Sign up and spread the word! The Massachusetts Housing Partnership’s Housing Institute (6/14-15) is a two-day intensive workshop in Devens that actively engages participants in discussion and problem solving around issues related to the development of affordable housing.
Lots of great sessions this year including “Illegal Neighborhoods” – How to use zoning to create great communities led by planning consultant Ken Buckland and Difficult Choices – Site Selection and Due Diligence led by development consultants, Kevin Maguire from Oxbow Partners and Rebecca Plaut Mautner.
I’m thrilled to be conducting two trainings again with Jenny Raitt (new Planning Director for Arlington, MA):
- Where to Begin: Assessing Housing Needs and Creating Plans
- Building Community Support for Affordable Housing
More info and to sign up.
I am thrilled to have had a hand in the new CPA and Affordable Housing Guidebook: Create, preserve, support: Using Community Preservation Act funds to foster local housing initiatives.
The guidebook is hot off the press – just published by Massachusetts Housing Partnership (MHP)! The guidebook is the result of a highly collaborative effort with a great team including Susan Connelly, Rita Farrell, Laura Shufelt, Carsten Snow, and Calandra Clark at MHP’s Community Assistance team. Thanks also to a great team of outsider reviewers: Stuart Saginor and Katherine Roth at the Community Preservation Coalition and Shelly Goehring at the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance.
Check it out and spread the word about this valuable new free resource for CPA communities. Free download here.
Community conversations about local housing needs and development can be difficult and complex. At JM Goldson, we’ve found that creating visually-compelling materials to describe indicators of housing need can enhance public understanding and deepen community dialogue about housing issues.
This example of infographics from Arlington, MA, was developed in collaboration with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council and the Town of Arlington for interactive community workshops about Arlington’s 2016 Housing Production Plan update.
Stockbridge, MA, Community Visioning Workshop January 28, 2016
After a terrific turnout at the first community visioning workshop on January 27, the town is preparing to host a second community workshop. During the first event, which had over 85 participants, townspeople used “perfect-world thinking” to envision what Stockbridge could be at its very best in 2036. The Town’s Visioning Committee members facilitated ten break-out groups in a guided brainstorming exercise that generated energetic discussion. The evening concluded with a lighting-round presentation from the Visioning Committee members summarizing the main points raised during the break-out discussions.
This first community workshop and the upcoming workshop, are part of the Town’s effort to create a vision for the future of the community. Before there can be a meaningful plan to move forward with community preservation and development, residents should agree on a picture of what they want their community to look like, feel like, and be like considering forces that are influencing the community’s future.
To help answer these questions, the Town of Stockbridge appointed a new Visioning Committee and is sponsoring two interactive community workshops, designed and facilitated by professional planning consultants Connie Kruger of Kruger Consulting in Amherst and Jennifer Goldson of JM Goldson community preservation + planning in Boston.
The community workshops include information about how Stockbridge is changing, group discussion exercises, and polling. The first workshop, “Time to Dream,” focused the participants on the best imagined future; whereas the second workshop on March 7th, “Time for Reality Check,” will ground the vision and set goals for the future.
The Town of Concord is largely a success story when it comes to achieving affordable housing goals – it exceeded the state’s c.40B 10% goal, it has allocated millions of dollars of Community Preservation Act funds for local initiative projects, and it has flexible zoning provisions to encourage development of affordable housing.
However, Concord’s affordable housing issues are not solved and the town recognizes there are many community benefits from continuing to address its well documented housing needs. With an aging population and a community that is not affordable for the average household in the region or even to Concord’s existing households, how can Concord both improve the likelihood that residents can age in the community while increasing affordable options for young families and professionals? Online survey and community workshop results point to opportunities and solutions identified by residents themselves.
Across both the survey and the forum, participants identified the following priorities:
- Small Homes: Preserve existing small homes and encourage the construction of small homes, particularly energy-efficient homes.
- Housing Options: Increase residents’ ability to age in the community with increased housing options and services to enable older adults to downsize but stay in the community.
- Mixed Price Ranges and Affordable Housing: Create homes in a mix of price ranges, including affordable homes for families.
- Diverse Housing Options Near Villages: Develop housing options close to village centers and with convenient access to public transit and shops.
Workshop’s Interactive Exercises
To achieve workshop objectives, JM Goldson facilitated interactive exercises that engaged workshop participants and fostered focused discussion. The workshop consisted of two group exercises, as well as digital group polling and small group discussions.
Digital group polling enables participants to learn about themselves and the group while also gathering information about housing and affordability. Many of the polling questions were presented to test knowledge and inform participants on local and regional housing need. The exercise emphasized that Concord is not affordable for households earning the regional or Concord median income.
With Concord’s home values – median home price was about $775,000 – most of the homes on the market wouldn’t be within the reach of existing Concord residents. Concord households earning the Town’s median income of $134,705 could afford to buy a home of up to about $460,000.
Group exercise #1 was an ice breaker exercise that consisted of questions designed to get participants talking about the types of homes they have lived in throughout their lives and what type of home they hope to live in someday, if different than their current homes.
The purpose of group exercise #2 was to generate discussion about Concord’s 2010 Housing Production Plan and to help set policy-direction for the 2015 update.
JM Goldon is working with the Regional Housing Services Office and the Town to develop a draft Housing Production Plan that will include goals and strategies based on an updated housing needs assessment as well as the survey and workshop feedback. The draft will be available for community review in early November.
The Manchester Community Preservation Committee held a public hearing last week. A few members of the public had questions to clarify eligibility for Community Preservation Act funds while other expressed support for the goals and priorities of the Community Preservation Plan. Roughly half the public hearing attendees participated in the interactive community workshop in April.
