the state by 10,000 units a year over the next decade may have to be put on hold.

Any cuts would have “a deep impact,” on new rental housing construction, especially at the state level, said Roger Herzog, executive director of the Community Economic Development Assistance Corp., a quasi-state agency which helps affordable housing developers arrange financing. “A very large percentage of projects that we work on require housing tax credits. It’s an extremely important resource.”

Even if the LIHTC itself is left alone, other ripple effects from federal tax reform could undercut its effectiveness, Herzog warned. If reform makes the tax credits less valuable for the corporate sector, demand for them will drop, potentially imperiling development even if the credit itself stays on the books.

When the onset of the recession caused a steep dip in demand for tax credits a few years ago, investors “disappeared for a year, and our programs ground to a halt,” Herzog said.

Email: [email protected]

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 68

III. Cambridge Chronicle re: Barry Bluestone Presentation December 4, 2012

BLUESTONE REPORT: More Cambridge housing needed

Dec 4, 2012 |

By Erin Baldassari | The Cambridge Chronicle and Tab | November 28, 2012

As Baby Boomers age and the region continues to attract students and young professionals, the types of housing that renters and homeowners demand will change – and the pinch on housing in Cambridge will only tighten – according to a recent report on housing in the Greater Boston Area.

The report, by the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University released Nov. 14, predicts the five-county region around Boston may need to double or triple its housing production to meet demand through 2020. Dukakis Center director and lead author of the report, Barry Bluestone, himself a Cambridge resident – said that the problem in Cambridge is particularly acute precisely because the city saw barely a blip in demand despite a housing crisis that crippled parts of the country.

“Home prices have fallen very little because of the tremendous demand for housing from young professionals and workers,” Bluestone said. “This is a hot market in real estate, even in a recession.”

According to the Cambridge Community Development Department, the median price for a one-bedroom apartment increased from around $1,400 to $2,000 a month from 2000 to 2011 – a 43 percent increase. For three-bedroom apartments, median rents increased from roughly $2,000 to $3,000, or 33 percent, in the same time period.

Across the region, slow housing production since 2005, a historically low vacancy rate (when compared to the national average), a strong and growing economy that is attracting new workers all conspire to drive up rents, the report argues.

While Bluestone admits that in Cambridge especially, rents and housing prices are not likely to decrease – barring natural or economic catastrophes – he argues that the rate of increase could be slowed if coupled with a commensurate increase in housing production.

“We can increase the amount of housing to the point where rents won’t come down, but they won’t rise as fast as they’ve been rising either,” Bluestone said.

Beyond building more housing across the board however, the report argues the region needs to build more of the kind of housing its changing population will want: “Fundamental structural changes in the age composition of the region’s population; in the income, wealth, and debt distribution of the region’s households; and in generational differences in consumer behavior will almost certainly alter the types of housing we will need over the next decade, as well as the places within the region where that housing will need to be located.”

Taller, denser, smarter.

Using demographic statistics from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Bluestone and his fellow researchers created projections to anticipate changes in demand. While the trends hold true for the entire region, some are already underway in Cambridge, which has seen a growth in population along with rising incomes, an aging Boomers’ population, and an influx of young professionals and workers.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 69

What do young professionals have in common with aging Boomers? Both have shown a preference for alternative-living arrangements, including group homes and micro-unit developments, and living next to transit hubs, Bluestone said.

“Lots of Baby Boomers who fueled the suburban boom of the 60s and 70s are thinking about whether we want to keep their large five- or four-bedroom homes particularly as we age,” Bluestone said. “That will put tremendous pressure on the city for multi-family housing for seniors who want to age in place but not necessarily stay in the same home and are not ready for a nursing home.”

Cambridge Community Development Department (CDD) Housing Director Chris Cotter agrees. The recommendations are right in line with trends the city has also been studying both through its Kendall and Central Square Advisory Committees as part of the K2C2 Planning Study by consulting firm Goody Clancy and through its Silver Ribbon Committee, which is expected to release a report soon on the needs of the city’s swelling senior population.

Among the Central Square Advisory Committee’s draft recommendations, they call for eliminating barriers to so-called “micro-unit” apartments, or units that are between 250- and 500-square feet. The draft plans also call for heights up to 140 feet in Central Square and 160 feet at Lafayette Square Park with uses above 80 feet limited to housing only.

“The focus on denser communities and transit-oriented communities with people wanting to be in central cities – to me that’s reflected in a lot of what’s happened in Cambridge over the last few years, and that’s because Cambridge really is one of those types of communities,” Cotter said. “We’ve heard from a lot of people who are looking for different housing models, and it’s a discussion that’s happening in a lot of communities. If you look at the demographics, this is the right time to be talking about that.”

Who lives where?

But who exactly is going to live in those apartments and where is a concern of Bill Cunningham, an affordable housing advocate and representative of Newtowne Court residents on ACT’s 38-person board. While Bluestone argues that building more apartments and condos will alleviate pressure on family-sized units, thereby allowing more middle-income families to return or stay in Cambridge, Cunningham disagrees. For Cunningham, the only way to control rising housing costs is rent control.

“You can’t control rising prices without putting a ceiling on costs,” Cunningham said. “The more subsidies you give, the higher the floor goes.”

Cambridge had rent control in place from the 1970s until 1994, when a state referendum eliminated the power of municipalities to keep the controls in place. Affordable housing advocates have argued that since then, Cambridge has lost its middle class because families can no longer afford to stay in town.

In a recent survey by CDD, Cotter said over 90 percent of middle-income families – defined as 80-100 percent of area median income or roughly $78,240-$117,360 in annual income for a family of four – cannot afford a three-bedroom home in Cambridge.

With federal and state subsidies dwindling, the report recognizes a decrease of over 50 percent of American Reinvestment and Recovery Act funds, along with a steady decline in state funds – meaning money to support affordable housing is coming from a shrinking pool. Middle-income housing rarely qualifies for federal or state assistance, which often caps qualification at 80 percent area median income, making that target all the more difficult to hit.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 70

The solution Cotter sees however is a provision already in the city’s zoning called the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Passed in 1998, the ordinance has helped create more than 450 units of affordable rental and ownership housing as new developments have cropped up across the city, according to CDD’s website.

The ordinance applies to new residential developments or buildings converted to residential use, which will create 10 or more new housing units or over 10,000 square feet of residential space and requires that 15 percent of the base units in the building be affordable.

