Report: Several Mass. cities disregard state affordable housing requirement

As Massachusetts legislators and residents continue to search for ways to alleviate the squeeze onset by the state’s housing crisis, a real estate industry group and researchers at Tufts University are pushing lawmakers to tweak a state law to put a greater emphasis on affordable housing.

The Community Preservation Act allows Massachusetts cities and towns to add a surcharge on top of their local property taxes, and with some additional state matching dollars, to fund open space, historic preservation, outdoor recreation, and affordable housing projects.

The law, signed in 2000, has helped fund over 15,000 projects in 195 Massachusetts communities and requires municipalities to spend at least 10% of CPA funding apiece on open space protection, historic preservation, and affordable housing projects.

The problem

But according to a recent report, conducted by the Greater Boston Real Estate Board and Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis, 70 communities —more than a third of the CPA’s towns and cities — have failed to allocate funding above the 10% threshold to affordable housing.

Cities have continued to finance CPA projects like playgrounds, historic sites, and parks at significantly higher rates than affordable housing. For example, since adopting the CPA in 2008, the town of Northfield has spent 69% of CPA funds on historic preservation, 25% on open space and recreation, and 6% on housing, according to the report.

And across the state, the report shows, affordable housing projects face an unequal distribution of CPA funds.

“Only one in five CPA projects is dedicated to affordable housing, and less than one in 20 involve the creation of new homes,” the report states. “Housing projects have consistently made up less than 20 percent of all CPA activities, whereas historic preservation accounts for over 40 percent and open space and recreation together comprise nearly the same share.”

This slump can be seen clearly in suburban areas, where housing projects receive 6.8% of CPA dollars, while urban and rural areas allocate 17.3% and 15.7% respectively.

The report also points out that “more and more towns” are placing their CPA funding into local housing trusts, making it “difficult to confirm that towns are spending money wisely and meeting reasonable goals.”

Recommendations

The report recommends four key steps the state could take to improve the CPA’s effect on housing production.

First, the state could offer additional funding to communities that choose to increase the affordable housing minimum to 20% of CPA dollars. And these municipalities could also receive priority access to future state grants and subsidies.

Second, the state could hold municipalities that fall below the 10% threshold accountable and require them to fund future “make-up” projects.

Third, the report recommends the state “encourage cities and towns to better integrate CPA spending with long-term plans around zoning and construction.”

Finally, states could require municipalities to improve reporting on housing trusts, ensuring CPA funding placed in trusts works towards the goal of affordable housing.

Want to leave a comment?

Create an Account Or sign in to your account

To comment, please create a screen name in your profile

To comment, please verify your email address

Conversation

This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com