|
|
|
Arguing that more than 200 proposed bills to improve the state's chief affordable housing law had been left to die without debate in recent years, critics of the 41-year-old housing statute say their only remaining option is to seek its repeal.
Testifying before the Committee on Housing, advocates for repealing the law - Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws - say their years-old efforts at reform have been met with inaction, even as reports have emerged showing that the affordable housing law has been misused by developers.
Repeal advocates say the 1969 law has been mismanaged by the government and transformed into a "developers' welfare program."
"I'd like to put it next to an atomic bomb and blow it into as many little pieces as I can," said Greg Chemaly, director of the Slow Growth Initiative and a supporter of repealing a statute that some have called the anti-snob zoning law.
Chemaly was responding to opponents of repeal, who argued that repeal supporters are attempting to "blow up" the state's most successful tool for creating affordable housing.
Chapter 40B permits housing, condominium and apartment developers to skirt local zoning restrictions in communities that have not reached affordable housing thresholds if they guarantee that 20 to 25 percent of their units. Buyers of such properties must make less than 80 percent of the median income of the community that hosts the affordable units. Similarly, for rental units, only residents earning below 50 percent of the median income of the host city or town are eligible. Developers are limited to 20 percent profits of for-sale units and 10 percent profits on rentals.
The aim of the law is to bring the state's total affordable housing stock to 10 percent of available units.
Supporters of the law say 51 cities and towns have met that minimum threshold, most within the last decade. Four in five affordable units in Massachusetts have been created through 40B. Supporters of 40B also say the law has directly led to the creation of 58,000 affordable units since 1969. Without it, they argued, middle class workers and the elderly would be priced out of the Massachusetts housing market.
"No law is perfect … there's more that can be done," said Tripp Jones, who is leading a coalition against repealing the law. "Unfortunately, we're here talking about whether we ought to blow up the state's primary tool to build affordable housing at a point in time where housing's as expensive and difficult to find."
Jones said reports of abuse were limited when compared to the more than 1,000 40B developments that have been completed over the years. He called the repeal effort a "reckless, radical proposal."
Prior to the hearing, Jones and his backers packed a separate State House hearing room and showcased a an array of supporters, including the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, about 20 municipal leaders, five environmental groups, and advocates for seniors, veterans and people with disabilities.
Anti-repeal advocates boasted the support of the three leading candidates for governor, Democratic incumbent Deval Patrick, Republican Charles Baker and Independent Tim Cahill.
At their own rally prior, about two dozen supporters of repeal wielded signs in front of the State House that read "Stop destroying our neighborhood" and "Stop forced development (People before profit)."
"[40B] is a sledgehammer and it doesn't end up having more affordable housing. It's not working and we're pissed," said John Gersh, an Arlington resident. "I say it can't be fixed because the status quo is just getting too much out of this. And they're not going to fix it. They've given lip service to that for 40 years and it hasn't gone anywhere."
With no middle ground in sight, repeal advocates are poised to take their effort to the voters in November, and their opponents, led by Jones, are pulling together the coalition to preserve the existing law. Having already cleared earlier hurdles, proponents of repeal must now gather 11,099 signatures to place their question on the ballot in November.
Lawmakers remained largely silent during Monday's hearing, their last chance to weigh in before the issue heads to the ballot. The Legislature is required to hold hearings on ballot questions by the first Wednesday in May. If lawmakers were to enact the proposed measure by that deadline, the ballot initiative could be obviated. Legislators are also permitted to offer an alternative proposal.
Just six members of the 16-member Committee on Housing attended all or part of the hearing. Other than a handful of clarifying questions, committee co-chairs - Rep. Kevin Honan (D-Brighton) and Sen. Susan Tucker (D-Andover) - said nothing during the hearing. Honan strictly enforced a three-minute time limit on testimony before he ducked out, about 2.5 hours into the hearing, to attend the governor's signing of anti-bullying legislation.
"Reform is an unrealistic dream through this committee," said John Belskis, the head of the repeal effort.
Belskis described legislative inaction on efforts to reform state housing laws as "embarrassing" and charged lawmakers with "abdicating to the executive branch" their authority to manage housing policy.
Supporters of repeal said that over the past three legislative sessions, more than 200 bills had been filed to improve affordable housing policies and eliminate abuses.
Belskis headed a similar repeal effort in 2008 but failed to gather enough signatures to place it on the ballot.
The committee members that did weigh in during the hearing - Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth) and Rep. William Greene (D-Billerica) - were sharply skeptical of the law and its benefits.
"40B has nothing to do with poor people. It has to do with profit," Greene said, responding to testimony from supporters of the law. "It is a horrible law. The only way that it's going to be changed is to be repealed."
Hedlund questioned advocates for realtors for opposing repeal but being reluctant to endorse reforms to 40B. He called on the realtor community to join critics of the law and work to change it.
Critics of the law say shoddy oversight has permitted developers to bilk cities and towns of millions of dollars, which they recorded as profits but actually should've been recouped to municipal coffers. That conclusion was endorsed by the state Inspector General Greg Sullivan, who issued a report in 2008 that found abuse in a handful 40B developments, which he estimated were overpaid $6 million and had manufactured numerous expenses to report lower profits. Extrapolating that amount for all 40B projects, Sullivan, at the time, estimated that cities and towns may be owed as much as $100 million.
In the same review, Sullivan found that just 53 of the hundreds of 40B developments that had taken place had gone through a "cost certification" process to determine the validity of developers' expenses.
At the time, the Patrick administration beat back his criticism, arguing they had implemented the law in an open and fair manner.