“The clearest way to incent middle-income housing is to do it across the board so you have that there in the zoning and you’re ensuring that the offer for additional density is there for everyone to consider and take advantage of,” Cotter said.

The Central Square Advisory Committee is looking into offering density bonuses beyond what is allowed in the inclusionary zoning ordinance so long as “at least 20 percent of the bonus floor area approved be devoted permanently to middle-income housing.”

In addition, the committee is now considering a recommendation that would make the sale of the city’s parking lots contingent upon the creation of middle-income housing by prioritizing the sale to non-profit affordable housing developers, or requiring that at least 20 percent of all units developed under the allowed base density be permanently designed as middle-income units.

But Cunningham fears that won’t be enough to stop the atrophy of low- and middle-income families from leaving Cambridge. A small minority of units are built within each development as part of the inclusionary zoning ordinance, but the provision itself does little to preserve the affordable and middle-income housing that exists now in Cambridge.

“Building more housing is only part of it, the other part is the preservation of the affordable and middle- income housing that we have,” Cunningham said. “We have to start thinking of how to protect the residents who live here instead of building for people who have yet to even come to Cambridge.”

The Kendall Square Advisory Committee’s recommendations on housing in Kendall Square are now being vetted in the Planning Board. The Central Square Advisory Committee’s recommendations are scheduled to be finalized over two meetings this week.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 71

III. Boston Globe re: Foreclosure Write-Downs Boston Globe 10-7-12 Write-downs give some homeowners a break Pushed by government incentives and political pressure, mortgage lenders are forgiving millions in loans By Jenifer B. McKim | GLOBE STAFF OCTOBER 07, 2012

BROCKTON — Donald and Stacey Dobbins fought for seven years to save their modest four- bedroom Colonial from foreclosure, unable to keep up with ballooning debt on the house they bought in 2005 for $297,000 without any money down.

In December, however, the family’s housing nightmare ended with a proposal that at first seemed unreal. The Dobbinses’ lender, GMAC Mortgage, offered to erase a whopping $190,000 from their debilitating debt and cut the interest rate to 4.4 percent. That reduced the monthly mortgage payment to $1,400, almost half of what they were paying.

“I believed God was going to work things out for us and he did,” said Donald Dobbins, 45, a truck driver and father of three. “I’m ecstatic.”

The Dobbinses, who say they were victims of a high-interest predatory loan, join hundreds of homeowners in Massachusetts — and tens of thousands across the United States — who have received hefty home loan write-downs. Often, the discounts exceed $100,000.

The loan modifications are part of a federal government-driven campaign to help “underwater” borrowers — people who owe more than their homes are worth — and deal with the long-lingering foreclosure crisis.

Lenders, who have traditionally resisted wiping out mortgage debt, are now forgiving millions of dollars in loans, pushed by government incentives, political pressure, and a $25 billion settlement between five major lenders and 49 attorneys general.

GMAC Mortgage would not comment on the Dobbinses’ case, but said it is focused on helping borrowers struggling to pay mortgages.

“Principal forgiveness can be an effective tool to keep families in their home,” GMAC spokeswoman Susan Fitzpatrick said. Such efforts, she said, benefit “the borrower, the servicer, and the investors on whose behalf we service loans.”

But there is still disagreement among policy makers, economists, and housing advocates over the benefits of principal write-downs.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 72

Edward J. DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, prompted a political backlash in July when he rejected a US Treasury plan to give the taxpayer-controlled lenders money to fund write-downs.

In a letter to Congress, DeMarco allowed that up to 248,000 borrowers could be eligible for help, saving taxpayers as much as $500 million. Nonetheless, he turned down the plan saying it “would not make a meaningful improvement in reducing foreclosures in a cost effective way for taxpayers.”

Specifically, he warned of added administrative costs and the potential for “moral hazard,” meaning that by forgiving debt for some homeowners, the government might encourage others to default on their mortgages so they, too, could receive bailouts.

Instead, DeMarco said, mortgage companies should “strengthen” existing programs for troubled homeowners, such as refinancing and short sales — when properties are sold for less than the mortgage balance.

In August, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley called on DeMarco to change his position. Coakley doesn’t believe borrowers would purposefully stop paying their mortgages, and says stopping foreclosures is key to the nation’s economy.

“People don’t, by and large, default without a lot of agony,” she said.

Despite DeMarco’s stance, the number of principal write-downs is expected to swell as lenders work to meet guidelines of the national agreement reached in February between attorneys general and five major US banks over alleged foreclosure fraud and sloppy paperwork. The Treasury Department in February also tripled financial incentives for lenders to offer principal write-downs to homeowners as part of the federal Making Home Affordable program.

“There’s a very robust debate going on about the place that principal reduction can have in working out problems in the housing and mortgage market,’’ said Joe Smith, monitor of the North Carolina-based Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight, which is overseeing the bank settlement. “The experience (in coming months) we have will help inform that discussion.”

The settlement with Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citibank, and Ally Financial Inc., owner of GMAC Mortgage, requires about $10 billion in principal write- downs over the next three years. Between March 1 and June 30, about 12,500 homeowners nationwide had loan debts cut, according to the oversight office. Another 28,000 were granted trial loan modifications with principal reductions, the report said.

In Massachusetts, 290 homeowners received permanent mortgage reductions as part of the settlement — averaging $70,000 in savings, state officials said. In addition, 308 Massachusetts families this year have received principal write-downs as part of a 2011 settlement between the Massachusetts attorney general’s office and mortgage lender Option One. Borrowers in those cases received an average credit of $133,000, state officials said.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 73

Currently, recipients of principal write-downs of up to $2 million are not required to pay taxes on the benefit thanks to an exemption passed by Congress in 2007. The provision expires at the end of the year, however, and it’s unclear whether it will be renewed.

Accepting a principal reduction also could hurt a homeowner’s credit score if it isn’t already tarnished by late payments, according to Fair Isaac, the Minnesota-based company that invented the FICO credit-risk score.

Some housing advocates worry that lenders are indiscriminately offering debt relief instead of targeting those most in need. Lenders have wide discretion in deciding who gets a write-down and many recipients are unaware they are eligible for help until they are offered it, state officials concede. GMAC, for example, said homeowners don’t “necessarily” have to be underwater to qualify for a reduced principal balance.

“There’s no connection between when people get them and what they need and what promise lenders have made to modify the mortgages,’’ said Gary Klein, a Boston attorney who works with homeowners fighting foreclosures. “It is entirely random.”

