The Boston Indicators Project
Sector Convening Notes
Housing Convening
December 13^th, 2006

Brief Project Overview
The Boston Indicators Project is a collaborative project of Greater Boston’s civic community. Recognized for its comprehensive framework and selected by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to help inform the development of national indicators, the project is coordinated by the Boston Foundation in partnership with the City of Boston and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Its goals are: to democratize access to high quality data and information; to foster informed public discourse, and; to track progress on shared civic goals. Since 2000, the project has released four biennial reports, the last three as a summary in hard copy and a detailed web-based report on the award-winning www.bostonindicators.org.  The Boston Foundation is committed to issuing a biennial report through 2030, Boston’s 400^th anniversary. 

To begin to frame the findings of each report, the project hosts a series of convenings in each of the ten sectors it tracks: Civic Health; Cultural Life and the Arts; Economy; Education; Environment and Energy; Public Health; Public Safety; Housing; Technology; and Transportation. Each convening, chaired by stakeholders from within the field, includes a range of perspectives from academic experts, community-based practitioners, public agency and foundation staff, private sector representatives, and consumers. 

The convenings range in size from about 20 to 100 participants, the latter for large, complex sectors such as education, civic health and housing, which are broken into sub-sectors, each with its own co-chairs. Each convening uses the same structured agenda, eliciting views on key long –term trends, major developments and accomplishments of the previous two years, and key remaining challenges. The notes are then compiled, reviewed by the co-chairs for accuracy and completeness, and used to frame and prioritize the findings of the next Boston Indicators Report.  

What follows are the notes from the Housing Convening.

In Attendance: 

Facilitators: Barry Bluestone, Dean, School of Social Science, Urban Affairs and Public Policy, Northeastern University; Jeanne Pinado, Executive Director, Madison Park Community Development Corporation 

Patricia Belden, Development Manager, Housing Investments
Tina Brooks, Director, Boston LISC
Ted Carman, President, Concord Square Development Company, Inc.
Michael Colby, Deputy Director for Strategic Policy Initiatives, Boston Redevelopment Authority
Christine Cousineau, Executive Director, Cape Ann Housing Opportunity, Inc.
Edward DeBity, Veterans Benefit Clearning House
Spencer DeShields, Executive Director, Mattapan Community Development Corporation
Elmer Elbanks, Fannie Mae Foundation
Charles Eisenberg, President, Eisenberg Consulting
Joseph Feaster, McKenzie & Associates
Alda Franquiz, AVP & CRA Associate, Boston Private Bank & Trust Company
Robert Fraser, Scanhouse, Inc.
David Friedman, Senate President Travaglini’s Office
Robert Gehret, Deputy Director, Policy Development and Research Division, Department of Neighborhood Development, City of Boston
Michael Glavin, Chairman, Economic Development Committee, Boston Connects, Inc.
Michael Gondek, Executive Director, Massachusetts Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation
Aaron Gornstein, Executive Director, Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association
Patricia Grandieri, Vice President, Traffic Solutions
Margie Grant, Associate General Counsel, Mass Assocation of Realtors
Mossik Hacobian, Executive Director, Urban Edge Development Corporation
Wendy Hanna Cohen, Deputy Director of Lending, Mass. Housing Partnership
Virginia Healy-Kenney, Production Manager, Homeownership Division, MassHousing
Bonnie Heudorfer, Consultant
David Kelman, RE/MAX Landmark
Mary Knasas, Manager, Research and Development, Boston Department of Neighborhood Development
Gail Lattimore, Executive Director, Codman Square Neighborhood Development Center
Melinda Marble, Executive Director, Paul and Phyllis Fireman Charitable Foundation
Barbara McDonald
Roxan Mckinnon, Boston Tenant Coalition
Georgianna Meléndez, Executive Director, Casa Myrna Vazquez
Claudia Morgan, Community Analytics
Peter Munkenbeck, Consultant
Georgia Murray
Rufus Phillips, Vice President, The Property and Casualty Initiative, LLC
Becky Regan, President, Boston Community Loan Fund
Marlena Richardson, City of Boston
Steve Ryan, General Counsel, Massachusetts Association of Realtors
Kirk Sykes, President, New Boston Urban Strategy America Fund
Matthew Thall
Jeffrey Thomas, Head of Policy and Operations, Housing Investments
Ellen Tohn, ERT Associates
Eleanor White, President, Housing Partners, Inc.
Maureen White, Campaign Coordinator, Action for Regional Equity
Bob Wadsworth, Program Director, The Boston Foundation
Bob Turner, Boston Globe
Mark Sternman, MassDevelopment
David Wluka, Massachusetts Association of Realtors
Sue White, Vinten
Alex Zhang, Community Organizing & Planning, Asian Community Development Corporation

