SIGN UP FOR FREE WEDNESDAY NEWSLETTER: Full name, please
I agree with the Terms and conditions

Your View

Your View is YourArlington's only blog. It is the site's place for opinion. To publish here, you must use your full name in most cases.
Font size: +
3 minutes reading time (553 words)
Featured

8th graders call for changes in town bylaw to boost affordable housing

UPDATED May 26: The following opinion was sent to all Town Meeting members three days after the 2023 annual meeting ended. Signing it were Pavia Christiana, Calvin Cheung, Collin Burrell, Theo Ginggen, Dorsey Mitchell and Lorenzo Hamlin. It was published with the authors' permission. 

Arlington vua Google Earth: Your Town, Your Future

We hope this email finds all of you in good health and spirits. We are Ottoson Middle School students, concerned about the issue of affordable housing in the town.

There is a lack of affordable multifamily homes, and we are advocating for a change in zoning bylaws to allow for more of these homes, and for them to have access to public transportation.

We believe that spreading multifamily homes around town will create more ethnic diversity in Arlington Public Schools. Additionally, this aids Arlington's economy by creating job diversity and benefiting the town's gross domestic product.

After extensive research, we have identified two propositions regarding the amendment of zoning bylaws. One is to create a new district that allows for the construction of multifamily homes. This will create a block of lower income housing that will theoretically help house more people who have lower income. It may, however, create a feeling of separation between single-family and multifamily zones. The other proposal is to create pockets of multifamily housing zones around public transportation.

This would mix in more affordable housing into single-family zones and encourage increased diversity. It would also allow for more residents who heavily rely on public transportation to move into Arlington. Many people who rely on public transportation don’t have the means or budget to purchase a car. These are also often the people who have lower income and are often relegated to certain areas due to their housing budget.

Currently, Arlington has a high housing demand due to its location near Boston and easy access to public transportation. This amendment would address this demand while also creating economic diversity.

The resolution of this issue ultimately comes down to the beliefs and desires of the people. It has been well voiced that many members of the community support the ratification of these amendments. However, despite the overwhelming benefits of these spread-out pockets of two-family homes, there are still community members who think otherwise on
which amendment is more beneficial.

We all sincerely hope you will consider pressing this more and getting more beneficial action done regarding this important topic. It will benefit the community as a whole overall and make the overall community of Arlington more diverse.

Thank you for the time you generously put into reading this letter, and we look forward to hopefully seeing this amendment passed in the near future.

If you have any questions, feel free to email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Please consider supporting pockets of multifamily housing by right under Section 3A of Mass. General Laws Chapter 40A. Find it here >>


May 23, 2023: '23 meeting ends as session 7 OKs Ottoson students' compost plan, CPA


This viewpoint was published Wednesday. May 24, 2023. It was updated May 26, to correct the headline, reporting that this is a local-bylaw effort, not a state matter.

Do you agree? Disagree? Let the public know by posting your comments in the window below. You must include your full name.
×
Stay Informed

When you subscribe to the blog, we will send you an e-mail when there are new updates on the site so you wouldn't miss them.

Officer Hogan aims to raise $6,000 to fight cancer
 

Comments

Guest - Laura Kiesel on Sunday, 16 June 2024 22:49
Please Center Lower Income Tenants In Your Projects By Asking Their Opinion

As a lower-income renter in Arlington who reports on housing equity, I would hope students would take time and effort to actually speak to those of us who live in and struggle to attain/maintain affordable housing in Arlington, but I don't get the impression that has been done here.
Unfortunately, the MBTA Communities Act doesn't prioritize or mandate the creation of affordable housing at all. It was the brainchild of a Republican governor with a long history and known reputation for not caring about poor people, who often exploited our plight to create business opportunities for already wealthy interests (and in this case, that is real estate interests).
Creating more high end market rent housing does not benefit people like me, no matter how much fans of "supply-demand" might try to convince people it does.
The latest numbers out of Harvard have shown that despite an unprecedented construction boom in the past eight years, lower income people are being squeezed more than ever. No matter how many housing units are built, the lower rates do not trickle down to those in the lower brackets of the economic ladder. To do that, we need the creation of housing price-controlled for our demographics (at under 50-60% Area Median Income), as well as more enforcement of Fair Housing laws so voucher holders can actually access housing they qualify for (right now discrimination is rampant in Arlington).
In 2021, I co-sponsored two housing bills here in Arlington. One would have merely required a simple majority of monies from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund be used to create housing opportunities for lower income people (again those making under 60% AMI) and the other would have increased our inclusionary zoning so that 1/3 rather than 1/5 of housing would have to be priced for lower income individuals and family (later after massive resistance, we lowered our standards to 1/4).
Both housing warrants were rejected by Town Meeting, where the majority of representation (around 2/3) are those who own their homes even as Arlington is made up of 45% of renters. Our warrants were supported by every disability justice organization in the metro area, as well as City Life/Vida Urbana and the Mystic Valley NAACP.
It's really hard to look at the defeat of those warrants by a very class-privileged voting body, and the way all housing discussions nearly completely exclude marginalized voice since, and not think we lower income renters are not valued here in the town -- but we make great covers to push for policies that enrich homeowner's property values.
Unfortunately, my concern here is this project is not equitable in that it is also not recruiting voice from the vulnerable people it claims to represent.

