AS MASSACHUSETTS CONTENDS with an enormous crisis of housing affordability and availability, building more homes to bring supply into alignment with demand is essential. Even when market conditions are good, this has been a challenge for the state, with housing starts lagging far behind what’s needed to support a growing population.  

But things are poised to get even more difficult. The number of housing units permitted has already fallen by nearly 30 percent over the past three years, and the housing construction pipeline could become even more constrained by Trump administration policies if tariffs on materials and reductions in the immigrant workforce drive construction costs even higher.  

Against that backdrop, it will become even more important to find ways to make more efficient use of the state’s existing housing stock. That’s where there’s a role for the Special Commission on Senior Housing, which was created by the Affordable Homes Act signed last year by Gov. Maura Healey.  

The commission held its first meeting in late March. As it works to recommend policies, programs, and investments to expand the supply of housing for seniors, devising strategies to help older adults move into smaller homes should also be high on the commission’s agenda.  

Effective downsizing strategies would give more seniors the chance to live in homes that are easier and less expensive to maintain, while freeing up larger homes for Millennials and Gen Z-ers stuck in one- and two-bedroom apartments. To be sure, not every senior will want to downsize. It is just as important therefore to put equal thought into approaches that help seniors who want to stay in larger homes plan for how to maintain them, both for their safety and well-being and so these homes can eventually be passed down to the next generation in relatively good repair. 

A comprehensive plan that gives seniors in larger homes a variety of options makes sense. But it can also be a fraught topic. Two decades ago, then-Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey drew blowback with the mere suggestion that helping “overhoused” seniors move to smaller quarters fit with Gov. Mitt Romney’s prudent approach to smart growth. 

At the time, it was dubbed “smart policy and bad politics,” but with the right approach it doesn’t have to present that challenging tradeoff.  

In hindsight, Kerry Healey was right to start this conversation more than 20 years ago. Census data reveal the extent to which this problem has magnified over the years by giving us a look at who has traditionally lived in the state’s family-sized homes across the generations.  

In 1980, only about one-third of older households (those headed by an adult who was 65 or older) occupied a home with three or more bedrooms; today, more than half of households headed by an adult age 65 or older still live in these family-sized homes.  

We might chalk this trend up to homes generally getting larger in recent decades. But the data show a striking pattern—younger households in Massachusetts are far less likely to occupy a family-sized home today than they were four decades ago.  

Over 70 percent of the 36-to-45-year-old cohort had a home with three or more bedrooms in 1980. Now the figure is down to around 60 percent for this age group. For 26-to-35-year-olds, there has been an 8 percentage point decline in family-sized home occupancy since 1980. Those in their prime childrearing age today live in three-bedroom homes at about the same rate as the 65+ cohort did four decades ago.  

To a degree, these patterns reflect recent generations delaying marriage, putting off having kids, and ultimately giving birth to fewer children. But those trends are endogenous to the housing market problem: The inability to afford housing is shaping household formation decisions and it is certainly changing the mix of family households in Massachusetts through migration.  

With school enrollments falling and workforce challenges looming, it is important to recognize that the largest share (26 percent) of family-sized homes in Massachusetts are now occupied by those in the 65 and over age bracket. If the same share of older Massachusetts residents were living in family-sized homes today as in 1980, Massachusetts would have an additional 142,000 properties with three or more bedrooms for young families to occupy on the market.  

Of course, this would mean more seniors living in existing smaller homes. But to put that number of family-sized homes in perspective, consider that the Healey administration has said 222,000 new housing units are needed over the next decade to stabilize the market and rein in costs.  

To be sure, many seniors are just fine with their larger homes, and no one should pressure these residents to make a change. But two decades after this issue was raised and briefly became the subject of public debate and scrutiny, anecdotal reports suggest many older adults want to downsize.  

The new commission can provide much needed leadership by helping us better understand the various obstacles faced by seniors who may wish to make a move. Maybe it’s moving costs, tax and estate planning concerns, or the idea of packing and setting up camp somewhere new is just too overwhelming. It could also be that they don’t want to leave friends and loved ones behind, and there is a lack of smaller housing units in their communities.  

A quick public opinion poll could give housing leaders a better handle on these issues and help guide policy recommendations. With limited resources and many challenges, data insight to make smarter decisions has become even more paramount as we work to tackle the state’s housing crisis on multiple fronts.   

Ben Forman is director and Elise Rapoza is senior research associate at the MassINC Policy Center.

The post Kerry Healey was right: We should discuss senior ‘overhousing’ appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

IN JANUARY, Boston planning officials unveiled a new zoning proposal for a large area of the city’s downtown, a proposal that would dramatically alter the size and scale of permissible buildings within one block of Boston Common and the Public Garden. Under this proposed new zoning, luxury residential towers as tall as 500 feet – or about 50 stories – would be allowed, as a matter “of right” with no city review of a blanket increase to that height.  

This proposal, dubbed PLANdowntown, would permit these towers in a large part of the historic area that fronts the Common called the Ladder Blocks, which are the seven short blocks that run between Washington and Tremont Streets facing the Common. This new tower zone would be extended to also include Park Plaza, an area that turns and runs further along the Common and Public Garden between Boylston and Stuart streets. 

Fortunately, Mayor Wu recently proposed a virtuous delay in this PLANdowntown process –welcome news as history has taught us that urban growth and change must not come at the expense of quality of life. Citizen groups anxiously await a more inclusive and thoughtful planning process as part of the mayor’s commitment, one that is hoped to begin in earnest in  April. 

The idea that 500-foot towers would be allowed in proximity to the city’s historic and iconic downtown parks has produced very significant public pushback because it would dramatically change the city’s scale and loom over existing parks and historic buildings. This would also give an immediate and irretrievable windfall benefit to developers without providing any well-defined public benefits. It would likely lead to building demolition throughout, and also upend the 30-year stability of the Park Plaza area that was previously established with very definite building parameters specifically designed to hold back this kind of out-of-scale development.  

The proposed rezoning in PLANdowntown suggests that we have not learned from a battle that played out 50 years ago, a showdown that offers some lessons in history that we’d do well to heed, rather than be doomed to repeat it. 

The dramatically greater density that would be allowed by the city’s January zoning plan is quite destructive because it makes the value of land higher than the value of the existing buildings upon it. This encourages existing owners to just sit on their properties without signing leases or making repairs as they wait and speculate on this new high-rise potential.  

The buildings impacted are irreplaceable parts of the downtown that Bostonian’s identify as part of our city. They include the Old Corner Book Store, the Boston Five Cents Savings Bank and the Jewelers’ Building, among many others, The proposed zoning changes are likely to encourage massive demolition (also reducing real estate taxes) with no incentive to repurpose existing structures even though they have significant structural, aesthetic, or historic value.  

The new PLANdowntown’s proposed zoning naively supposes that increased building densities and heights will cause responsible investment. It presumes that there is a public purpose justification in developing new luxury towers everywhere, while it virtually ignores the need for low- and middle-income housing. Furthermore, it does not directly drive the rehabilitation of existing structures; rather, it destabilizes land economics at the expense of lower existing buildings, including those constructed or restored in recent decades.  
 
The PLANdowntown zoning proposal and today’s negative public reaction to it is quite similar to the Park Plaza controversy of the 1970s. At the time, the Boston Redevelopment Authority proposed a similar radical increase in permitted density to heights of 450+ feet in the blocks between Boylston and Stuart streets, also adjacent to Boston Common and the Public Garden. 

The proposal then was justified by the BRA as a necessary “opportunity to jump-start” real estate development in an area that was in danger of being overtaken by crime in an expansion of that era’s Combat Zone. These are the same words we are hearing again today, arguments that have to do with crime and drug use in the area without a full consideration of the city that would be radically altered in its physical form.   

