Christmas may have come early for the Bay State’s affordable housing sector. Last week, the Legislature passed a $1.4 billion housing bond bill, which will provide fresh funding for a variety of programs that incentivize the construction of affordable housing for low-income families, renovate the state’s public housing units and provide specialized housing for other groups in need of support, including the disabled and homeless veterans.
Perhaps most importantly, two controversial amendments, one intended to provide preference to American citizens when applying for housing and another that would have provided a way for towns to block affordable housing developments were removed from the final version of the bill.
All in all, the law is now pretty much an unqualified victory for affordable housing advocates. “We’re very excited,” said Brenda Clement, executive director of the Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association. “[The bill] is a very strong commitment to affordable housing from the administration.”
The biggest chunk of the bill’s $1.4 billion in funding will go to renovating and modernizing the state’s 45,000 public housing units, with $500 million dedicated to that purpose. But another $660 million of the total is spread among a variety of programs aimed at incentivizing the development of more affordable and subsidized housing, including $305 million for the state’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund, $135 million for the Housing Stabilization Fund, $80 million for the Housing Innovations Fund and $20 million per year for low income housing tax credits per year through 2020.
Though much of the funding is dedicated to existing programs, the bill does include a few new wrinkles, including $50 million toward developing new ways to build and manage public housing, $45 million to fund new housing near transit nodes and $45 million to create a new fund that will allow non-profit child care providers to update and modernize their facilities. That program will be administered by the state’s Department of Early Education and Care.
The new funds to help make capital improvements to child care facilities are badly needed, said Roger Herzog, executive director of Community Economic Development Assistance Corp. (CEDAC), a quasi-state agency which administers several of the programs. CEDAC has had a long-running program to help provide training on how to raise funds and manage big construction projects for child care providers seeking to modernize their facilities. “Previously there was zero [money],” said Herzog. “Sometimes it takes years to scrape together the necessary funding, and this is going to streamline that process quite a bit.”
The bill’s passage comes as the Patrick Administration is making a significant push to build more workforce and affordable housing. Last week, the Department of Housing and Community Development announced plans to build 44 new units of housing for homeless veterans.
Minding The Gap
What remains to be seen is whether the state’s renewed focus and funding for affordable housing can make up for deficits on the federal side of the ledger. Under the ongoing federal budget sequestration, federal programs like Section 8 are due to face cuts next year. While negotiations underway in Washington could restore some of the funds, it’s doubtful whether Congress will be able to strike a deal.
“Programs don’t operate in isolation,” said Herzog. “The more that there’s a budget squeeze at the federal level, it puts more stress on these state funds.” Even with low income tax credits and other subsidies provided in the state’s housing bond bill, without the assurance of continued federal rent assistance creating new affordable unit for low-income families may not be possible, he said. “Because the focus is on very low income families, we need a deep subsidy source like Section 8 for that family to succeed.”
Whatever the impact of the federal troubles on the state’s ability to complete its housing goals, advocates are likely to be almost as grateful for what’s not in the bill as what’s in it. Two controversial provisions – one requiring state agencies to give preference to American citizens when assigning housing and one which would have allowed some towns to end run around the state’s controversial affordable housing law, Chapter 40B, were stripped from the final bill.
Chapter 40B allows developers to proceed with a project despite a town’s objections so long as 25 percent or more of the units being built will be sold as affordable housing and that fewer than 10 percent of the existing housing units in town are deemed affordable under the state’s housing laws. The measure had often proved unpopular in development-averse towns, though a proposal to repeal the law failed to pass the ballot in 2010.
An amendment in the bond bill would have blocked 40B projects from being built in an area where a town had created a specific kind of tax incentive zoning. The immediate effect of the amendment would have meant blocking a 296-unit development scheduled for an old Polaroid plant in Norwood, but the change could also have provided a road map for other towns seeking to prevent affordable units from being built.
Email: csullivan@thewarrengroup.com
