By Kim Siebert MacPhail
The dialogue surrounding homeless families at the Plaza Hotel has spurred questions about affordable housing requirements in Bedford. The two issues have little to do with one another and shouldn’t be conflated; housing of displaced families at the Plaza Hotel is unrelated to affordable housing requirements.
Yet, there are many questions about affordable housing—specifically, what the background is; how the State tallies the affordable housing inventory; and why Bedford continues to add affordable units—that warrant clarification.
With this article, The Citizen will provide basic information about affordable housing and unpack what Bedford’s current 16.9% State-calculated affordable housing inventory means. The Citizen will also examine why the Town continues to add affordable units if the State only requires a community to have 10%.
What is affordable housing and why is it important?
In 1969, the State enacted the Comprehensive Permit Law, known as Chapter 40B. The purpose of the law was to address a state-wide lack of housing for those making below 80% of the annual area median income.
Even as early as 1969, real estate prices and rents were such that many struggled to continue living in the towns in which they’d grown up or raised families. Others experienced climbing real estate prices and rents as barriers to moving to towns where the quality of life was more desirable.
In an affordable housing study commissioned by the Town of Bedford in 2002, consultant Karen Sunnarborg wrote that affordable housing was important because of the “diversity and the stability of individuals and families living in Bedford.”
Sunnarborg continued: “It can be argued that diversity in a community contributes to local health and vitality, that differences enrich us all. Many of the local leaders interviewed [for this study] spoke eloquently about the advantages of maintaining what diversity still exists in Bedford and the need to stimulate greater heterogeneity related to economic, age, religious, racial and ethnic differences.”
In 2002, when the study was conducted, Bedford’s affordable housing rate was 4.5% (200 units, see table below) –far below the State-mandated threshold of 10%.—and the Town was, essentially, struggling to figure out ways to mitigate a situation that left it vulnerable to high-density, multi-unit developments. Some of those developments, such as Avalon at Bedford Center, were ultimately successful and added to Bedford’s affordable housing stock so that the Town achieved 10% and higher affordable housing.
Affordable units making up the 4.5% prior to the 2002 study:
Not only did large, multi-unit developments like Avalon help the town reach the 10% benchmark, other projects such as Habitat for Humanity plus the Shawsheen Ridge Condo buy-down and other Town-initiated affordable housing policies and programs became part of the solution. It should be noted here that Bedford’s affordable housing rate has fluctuated widely since the 10% mark was reached: 18.3% (in 2009), 14.3 per an undated MAHA affordable housing website (https://www.massaffordablehomes.org/mahamap.html ) and the current 16.9% (in 2013).
How does the State count affordable housing units?
Bedford’s Assistant Town Manager Jessica Porter provides affordable housing administrative oversight. In a phone interview, Porter said that the State calculation of affordable housing, while advantageous to Bedford in one sense, can be misleading.
For example, Porter pointed out that even though only 25% of Avalon at Bedford Center is actually rented under the specifications governing “affordable” rates, 100% of rental units in the multi-unit development are counted by the State as eligible. In other words, the 35 units actually available to renters with 80% or less area median income count as 139 affordable units in the State calculations. Porter added that the actual affordable inventory in Bedford is more like 9 – 10% rather than 16.9%, if all the market-rate units counted by the State are removed from the inventory.
Below is a chart taken from a 2009 International City/County Management Association paper entitled “Town of Bedford Affordable Housing Development” [icma.org/Documents/Document/Document/100115]. It shows the differential between actual affordable units and State-counted affordable units.
Note that in addition to including apartments that are not truly rented as affordable, each bedroom of a group home facility is also counted as an affordable housing unit.
Looking at it comprehensively, this means the current State tally of affordable housing that shows Bedford as currently having 900 affordable housing units includes a mixture of single-family homes, subdivisions like Habitat for Humanity, Ashby Place senior and handicapped apartments, “luxury” rental apartments—both affordable and market-priced—and group home bedrooms. Each component of this mixture accounts for a part of the affordable housing puzzle in Bedford. (https://www.mass.gov/hed/docs/dhcd/hd/shi/shiinventory.pdf)
In an email, Planning Board Chair Jeff Cohen confirmed the State’s practice of including non-affordable units in the inventory, saying that 25% of the units in 40B developments have to be affordable units with the other 80% market-rate. “However,” Cohen said, “the entire project would count toward the town’s ‘affordable’ inventory. So, in reality, the town’s inventory of affordable units. . . .also includes market rate units.”
