Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-05-19-LCSR-rpt.pdf 11 :1;/ J J APPRAISING SUBSIDIZED-HOUSING ELEMENTS IN PRIVATELY SPONSORED APARTMEIPT PROPOSALS A SUGGESTED APPROACH submitted by the Lexington Commission on Suburban Responsibility March 19, 1973 This year, as in other years, private landowners seeking zoning changes to permit construction of multiple dwellings are proposing special arrangements under which some of the units would be made available to low and moderate income families eligible for assistance under subsidized housing programs. The warrant articles in question this year are Article 90 ("Flintlock") and Article 93 ("Minuteman"). A development proposal must be judged on its over-all merits, including many considerations apart from subsidized housing questions. It is possible that in some cases there are convincing reasons why subsidized housing cannot or should not be included. On the other hand, may town meeting members will be inclined to weigh in a proposal's favor the fact that it does include plans for low and moderate cost housing. The Lexington Commission on Suburban Responsibility is vitally interested in find appropriate ways to increase the supply of less expensive housing opportunities in town. We have therefore tried to develop certain guidelines to be used in determining whether such favorable weight should be accorded in a given case and, if so, how much. Our approach rests on the following beliefs (1) There is a need for more low and moderate cost housing in Lexington - to meet the needs of some present residents; of persons who would like to live here because, for example, they are employed by the Town or are close relatives of residents; and of other persons in our metropolitan area, (2) One appropriate way of meeting such needs is by small-scale developments devoted exclusively to subsidized housing, such as the 16 units proposed under Article 92 (St. Brigid's). The Commission supports this proposal and will have a further statement about it for the Town Meeting. (3) Another promising way to meet such needs is by including a suitable number of subsidized units in larger-scale developments that are mainly unsubsidized. One attractive feature of this approach is that it enables assisted households to live inconspicuously in the larger residential environment. (4) Accordingly, it is a consideration in favor of proposals such as those under Articles 90 and 93 that they include subsidized housing plans, insofar as those plans were well designed and realistic. How - 2 - much weight should be given such plans depends on how well they measure up to the following criteria Suggested Criteria A Number and permanency of subsidized units. A token number should be disregarded, but it is difficult to state exactly what percentage would be a significant number "Minuteman" speaks of 16 units out of 86 (almost 19%)1 "Flintlock" speaks of 15 out of 176 (about 8.5%), These two bracket a range that seems acceptable. As for duration, the units should be committed for as long as there is a local need and desire to use them for subsidized housing. B. Location and physical characteristics of subsidized units. Subsidized units should not be visually identifiable as such or in any way markedly distinguishable from other units, nor should they be isolated in one part of the development or unduly concentrated together. Subsidized occupants should be guaranteed equal privileges with other occupants of the development regarding use of any community facilities (such as recreation areas). C Formal and binding nature of the commitment. Favorable weight should not be accorded for a mere statement of intention on the part of the developer Ideally there would be a legally binding commitment. Yet.as a matter of legal technology it may be impossible or extremely difficult to conclude a legally binding arrangement by the stage at which town meeting is asked to grant a zoning change. A firm, unambiguous, written statement of intention, delivered to a responsible agency of town government and signed by a person or persons who are well known and respected in the community and who have strong reasons for wishing to preserve their reputations for integrity, may provide about as much assurance in practice as the town meeting can ever get, even if there are doubts about the statement's legally binding quality. D. Detail and feasibility of the commitment. Ideally there should be a commitment detailed enough for town meeting members to envision clearly the steps needed to bring about the actual provision of the subsidized housing, and to judge realistically its practicality and probability Details are important. For example 1. Cost ceilings, Agencies administering subsidy programs, such as the Lexington Housing Authority, secure the subsidy funds from government financing agencies such as the FHA or the Department of Community Affairs. These financing agencies, in turn, operate under statutes, regulations, or guidelines that set a ceiling on the cost (sales price or rental) of units whose occupancy they can or will subsidize. An important question - 3 - then, is whether the developer is committed to make units available at a cost that will fit under these ceilings. 2. Agency cooperation, The proposal should identify the agency expected to carry out administration of the subsidized housing program - including the securing of subsidy, selection of occupants, etc. It might be the Lexington Housing Authority or some other qualified, competent, non-profit agency. That agency should clearly have signified to the town meeting its willingness to undertake administration of the program and its intention to do so if at all possible. Some judicious relaxation of these stringent, ideal requirements may be acceptable or even unavoidable under certain circumstances. A precise description of the final details of the subsidy arrangements may be impossible to give (or to give without being disingenuous) at a time like the present when programs are undergoing governmental reappraisal; or it may be impossible because the financing agency is unwilling to work out details and commitments at a stage it regards as still preliminary (i. e. , when the developer has not yet secured necessary rezoning). Town meeting members should in all cases satisfy themselves that (a) the developer and administering agencies are providing as much detailed information, and as firm and detailed a commitment, as they practically and forthrightly can under the circumstances; and (b) on the basis of that information and that commitment, it seems reasonable to believe that the proposed subsidized housing will actually be provided in due course, If even this standard cannot be satisfied, then no favorable weight should be given for subsidized housing, even though failure to satisfy the standard may not be the fault of the developer, Application of the Criteria We do not in this statement attempt any definitive application of the foregoing criteria to the actual proposals before town meeting. We believe it is appropriate to invite the proponents to address themselves in their town meeting presentations to the questions suggested by the criteria. (Proponents have been furnished with copies of this statement.) The Commission is continuing to assemble relevant information, and members will, as seems appropriate, contribute both questions and views to town meeting debate on these proposals.