On August 1, or, in Massachusetts State House time “still July 31,” the House and Senate passed a final version of the Affordable Homes Act, which Governor Healey first introduced all the way back in October.
The vote was 128 to 24 in the House, with Democrats Colleen Garry (D-Dracut) and Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) voting no and Republicans Marcus Vaughn (R-Wrentham), David Vieira (R-Falmouth), and Steven Xiarhos (R-Yarmouth) voting yes. The Senate vote was 38 to 2, with Peter Durant (R-Spencer) and Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) voting no.
The Affordable Homes Act, also referred to as the housing bond bill, is a combination of bond authorizations and new housing policies.
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; it provides a menu, not a direct appropriation.
The final bill promises $5.16 billion in new investment in housing, but it is important to remember that this is not an exact budget appropriation. Indeed, Healey’s own capital spending plan dedicates only $2 billion for housing over the next five years, and $400 million in fiscal 2025. To be clear, this is a significant increase over recent years, but it indicates that all $5.16 billion in authorized expenditures are unlikely to be realized.
Among the bond authorizations, there were many important items, such as:
- $2 billion authorization for public housing
- $150 million for public housing decarbonization and $275 million for sustainable and green housing initiatives
- $10 million authorization for a fund to help nonprofits acquire existing, non-subsidized housing units and keep them affordable for at least 30 years, protecting them from the speculative market
So next: what policies got included?
The final bill included such new policies as the following:
- Legalizing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right (Governor’s, House, & Senate bills): The bill requires cities and towns to adopt by-right permitting in single-family zoned districts, caps parking mandates at 1 spot per unit for ADUs further than ½ mile from public transit, and bans owner occupancy requirements. Many cities and towns across the state have been fighting to pass zoning reforms to allow such ADUs (that is, small, independent residences built on the same lot as a single-family home) as a way to increase housing stock.
- Eviction record sealing protections (Governor’s & Senate bills): The bill prohibits a consumer reporting agency from including in any report a sealed eviction record, and it gives tenants the ability to petition to seal eviction records in no-fault, non-payment, and fault cases over set time periods and the ability to seal any case that is dismissed or results in a final judgment in favor of the defendant. Unfortunately, none of this record sealing will be automatic; tenants will have to petition the court to get records sealed. Nonetheless, this is an important step because having an eviction record can create a devastating barrier for tenants looking for housing and these records impact people’s ability to obtain housing, credit, and employment, harming many and disproportionately impacting women and people of color.
- Foreclosure Prevention Pilot Program (Senate bill): The bill creates a pilot foreclosure prevention program in 5 communities with the highest foreclosure rates statewide. The program would allow homeowners facing foreclosure to request a mediation with their lender, together with a neutral third party, to pursue alternatives to foreclosure.
- Creation of an Office of Fair Housing (Governor’s, House, & Senate bills): 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.
- Facilitating the Use of State Land for Housing (Governor’s, House, & Senate bills): 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.
What policies were excluded from the final bill?
- Transfer Fee (Governor’s bill): This local option policy would have allowed cities and towns to apply a small fee to high-end real estate transactions in order to fund affordable housing.
- Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (House bill): TOPA is a local option policy in which tenants would be given the right of first refusal to band together to purchase their building when the owner puts it on the market.
- Banning Broker’s Fees (Senate bill): This language would have required broker’s fees to be paid by the party who originally engaged with the broker — meaning, in almost all cases, the landlord rather than the tenant.
- Inclusionary Zoning by Simple Majority (Governor’s bill, modified in the Senate bill): This would have allowed cities and towns to adopt inclusionary zoning policies with a simple majority vote of their City Council / Town Meeting / Select Board, rather than the two-thirds vote that is currently required. Such ordinances require developers to build a certain percentage of affordable units as a part of new construction.
What’s the takeaway?
The bill contains a number of policy victories, but it only makes a dent in the overall affordable housing crisis. We need continued advocacy to make sure that promised spending actually happens, and we need our Legislature to give cities and towns the tools that they want (like a transfer fee, like TOPA, like rent stabilization) to best respond to the crisis locally. Where the Affordable Homes Act fell short, it did so due to heavy lobbying from the real estate industry: a sign of the need for greater organizing among progressives and tenant advocates in support of a housing justice agenda.
