FRAMINGHAM, MA – For residents and local planning and zoning officials in cities and towns throughout Massachusetts, the battle is on for affordable housing.

More than the battle to buy, rent or obtain affordable housing, the battle over “What really is affordable housing?” and how much of it should be built, along with where, when, why and how it should be built — and “On who’s terms?” are what is in dispute.

Neither side is saying affordable housing is bad.  In fact both sides appear to be advocating responsible development of affordable housing in Massachusetts.

So, what is 40B ?…

Officially known as “The Regional Planning Law“, Massachusetts General Law, (M.G.L.), Chapter 40B contains29 section and two sub-section and was enacted in 1969.

At issue is whether we (MA Voters) should vote to keep or repeal a portion of the 40B law — to be precise; Sections 20 through 23 which appear in the law under the heading “Low and Moderate Income Housing“.

A group of citizens known as “The Coalition to Repeal Chapter 40B” gathered enough signatures to get the question of whether the State should repeal those sections of the law onto the November 2010 ballot as Question #2.

The group claims these sections which were  enacted to insure the construction of affordable housing have actually caused Massachusetts to become the 3rd most expensive state to live in and saddled cities and towns with unsustainable development.

Opponents claim the law has allowed developers to build huge luxury condo complexes, large upscale town house developments, apartment buildings and other multi-unit projects which are out of sync with local planning and zoning.  And local boards can’t do much to stop them.

MGL 40B, Section 21, in-part says a developer “…proposing to build low or moderate income housing” can apply to “build such housing in lieu of separate applications to the applicable local boards” under what is called a “single, comprehensive permit”

In 1969 the need for the law came as a response to what some  called “Snob Zoning”.

Prior to 40B, some communities with high property values would reject “affordable housing” developments citing sometimes frivolous local zoning reasons, or placing excessive restrictions or conditions on the developer that were not economically feasible.  There’s no doubt permits were denied to prevent lower income individuals from moving into certain cities and towns.

About the only defense a city or town can use [to a proposed 40B development] is that there already exists sufficient affordable units “consistent with local needs“.   The law defines those needs — basically saying that 10% of the housing in a city or town be “affordable“, or that the total land use for affordable housing meets a certain percentage of countable land.

Proponents of 40B point to “growth” and increased residential real estate tax revenue as benefits of the law — in addition to the construction of some affordable housing units.  Opponents point out that only 20%-25% of these development need to be “affordable” to take advantage of the law — and that in many cases these affordable units are available to people earning $80k/year.

Opponents say proponents fail to account for the costs to provide municipal services including water & sewer infrastructure, road maintenance, snow plowing, police, fire, K-12 education and other services that can exceed any potential tax revenue.

Opponents of 40B also claim proponents of 40B are mostly developers, government officials and “affordable housing advocates” who profit directly or indirectly from he law.

Opponents also claim that there is more than enough developed property that should be rehabilitated before more open space is built on, and many other reasons why 40B should be repealed — and that poor oversight of the current law has allowed developers to walk away with excessive profits leaving cities and towns saddled with unsustainable financial burdens and overdeveloped properties.

Politicians, (including three of the four candidates for MA Governor in 2010), oppose the  initiative to repeal 40B, claiming it will cause construction job losses in the state, loss of local property tax revenue and loss of affordable housing units.  Other voices of support to leave 40B as is come from those living in or on waiting lists for State and Federal subsidized low income housing — along with the usual cast of government employees, social service agencies and others who are involved with low income “affordable” housing.

With just 4 months before the November elections, both sides are ramping up their best marketing pitches hoping to sway those who haven’t put much thought yet into the 40B issue over to their side of the fence.

Massachusetts voters will decide whether MGL Ch. 40B, Sec 20-23 stay as-is, or get wiped off the books by casting their votes on Ballot Question #2, November 2, 2010.

• a “Yes” vote on Question #2 is a vote to repeal sections 20-23 of MGL Ch. 40B.
• a “No” vote on Question #2 is a vote to leave the law as is.

Resources:

The official Question #2 summary , titled “Comprehensive Permits for Low- or Moderate- Income Housing” can be found on the MA Secretary of State website at:  www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepip10/pip102.htm

Full text of the “The regional planning law“, (MGL Ch. 40B), can be found on the State of Massachusetts’ website at:  www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-40b-toc.htm

The Coalition to Repeal 40B, the group behind the ballot initiative, has additional information, links to relevant reports and news accounts, along with proposals for alternative legislation to replace Sections 20-23 of MGL Ch. 40B on their website at: www.affordablehousingnow.org

The Committee Against Repealing 40B, which is a “Vote No on #2” group operates a website at:  www.protectaffordablehousing.org where you can find opposing views to the ballot initiative.

###