Just as housing advocates were preparing to lobby state officials for funding for rental vouchers and other programs, economists and prominent officials were busy discussing ways to address the Bay State’s housing woes.

Preserving existing affordable housing, focusing on homelessness prevention and boosting production were just some of the topics addressed at a forum hosted last week by the United Way of Massachusetts Bay. The event, which featured six panelists – including Tina Brooks, the state’s newly named housing policy chief – was part of The United Way’s “Living the Dream” series.

The discussion, held at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, came as state leaders are busy with the budget hearing process. Brooks, who will be preparing her own budget recommendations, said she was “fairly surprised” to see how much of the state’s rental voucher program has been reduced over the last 15 years.

Brooks, who has a background in community development and affordable housing, told Banker & Tradesman after the event that rental vouchers will be a priority.

Housing advocates have been pushing state leaders to bolster the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP), a $27 million program that provides rental subsidies to low-income tenants, as well as Residential Assistance for Families in Transition (RAFT). RAFT is a $5 million program that helps families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness to pay rent, utility bills and security deposits.

MRVP, which is seen as a homelessness prevention program, has been slashed by millions over the last 15 years, according to housing advocacy groups. Housing activists want at least a $10 million increase in the program.

Brooks said the priorities of the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development will be preventing homelessness, preserving existing affordable housing, producing new units and partnering with agencies.

“Other notions that are being considered by DHCD are the priority of aligning housing resources – our own, as well as the resources of MassDevelopment, MassHousing, [Massachusetts Housing Partnership] – along a more common agenda,” she said.

‘Slow, Moderate Growth’
Joseph Kriesberg, president of the Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations, said money must be part of the solution to the state’s housing problems.

“How much money do we spend right now in Massachusetts [on housing]? Less than 1 percent of the state budget. If this is one of the most important issues facing the commonwealth, 1 percent is not going to cut it,” said Kriesberg. “We have to spend more money on public housing. We have to spend more money on developing new privately owned housing by for-profit and nonprofit developers. We need to provide more rental assistance.”

Besides more resources, Kriesberg said, preserving existing affordable housing, stopping foreclosures, addressing predatory lending and supporting a strong nonprofit community development sector to produce housing for very low-income people must be priorities.

The state’s high housing costs and whether increasing the supply would help moderate prices also was discussed. Panelists agreed that increasing housing production wasn’t the only answer.

Tripling or quadrupling housing starts annually would hurt property values, said Kriesberg.

“It would cause an economic disaster. It would cause a total plummeting in the housing market if you put that much supply into play,” he said. “We don’t want double-digit increases in housing prices, and we don’t want double-digit declines. We want slow, moderate growth that over time will restore balance and that’s why the supply is only part of the issue.”

Barry Bluestone, director of Northeastern University’s Center for Urban and Regional Policy, said the state doesn’t need to double or triple housing starts. Studies by Bluestone and others have shown that housing production levels in Massachusetts need to increase by 30 percent to 40 percent annually.

Bluestone’s research also has documented that the region’s high cost of living – including housing costs – are driving people between the ages of 25 and 34 out of the state. Bay State communities with the most expensive home prices have been losing population and jobs, explained Bluestone

“If we don’t deal with the housing problem in Massachusetts, and particularly in Greater Boston, we will continue to lose population [and] we will continue to lose firms – both going to places like North Carolina or Oregon or Arizona where housing costs are lower,” said Bluestone.

If the state continues to lose population and jobs over a long period of time, said Bluestone, the state’s economy will resemble that of the 1980s.

“Then we will see housing values across the board not only fall, but plummet,” he said.

State leaders have tried to address the shortage of affordable housing through such measures as Chapters 40R and 40S, which are designed to provide financial incentives to communities that create smart-growth districts where dense housing can be built near public transportation and town centers. Under the laws, which have been touted by Bluestone and other housing experts, communities are eligible to receive a one-time payment of up to $600,000, as well as $3,000 for each housing unit that’s permitted and built in the district.

But some city officials have been skeptical about the state’s ability to provide the financial payments once the housing is built, particularly since local aid and other programs have shrunk, and assistance that was promised has never been delivered.

“Many [mayors] are sitting back and saying there is no way the state is going to live up to this commitment over the long term, particularly when they hear about surpluses that were being talked about that now no longer exist,” said Jeff Hayward, vice president of community impact at United Way of Massachusetts Bay.

Forum participants also were critical of past approaches to dealing with homelessness in Massachusetts. State spending on emergency shelters has gone up over the years, while funding for programs to keep people from becoming homeless and to get them into housing has declined.

Brooks said the state has had a “shelter-oriented bias” that’s focused on getting homeless people into emergency shelters.

“Our first response is not [about getting] these families into stable long- term housing,” said Brooks, noting that it is more effective and cheaper to consider other types of housing options beyond shelters.

Hayward said the emphasis has been on managing homelessness instead of ending it.

“Unfortunately the temporary fix that is supposed to be an emergency temporary shelter bed has turned into an acceptable alternative form of housing,” he said.

Melinda Marble, acting director of One Family Inc. – a group working to end family homelessness – said state leaders must evaluate how resources are spent on the homeless. About $36,000 to $37,000 is spent to maintain a one-bedroom unit in a family shelter, explained Marble, but research has shown that it costs less than half that amount to offer more permanent housing options for families.

“Prevention is key,” she said.