Plenary Session: Key Long-Term Trends
The facilitators led participants in dialogue on key long-term trends.

• Increasing immigration; data shows that Boston has positive net population because of 25,000- 30,000 foreign immigrants yet domestic out migration has gone from 12,000 to 30,000.
• Continuing inability to articulate benefit of additional housing units; need additional information; how to quantify value of increasing housing units to corporations/businesses; outreach to current homeowners; how do we connect overall GDP growth with housing?
• Increasing employer-assisted housing in Boston.
• Aging baby boomer generation (especially suburban home ownership) having an affect on housing choice; they have new housing needs - more choices and opportunities; MAPC’s estimate that Boston metros population growth will only be in the 55+ bracket
• Seniors staying in their homes (especially in low-income communities) or “until they move out of the state”
• Children leaving homes later (28?); boomers may need larger homes longer – “clogging the system.”
• Increasing energy costs feed into higher housing costs; sustainable development - trend towards green building/ energy efficiency and health/housing nexus; retrofitting old units
• Home rule encouraging use of environment regulations to impede increasing residential development.
• Increasing costs of transportation (public and driving).
• Increasing construction costs; impede ability to build affordable housing.
• “Living large” ethos is changing; willingness to downsize; issue of lot size and McMansions; this is necessary to solve inner core housing challenge; beginning to see homes get smaller
• Increasing inequity of income and polarization of wealth (wages vs. housing costs) spread to high and low ends; shrinking in the middle.
• Continuing affordability gap (wages vs. housing costs); what is affordable
• Decreasing federal resources.
• Greater awareness of “all in” cost as affects locational choices
• Increasing ancillary costsin outer ring housing but trade offs: location/proximity to amenities/services and space.
• Shifting trends resulting from demographic shifts/immigration (In 50’s, diversity was ethnic-based; now more race based- migration patterns/neighborhood identification); population growth in communities of color - cultural bias re: Housing (more willing to live in denser clusters and out migration of newcomers (Asians in Quincy); Demographic shift; Population growth in communities of color: cultural bias re: Housing - Ethnic “leap” 1940 – 1960, 1990 – 2020?
• Not just population decrease but number of households is decreasing as well as the average household size; is the market changing to reflect the demand of the decreasing population?
• New immigrants are by-passing Boston for suburbs and satellite cities.
• Government funding sources moving away from congregate housing units.
• Rising foreclosure rates allowing new forms of financing (instruments that turn the American dream into a nightmare.
• Increasing number of mortgage companies (more mortgage companies than banks).
• Change in types of lenders (predatory lending rates, sub-prime lending).
• Marginal cost of new housing increasing faster than income.
• Shift from university students as commuters to in-city residents.
• University expansion as a national trend
• Neighborhood displacement resulting from growth in population and on-campus housing; tracking net units of student housing vs. what we need.
• Fair housing issues and housing discrimination persist.
• Types of housing: ownership vs. rental properties; dearth of rental units (especially for those who can’t afford to own) - racial implications
• Intensification of notion that some families/individuals are not “houseable” without services (especially linked to under funding education); “We don’t want families to move in because we don’t want to pay for schools”
• Domestic violence as primary cause for homelessness.
• Loss of rental units faster than we are building them because of condo conversion in Boston.
• Increased interest in smart-growth housing and transit oriented development.
• Impact of level of tax-exempt property on Boston’s capacity to invest (and on property taxes); 40% of housing is not taxable (trend in university expansion – non-taxable at least in Boston (in MA)
• Trend in Boston of people working together across interest lines; need to accelerate cooperation indicative of the Commonwealth Housing.
• Land use decisions linked to economics - zoning to keep families out.
• Health related problems - environmental risk factors associated with housing in high risk environment areas.
• Increasing asthma rates.
• Hospitals not caring about housing.
• Green housing to reduce health care costs.
• Impact of generational turnover on school costs as young families with kids replace baby boomers.
• Positive supply of multi-family housing in recent years; rents stable: reasons – production doubled, people left, mortgage rates low but tremendous lack of affordability – in balance units at those costs – but single family homes doubled in price. 
• Deterioration of public housing (despite Hope 6)
• Mismatch between affordable housing and jobs; Springfield, Chicopee, Brockton, etc. have affordable housing but no jobs and lousy education systems. (i.e. Brockton’s empty new lofts vs. Rhode Island/ Providence (brought in jobs)
• Rental markets have stabilized, but still too high for many to afford.
• Increasing interest in alternative options: Hd eq coops, mutual housing, co-housing, etc.
• EUR issue – need to preserve existing stock. 

