Letter to the Editor: Affordable Housing

To the Editor:

Overall, it’s positive that the Belmont Citizens Forum devoted two articles to the topic of affordable housing in Belmont in the September/October Newsletter. However, it was disappointing that the picture of 40B was incomplete, and neither article acknowledged the benefits of increasing the stock of housing—both affordable and market rate—including social, racial, and economic benefits for the residents of Belmont and the region.

“How Affordable Housing Works in Belmont,” by Meg Muckenhoupt, incorrectly states the townhome number of the 91 Beatrice Circle site development as 32. The developer originally proposed 16 units and then revised it to 12. The article states that only four units would count toward Belmont’s subsidized housing inventory. Under 40B rules, the total number—12—of rental apartments built, both market and affordable, would count towards the inventory.

Regarding the real estate tax burden for those who own affordable homes or townhouses through Chapter 40B developments, the real estate tax will reflect the lower assessed value of the homes due to the deed restrictions.

The article states that the requirement of a deed rider for a unit to be considered affordable is hard for many to understand. Perhaps it’s hyperbole: “It doesn’t matter if half the housing in Belmont costs only $1,000/month.” Clearly, that’s not the case; as two-family homes are sold or converted to condos, the number of below-market rentals has dwindled.

In the article “Affordable Housing on Belmont Hill,” Sumner Brown notes that 40B does not count housing that is affordable in cost, but not certified, so “the wonderful housing I enjoyed while a graduate student did not count.” The reason for deed restrictions is that they render a property permanently affordable, and not subject to the change in ownership and market movement. The over 2,000 low-income households now living in Belmont are able to do so because they live in subsidized housing, or are long-term tenants of kind landlords, or because they have owned their homes long enough to have paid off their mortgages. The long-term renters cannot depend on that situation: stories of tenants losing their apartments due to ownership change are widespread.

This article attributes the town’s official Housing Production Plan to the Belmont Land Trust, rather than the Housing Trust. It would have been prudent for the Citizens Forum to consult with the Housing Trust on these articles before publishing them.

The inset box titled “Friendly vs. Unfriendly 40B” describes the friendly kind but includes only an example of the unfriendly kind—the Belmont Uplands. The proposed development on the McLean Hospital land is an excellent example of a friendly 40B resulting from cooperation between a developer and town boards (the Planning Board, Housing Trust, and Select Board) to shape a project with benefits to all parties. More recently, Town Meeting overwhelmingly approved the zoning change required to let the McLean development move forward. As a 40B, all the rental units will count toward Belmont’s subsidized housing inventory.

The article also states that these developments in Belmont can be expected to increase property taxes because of the increase of school-aged children. Note that for a municipality to make development decisions to exclude families with children violates the Federal Fair Housing act. Appropriately, the apartments to be created at McLean will be a mix of age-restricted units and units open to all renters.

We hope your readers will have a chance to re-consider these two articles in light of the points made in this letter.

Sincerely,

Gloria Leipzig, Belmont Housing Trust

Judith Feins, Belmont Housing Trust

The Belmont Citizens Forum thanks Gloria Leipzig and Judith Feins for their corrections and clarifications and regrets the errors. This letter has been edited for length.