Governor Deval Patrick put down a huge marker on housing last week. He said the state needs to build 10,000 new apartment and condominium units every year until the end of the decade, and he tied this mark to the state’s ability to sustain and grow its economy. Never mind the fact that the benchmark Patrick announced is enormously ambitious — according to the US Census Bureau, Massachusetts has only topped the 10,000 mark three times in the past three decades, and not once since 1987. If the state is going to ramp up new construction and ease the crippling housing-price spikes that drive workers out of state, it has to convince the cities and towns, which control the pace of new development, to actually believe in supply and demand.
Massachusetts struggles to turn the students it educates into workers and taxpayers because the state doesn’t have any power to dictate housing policy. Cities and towns, which control the pace of new construction, only permit new housing construction in fits and starts. As a result, during the last housing boom, prices jumped twice as much in Massachusetts as they did in the rest of the country. They’ve remained high in the bubble’s aftermath. Boston-area rents climbed steeply during the recent recession, and are now higher than they’ve ever been.
Comments
At least in Belmont, one problem that works against affordable housing is the high cost of running schools. 100 new students are viewed as a 1% increase in property taxes, and property taxes are regressive. Commercial development is viewed more favorably because it does not bring "costly" students. A reliable increase in local aid that kept up with the increases in teacher salaries (that grow faster than inflation, and they should -- Baumol's cost disease, another math problem) would help defuse this issue.
As I read it, the article isn't actually talking about increasing affordable housing (i.e. subsidized). It is simply suggesting allowing dense development of apartments/condos at market rate. I suspect that market rate one bedroom units are unlikely to have school aged children living in them. Even two bedroom market rate units are going to often be childless, so the concerns are moot. In my urban community, the local neighborhood groups (whose members consist of single family home owners or condo owners in smaller buildings (1-4 units)) always seem to be against the larger, denser development suggested in the article.
I recently thought I might move from the inner ring further out into the suburbs to save money on rent, but after a few craigslist searches I gave up--at most I could save about $200/month on my current rent by moving to Waltham or thereabouts, a sum I'd probably more than make up for in gas and transportation costs anyway. There's no logical sense to rents anymore-- one bedrooms are the same price as two bedrooms, shabby places are priced as if they're rennovated, apartments on bus lines or out on 128 are priced like they're on the T. Unless you are living in a very extravagent apartment, there's virutally no way to downsize around here. It completely defies the theory of relative prices. Plus, wages and salaries have fallen over the past few years, but rents in Boston actually increased during the recession--that should be a signal that there's something wrong here. In my zip code, the median rent on a one bedroom is $1350 (which seems low from my experience) and the median income is $64K--that's 47% of income BEFORE taxes.
If you think the rents are too high here, then check out what renters are paying in other large cities. Rents are high within the inner ring - but - move to the burbs and you commute. Then the question is what will your commute cost in travel costs and don't forget to add in your time. The only place you may find cheaper rent is Austria - but be prepared to live in a poorly maintained rent control dump.
Dense housing = dense population = dense traffic = traffic grid-lock.
So, where does the money come from to pay for a public transportation system?
The present system falls far below standard.
The Mayor thinks he can work from a hospital bed, Patrick needs to prepare for the next election. . . and the "new MBTA hire" doesn't appear to be too promising.
We could do a little better with the transit system we had if we reallocated as much road space as possible for use by not-cars. Give the busses their own lane, give them priority at intersections, let them cover more ground more quickly, and the same money put into transit will yield better results.
Or we could get serious about being friendly to bicycles -- I was lucky enough to get comfortable in traffic when I was young and stupid, and I can hack what Cambridge offers, but most people cannot. Traffic jams and parking are not things you worry much about if you ride a bike. I know, I know, crazy radical car-hater, what does he know, but you really ought to look at what goes into a traffic jam.