Virginia Pratt, a foreclosure prevention specialist in Jamaica Plain, agreed that write-downs take place sporadically and haphazardly.

“It still seems helter-skelter,’’ said Pratt, who works for the nonprofit Ecumenical Social Action Committee Inc.

Pratt said the Dobbinses, who are her clients, exemplify why loan principal reductions make sense.

“It is not going to be another boarded up property,’’ she said. “They have an affordable payment now.”

The family purchased their house on a dead-end street in 2005 when the housing market was robust and many lenders approved loans without much scrutiny. The Dobbinses admit they were naive about what they could afford, but learned too late that their mortgage broker had inflated their incomes on financial applications.

Despite the nagging fear that they would one day arrive home to find the locks changed, the family kept up the property, tending to flowers on the porch and regularly mowing the lawn. They filed for bankruptcy and sought financial help as their loan was passed among several lenders.

Last year, Pratt began negotiating with GMAC, the latest lender to hold the the loan. After several months of making modified payments on a trial basis, the write-down became permanent in May.

“You are made whole again,’’ Donald Dobbins said. “I was focused on trying to keep our home. It worked out for us.”

Jenifer B. McKim can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on twitter @jbmckim

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 74

III. Banker and Tradesman re: Attorney General Foreclosure Awards Banker and Tradesman Friday, October 19, 2012 $4M In Grants Awarded To Nonprofits Assisting Foreclosed Homeowners In Mass.

A total of $4 million in HomeCorps grants have been awarded to 18 organizations across the state to help address the foreclosure crisis, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced today. The grant funding will assist homeowners and renters impacted by the foreclosure crisis, revitalize distressed and blighted neighborhoods, and guard against future financial harm. The funding is the result of a nationwide settlement involving the nation's five largest mortgage servicers and their connection with unlawful foreclosures and loan servicing.

The Crisis Response Innovation Grants, a component of Coakley's HomeCorps program, support a wide variety of foreclosure prevention and mitigation services across Massachusetts. They are the latest in a series of HomeCorps partnership grants, which fund loan modification assistance, free direct legal representation to distressed borrowers and post foreclosure stabilization assistance to families, as well as efforts to help communities recover from the foreclosure crisis by addressing abandoned housing and mitigating neighborhood blight.

"Our economy will never fully recover until we address the impact of the foreclosure crisis," Coakley said in a statement. "These grants are designed to help strengthen struggling communities, provide direct assistance to distressed borrowers, and avoid unnecessary foreclosures. The organizations receiving these funds are doing work that is a critical part of those efforts."

The grants were awarded to the following organizations:  Arlington Community Trabajando Inc. (ACT)  Cambridge Neighborhood Apartment Housing Services  Caritas Communities  Catholic Social Services  Chelsea Restoration Corp.  City of Boston Dept. of Neighborhood Development  Ecumenical Social Action Committee Inc. (ESAC)  HAP Inc.  Homeowner Options for Massachusetts Elders (HOME)  Housing Assistance Corporation  Massachusetts Law Reform Institute  Merrimack Valley Housing Partnership Inc.  Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America  Neighborhood Housing Services of the South Shore  Neighborhood of Affordable Housing, Inc. (NOAH)  Oak Hill CDC, Worcester  The Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School  The Midas Collaborative

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 75

Appendix IV. Public Housing

Boston Globe, October 2, 2012 Alleged diversion of Chelsea housing funds deprived tenants

Investigation by HUD today By Sean P. Murphy | GLOBE STAFF OCTOBER 02, 2012

Michael E. McLaughlin may have diverted millions. Former Chelsea housing chief Michael E. McLaughlin appears to have diverted millions in federal money from construction projects for low-income family and elderly housing, records show, freeing up an enormous slush fund that benefited himself, his family, and his friends, while leaving tenants to make do in dreary apartments that have not been updated in 50 years or more.

A Globe review of almost $9 million in federal funding paid to McLaughlin’s agency since 2002 found that more than $3.5 million of it was slated for projects that were not done, despite written promises to use the money to pay for new kitchen cabinets, baseboard heating, boilers, elevators, waterproofing, and other capital improvements.

Instead money went to lavish salaries and travel, to poorly documented everyday expenditures such as $530,000 paid to the city of Chelsea for trash pickup, and more unusual expenses such as the $165,000 the authority paid a social service agency that hired McLaughlin’s son Matthew to oversee maintenance work at the authority.

Today, investigators from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development are expected to descend on Chelsea Housing Authority headquarters, trying to account for all the federal money and requiring Chelsea to repay any money that was misused.

Chagrined HUD officials are urging the authority’s new leadership to admit past wrongdoing, rather than wait for the HUD investigators to find it.

“If any of these grant funds were used for any [unapproved] purpose . . . now is the time to make this disclosure,” Dwight D. Hebert, a HUD housing specialist, wrote to the Chelsea Housing Authority in an e-mail informing them of the new investigation.

The authority’s current leadership, which took over earlier this year after Governor Deval Patrick forced McLaughlin and his entire board of commissioners to resign in a scandal over McLaughlin’s outsized $360,000 paycheck, say they have nothing to hide.

McLaughlin, however, may be another story, the new board chairman said.

“It’s very difficult to determine where the money went and what was done and not done,” said chairman Thomas Standish. “The facts demand an exhaustive review of all spending. . . . It’s outrageous what went on and equally so that it wasn’t detected.”

Thomas Hoopes, a lawyer representing McLaughlin, declined to comment.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 76

Several state and federal agencies are already investigating McLaughlin and his inner circle. But the HUD investigation that starts today focuses for the first time on the way low-income renters living in authority housing were victimized.

“Nothing works right,” said Jaileen Rivera, 24, a mother of two small children, standing in her living room in the 105-unit Scrivano development Sunday. “The heat makes loud noises and scares the kids. You can barely open the windows. There’s been nothing done to the kitchen whatsoever.”

Rosa Carrion, 58, has lived in Scrivano over the 12 years McLaughlin led the authority. In all that time, she has witnessed no upgrades. “Never,” she said, pointing to battered kitchen cabinets and counter.

But nobody seems to have complained, not tenants, most of whom never knew of the planned but undone projects, and not HUD, which provided the taxpayer funding for the phantom projects.

“Where was HUD?” asked one Chelsea Housing Authority employee who asked not to be named out of fear of retaliation. “They should have been looking. There was a complete collapse of controls and oversight.”

