Broader effort on accessory dwelling units must serve people with disabilities, elderly
In an Aug. 14 op-ed about creating more housing, “One solution is in our own backyards,” Scott Bailey appears to refer to H.1296, which would make accessory dwelling units a by-right use under many circumstances if the purpose is to create housing for people with disabilities or the elderly. This bill was first introduced in the 2017-18 session and has gotten further in each successive session.
It was drafted not to limit the scope of ADUs but to address the housing crisis for adults with developmental disabilities. Autism Housing Pathways calculates that 625 to 650 adults per year with autism alone are likely to need affordable, supported housing beyond that provided through the Department of Developmental Services and MassHealth’s Adult Foster Care program.
As written, this bill would allow individuals to tap into supportive services and funding streams (such as Section 8 vouchers and the DDS shared-living program) that currently require an adult with a disability to live in a legal unit separate from family.
Furthermore, a more broadly written ADU bill, which Bailey advocates, would not necessarily solve the problem for this population. Any bill must permit up to two bedrooms in an ADU, as the currently proposed legislation does, or it will not meet the needs of those who need a live-in aide.
Catherine Boyle
Winchester
The writer is the president of Autism Housing Pathways.
Smaller housing can provide a wide variety of options
Scott Bailey was spot-on in his Aug. 14 op-ed to highlight how accessory dwelling units are one solution that municipalities and homeowners can explore to help solve the state’s housing crisis. ADUs are often called “gentle density” because they expand housing options incrementally and within the context of a neighborhood.
In our region’s suburbs, most homes are single-family, detached houses, and there is a lack of different types of housing. Smaller housing can provide options for a variety of households, from millennials just starting out to baby boomers looking to downsize, helping towns meet need, retain household diversity, and take a little step toward addressing the region’s housing crisis.
ADUs are just one example of small housing that can maintain compatibility with town character of suburban and rural communities in Greater Boston. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s Living Little project provides additional information on ADUs as well as cottage housing, tiny houses, townhouses, and small-scale mixed-use development, among others. A more diverse range of housing options would give those who serve their communities better opportunities to live where they work and help our region become more equitable, prosperous, and sustainable.
Andrea Harris-Long
Interim manager, housing division
Coordinator, technical assistance program
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Boston
Give residents of affordable housing a rent-to-own path
I have been pleased to read about all of the efforts to provide more affordable housing in Boston and area communities. However, there is an additional idea that could provide solutions to multiple problems that have persisted for decades.
I am suggesting that occupants of affordable housing units be given the chance to rent-to-own. Not only would people become more committed to their house or condo, but also that commitment would spread to the neighborhood and the wider community. Property ownership is one of the basic means of improving one’s life in a capitalist economy. The City of Boston is exploring just such a program.
Developing a rent-to-own option in Boston and elsewhere in Massachusetts would help provide housing and be a step toward reducing the glaring wealth gap in the state. Having equity in a house has always been a huge step to stabilize a family’s entry into the middle class and provide for future generations.
Donald J. Bermont
Concord
State needs to address flaws of MBTA Communities law
Re “Holden wants to hold the line on housing. It mustn’t win that fight,” Editorial, Aug. 10: I agree with the purpose of the state’s MBTA Communities law. We need to encourage more housing and create more affordable places to live if we’re going to grow economically and foster a diverse population. Building housing near public transit to reduce reliance on the automobile is a laudable goal.
However, my experience with the law as it applies to Stow indicates some flaws that need to be tweaked.
Stow is one of those 177 cities and towns that come under the requirement of building more housing because its border is within a mile of the commuter rail in Acton. The problem is there are no sidewalks to walk to the station. And if you try to drive to the station, which defeats one of the purposes of the law, the parking lot is usually full.
Moreover, the state initially required the town to construct about 700 new housing units. In a town of about 2,600 households, this would have been a massive increase that would have threatened its rural character. Fortunately, the state reduced the number to about 180 new units.
For the new law to work, there must be on-the-ground review to take into account realistic limitations; increases in small communities should be kept to a reasonable level; and the state needs to fix our systemic mass transit problems if it’s going to create incentives to increase its use.
Leonard Golder
Stow
The writer served for 15 years on the Stow Planning Board and was a Democratic candidate for Congress in 2018 in Massachusetts’ Third District.