In 1969, Massachusetts fashioned the law 40B, famously referred to as the “Anti-Snob Zoning Act”, which allows developers to bypass land use restrictions in towns where less than ten percent of the housing meets the state definition of affordable. There are multiple positions and solutions to friction in Massachusetts largely inspired by controversy surrounding the State's affordable housing law, Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40B between housing advocates and open space advocates. This thesis reviews and critiques the current law, and diagnoses various legislative proposals for the progressive feud.
One would generally assume advocates of affordable housing and open space preservation are political and ideological allies as affordable, decent housing has been a mainstay of the progressive view since the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, and open space preservation came to the forefront as a part of the environmental movement of the same period in our nation's history. In Massachusetts however, the two sides are bitterly opposed due to a legislatively enacted stalemate which is entirely avoidable.
In short, the statute allows municipalities to "bait" developers, by ordinance or bylaw, to create affordable housing or preserve open space. The ordinance or bylaw, however, must specify the terms of the deal. To be eligible for a special permit, the developer must supply the specified minimum amount of required open space, or the specified percentage of affordable dwelling units. If the developer meets these terms, and the project is otherwise buildable, then the developer may be rewarded with a special permit authorizing more dwelling units and, perhaps, fewer infrastructure costs. By a great majority, far more municipalities s...
... middle of paper ...
... space and affordable housing are not inconsistent goals. With minor modification to these state laws, these progressive causes may marry quite simply for positive progression. In the 2002 round of reforms to 40B, the state senate passed a bill that would allow communities, by local option, to require developments of more than ten units to set aside ten percent of the units for affordable housing, but was voted down. A second option involved rewards for municipalities which produce dwelling units pursuant to an “affordable housing plan”, but once again this was voted down by the legislature. The careful development of a plan in every municipality below the ten percent threshold would in theory eliminate those most abhorrent current abuses of the law that have caused the present furor, and may also seal the alliance of affordable housing and open space preservation.
The Land Reform Act of 1967 permitted the state of Hawaii to redistribute land by condemning and acquiring private property from landlords (the lessors) in order to sell it to another private owner, in this case, their tenants (the lessees). The Hawaii State Legislature passed the Land Reform Act after discovering that nearly forty-seven percent (47%) of the state was owned by only seventy-two (72) private land owners. That meant that only forty-nine percent of Hawaii was owned by the State and Federal Govermnet.The contested statute gave lessees of single family homes the right to invoke the government's power of eminent domain to purchase the property that they leased, even if the landowner objected. The challengers of the statue (the land owners) claimed that such a condemnation was not a taking for public use because the property, once condemned by the state, was promptly turned over to the lessee (a private ...
Such power could allow cities to favor special interest groups or large corporations. It could be said, the Supreme Court’s decision concludes that there are no restraints a city must consider when taking for economic development and this creates a reasonable potential for abuse. Cities can claim that without eminent domain they cannot accomplish improvements or worthwhile projects within their communities. Many areas in which eminent domain is used are in low income neighborhoods. It is tremendously difficult for individuals in these areas to pay legal fees to fight cities from condemning their properties. Uprooting families, elderly and destroying small businesses is not a means for economic
We must contact our state congressmen to remind them and tell them what we want. In conclusion, we have determined that the housing crisis that the United States faces today is a huge problem. We have discussed the striking similarities between the Great Depression in the 1920s and 1930s and today's problem. And I have presented my solution to the problem and how I think it should be prevented in the future.
In the early 1900s, “restrictive covenants” more specifically racially restrictive covenants were legally enforceable agreements that prohibited landowners from leasing or selling property to minority groups, at that time namely African Americans. The practice of the covenants, private, racially restrictive covenants, originated as a reaction to a court ruling in 1917 “which declared municipally mandated racial zoning unconstitutional . . . leaving the door open for private agreements, such as restrictive covenants, to continue to perpetuate residential segregation” (Boston, n.d.). It was more of a symbolic act than attacking the “discriminatory nature” (Schaefer, 2012, p. 184) of the restrictive covenants, when the Supreme Court found in the 1948 case of Shelley v Kraemer that racially restrictive covenants were unconstitutional. In this particular case, a white couple, the Kraemers lived in a neighborhood in Missouri that was governed by a restrictive covenant. When a black couple moved into their neighborhood, the Kraemers went to the court asking that the covenant be enforced. In a unanimous decision, it was decided, “state courts could not constitutionally prevent the sale of real property to blacks even if that property is covered by a racially restrictive covenant. Standing alone, racially restrictive covenants violate no rights. However, their enforcement by state court injunctions constitutes state action in violation of the 14th Amendment” (Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948). Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the covenants were unenforceable, it was not until 1968 when the Fair Housing Act was passed that it become illegal (Latshaw, 2010). Even though today it is illegal, it might appear that we still have an unspoken...
Terner presents the beginning of a solution to the affordable housing problem in his article Affordable Housing: An Impossible Dream? in The Commonwealth, published June 1994. His company founded from an anonymous $600,000 donation is a non-profit organization that builds quality, affordable housing for low-income families. Its effects, however, are limited. One project just opened in San Francisco with 3,000 applicants and 108 acceptances, which can be looked at as pretty dismal statistics. “This is just a drop in the bucket,” writes Terner, ‘the real question is how to expand and replicate.” (Terner, p. 392) It is this expansion that the bulk of the article argues for. Terner values a fair chance for all citizens at the “American Dream” and this chance involves the whole community. Terner mentions the “NIMBY” syndrome, or Not-In-My-Back-Yard Syndrome, where communities support the concept of affordable housing, but none that are to be built in their community. Ideally one could turn to the government for help with problems such as housing, but National, State, and local governments have proven themselves to be ...