McLaughlin, with the cooperation of several top lieutenants, made outside scrutiny challenging. He obscured the lack of construction spending by moving money back and forth between construction and operations accounts and between federal and state accounts, according to records and interviews.

The Chelsea Housing Authority’s staff accountant, Vitus Shum, retired this year, and the staff senior accountant, James McNichols, a McLaughlin family friend, was forced to resign.

Over time, McLaughlin provided fewer details about how he planned to spend the federal money. In 2002 to 2006, he named specific projects, such as replacing kitchen cabinets at the 95-unit Mace development. In later years, McLaughlin and James Fitzpatrick, the capital project director, relied on general categories, such as “management improvements,” which HUD approved nevertheless.

Yet, a close inspection of paperwork McLaughlin filed with HUD, reveals that approved projects dating to 2002 were not done.

In 2011, buried in one paragraph of a 50-page document, McLaughlin promised “new baseboard heating” at the Scrivano project. But McLaughlin had been making the same promises at Scrivano year after year, word-for-word.

But HUD, which runs a $7 billion housing program nationally, relies on auditors who are paid by local authorities to tell HUD if federal funds are being misspent.

In Chelsea, auditor Martin Scafidi raised no alarms. Annual independent audits produced since 2003 by Scafidi, a certified public accountant, contained little that was critical of the Chelsea agency. In an interview last year, Scafidi said he was among those “betrayed” by McLaughlin.

McLaughlin’s reign at the housing agency abruptly ended last year when the Globe first reported McLaughlin’s $360,000 annual salary, among the highest in the country. Even New York City’s housing chief, who oversees almost 20 times more public housing, is paid only $200,000.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 77

Auditor Scafidi lost his job in the fallout, and his replacement, Michael Guyder of Hurley O’Neill & Co., quickly found problems with Chelsea’s construction spending. Last month, Guyder reported that in 2011, the Chelsea Housing Authority may have used as much as $356,000 in federal capital funds for ordinary operational costs, such as trash collection, freeing up money in the operational budget for higher salaries for McLaughlin and seven lieutenants, who were paid salaries ranging from $95,000 to $103,000.

Another newly hired accountant, Richard Conlon, found another serious problem: double- billing two government agencies for the same expense. In 2007 the agency accepted payment from HUD for $180,000 for an electrical upgrade to one of its state-funded developments, even though the state had already covered that cost. HUD has told Chelsea it wants that money back.

Hebert, the HUD housing specialist, will have many expenses to question, based on a monthlong Globe investigation that included examination of more than 11,000 payments from federal funds over nine years, more than a dozen audits, hundreds of pages of board of commissioners meeting minutes and other documents obtained under the state public records act.

The biggest beneficiary of McLaughin’s creative accounting appears to be McLaughlin himself. Hired in 2000 at a salary of $77,500, McLaughlin’s pay, by the time he was forced to resign last year, was $360,000, not counting three checks totalling $334,997 that he wrote to himself on the day he resigned for what he said was unused sick, vacation, and personal time. State officials managed to stop payment on two of the checks totaling $198,883 before McLaughlin could cash them.

If McLaughlin had been paid in line with state guidelines, his annual pay would never have topped $160,000, and his pay for his 12-year tenure would have been $1 million less than the $2.7 million he received in salary.

Another major beneficiary was McLaughlin’s close friend, deputy, and traveling companion, Linda Thibodeau, who was paid more than $820,000 from 2002 to 2011, when she was forced to resign after a housing specialist appointed by the state concluded that Thibodeau had few duties.

Based on an examination of McLaughlin and Thibodeau’s cellphone records, the Globe reported last year that McLaughlin did not go to Chelsea at all on almost half the working days in 2011, spending 47 weekdays in Maine and Florida with Thibodeau and another 21 work days at out-of-state conferences, usually with Thibodeau.

McLaughlin’s son Matthew also appeared to benefit, at least indirectly. Michael McLaughlin paid directly from the federal capital fund more than $165,000 to Roca, a Chelsea nonprofit social service agency that had newly hired Matthew, in 2006. Matthew McLaughlin was hired as a $65,000-a-year project director overseeing services to his father’s agency that included painting, furniture moving, raking leaves, and other odd jobs.

Two months after Matthew McLaughlin’s hiring, the Chelsea Housing Authority signed the first of three contracts awarded to Roca for maintenance work at the authority. Matthew McLaughlin cosigned a formal letter to his father thanking him for his support. “You and your staff are incredibly helpful,” the letter said.

McLaughlin also used the federal capital fund to make substantial payments for trash collection to Chelsea City Hall, though city and authority officials could not produce a

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 78 contract requiring the payments. Though technically independent, McLaughlin benefitted from good relations with the city since the city manager names four of his five board members who are then confirmed by the City Council.

McLaughlin paid more than $530,000 to the city from 2003 to 2011 for trash service, accounting for about 10 percent of Chelsea’s total trash-hauling payments even though authority residents represent just 5 percent of the population.

Sean Murphy can be reached at [email protected].

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 79

IV. Boston Globe re: Public Housing Oversight, October 13, 2012

Boston Globe From Chelsea to Springfield, Massachusetts public housing chiefs face little accountability

Globe review finds a system vulnerable to incompetence, indolence, and worse Winchester Housing director Joseph Lally said he works more than 69 hours a week at two jobs. (Matthew J. Lee/Globe Staff) By Sean P. Murphy and Scott Allen Globe Staff / October 13, 2012

Easton’s former housing director spent hours at work sending flirtatious e-mails to various men, then resigned before an audit last June showed she had badly neglected the apartment buildings she was supposed to manage. By then, Susan Horner had a new job: teaching other housing officials how to improve their performance.

The housing director in Winchester has a second full-time job as a courthouse lawyer, requiring him to be away from the housing authority for 31.5 hours a week the last three years. When the law office learned about Joseph M. Lally’s second job, it froze his pay and launched an audit of his work. But Winchester officials did nothing, saying they’re satisfied Lally gets his town work done on nights and weekends.

Peabody’s former housing director resigned after TV cameras caught him spending much of the work week in local sports bars and social clubs in 2009. Nonetheless, the housing authority board let Frank Splaine stay on the payroll for five extra months, helping to boost his pension, and gave him a $27,000 severance check to boot.

Housing directors face remarkably little accountability for their work managing housing for more than 300,000 elderly and low-income people in Massachusetts, a Boston Globe investigation has found. Though the federal and state governments pump $1.2 billion a year into local housing budgets, oversight comes from local boards mainly chosen by mayors or in little-noticed elections. All too often, no one is sharply focused on how money — or time — is spent.

