HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-12-JGCAC-rpt.pdf REPORT TO THE LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD
FROM THE
JOINT GOVERNMENT AND CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ON HOUSING POLICY
DECEMBER, 1978
HOUSING MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE
Albert P. Zabin, Chairman, Planning Board
Alfred S. Busa, Board of Selectmen
Robert M. Hutchinson, Town Manager
Laura F. Nichols, Planning Board
Woodruff M. Brodhead, Board of Appeals
Mary E. Shunney, Lexington Housing Authority
Eric T. Clarke, Board of Appeals
David Reiner, Town Meeting Members Association
Kenneth G. Briggs, Planning Director
Josette Carter, League of Women Voters
William J. Sen, Council on Aging
Joan Z. Clark, League of Women Voters
Setha Olson, League of Woman Voters
Norma Bogen, Lexington Historical Commission
Manuel Trillo, 8 Judges Road
Frank B. Stowell, 498 Waltham Street
Adeline Fournier, 21 Moreland Avenue
Alan Bedford, 11 Harrington Road
Elizabeth G. Flemings, 23 Cedar Street
David Smith, 6 Locust Avenue
Robert Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue
INTRODUCTION
Neither the presence of a housing problem in Lexington, nor the
fact that considerable comment has been made about the problem
while very little ah s been-accomplished, make Lexington unique.
The lack of accomplishment is a national syndrome at both the
Federal and local levels. What will make Lexington unique is
proper identification of its housin needs,a t e adoption and
implementation o a plan to provide adequate housing to meet
these needs.
The development of public housing is a complex and controversial
-
process. Many people and agencies with a variety of concerns and
requirements must work together to achieve the best possible
housing plan. The success of any plan lies in the ability to
implement it. This implies that the plan must adequately address
the housing needs of the community, and at the same time be sen-
sitive to the non-housing concerns of the community. The issues
that must be addressed are: the demands for housing of all types
both on the local and regional levels, the State and Federal
requirements for public housing, community impact, environmental
impact, the social and physical needs of those occupying public
housing, and the construction and design techniques used in the
development of housing.
The Lexington Planning Board has long been concerned with the need
for the development of houses which meets the needs of all people,
at all income levels. This concern was echoed in Lexington's
Growth Policy Statement. "Clearly, this (high cost of housing)
predicates a town in which only the affluent can afford to live,
a growth expectation in conflict with the expressed values of
many of the committee. Many felt that it is neither healthy for
the Town nor acceptable to permit such homogeneous development,
thus closing out the young - including our own children should they
want to stay, the elderly, - many of whom have lived here all
their lives, and Town employees who must not become alienated
strangers to the rest of the Town. Thus, one of the objective.s_of
a growth policy would be to find ways to encourage a more hetero-
geneous mix in the Town population. . . ."
In the Spring of 1978, the Lexington Housing Authority requested
the Planning Board to develop a housing plan for low and moderate
income housing.
1
The recommendations in this report are the culmination of an
extended study process begun last summer. In June of 1978, the
Planning Board appointed a committee to examine the housing needs
in Lexington and make recommendations to be used in the develop-
ment of a Housing Master Plan for Lexington. The Committee con-
sisted of representatives of the Planning Board, the Board of
Selectmen, the Town Manager's Office, the Lexington Housing
Authority, the Board of Appeals, the League of Women Voters,
and the Town Meeting Members Association. In addition, citizens
with an interest in housing responded to the Planning Board's
publicized call for volunteers and served on the committee.
Members of the committee brought different perspectives and all
contributed to its work and its report.
The committee was divided into three subcommittees'
1. Needs and Programs Subcommittee
2. Resources Subcommittee
3. Laws and Procedures Subcommittee
The Needs and Programs Subcommittee was given the task of determining
the local housing needs and determining Lexington's responsibility
in meeting the regional Abu. ,..deed. The committee was also res-
ponsible for evaluating the various State and Federal housing
programs and recommending which of these programs are most applicable
in meeting Lexington's housing needs.