As a lower-income renter in Arlington who reports on housing equity, I would hope students would take time and effort to actually speak to those of us who live in and struggle to attain/maintain affordable housing in Arlington, but I don't get the impression that has been done here. Unfortunately, the MBTA Communities Act doesn't prioritize or mandate the creation of affordable housing at all. It was the brainchild of a Republican governor with a long history and known reputation for not caring about poor people, who often exploited our plight to create business opportunities for already wealthy interests (and in this case, that is real estate interests). Creating more high end market rent housing does not benefit people like me, no matter how much fans of "supply-demand" might try to convince people it does. The latest numbers out of Harvard have shown that despite an unprecedented construction boom in the past eight years, lower income people are being squeezed more than ever. No matter how many housing units are built, the lower rates do not trickle down to those in the lower brackets of the economic ladder. To do that, we need the creation of housing price-controlled for our demographics (at under 50-60% Area Median Income), as well as more enforcement of Fair Housing laws so voucher holders can actually access housing they qualify for (right now discrimination is rampant in Arlington). In 2021, I co-sponsored two housing bills here in Arlington. One would have merely required a simple majority of monies from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund be used to create housing opportunities for lower income people (again those making under 60% AMI) and the other would have increased our inclusionary zoning so that 1/3 rather than 1/5 of housing would have to be priced for lower income individuals and family (later after massive resistance, we lowered our standards to 1/4). Both housing warrants were rejected by Town Meeting, where the majority of representation (around 2/3) are those who own their homes even as Arlington is made up of 45% of renters. Our warrants were supported by every disability justice organization in the metro area, as well as City Life/Vida Urbana and the Mystic Valley NAACP. It's really hard to look at the defeat of those warrants by a very class-privileged voting body, and the way all housing discussions nearly completely exclude marginalized voice since, and not think we lower income renters are not valued here in the town -- but we make great covers to push for policies that enrich homeowner's property values. Unfortunately, my concern here is this project is not equitable in that it is also not recruiting voice from the vulnerable people it claims to represent.
Guest - Jordan Weinstein on Friday, 26 May 2023 12:22
My response to the Ottoson students on May 19, 2023

Hi Pavia and friends!

Thanks for writing and I first want to commend you all for your interest, work and research into this complex subject that is fraught with many assumptions and opinions but little actual data or statistical evidence.

In reading your email, I am afraid I have to tell you that you have unfortunately fallen prey to a widespread misunderstanding that Section 3A calls for the building of “affordable” housing that would increase Arlington’s diversity in education, jobs and residential areas. The sad fact is that nothing in Section 3A (otherwise known as the MBTA Communities act) talks about or addresses “affordability” in its call for the construction of new multi-family homes.

There is good reason for this misunderstanding. It is based on an unproven assumption that simply building more housing will force the prices of housing to fall by increasing the supply of homes. It’s the old “supply and demand” theory of how markets should work. The problem with housing at this time is that there is so little supply (because the federal government got out of the business of building low-income housing decades ago) and so much demand for housing, that it’s not clear if prices would actually drop even if more homes were built at the rate the real estate industry usually builds housing. There’s just no proof that this anticipated fall in prices would happen. There are few case studies of other communities to use for comparison. And there is quite a bit of evidence that just the opposite can happen. So, from a scientific point of view, there’s no “there” there.

As we have seen time and time again here in Arlington, when single-family homes are torn down and replaced with two townhouse condos (those side-by-side entrances) the condos tend to sell for upwards of $1-million each. In such cases, the parcel of land that had one dwelling unit now has 2 dwelling units…but the cost of those units remain very, very high and not “affordable” despite the “supply and demand” market theory. And, under Section 3A, there’s just no requirement that any portion of the new units built must be “affordable.” Instead, there’s a “leap of faith” that simply building more units will result in lower prices for housing. Is this a valid theory? Is it wishful thinking? Is it proven elsewhere? No one can actually say.

So who is actually benefitting from such increased dwelling unit production? It would seem that those who sell and develop the houses would be the ones guaranteed to profit from this trend. Those buying or renting homes can only wait and see what actually comes of it. My concern with Section 3A and its mandate for more multi-family housing is that it is being falsely promoted as an “affordable housing” program when it is not. I think it’s wishful thinking.