Why does Bedford continue to add affordable units if it already has over 10%, according to the state?
Mirroring the State’s Chapter 40B, Bedford’s Zoning Bylaw 9.2.3, passed by Town Meeting, says that “[n]ot less than 20% of all units authorized in excess of 25% obtained by the application of Subsection 9.2.2.1 above shall be low and moderate income housing or affordable housing.” In other words, Bedford adds affordable units within each new applicable development permit because it is the law of the State and the Town.
Additionally, according to Director of Planning Glenn Garber, the Town wants to guard against dipping once again below the 10% mark, leaving it vulnerable to unwanted multi-unit development.
Speaking to the math of affordable housing percentage, the Planning Board’s Cohen added that if the over-all market-value housing inventory increases, the affordable housing unit numbers must also increase to maintain the current rate.
“When the market-rate stock increases, unless the affordable housing stock also increases over time, we risk slipping below 10%. When the ZBA approved the numerous 40B’s [Avalon Bay, Thompson Farm, Taylor Pond] during the early 2000’s, the town surpassed the 10% threshold, thereby providing the capability to deny 40B’s outright without concern that the applicant could appeal the decision. 20% of the units in 40B developments have to be affordable units [by law] with the other 80% market-rate.”
There is also the fact that not all affordable housing was permitted in perpetuity. The 96 units at Bedford Village, for example, expire as affordable units in the near future. If the owner of the property decides to change how the property is used—for example, razing the current buildings and building single family homes there instead— Bedford could experience a net loss of 96 affordable units, all at once.
Planning Director Garber emphasized the importance of keeping a keen eye on fluctuations in the denominator—the total housing stock in town—and the numerator, or the number of affordable units. “A town has to be diligent to maintain the 10% because the numbers are always changing,” Garber said.
For more background on the issue, read the 2002 affordable housing study commissioned by the Town: 2002 https://www.bedfordma.gov/sites/bedfordma/files/file/file/plan-bedfordcomprehensiveaffordablehousingplan.pdf
Loading ...
I would like to paste the following to my comment below….
Thus keeping Bedford’s overall affordable housing percentage somewhat in line with the current percentage.
Why does the state allow the rate of affordable housing to be calculated as you detail in this article? Seems like a mis-representation not only for our town of Bedford but for all towns within the state. Is there some advantage for the state in calculating in this way with regard to reporting statistics? Is there a current MAHA Map that shows the percentages of affordable housing throughout the Commonwealth, as provided in the the link?
I think it would be helpful to have a chart like the one shown in this article, that shows a more comprehensive picture of the affordable housing units within Bedford ~ all 900 units. For instance the Bedford Village 96 units are not including in the chart, are there others that are also not included? It would be interesting to know “affordable housing expiration dates” for all properties, when applicable, as described by Mr. Garber of the Bedford Village property. And if the owner does choose to rebuild, wouldn’t s/he be constrained by our current zoning by-laws, etc and therefore be required to provide a certain percentage of affordable units?
There is a major difference between compassion and economic reality. And this is why the two issues (Plaza and “affordable” housing) are being linked. On both, Bedford seems to be out of line with neighboring towns – in terms of numbers. And both are taxing Town resources. To say we should severely limit residents at the Plaza, or to reduce the number of “affordable” housing units is not mean spirited or lacking in compassion. It is a reality. People work hard to afford to live in a place like Bedford. And work hard to make it a wonderful place to live and raise a family. And they pay a lot in taxes to the Town.
Regardless of how one feels about the 40B law, it is a 10% state mandated level, and that should be the Bedford target. It does place a burden on Town resources. So on the one hand, some say we need to make add to the stock of “affordable” housing, but on the other, it is said our taxes are high and our resources are thin. It simply cannot be had both ways.
Of course, the entire concept of compulsory “affordable” housing is an economic absurdity. There is a market price for real estate. Something being affordable means that someone has enough money to pay for it. Forcing a price lower merely distorts a market – and it makes the entire market as a whole less functional. By going above the state mandated limit, Bedford merely exacerbates this problem.
And by allowing the Plaza situation to extend and multiply for years, we have reached crisis mode.
A question to raise about Bedford Plaza is the restriction that Town meeting approved in the Bedford Zoning Bylaw Amendment Article # 6 of the 1991 Annual Town Meeting – Hotel Definition. One sentence of the article states that if the hotel or motel has independent living units with cooking facilities, such units shall not be occupied by any guest for more than four (4) continuous months, nor may the guest reoccupy any unit within 30 days of the four-month continuous stay.
