Last week, Harvard’s Municipal Affordable Housing Trust had a public meeting to discuss its policies and procedures. Many of the attendees had two major concerns. First, the trust could receive as much as $1 million from the town, which can be spent without town meeting control. Second, in the policies and procedures document the trustees cite the 2004 Harvard Housing Plan as a guide for the projects that they will undertake. When one goes to the Harvard Housing Partnership’s (HHP) website and looks at the housing production plan (Appendix A), it lists 11 large 40B housing projects to be developed around town over a 10-year period. The combination of lack of control and an undesirable plan is deadly and offers the best reasons for not funding the trust at the upcoming Town Meeting. The Finance Committee agrees and does not recommend this expenditure.
At the public meeting, Lucy Wallace, the acting chairwoman of the trust, said that it would be nice to have renovated buildings and small, all-affordable developments (the goal expressed by the concerned citizens) but, she said, that approach is “too slow and too expensive.” The implication is that the large 40B developments are the right approach. With large projects, it would be faster to reach 16 units per year, and, since the projects are funded by the market rates, it is less expensive. The gravel pit project, sponsored by the HHP and listed in its production plan, illustrates what Ms. Wallace has in mind.
With all of these concerns, many of us will be working at Town Meeting to defeat Article 30 and not fund the trust. With the right leadership, the trust could have played a meaningful role in protecting the town against large 40B housing projects. However, this could only occur if the trust is under town meeting control and committed to small, all-affordable projects. Until that happens, it will be best to leave the trust unfunded.
Anthony J. Marolda
Jacobs Gate Road
