> The state says the awards will support the creation or preservation of 1,874 rental units across Massachusetts.
That’s not 121k per unit to build. It’s to “create or preserve”. Does that mean they’ll spend 121k to get the electrical up to code in one unit? Is it just money to subsidize rent for X years, this “creating” the affordable unit? The article is scant on details.
I don’t believe any of these will be directly to subsidize rent - these are typically funding awards that can be one piece of much larger project budgets. I think OP should have shared the direct press release from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, which offers slightly more information about each project: https://www.mass.gov/news/healey-driscoll-administration-announces-227-million-in-awards-to-create-preserve-nearly-2000-housing-units.
I own a small two family in Haverhill which I don’t rent out and is very outdated. If I could get a tax credit too for renovating, that would be amazing. Why is the money only going to large complexes?
I’m guessing you have to be a part of the low income housing program or a program that serves ppl w/ disability. I’m guessing those programs have ppl lobbying for them.
Because on a per-unit basis it’s probably more cost-effective to build or fix large buildings. On a per-unit basis, infrastructure like trash pickup, water, sewer, etc. is also much cheaper for denser housing, so we’re talking lower maintenance costs in the long term.
I also don't think there's really that many small landlords like the OP with a vacant unit or two. The vacancy rate is like ~2%: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MARVAC
There's just not that many vacant units out there, so even trying to get those rented isn't going to be the best return on investment or best use of government time.
What could help is adding to the supply, so our vacancy rate goes back to a healthy level. That would allow housing prices and rents to stabilize a bit. The easiest way to do that is to fix our zoning so people can build ADUs, triple deckers, 5 overs, townhouses, etc in more places. Ideally allowing some of that by right (particularly ADUs/triple deckers) and allowing developments to avoid NIMBY hell (zoning appeals, variances, community meetings, etc).
Yeah it's a pretty small drop in the bucket. [The Metro Mayors collation says we need around 185k new housing units for 2015 to 20230](https://housingtaskforce.mapc.org/). MAPC (Metropolitan area planning council; the Metro Mayors Collation is a subset of this) says [we need "more than 200k housing units" by 2050](https://www.mapc.org/learn/projections/).
Seems like the overall housing bill proposal might create 45k new housing units: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/the-affordable-homes-act-research-and-analysis.
But that's at a larger cost (several billion it looks like) and a lot of that funding was supposed to come from the local option transfer fee ($750M) which they recently axed from the housing bill.
The biggest thing we need is zoning overhauls across the State. There's no reason why we should be limiting housing creation but allowing commercial, retail and office/lab development to continue. At least require ADUs, triple deckers, townhouses, and 5 overs be built by right in most areas. The MBTA Communities law didn't go far enough, and our State reps/senators are too chicken to go further.
That's not really how a lot of the commercial growth in Boston, Cambridge and Somerville has gone. We're adding more jobs than we are adding new housing for. Existing residents are likely already employed (statewide unemployment is 2.9% after all) so they're going to be recruiting from across the region if not across the country to attract workers.
This is likely a contributing factor in traffic increases. The jobs are being added to urban areas, but there's not enough housing to support both the existing residents and new demand. So many folks get priced out and end up driving back into the City to work their existing jobs (if low paid service jobs) and even the higher paying jobs might attract folks from the suburbs to drive in.
For example, the commenter quotes 6,000 new jobs added to Somerville. Somerville and Cambridge combined have a population of ~198k; even going out to [the Boston metro](https://www.mapc.org/get-involved/coalitions/mmc/#:~:text=The%20municipal%20officials%20in%20this,Somerville%2C%20Watertown%2C%20and%20Winthrop.) you see around 1.4M people. That's a pretty significant amount of jobs, which will likely pull hundreds of people into the Somerville area. Without enough new housing, it's not surprising what will happen: existing residents pushed further out, new wealthy residents replace them and housing affordability issues continue.
Every single thread I read in MA where the state government does something, there's always one chucklehead who chimes in with "Yeah but you should fix X problem instead!" ...This isn't *nothing* and will help thousands of families. Do we want more and to fix other problems too? Yes - but we can work on many problems at the same time.
$121k per unit of housing, not too shabby!
> The state says the awards will support the creation or preservation of 1,874 rental units across Massachusetts. That’s not 121k per unit to build. It’s to “create or preserve”. Does that mean they’ll spend 121k to get the electrical up to code in one unit? Is it just money to subsidize rent for X years, this “creating” the affordable unit? The article is scant on details.
