Committee Report CR-2
The Housing Committee held a public meeting on June 19, 2008 beginning at five o’clock and five minutes p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber. The meeting was held for the purpose of discussing issues relative to housing for larger families in Cambridge.
Present at the meeting were Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Committee, Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Councillor Timothy Toomey, Jr., and City Clerk D. Margaret Drury. Also present were Beth Rubenstein, Assistant City Manager of Community Development, Cassandra Arnaud, Acting Housing Director, Community Development (CDD), Linda Prosnitz, Housing Planner, CDD, Gregory Russ, Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA), Angelica Benson, Director of Leased Housing, CHA, Peter Daly, Executive Director, Homeowners Rehab, Inc. (HRI), member of Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust (AHT), Michael Haran, Executive Director of CASCAP and member of the AHT, Laura Booth, Budget and Policy Director for State Senator Anthony Galluccio and Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, member of CEOC Board.
Councillor Seidel convened the meeting and explained the purpose. He provided some background on the origin of the issue. The City Council has had a roundtable discussion of Cambridge demographics as well as a roundtable discussion of housing policy. The Housing Committee had a follow-up meeting after the roundtable and decided that one topic that they wanted to discuss was the issue of housing for large families. A fundamental question is the trend is the role of the market. The trend in market-rate housing is toward smaller units. He invited Beth Rubenstein to begin the discussion.
Ms. Rubenstein said that she and the staff have prepared for a discussion on three and four bedroom units. If you look purely at demand, the market is for smaller units. Ms. Rubenstein proposed starting with the City’s record with respect to supporting housing for large families then talking about demand and then discussing some of the technical possibilities to provide support for additional family-sized units.
Councillor Seidel invited Greg Russ, Executive Director of the Cambridge Housing Authority, to comment. Mr. Russ said that 84 percent of the family waiting list is comprised of families needing one- and two-bedroom units. There is a similar pattern for the voucher waiting list. Mr. Russ said that when you construct units larger than two-bedroom units, there are significant cost increases. The big questions are: can you attract enough people? Can you afford to build larger units?
Mr. Daly, Executive Director of Homeowners Rehab, Inc. (HRI), said that HRI has found that more families needing three- and four-bedroom units tend to drop off the waiting list; smaller families hold on longer. Their experience is that many households who are on the waiting list are doubled up with another household since they cannot afford a market unit on their own. They essentially split the rent. (There are rare exceptions if they find an owner willing to rent at below market). The larger the households, the more difficult it is for this to happen for an extended period of time. A one bedroom household can sleep on someone's couch in the living room for quite a while but for a family with 3 children this can only occur for a short time. So by the time these folks come up on the waiting lists (or the lists are purged), there is a greater likelihood that the large families are no longer there
Mr. Russ said that he would like to look at the list of current occupants of the CHA two-bedroom units to see if some of those families also need more bedrooms. Mr. Daly said that HRI always gets requests from their current tenants for larger units. Ms. Benson said that one-third of the leased housing tenants have moved out of Cambridge.
Ms. Booth, Budget and Policy Director for Senator Anthony Galluccio, said Winn Management and Federal Management should be included in this conversation.
The majority of the units being produced by the nonprofits are two plus bedroom units. In the inclusionary housing program; the inclusionary units are provided in private market developments and must mirror the market units in that development. Consequently, 87 percent are one and two bedroom units. The City Council and the Affordable Housing Trust (AHT) have been consistent in working towards larger size units, family sized units. Councillor Seidel asked if the Trust would forego a 50 unit building at a good price if all the units were one bedroom units. Mr. Daly said the answer to that question is “probably yes.”
Mr. Russ emphasized that there is a higher cost for larger units. Ms. Benson noted the additional cost of amenities for larger families, such as more bathrooms, and laundry facilities.
Councillor Seidel said that he would like a breakdown of the income levels served and the actual amounts that the terms represent, for example, what is median income for a family of four. Ms. Rubenstein said that most of the housing produced by the nonprofits is housing for families earning 80 percent of median income or below. Mr. Russ said that 85 percent of CHA family waiting list is made up of families with incomes of 30 percent median income or below, although some have incomes in the 50 percent of median level.
Ms. Pizza-Zeoli, CEOC Board Member, said that in the context of their capital planning, the CHA had considered adding some larger units. Mr. Russ said that they have not made a decision on that issue.
Councillor Seidel said that with regard to demand, perhaps we should look regionally. Ms. Rubenstein said that there is demand outside of Cambridge for three-and four-bedroom units. She added that if we tinker with our own local preference we can find more larger families as well. Councillor Seidel then invited discussion of the technical issues of how the City could use its regulatory powers to provided incentives for larger units.
Ms. Rubenstein said the first piece of such a discussion is the issue of amending the inclusionary zoning to allow the City to require the developers to provide fewer but larger units so that the total square foot area adds up to the 15 percent requirement. There are pros and cons. On the plus side, larger units would mean more families. However, the requirement to build the inclusionary units that are identical to the others makes the program easy to administer. Both the developer and the regulator know exactly what is required. There also could be more of a physical separation, when the units are different sizes the difference in the size of the market-rate families and the subsidized families may exacerbate social and cultural issues. Also, the City will get fewer affordable units. Ms. Booth said that she has been working with the Community Builders Nonprofit Housing Agency and they have experienced similar issues and have been successful in mixing up the size of units without creating separation of the population. She does not believe that this design issue presents an insurmountable obstacle.
Ms. Rubenstein said that is addition to requiring larger units for the required affordable inclusionary units in market rate housing built by developers, there is also the possibility of tinkering with special permits to encourage larger market rate units in projects which require special permits. Councillor Seidel asked whether this is legal. Ms. Rubenstein said that she suspects that the law might have to provide for some sort of construction bonus in exchange for building the larger units.
Ms. Arnaud then explained the point system used in determining eligibility for affordable housing. An applicant gets four points for being a Cambridge resident, an additional point for a child under age 18, another point for a child under age 6, for a total of six points. The child under age six thus gets two points, one for being under 18 and another for being under the age six.
Councillor Toomey said that he does not believe that an applicant should get the same number of points for living in Cambridge for six months that a resident would get for living in Cambridge for 30 years.
Ms. Arnaud added that for rentals, there is an additional point awarded for emergencies. The highest point families are put in a lottery. At first only the six point families made it to the lottery; now families with fewer points are getting a chance at the lottery. Ms. Arnaud listed a variety of “Cambridge ties” that could be utilized to increase eligibility for a local preference, for example, working in Cambridge, family living in Cambridge, etc.
Councillor Seidel said that he would like more information about demand and construction costs. Mr. Russ said that it might be useful to have a better sense of what the Cambridge market looks like now and how it fits into the regional market. Mr. Haran said that the questions posed at this meeting are really questions posed at this meeting are really questions of the use of housing as a tool in shaping social policy.
Councillor Seidel thanked all those present for their participation. The meeting was adjourned at six o’clock and thirty-five minutes P. M.