The Resources Subcommittee was responsible for making an inventory
of all sites that could be used for public housing. The subcommittee
also developed criteria fiii—eiia-ril=rirtire-ge sites.
The Laws and Procedures Subcommittee focused on two major issues.
The first was the procedures under which subsidized housing is
approved. The second issue was the zoning by-law governing congre-
gate housing and accessory apartments
2
NEEDS & PROGRAMS
The following discussion provides some insight into the nature
and extent of the housing problem in Lexington.
The Needs and Programs Subcommittee's initial task was to iden-
tify the general categories in which housing needs exist.
1. Subsidized family housing
2. Housing for the elderly
3. Housing for single persons
4. Housing for the handicapped
5. Housing for the mentally ill
The committee determined that it was impossible to deal with all
aspects of the housing problem given its limited time and resources.
It was decided to concentrate efforts of the committee on the issues
of subsidized family and elderi housing. it was the teeling of
the committee that these were the types of housing of which there
was probably the greatest need. Also, Lexington has an obligation
under State and Federal law to meet specified quotas for housing
in these two categories. The committee recommends that other areas
of housing needs identified be addressed, and that the Planning
Board plan for ways that will satisfy the need of all who live in
Lexington.
In an effort to give some dimension to the need for housing in
Lexington, the Needs and Programs Subcommittee and the planning
staff developed data which will sharpen the overall perspective
as to the need for housing in Lexington.
The Committee established the following criteria to determine
Lexington's housing needs:
1. Town objectives
2. State and Federal requirements
3. Local needs
4. Regional needs
TOWN One objective of Lexington as defined by the Growth Policy Committee
OBJECTIVES is "to p _ - . - Town". This objective clearly
places limitations on the type and scale of housing developments
envisioned by the Growth Policy Committee as being in the best
interest of the Town Any large housing "project" would clearly
not be in keeping with the predominantly single-family and small
multi-family development found in Lexington On the other hand,
such programs as scattered site housing, which sponsors single-
family homes on individual lots, and small multi-family housing
3
ii,
developments such as Russell Square, East Village and Pine Grove
Village are consistent with the existing character of the Town.
Larger developments such as Drummer Boy and Fiske Common are also
acceptable if they are well designed and constructed.
A second objective was expressed by the Growth Policy Committee that
the Town "findwa s_to encourage a more heterogeneous mix of the
To�r_2o u�lat_lpn. . .". Since the availability of housing within the
price range of a variety of people is a key factor in determining
the makeup of the community, it is incumbent on the Town to encourage
an atmosphere in which a range of housing can be developed.
STATE AND Both State and Federal law mandates suburban communities to make
FEDERAL significant contribution to meeting the national need for moderate
REQUIREMENTS and-Tow cost family housing. 17E-TE-6- development of a housing plan
.t sT°`na1sand short-sighted for the Town to ignore State and
U Federal requirements. Failure to work toward meeting hou-,_, sing,,_,rquire-
<� 1 ments established by_ State anted F_ederal.._a.gencies-can _lead_ to loss of
funding by the Federal government for other Town needs, unrelated to
Iv housing, since the Federal government has begun a policy of inducing
Ivcommunities to meet Federal housing standards by the use of the
I I)
stick as well as the carrot ,,. \ ,c,
I
Ala
/ ' \", '^�, NFor example, Birmingham, Michigan has lost $98,000 in Federal grants
/'0 liteigand stands to lose an additional $900,000. The loss of these funds
� resulted fr m failu/yeito' comply with State (and Federal) requirements
/1 °11 I fours�,jl . 1)rn i qt0/low and moderate income housing. These monies
tp fj - '; were slated for capital improvements, sewer construction and mainten-
11, lance. Mr. Schwartz, Operations Coordinator for Birmingham, equivalent
�jto the Planning Director here, stated that the Federal government
ter" /•' (H.U.D.) is playing "hard ball" and that if Birmingham fails to meet
H U.D's minimumuidelines for housing, the result could be the loss
g
nfi of millions of dollars over the next few years. Birmingham is not
�"" / alone in this situation. Livonia, Michigan has lost $500,000 to date
Ifs
0I and expects to lose more, because it has made no efforts to meet
y
11 ' II 4' Federal housing requirements.
ji, _ , As housing needs increase, it is to be expected that the State and
6,01,
Federal government will put similar pressure on more communities to
1I meet housing requirements.
