HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-01-HPB-email-affordable housing
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM
Subject: [lex-tmma] Affordable Housing - Questions 1-18
To: lex-tmma@yahoogroups.com
Questions continue to appear in my inbox— the most recent are starred (*) below.
I understand that pulling together an informational session about our current AH goals and practices will
warrant some work but someone has pointed out that “increasing public awareness through public
information and forums” is part of the Housing Partnership Board’s charge; perhaps they might serve as the
organizing body and welcome a ready audience.
Ellen McDonald, Pct 4
1. Now that we’ve reached the 10% state affordable housing goal, is there a new percentage that we’re
aiming for? Put differently, at what rate do we need to continue adding affordable housing in order to
maintain a satisfactory ratio?
2. What is Lexington's purpose in creating affordable housing? Helping those in need? Creating an
economically diverse population? Housing those populations not easily served by the private market? Are
there new mechanisms, apart from building new housing stock, which we might use to further these goals?
What are the relative costs of these alternatives?
3. How is town government supporting our AH aims? Are we creating ordinances and policies that preserve
existing housing affordable/diverse stock? Are we protecting citizens from land use patterns that are
creating an increasingly dense and urban landscape?
4. How do we prioritize core principles of open space, sustainability, historic preservation, accessibility,
safety/density, etc. with the goal of creating AH? How do we protect neighborhoods from surrounding uses
that might devalue property or adversely affect health and quality of life?
5. Since we now accept non-Lexington AH applicants, how are rebalancing the affordability index for
current residents with marginal economic viability against those outside Lexington in even greater distress?
In other words, are we taxing struggling households here in Lexington who may leave town so that we can
accommodate those living outside Lexington with greater needs?
6. Does the AH charge address housing for lower income seniors?
7. What is the value of the assets the town has currently invested in affordable housing (by whatever
accounting method we use)?
8. What have we spent annually (last 5 years or so) on all affordable housing initiatives, and what are our
future spending plans?
9. What is the contingency plan if we suddenly fall under the 40b threshold - either because the threshold is
raised, or because a large chunk of our stock suddenly becomes "un"affordable?
10. Our original (mid-1990s) AH guidelines were a) that AH be created through a variety of means, b) that
AH not be created such that it create an undue pressure or out-of-character neighborhood presence, and c)
that efforts be made to site AH on "arterial streets" with access to public transportation. What is our present
commitment to these original guidelines?
11. Construction of new housing on purchased open land is the most expensive means of creating AH units.
Has the town explored using a “reverse mortgage” mechanism instead? If possible, this would keep seniors
in their homes, preserve neighborhood character, increase town-owned AH stock, and cost less per unit.
[To better understand and prepare for the true costs of affordable housing beyond construction costs, the
following questions were submitted.]
12. What are the operating costs per unit of housing?
13. What is the per person cost in our operating budget to provide scholarships for program and services to
people using affordable housing?
14. Are there any other extraordinary costs of providing services to the residents of affordable housing paid
by taxpayers? If so, what are they?
*15. Lexington is not an "affordable" place to live even if your housing is affordable. What are we doing
about the conflict of helping people into town only for them to find it is so unaffordable in other aspects?
*16. What is the best mechanism for collaborative planning of multiple uses of land? For example, a prior
question asks about prioritizing uses/goals one over the other rather than also looking at ways individual
projects may serve multiple goals; in fact our formal public process seems to make it hard to have the
"what if"/imaginative, collaborative conversations it takes to explore collaboration. Process also makes it
hard for non-town entities to be included early in the process without an "invitation". Even town entities
need to be "invited" sometimes (eg, recreation needed to be invited into the Estabrook school planning
process).
*17 . What is the relationship between LexHab and the Housing Partnership and their respective strategies
and expertise for achieving affordable housing goals? Can it be made more collaborative and transparent to
the outsider?
*18. Can we have policies about multiple types of projects, instead of trying to fit one model onto all
opportunities? For example, dense cluster housing seems best suited and successful where there is available
public transportation and nearby services; scattered single family homes fit other opportunities. Do we have
a policy of taking the frontage of every open piece of land and putting housing at the street-side (for less
expensive utility hookups) at the expense of streetscape/landscape views for all?