The $1.2 trillion federal infrastructure law had an unintended consequence: Forcing affordable housing developments to abide by expensive and potentially unavailable U.S.-produced materials. Now there’s relief.
A small shift in federal housing policy is yielding results that have the potential to better the lives of hundreds of thousands of low-income families.
Communities with concerns about Massachusetts’ new transit-oriented zoning reform were heard. We need to engage in our communities to ensure that this law achieves its promise.
For us in the real estate community, the Fair Share Amendment is a chance to support the housing needs of our workforce using the better transit infrastructure the tax will fund.
One of the most unfortunate casualties of the end-of-session scramble on Beacon Hill was a failure to legalize the creation of accessory dwelling units on many single-family lots statewide.
A grant given to fund an affordable housing project reduces the cost basis for developers and thereby reduces the amount that can be raised in private funds through the LIHTC program.
The solution is to create new housing supply, and the optimal time to raise necessary resources is when the market is strong and robust. And major employers are getting on board with the idea, too.
Addressing the racial wealth gap will take a variety of approaches. And for many, the key to building assets is to have the opportunity to build equity in homes that they own.
Companies with lab needs can pay higher land costs than housing developers, and a combination of factors has intensified the competition for developable land in the Greater Boston area.
Massachusetts’ CommonWealth Builder program effectively reduces the price of new housing units by subsidizing developers up to $150,000 per home. And unlike traditional affordable housing, it allows homeowners to realize the full market appreciation of their unit if they live there for at least 15 years.
The pandemic has laid bare the extent of the digital divide that exists – reliable broadband access is essential to modern work and life. And finally, legislation proposed by both parties recognizes it.
Homeownership rates among nonwhite Massachusetts residents are much lower than those of white families. This creates dire implications for generating wealth in communities of color.
A common NIMBY practice involves filing lawsuits against developments with no real substantial claims, in order to string the process out so developers give up. But just recently, something emerged to address this problem.
Is it possible this situation might at least temporarily create housing opportunities that would be accessible to moderate or middle-income families, who could now afford to save money on housing?
While the governor’s plan is not particularly bold, it is one that promises to bring real relief to thousands of Massachusetts families. But it is imperative that public pressure be applied to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to meet the challenge.
The withdrawal of AFFH policies at the national level and the stumbling approach to Housing Choice – a good vehicle, if an imperfect one – both limit housing opportunity in favor of the status quo.
The coronavirus shutdown has escalated Massachusetts’ housing challenges to a critical level and puts at risk the successes that we have achieved in providing high quality affordable housing.
Subsidized housing funding comes with extremely strict deadlines for performance. If an project is delayed not only can costs increase, as prices for materials rise, but project funds can actually disappear.
IDP does not successfully address the more systemic, underlying issues of destabilized neighborhoods. But what it can do and has done is create needed affordable housing that would not otherwise be built.
