For Massachusetts voters, Nov. 2 marks the deciding day in a close, contentious race between the incumbent Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, and Republican challenger Charlie Baker.
But a little farther down on the ballot, there's a question that hasn't gotten as much press or attention but could very well have an even greater impact of the lives on working families and senior citizens in the state than who wins the gubernatorial race. It is Question 2, a referendum calling for the repeal of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Law. The law, known as Chapter 40B, is arguably the primary means by which households making less than $50,000 a year can afford a home. Repealing this law would be disastrous for these families, while voting "no" on Question 2 would uphold a law that serves as a model for the nation.
The law, which went into effect in 1969, aims for cities and towns to have 10 percent of their housing be "affordable" for families earning 80 percent or less of the median income of the community. In communities where the 10 percent threshold has not been achieved, developers are granted more flexible zoning rules for developments that meet the requirement that 20 to 25 percent of their units be affordable in the long−term. Under 40B, if developers are denied the authority to build by the municipalities, they have the right to appeal to the State Housing Appeals Committee, which can overturn the decision.
Massachusetts has become an exceedingly expensive place to live over the last several generations, and it is currently one of the most expensive states in the union. Much of this is due to the rising housing costs, which have forced many people out of the neighborhoods they grew up in and have discouraged businesses from settling in the state. Workers often find themselves unable to live in the cities in which they are unemployed, and students find no other option but to look for jobs elsewhere upon graduation. Senior citizens can no longer afford to retire in the state where their families live and where they have spent their lives. Newly single mothers often cannot stay in the towns where their kids have been attending school.
The effects of expensive housing have had ripple effects on other areas of the economy and have made it difficult for middle−class families to stay afloat, especially in the midst of a devastating economic environment.
40B has worked to mitigate the effects of these skyrocketing housing prices and has achieved many of its desired results. Over the past decade, the law has been responsible for 80 percent of the affordable housing created in Massachusetts outside of major cities. In 1997, 24 communities had reached the 10 percent affordability threshold; today, there are 51 cities that have met that goal. In eastern Massachusetts, about an acre of land on average is used for a new housing development, making new construction nearly impossible in generally dense areas. 40B has allowed developers to bypass these strict laws and provide homes for thousands of families in the state.
Besides creating affordable housing, the additional construction authorized by this law has led to many jobs, a much needed boost for the current dismal economy. If Question 2 passes and the housing law is repealed, it would halt the construction of 12,000 projects that have been approved because of the flexibility that the law allows.
Opponents of the bill often argue that the law gives the state excessive power, allowing it to overstep its authority and impede in the local housing process. In reality, however, the majority of decisions are still made at the local level. The law gives the developers the chance to appeal a local decision if necessary, but in practice, this measure is rarely needed. Some critics call the law "developer welfare" and cite instances in which developers have made excessive profits. While these cases are unacceptable, such behavior is actually prohibited under the current law, and steps have been taken to increase oversight. Profits made by developers using 40B are actually capped at 20 percent, making it the only the only law in the state that limits developers' profits.
In an age marked by political corruption, broken promises and apathy, citizens are feeling increasingly unsure of what they're really voting for at the ballot box. Voters should take comfort, then, in the unambiguous results that will ensue from defeating the second ballot initiative. By protecting the Affordable Housing Law, voters are standing up for a program with a proven record. While no one can ever be completely sure that the leaders they vote for will represent the interests of average people, voting to protect the Affordable Housing Law unequivocally does just that. It has allowed residents of the state to afford the high cost of living and has created thousands of jobs.
Many voters going to the polls this Tuesday are looking for measures that will have their interests at heart. The Affordable Housing Law unequivocally advances these interests and must be protected. Please stand with thousands of religious, environmental and community organizations, and leaders — including supporter University President Lawrence Bacow — and vote "no" on ballot Question 2.
--
