Agenda Text
title
Commenting on the recent discussion on affordable housing and the zoning overhaul in the Land Use Committee's April 2 meeting.
body
Official Text
To my Colleagues, and to Zoning Planner Dan Bartman:
I regret that I was not able to attend the Land Use meeting April 2.
Ironically I was at a community meeting about a two unit house looking to convert into three units. I watched the video and was very happy with the conversation. Since we’re letting Dan dissect our comments for a future document, I thought I should share my opinions.
Three units, carriage houses and basement units
Although the debate between two or three units in RA and RB zones seems to have reached a middle point where three units would be allowed for deed restricted units, I’m supportive of formalizing requirements to permit three units, carriage houses and basement apartments in both RA and RB zones throughout the city, regardless of deed restriction. I lived in a basement unit and in a two family home converted into three. I even lived in a rare four-decker apartment and found them all suitable. I have yet to live in a carriage house, but I won’t rule it out.
I also currently live in a two unit house that was “cannibalized” and turned into a three unit house. As one of five children I find it very spacious, although my wife disagrees. We are a city of less than four square miles; this life isn’t for everyone. Many people currently leave the city because even their three bedroom apartments aren’t spacious enough. People previously raised far more children in much smaller spaces than the two bedroom apartment I live in. People who do have families are having fewer children. To me adding a third unit under is a net gain, especially if it is a deed restricted unit.
There are stated concerns of speculation, which are valid. The meeting I went to Tuesday highlights that. But developers are going to eat up property regardless. At some point we have to address the housing stock in general.
Minneapolis recently took the bold measure of zoning all residential neighborhoods, even single family homes, for three units. They cited affordability and historic racism as a reason for the change. This is by far the most pragmatic and least complicated way to add to our housing stock. <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/minneapolis-single-family-zoning.html>
Deed restricted third unit
I remain very interested in this idea, although I have some concerns.
The first is if we will get any affordable units out of it at all, or if this will just be a de facto elimination of a third unit in residential neighborhoods. Some said that making the third unit deed restricted will deter developer speculation, but can average residents afford to build a deed restricted unit? Are we trying to create a self sustaining system of middle income affordable housing, or a cool gimmick that only a few altruistic people can pull off? Are we trying to build dozens or thousands of affordable units? I agree with Councilor Ballentyne that we should examine this concept before implementing it. This isn’t to say that data is the end of this discussion, but there could be a very good reason why this has never been done before. I fear losing time and, more importantly, losing the ability to generate more affordable units. And, of course, we continue to anger people with nothing to show for it.
There was a concern raised about the deed restricted third unit being so successful that it “opens the floodgates” to development. Dan said that 9,000 new units could be created in residential neighborhoods if a third unit was allowed. I don’t believe for a second we would achieve 9,000 deed restricted units, even if they were market rate. It would be a game changer if ten percent of all two family houses built a third deed restricted unit. That would be close to 1,000 new middle class affordable units, also known as what we’ve been trying to do for years. In reality I think we’ll be lucky to get a few dozen affordable units out of it. I agree with Councilor Ewen-Campen that any further restrictions on a third unit beyond the deed restriction all but guarantees nothing will be built. The deed restricted unit in itself may be too much of an obstacle.
After two years of aggressively pursuing progressive housing plans largely dependent on circumstances outside of our control, we should not shrink from using our power over zoning to its absolute fullest.
As a former resident of Wards 5 and 6, it bothers me when “neighborhood character” and “community feel” are used to describe a neighborhood I can’t afford to live in anymore. West Somerville is already thoroughly gentrified. Any effort to bring back our lost racial and socioeconomic diversity should be embraced.
Our policy should encourage developers and residents to build the third deed restricted unit. The units should be as of right to avoid lawsuits and reduce cost. Councilor Hirsh suggested subsidies to encourage building. This idea is worth examining. It could potentially build thousands of affordable units at a far lower cost to the city than relying solely on government assistance. This is idea needs to be vetted, however.
Lottery
I agree with most of my colleagues that a lottery for deed restricted units would be ideal but impractical. I’m already concerned that no one will go through the effort of building a third deed restricted unit. I am absolutely certain no homeowner will go through the effort if they lose control over who lives in their home. We already have one example of a deed restricted apartment outside of the lottery system in Union Square. This could be a model to build on. On the other hand, the complications of a lottery also highlight potential problems with reporting income verification and deed restriction compliance, all which could be managed by a lottery system.
A simple solution to the problem of lotteries and resistance to deed restricted units may be to just remove the threshold that exempts buildings under six units from our 20 percent inclusionary rate. We could make any additional third unit pay into the affordable housing trust fund like larger developers do. This would allow the construction of needed market rate units and incentivize affordable housing funding without creating a burdensome process. The deed restricted third unit is of course the ideal option, but if that is not realistic an affordable housing buyout may be the best option for residents, developers and the city. It could possibly match the transfer fee in funding, without any home rule petitions required.
Triple-Deckers
It bothers me to hear the phrase “neighborhood character” used against triple-deckers, when they are an integral part of our neighborhood character and working class history. Triple-deckers are unique to New England, the product of my French Canadian immigrant ancestors. I wrote a whole term paper on it for anyone interested. They can be found in every corner of the city. My family home that straddles Ward 5 and 6 abuts three triple-deckers (from the rear, not side by side).
Joe McDonald built his first house on the corner of Highland and Cherry Street when the neighborhood was cow pastures. When the population increased he built three triple-deckers on his lot. These units housed my elementary school teacher, several seniors and families. The site also has ample green space. My current neighborhood is filled with triple-deckers and we are one of the last refuges for the diversity everyone claims to support. The triple-decker “fits the neighborhood” far more than many modern developments approved in my ward.
Another stated concern is developers will tear down two family homes and replace them with triple-deckers. I personally would love for my legacy to be an increase in triple-deckers, but the truth is most two family houses are more likely to add a third unit than demolish and replace with a triple-decker. It is highly unlikely any triple-deckers will be built with a deed restricted third unit. If it is, we get a double bonus of historic preservation and affordable housing.
The issue of height and shade around triple-deckers was thoroughly addressed. Dan says there is no significant change in shade, and Chair Davis even read the height restrictions for triple-deckers, which are essentially the same as a 2.5 unit house. If you walk around the State Streets in Ward 1 you will find triple-deckers side by side with what appear to be two family houses, but in reality contain 2.5 or three units. There is no difference in height at all.
I don’t find the concerns of a triple-decker epidemic compelling, and again I would welcome such a problem. I think the triple-decker represents the perfect mix of adding more units to the city while maintaining our unique heritage and “neighborhood character.” I would support “option three” that allows triple-deckers next to abutting triple-deckers as a compromise, but I would personally allow much more flexibility in building triple-deckers, especially if the third unit is deed restricted.
I do think it’s time to move on from these issues. I look forward to another meeting for us to debate and finally vote on the matter and settle it once and for all. If we can’t move on from the 2-3 unit debate I have little hope we can address zoning city wide. Our housing stock is a finite asset we must manage. So is our time.