Erika Uyterhoeven's Housing Newsletter Opinion

A couple weeks ago, Erika published a newsletter about her views on housing:

https://www.electerika.com/newsletters/we-can-build-100000-permanently-affordable-homes/

Parts of it I found frustrating. To start it off she writes:

The Governor's housing plan sets a statewide target of adding 222,000 new homes to the market by 2035. And while it seems like a good thing at face value, this plan overwhelmingly favors market-rate housing (~$3,000-$3,400 per month for a one-bedroom in Medford), not affordable or public housing, at a rate of 2 to 1. I support building more housing, and I have fought for zoning reforms, the broker fee ban, and the tenant protections that make our communities more livable. But counting luxury units toward our housing goals won't help the educators, nurses, retirees, or the young families being priced out of our communities right now.

I agree with her that affordable/public housing is good, and that investing more public money to get more affordable units built would be a good idea. But market rate housing has to be part of the solution, and it is perfectly appropriate for us to be setting housing production goals. Instead of following the lead of Zoran Mamdani, she dismissess market rate housing as "luxury units" that "won't help the educators, nurses, retirees, or the young families being priced out of communities", and her entire post is framed as if market rate housing and affordable housing are in conflict. This is wrong headed for two reasons: first, market rate housing creates permanently affordable inclusionary units without any public money. For example, take the Cooper Mill proposal in Davis Square. Whatever you think of that proposal, that development if built would be extraordinary for affordable housing production:

It promises 126 new subsidized Affordable homes, 25% of all homes on the site. That is more than the 117 newly built Affordable homes that we have managed to build through non-profits in the last decade. That is 126 more families that can remain in Somerville instead of being pushed out.

The builders have indicated through their Mass Housing application that started the 40B process that they intend to use no public money.

And second, building more housing makes housing more affordable across the board. That's the clear consensus of the research, and it has clearly been the experience of Austin, Auckland New Zealand, Minneapolis, and lots of other places. The idea that building more market rate housing "won't help the educators, nurses, retirees, or the young families priced out of our communities right now" is just not in line with the evidence. She also opposed the construction of a new Tufts dorm steps from the Medford/Tufts green line station, for these reasons:

More than 120 neighbors organized to stop a 10-story dormitory that Tufts University forced onto their street. The mayor opposed it. The board voted no. That should have been the end of it, but the board was pressured to reverse its decision and approved it … because of a state law from the 1950s that says a university with a nearly $3 billion endowment doesn’t have to listen to the people who live next door,

I don't thinks she's a huge nimby, but I also don't think she's going to be a champion on this issue. If you care about housing affordability, I'd recommend that you follow the lead of Abundant Housing Massachusetts and vote for Burhan.

submitted by /u/GP83982
[link] [comments]