In the worst cases, tenants pay the price for inattentive or indifferent management, enduring leaky roofs, bad heating, rodent infestation, and other hardships.

“Housing authorities are off the books, as far as state and local scrutiny is concerned,” said Barbara Sard, a former senior policy adviser to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development now with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington.

The scandal in Chelsea, where former housing director Michael E. McLaughlin is suspected of diverting millions from renovation funds to pay for his lavish salary and other perks, may be the most serious breach of trust in public housing since 2004, when Springfield housing director Raymond Asselin and four members of his family went to prison for running a $1 million system of bribes and kickbacks.

The scandals in both cities speak to the vulnerability of housing authorities to fraud and abuse, sometimes taking advantage of regulators who seem to be looking the other way. Until the Globe revealed McLaughlin’s $360,000 salary in November 2011, he consistently earned “high performer” awards from HUD, which entitled him to reduced oversight of his work. The agency showered similar accolades on the Medford Housing Authority under director Robert Covelle, who resigned last spring amid charges that he illegally funneled work to friends and family.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 80

Likewise, Horner, the former Easton housing director, had been named Massachusetts “member of the year” by the state’s public housing officials in 2009, the year before she resigned after her racy work-time e-mails were revealed. HUD officials had raised concerns about Horner’s poor leadership as early as 2005, but did little more than ask her to submit improvement plans — something she apparently never did.

An Easton housing board member, Thomas Downey, said the state was no help either. Downey said he tried for years to get the state Department of Housing and Community Development to pay attention to the festering problems, including Horner’s frequent absences and the deteriorating condition of the apartments. But he couldn’t even persuade state officials to appoint a state representative to the five-member Easton board as the law requires, thus denying the board the potential tie-breaking vote on firing Horner. The position remained vacant for seven years.

“They knew” what a bad job Horner was doing, said Downey, who was elected to the Easton board in 2007. “It went on for a long time before I began making noise . . . The state knew and allowed it to go on.”

Contacted at her home, Horner declined to comment.

But state officials say they have limited influence over housing directors, who owe more allegiance to their local boards and political sponsors than to state bureaucrats and often regard themselves as political powers in their own right.

McLaughlin, the former Chelsea chief, forged close political ties to Lieutenant Governor Timothy P. Murray, hosting fund-raisers and urging his employees and tenants to attend political events for Murray and Governor Deval Patrick. Now, two grand juries are investigating whether McLaughlin broke the law — Murray himself had to answer questions under oath as part of the state investigation — since housing directors are legally banned from political fund-raising.

Sean P. Murphy can be reached at [email protected]. Scott Allen can be reached at [email protected].

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 81

V. Boston Globe re: Winchester Housing Authority 10-31-12 Boston Globe Winchester Housing Chief Lally resigns after audit raises questions about his work habits By Sean P. Murphy Globe Staff / October 31, 2012 A new state audit shows that the Winchester housing director, who also kept a full-time law practice, filed 16 conflicting time cards showing him in court when he claimed to be at the authority, undermining his insistence that he juggled two careers simply by working “nights and weekends.”

Joseph M. Lally, 59, abruptly resigned his $73,000-a-year housing authority position after 11 years on the job on Oct. 5, days before publication of a Globe story that featured Lally prominently as an example of housing authority executive directors who face little accountability for their work. Lally had claimed that he did the housing job properly by working an average of almost 70 hours a week.

But state Auditor Suzanne Bump’s office found numerous discrepancies when auditors compared the handwritten time cards Lally used to record his hours as the full-time town housing director in 2010 and 2011 with the hours he claimed when seeking payments from a state agency that provides legal representation for poor clients.

“It would be difficult” for Lally to appear in court on 16 different occasions when simultaneously he was “logged in at the authority,” according to a draft of the report which was obtained by the Globe. The report concludes that Lally’s work as a lawyer “is not in the best interest of the Authority because the executive director should be conducting housing authority business during the Authority’s normal business hours.”

The audit also raised serious questions about how well Winchester public housing is managed, finding apartments that contained numerous violations of the state sanitary code, from peeling paint to rubbish in the yards. The Winchester agency manages the housing for 242 elderly and low-income families and individuals.

Lally did not return calls.

Lally is at least the third Massachusetts housing director to step down amid questions about his integrity in the last year, following Michael E. McLaughlin of Chelsea and Robert Covelle of Medford, both of whom were accused of abusing their positions to help themselves and their friends.

Lally also faces an investigation by the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the agency that pays him and other lawyers $50 an hour to represent poor people in criminal and some civil cases. The agency recently cut Lally off from further payment and barred him from new assignments after its own review showed he was claiming to be in court and at the housing office at the same time.

“We were successful . . . in conjunction with the State Auditor, in identifying an attorney whose billing demanded scrutiny,’’ said William E. Shay, director of audits at the public defenders’ office. “We take our oversight responsibility of taxpayers’ moneys very seriously.’’

Lally’s pension, which he applied for at Winchester town hall Oct. 12, may also be in jeopardy. Based on his housing authority salary and years of service, Lally qualifies for a pension of more than $55,000 a year, according to a Globe estimate. However, Thomas F. Gibson, a lawyer for the Winchester Retirement Board, said that, “in view of the recent news coverage [of Lally’s work hours], his application is under review.”

The 11-page state audit — dated Oct. 23 but written before Lally’s sudden resignation — is addressed to Laura Glynn, chair of the five-member Winchester Housing Authority Board of Commission. The board has 10 days to respond to the draft.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 82

Glynn did not return e-mail and phone messages, but when the Globe first asked her about his ability to do two jobs at once, she expressed support for him: “He’s a hard worker. I really don’t care what he does in his off hours so long as” the agency is well-run.

A spokesman for the auditor’s office declined to comment because the audit is not final.

The report, part of the auditor’s normal oversight of housing authorities, said that by Lally’s own accounting, he worked almost constantly, averaging nearly 70 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, during 2010 and 2011. The report said that on 60 occasions in that period Lally claimed to have worked 15 hours or more in a day between his two jobs. In addition to his director’s salary, Lally was paid about $87,000 a year for his legal work.

The report found that Lally was absent about one quarter of the time during the housing agency’s posted hours of 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., but some tenants said it was much more than that.

Lally was “an absentee manager — he was here only about 20 hours a week,” said one tenant who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. “If you had a complaint about something, it was always, ‘Yeah, yeah, we’ll get to it.’ But things didn’t always get done.” Continued...