I '
//DU""
V' How could this affect Lexington? Lexington receives Federal and
�IState monies for sewer and road maintenance and construction and
ebnservation-re mbursements. It is conceivable that-t ese monies
coula-E`e`5.ffected along with any other federally funded programs.
Other housing programs could also be affected, such a�_s hou jng, ,for
the elderly. In a publication from D.C.A. , Development of Housing
for Older People, it states "Since it is important that all portions
of the population have their housing needs addressed, D.C.A. willwe _
t
he
holgh sintheicturesinfarglvenrcommunity. Evvidencett atnlowefamily
income
families' housing needs are in: .emonstrate
4
to D.C.A. that a comprehensive plan for housing has been developed."
Metropolitan Area Planning Council has advised the Planning Board--
-m
that one of the reasons that Lexington's request for funding for
60 units of elderly housing at Countryside, the rezoning for which
was approved by the 1977 Town Meeting, was rejected because the Town
has not made serious efforts to meet the need for family housing.
The guidelines that Lexington should consider in the development of
a housing program are those established by the State Legislature
under Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 and by D.C.A. in its publi-
cation - Low and Moderate Income Housing Needs in the Boston Region.
These are the guidelines that H.U.D. will use when that agency evalu-
ates Lexington's compliance with Federal, local and regional housing
requirements.
REGIONAL The Plannning Board in 1970 stated in its Subsidized Housing Program
HOUSING NEEDS for Lexington, Mass. "That . . . it is obvious that Lexington is
also a part of the Metropolitan Housing Market and must do its share
in meeting the Metropolitan housing needs, including the needs for
multi-family and low and moderate income housing." This position
was reaffirmed in the 1976 Growth Policy Statement- "Lexington has
a responsibility to the region to provide a mix of adequate housing
for a variety of income levels."
Based on the Department of Community Affairs' figures, the need for
housing assistance in the metropolitan region for 1970 was esti-
mated at over 261,000 households. This figure represents approxi-
mately 27% of all,households in .thy _region as needing some form of
assistance, i.e.
. they are paying over 25% of their income for housing
. they are living in substandard housing
. they are living in overcrowded conditions
"Projections by the Office of State Planning indicate that the number
of households in the state will grow more rapidly than the population
as household size decreases. A growing number of smaller households
comprised of single persons, widowed or divorced persons and the
elderly will increase the demand for housing substantially. In
addition, a major increase in the 25-35 age group, which is typically
associated with family formation and children, will mean a growing
need for family housing." *
What is Lexington's fair share? The State Legislature under
Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 established guidelines for each
community so it could determine at what point it has met its obli-
gations in providing low and moderate income housing. These guide-
lines specify that this need will be met when 1) 10% of the total
number of dwelling units, or, 2) 1.5% of the total non-publicly
owned land in the Town is devoted to low or moderate income housing.
In L-xin:ton the - • - willbe�satisfied. when- 889]oFz ar..._
moderate income dwelling.units are _constructed or 109 acres of non-
publicly owned land in the Town is allocated to low and moderate
* Housing Massachusetts Summary Report, April 1978 P. 4
5
income housing. At the present time only 150, or 1.70% of all
dwelling units in Lexington, are classified as low and moderate income
housing and these occupy 15 acres or 0.21% of the non-publicly
owned land It is obvious that Lexington has fallen far short
of meeting the guidelines mandated by the State Legislature.