The plan provides guidance for the CPC and Town Meeting to strategically direct CPA-funding allocations for fiscal years 2016-2020.
Final Manchester-by-the-Sea Community Preservation Plan – adopted by the CPC on 9/15/15
Oliver House, , 445 Plymouth Street, Middleborough, MA
The Town of Middleborough, a Southeastern Massachusetts town of about 23,000 residents, is embarking on a search for a private individual or group to lease and restore the Oliver Estate, which consists of a c.1769 Georgian style house (with roughly 3,800 s.f.), carriage house, barn, and gardens on Plymouth Street (near Route 44).
The Town acquired this property over the summer (July 2015) with Community Preservation Act funds. JM Goldson provides professional planning assistance to the Middleborough Community Preservation Committee and has been assisting in the town’s efforts to acquire and protect this property.
The Town will release a Request for Proposals (RFP) to attract a private party that can care for this one-of-a-kind property and enable public enjoyment and education. It is one of the area’s most distinctive historic homes, built with high level of craftsmanship, and has an interesting history as the home of a Tory – it even has a secret hiding place.
The Peter Oliver, Jr. House was constructed in 1769 by Dr. Peter Oliver, Jr., son of the first Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the building retains its original character and is an important example of Georgian style architecture, materials and workmanship in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Peter Oliver, Jr. House was host to such visitors as Governor Thomas Hutchinson and Benjamin Franklin, and was confiscated by the Town of Middleborough as abandoned Tory property during the American Revolution.
The house retains many original features from its date of construction including exterior siding, windows, interior framing members, plaster walls and ceilings, and woodwork. In recognition of these qualities, the Peter Oliver, Jr. House is a contributing property in the Muttock Historic and Archaeological District listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
The Town plans to release the RFP on 9/9/15. RFP packets may be accessed at www.middleborough.com under “Town Procurements.”
Fair housing has been on my mind a lot lately. I attended two educational forums about fair housing last week and also drafted a section on fair housing for the upcoming new guidebook on the Community Preservation Act and Affordable Housing for the Massachusetts Housing Partnership (MHP) and the Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA).
Fair housing laws are a collection of federal and state laws enacted to protect civil rights. The law that has been most in the spotlight lately is the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) primarily as a result of the the US Supreme Court’s June 2015 decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (TDHCA v. ICP). This decision reinforces integration as a core purpose of the FHA and affirms the public obligation to advance integration.
What does the FHA do? It obligates public agencies to affirmatively further fair housing through regulations and policies. It also prohibits discrimination for housing-related transaction on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability. In addition, the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, children, military status, receipt of public assistance or housing subsidy, genetic information, and ancestry. For example, it would be discriminatory to exclude families with children from a community through local public policies that favor development of units that are too small for families or only for seniors.
What does it mean that the FHA obligates public agencies to affirmatively further fair housing? Well, to understand this, it is important to understand what is meant by the phrase “disparate impact.” Disparate impact, which was at the heart of the Supreme Court’s TDHCA v. ICP decision, means that even when a regulation or policy is not intended to discriminate it may still have a discriminatory effect. For example, many communities in Massachusetts prohibit any form of multi-family housing development through the local zoning bylaws. Although, there has been no Massachusetts case law yet around this issue that I am aware of, such a prohibition may be seen as causing a disparate impact by limiting housing opportunities for protected classes and hampering integration.
“Much progress remains to be made in our Nation’s continuing struggle against racial isolation.” Source: U.S. Supreme Court’s June 25 2015 decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project.
The country faces a growing problem of concentrated poverty linked to worsening racial segregation. Massachusetts is no exception. In fact, Springfield is among the top five highest areas of Hispanic concentration of poverty in the country. (Richard Florida, 8/10/15 post in The Atlantic City Lab: http://tinyurl.com/ptoo2ds)
Last week, I attended CHAPA’s forum about the Supreme Court Ruling on Disparate Impact and HUD’s Final Rule where Henry Korman, Klein Hornig LLP; Deborah Goddard, MassHousing; David Harris, Charles Hamilton Institute for Race and Justice, and Joe Kriesberg, MA Association of CDC’s gave informative and thought-provoking presentations on the issues we face.
Deborah Goddard’s presentation included maps and statistics demonstrating the level of racial segregation and concentrated poverty in Massachusetts and how private and public affordable housing has been concentrated in areas of concentrated poverty. (Deborah Goddard’s presentation slides: http://tinyurl.com/qj5wjcx.)
Goddard asks, how can we provide genuine housing choice that offers meaningful access to opportunity?
One of many striking facts Goddard presented was that the majority of affordable housing units in the Boston-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area, an area that includes about 70% of the state’s residents, are located nearest to schools ranked in the bottom 10th percentile. As Goddard explained, and I agree – we need to be honest in the conversation because life outcomes are affected.
This is not a new discussion or a new problem. Check out this 1975 report by the MA Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights and the MA Commission Against Discrimination “Route 128: Boston’s Road to Segregation.”
How do we address these issues? I won’t claim to have the answers, but I recognize some of the main problems: our exclusionary land use regulations; limiting transportation system; local preference policies for affordable units; net fiscal impacts of development on municipal services; and the allocation of state and federal resources. Learn more about efforts to pass H.1111, An Act Relative to Housing Production to provide tools to help address these issues and meet our housing production needs – see CHAPA’s summary of the bill.
Want to learn more? Sign up for emails from CHAPA and the Mel King Institute series to learn of opportunities to continue the discussion and identify solutions: http://www.chapa.org/EmailList