iStock photo

One is better than none. 

But when you have 34 people running for seats on the Boston City Council, and there is just one candidate who appears to truly get what needs to be done to fix the housing crisis – well, Houston, we have a problem. 

That candidate is Ann M. Walsh, one of seven running to represent District 3, which is mainly based in Dorchester and extends into parts of the South End. 

No political neophyte, Walsh served as policy director and chief of staff for former city councilor John Connolly, who went on to lose a close-fought mayoral race against Marty Walsh in 2013. 

She was one of a dozen city council candidates who responded to a questionnaire by Abundant Housing Massachusetts probing their views on key housing issues, from the push to bring back rent control to whether they have ever taken a stand on housing that may have “upset some Boston voters.” 

And of the candidates who bothered to participate, Walsh offered the most realistic and detailed assessment of the wretched state of Boston’s hyper-inflated housing market and what needs to be done to fix it, which can be summed up in two words: Build more. 

Doesn’t Blindly Back Wu 

Most of the candidates who replied to the AHMA questionnaire harped on the need for more subsidized affordable units rented or sold at below-market prices. And pretty much all blindly backing the Wu administration’s simplistic approach to the issue, which is to try and dramatically up the amount of these money-losing units required in new residential buildings, complaints by developers about difficult market conditions and financial feasibility be damned. 

Walsh, by contrast, made clear she thinks the problem is underproduction of all types of housing units is at the root of the problem, and that the way Boston vets development projects has made it far too hard to actually build places for people to live. 

The so-called community process too often devolves into endless public meetings “where attendance skews toward not just older, wealthier homeowners, but also to those in fervent opposition,” she wrote 

Underrepresented or not represented at all are those generally fine with more housing and growth, who don’t have the same motivation to slog through dozens of meetings, or, for that matter, “future residents, or others like them struggling to find a home in the current housing crisis,” who, as Walsh notes, “are not represented at all.” 

This dynamic is “absolutely having a negative impact on housing production,” she said. 

“Boston is a highly desirable place to live, but without a significant increase in housing stock locally and in surrounding communities, we will continue to see intense competition and rising costs, significant community displacement, and worsening sprawl,” she added. 

Would Buck Wu on Affordability 

Walsh also shows she is willing to buck Mayor Michelle Wu on one of her centerpiece – and more controversial – proposals to ramp up the percentage of subsidized, below-market-rate apartments and condominiums developers must include in every new project to 17 percent along with another 3 percent set aside for people with federal or state housing vouchers. 

While some larger projects can cobble together the “complex combinations of private, local, state, and federal funding to build housing with even higher percentages of affordable units,” for smaller projects, or those that don’t qualify for the limited amount of government subsidies out there, the only recourse is to jack up rents and prices on the market-rate units. 

Of course, another alternative for developers is not building at all in Boston and taking projects to other cities like Chelsea and Everett, where the requirements are not as taxing and land is cheaper. 

Scott Van Voorhis

In her response to AHMA, Walsh points to the examples of other cities – including a fast-growing one in Northern New England – that have gone the same route of mandating even larger amounts of affordable units, only to see overall housing production drop. 

“Significantly increasing the IDP percentage across the board risks escalating the cost of the market rate units even further, or discouraging development in Boston altogether,” Walsh said. “We need to look at the effect sharp increases in required inclusionary zoning percentages in other cities has had, such as Portland, ME, which went from a 10% to 25% inclusionary zoning requirement, and has now seen a stark drop in production projects with 10 or more units.” 

That said, Walsh has some blind spots – like just about every other candidate who responded to the AHMA survey, she supports Wu’s push to bring back rent control, which arguably would further spook already jittery developers and their financial backers. 

Montez Haywood, who is waging an under-the-radar challenge to Sharon Durkan, the new District 8/Back Bay city councilor, earns and honorable mention for opposing the mayor’s rent control plan. 

But Walsh is maybe the closest to a YIMBY candidate as we are going to get in the 2023 Boston City Council race, with the preliminary round just a few weeks away. 

So yes, one is better than none. But it sure could be better. 

Scott Van Voorhis is Banker & Tradesman’s columnist; opinions expressed are his own. He may be reached at sbvanvoorhis@hotmail.com.