Sub-Sector Small Group Activity 
Participants then broke out into small groups by sub-sector (Affordable Housing, Mixed Income/Market-Rate, Smart Growth/40R- 40S).  In each group, co-chairs asked participants to review the key-long-term trends discussed during the plenary session to see any were missing for their sub-sector.  Participants then brainstormed recent developments, key accomplishments and remaining challenges for their sub-sector. 

Affordable Housing

Co-Chairs:Gail Latimore, Executive Director, Codman Square Neighborhood Development Center; Aaron Gornstein, Executive Director, Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association; Michael Gondek, Executive Director, Massachusetts Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation

Key Long-Term Trends

• Continued shortage of building homes for those less than 30% of income.
• Homelessness continues unabated.
• Displacement around transit oriented development (gentrification).
• Square footage of housing (past and present trends)
• Overcrowding for low-income households (doubling up, etc.) (2001 study CHAPA).
• Lack of enforcement in subsidized housing (regular crowding/ over housing). 

 Accomplishments

• Democratic government.
• Redevelopment of Boston State hospital campus (14 dmh clients) – including public private partnerships.
• Large vacant sites finally redeveloped.
• Preservation of 40B despite opposition (40R and 40S too).
• Availability and funding for and production of green housing (LISC, enterprise)
• HOPE VI – like housing funding
• More tools for low-income family rental housing; low-income financing pool.
• Success on preservation; expiring use regulations proposed.
• Quality and tech of affordable housing has improved (hi-tech wall panels); need to keep standards; higher quality construction and rebuilding of older projects.
• Fending off federal cuts (section 8); more stable financial environment.
• DND modified construction and design standards for healthy and green buildings.
• Increase in MRVP benefit.
• Fairmont line collaborative
• Transit equity issues are being addressed.
• Increase in inclusionary zoning commitment; other cities doing it, i.e. Somerville).
• CLF victory for Fairmont 

Challenges

• Accomplishments pale in comparison to need; there are not enough resources; the accomplishments are doing things around the margins.
• State-funded public housing needs more resources.
• Public message about housing needs to be embraced by all (general public especially).
• State bonding capacity used for other uses than housing; bond money competition (only 10% for housing) – should be doubled to 20%.
• Loss of regulations (rent control, expiring use).
• Refine the message of affordable housing; also connects with other groups (AARP).
• Education of households about their true financial situation; people don’t realize they are jeopardy.
• Increased awareness and recognition of the impacts of costly housing but needs to translate into support (political) to more general public (also tenants and new homebuyers).
• Need organization around developments to organize around communities.
• Need to find incentives to create more housing.
• Property maintenance costs (energy costs) vary widely (study among BHA CDC developments); making available information around energy costs may help to keep affordability in projects.
• Rehabbing of older housing stock by new buyers; need more resources and access to resources.
• Where are the thirty something housing developers (graying of the existing ones)?
• Rental housing money (from bond cap is low)
• Need to tap off into available fed bond money (low income housing tax credits)
• Look at data that will see how people across income groups are paying more of their income to housing.
• Need to expand opportunities (rental/owner) for low-moderate households and people of color in all cities and towns.
• Public policiesaround public land development.
• Need to increase/expand capacity of nonprofits through funding.

