What is Chapter 40B housing? It is a Massachusetts General Law, commonly referred to as a statute that was enacted in 1969 (the year I went into the Navy and passed up Woodstock to spend more time with a very young lady, who is now “my bride”!). It is a law that was designed to fill a void created by the Federal government backing out of housing projects for a number of reasons; not the least of which was the inability to preserve and maintain their buildings. Another reason was that there was intent to integrate impoverished families into a general community setting and out of a segregated collection of families with similar economic situations.
Many of the impoverished members of families living in Federal housing projects managed to get themselves out by going back and studying in school, working hard to put away enough savings for a down payment on a home and a loan approval. Most of these persons came from families like my own.
In my case, my father was doing fairly well without any government help. He worked hard to provide more than just the bare essentials. He often worked two jobs, even before we needed to move into public housing. As hard as he worked, he made sure that his children did not slack off on their responsibilities regarding school and education. We were all doing well and for the first 8 years of my life, we had more than enough to keep us happy, healthy and dreaming of building bright futures that met our individual dreams. Then, it happened; an overnight disaster that sent my entire family from self-sufficiency to the Mystic Avenue housing projects – fire and a lack of availability for renter’s insurance.
Why am I including myself in this article on 40B housing? Good question. I mention it to demonstrate that I understand poverty, how one can go from self-sufficient to impoverished in a moment, and the need for some sort of affordable housing or temporary shelter. I also understand that when honor, integrity and a commitment to work hard one can get back out of poverty and regain some sense of real liberty. But, there must be the incentive to keep what you earn. It provides the drive and the incentive for any individual to take risks or at least to work hard at a chosen life’s task. That individual may never become obscenely wealthy or have more than just the average middle class American citizen, but he will have something to show for his work. He will free himself from poverty and dependence. That something will stand as a testament to his hard work and to his willingness to solve his own problems.
We run into problems when public policy makes it easier to make more by not working than by being productive. We also lose when government inspires sloth by providing excuses for failure and by figuratively awarding those who under achieve a bigger trophy than those who work hard at self-respect and self-reliance.
Yes, there are people who help everyone along the way and they are to be heartily thanked for extending themselves to do so voluntarily or as part of their job (teachers, physicians, clergy) There are also groups that work hard to provide temporary, safe shelter in exchange for performing menial tasks such as working in the building’s soup kitchen, cleaning up the building, etc., or for those truly addled, for simply providing shelter without recompense. The same can be said of public housing. The fault with each lies with the fact that each was designed as “temporary”, but there is no incentive to make “temporary” as brief as possible. In fact, most people who enter public housing never leave.
I agree that some form of low income housing is necessary for families who find their lives turned upside down by a single catastrophic event. For some, they work to make their stay as brief as possible out of pride and a sense of self-worth. For others, honor, integrity, self-worth and true liberty are things they’ve never experienced and never will because the government that cares for them also sets policy that ensnares them forever in poverty waiting on big brother for their next meal. Speaking of next meals…whatever will these people do when food stamps are cut by 25% four years from now as President Obama has pledged to do?
Granted, today, people file bankruptcy without a second thought, as do businesses. Personal reputation and individual honor mean little these days. These people give no thought to the damage their actions have on others. We may still be this for all I know, but I do remember when Massachusetts was the insurance fraud capital of the United States. Those who committed this kind of fraud are people who could care less about honor, commitment, the value of a contract – they only care about their pressing needs.
Many of these people do not live in housing projects and view themselves as heroes, as did many their neighbors. I recall as a child having felt more stigma as a “project kid” than did the offspring of such disreputable people who walked away from their financial obligation. How are they different than those who walk away from under water mortgages to leave their former friends and neighbors with devalued property as a direct consequence than those who would deliberately defraud insurance companies or other businesses?
Low income housing is needed. Is it needed at 10% of the total housing stock? I don’t think so. Is it needed in every community? I don’t think so. Who should determine the appropriate value of low income housing? How about market forces? One could argue that with so many underwater or bankrupt homes sitting on the market that Billerica already has plenty of low cost rentals.
During boom times, one could argue that because the market has enabled this housing market to stabilize with nearly full capacity that rents are too high. How is the town of Billerica working with banks to fill empty homes at market level rents? It seems like a good way for the banks to recoup some of their losses and for the town to increase its tax base. But, I’m just asking the question and willing to publish any answer provided.
Are the low income houses built in Billerica being reserved only for existing Billerica residents, or are they magnets that draw outsiders in to add to overwhelming our existing infrastructure without appropriate compensation? Hint: try passing a home rule requirement that all low income house built under 40B can only be sold to low income families already residents of Billerica. The low income part of 40B is the pry bar the thief uses to get into the house. Once in, nothing and no one is sacred.