Historically (and even today) truly “affordable housing” was built and financed by government in one way or another. In Arlington we have two agencies that do this: the Arlington Housing Authority and the Housing Corporation of Arlington. We also recently created the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to help with the costs of building “affordable housing” in our Town.

The federal government once funded low-income housing across the country that was specifically built to be affordable to low-income families. But over time, this federal source of funding shrank, putting the burden for funding low-income housing on state and local government. This led to attempts to use “the market” to solve what is really a social problem created by the inadequacy of our free-enterprise economy to provide for poor people. So the idea of “just build more housing” to solve the problem, is one of those market-based “solutions” designed to solve an economic and societal shortcoming that, really, can only be solved by federal, government action and policy.

I wish it were not the case, but I think that what I have laid out above is the sad truth. I would suggest you all read this 2018 study of actual case histories of communities that have enacted strategies to lower their housing costs. In reading it you will see that in case after case, what was assumed would happen didn’t and vice versa. And it all depends on each community’s unique characteristics. The study is called Supply Skepticism: Housing Supply and Affordability. I highly recommend it. And I wish you all the best in your educational, professional and personal pursuits.

Sincerely,
Jordan Weinstein
Town Meeting Member, precinct 21

Hi Pavia and friends! Thanks for writing and I first want to commend you all for your interest, work and research into this complex subject that is fraught with many assumptions and opinions but little actual data or statistical evidence. In reading your email, I am afraid I have to tell you that you have unfortunately fallen prey to a widespread misunderstanding that Section 3A calls for the building of “affordable” housing that would increase Arlington’s diversity in education, jobs and residential areas. The sad fact is that nothing in Section 3A (otherwise known as the MBTA Communities act) talks about or addresses “affordability” in its call for the construction of new multi-family homes. There is good reason for this misunderstanding. It is based on an unproven assumption that simply building more housing will force the prices of housing to fall by increasing the supply of homes. It’s the old “supply and demand” theory of how markets should work. The problem with housing at this time is that there is so little supply (because the federal government got out of the business of building low-income housing decades ago) and so much demand for housing, that it’s not clear if prices would actually drop even if more homes were built at the rate the real estate industry usually builds housing. There’s just no proof that this anticipated fall in prices would happen. There are few case studies of other communities to use for comparison. And there is quite a bit of evidence that just the opposite can happen. So, from a scientific point of view, there’s no “there” there. As we have seen time and time again here in Arlington, when single-family homes are torn down and replaced with two townhouse condos (those side-by-side entrances) the condos tend to sell for upwards of $1-million each. In such cases, the parcel of land that had one dwelling unit now has 2 dwelling units…but the cost of those units remain very, very high and not “affordable” despite the “supply and demand” market theory. And, under Section 3A, there’s just no requirement that any portion of the new units built must be “affordable.” Instead, there’s a “leap of faith” that simply building more units will result in lower prices for housing. Is this a valid theory? Is it wishful thinking? Is it proven elsewhere? No one can actually say. So who is actually benefitting from such increased dwelling unit production? It would seem that those who sell and develop the houses would be the ones guaranteed to profit from this trend. Those buying or renting homes can only wait and see what actually comes of it. My concern with Section 3A and its mandate for more multi-family housing is that it is being falsely promoted as an “affordable housing” program when it is not. I think it’s wishful thinking. Historically (and even today) truly “affordable housing” was built and financed by government in one way or another. In Arlington we have two agencies that do this: the Arlington Housing Authority and the Housing Corporation of Arlington. We also recently created the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to help with the costs of building “affordable housing” in our Town. The federal government once funded low-income housing across the country that was specifically built to be affordable to low-income families. But over time, this federal source of funding shrank, putting the burden for funding low-income housing on state and local government. This led to attempts to use “the market” to solve what is really a social problem created by the inadequacy of our free-enterprise economy to provide for poor people. So the idea of “just build more housing” to solve the problem, is one of those market-based “solutions” designed to solve an economic and societal shortcoming that, really, can only be solved by federal, government action and policy. I wish it were not the case, but I think that what I have laid out above is the sad truth. I would suggest you all read this 2018 study of actual case histories of communities that have enacted strategies to lower their housing costs. In reading it you will see that in case after case, what was assumed would happen didn’t and vice versa. And it all depends on each community’s unique characteristics. The study is called Supply Skepticism: Housing Supply and Affordability. I highly recommend it. And I wish you all the best in your educational, professional and personal pursuits. Sincerely, Jordan Weinstein Town Meeting Member, precinct 21
Already Registered? Login Here
Friday, 19 July 2024

Captcha Image

Your Business

Housing Authority