Citizens vigorously opposed that 1970 plan, and rallied to the cry that the towering, Manhattan-style buildings proposed would cause damaging shadow impacts to the use of Boston Common and the Public Garden, thus degrading the most loved parks in the city. Correctly anticipating the creation of an antiseptic, “Manhattanized” neighborhood with no connection to the historic nature of the area, community groups and park advocates generated dramatic and effective opposition.  

The Commonwealth then used a little-known state approval power to reject that BRA plan, in large part because the BRA had not prepared a proper environmental impact report on its proposal (notably, there is no such analysis in PLANdowntown today, either). The resulting impasse set the stage for a new plan to be developed, one prepared by working to find consensus with community members and the state, all in full compliance with Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act procedures. 

This subsequent Park Plaza planning successfully converted a very controversial BRA idea into a productive and sustainable neighborhood.  Height and density limits in the area were strictly controlled to make clear that there would be no exceptions in the form of zoning variances or other “spot zoning” dispensations, signaling that property owners should invest in compliance with expressed height limits.   

A law partially governing shadows upon the parks was also passed (though it has proven to be insufficient because of limitations in the seasonal periods it controls, and because it can and has been amended).  

The transformation that followed included: construction of the Massachusetts Transportation Building; development of the Four Seasons Hotel and Condominium, the Heritage on the Garden and One Charles condominiums; renovation of the Paine Furniture Building and Park Plaza Hotel; restoration of the Majestic and Colonial theaters, and the Little Building (the latter three by Emerson College); and revised and renewed urban infrastructure including improved streets and parks.  

Since that time, we have witnessed successful redevelopment elsewhere in this area of downtown: restoration and functional modernization of the Opera House, Paramount, and Modern theaters; construction of Millennium Tower, which preserved the historic Filene’s department store building; development of the mid-rise Millennium Place condominium; creation of the Godfrey Hotel from older office buildings; and modernization of the Parker House and nearby structures ringing downtown’s historic cemeteries.  

In addition, the conversion of older Ladder Blocks buildings into less expensive housing has begun at 44 Bromfield Street and on Hamilton Place, for student housing at 101 Tremont Street, and already completed affordable housing at the YMCA building on Boylston Street.  In each of these cases, careful planning was informed by an understanding of the inherent worth of many historic buildings and has resulted in increased economic value and tax revenues — all with strong public support.  

These outcomes were possible because there was a working process that recognized problems and solved for agreed upon outcomes. Planners combined policy goals in zoning with well identified public benefits. Contrast this with recent Boston Planning Department thinking that an autopilot, “as-of-right” zoning amendment in PLANdowntown would magically work by transferring valuable property rights (created by up-zoning) to private developers without any conditions other than the creation of luxury towers. 

There is hope that we will have learned from the Park Plaza saga, and I do have faith in the mayor’s proposed re-engagement in this PLANdowntown process. I also look forward to a concomitant reset of PLANdowntown, one that truly encourages rehabilitation of older buildings and their conversion to more affordable housing.  

Instead of high-rise luxury housing, we should aim for programs that transfer increases in value to historic buildings or to sites that can accommodate affordable housing in configurations that are less expensive to build.   

Downtown citizens believe that a well-run public process would lead to a consensus, one that unlocks the latent value in the historic Ladder Blocks through a deliberate incentivizing of building rehabilitation. It would include stabilization of the Ladder Blocks and Park Plaza with easily described and sensible zoning height limits; and could include a required coupling of the proposed new SKY-HIGH Financial District zoning (a new city proposed zone deeper within the Financial District) with funds for building conversion into more affordable housing inside the Ladder Blocks.  

Any plan would also logically call for state investment to upgrade the very center of the MBTA rapid transit system at Park Street, Downtown Crossing, Boylston, State, and Chinatown stations to support a growing downtown. 

This can all be accomplished by City Hall if it embarks upon a reciprocal, interactive process with the public, including residents, park and historic property advocates, landowners, and the state. Together we can identify a path forward that can build on models of past success, We all believe that the city we love can survive this moment of déjà vu all over again.  

Anthony Pangaro, a downtown Boston resident, is an architect and real estate developer whose projects included Millennium Place, Millennium Tower, and the restoration of the Filene’s building on Washington Street; the Four Seasons Hotel and Condominium and One Charles Condominium at Park Plaza; and restoration of the Paine Furniture Building on Arlington Street. His firm, Millennium Partners, also played an important role in preserving the Opera House and Paramount theaters. He is part of a coalition of 15 neighborhood organizations that are seeking input in the revised PLANdowntown zoning proposal now being developed. 

The post In downtown Boston rezoning, let’s not repeat mistakes of the past appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

A FEDERAL JUDGE in Massachusetts has ordered roughly $30 million in grants that were stripped midstream from fair housing organizations reinstated, after organizations including a Holyoke-based center sued the Trump administration demanding the return of their grant funding. 

On February 27, organizations received notifications that 78 Fair Housing Initiatives Program grants were being cut off. The rationale at the time was simply that each grant “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.”  

Four nonprofits, tasked with the day-to-day work of upholding the 1968 Fair Housing Act prohibiting discrimination in home sales and rentals, argued that the US Department of Housing and Urban Development illegally slashed tens of millions of dollars in congressionally approved funding. The cuts, they said, struck a devastating blow at their efforts to investigate housing discrimination and educate members of the public about their rights, which depends on federal and state funding supporting those efforts. 

US District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns ruled on Wednesday that HUD must reinstate any fair housing funding that was cut and barred the department from terminating the grants. The decision, he wrote, rests in part on a recent First Circuit Appeals Court rejection of every objection raised by the government in a similar case regarding Department of Education funding. 

As these HUD funds are congressionally allocated – and have been appropriated by lawmakers for decades since the Reagan administration – the department is limited to only terminating HUD grants if Congress approves or if cuts are done in a way that’s consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, relevant regulations, grant terms and conditions, and the judge’s order. 

Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance, applauded the ruling in a statement. 

“Fair housing organizations are on the front lines of efforts to combat housing discrimination through enforcement of the Fair Housing Act,” she wrote. “Without their efforts, survivors of sexual harassment in housing; veterans with disabilities requiring accessible housing; and people of color seeking to buy a home free of racial harassment, and families with children would have no protection or anywhere to turn to uphold the law. The Trump Administration’s abrupt elimination of funding threatens drastic consequences for more than 75 fair housing groups around the country and creates fear, chaos, insecurity, and dysfunction in an already fragile housing market.” 

Initial explanations in the termination letter offered few clues to the underlying reason for cutting these 78 grants. The Holyoke-based Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, which is one of four Bay State organizations that works to enforce the state’s expansive fair housing laws along with federal laws, was the only local group to have a contract targeted midstream.  

Over that one February night, executive director Maureen St. Cyr said, they lost half of their annual budget when the remainder of a $1.3 million HUD grant was terminated. 

The suit initially sought an injunction against HUD and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been tasked with identifying areas of “wasteful” spending, to stop the cuts.  

But after the government’s response, in which HUD Deputy Secretary Matthew Ammon said DOGE had no power to make the cuts but agreed with its assessment and “adopted their reasoning as my own” in slashing the funds, the housing groups adjusted their strategy to seek an injunction only against HUD. They are planning to pursue a separate suit against DOGE acting beyond its legal authority to interfere with the grants. 

The grants were targeted, according to a filing from Massachusetts US Attorney Leah Foley, after DOGE determined they were “incompatible” with recent executive orders because they “include language that specifically imposes subjects such as ‘DEI.’” Foley also charged that the grants authorized funds for “training, enforcement, and other related activities in a manner for activities beyond the scope of the statutorily enumerated protections of the Fair Housing Act and other Civil Rights laws.”  

 The January executive order Foley cited refers to “illegal DEI and DEIA policies,” which it defines as “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences.” 

But the Fair Housing Act itself prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and sex, including giving preferences on those bases, the housing group filing argued. “It is thus unclear,” the group wrote, “and the declaration does not explain, how the grants, which were made to further the non-discrimination purposes of the FHA, in fact promoted illegal race- and sex-based preferences.” 