What prevents the town from suing the Commonwealth for proper compensation, or for the economic damage created by unfunded mandates? States sue the feds all the time over unfunded mandates; so, why are towns so reticent? After all, when a low income 40B project is complete and families appear en masse, they are getting more than just a home; they are getting access to schools, to water and sewer lines, to electricity, to trash pickup, etc. What does the town get in return for the pleasure of being overwhelmed with refugees?
And here is the crux of the story. MGL 40B is no less than redistribution of wealth from those who have worked hard to buy a home in a town of their choosing and to enjoy the lifestyle that attracted them there to people who have no right to that wealth or to the lifestyle afforded by a particular town, simply because they desire home ownership. If people want to voluntarily sell homes at below market values, then that is their choice, but there is no way that people should expect to have their property values lowered due to forced mandates by either the Commonwealth or the Feds.
To have homes built and sold at undervalued prices reduces that overall average home value in the town, and so, it effects every home owner in Billerica. By allowing a town’s zoning laws to be brushed aside by an appointed quasi-legal panel called the Zoning Board of Appeals adds insult to injury. It also sets the stage for corrupt practices that benefit those who make such appointments through favors or acts or votes that don’t have to be explained, but allow for the violation of the rights of others who are less influential in town politics. As an example, take a close look at Selectman Rosa’s appointment/rejection of ZBA candidates, his desire to split his lot which was denied by the elected Planning Board, but granted by members of the ZBA that he appointed.
As a method of redistributing wealth, or the earned property of some for the benefit of all without due compensation, MGL is no less than a codified version of The Tragedy of the Commons. The less ownership one has, the less responsible one will act toward property granted him in whatever form. When I was a child, part of the “rent” for living in the Mystic Avenue housing project was to take turns moping and waxing the floor on which you lived in rotation with other apartments on that floor (1 turn every 4 weeks), plus wiping down the hallway walls and windows during that week. For the entire time I was there, people protested having to maintain “someone else’s” property.
Finally, within a few years after my having moved out, the tenants got their wish and were no longer required assisting in maintaining the property. That property promptly fell into disrepair and eventually required a multi-million dollar overhaul and re-facing. The question I had for those people is how it is that the property within which they reside is a building owned by persons other than themselves, as they acknowledge, at drastically below market rents, gives them a right to make demands of those whose wealth was stolen to provide a shelter they are not entitled to at a true cost they are not obligated to repay? The bigger question is why would the government agree to such demands?
40B is not Section 8, nor is it low-income housing (low-incoming housing/senior housing is what is in the center of Billerica for the Seniors AND those IN NEED). The 40B houses are “supposed to be” “affordable” homes for those on a lower income scale. The houses are sold at a percentage lower the than AVERAGE home price in the town. The 40B repeal issue is NOT whether towns need affordable homes; the issue is NOT whether towns need affordable “housing”; this issue is NOT whether towns need Section 8 homes.
I know all this because I am one who has collected singatures for John Belksis’s efforts. Their message has been and will be …they are FOR affordable housing, but not the way the 40B law has been implemented (and more importantly taken advantage of — Billerica STILL has a developer which owes the town 2 million, to the best of my memory).
If you haven’t done research, check out the Affordable Housing Now website (previously called Repeal 40B): http://www.affordablehousingnow.org/. NOTE the change in the name, clearly sending the message of TRUE affordable housing.
Be very clear, and stay away from unrelated issues, such as Section 8 or low-incoming housing – it confuses the public and will make them vote to KEEP 40B’s -which AREN’T working. If anyone questions 40B’s, just have them do the math on income versus the mortgage, taxes, groceries, heat, electricity, etc – it will certainly make you laugh if nothing else. And of course, to keep up the humor, check out the price of a 40B in Newton or Wellesley.
Of course you are correct in that 40B and section 8 are two different entities. However, these 40B developments, such as The Villas at Old Concord Road, are hybrid developments that offer market priced condominium sales, 40B condominium sales, and Section 8 housing for the poor. With the vast number of vacancies at some of these developments, 40B projects are becoming De Facto housing projects that are drawing low income families from the cities into the suburbs.
The point of my article was to demonstrate this phenomenon. Using the Mystic Avenue Project discussed in the article, let’s follow the history of urban housing. That project was originally a Federal Housing Project, when I lived in it between 1957 and 1967-68. At a point in time where I was away serving in the military, the Federal government transferred responsibility for this isolated pocket of low income housing and others under its jurisdiction to the Somerville Housing Authority along with a HUD grant to supplement local funds for rehabbing and property conversion. Of course when that transfer occurred, the project was in desperate need of infrastructure repairs and building renovations. In the end, though, it was still an isolated pocket of low income families. This article was not just about 40B, but how we evolved to the point of feeling a need for low income home ownership.
