Perspectives
on
Housing
A White Paper
on Affordable
Housing, by
Thomas N. George
page last updated September 09, 2005
Perspectives
on
Housing
A White Paper on Affordable Housing
Thomas N. George
Former Massachusetts State Representative
First Barnstable District
There
is no reason to expend any more time or energy to discuss the issue
of affordable housing. Everyone who deals with this problem in
either reality (those in the housing field) or theory (those in the
planning field) acknowledges the existence of the problem and the current
limited number of programs available to resolve it. Now, positive action is needed.
A
real solution plan should be developed based on the theme, How can we get
more units of housing into the community that are financially
within the grasp of those in need? Most people look to the
government to solve the problem. I maintain that this is incorrect .
. . and here’s why.
This
is a private-sector problem. Incentive to build “affordable”
units was taken away by local government because of its quest for larger
lots per unit and its fear that smaller lot sizes or cluster zoning would
stimulate growth and result in greater buildup of our communities.
Well, we have larger lots, we have the requirement that for each unit in a
multifamily structure there be an amount of land to support it as if each
unit were an individual one, plus other restrictions that hinder
investment in building rental properties or low-priced homes, and we are
living with the result. We didn’t control or stop growth, and we
still are not stopping growth, AND we don’t have enough affordable
units.
* * *
I
think the facts indicate that we need to reconsider our local zoning
regulations and increase density in certain, targeted geographic areas to
give back to the investor the incentive necessary to make the building of
affordable housing units attractive to those who wish to sell at a lower
price or retain the units as rental property. Building affordable
units is not different from manufacturing a product: The more units you can produce for the same capital outlay, the
lower the potential unit cost to the consumer. When building housing
units, the most costly single portion of the construction is the cost of
the land. If that cost is above the reasonable investment percentage
for the total cost of the finished product, no one will venture into the
business of building rental property as a long-range investment, and thus
no new units will be made available.
I
do not believe that I am alone in this advocacy. Some of the
Cape’s most trusted advocates of preservation are also proponents of the
thesis that change in regulatory control of land at the local level should
be the initial step to resolve the housing problem.
* * *
Let
me inject a little story about this theme, which happened at a meeting of
state senators and representatives with one of our regional planning
commissions on the subject of affordable housing. In the course of
the discussion, Representative Atsalis suggested that we urge the towns
with sewer services to permit apartment construction on the second, and in
some cases third, floors of commercial properties. This suggestion
was quickly dismissed by the planning commission’s representative, with
the statement “We could never do that. It will tax the septic treatment plant.” My position is,
you can’t discourage use of the septic treatment plant out of one side
of your mouth, while out of the other complain about pollution to the
sole-source aquifer that would result from the building of housing, when
in fact the reason for the use of the treatment plant is to save the
aquifer.
“Downtown”
locations are needed to relieve tenants of the need for a car or
taxis. While allowing apartments on the second floor of buildings in
downtown areas is good, realistically, the more pressing questions are,
Will doing so generate enough units, and can the costs of conversion allow
for lower rents?