In objecting to the lawsuit, the government argued that the Massachusetts federal court had no jurisdiction to force HUD to pay out money due under a contract, based on previous court rulings. The government also argued that awarding the grants is up to the agency’s discretion and that instating a temporary restraining order would be inappropriate in part because it could not recoup the funds if it ends up winning in the end. 

In a brief hearing on Tuesday afternoon, Judge Stearns quickly dispensed with the issue. At this stage, he said, every objection to the injunction was already raised and dealt with in a recent First Circuit Court of Appeals decision involving the state of California. 

That case concerned a lawsuit brought to halt over $600 million in federal cuts to the US Department of Education on an anti-DEI basis. The termination letters sent to over 109 programs canceled grants midstream because they were no longer “consistent with” or no longer “effectuate department priorities,” but do not specify why. 

The appeals court rejected a motion to halt a lower court’s temporary restraining order on the grant fund cuts while the government appealed. The essence of the issue was not contractual, the court said, but rather that the government violated federal administrative procedure law. The housing groups similarly argued that the HUD cuts were arbitrary in a way that violated administrative procedure. 

The states that sued over education cuts were not seeking compensation, the First Circuit court wrote, but the release of already appropriated funds. Agencies also aren’t able to operate in an entirely discretionary way, the appeals court concluded, because there are regulations limiting grant terminations. Because the Massachusetts district court is bound by the First Circuit ruling, and Stearns said he saw “no meaningful way to distinguish this case” from the education case, he allowed the housing groups’ injunction. 

 With a 14-day temporary restraining order in place, and while the federal government mulls next steps, HUD has been ordered to reinstate the grants and notify all of the affected organizations.

The post Judge orders HUD to release $30 million in grants to fair housing groups  appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

TALKS ARE UNDERWAY within state government about establishing a third long-term care home for veterans, Veterans Services Secretary Jon Santiago said Tuesday.

At a Joint Ways and Means Committee hearing in Worcester, the secretary described the next budget cycle as being about the “organizational maturation” of the Executive Office of Veterans Services.

The office became a Cabinet-level office two years ago after governance and operational shortcomings that proved fatal during the pandemic, particularly at the state-run veterans’ homes in Holyoke and Chelsea. He described how things are going at the new Chelsea facility that opened in 2023 and the work underway to prepare for the under-construction new Holyoke home.

Santiago also raised the subject of a $200 million bond authorization that the Legislature, where he served at the time, included in a 2021 law to address long-term care for veterans in other parts of the state.

“There was a $200 million bond bill put forward to look into a third home, right, to increase that geographic equity. That’s something that we’re in a conversation with [the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance], to look where across the Commonwealth we could potentially put a third home and what that would entail,” the secretary said.

The authorization to borrow up to $200 million in the 2021 law is specifically for “increasing geographic equity and accessibility related to the continuum of long-term care services for the Commonwealth’s veterans not primarily served by the Soldiers’ Home in Massachusetts located in the city of Chelsea or the Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke, including the establishment of regional or satellite veterans’ homes.”

The potential for a third state-run veterans’ home came up during a back-and-forth between Santiago and Rep. Russell Holmes of Boston, who asked the secretary about the diversity of the resident veterans served at the state-run facilities.

“It always feels like the Chelsea and the Holyoke homes feel like they’re local, they’re for local people. That’s just historically how they’ve felt; people in the west thought it was for them in the west, people in the east thought Chelsea was for the east. And as you grow from 117 beds, it sounds like, to 234 in Holyoke. And then as you now opened up Chelsea, do you have an answer on diversity of the residents who’s living there?” Holmes asked.

The representative said he was particularly interested in knowing how the state plans to make the additional beds that will come online in Holyoke available and what outreach will be done to make sure all veterans know their options.

“My understanding is, historically, it’s kind of been, you know, who you knew helped you get in. I hope we’re eliminating all of that as a part of this new process,” Holmes said.

Santiago said he “completely agree[s]” with Holmes about the way the Chelsea and Holyoke homes have been viewed. He said the “vast majority of residents there are white male” and told Holmes that while the “current mechanism is a ‘first come, first served’ ” method of accepting new veterans to the homes, it’s something he wants to look at it as part of a 2030 strategic plan.

“Part of that is looking into how we make sure veterans who are underserved, irrespective of their race, maybe, or their gender, are cared to. We have 25,000 women veterans across the commonwealth. Traditionally, they have not gotten the services, respect, that they have fought for and that they have earned,” he said. “And so we’ve changed our management, we’ve changed our programs and policies to better address that, and we look forward to doing it with the veterans of color as well.”

If the state is going to establish a third home, Rep. Kip Diggs of Barnstable said it should be on or near Cape Cod.

“We have 19,000 veterans on the Cape … and what’s important to me is if that third spot, maybe we can get it closer to the Cape. Because, honestly, it’s all about taking care of my area and making sure — you know, our veterans have done so much and asked for so little,” he said. “So I think it’s something that’s just so poignant and so necessary that we bring something down towards the southern part of Mass.”

The secretary responded briefly to point out the “significant cost” that would be associated with any potential third facility. Others, including Sen. John Velis of Westfield, have previously mentioned that conversations about additional veterans facilities were taking place.

Lawmakers dug into a variety of topics with Santiago during their time for questions. Sen. Kelly Dooner of Taunton put a pitch in for finding a way to partner with a nonprofit to repurpose parts of Taunton State Hospital for veteran housing, Sen. Michael Brady of Brockton wanted to know about the impact so far and outlook for additional federal cuts at the VA, Rep. Judith Garcia asked about veteran needs that are not met through the state budget appropriation, and Sen. Ryan Fattman pressed officials on the need for better tracking of suicides among veterans here and especially among Mass. National Guard members.

Santiago said Healey’s budget proposes $206 million for his secretariat, $7.6 million more than the current state budget. He said the budget proposal includes an increase of $13.6 million to veterans benefits and annuities, as well as $80 million to support the state-run veterans homes in Chelsea and Holyoke.

“This overall allotment helps us maintain critical staffing, supports infrastructure improvements, allows us to operate and maintain our two veteran cemeteries in Winchendon and Agawam, and provides health care and supportive services to veterans at the long-term care and independent living facilities in Chelsea and Holyoke,” Santiago said. “We are particularly proud of the transformation happening at both veteran homes over the past two years. They both continue to show progress when it comes to modernization and quality of care, ensuring that Massachusetts veterans receive the highest standard of care.”

Chelsea Veterans Home Superintendent Christine Baldini told lawmakers that the implementation of electronic medical records was a “significant milestone” for her facility.

“This is transforming our health care operation. By replacing traditional paper records with a secure, integrated, digital platform, we have enhanced accuracy, reduced administrative burden and improved overall efficiency. Real-time access to resident information empowers the care team to make informed decisions more quickly, and fosters streamlined communication across all disciplines,” she said.

Holyoke Superintendent Michael Lazo said his team is preparing to expand into the new 234-bed facility the state broke ground on in August 2023. He told the Ways and Means Committee that the larger and modern facility “will require approximately 40% increase in workforce spending, both clinical and non-clinical roles.”

The post Mass. exploring possible third state-run veterans’ home appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

WHEN THE NONDESCRIPT email landed in Maureen St. Cyr’s inbox, she didn’t know it would be taking of more than half her housing nonprofit’s funding with it. 

Included was a simple letter attachment, immediately terminating $212,500 left in a congressionally-approved $425,000 federal grant that funded the Holyoke-based Massachusetts Fair Housing Center’s enforcement and outreach activities to address discriminatory housing practices. It also made it clear that the next year’s $425,000 grant was cut. Later in the day, a subcontracted education and outreach grant took another $19,000 off the table. 

It was February 27, and the fair housing nonprofit world was suddenly in triage mode. 

