On October 18, the Healey Administration released their proposed housing bond bill, named the Affordable Homes Act. 

The bill includes $4 billion in capital spending authorizations, 28 policy changes or initiatives, three executive orders and two targeted tax credits focused on addressing the state’s worsening affordable housing crisis.

The $4 billion in capital spending authorizations includes $1.6 billion for public housing ($150 million of which would go toward decarbonization efforts). You can read an overview of the spending authorizations here, but below we want to focus on a few of the policy proposals that align with legislation we have been supporting. 

But first: what is a bond bill? A bond bill is legislation that authorizes the state to issue and sell bonds to fund capital projects and programs. The bond bill contains capital authorizations, which identify programs that can be funded through revenue raised through said bonds. Importantly, a bond bill only authorizes the spending; continued advocacy is necessary for the spending to become a reality afterwards. 

But back to the policy overview…

GOOD 

Creation of a five-year housing plan

The bill would require the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to prepare a statewide housing plan every 5 years, conducting regional outreach following robust data analysis. Having more intentionality around our housing needs is certainly important. 

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) As-Of-Right

Many cities and towns across the state have been fighting to pass zoning reforms to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) — small, independent residences built on the same lot as a single-family home — as a way to increase affordable housing stock. The bill would permit ADUs of <900 SF to be built by-right in single-family zoning districts in all communities–in other words, eliminating the need for special zoning ordinances by the city or town to permit them. 

The bill would prohibit owner occupancy requirements, which have worked against efforts to desegregate communities. Affordable rental stock is key to having a racially and economically diverse community. 

The bill also prohibits parking mandates to ADUs within ½ mile of transit, making them more affordable to build as parking spaces cost money and thus make housing less affordable. 

Inclusionary Zoning by Simple Majority

When Massachusetts recently updated the state’s zoning laws to allow cities and towns to approve certain new zoning ordinances by simple majority, this suite of reforms notably did not include inclusionary zoning ordinances, which would require developers to build a certain percentage of affordable units as a part of new construction. 

This bill would correct that omission and add inclusionary zoning ordinances and bylaws to the list of zoning changes municipalities can pass by a simple majority in the relevant legislative body (e.g., city council, town meeting).

Surplus Public Land Disposition Reforms

We need to build more housing and more affordable housing, and that requires land to build it on. The bill would help streamline the disposition of land under the control of a state agency or quasi for housing purposes. When the state owns the land, it can also lower the costs of building housing, making it easier to build affordable units. 

Establishing the Office of Fair Housing

The bill establishes an office within the  Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities with explicit focus on fair housing and establishes a trust fund for enforcement initiatives, fair housing testing, education, and outreach. Strong fair housing laws and enforcement ensure that people are not discriminated against in buying or renting a home for reasons of race, color, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, etc. 

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

Local Option Transfer Fee

Cities and towns across the state facing a dire lack of affordable housing have turned toward transfer fees as an option: by imposing a modest fee on high-end real estate transactions, cities and towns can raise money for their affordable housing trusts. Seventeen cities and towns have home rule petitions to do this before the State House, a sign of both the breadth of support as well as the limitations municipalities face in addressing the crisis on their own. 

The bill would allow municipalities and regional affordable housing commissions to adopt a transfer fee of 0.5% – 2.0%, paid by the seller, on the portion of sale proceeds over $1M or the county median home sales price, whichever is greater, with the revenue used for affordable housing development.

This proposal is great for Boston, whose transfer fee HRP would apply to property sales over $2 million (on their value over $2 million), but it would limit some of the other HRPs. 

For instance, Amherst is interested in a transfer fee, but the median home sale price in Hampshire County is only $427,500. Pushing the threshold up to $1 million would severely limit how much they could raise. 

And on Martha’s Vineyard, where all of the towns have been actively lobbying for their Home Rule Petitions given a dire housing crisis, this would push up their threshold to over $1.3 million, again limiting how much they could raise. 

Eviction Sealing

Having an eviction record is creating a devastating barrier for tenants looking for housing. Records are created as soon as a case is filed and are publicly available forever–– regardless of the outcome. These records impact people’s ability to obtain housing, credit, and employment, harming many and disproportionately impacting women and people of color. Regardless of whether one does anything wrong or is actually evicted, being party to an eviction or housing case is being unfairly held against tenants when they try to rent a new place.

There’s a clear solution to this problem: sealing eviction records, either immediately in cases of no-fault or for a defined period of time for other cases. 

The bill would provide a process for tenants to petition the court to seal an eviction record for (i) no-fault evictions: after conclusion of the case; (ii) solely non-payment evictions: no other eviction action within past 3 years and judgment for underlying eviction has been satisfied; and (iii) all other fault evictions: 7 years from conclusion of the matter and 3 years without any other eviction case filed against the tenant. It would also prohibit consumer reporting agencies from disclosing information in a sealed eviction record.

Although this is a step forward, we should not burden tenants with unnecessary bureaucratic steps to seal eviction records. Rather than enabling them to petition a court, the court should automatically seal records at the given benchmarks, as was the case in a prior iteration of the HOMES Act. 

What’s Next?

The bill will have a hearing with the Joint Housing Committee and possibly other committees, and given the history of past bond bills, it may not be finalized until the end of the session. But what that means is that your state legislators need to be hearing from you.