Bravo to Mayor Michelle Wu and her team for thinking boldly about ways the city can get housing development unstuck. But her preferred solution – significant tax breaks – raises questions about the viability of high affordable housing mandates.
Policymakers in Boston could be facing a catch-22 while pursuing a pair of popular but potentially contradictory goals: encouraging developers to build more residential condominiums while requiring a higher percentage of income-restricted units.
In what looks to be an emerging trend, Boston’s mayor is leaning heavily on housing advocates for advice on highly-charged real estate issues, while excluding outspoken critics.
I applaud Mayor Michelle Wu for making Boston’s housing affordability crisis an early focus of her administration. Cambridge shows that a zoning overlay which boosts affordable housing development can produce more affordable units than inclusionary zoning.
It’s a pivotal policy question for Massachusetts communities seeking to encourage affordable housing in new developments: What’s the highest percentage of affordable units that can be required before projects become financially unfeasible?
While the Boston market holds interest for co-living project operators, the city presents challenges from a regulatory perspective. Boston’s zoning code is complicated, with many neighborhoods, in effect, having their own zoning ordinances.
Under pressure from housing activists and priced-out residents, some cities are taking aim at housing developers, hoping to achieve by government mandate what the market has so far, at least, failed to deliver. It’s a recipe for disaster.
The Baker Administration recently introduced legislation to help address the commonwealth’s housing crisis. Although it appropriately identifies zoning reform as a priority, a key element is missing: specific focus on families with lowest incomes. Here are five additional pieces that could help.
