Should Harvard’s strategy to avoid the impacts of large-scale, 40B developments be to invite 40B developers to build in Harvard? Does the question even make sense? Yet Massachusetts Housing Opportunities Corporation (MHOC) is seeking comprehensive permits for two projects at the invitation of the Harvard Housing Partnership. In a recent interview with a local paper, Gerard Welch, the president of MHOC, said that his company sent a flyer to numerous towns around Massachusetts and it was our housing partnership that returned the call. The partnership met with officials from MHOC and invited the nonprofit-now-turned-for-profit developer to find sites in Harvard and submit proposals for “friendly” 40Bs. So, now we are dealing with two 40B developments that would not have come to Harvard but for the partnership’s invitation. The two projects total 44 units, only 11 of which are affordable and which provide no visible benefit to the town that would not have been available from any developer that came in uninvited.
Here is why I believe we have gone “through the looking glass” on the 40B issue and into the realm where nonsensical concepts are presented as being reasonable. The partnership has a plan for meeting the state’s mandate for affordable housing—with an oft-stated goal of protecting us from developers like MHOC. Yet the document shows a production plan that includes 11 40B developments totaling hundreds of new housing units that the partnership will sponsor or promote with developers.
The plan was “approved” by the pro-40B state agency responsible for implementing the law, but it never went before a town meeting for approval by the people. We were bypassed in making that decision.
Last year, as part of its plan, the partnership tried to get the town to sponsor a 45-unit 40B project in the Stow Road gravel pit, but that idea was soundly defeated by a 2–1 vote of town meeting. That is the only vote by town meeting that provides an indication of the town’s attitude toward the partnership’s policy of sponsoring or promoting 40B developments.
Also, last year the housing partnership was the first town committee to learn the results of the report by David and Laura Peterson of Jacob Gates Road that studied the impact of using 40B developments to reach the state’s 10 percent affordable housing units goal. The Petersons own an analysis company that works for corporations and governments analyzing complex systems using software they developed at MIT. The partnership appeared to understand and accept the results. But in spite of the negative findings, the group continues to pursue its plan for sponsoring and promoting a large number of 40B developments.
Partnership Chairwoman Lucy Wallace said at the recent public meeting for the Municipal Affordable Housing Trust that large-scale, 40B projects are the fastest and least expensive way to meet our mandate. They may be faster, but, according to the Peterson Report, they are surely not the least expensive: 75 percent of the units from these projects are sold at market rates and magnify dramatically the number of new housing units that need to be built in town to reach the goal. Furthermore, since all of the units from 40B developments are priced significantly lower than the current average price of a house in Harvard, they provide much less tax revenue per unit. Yet the housing projects contribute the same number of children per unit to the schools. There is a group of citizens in town who have a strategy for dealing with the 40B problem that is very different than that of the partnership. It is a multi-prong approach whose facets need to be accomplished simultaneously. First, it involves working with our legislators and numerous other groups of concerned citizens from around the state to reform the 40B law. The forces for reform have never been stronger and many believe that we may be at the tipping point of making some serious changes in 40B that will benefit towns like Harvard. For example, taking a longer period of time to reach our goal for the percentage of affordable housing units, or double counting the affordable units. A formal commitment by Harvard to 40B reform would be very helpful in achieving this objective.
Second, we need an all-affordable housing program that will meet our own needs for affordable housing: housing that has enough affordable units for town employees and our seniors who want to downsize. While such a program of small, six- to eight-unit projects may be a little slower to implement than using the typical, large-scale 40B developments, it will, in the long run, be significantly less expensive to the town.
Third, we need to continue to acquire land for conservation and encourage owners to maintain land now devoted to agriculture. These are properties that will not be available to developers. Furthermore, none of this land is included in the calculation done by the state to determine the maximum amount of land that a town has to devote to affordable housing projects. The limit by law is 1.5 percent of the town’s land area that is zoned residential, commercial, or industrial.
Fourth, we should certainly not invite any more 40B developers into town. In fact, those developers that come uninvited seeking comprehensive permits should be resisted by all lawful means. Permits for 40Bs can be denied on the basis of health, safety, and environmental reasons. To explore thoroughly all of these avenues, our regulatory boards need the assistance of concerned citizens. They also need the expert advice of professionals involved in 40B financing and law who are biased toward the town’s interests and not the developers.
The Harvard Housing Partnership’s approach to adding affordable housing to Harvard could have been written as a cautionary tale by Lewis Carroll. It is time to bring that plan to the next town meeting to determine if residents believe that the best way to protect Harvard from 40B developments is to sponsor and promote 11 of these large-scale projects.