* The legislative reports which prompted Chapter 774's passage
demonstrated how local restrictive zoning re ulations have set
up in fact i not intentions yt a arrier against the introduc-
tion otiow and mo erste income housing in the suburbs. Moreover,
this barrier exist` s�at a time when our housing needs for the low
and moderate income groups cannot be met by the "inner cities."
This so sis .eman.s a legislative and judicial approach
that requires "the strictly local interest of the town" to yield
to the regional need for the construction of low and moderate
income housing. Chapter 774 represents the Legislature's use
of its own zoning powers to respond to this problem.
D.C.A. and M A P C. have also developed guidelines allocating each
community its fair share of housing based on the regional need.
The numbers of additional housing for Lexington are.
Elderly Non Non Elderly Non-elderly
Total Elderly New Elderly Elderly Monetary Monetary
Need Rehab Constr. Rehab New Constr Suppl. Suppl.
1,352 32 76 96 129 504 515
At first glance, 1,352 units seems high, but on closer examination,
1,019 of this total figure is allocated for rental subsidies to
families who pay more than 25%_ of their income for housing.
This subsidy could apply to families that are now living in
Lexington and are paying in excess of 2 o t eir year y income.
Thus, the State agencies with the responsi i ii' `ty of carrying out
the mandate of the Commonwealth have determined that Lexington's
fair share for new construction or rehabilitation of existing
units for various types of housing assistance amounts to the following.
108 units of elderly housing
225 units of low and moderate income family housing
These numbers of housing units are not excessive and fall far short
of what the law under Ch. 774 prescribes as Lexington's responsi-
bility Lexington has reduced these numbers by 47 units of family
housing and 60 of elderly housing.
Pine Grove Village (St. Brigid's) 16 units
Interfaith 6 units
Scattered Site Housing 25 units
sub-total 47
Town approval of 60 units of elderly housing
at Countryside.
* Comments of the Supreme Judicial Court regarding Ch. 774
6
This, in effect, would bring Lexington's total allocations to
178 units of low and moderate income housing and 48 units of
elderly housing.
The Federal government and M.A.P.C. and D.C.A. expect Town accept-
ance and commitment to these guidelines. 1) a housing plan which
recognizes the need for the entire population to have their housing
needs addressed and, 2) a commitment on the part of the Town to
work toward meeting this need.
The M.A.P.C. planning staff G G„gQogf 2 S ts tierear for family housing �*ea ^ ^•^, o
f P1�e
�y
ly housing. At the
present time, there are few subsidized units available to lower
income families in Lexington. There are currently 22 units of
family housing:__.-__16_.at._-Pine Crove Village, and 6 at Interfaith.
The 16 units at Pine _Grove �Zil la._ge__are owner occupied,ani` only
one vacancy has occurred. The six homes at Tfite-rfatt1 are rental
units. Applications are not being encouraged at this time because
only two vacancies have occurred in the first three years of
operation.
One of the arguments against the development of subsidized family
housing that has been raised in the past is that it fails to meet
the local housing needs. According to the planning staff-ot M.A.P C.
this is not true. An analysis of family housing developments around
the Metropolitan area reveals that a majority of the families living
in the varuous developments are either from that community or have
some connection with i.e., family or friends that live in the community.
This also applies in Lexington. Looking at the profile of those
living in Pine Grove Village.
8 - from Lexington
4 - had some connection to Lexington
4 - had no ties to Lexington
LOCAL NEEDS In order to assess local needs, the committee and the Planning staff
found it necessary to analyze the following factors in order to
determine the extent of purely local needs:
Lexington housing market
Income levels
Population strata
A review of all housing sales in Lexington for the year 1977 shows
40
that the median sales price for a single-family house was $62,000
4 and that the average price for new construction was $71,000. The
median sales price of homes in Lexington nearly doubled between 1970
and 1976, from $32,000 in 1970, to $59,000 in 1976. As illustrated
on the accompanying chart, housing in -the lower price ranges, $30,000
to $40,000, represents only a tiny, (almost meaningless) fraction of
the total housing inventory. Realistically, on must expect to pay
from the mid-fifties and up for a single family home.
