Article 36 on Saturday’s Town Meeting warrant, inserted by means of a citizen petition, proposes that at least 25 percent of the planned Hildreth senior residential development be affordable housing. This would significantly alter current Housing@Hildreth plans, which include no affordable housing in the proposed town center development.
The petition was organized and submitted by Paul Green of Old Littleton Road. In a statement to the Press, Green said that the inclusion of affordable units was necessary for the Hildreth development to appeal to an “economically diverse group of seniors.” He contends that the Hildreth development’s proximity to the town center’s amenities and community makes it ideal for all seniors, including those unable to afford market-rate housing.
From its outset, Housing@Hildreth has had two goals: to provide housing for seniors living in town to downsize into, and to raise money for the renovation of the Hildreth House senior center. The creation of affordable units does more to further the former, while the construction of market-rate units furthers the latter.
Various boards and committees have discussed their views on the proposed change. While no formal vote was taken, sentiment on the Planning Board unanimously favored the existing plan over Green’s modification. Discussion at the Council on Aging produced similar results, with individual members opposing Article 36 despite the lack of an official vote. The Housing@Hildreth Committee, however, voted to oppose the article.
At their Feb. 5 meeting, Planning Board members reviewed the rationale for the existing plan, which includes no affordable units. Members agreed that the fact that affordable units are inherently less profitable for developers could have three negative consequences: First, it could drive up the prices of the other homes in the development, making them less appealing to the very seniors the plan is meant to assist. Second, it might reduce the total amount that the developer would be willing to pay for the land, reducing funds available for the proposed Phase 2 renovation and expansion of Hildreth House, the town senior center. Finally, it might reduce developer interest in the project. Due to the project’s small scale, finding interested developers has proven difficult, and the project requires competitive bids to proceed.
Harvard far from its goal
Chapter 40B of Massachusetts statutes requires that at least 10 percent of a town’s housing stock be affordable, a level that Harvard does not currently meet. To this end, the town has produced a Housing Production Plan outlining the process of building enough affordable housing to reach the requirement, which the plan estimates will take 20 years. To qualify for affordable housing, seniors need to have an income of 80 percent or less of the median income in the area. For Worcester County, this is $52,600 for a two-person household or $46,000 for a single person, based on 2016 data. There are household asset limits as well.
Green noted that although a development of 14 to 17 total units (and therefore just four or so being affordable) might appear insignificant in housing totals, it could represent an entire year of progress due to the town’s slow rate of construction. Green added that when MassDevelopment was planning the Emerson Green housing development in Devens, Harvard demanded that it include an affordable component. He contended that the town should hold itself to the same standard it had imposed on development in Devens.