Sean Murphy can be reached at [email protected].

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 83

IV. Boston Globe Editorial re: Housing Authorities, 10-22-12 Boston Globe (Editorial) Link Chelsea’s housing authority to Boston’s, or risk corruption

OCTOBER 22, 2012

There are systemic weaknesses in the oversight of public housing authorities in Massachusetts, starting with erratic controls by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and sloppy state audits, which give too much cover to unethical housing directors and insular local boards. While many authorities function well and provide safe, decent housing for low-income populations, too many others are prone to inefficiencies and outright corruption.

In the wake of recent scandals, both HUD and the Patrick administration should be exploring ways to improve supervision of the 242 authorities, some quite small, which are dotted throughout the state. And lawmakers on Beacon Hill should create new incentives for housing authorities to merge and consolidate services, which would allow for cheaper, more efficient management, with less temptation toward local corruption.

By far, Chelsea represents the most egregious example. A recent Globe review of nearly $9 million in federal funds paid to the Chelsea Housing Authority since 2002 found that more than $3.5 million intended for repairs was used instead for questionable expenditures, including pay boosts, travel junkets, and poorly documented contracts for trash pick-up by the city. Former housing director Michael McLaughlin ran up an obscene annual salary of $360,000 before he was exposed in the press.

The scandal raises serious questions about whether Chelsea, a struggling city of 35,000, can ever break free of the grip of corruption. In 1991, Chelsea descended into fiscal chaos, prompting state officials to step in and appoint a receiver. By then, four consecutive mayors had been implicated in federal probes of wrongdoing largely related to corruption in the city’s hiring, construction contracts, and police department. In 1995, the city finally seemed to emerge into the sunlight under a new city charter. But just a few years later, McLaughlin would manage to wiggle his way into the housing authority despite warnings about his character from a former city manager.

Time and again, Chelsea has been given a chance to redeem itself. And time and again it has failed. Now, Patrick and Chelsea city manager Jay Ash have replaced the housing authority’s board. A better course would be to absorb Chelsea’s 1,400 public housing units and rental certificates into the well-managed Boston Housing Authority. The likes of McLaughlin couldn’t go unnoticed in Boston.

Time and again, Chelsea has been given a chance to redeem itself. And time and again it has failed.

Such regionalization is allowed under state law. And Boston would be the perfect match because its governance structure maintains a clear line of accountability between the housing authority director and the mayor, who sets the director’s salary.

Similar solutions should be considered in every authority where directors have run amok. In Easton, former housing director Susan Horner neglected her duties while generating flirtatious e- mails at the office. In Peabody, former housing director Frank Splaine eschewed work in favor of local sports bars and social clubs. And on it goes.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 84

Earlier this year, Patrick appeared to be moving toward reducing the number of housing authorities, believing, with strong justification, that 242 is way too many. But a special study panel unwisely backed away from the idea, opting for more training for board members and other minor fixes. Each new revelation of corruption, however, is a reason to renew the debate over regionalization.

State and federal housing officials pay lip service to the need for accountability and recouping lost funds. But it isn’t convincing. McLaughlin, after all, gained his foothold despite the establishment of strict ethical standards for Chelsea officials following earlier episodes of corruption.

In the past, there was even intermittent talk about annexing Chelsea to Boston. But the idea lost elevation as Bostonians contemplated the liabilities of taking on one of the poorest cities in the Commonwealth without commensurate increases in state aid. There is no reason, however, to resist a merger of housing authorities.

Before long, investigators will withdraw from Chelsea, leaving a system of fiscal controls in their wake. Sadly, that’s when Chelsea usually reverts to type. It can’t be tolerated again. As Chelsea goes, so do too many other small housing authorities.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 85

IV. MassNAHRO Newsletter October, 2012 Boston Set to Become the Largest City in the U.S. to Ban Smoking in Public Housing Next week, Boston will become largest city in the country to ban smoking in public housing. The plan that was formally introduced a year ago will go into effect on Sunday, Sept. 30, banning anyone from smoking inside Boston Housing Authority residential buildings, city officials said. “The City of Boston is proud to be on the forefront of having smoke-free living in our public housing,” Mayor Thomas M. Menino said in a statement. “All our residents deserve a safe, healthy environment to live and raise their families in.” Last January, public housing residents in Boston began signing lease addendums dictating that each household member and their guests agree to not smoke inside their apartment, elsewhere in the building or within a specified distance from the building, the authority said in a press release. Compliance with that non-smoking policy is required regardless of whether a tenant has signed the lease addendum, the release said. Those found in violation are subject a fine of up to $250 and other lease enforcement actions. The Boston Housing Authority is the city’s largest landlord and it is the largest public housing authority in New England. Across 60 developments and some other smaller sites, the authority owns and manages about 14,000 units that house about 27,000 people. “We are excited to implement this policy for the well-being of all of our residents,” said a statement from Boston Housing Authority administrator Bill McGonagle. “This creates a healthy environment for everyone, especially children, residents suffering from asthma, and our elderly who are afflicted with emphysema and cardiovascular disease.” The US Housing and Urban Development department approved the city housing authority’s non- smoking policy last summer, officials said. The state Department of Housing and Community Development has also signed-off on the policy. Several weeks ago, final notices were sent to remind residents of the forthcoming policy, according to the release. The housing authority said it regularly receives transfer requests from residents who want to live in housing free of second-hand smoke. “These transfer requests document the hazards that second-hand smoke is causing for BHA residents, many of whom are elderly or children with asthma, cancer or other illnesses,” the authority said in the release. The authority said that in a survey of 1,300 of its residents, 90 percent, including those who said they smoke, reported that they support a non-smoking housing environment. The policy does not prohibit individuals who smoke from living in Boston’s public housing owned and managed properties, officials said. The housing authority has partnered with the Boston Public Health Commission to provide smoking cessation counseling, free nicotine patches and other resources for residents who want to try to quit smoking, according to the release. For more information on the non-smoking policy and lease addendum for city public housing, click here. (By Matt Rocheleau; taken from Boston Globe, September 28)

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 86

Appendix V. Work with Others

Banker and Tradesman re: Peter Sargent

Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 11:17am MHIC Exec Named President Of National Association of State and Local Equity Funds Peter B. Sargent, director of capital development at Massachusetts Housing Investment Corp. (MHIC) has been elected president of the National Association of State and Local Equity Funds (NASLEF).