“The amount that we lost overnight was 52 percent of our annual budget,” said St. Cyr, executive director of the Holyoke nonprofit, focused but harried after almost a month of scrambling. “So we’ve had to take some pretty drastic immediate steps to ensure the continuation of service for our current clients, including closing our new intake so that new people who are reaching out to us for legal assistance or advice know we aren’t able to serve them at this time.” 

The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, directed its slash-and-burn approach toward the federal Department Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in February, terminating at least 78 grants across 66 institutions in 33 states, amounting to tens of millions of dollars according to court filings. 

A termination notice sent to each program cut the grants off immediately and midstream, at the direction of the president and DOGE – the brainchild of Elon Musk, the world’s richest man.  

The groups targeted were nonprofit fair housing organizations, the “backbone” of anti-discrimination Fair Housing Law enforcement within their regions, according to a class action lawsuit brought by groups in Massachusetts, Ohio, Idaho, and Texas. These organizations offer services like eviction defense, housing search assistance, systemic investigations of housing discrimination, and education and outreach about fair housing rights and obligations. 

Pulling grants out from under them, they say, will be devastating.  

“These awards are necessary to keep employees paid and clients served,” the group wrote in its emergency motion. Often, they wrote, the awards “are needed to quite literally keep the lights on.” 

The rationale for the cuts offered in each case? Only that the grant “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.” 

In a press release one week before the termination letters arrived, HUD Secretary Scott Turner said the agency was reviewing $260 million in contracts and has slashed $4 million in contracts promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. “DEI is dead at HUD,” wrote Turner, the president’s lone Black cabinet pick and executive director of the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council during the last Trump administration. 

The Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, the Intermountain Fair Housing Council in Idaho, the San Antonio Fair Housing Council in Texas, and the Housing Research & Advocacy Center in Ohio, are all suing HUD and DOGE. They are seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the grant cuts. 

A hearing is scheduled for the afternoon of March 25 in federal court in Massachusetts to hear arguments to certify the class of plaintiffs – the impacted fair housing groups – and the temporary restraining order. The government has until the close of business Friday to submit any opposition, according to the court calendar. 

The Fair Housing Initiatives Program was initially a Reagan-era pilot that has since become a core funding source for the many nonprofits that make sure the 1968 Fair Housing Act’s purposes are fulfilled. 

The program offers an array of funding options, including grants to investigate and enforce the Fair Housing Act, to carry out education and outreach activities, and to develop new fair housing enforcement organizations and develop or expand existing organizations. While the Massachusetts attorney general’s office and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination enforce state anti-discrimination law, which covers even more protected classes than the federal Fair Housing Act, it is the nonprofit system that bears the day-to-day weight of ensuring fair housing practices. 

Writing in support of the group’s class action and temporary restraining order motion, Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance nonprofit, explained that the funding program, “like the Fair Housing Act itself, represents a congressional response to and remedy for the many years during which the federal government itself engaged in discriminatory practices that denied people fair housing opportunities and contributed to the residential segregation that remains prevalent today.” 

HUD has awarded more than $30 million in Fair Housing Initiatives Program grants in each of the last two fiscal years, Rice wrote. The affected groups reported 37 education and outreach grants cut, all for $75,000 or $125,000 annually; seven organization expansion or formation grants cut, all for $260,000; and 34 of the investigation and enforcement grants cut, all for $425,000 annually except for the National Fair Housing Alliance award, which was $400,000. 

If these abrupt terminations are not halted, Rice wrote, it will do “immediate, devastating, and irreparable harm to each and every one of the entities in question.”  

Organizations in Massachusetts are either directly reeling from cuts or fearing future plug-pulling. The Fair Housing Alliance of Massachusetts includes Community Legal Aid, Suffolk University’s Housing Discrimination Testing Project, SouthCoast Fair Housing Center, and the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center.  

The Massachusetts Fair Housing Center has been in its Holyoke building for over 30 years, St. Cyr said, but they will need to move to fully remote work without funding to cover the lease. They immediately reduced new programming, stopped their lead paint testing, and cut off an investigation into potentially discriminatory eviction screening policies in the region. Even after cutting off all expenses that are not “absolutely necessary,” the center will still face a $186,000 deficit, St. Cyr wrote in her filing, requiring half the staff to be slashed. 

They will not be able to keep up with their current caseload of over 50 clients in direct advocacy, which includes taking about five new cases per week, let alone their usual work in community outreach. The Holyoke center’s grants have been pulled entirely, but the Suffolk University center is between grants with two grant applications stalled and their future sustainability in limbo. 

“I think if we, as a state, lose two of the four agencies that provide this important work in the middle of a housing crisis, that will have an impact on our ability to address this housing crisis as a state,” St. Cyr said. She emphasized repeatedly that Massachusetts has been committed to fair housing goals and should step in to fill some of the funding gaps if at all feasible. 

The recent state Affordable Homes Act, passed last year with the possibility of a second Trump administration looming but no specific sign that these cuts were on the table, featured anti-discrimination housing priorities including a new Office of Fair Housing. 

Whitney Demetrius, previously the director of fair housing and municipal engagement at Citizens’ Housing & Planning Association, this month took on the role as head of the new state fair housing office.  

“Our office is keenly aware of what’s happening in terms of the uncertainty, and really trying to think strategically and creatively around prioritizing funding needs, identifying what those key priorities are, and how we support organizations who are doing this great work on the ground,” Demetrius said. 

The office will coordinate with regional fair housing organizations and state agencies to create policies to support fair housing law and combat housing discrimination. It will also oversee a fair housing trust fund, with money directed by the Legislature and other grants or private contributions, to support eliminating housing discrimination. 

“We’re thinking about this as a holistic approach,” Demetrius said. “What do we stand to lose if these organizations can’t continue to do their work? Because residents are affected right now, especially where those organizations are turning folks away. They’re not taking on new intakes, they’re not doing additional trainings. That affects and hurts Massachusetts residents in a tangible way.” 

Just two months into the new Trump administration, Massachusetts is working to chart a sustainable path through an environment now littered with federal funding threats. The fair housing organizations hope their work stays on the state’s priority list. 

“At the end of the day, we can build all the affordable housing that we want to,” St. Cyr said. “We can give out all the housing vouchers that we want to. But if people can’t use that voucher because of discrimination, and if people can’t access an apartment because of discrimination, we haven’t solved the problem. And so we’re hoping that that the important piece that we fill in this puzzle of ensuring access to housing opportunity in Massachusetts does not fall to the wayside in this calculation.” 

The post Anti-discrimination housing orgs sue to ‘quite literally keep the lights on’ appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

INTERSTATE 495 cuts through a wide swath of Massachusetts, starting close to the New Hampshire border, swinging west out to Hopkinton, then turning east near the Rhode Island border as it heads towards Cape Cod, stopping in Wareham. 

State Rep. Jim Arciero knows the roadway well, since it cuts right through his House district, which includes the towns of Chelmsford, Littleton, and Westford, where he lives, just southwest of Lowell. 

He used it to travel the state when he was the House chair of the Housing Committee. First appointed in February 2021, he was a newcomer to the issue and undertook a listening tour. “We started from Hyannis to Pittsfield, and essentially learned more about the housing crisis,” he said. 

Four years later, he plans to do it all over again, this time with transportation as the topic. House Speaker Ron Mariano last week announced the committee chairs for the 2025-2026 legislative session, placing Arciero as the House chairman of the Transportation Committee. (On the Senate side, President Karen Spilka kept Lynn’s Brendan Crighton as the committee co-chair.) 

Asked about priorities, Arciero stayed away from specifics and indicated he wants to listen to what residents and longtime players in transportation have to say. 

His colleagues say Arciero is a pragmatist who’s willing to listen, while Beacon Hill observers note that he was already a key player in the Legislature who helped shepherd Gov. Maura Healey’s multibillion housing bill to her desk. The bill carried billions of dollars in spending authorizations and incentives to boost building construction, invested in the state’s public housing system, and eased regulations for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also known as granny flats. 

