To the editor:
Based on the content of the Oct. 30 column “California Looks To Bay State For Affordable Housing Inspiration,” it appears that Scott Van Voorhis has a very definite bias for our failed, so-called affordable housing law. I hope that California would seek direction from Oregon, which is ranked number one in affordable housing production, rather than Massachusetts, which is ranked as number 47. He may also want to check why Rhode Island and New Jersey attempted to emulate our 40B law and quickly discarded it. Their versions aptly recognized that a regional approach such as Oregon’s was the more productive model.
I find it amazing that Berkley didn’t explore California’s Sacramento County’s affordable housing program, which actually provides for low-income units by stipulating that a comprehensive permit be tiered in thirds – one third low-income, one third middle-income and one third market-rate. He seems to ignore the fact that only 10 percent of our population is eligible for a 40B unit as the remainder are either too poor to qualify for a mortgage or they are above the eligible income range to qualify for a subsidized unit.
Scott may be better served if he asks why after 47 years of 40B’s existence, it has produced only an annualized average of less than two units per each of our cities and towns. And that will further deteriorate as the 18,000 units of expiring use units revert to market rate. Hint, what has the Legislature done to create an effective affordable housing program?
The only statement in the article that has a semblance of veracity is that the 10 percent is problematic. Of course it is, that is because it guarantees that it will remain a developers welfare program as the 20 –25 percent goal ensures that there will always be 75 – 80 percent that are expensive and not affordable, causing a continual erosion of the 10 percent attainment plus an escalating price range increase.
By the way, Mr. Voorhis, did you consider that the 31,000 units you credited to 40B is considerably less when you extract the market rate units that are credited as affordable when the 40B project is for rental units?
For two sessions of our Legislature the Joint Committee on Housing has failed to bring to the floor a new requirement that all comprehensive permit eligibility must have 30 percent of the project affordable. Connecticut had no problem making that a requirement for a comprehensive permit.
If you are going to editorialize on a subject, make sure you really know and understand how and why it is either good or bad. Your sources for this article must have been well directed by the vested interests that benefit from 40B as it totally lacks an objective view of what is needed to create an effective affordable housing program.
John Belskis is chairman of the Coalition for the Reform of 40B.