Sargent was elected president at NASLEF's 19th annual conference, held in San Francisco. He will serve a two-year term, according to a statement.

NASLEF is a professional, nonprofit association formed in 1994 to promote the efficient management of state and local equity funds. The association's mission is to promote a greater understanding of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and to encourage the professional development of its member organizations. Collectively through 2011, member funds have created or rehabilitated 118,000 units of affordable housing and have raised more than $8.3 billion in equity capital for rental housing developments throughout the United States.

MHIC is a private, nonprofit lender and investor specializing in financing affordable housing and community development. Under its Housing Tax Credit program, MHIC provides equity financing for affordable housing and community development projects that use the federal low- income housing tax credit (LIHTC) or federal historic tax credits, or a combination of both.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 87

V. Summary: MAPC Transit-Oriented Development Conference December 6, 2012

On December 6th, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) hosted a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Finance Summit – the concluding event of a year-long TOD Finance initiative of the Metro Boston Consortium for Sustainable Communities. The project was also funded by The Hyams Foundation, The Barr Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. The initiative was overseen by a committee comprised of representatives from Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) Ventures, Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations (MACDC), Massachusetts Housing Investment Corporation (MHIC), Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance, Smart Growth Funders Network, The Boston Foundation, The Hyams Foundation, and The Barr Foundation.

120 meeting participants from both public and private sectors learned about MAPC’s Growing Station Areas report and key recommendations from the near-complete TOD Finance Gap Analysis for Metro Boston.

The main portion of the event focused on the announcement and description of two new funds: the LISC Equitable TOD Accelerator Fund (ETODA) and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) Ventures/ Massachusetts Housing Investment Corporation (MHIC) Healthy Neighborhoods Equity Fund. Participants asked about: how the funds might support development that address NIMBY issues and gentrification; how the fund developers were working with public health professionals who are also concerned with walkable, healthy places; the types of projects that would be funded; and what impact, if any, the funds would have on construction jobs for lower-income workers.

Following the fund presentations and discussion, Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development Secretary Gregory Bialecki spoke about the importance of TOD in relation to the kind of new growth the State wants to support. He then announced the State’s $1 million commitment to the LISC ETODA Fund. This financial commitment will go toward the top-loss reserve of the fund. Fund developers for the ETODA and HNEF will continue additional fundraising, including through Public Related Investments, other foundation commitments from The Boston Foundation and The Barr Foundation, and private equity (in the case of the HNEF).

Finally, Chris Leinberger, President of LOCUS, a subsidiary of Smart Growth America, discussed the importance of capitalizing on the market demand for TOD and more walkable communities “Walkups”. He explained that opportunities abound in a variety of markets, specifically stronger markets, noting that in key real estate markets there are currently 10,000 dead urban and suburban strip commercial developments ready for reinvestment. He also noted that providing examples of successful redevelopment and walkable development can turn NIMBYism into YIMBYism; Yes In My Backyard. Leinberger closed by discussing the importance of addressing issues of social equity when designing walkable urban places. His research has shown that as economic performance increases in walkable places, social equity deteriorates. Affordable housing strategies are one component of ensuring equity.

Presentations from the event and information about a range of MAPC’s TOD efforts can be found here: www.mapc.org/tod.

Work on developing the funds will continue and the TOD Finance Advisory Committee overseeing the project will continue working together to address the TOD finance gaps identified in the gap analysis. Further questions about the project can be directed to Jennifer Raitt, Chief Housing Planner, [email protected].

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 88

V. EOEA & Elder Stakeholders Meeting Thursday, November 15, 2012

Attendees

Darcey Adams, President – Massachusetts Adult Day Health Association Joan Cirillo, CEO – Operation ABLE Bridget Dunn, Executive Assistant – EOEA Stan Eichner, General Council – EOEA Wynn Gerhard, Senior Attorney – Greater Boston Legal Services Lilian Glickman, Co-Director, Management of Aging Services Program, Department of Gerontology, McCormack Graduate School – UMass Boston Ann Hartstein*, Secretary – EOEA Martina Jackson, Communications – EOEA Chet Jakubiak, Executive Director – Massachusetts Association of Older Americans Emily Meyer, President – Massachusetts Assisted Living Facilities Association Michael Murray*, Interim State Director – AARP Massachusetts Louise Myers*, Executive Council – AARP Massachusetts Diane Paulson, Attorney – Greater Boston Legal Services Laura Russell, Principal – Ban Amalgam Consultant Emily Shea, Commissioner – Boston Elderly Commission Jason Shemenski, Advocacy Associate – AARP Massachusetts Elissa Sherman, President – LeadingAge Massachusetts David Stevens, Executive Director – Massachusetts Councils on Aging Deb Thomson, Principal – PASS Group Carolyn Villers, Executive Director – Mass Senior Action Council Jim Wessler, President & CEO – Alzheimers Association MA/NH Chapter

* Denotes meeting leaders Topics

Impacts of 2012 Elections on Aging Policy Overall, the elections were good for Massachusetts Voucher system for Medicare, block grant for Medicaid less likely to happen now as a result of the elections Massachusetts will continue to have open dialog with the Obama Administration, however, have not yet since the elections Fiscal Cliff/Lame Duck Session Estimated $300 million will be cut from 2013 funding and $1 billion from 2014 funding Federal fiscal year begins October 1st, so a cut in January is in reality a cut in October, which gives states a 9 month period to make plans It is difficult for states to make plans or contingency plans because the scope of the cuts, if enacted, is not conclusive Now is the time to contact legislators because the fear is that a bad deal with unintended consequences is worse than sequestration The programs that would be most affected are nutrition programs. Congregate/Title Three Meal Sites, SNAP, LIHEAP, CDBG would all be affected. 2013 Budget Status