He now takes over the House side of the Transportation Committee as policymakers weigh the future of transportation in Massachusetts. The issues range from massive projects to replace roads and bridges to pulling the MBTA away from the fiscal brink as it struggles to get back on track after the pandemic. 

Bill Straus, the previous House transportation chair, said Arciero is well-suited to the job since the issue of housing is just as complicated, if not more so, than transportation. Both jobs come with a mix of municipal-level interests, other lawmakers and advocacy groups pressing their particular causes, and a broad public interest in the topic. 

Straus, who represented the South Coast community of Mattapoisett, opted against running for reelection last year, retiring after 32 years on Beacon Hill and 11 years as the House chair of the Transportation Committee. 

Arciero faces a bigger challenge than Straus did as chair given to the upheaval in Washington, DC. The federal government has often partnered with Massachusetts on large projects, pledging big pots of money for everything from the Green Line extension that opened two years ago to the upcoming overhauls of the Cape Cod bridges. But in February, the Trump administration released a memo calling for directing transportation funding in a way that gives “preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average.”   

 “It’s now an open question about what’s the relationship going forward with the federal government,” Straus said. 

Arciero’s appointment comes as legislators are sizing up Healey’s transportation plan, which involves using revenue from the millionaires tax to spend $8 billion over the next 10 years. The plan calls for $687 million for MBTA operations, $110 million for the regional transit authorities that some residents in Arciero’s area rely on, and $2.5 billion for road and bridge repairs, among other items on the state’s transportation punch list. 

Arciero, a former state Senate aide and a Democrat first elected in 2008, ran unopposed last election cycle. He has only occasionally faced Republican challengers over the last decade. As a lawmaker, he has largely voted with his fellow Democrats and rarely bucked legislative leaders.   

State Sen. Lydia Edwards, who co-chaired the Housing Committee with Arciero during the last legislative session, said he will bring a perspective to the transportation committee that is different from Boston-centric lawmakers such as herself, a fact echoed by Straus. “I would say to transportation advocates, consider his fresh perspective to be a good thing,” she said. 

Brian Kane, the executive director of the MBTA Advisory Board, a transit-oriented watchdog, said he hopes the transportation committee continues its oversight role that started during Gov. Charlie Baker’s administration, and considers whether there should be a new independent state entity to keep close tabs on the MBTA. 

The committee should also look at the structure of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), which Kane called a “disjointed” set of agencies. Different payment systems exist across transportation modes. He noted, for example, CharlieCards, which are used to get on MBTA trains, are not available at Registry of Motor Vehicles locations. 

“We still have pieces of ceiling falling from tunnels in Boston,” he added, referring to chunks of concrete falling onto the Massachusetts Turnpike under the Prudential tower in late February. MassDOT officials said after inspections that the tunnel is safe and blamed the weather, the recent freezing and thawing cycles having led to the loose concrete. 

Along with a major highway in his House district, Arciero also has two MBTA commuter rail stations, in Chelmsford and Littleton. As a result, all three communities in his district also fall under the controversial MBTA Communities law, which calls for cities and towns to ease zoning regulations for multifamily housing close to public transit. 

The 2021 law, which sits at the intersection of both housing and transportation, has drawn challenges from some towns opposed to the state mandate. Middleborough and Marshfield officials filed lawsuits, sparked by Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s determination that the MBTA Communities Act is an “unfunded mandate” from the state. Officials in Wrentham are also weighing legal action. 

Arciero disagreed with the determination. He noted that state officials have provided 125 MBTA communities with more than $7 million in grants or assistance to help draft the zoning changes. “I don’t see a tremendous cost on the communities,” Arciero said. 

Jennifer Smith contributed to this report.

The post Meet Beacon Hill’s new top House lawmaker on transportation  appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

A DETERMINATION FROM the state auditor’s office that the MBTA Communities housing law is an “unfunded mandate” dropped like a grenade into the controversy over the rezoning requirements for municipalities served by mass transit. It sent some towns scrambling to figure out next steps and others straight for the courthouse. 

Days after State Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s office issued its determination, the Wrentham select board was already gearing up for a fight.  

Last year, the 12,000-person town, at Town Meeting, shot down a zoning proposal to comply with the multi-family housing law while it waited for the state’s high court to rule on the constitutionality of the legislation. Select board members urged voters to vote against the proposal while it awaited information from the state auditor on the cost of compliance and whether or not the law was an unfunded legislative mandate. 

Under the MBTA Communities Act, Wrentham is obligated to zone for a potential 750 new multi-family units. But researchers examining the law and others like it around the country caution only about 5 to 10 percent of rezoned lots usually change ownership – and therefore could be built with more units on the same parcel of land – in a decade. 

Last Tuesday evening, members of the board sounded notes of vindication. 

“I never thought we should be an early adopter on this,” Wrentham vice-chair Chris Gallo said in a special board meeting. The board should continue to have “a steady hand, not be intimidated by threats or any other nonsense or a tiny, little, small majority of mouth pieces in our community that don’t know the facts,” he said. “As I’ve said before, asking us to vote this in without knowing the price tag is ridiculously irresponsible, and anyone who wanted us to do that, I think, should be ashamed of themselves.” 

The board, which is scheduled to continue its discussion at its regular meeting on March 4, is weighing whether it should go to court to request a delay in compliance until legislators appropriately fund the housing law.  

Members openly mulled whether they should pursue a class action suit with other recalcitrant towns, go it alone, or wait to see if the auditor’s office and the state attorney general, who has been defending the law, will fight it out before Wrentham’s summer deadline to rezone. 

Just three paragraphs added to a sweeping 2021 economic development bill, the housing law requires 177 cities and towns served by the MBTA system to zone for a multi-family district of reasonable size near transit.  

All but six of the MBTA Communities are already on board, technically. Almost 120 have either had plans approved or are under review, and 53 have a preliminary action plan approved but have yet to complete the rezoning process. As a precaution while awaiting the auditor’s response, Wrentham is one of the 53 communities to submit a plan that would put it on a path to compliance by a February 13 deadline.  

But Middleborough on Friday took the question to the courts.  

The town of about 24,000 residents is one of six municipalities to ignore the mid-February deadline, established under emergency regulations earlier this year. It is now suing Gov. Maura Healey, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,  and the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, arguing that although its existing zoning is not in line with the law’s requirements, it should be considered compliant for its prior rezoning efforts. 

“For generations, Middleborough’s leaders have been thoughtful, responsible stewards of its future. While many towns have fought growth, we’ve embraced it and are a stronger community because of it,” said Town Manager Jay McGrail in a statement. “The one-size-fits-all interpretation of the MBTA Communities Act is unreasonable and is not what the Legislature intended. What we’ve done in Middleborough should be modeled and celebrated, not punished.” 

Wrentham town counsel Jay Talerman – of the law firm Mead, Talerman & Costa that represents 33 municipalities, some also mulling legal action – told the Select Board that the Supreme Judicial Court decision was a “mixed bag” and, in his opinion, far from a clear win for the state.

But a few things are certain: the law is constitutional, enforceable by the attorney general, and mandatory, he said. 

Yet, in declaring the law a mandate, the court also opened up a narrow line of resistance for the 30-some communities that chose to miss their rezoning deadline while the court deliberated. Communities including Wrentham, Middleborough, and Methuen reached out to the auditor’s Division of Local Mandates last year, asking for a determination on whether there should be funding to help implement the required rezoning. 

State law declares that legislation that imposes any direct service or cost obligation on a municipality beyond “incidental local administration expenses” must be either accepted by the city or town, or it must be covered by a funding appropriation. 

The auditor’s office looked specifically at the MBTA Communities law itself, concluding that it does not lay out funding for compliance. 

DiZoglio, in an interview with GBH News’ Jim Braude and Margery Eagan on Wednesday, noted that she lives in an MBTA Communities zoned neighborhood in Methuen.