Mixed Income/Market Rate 

Co-Chairs:Kirk Sykes, President, New Boston Urban Strategy America Fund; Robert C. Gehret, Deputy Director, Policy Development and Research Division, Department of Neighborhood Development, City of Boston

Key Long-Term Trends

• Expand from units to neighborhoods in thinking about mixed income.
• More collaboration between for-profits and non-profits (Jackson Square, Chinatown, Olmsted Green, Box District (Chelsea), others under 40B); 1500 units; driver of public/ private collaboration is because of land and community demand; nonprofits have a lack of comfort with market rate – partnership with for-profits marries skill-sets and knowledge.
• Increasing expertise and sophistication of non-profits - market rate housing that can carry its large development costs now exist in communities with strong non-profits (ex. Jackson Square, Ashmont); Neighborhoods where CDC’s exist, now support real market rate housing
• Aspiration of low income neighborhoods to have a mix is now evident.
• Statewide 40B is the driver – the only way housing is getting built in relation to softening market (ex. Woburn, Cambridge, starting to make impact through 40B)
• Big REITs coming in- Boston is seen as a good place to build because of high rents and demand.
• Medical community is recognizing the need.
• Psychological barrier of mixed income – need for institutional conduit.
• Increased recognition that issues of equity be addressed regionally.

Developments

• Mixed income because of 40B
• Rent vs. for sale (05 – 06 more rentals?)
• Has become a part of the conversation – always in the globe.
• Cost of doing business in mixed income.
• Groundbreakings for apt. building – 100 units has dramatically increased.
• Condo market stalled (weakening) but not busted – correction.
• Product available in various markets.
• At the cusp of affordability.
• Recognition of employers of housing need for workforce housing but no consensus of how to fix it.

Accomplishments

• 40B preserved.
• 40R and 40S passed and districts created.
• Defined the need of housing as an economic driver.
• Commonwealth Housing Taskforce use of legislative agenda.
• Districts that adopted 40R/S – presence of 40B renewed presence.

Challenges

• Market conception is continuing and inventory is up significantly but we still have an affordability gap.
• Foreclosures are going up and that will increase the product –“hidden inventory” (all of the people who have taken homes off the market- what is being counted?)
• Location matters - affordable housing is not selling - how do we define affordable housing - 120% median have real market options
• Public policy – deed restrictions in marginal areas – pseudo homeownership - eliminates ability for wealth creation.
• Small cities have difficult challenges – need smart strategic investments – not just “missing teeth” (i.e. Chelsea).
• Developers respond to market demand for “green” and simpler design; not seen as a “lesser” option; can lower construction cost.
• Basements as an issue of environment (water table, soil integrity); how do you create storage?
• Clustering buildings to maintain green space; density is no longer a bad thing; challenge is redefining density.
• Getting information to town managers to put in infrastructure cost (institutional cost) to spur different development.
• Difficult to sell density without addressing transportation.
• At a commonwealth level, we have to look at infrastructure – water, sewer, parking – car issues and public transportation and economic development.
• Cost of real vs. temporary housing; link philanthropy (How do we get big money to address housing?)