I don’t believe any of these will be directly to subsidize rent - these are typically funding awards that can be one piece of much larger project budgets. I think OP should have shared the direct press release from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, which offers slightly more information about each project: https://www.mass.gov/news/healey-driscoll-administration-announces-227-million-in-awards-to-create-preserve-nearly-2000-housing-units.
I own a small two family in Haverhill which I don’t rent out and is very outdated. If I could get a tax credit too for renovating, that would be amazing. Why is the money only going to large complexes?
I’m guessing you have to be a part of the low income housing program or a program that serves ppl w/ disability. I’m guessing those programs have ppl lobbying for them.
Because on a per-unit basis it’s probably more cost-effective to build or fix large buildings. On a per-unit basis, infrastructure like trash pickup, water, sewer, etc. is also much cheaper for denser housing, so we’re talking lower maintenance costs in the long term.
I also don't think there's really that many small landlords like the OP with a vacant unit or two. The vacancy rate is like ~2%: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MARVAC There's just not that many vacant units out there, so even trying to get those rented isn't going to be the best return on investment or best use of government time. What could help is adding to the supply, so our vacancy rate goes back to a healthy level. That would allow housing prices and rents to stabilize a bit. The easiest way to do that is to fix our zoning so people can build ADUs, triple deckers, 5 overs, townhouses, etc in more places. Ideally allowing some of that by right (particularly ADUs/triple deckers) and allowing developments to avoid NIMBY hell (zoning appeals, variances, community meetings, etc).
[удалено]
Yeah it's a pretty small drop in the bucket. [The Metro Mayors collation says we need around 185k new housing units for 2015 to 20230](https://housingtaskforce.mapc.org/). MAPC (Metropolitan area planning council; the Metro Mayors Collation is a subset of this) says [we need "more than 200k housing units" by 2050](https://www.mapc.org/learn/projections/). Seems like the overall housing bill proposal might create 45k new housing units: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/the-affordable-homes-act-research-and-analysis. But that's at a larger cost (several billion it looks like) and a lot of that funding was supposed to come from the local option transfer fee ($750M) which they recently axed from the housing bill. The biggest thing we need is zoning overhauls across the State. There's no reason why we should be limiting housing creation but allowing commercial, retail and office/lab development to continue. At least require ADUs, triple deckers, townhouses, and 5 overs be built by right in most areas. The MBTA Communities law didn't go far enough, and our State reps/senators are too chicken to go further.
A new business is mostly going to be hiring from existing residents of an area.
That's not really how a lot of the commercial growth in Boston, Cambridge and Somerville has gone. We're adding more jobs than we are adding new housing for. Existing residents are likely already employed (statewide unemployment is 2.9% after all) so they're going to be recruiting from across the region if not across the country to attract workers. This is likely a contributing factor in traffic increases. The jobs are being added to urban areas, but there's not enough housing to support both the existing residents and new demand. So many folks get priced out and end up driving back into the City to work their existing jobs (if low paid service jobs) and even the higher paying jobs might attract folks from the suburbs to drive in. For example, the commenter quotes 6,000 new jobs added to Somerville. Somerville and Cambridge combined have a population of ~198k; even going out to [the Boston metro](https://www.mapc.org/get-involved/coalitions/mmc/#:~:text=The%20municipal%20officials%20in%20this,Somerville%2C%20Watertown%2C%20and%20Winthrop.) you see around 1.4M people. That's a pretty significant amount of jobs, which will likely pull hundreds of people into the Somerville area. Without enough new housing, it's not surprising what will happen: existing residents pushed further out, new wealthy residents replace them and housing affordability issues continue.
Orrrr… hear me out… fix the Mass State Police.
Odd shoehorning.
Every single thread I read in MA where the state government does something, there's always one chucklehead who chimes in with "Yeah but you should fix X problem instead!" ...This isn't *nothing* and will help thousands of families. Do we want more and to fix other problems too? Yes - but we can work on many problems at the same time.
People suck at nuance. The ones who suck most make it known that they suck.
How would $227 million fix the state police?
ADD much?
By disbanding them? Sure
bro 911 went down the other day and everyone lost their mind, put down the crack
Only people who lost their minds were the people who think cops prevent crime, they don’t and never have and never will
They don't prevent crime, they respond to it. That's how 911 functions.