“We are on the same side of the MBTA Communities Act issue,” the former state representative and senator told a radio caller who expressed disappointment with the unfunded mandate conclusion. “I voted for it. I strongly supported it. I still support it.”

Despite a somewhat testy back-and-forth with Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office, which has vigorously defended the housing law and released a statement Friday calling DiZoglio’s determination “an incorrect legal assessment,” both the auditor and the AG agree that the law remains in force. 

“The attorney general is right that this does not have an impact on the law or whether or not any community has to follow it. That’s been decided,” DiZoglio said on the radio. If anything, the unfunded mandate determination letter was an “FYI,” she said, adding it’s actually “a pretty easy fix on the funding component.” 

Grant funding already exists through the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, DiZoglio noted. Gov. Maura Healey announced a three-year, $15 million MBTA Communities Catalyst Fund in October, which will typically fund projects with grant requests between $250,000 and $1 million. 

A spokesperson from the housing office said the state has provided the 125 MBTA communities who have requested support with more than $7 million worth of grants and technical assistance to help local officials draft their districts. Technical assistance, according to the office, includes regional planning authority staff support or design and planning consultants who work with the towns at no cost. 

The housing office spokesperson said every community that requested technical assistance, including Wrentham, has been provided with support. The housing office did not provide the details of Wrentham’s request and a full account of awarded state grants by press time. 

In its determination, the auditor’s office concluded that because the grants did not exist at the time of the MBTA Communities law creation and are an application-based model rather than a specific appropriation available to all communities, it technically doesn’t meet the funding requirements under the local mandate law. 

“I’m happy to help draft legislation,” DiZoglio said on GBH, “alongside of some of our reps and senators who have already agreed to file legislation to get this fixed pretty quickly to ensure that [funding] those costs are guaranteed.” 

There is still a chance for dispute over the extent of those costs. Talerman, the counsel for Wrentham, told Select Board meeting attendees that they could choose to wait until their new rezoning deadline in July to see if there is movement from the state. Or they could take the matter to court and petition for a delay. 

“If we sought an injunction, it wouldn’t be for the purposes of stopping the statute dead in its tracks or having it be ruled invalid,” Talerman said. “Rather, as the auditor has already said in their letter, the purpose of seeking an injunction against the Commonwealth would be to just preserve the status quo where it is right now: excuse us from compliance until such time as we know what that fiscal impact analysis says and what degree of funding is required to fund this particular mandate.” 

While larger cities and towns like Worcester have existing planning departments, many of the smaller MBTA Communities have minimal staff. Hence, the housing office and attorney general’s office providing assistance with drawing up new zoning. 

Some on the Wrentham Select Board suggested that the scale of rezoning could create costs beyond just the staff needed to draft and put forward a rezoning plan.  

Talerman said the funding formulas are complex and will likely take months for the auditor’s office to calculate. Along with potential impacts on schools, there could be impacts on police and fire department staffing or water and sewer systems, Talerman suggested. 

The MBTA Communities regulations acknowledge that there may be downstream impacts of the rezoning, making reference to future funding needs. The auditor’s report notes that the regulations expect that any developers will propose projects that work within the existing constraints of town infrastructure, or else seek funding from local and state sources later if a specific project called for it.  

Proponents of the law note that the rezoning would also come with financial upsides down the line, such as increased property tax revenue. 

Other efforts to force the state into funding the rezoning process are playing out across Massachusetts. A group of 10 Rockport residents last year filed suit arguing that the housing law was an unfunded mandate and unconstitutional, which was rejected by an Essex County Superior Court judge in Lawrence. The residents did not have standing to sue, the judge ruled in dismissing the case without reaching the unfunded mandate question. An appeal was filed and the lead plaintiff wrote in a December letter that residents of other towns would be joining as a class action. 

After the announcement of Middleborough’s suit, Campbell said “it is regrettable that the Auditor’s incorrect legal assessment has spurred challenges to a law meant to address our housing crisis.” 

In a letter Tuesday afternoon, DiZoglio proposed potential legislative language and took a swipe at Campbell’s office.

“Attempts to scapegoat my office, by the Attorney General and others, for issues that have arisen due to the inadequate vetting of well-intentioned legislation and EOHLC’s failure to file the required fiscal impact statements – while mischaracterizing the Division of Local Mandates’ determination as being anything more than the fulfillment of its statutorily required duties to respond to municipalities who seek such determinations – are grossly out of line and incredibly disingenuous,” DiZoglio wrote.

It is the housing office’s responsibility, she said, to include a fiscal impact estimate of the legislation as part of the correct regulatory process. Only with that estimate, she said, can the auditor’s office make a full fiscal analysis determination for the towns like Wrentham that requested individual assessments. The housing office is currently reviewing public comments on a set of emergency regulations.

Middleborough, Milton, Middleton, Ipswich, Marshfield, and Halifax refused to meet the February interim compliance deadline. The affluent Boston suburb of Milton kicked off the winding court battle last year after it repealed by referendum its planning board’s attempt to comply with the new zoning law and is struggling to chart a path forward.  

Even towns that reluctantly started the rezoning process after the SJC ruling may or may not ultimately come into compliance by the summer. MBTA Communities holdout Holden agreed to submit a preliminary plan last week. Holden used state grant funding to contract with the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Council to help create a plan to propose at Town Meeting in May, the town manager told the Worcester Telegram.  

As members of the Wrentham Select Board signaled their intention to “fight the good fight” and argued that “for the government to be treating us this way is totally unfair,” Talerman offered a note of caution.  

“We’re not fighting old fights. We’re not opening old wounds,” he said. “We’re trying to preserve our rights as a community, as fully illustrated in the auditor’s letter, to do exactly what the state law allows us to do, nothing more, nothing less.” 

This story was updated on March 4, 12:35 p.m. with the most recent letter from the state auditor’s office.

The post Towns gear up after auditor declares MBTA Communities law an ‘unfunded mandate’ appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

THE PITCH FROM Hometap — a Boston-based home equity investment company — is simplicity, speed, and transparency. A homeowner applies, if approved, the company gives them a home equity “investment” of cash in exchange for a share of the home value, and the homeowner can use that money however they like. 

But Attorney General Andrea Campbell claims the deal is a poison pill. In a lawsuit filed February 19 in Suffolk County Superior Court, Campbell’s office alleges that Hometap engaged in unlawful and predatory practices that targeted financially vulnerable homeowners for profit. 

“In reality, this product is vastly more expensive than any common mortgage product on the market—and when consumers cannot pay, Hometap will sell their homes,” the complaint reads. “A significant portion of Hometap’s customers are at risk of losing their homes as a result of not being able to afford the repurchase payment when it comes due,” it further claims.  

Instead of cash-out refinancing, a home equity line of credit, or a traditional reverse mortgage, homeowners repay the home equity investment (HEI) money in its entirety plus some appreciation when they sell the house, refinance, or hit the end of the investment term.  In Hometap’s case, the term is 10 years. 

According to the attorney general, Hometap put consumers at an unreasonably high risk of foreclosure and financial harm by collecting unlawfully high interest when repayment comes around, making mortgage loans without adequate financial assessments or underwriting, offering illegal reverse mortgages that fail to comply with state consumer protection laws, and concealing the high cost and nature of the product. 

A spokesperson for Hometap said in a statement that it “firmly believes in the integrity of our products and the financial flexibility they provide to Massachusetts homeowners. We have pursued every possible avenue to engage in constructive dialogue with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. Unfortunately, those efforts have not been reciprocated, and we believe they are pursuing an unfounded lawsuit predicated on meritless claims.” 

The spokesperson declined to comment further. 

Home equity investments are a growing industry –– the first HEI company launched in 2006 with most competitors entering the mix in 2015 –– that can help homeowners bypass expensive mortgage rates.  

HEI companies say that home equity is an overlooked tool in financial security planning, and the mortgage market can be needlessly rigid. 