�\ When one examines he available apartment n�ket, the picture is
equally bleak. The to n ver rate for apartments in Town has been
v
, r
C)
C.)
4-1
4-4
4-4
0
00
im4
0
CO
CO
C)
CO
03
0
0
4-)
CIO
0
4-1
X
C)
1-4
23
-. ••
ci 0
22 c
c C.)
l,1 P
21 .c.
0
20
ti
c
19 .
7.
a! 0
18 c 0
_ o
ce
.... .4
17 -.
m
1
16 - .3
5-
15
1 -
PI
14
13
0
cn
12 J.
in
g U
. 10 • ••
0
oc
oS 9
7
6 f .
1 I -
L
3 - -
. n[ 1 - n
. . o
cn 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CC CC CC o c; 8 8 8
0
.1 . r4
8
so low that none of the apartment complexes is currently accepting
rental applications.. Emerson Gardens, the least expensive of the
Town's apartment complexes, has a waitin,g__period of from two to
three years. As a result, inadequate supply and exceeeVa—Cemani.
has Inflated the rentals of these units.
INCOME A review of rental units in the surrounding communities reveals
that comparable units are renting for up to 30% less. The follow-
ing is a breakdown of rental prices for the various non-subsidized
units in Lexington.
Emerson Gardens Battle Green
1 bedroom $280 1 Bedroom $325 - 330
2 bedrooms 315 2 bedrooms 415 - 425
3 bedrooms --- 3 bedrooms ---
. Captain Parker Arms Minuteman Village
1 bedroom $341 1 bedroom ---
2 bedrooms 403 - 413 2 bedrooms $425 - 460
Housing and rental costs only become relevant when compared against
thea' o people to buy or rent. Therefore, the professional
sta ( 'computed the minimum income level needed to permit a person
to buy or rent a home in Lexington, to determine the income level
below which people are economically excluded from Lexington. The
basis on which this computation was made is as follows:
1. 9% interest on mortgage (25 year loan)
2. 20% down payment
3. $30 @ 100% evaluation (tax rate)
* 4. Maximum of 25% of gross income
Based on this criteria, a family would have to earn at least the
following income to purchase a home at the following prices.
$16,000 per year $30000 home
$17,000 per year $40,000 home
$21,000 per year $50,000 home
$26,000 per year $60,000 home
When comparing the income required for buying a home against existing
housing stock, it becomes apparent that a family would have to have
an income in excess of $20,000 per year to have a reasonable chance
of finding a home in Lexington.
Assuming that a person should not pay in excess of 25% of his yearly
income for housing, the following incomes would be required to rent
an apartment in Lexington.
Average Rent/Month Income
1 bedroom $318 $15,264
2 bedrooms 403 19,344
3 bedrooms 517 24,816
* When one exceeds 25% of his gross income for housing, at the lower
end of the income scale, most financial institutions consider it
to be economically unfeasible.
9
ROUSING COSTS - 1977
FAMILY
INCOME 30.000 40,000 501000 61.000 7x,000
$13,000
a
.0
14.000 : tl
h
15,000 - c 01
O 0
x
16,000w I I '0
Z
LI- I
17.000 w r I I I
0. U
N
18,000 _ I / I gR "f
P <
19,000 _ I I I I
20.000 _ 1 I 1 I
21,000 _ 1 I ' I I I
22.000 _ I I I I ! I
23,000 = 1 I I I I I I
24,000 _ I I I 1 1 I
MEAN FAMILY II COME 24 000
25,000 _ I I I I I I I
26.000 : I I I 1 1 I I 1 I
27,000 _ I I ! I I I I + I
28.000 . I II I1 II I I I
29.000 _ I I I I I I ! I I
30,000 _ I I I I I I I 1 I
10
Source: Lexington Planning Office
in summary, these figures indicate that any family making lesa� than..