Very helpful article. Obviously a lot of work and care went into it. Thanks.
-Terry Gleason
Avalon forced it’s low income renters out pretty quickly. I would be surprised if there were many left. That was just something they had to agree to in order to get all of their initial permits.
With the high cost of living in Bedford, “affirdable” housing hardly means inexpensive. Also, the uproar over the homeless shelter at the plaza is concerning. While the sudden population may be affecting some of our resources, the snobiness and general lack of compassion from many community members makes me think that Bedford may not be the appropriate comnunity for those townspeople.
Having attended last night’s (9/24 7:30pm) Bedford Planning Board meeting and having read this article I would like to make a comment and raise two questions.
My comment is that this article, members of the Planning Board, and State Representative Gordon have taken pains to assert that the issues of the Bedford Plaza Hotel and Affordable Housing have little to do with one another. However a group of involved citizens counters that while the two issues are, in fact, separate and involve two different parties (the hotel owner and the town Planning Board) that the potential affects of these issues do, in fact, make them closely related. Specifically, that town school, police, fire, EMT and other resources are being spread thinner because of an influx of residents resulting from both the Plaza and potentially from an increased town population density. I believe it is important and fair to note here that School Superintendent John Sills said that the school is still investigating the origin of the unexpected influx of students who have driven up class sizes, facilitated the need for two-teacher classrooms, etc., and the higher-than-expected number of students may be coming from a confluence of sources including single family homes as well as developments and the Plaza. The survey being conducted by the school could shed some much-needed light on this specific issue. The larger point here is that when population density within the town increases, and when, in some cases, the resulting tax revenue does not increase or increase quickly enough commensurate with the population rise, the town’s facilities and resources are spread thinner, and this has a negative impact on all residents of the town. This brings into question the purview and authority of town managers and their ability to keep the town protected from issues of “happenstance” such as the Plaza Hotel situation. Some are arguing that Affordable Housing is directly related to the Plaza Hotel situation and that maintaining a significantly higher-than-average percentage of affordable housing puts Bedford resources in a more vulnerable position to both natural increases in family size, new residency, and unexpected growth in cases such as the Plaza Hotel.
During the Planning Meeting last night, the Board presented a long-term planning document that would seem to continue to maintain a significantly higher than average percentage of affordable housing. As per last night’s discussion and as indicated in this article, one of the reasons for keeping the town’s percentage of affordable housing stock above the 10% state-minimum is that it insulates the town from state intervention. The Planners, and this article, cite the possible loss of Bedford Village’s 96 units and its reduction of our percentage. However it seems as though the town may be well over 10% even in that event. So my first question is how/why neighboring towns like Concord, Lexington and Burlington are maintaining a closer-to-10.5% affordable housing mix? This article quotes Assistant Town Manager Jessica Porter as saying “…the actual
affordable inventory in Bedford is more like 9 – 10%
rather than 16.9%, if all the market-rate units counted by the State are
removed from the inventory.” This is an understandable point. However,
unless Concord, Lexington and Burlington have a very different mix of
‘purely’ affordable developments, then applying this same logic would suggest
that these towns have only 4 – 5% rather than 10.5%? Are they less concerned about the potential for state-mandated 40B programs if they drop below the threshold? And are there practices our neighbors are putting place that we may be able to learn from?
Further, it would seems the case that in today’s market that demand is outstripping supply. When we see tear-downs and homes selling for above asking price within days of being listed this indicates a seller’s market for single-family homes. So my second question is if the benefit of growing the overall amount of housing stock (the “denominator” as stated by Planning Director Garber in the article above) outweighs the benefit of limiting the denominator? Could it be more beneficial to the town to create a plan that slows the rate of overall residential development (limiting the denominator) and allowing current planned lots to be developed for single-family homes until such time as something closer to an 11% affordable housing proportion is reached? It would seem that taking this approach might result in a higher resource-per-resident, greater demand for all housing units within the town, maintenance of the town’s green spaces, and the ability to more effectively focus the town’s affordable housing programs and efforts at helping citizens in need?
Thanks to the members of our Planning Board for their difficult work, and for their patience in answering questions and explaining procedure at last night’s meeting.
Wow, this is incredibly complex. I am rather surprised by the ability to count market rate housing as affordable.
Kim
It is great to see all the figures in print. However, it would be nice to know the state average rate of the actual affordable units. This is a would true comparison to the town rate of 9-10%
Jessica Porter has given me the name of a person at the State level who may be able to provide that info. I will do my best to track it down and get back to you, Steve.