“Homeownership is unique in that the home typically serves two concurrent purposes: it’s a place to live, and it’s also the primary way many homeowners build wealth,” Shoji Ueki, chief growth officer at Point, a home equity investment firm, told Inman, a real estate trade publication, in December. “Whether someone is looking for extra cash to handle rising expenses or planning for long-term security, this equity can offer flexibility and peace of mind. So, instead of thinking of the home as just a place to live, consider it one of the most valuable tools in your retirement toolkit.” 

In announcing the suit, Campbell said the first-in-the-nation legal effort is not only aimed at Hometap but will “put other companies on notice that my office will continually seek to protect communities from predatory business practices.” 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau –– the imperiled federal agency launched in the wake of the 2008 Great Recession to shield consumers from unfair financial practices — has warned that home equity investments are far from a simple contract. 

Home equity contracts can be difficult to understand or compare to other options, the bureau concluded in an analysisis of HEIs in January. They are also expensive compared to other home-secured financing options, it found.  

Hometap joined the industry in 2018, a period of rapid growth for HEIs that would ramp up in 2023 when companies began pooling these contracts and selling them as securities to be traded in financial markets. 

The industry still accounts for a tiny share of loans homeowners take out against their home’s value. The four largest home equity contract companies securitized about 11,000 home equity contracts in the first 10 months of 2024, less than one percent of the 1.2 million home equity lines of credit issued over roughly the same period of time.  

According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, complaints from consumers “shows homeowners that felt frustrated or even misled about various aspects of home equity contracts — including confusion about the financing terms, surprise at the size of the repayment amounts, disputes about appraisal values, difficulty with refinancing due to the existence of the home equity contract, and frustration that they felt their only option to get out of the contract was to sell their home.”  

On the same day the complaint was filed, Hometap announced a partnership with Heading Home, the Boston area’s largest provider of services for homeless families with children, through its Up & Out program — an effort in which “volunteers purchase and assemble furniture, household goods, and essentials to transform empty apartments into welcoming homes.”  

In the February 19 press release, Hometap CEO Jeffrey Glass said the partnership is part of their “commitment to support housing stability across our community. By addressing housing challenges at every level, we can create stronger pathways to sustainable homeownership.”  

Campbell’s office argues that Hometap actually devalues homeowners’ equity. It claims a percentage of the value of the home when repayment comes, the AG’s office alleges, which is “far higher” than the percentage paid to the homeowner in the initial investment. The company often pays homeowners just half of the value of the equity it claims, the suit says. 

“Although styled as an ‘option’ and characterized by Hometap as an ‘investment,’” the complaint states, “in reality, the Hometap HEI is a loan. In particular, Hometap’s product is an unlawful reverse mortgage product.” 

Because of the danger of reverse mortgages, where the amount owed to the lender goes up over time unlike traditional mortgages, these products are federally restricted to individuals over the age of 62.  

In Massachusetts, reverse mortgage loans are limited to owner-occupiers over the age of 60 who must receive independent counseling regarding the risks of reverse mortgage loans, plus be given a seven day “cooling off period” to rescind the reverse mortgage loan after entering the contract. 

Hometap, the attorney general argues, is effectively skirting these requirements by classifying its product as an investment. The National Consumer Law Center, a nonprofit organization headquartered in Boston focused on issues affecting low-income consumers, described HEIs  as an “exploitation” of the country’s $35 trillion home equity market without the regulations directed at traditional mortgages or even reverse mortgages. 

“Whatever this product is called, it is a loan masquerading as obligation-free cash,” the consumer rights organization asserted, asserted, advocating for state regulations to address the risks. “The companies that market and sell them often use deception to lure financially struggling consumers into unconscionable, high-priced loans.” 

While Campbell’s suit is the first to target the HEI product as a deceptive and illegal reverse mortgage in court, other states, including Connecticut, Maryland, and Washington, have clarified in law or regulation that these are effectively loan programs. No current Massachusetts legislation attempts to tackle the question. 

The post AG Campbell sues Boston-based home equity investment firm Hometap   appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

AUDITOR DIANA DIZOGLIO determined the MBTA Communities Act is an “unfunded mandate” from the state, drawing a sharp rebuke from Attorney General Andrea Campbell, a top defender of the zoning law that eases regulations for multifamily housing in neighborhoods close to public transit.

DiZoglio’s office made the pronouncement in a letter to local officials in Wrentham, a town close to the Rhode Island border. The “unfunded mandate” determination came from the auditor’s Division of Local Mandates, which decides whether the Massachusetts state government has provided local governments with the funding required to implement a new law or regulation.

The move prompted Campbell to call the determination incorrect and declare that it carries no impact.

DiZoglio told CommonWealth Beacon she was “surprised and taken aback by the rather harsh response and believe it may be due to some misunderstandings as to what this determination means.” Her office isn’t challenging the MBTA Communities law but instead stating that it’s a mandate and the state is required to cover the costs of implementation, she added, noting that she voted for the law as a state legislator.

Housing advocates say the law is needed to increase supply and decrease costs as housing demand soars in Massachusetts. Gov. Maura Healey’s administration has said more than 220,000 housing units must be built in the coming decade to lower housing costs.

Officials in Milton challenged the MBTA Communities Act, arguing the attorney general could not force them to comply with the law. They lost in front of the Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that the law is constitutional and the attorney general has the power to enforce it. That is, as long as regulations are rolled out correctly.

Municipalities and advocacy groups have spent the last few weeks hustling to submit comments on a new version of MBTA Communities regulations before the public comment period closed on February 21. 

That same day, DiZoglio’s office sent its letter to Wrentham calling it an “unfunded mandate” for cities and towns. Officials in Wrentham, which in a December town meeting rejected complying with the law, asked DiZoglio’s office for the determination, as did local officials in Methuen and Middleborough.

DiZoglio’s office offered a note of caution, saying “this determination does not guarantee that a municipality will be reimbursed for expenses incurred in complying with the Act. Municipalities can either continue to comply with no guarantee of reimbursement for expenses incurred or … petition the Superior Court for an exemption from compliance until funding is provided.”

DiZoglio’s office said they needed more time to calculate a “thorough analysis” of the specific costs involved with the mandate. The office must review fiscal impact statements from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, among other data sources, the letter said. “Although the total fiscal impact of implementation cannot be determined without further data collection, it is apparent that, at a minimum direct costs exist in developing compliant zoning that amount to more than incidental local administration expenses,” the letter said.

Campbell hit back in a statement Monday. 

“High housing costs burden our residents and stifle our economy – and responsible zoning is the solution to this crisis, as most of our communities understand,” she said. “The Auditor’s claim that the MBTA Communities Law is an unfunded mandate is wrong, and, more importantly, this letter has no effect whatsoever on implementation of the Law. If those who oppose housing affordability try to make a similar claim in court, the state will vigorously defend the law, and we intend to be successful, as we have been so far.”

Through a public relations company, Wrentham officials said they’re reviewing DiZoglio’s letter with their legal counsel as they weigh next steps. The town’s select board is set to meet and discuss the letter at a meeting on Tuesday evening.

DiZoglio said that the law’s language should’ve included a provision for funding. She acknowledged the establishment of state grant programs to cover the cost of compliance set up in 2024, but based her office’s decision on the fact that did not happen at the same time as the establishment of the law, in January 2021, she said.

“I understand how important this issue is to our AG but think that this determination should have been discussed with our office, first, before threatening to battle municipalities in court so that we could’ve potentially alleviated some of the expressed concerns,” DiZoglio said.

Jennifer Smith contributed to this report.

The post A new wrinkle in MBTA Communities rebellion, courtesy of DiZoglio appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

WHEN ALISA MAGNOTTA first got her place in Orleans, she did what many a Cape Cod resident might do in the prime vacation months: put the house up for rent and camp out in her mother-in-law’s backyard.

