A year after Town Meeting overwhelmingly approved a plan that could have certified some existing apartments as state-approved affordable homes, the legislature has brought Harvard’s plan to a halt, at least for now. Without legislative approval, Harvard cannot implement the tax-incentive program that would have given property tax breaks to homeowners who rent their accessory apartments at affordable rates. Landlord-homeowners would also have needed to follow state-approved rules to guarantee low rent and fair rental practices.
Proponents of the plan said it was a good way to quickly meet state mandates and provide housing for young couples, singles, and empty-nesters—without having to build new homes.
But the state senate’s revenue committee apparently did not share Harvard’s good opinion of the strategy. On May 1, the committee effectively killed the bill that would have allowed Harvard to implement the plan. According to legislative aides to Sen. Pam Resor, who sponsored the bill for Harvard, the Senate committee declined to consider the bill and instead “sent it to study.” Aides explained that senators can try to move shelved bills out of studies and onto the Senate floor. Sen. Resor was not immediately available for comment.
The plan, created by the Planning Board, took the form of a home rule petition and was, according to planners, difficult to create. The board struggled to adapt the state’s housing regulations—tailored to larger towns and cities—to Harvard’s small-town needs. Planner Barbara Brady took the lead in working with the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) to define the regulations. Problems revolved around choosing tenants fairly, qualifying incomes, and setting deed restrictions to freeze rent at an affordable level. In fact, when Town Meeting approved the home rule petition, some regulations were in draft form, to be finalized if it were approved by the legislature.
Last year Brady outlined the procedures that would likely govern Harvard’s affordable certification and tax-incentive program. Homeowners whose accessory apartments met requirements of Harvard’s existing accessory apartment bylaw and the home rule petition could register their apartments as affordable and get property tax credit equal to the square footage of the apartment. Homeowners with family members in their apartments would not be eligible for the program, because the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) prohibits it.
Landlords would agree to equal- opportunity rental practices and to a 15-year deed restriction on the rent that ran with them, not on the property. Standard regulations enforce affordable rents or sale prices by property deeds, but architects of the petition did not want to put homeowners at a disadvantage when they sold their homes.
Tenants would not be allowed to pay more than one-third of their incomes for rent. Income limits and rents were based on HUD guidelines for Massachusetts. For example, a single person with an upper income level of $46,300 could pay no more than $1,058 in rent. Income would be verified by an independent consultant hired by the town.
To get an apartment, tenants would enter a lottery, probably managed by the Harvard Housing Partnership. The partnership would maintain one waiting list for local people, and another for nonresidents. Harvard residents would be given preference over out-of-towners, as long as no more than 11 apartments had been rented to local people that year.
On Tuesday, Planning Board vice-chairman Mary Essary said she was “very disappointed” with the decision but vowed to fight on.
“We will be talking with Sen. Resor and the DHCD. The Planning Board wants to tackle affordable housing and won’t let this go,” she declared.