Smart Growth/40R/40S 

Co-Chairs:Eleanor White, President, Housing Partners, Co-Chair, Commonwealth Housing Task Force; Ted Carman, President, Concord Square Development Corporation; Barry Bluestone

Long-Term Trends

• More and more communities thinking about smart growth and asking questions.
• Aging baby boomers will be looking for smaller, more accessible housing, fewer yards - opportunities for high density development (but not necessarily due restricted with safety (gated?)
• Trend toward mixed-use diverse communities with safety, vibrancy, etc.: “Come back to walkable cities and towns” – but looking for reasonably-priced units don’t want to use all their money from sale of home.
• 40B under increasing attack.
• Smart growth and sustainable development not yet really linked: “green building,” efficient land use, etc.
• Major cities reducing use of shelters for home.
• Predominance of 1-2 bedroom units in new housing.
• To build for large families and homeless, need big subsidies; homelessness grew with sprawl; 6% vacancy rate in rentals in Boston; no reason we can’t house homeless; a question of will: continuing lack of caring and increasing stigmatizing- 20,000 children. 

Accomplishments

• 40S passed (40R in 2004)
• 7 communities have passed 40R/40S (by 2/3’s vote); a lot of contention disappears; control issues resolved before votes.
• 35 working on passage (serious active conversation with 14 at statehouse).
• State stopped housing homeless in hotels.
• Creation of “homefunders” pooled loan funds from afford – to very afford- a start.
• Fairmont line and coalition and new development.
• Jackson square mixed income; mixed use; new Urban Edge
• Establishment of Mass Housing to do tech assistance ($3 million for 40R/S)
• Homeless related. 

Developments

• 60% of affordable housing done under 40B.
• Housing First (Melinda).
• Urban Edge: New Housing.
• Smart growth includes criteria for fair housing; new criteria have an impact.
• Catnap – transit-oriented housing program.
• Realtors focused on smart growth; summits around state; Fitchburg considering changing zoning; fundamentalism doesn’t work (environmentalists, housing).
• CDLD working on fair housing policies and strategies – CHTF has new community also focused on this.
• Establishment of Mass Housing to do tech assistance ($3 million for 40R/S) – thaw in glacial pace of disposition of state owned property – ex: Boston star hospital

Challenges 

• Articulating it, smart growth: what does it mean to the average person?  Speaking to politicians or people?
• Needs to be inclusive of race and class to be really “smart.”
• Will be experiencing a young, post-military population; could lead to more homelessness
• Re-ex-offenders: need quality jobs and training.
• How to ensure spectrum of incomes in smart growth and surrounding communities (displacement of native residents due to gentrification).
• Sustainable funding for 40R/40S projects/ communities (cash on hand needed).
• Protecting 40B (could be smart growth tool): but it has been demonized.
• The public relations challenge: density, 40 R/S, 40B.
• Create enough capacity and understanding in communities and local planning departments so they can be pro-active.
• How to support and activate citizen-led efforts (fair housing, commissions, CDC’s).
• Increased costs stressing CDC capacity; also very geographically bound; new partnerships with private.
• What are we doing to incent and encourage green development/ smart development, both on large sites and small and infill sites?

Plenary Session: Reports Back
Participants identified the top challenges faced by each sub-sector:

Mixed Income/Market Rate

• Market correction is occurring but we still have an affordability gap - foreclosures are increasing and that will increase the product – “hidden inventory.”
• Location matters: 120% median have real market options; public policy – deed restrictions in marginal areas.
• Small cities have difficult challenges – need smart strategic investments – not just “missing teeth” (transportation infrastructure)

Smart Growth

• Civic will at local level!! - How do we generate public will at all levels to facilitate dense housing?
• Smart growth must be all inclusive; don’t want gated, exclusive communities; CHTF Expanding Opportunities Committee.
• Sustainable funding for 40R/40S projects /communities (cash on hand)
• Need to protect 40B; passing is not enough (could be a smart growth tool): but it has been demonized.

Affordable Housing

• Resources and political will - need capital budget to support public housing- issue of how state allocates how much should be directed to rental houses and uses. Need to build political alliances - there is capacity for developing existing housing (publicly and privately owned).
• Rental housing money (from bond cap is low); need to tap into available fed bond money (low income housing tax credits)
• Refine the message of affordable housing; also connects with other groups (AARP).
• Property maintenance costs (energy costs) vary widely (study among BHA CDC developments) - making available information around energy costs may help to keep affordability in projects