Arguing that more than 200 proposed bills to improve the state's chief affordable housing law had been left to die without debate in recent years, critics of the 41-year-old housing statute say their only remaining option is to seek its repeal.
Testifying before the Committee on Housing, advocates for repealing the law - Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws - say their years-old efforts at reform have been met with inaction, even as reports have emerged showing that the affordable housing law has been misused by developers.
Repeal advocates say the 1969 law has been mismanaged by the government and transformed into a "developers' welfare program."
"I'd like to put it next to an atomic bomb and blow it into as many little pieces as I can," said Greg Chemaly, director of the Slow Growth Initiative and a supporter of repealing a statute that some have called the anti-snob zoning law.
Chemaly was responding to opponents of repeal, who argued that repeal supporters are attempting to "blow up" the state's most successful tool for creating affordable housing.
Chapter 40B permits housing, condominium and apartment developers to skirt local zoning restrictions in communities that have not reached affordable housing thresholds if they guarantee that 20 to 25 percent of their units. Buyers of such properties must make less than 80 percent of the median income of the community that hosts the affordable units. Similarly, for rental units, only residents earning below 50 percent of the median income of the host city or town are eligible. Developers are limited to 20 percent profits of for-sale units and 10 percent profits on rentals.
The aim of the law is to bring the state's total affordable housing stock to 10 percent of available units.
Supporters of the law say 51 cities and towns have met that minimum threshold, most within the last decade. Four in five affordable units in Massachusetts have been created through 40B. Supporters of 40B also say the law has directly led to the creation of 58,000 affordable units since 1969. Without it, they argued, middle class workers and the elderly would be priced out of the Massachusetts housing market.
"No law is perfect … there's more that can be done," said Tripp Jones, who is leading a coalition against repealing the law. "Unfortunately, we're here talking about whether we ought to blow up the state's primary tool to build affordable housing at a point in time where housing's as expensive and difficult to find."
Jones said reports of abuse were limited when compared to the more than 1,000 40B developments that have been completed over the years. He called the repeal effort a "reckless, radical proposal."
Prior to the hearing, Jones and his backers packed a separate State House hearing room and showcased a an array of supporters, including the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, about 20 municipal leaders, five environmental groups, and advocates for seniors, veterans and people with disabilities.
Anti-repeal advocates boasted the support of the three leading candidates for governor, Democratic incumbent Deval Patrick, Republican Charles Baker and Independent Tim Cahill.
At their own rally prior, about two dozen supporters of repeal wielded signs in front of the State House that read "Stop destroying our neighborhood" and "Stop forced development (People before profit)."
"[40B] is a sledgehammer and it doesn't end up having more affordable housing. It's not working and we're pissed," said John Gersh, an Arlington resident. "I say it can't be fixed because the status quo is just getting too much out of this. And they're not going to fix it. They've given lip service to that for 40 years and it hasn't gone anywhere."
With no middle ground in sight, repeal advocates are poised to take their effort to the voters in November, and their opponents, led by Jones, are pulling together the coalition to preserve the existing law. Having already cleared earlier hurdles, proponents of repeal must now gather 11,099 signatures to place their question on the ballot in November.
Lawmakers remained largely silent during Monday's hearing, their last chance to weigh in before the issue heads to the ballot. The Legislature is required to hold hearings on ballot questions by the first Wednesday in May. If lawmakers were to enact the proposed measure by that deadline, the ballot initiative could be obviated. Legislators are also permitted to offer an alternative proposal.
Just six members of the 16-member Committee on Housing attended all or part of the hearing. Other than a handful of clarifying questions, committee co-chairs - Rep. Kevin Honan (D-Brighton) and Sen. Susan Tucker (D-Andover) - said nothing during the hearing. Honan strictly enforced a three-minute time limit on testimony before he ducked out, about 2.5 hours into the hearing, to attend the governor's signing of anti-bullying legislation.
"Reform is an unrealistic dream through this committee," said John Belskis, the head of the repeal effort.
Belskis described legislative inaction on efforts to reform state housing laws as "embarrassing" and charged lawmakers with "abdicating to the executive branch" their authority to manage housing policy.
Supporters of repeal said that over the past three legislative sessions, more than 200 bills had been filed to improve affordable housing policies and eliminate abuses.
Belskis headed a similar repeal effort in 2008 but failed to gather enough signatures to place it on the ballot.
The committee members that did weigh in during the hearing - Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth) and Rep. William Greene (D-Billerica) - were sharply skeptical of the law and its benefits.
"40B has nothing to do with poor people. It has to do with profit," Greene said, responding to testimony from supporters of the law. "It is a horrible law. The only way that it's going to be changed is to be repealed."
Hedlund questioned advocates for realtors for opposing repeal but being reluctant to endorse reforms to 40B. He called on the realtor community to join critics of the law and work to change it.
Critics of the law say shoddy oversight has permitted developers to bilk cities and towns of millions of dollars, which they recorded as profits but actually should've been recouped to municipal coffers. That conclusion was endorsed by the state Inspector General Greg Sullivan, who issued a report in 2008 that found abuse in a handful 40B developments, which he estimated were overpaid $6 million and had manufactured numerous expenses to report lower profits. Extrapolating that amount for all 40B projects, Sullivan, at the time, estimated that cities and towns may be owed as much as $100 million.
In the same review, Sullivan found that just 53 of the hundreds of 40B developments that had taken place had gone through a "cost certification" process to determine the validity of developers' expenses.
At the time, the Patrick administration beat back his criticism, arguing they had implemented the law in an open and fair manner.
