Speakout
Man says zoning changes need to be made if plan for affordable housing is to succeed
Colin Balogh

Affordable housing should be a top priority in Massachusetts. The state is losing population and jobs to other areas of the country in part due to the high cost of housing. Those families less fortunate than the average (median household income of $55,939 based on 2000 Census data) are almost completely excluded from the housing market. Ashburnham like many towns outside of I-495 has an acute need for affordable housing. A main culprit driving up housing costs in Central Massachusetts has been restrictive zoning that requires large lot sizes.

Recently, the Ashburnham Affordable Housing Committee issued its Affordable Housing Plan. I have no doubt that many, if not all, of the members of the committee believe affordable housing production is a worthy goal. Unfortunately the plan falls far short of truly addressing how to increase the number of affordable housing units. Most of the suggestions would only add a few units without making significant progress toward achieving the approximately 200 units required under state law. (It should be noted that number was based on 2000 Census data and will in all likelihood increase significantly after the 2010 Census.) In addition, many of the proposals are predicated on the basis of government subsidies to developers in exchange for building affordable units. One major question in these days of constrained resources is where will the government come up with the funds for these programs? The public has little appetite for more taxes.

The single most effective way to create affordable housing without direct government subsidies is increasing the allowed development density. This was not directly discussed in the report. In fact, the primary purpose of the report, as highlighted in the public hearing and in the final presentation to the selectmen as reported in news articles, stressed the fact that submission of the plan is an element required to block "hostile" 40B developments that require an affordable housing component in exchange for allowing developers to build at a higher density than allowed under current zoning. Somehow there is a hope that every two or three years the town can approve a "friendly" 40B development to meet its affordable housing need.

A second significant shortcoming of the draft report is the lack of any discussion of multi-family rental housing zoning. Currently, there is no zoning in Ashburnham allowing any type of multi-family housing development by right. If you can not afford homeownership and want to live in Ashburnham, the rental housing stock is so small you're pretty much out of luck. The current plan does not address that issue at all.

The opposition to greater housing density is primarily based on the notion of not wanting to change the "character" of Ashburnham. Also fears of increasing numbers of school-aged children and hence higher property taxes, is another factor. Unfortunately, too often these fears are manifested as a no-growth attitude. Sometimes these no-growthers will masquerade as conservationists and smart-growth or affordable housing advocates. We've heard individuals in town meetings state that approving conservation measures were necessary to "keep out developers." While cluster zoning and other smart growth techniques help preserve open space, they do little to reduce land cost on a per-unit basis unless development densities are higher than currently allowed. Currently a buildable lot in Ashburnham costs about $80,000. There are some development savings to cluster zoning but they are minimal. The lack of significant proactive proposals in the housing plan leads me to surmise that the nogrowth forces have dominated the affordable housing committee.

As homeowners, most of us benefit from a no-growth attitude. By limiting the supply of housing, the value of our homes increases dramatically. That's just basic supply and demand. Very few of us complain about increased values, at least not until we receive the property tax bill. As a result, most of us may not see higher density development as in our best selfinterest. That, however, is a short-sighted view. If housing values continue increasing faster than incomes, even more jobs and people will leave this area. The good news is that at some point the economy will stagnate and housing values will stabilize or even fall. Of course the bad news is we may no longer have jobs, but that's a different issue.

Sometimes we have to look past our own immediate self-interests and advocate for what benefits society as a whole.