Sidney, Mara S. 2003. Unfair Housing: How National Policy Shapes Community Action. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas.
Therefore, the supply of housing that is affordable and accessible to low income people should be increased. Plus assistance that allows people to reach adequate stability should be regarded as a good investment in a productive society, in order to attain our objective. First we could start by introducing more productive assistance programs that actually focus on helping those in need of housing assistance. These programs will analyze how long people are homeless, what are their needs, the causes of homelessness, and in all how many are currently without a home. Subsequently, the City of Austin would begin building affordable housing according to the amount necessary.
The American dream was owning a house with a white picket fence. Now this dream is impossible. Individuals and families find it more difficult to find a decent home to rent in a suitable living area. According to Huffington Post, the hourly wage needed to afford a two bedroom apartment in California is at least $26 an hour. This is more than triple the minimum wage. Eviction, relocation, and inflation are the common keywords that associate with affordable housing. I 'm hoping to persuade you to support affordable housing for all. Today, I will be discussing, one, inflation of the housing market that needs to decrease, two, eviction from homes, three having to move to communities far from their work site.
In discussions of Gentrification, one controversial issue has been with displacement. Gentrification is the process of renovating and repairing a house or district so that it complies to wealthier residents (Biro, 2007, p. 42). Displacement is a result of gentrification, and is a major issue for lower income families. Gentrification is causing lower-income residents to move out of their apartments because they’re being displaced by upper class residents who can afford high rent prices and more successful businesses. Throughout out the essay, I will discuss how gentrification affects lower income residents and how it results in displacement. Then I will follow on by discussing some positive and negative effects that take place because of Gentrification.
The Housing Act of 1949 expanded the federal role in mortgage insurance and the construction of public housing. The act gave city officials the money to carry out their ambitions of reviving the American city. Title I, authorized on...
The meaning of home to older adults transcends the financial and physical qualities of the brick and mortar. Gillsjo, Schwartz-Bardot, & Von Post (2011) suggested that “home was experienced as the place the older adult could not imagine living without, but also as the place one might be forced to leave” (p. 2). Notwithstanding an American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) survey (2010) which showed that the “majority of older adults polled preferred to age in place” (p. 1), the dilemma for many seniors is how to do so when faced with deteriorating housing conditions and “insufficient resources in retirement” (Neil & Neil, 2009, p. 53). In an effort to supplement inadequate retirement incomes, some seniors have capitalized on the “accumulated equity in their homes” (Kroleski, Ryan, & Bottiglieri, 2009, p. 37) through the provision of reverse mortgages. Other elderly homeowners faced with housing conditions that are considered unsafe or unacceptable by objective housing standards, have chosen to stay in their lifelong homes until they are forced to vacate, according to Dee Gillis, City of Gastonia Code Enforcement Administrator, (personal communication, March 23, 2011). Further, Oswald and Wahl (2005) suggested that many elderly homeowners have become oblivious to potential hazards and threats within the home, and have adapted to those environmental obstacles. While the purpose of housing standards and reverse mortgages may be to promote livability in existing housing, the unintended consequences of both may inevitably serve to displace elderly homeowners. Consequently, this paper will examine existing housing quality standards developed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and by one local mun...
apartments in certain areas of a city. The goal is usually to protect the rights
Foner, Eric, and John A. Garraty. "Homestead Act." The Reader's Companion to American History. Dec. 1 1991: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.
It is often easy to castigate large cities or third world countries as failures in the field of affordable housing, yet the crisis, like an invisible cancer, manifests itself in many forms, plaguing both urban and suburban areas. Reformers have wrestled passionately with the issue for centuries, revealing the severity of the situation in an attempt for change, while politicians have only responded with band aid solutions. Unfortunately, the housing crisis easily fades from our memory, replaced by visions of homeless vets, or starving children. Metropolis magazine explains that “…though billions of dollars are spent each year on housing and development programs worldwide, ? At least 1 billion people lack adequate housing; some 100 million have none at all.? In an attempt to correct this worldwide dilemma, a United Nations conference, Habitat II, was held in Istanbul, Turkey in June of 1996. This conference was open not only to government leaders, but also to community organizers, non governmental organizations, architects and planners. “By the year 2000, half the world’s people will live in cities. By the year 2025, two thirds of the world population will be urban dwellers ? Globally, one million people move from the countryside to the city each week.? Martin Johnson, a community organizer and Princeton professor who attended Habitat II, definitively put into words the focus of the deliberations. Cities, which are currently plagued with several of the severe problems of dis-investment ?crime, violence, lack of jobs and inequality ?and more importantly, a lack of affordable and decent housing, quickly appeared in the forefront of the agenda.
Another type of problem with land use conflict centers on the local groups opposed to the project. These people, or NIMBYs, are generally underfunded, highly stressed, inexperienced in negotiation, and lacking political power. They want to participate meaningfully in the decision-making process about their LULU, but many find it difficult to obtain anything but an adversarial position in the process. Power, status, and wealth are the key attributes to gaining attention and consideration from the broader community. Unfortunately, most public NIMBYs are minorities, live in rural areas, live in the South, or have middle- to lower-class incomes (Morris, 1994). In their defense, though, NIMBYs can make harmful land uses difficult to site by creating gridlock on current standard operating procedures.