It was more than two decades ago – years before Airbnb was even a twinkle in the eye of Silicon Valley roommates – and it was fairly normal practice for people on the Cape to hand off their homes to summer renters to help pay for expenses the rest of the year. Even nine-month rentals, where people used a house as a summer home but rented it out during the off-season, were common, Magnotta said, which ensured these small towns had a vibrancy and fairly steady population around the calendar year.

But, after the short-term rental industry and pandemic patterns reshaped seasonal communities like Orleans, Massachusetts is grappling with what it means for a state with a crippling housing crunch when about 110,000 units sit vacant at any given time because of part-time or seasonal use.

Some of that use is still in line with the long-term renting patterns of old, but state housing officials say seasonal community homeowners who may have previously made unoccupied units available for year-round rentals now lean toward short-term higher-revenue rentals. Plus the pandemic ushered in more wealthy vacation home buyers with no need to manage a tenant during off-seasons.

“It’s not that there’s a shortage of housing units, it’s a problem of how they’re used,” said Magnotta, still a year-round Orleans resident and CEO of the Housing Assistance Corporation, a non-profit focused on housing access on the Cape and Islands. Population dwindles in the off-season, but areas like the Cape are home to people throughout the year, and Magnotta says “a lot of housing is not being used in a way that makes sense for year-round communities.”

Gov. Maura Healey’s sweeping housing bond bill included several provisions that help or target this type of community, creating a seasonal communities designation and Seasonal Communities Advisory Council. Seasonal communities automatically include all municipalities in the counties of Nantucket and Dukes, including Martha’s Vineyard; plus municipalities with over 35 percent seasonal housing units in Barnstable County and more than 40 percent in Berkshire County. 

It’s something of a riff on the state’s Gateway Communities designation, said state Sen. Julian Cyr, who represents the Cape and Islands and championed the policy, in that municipalities with common histories and conundrums can get targeted policy and funding support. 

“It’s applying that framework to towns with high vacancy rates and fluctuating populations,” Cyr said of seasonal communities. In a state where many local initiatives need buy-in from an entire state Legislature, Cyr describes the seasonal communities program as crafting a “toolkit, so that towns do not have to go through the home rule process” if they want to start housing subsidy programs or impose deed restrictions that would require year-round rentals. 

Cyr, a Truro native who has watched his hometown dwindle to less than 2,000 year-round residents, describes the situation as a “real existential crisis for us. Our communities are eroding a heck of a lot faster because of the housing crisis than anything that’s happening with seas or climate change.”

Healey’s new statewide housing plan and needs assessment lays out the scale of the problem:  220,000 more units needed by 2035 to meet demand and get a handle on housing costs.

Massachusetts, which has the second highest cost of living in the country, is dealing with a mismatch between available units and demand. It needs new units to keep younger people from moving away, address existing overcrowding, and account for younger generations expanding their families. Older households dissolving, downsizing, or moving away will not happen fast enough to meet unit demand, the housing plan and needs assessment states. 

Meanwhile, a slew of units sits fallow. Between 2018 and 2022, there were about 258,000 vacant units at any point, the Massachusetts housing needs assessment estimates. But only 47,800 – less than one fifth of all vacant units – were available for sale or rent. Others were being held for seasonal use, had been rented or sold but not yet occupied, or were vacant for another reason.

This represents a 40 percent decline in available vacant units compared to the late 2000s, a period of time including the 2008 housing bust and subsequent Great Recession. 

According to the assessment, that means that only 1.6 percent of all homes in the state were available for sale or rent in 2022. A “healthy” vacancy rate is often considered to be roughly 2 percent for home ownership and 6 percent for rentals.

Some 118,000 units – 4 percent of the state’s housing stock – are reported as being used for “seasonal, recreational, or occasional use.” The housing assessment reports 110,000 of those units are vacant at any given time.

Cyr and Magnotta are quick to acknowledge that seasonality has always been a part of the Cape’s identity, but the rise of short-term rentals was a pivot point and the COVID-19 pandemic wave of wealthy vacation house buyers was another. 

“There was a real ability to wash ashore here and make a life, particularly on a remote place like Cape Cod,” said Cyr. He describes his parents leaving Connecticut in the 1970s, casting off to Provincetown to bartend and wait tables as older teens. “They were able to buy a house on the salary of a bartender and waiter and then opened a restaurant, and that was a common experience,” Cyr said. Now, “to be able to make that happen, you have to have a combination of wealth, backing, or incredible real estate acumen.”

On Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard, 60 percent of homes are used as seasonal residences or for short-term rentals, and on Cape Cod, it’s 36 percent. Though the Berkshires lag behind at 13 percent, residents can see the writing on the wall.

Looking at the Cape and Islands, “we’re heading in that direction,” said real estate agent Cameron Volastro, a native of the Berkshires who sits on the Community Development Corporation (CDC) of South Berkshire board and the seasonal communities council. 

The CDC works to provide low- to moderate-income rental apartments, while Volastro’s work at Stone House Properties often involves helping buyers find second homes in the area. It’s as expensive to build in the Berkshires as anywhere else in the state, so the region’s existing aging housing stock is the target for those who want to live there permanently or keep it on as a personal vacation escape.

“I see the value of the tourism driven to the area and of course I totally understand the attraction to the area,” said Volastro. “It’s the backbone of our local economy, so it brings some ups and downs.”

The ups are more property tax dollars, a busy tourism season, and theoretically an influx of new full and part-time residents. Those who want to rent their houses in the short-term, as Magnotta has in the past, can optimize their rental income by nights of highest demand rather than months.

The downs are system strain. Cape Cod, the Islands, and Western Massachusetts lost an estimated 9,000 year-round homes to seasonal conversion from 2010 to 2020. 

Since the start of the pandemic, many units were wholly taken off the market by buyers who would rather have a vacant vacation home than deal with a tenant. The year-round population is declining because of housing costs, leading to plummeting school enrollment. Seasonal and year round workers either cram into small units or have to commute each day due to lack of appropriate housing. Plus, the housing crunch means these small towns have issues attracting and retaining essential workers like public works employees, needed to upgrade utility systems to support larger and more elaborate homes.  

This has created a significant workforce and schooling crisis in many of the small towns, Cyr notes.

“It’s not the heartfelt cry of ‘We grew up here and have to live here,’” Magnotta said. “The reality is the town can’t function.”

There’s also the sense of uneasy stillness in the off-season. 

Cyr, speaking from his rented home in Provincetown, said Cape towns have seen a drop off in population after the brief flee-the-city boomlet of the pandemic. Now, with no neighbors on either side of him in mid-February, the senator said it’s “the quietest winter I can remember.”

The seasonal communities council, which first met last December, includes representatives from the Cape, Islands, and the Berkshires, who are tasked with providing advice and recommendations on policies or programs that could benefit seasonal communities. 

The advisory council in its initial meeting considered policies now available to seasonal communities, including adopting tiny home policies, encouraging more accessory dwelling unit construction, prioritizing municipal employees or artists for housing, and increasing the property tax exemption for full-time residents. Some part-time residents, the Cape Cod Times reports, also want a seat at the council table.

As the council deliberates, Cyr says to expect a return of the real estate transfer fee effort, which isolated and expensive areas say is essential to shore up workforce housing but skeptics say would only benefit wealthy communities because they are the ones with the expensive housing to leverage. 

For many seasonal community residents, single family homes on large lots are core to Cape, island, or mountain life. Housing advocates say they understand that, but the housing style is out of step with a changing reality that calls for strategic density. The regions are simultaneously tourist destinations and naturally occurring retirement communities, aging faster than the rest of the state with limited appetite for new housing even as demand grows and prices spike. 

“We’re not ‘build, baby, build,’” Magnotta said. “I live there. We have to be good stewards of where we live.” But just as Volastro looks at the Cape as a warning for the Berkshires, Magnotta looks at certain parts of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard, closed off to all but wealthy part-timers, and worries about the Cape following along. 

If a sea change doesn’t come, she said, “It’s going to be a museum.”

The post Vacation home trends add to Massachusetts housing crunch appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.