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 89

If revenues do not improve, all scheduled rate increases will be delayed Budget estimates last year were conservative, data suggests there will be improvement, however it is unknown if it will be enough Although unemployment is up, it is due to people looking for work and small businesses are beginning to hire. Both are encouraging signs. A supplemental budget will be most likely. However, it will mainly affect DPH. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget EOEA is strongly considering home care letter that was received for FY ‘14 Some priorities suggested: formula change from $7-$8 for COA funding, SHINE, line item 9100, geriatric mental health funding, personal need allowance, 10 day bed hold, protection of adult day health programs and rate changes. Revised tax structure plan put forth by Senator Jehlen should be considered for increased revenues. Home Care Wait List Currently 963 people on the wait list and 722 on ECOP Average was 2,000 people. A release just took place to lower numbers, but if there are budget cuts then the number will increase next year. Still hope that more people will be released next year. Public Health Budget and Toxins Reduction Change Linkage of Mercury, toxins and heavy metals exposure to health problems Legislative leads are Rep. Kafka and Sen. Joyce Legislative filings for 2013 Due on 1/23/2013 EOEA does not have any. Expansion of CCRC statue for transparency to make sure current residents know community finances and have the ability to speak to their respective boards. SB 2139, Sen. Jehlen Bills being refilled to provide economic security for middle income seniors: undue hardship waivers, criteria for intent on transferring assets Personal needs allowance to add a COLA Massachusetts Alzheimer’s Protection Act Legislative Studies Updates Comprehensive Ombudsman Study – under review MBTA Fare Increase Impact Study – close to going out. 5,000 postcards will be going out to people who consistently use the RIDE, expecting 1,000 back in return. It will be difficult to discern trends on people getting screened out because less people are applying for various/undetermined reasons. Prescription Drug Diversion Study – DPH has not moved on it. Special Commissions Update Protective Services Commission – Sen. Jehlen Rural Services Study – HHS in the process COPD – DPH on hold

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 90

Medicare lawsuit Medicare beneficiaries do not have to show improvement in order to be eligible for Medicare covered therapy services in the community or in an institution. For more information:

Diane F Paulson, Senior Attorney Medicare Advocacy Project Greater Boston Legal Services 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 617-603-1578 [email protected]

Center for Medicare Advocacy - Making Sense of the Improvement Standard Settlement

Our advocacy efforts have paid off! The Center recently announced a Settlement in the class action lawsuit brought against the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, to eliminate the policy and practice of the illegal, harmful and unfair Medicare "Improvement Standard." As advocates and beneficiaries, you know the Improvement Standard has harmed thousands of older and disabled Medicare beneficiaries who need skilled care to maintain their conditions, but who have been denied coverage on the grounds that they are not improving. We are thrilled to have reached this settlement and create a smoother road for beneficiaries to receive the health care they need.

What's next? CMS will revise the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual and other Medicare Manuals to correct suggestions that coverage is dependent on a beneficiary "improving," and add provisions stating that skilled services necessary to maintain a person's condition can be covered by Medicare. After the policy revisions are completed, CMS will conduct an education campaign to inform providers, Medicare decision-makers, and adjudicators of the new skilled maintenance provisions.

Get more info: Wondering how the Jimmo Settlement Agreement may affect you, your loved ones, or clients? We've put together a FAQ on the "Jimmo" Settlement to provide some clarity regarding how the Agreement affects Medicare beneficiaries nationwide. Self Help Packets for denied claims are also available on our website.

Tell a friend: In order to truly end the Improvement Standard, it is critical to inform and educate as many people as possible about the Settlement and its implications. We urge you to:

Forward this email and resources, talk with friends and colleagues about the Settlement, use social media to link back to the information on our site. We will keep you posted as the Jimmo Settlement proceeds and we continue our advocacy on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries nationwide. Thank you for fighting this battle with us. Next Meetings Thursday, February 21, 2013 Thursday, May 16, 2013 Thursday, August 15, 2013 Thursday, November 21, 2013

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 91

V. Banker and Tradesman re: Single-Family Spec Housing 11-11-12

Banker and Tradesman Sunday, November 11, 2012 Housing Specter Spec Builders Scour Suburbs For Empty Lots Realtors Report Rising Demand For New Houses

By Colleen M. Sullivan, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

A ghost has arisen on the empty lots of the Massachusetts suburbs. The phantom: The spec home, a visitor whose presence has not been sighted on the Massachusetts housing market scene for almost five years.

“I’m going say, this year compared to last year, I’ve sold over twice as much new construction,” said Nelson Matos, president of RE/MAX Welcome Home in Taunton. “I’ve done one or two custom homes, but most everything else is spec. This year, I sold about half of them before they were even finished. Once the frame is up, people want to tie it up.”

It’s hard to precisely track new home sales in Massachusetts, since many new homes go up on land that once held older properties. But according to the latest Census figures, building permits for single-family homes are up 19.4 percent over last year through September, to 3,895 new single family units.

And realtors are feeling the difference. Lenny Harris, an agent with Keller Williams, said he’s seeing it pop up all over the MetroWest market he serves.

“I’ve been seeing builders and investors coming back and crossing our path since the end of last year. It’s been very steady,” he explained. “I’ve got builders right now – four or five of them – that are actively looking for land.”

It’s giving him flashbacks to the last big building boom in Boston during the 1980s. “We’ve been chasing stuff down, and we’re not alone, because we’ve been losing out on properties – there are people out here looking to do the same thing,” he said.

Upper-End Sales

Most Realtors started to see the market on new houses move last spring.

“I worked with a buyer this past year who was looking for newer homes,” said Pam Cote, an agent with RE/MAX Advantage RE in Beverly. “A couple of the homes had been on the market for almost a year. And when my buyer decided to make an offer on the first home, all of a sudden it went under agreement, and when he decided to make an offer on a second home, all of a sudden that one went under agreement. Finally, he went back to a home in Boxford that was new construction and that had been on the market for a while and they bought that.”

That kind of activity can be enough to get the market moving. “It helps buyers to realize you snooze, you lose,” Cote said.

Commonwealth Housing Task Force Quarterly Report June 30, 2012 Page 92

Certainly it appears to have been enough to get builders building. Spec homes are now appearing at all price levels. While Matos was seeing activity between $300,000 and $500,000, the upper end of the market is also covered.

Debi Benoit, co/broker owner of Benoit Mizner Simon in Wellesley, said “There’s a lot of new construction around for sure. I’ve sold several this year at $2.5 [million] and up. It’s very popular, because the builders are around and if you want changes, the builder’s there to do that.

“When they pay a certain dollar amount, they want what they want,” she laughed.

But agents shouldn’t expect a huge wave of new developments this spring: Financing remains too tight. Though one of the builders Harris is working with is looking for a couple of hundred acres to develop, “the majority of my guys are looking for onesies, twosies that they can pick up.”

“Because of the way the [underwriting] has changed, anything more than four units, they end up having to put much more of their cash into it. The banks look for the builder to come up with a lot more money. Whereas if they’re doing one at a time or something they can probably figure out a way to finance the whole thing, which is something they’re looking to do,” he said.

Email: [email protected]