Massachusetts Residents Support Affordable Housing Provision
During the last election cycle, voters had more than just names and political parties to think about.
Many also had to vote on proposals that would affect everything from paid family leave to child adoption requirements to affordable housing.
Massachusetts voters, for example, had the rare opportunity to decide whether the state's affordable housing provision would be completely eliminated.
The debate over the provision, called 40B, began a year ago.
It was sparked by both government officials and community leaders who doubted the provision's effectiveness.
Many believe that a special provision isn't required in order for low-income housing to be built in the state.
Others think something is needed, but that the current policy costs too much money and doesn't produce enough results.
Under Chapter 40B, communities that have affordable housing stock of less than ten percent can be targeted for development.
Developers can build multi-family residential projects in these areas, if the projects include a certain percentage of low-income housing.
The policy opens up areas were multi-family projects would otherwise not be allowed, either because an area is zoned only for single-family structures or because of density restrictions.
The Massachusetts policy gives developers access to land that may be less expensive because of its location.
Supporters of 40B also say that it prevents low-income housing from being concentrated in just one or two areas of a city.
The day after the November elections, with nearly 85 percent of precincts reporting, the measure to repeal what's known as Chapter 40B was rejected by a vote of 58 to 42 percent.
Voters voiced overwhelming acceptance of the measure, and supporters called it a victory for both affordable housing and its residents.
They have also said that this latest vote should be final word, and the housing policy should no longer be at risk of being repealed.
Opponents of the Chapter argue that it will not aided in creating affordable housing, but has simply led to over-development and put increased strain on public services.
They say the very fact that there still isn't enough low-income housing in Massachusetts proves the law doesn't work.
Proponents, on the other hand, say that without Chapter 40B there would be even less available low-income housing in the state than there is now, and that the law is necessary to ensure that affordable housing is developed near viable employment opportunities.
There is no indication that another attempt to repeal Chapter 40B will happen anytime soon.
Many also had to vote on proposals that would affect everything from paid family leave to child adoption requirements to affordable housing.
Massachusetts voters, for example, had the rare opportunity to decide whether the state's affordable housing provision would be completely eliminated.
The debate over the provision, called 40B, began a year ago.
It was sparked by both government officials and community leaders who doubted the provision's effectiveness.
Many believe that a special provision isn't required in order for low-income housing to be built in the state.
Others think something is needed, but that the current policy costs too much money and doesn't produce enough results.
Under Chapter 40B, communities that have affordable housing stock of less than ten percent can be targeted for development.
Developers can build multi-family residential projects in these areas, if the projects include a certain percentage of low-income housing.
The policy opens up areas were multi-family projects would otherwise not be allowed, either because an area is zoned only for single-family structures or because of density restrictions.
The Massachusetts policy gives developers access to land that may be less expensive because of its location.
Supporters of 40B also say that it prevents low-income housing from being concentrated in just one or two areas of a city.
The day after the November elections, with nearly 85 percent of precincts reporting, the measure to repeal what's known as Chapter 40B was rejected by a vote of 58 to 42 percent.
Voters voiced overwhelming acceptance of the measure, and supporters called it a victory for both affordable housing and its residents.
They have also said that this latest vote should be final word, and the housing policy should no longer be at risk of being repealed.
Opponents of the Chapter argue that it will not aided in creating affordable housing, but has simply led to over-development and put increased strain on public services.
They say the very fact that there still isn't enough low-income housing in Massachusetts proves the law doesn't work.
Proponents, on the other hand, say that without Chapter 40B there would be even less available low-income housing in the state than there is now, and that the law is necessary to ensure that affordable housing is developed near viable employment opportunities.
There is no indication that another attempt to repeal Chapter 40B will happen anytime soon.