5. Should the state modify Chapter 40B to achieve more truly affordable housing units than are required under the current law? If so, how?

Bill Humphrey

Although I agree that we need to make changes to achieve more truly affordable housing units, 40B is not the intended primary vehicle for that objective. We have gotten a significant number of affordable units as part of mixed-rate 40B projects, but simply tinkering with the 40B formula (e.g. raising the inclusionary percentage of affordable units in a larger project or universally lowering the Area Median Income eligibility cap for the affordable units) would likely result in fewer projects, not more projects, coming to fruition. Instead, if the goal is to promote truly affordable housing units (which I support as part of an all-price-points comprehensive strategy), we would need to focus on legal reforms specifically designed to facilitate the work of specialist development entities that build entirely low-income projects (involving the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit), not mixed projects. Combining that with 40B would only jumble several different systems together.

Rick Lipof

I would be in favor of increasing the percentage of affordable units required.  I would want deeper affordability.  I would also want to strengthen local input by mandating comprehensive assessments of the potential impacts on local infrastructure, schools and services, ensuring developments are sustainable and beneficial for existing residents.  I would want better local control over the location and design of affordable housing, balancing the need for affordable housing units with the character of the neighborhood and infrastructure capacity.  I would like to streamline the approval process without sacrificing the above goals.  I would like to develop pre-approved design templates, simplifying the approval process and ensuring high-quality, cost effective construction.  We need to increase state and federal grants to support the development and maintenance of affordable housing.  We can create a more inclusive housing market. 

Alex Jablon

Yes, increase to 30-35% to ensure more units are affordable. We have hundreds of people applying to every affordable unit in Newton, so this is quite honestly below what we need and I would see as a bare minimum increase. We should also look in to reducing the % of AMI these units are priced at, so that our most financially vulnerable citizens can afford to live here.

Amy Mah Sangiolo

Chapter 40B allows the local Zoning Boards of Appeals to approve affordable housing developments under flexible rules (bypassing local zoning) if at least 20-25% of the units have long-term affordability restrictions. At least 25% of the units must be affordable to lower income households who earn no more than 80% of the AMI; for rental housing, the project can provide 20% of the units to households below 50% of median income. To achieve more truly affordable housing units, Chapter 40B should be modified to increase the percentage of affordable units in developments to at least 30% and reduce the AMI cap from 80% to 50% and/or 30% AMI.

Additional Information for Voters

“Chapter 40B” refers to the Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit Statute under M.G.L. Chapter 40B, which encourages the development of low and moderate-income housing by providing a streamlined permitting process and relief from local zoning requirements.  Chapter 40B enables a local Zoning Board of Appeals to approve affordable housing developments under flexible rules if at least 20-25 percent of the units have long-term affordability restrictions.  For a discussion of some of the pros and cons of Chapter 40B, see this article.