Will Housing Law Survive Repeal Vote?

Q. What motivated you to start Better Not Bigger, and oppose chapter
40B? Was a specific project, or incident responsible?

A. I have always been concerned about affordable housing for the working
poor.  I lived in flats without central heating, in crime-ridden
neighborhoods, decrepit, for years when I was a broke college student.
I have a lot of sympathy for the people in our society who do all the
work but get little in the way of worker salary or social benefits.  The
fact that 40B totally leaves these people out in the cold, and totally
precludes regional or community planning of any kind, became clear as
project after project was discussed in the town where I live.
Researching the claim by local officials that "nothing could be done," I
discovered that 40B is used both as an excuse to subsidize market-rate
units targeted squarely at the middle class, and as an excuse to do
nothing for the working poor. 40B sucks up hundreds of millions of
dollars annually that should be going to real solutions, including
redevelopment of urban units that are sorely in need of improvement.

Q. Can you name any specific abuses of chapter 40B? Have you any
evidence of its abuse, or profiteering by developers?

A. The biggest evidence of its abuse is that it relegates the state to
virtually dead last nationally in affordability. Just reference the
state Inspector General's reports and testimony. He calls it "one of
the biggest abuses in state history" and can cite examples throughout
the state.  It turns out that right where I reside in the town of
Chelmsford, a developer was caught unlawfully profiteering and was
successfully sued by the town to recover some of the monies owed.  The
fact that the percentage of affordable units in 40B developments has
gone down each year demonstrates that it's not a program committed to
affordable housing; it's a program committed to propping up the profits
of predatory developers.

Q. I notice that you propose renovation of existing structures rather
than new construction. Have you any evidence to support your claim that this is a better solution for the state?

A, There are several rationales that support redevelopment.  First,
redevelopment doesn't have the negative effects new construction has on
neighborhoods; second, it doesn't eat up the little remaining open
space; third, it doesn't drive up land prices like 40B does and which
makes all housing less affordable; fourth, it quite simply costs less -
the local Housing Authority director has provided me estimates of
between $15,000 and $35,000 per unit to refurbish as opposed to $125,000
to $350,000 per unit to build new units; fifth, it would certainly
improve the situation in gateway cities that have unutilized or
underutilized buildings that need to be refurbished to be useful; and
sixth, given the fact that Massachusetts' population is relatively
stable (not a bad thing since we are virtually the same population
density as India) any new construction in the suburbs either will become
a white elephant (which has happened and builders walk away leaving the
town with a mess) or will suck the life out of nearby communities
especially the gateway cities like Fall River, Lowell, Worcester,
Lawrence, etc. This last point is important. 40B diverts hundreds of
millions in state and federal subsidies each year to build mostly market
rate units in the suburbs, while the gateway cities and Boston are
shortchanged and can't improve or expand upon their existing housing
stock. The result is that the quality of the urban units, which are the
most necessary for the working poor, continues to decline as they become
older and are not maintained. DHCD (the state Department of Housing and Community Development) directs most of its subsidy money to
40B and away from the cities in the first place. That money should be
going to regional solutions, not a market-rate unit oriented program
that eliminates the ability of any community to plan for real solutions.