ELEANOR WHITE Political will needed

Inconsistent, confusing and unpredictable regulations are helping to block housing production in Massachusetts, according to a newly released report.

The report, “Getting Home: Overcoming Barriers to Housing in Greater Boston,” is the latest study that looks at the regulatory obstacles to building affordable housing in the Bay State. The findings and recommendations from the report, which was sponsored by the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research and the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, were discussed at a forum last Thursday at the Suffolk University Law School.

Written by Charles C. Euchner, executive director of the Rappaport Institute, the report examines how local wetlands and septic regulations, building codes and zoning create a nightmare for developers wanting to build housing in the Bay State.

According to the report, housing policy in Massachusetts is more complex and contradictory than in most other states, and developers meet resistance from the beginning, when they propose a project, through the very end of the permitting process.

“At times, the system seems to conspire against the construction and rehabilitation of housing,” the study states.

There are many rules and regulations in Massachusetts, which by themselves aren’t terribly “egregious,” explained Euchner last week. Some communities, for example, have adopted local wetlands and septic regulations that exceed state standards. Approximately 160 cities and towns throughout the state, including Arlington, Belmont and Needham, have adopted wetlands bylaws or ordinances to supplement the state Wetlands Protection Act, according to the study.

Other communities have used zoning and growth management bylaws to keep housing construction to a minimum.

“None [of the regulations] in and of themselves is necessarily a bad thing,” said Euchner. “However, put together they put a drag on housing.”

‘The Real Carrot’

In his report, Euchner recommends that the state and towns and cities streamline housing regulations. Currently, there are nine boards and commissions that oversee the building code. Consolidating all the codes to create one clear set of standards is critical, said Euchner.

“I think it’s absurd that we have nine separate codes,” said Euchner. A committee formed by former Gov. Jane Swift is currently working on consolidating the code.

Even though state boards and commissions set the standards for building, it’s up to the communities to enforce the state standards. That often means local enforcement is uneven because of limited manpower and resources at the local level and the lack of common training, according to the report.

In addition to consolidating the building codes, the report recommends that communities experiment with a split-rate tax system – taxing vacant property at the rate of developed property to encourage more housing construction. It also recommends that towns change their zoning to allow for development of all kinds, and that communities allow developers to purchase public land to build housing.

On the state level, the report recommends that officials make the disposition of public land – particularly property near public transportation – easier, and that the state should offer incentives to communities to produce more housing.

Some of the findings and recommendations in the report had already been highlighted in another report that was issued early last year by the Governor’s Special Commission on Barriers to Housing Development. The commission, which was appointed by former Gov. Paul Cellucci, identified several barriers to housing construction and offered recommendations that would make it easier for developers to get housing projects approved and tougher for communities to enact septic system, zoning and wetlands rules that are stricter than state standards.

Last week, Euchner and two panelists who talked about the report’s findings emphasized that financial incentives must be part of the overall solution.

“Simplifying them [regulations] is a critical first step but it isn’t a magic bullet,” said Eleanor White, president of Housing Partners Inc., a consulting firm based in Watertown.

White, who joined Harvard University economics professor Edward Glaeser in responding to the report, said that money has to be allocated to towns as well.

“The real carrot that communities respond to is cash,” she said, referring to state funding that goes to communities for schools, infrastructure improvements and public safety. “I haven’t been able to find many others [incentives] that are attractive.”

Glaeser suggested that the current fiscal crisis might be the perfect opportunity to “place carrots and sticks in communities,” cutting off money to communities that don’t produce housing, while pumping money into those that do.

But White said the report and recommendations shouldn’t be taken in context of today’s fiscal problems, because the economy goes through cycles. What must be present is the political will that was evident during the 1970s and 1980s when private developers were encouraged to get involved in affordable housing production.

“Political will is the absolute baseline for us to see any upswing in the production of affordable housing,” said White.