Susanne Schindler
Massachusetts’ housing prices are stifling economic growth. The workers that power its healthcare, research and technology industries are leaving the state.
Investing in social housing is a smart and cost-effective response to this challenge. Retooling redevelopment authorities – a largely forgotten part of municipal government – will help to get it built.
Social housing, also referred to as mixed-income public development, is being promoted by various public entities and funded in different ways across the United States. Social housing creates urgently needed homes for middle-income households in a way that can be financially self-sustaining.
In Massachusetts, too, the momentum is growing. The state’s 2024 Affordable Homes Act authorized a social housing pilot, and in 2025 the Cambridge City Council issued a policy order to assess social housing.
In a new paper published last month by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, we argue the state’s 30-plus redevelopment authorities, a legacy of post-war attempts to address urban “blight,” are a promising tool for building social housing at scale. They would complement the state’s existing, robust housing ecosystem, partnering with other actors, including housing authorities.
Becca Heilman
A Powerful Tool – Under Voters’ Control
Our research was primarily driven by a concern over the lack of housing affordable to middle-income households, a concern shared by the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA), the Cambridge Community Foundation and the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston at the Harvard Kennedy School, who funded the study.
The so-called “missing middle” is an issue not only in cities like Cambridge, where the average home value of all property types has long surpassed $1 million, however. It is a challenge for rural areas like Franklin County, where the community college’s new president told us in a listening session that they moved four times within two years because adequate housing was impossible to find.
Redevelopment authorities were created post-World War II to spur economic growth through large-scale private redevelopment, with the goal of stabilizing real estate values and property taxes. Their mandate was distinct from that of housing authorities, created in the interwar years to promote affordable housing.
Redevelopment authorities have largely flown under the radar since the end of federal urban renewal in 1974 and the lingering stigma caused by large-scale physical demolition and human
Chris Herbert
displacement. Recognizing housing affordability as a condition for – not in contrast to – economic development is a key impetus for retooling redevelopment authorities’ powers toward a new mandate today.
Under state law, redevelopment authorities can assemble, dispose of and own real estate, including through eminent domain; issue bonds; conduct planning and pre-development activities; and operate with certain exemptions from procurement and other regulations.
Democratic control is assured through a five-member board, appointed by the municipality’s mayor or select board and the governor.
Statewide Successes Show Possibility
Most redevelopment authorities lack dedicated staff or independent revenue, however. A handful do, made possible through long-term real estate interests.
The CRA, for example, has used revenue generated through long-term development agreements at Kendall Square to fund affordable homeownership opportunities across the city. The Fall River Redevelopment Authority, working with MassDOT, has used its assets and expertise to plan new mixed-use development along two miles of the Taunton River. This type of long-term, public-interest stewardship of land is also fundamental for successful social housing.
Even without dedicated staff or independent revenue, several municipalities – Attleboro, Holyoke, Salem and Worcester, to name just four – have recently used their redevelopment authorities to facilitate well-located residential development, partnering with public, private and nonprofit actors.
The powers to facilitate land swaps, finance site remediation, invest patient capital or lease land were key to making development possible, and they will also be critical promoting social housing.
Legislature Asked to Act
To enable redevelopment authorities to do so efficiently and at scale, however, requires targeted reforms.
A state-wide coalition of redevelopment authorities is advocating for amending state law to allow them to facilitate mixed-income housing. The proposed change would amend Chapter 121B to empower these authorities to pursue “community development projects” that address housing affordability, small-business development, and environmental resilience goals.
The reform would also allow interventions beyond the boundaries of urban renewal plans, including in high-opportunity areas which would not qualify as “blighted.”
The group expects to file the proposed amendment this summer.
At this critical political juncture, government must find ways to deliver the basic necessities for a dignified life. Housing is one such basic necessity. Elected officials should seize an opportunity hiding in plain sight: retooling redevelopment authorities as productive and accountable actors for the future, including by promoting social housing.
Susanne Schindler is a research fellow, Becca Heilman is a graduate research assistant and Chris Herbert is the managing director at the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University.