$.16,000 per year without a substantially Pi Pater do�an payment than
20% could not afford to buy into Lexington. A family making less
than $15,000 per year could not afford to rent in Lexington. However,
because there are so few houses available for $50,000 or less, the
chance of buying a home in this price range is remote One must
conclude from this that to buy into Lexington one must have an income
in excess of $20,000 per year.
POPULATION An income analysis of Lexington, the region, and the U S. are
shown below.
Median Family Income
1949 1959 1969 1976
Lexington $3,598 $9,043 $17,558 $24,000
Boston SMSA'' 3,516 6,687 11,449 17,950
Massachusetts 3,444 6,272 10,835 15,531
U.S 3,073 5,657 9,590 14,958
Based on housing costs, these figures indicate that the average
family in Massachusetts and in the United Stales ^ T'hild
find it difficult, if not impossible, to buy a home in Lexington.
The average family living in the Boston SMSA could probably not buy
in Lexington because of the relative unavailability of housing at
prices compatible with that income bracket.
The average Town employee salary is approximately $13,000 per year.
This obviously excludes the majority of Town employees from living in
Lexington, even in a one-bedroom apartment were any available.
It is apparent that $243000 a year median income for Lexington falls
� I into the range which allows a fam11�y to buy ing 'on. iL,
however, is disturbing to note that 42% of families living in
()\\I Lexington have an income below $16,000 per ver One cannot draw
�Y� hard and fasL. conclusions from this but it certainly implies that
some of these families could not afford, at this time, to purchase
a home in Lexington based on current housing costs This material
indicates that only the families that have a reaso •bl h level
of material success can afford to live in Texington. This situation
is in direct conflict with objectives of providing housing for a
variety of income levels.
There is a side effect that usually occurs when the median income
of a community increases. Thi result is that the average age of the
community goes up. An analysis of Lexington's population shows that
'there has been a significant shift upwards in the population strata
from 1965 on. From 1940 through the early 60s there was a fairly
even distribution of people within all age groups, with the largest
age group being 35 - 39, By 1965, there was a noticeable erosion in
all age groups from 20 - 39 The 1975 figures show that the age
Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area.
11
et
a
et
INCOME LEVELS J
No. of 1976
People
.2000 0
g
0
a
1900 0
co to.
er et 0
mr4 0
-,....
1800
0 *
4.*.0
ei
1700 g
•ct
fa
a
1600
.1
se
..
1500
o
.4
ga ......
1400
U
ll
g
0
g •cs
1300 a
0
0
1200 0
OC .0 o
..I
.1100
1.000 •
900
e.
co
I.-
800 • -,
700 -
600
500
4n
co ce
co o
el
400 • .c. .-e. ...-
04
rl
300 - o. ...,
04
cc
— .0
200 a al
cc .4
a*
IN a-
100 .1,
n n n I— _ _—
. 0. a, 0. 05
Cs O. a. a. a.
a. a. a. as a. a. a. a. a. or. 1..
o% c. os C. cr. . . . a
C) a. a. cm ci. a. ri -,1. 0, •0 01'
0 ,
- • • .4 .1 .1 ea o t
a ea .c. e. ae,
I t I I t 41
o a 0 0
0 0
I.. 0 0 0 a- a 0 0 0 08
0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
Source• NI o o a c. o
c;' .
r4 ..4 0 i 4," do"
M.A.P.C. g r; .
et ei e . .
C° ... .4 .4 "
12
Population Strata for Selected Years
1940
SEX RATIO AGE
58b1 175 and OVER
MALE 7771 [70-74
FEMALE
76.51 165-69
88.71 160-64
88.01 155-59
84.51 150-54
85.41 145-49
95.01 f40-44
95.31 135-39
99.21 [30-34
92.41 125-29
112.4 120-24
99.8 115-19
102.6 10-14
90.7 5-9
1117.8 I I I I I 'UNDER 5 I I I
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PERCENT
17970 SEX RATIO AGE
47.2-185ond OVER
45.2 80-84
53.01, 175-79
MALE 64.1 170-74 FEMALE
73.81 165-69
92.41 160-64
91.91 155-59
104.71 150-54
94.71 45-49
9721 40-44
87.81 135-39
82.4[ 130-34
80.41 125-29
99.81 120-24
105.61 115-19
111.1 110-14
108.01 15-9
I I 10741 I I I I i I 'UNDER 5 I I I
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 U 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PERCENT
13
Source Lexington Planning Office
group 45 - 49 now represents the largest segment of the population,
and the 35 - 39 group has fallen to the fourth group behind the
50 - 55 group. Population projections show that the upward trend
in age will continue well into the 80s.