Providing low income housing wasn’t enough for many in government, and so a simultaneous effort was made to find ways to get mostly moderate income families a way into home ownership. Hence, the 1969 MGL 40B forced, unfunded mandates for towns to provide a particular percentage of homes built and held in reserve as “affordable” purchases that are guaranteed to remain affordable in perpetuity. Why? The reason is described in the law – it was designed as an anti-snobbery device. Do you feel like a snob because you are against 40B blight? Or, do you feel that snobbery is a stupid reason to use government force on supposedly free people?
I also understand that properties not built with subsidies don’t count on the subsidized housing index. For that reason, many types of subsidized housing are not counted toward 40B, including tenant-based federal and state Section 8 certificates and homes purchased with subsidies under a first-time home buyer’s program. But is this truly a necessity, or are their less destructive ways to ensure low to moderate income housing via rentals or even subsidized rentals (which should never occur in a free society because it require a group of people to sacrifice their earned wealth and property to another group who hold no just claim; another redistribution of wealth scheme)
And that is precisely the point; why is home ownership by low or moderate income persons/families important enough in Massachusetts to justify forcing legislation such as 40B down the throats of citizens in towns that often are remote from the location of the beneficiary. That’s why I asked why are persons not currently Billerica residents eligible for low income home ownership without first making such an opportunity available to Billerica citizens? By integrating local low income renters into local low income housing, the town’s population doesn’t change and neither does the demand on infrastructure. Building monstrosities such as “The Villas” do nothing but damage entire communities for the benefit of a few transients, who with a bit more education and hard work could find a way to qualify for conventional home ownership without the subsidy.
40B developments in my view have more to do with adding community diversity than they have to do with shelter. I think the message should be that we are for appropriate, sanitary, safe and affordable shelter for those who need it. But we should also make clear that appropriate, sanitary, safe and affordable shelter does not necessarily mean home ownership, or counting only residences which were built with subsidies as valid methods of assessing affordable housing. The goal should be to get people into comfortable shelters be it through subsidized rental or earned ownership. The goal should also be to do so in a manner that least disrupts the normal lifestyle of a local community and minimizes the nonsubsidized, and at times, overwhelming demands on local infrastructure such as existing school capacity, classroom size, water consumption, sewer and waste water treatment needs, etc.
It seems to me that stopping 40B might be more effective if people understood how we got here and begin to question why public housing and low income rentals are not enough for low to moderate income families when families with even higher incomes are struggling for the same privilege. The question should not be why should we abolish 40B, but instead, it should be why was low income home ownership such an imperative that this foolish law needed to be implemented in the first place. I would follow that up with the next obvious question: will 40B ultimately demand that all persons live in houses of equal size and value to avoid those who can actually afford them from being branded “snobs” and those who can’t from being viewed as “undesirable”? Everyone doesn’t deserve a trophy; therefore, everyone should not be in line expecting one. The debate should focus on principle; not politics. Focus your arguments on politics at your own peril.
By the way, thank you for your work in collecting signatures. Perhaps, one day soon, you can explain how you gain the prolific, reliable knowledge you claim to possess by merely touching clipboards that others sign. To see what I mean, go here
IMO – not a good analogy (and sorry …toooooo long winded — yes I know many, many people who lived in the SAME housing, but with much more tragic stories such as their alcoholic husbands beating them and hanging their heads out the window). Remember — Billerica has long been [affectionately] called Somerville with trees.
Agree, it is important to some, how it happened, but the vast majority of questions I received, was “what’s the solution”, the 2nd was “what’s the issue with 40b’s”
Gathering signatures is more than just clipboards and signatures, people are SMART and do ask questions. I printed my own material and was PROVIDED with additional facts for questions. This is true for any signature gathering, you need to be VERY informed.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I agree that some people are smart and do ask questions, but as the link I included demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt, most people don’t ask questions and will sign just about anything, unless they are in a rush or just pissed off in general. Obviously you know so much that the link I provided for you didn’t need to be viewed.
Now to cut to the chase, we both know you are here with an axe to grind and you have a habit of changing your identity similar to a fellow I used to debate on Topix. He would also make self-serving demands of others as you’ve done here with the threat of walking away or not responding until his demands are met. This leads me to ask you what I used to ask of him: why are you always changing your online identity if you believe in what you have to say? You are subscribed as kc.kcatt@(domain name withheld); yet you seem to be reluctant to use that identity or any other, just as he was. Are you ashamed of yourself?
And how sad for you that after reading a post that you consider too long winded, that you completely missed the essence of its meaning.