The obvious conclusion is that the character of the Town is changing
from a community with a fairly good balance of young and mature
families to one of predominantly mature families, and that the
unavailability of moderately priced__houcinp makes ,t diffi.Eu-l.t_if._
not impossible to achieve the first goal of the Growth Policy
Committee - to preserve the character of the Town.
This trend is interesting in that the United States census shows that
the biggest bulge in the nation's population makeup is 20 to 30 years
of age. The increase in this age group is the result of the record
number of births during the 1947 - 57 baby boom.
The difference between Lexington and the United States population
trends is due to the fact that the majority of younger people
haven't yet attained the measure of success that is necessary to
afford to live in Lexington.
One can only conclude that the local need for less expensive hous-
ing can best be defined in terms of those who are being excluded.
1. Average families that have an income below $16,000 per year.
2. People who cannot afford to buy a house but would like to
/ rent.
' 3. People who can afford to buy a house but would like to rent.
4. Most younger families who have not reached the upper middle
income bracket.
5. Most Town employees
6. Many of the elderly and disabled on fixed incomes.
In order to quantify the need for housing in Lexington, the Needs
and Programs Subcommittee developed a mini-questionnaire. The
questionnaire, inspired by Mrs. Mary Shunney, Chairman of the
Lexington Housing Authority, and its representative on the Housing
Committee, was published in the Lexington Minute-Man newspaper.
Because of the small sample returned (50) , and the methodology used,
the conclusions which were derived from it must be tentative. It does,
however, give a strong indication that many Lexington residents are
concerned about the need for housing as it applies directly to them,
and provides some empirical corroboration for the statistical analysis
presented above.
The questions are listed below with a compilation of the responses
Yes No
1. Do you feel there is an adequate 15% 85%
price range of housing units
available in Lexington?
The majority feels._that more housing is needed in the $30,000 to
$60,000 pe range -- ------------- __
14
Yes No
2. Do you feel some multi=family 78% 22%
housing is an acceptable alter-
na3ve'"fo sirigre-family -housing
in Lexington?
3. Do you foresee a time when you
may e4 inanciall� unable_to
retain our present home in
Lexington because of:
Retirement 16 24
Decrease in income 14 19
Decrease in family 12 12
4. If you have young adults in your 2% 37%
family, are they able to find
housing in Lexington within (no answer - 61%)
their price range?
Most people felt that housing was needed in the $30 - 50,000 range.
5. If you qualify, would you con- 41% 33%
sider applying for some form of
low cost housing if it were (no answer - 26%)
available in Lexington?
6. Do you knowP a�nyo_ne _now livix.g ipl
Lexington who needs low cost housing? 57% 37%
(no answer - 26%)
7. Do you feel there is a need for 85% 9%
addittbnal" housing for elderly? (no answer - 6%)
8. Do you feel there is a need for 76% 24%
the concept of low-cost single-
fa omes scattere t rough-
out the—town (scattered site
housing program)?
9. Do you see detrimental effects 24% 74%
to the Town of Lexington caused
by the existing -low-cost -MO-rising (no answer - 2%)
developments"Cere interfaith &
St Brigid's)?
10. Would you favor modification 65% 33%
of town by=laws wh E1 wafTld
encourage private development (no answer - 2%)
to buil more moderate y-priced
housing units?
11 Would you object to low-cost 26% 70%
assisted housing in exi ton (no answer - 4%)
if the town re a ontrol?
15